Appeal to EFL

[Dreams of 1995]

17 minutes ago, Miker said:

I read the whole judgment and honestly think it’s a bit of a joke. Debating whether “immediately following” is considered within 15 or 30 minutes of the deadline is so arbitrary and useless that only someone with very little joy in life can care about.

Well done to the EFL I guess, someone taking 13 minutes longer than ‘allowed’ to resubmit an application that they knew was coming was worth them digging their heels in and ruining things for the player and two clubs. Very important achievement for them I’m sure… a tale to tell the grandkids. 

Common sense would prevail in such a case under normal circumstances, but EFL can’t be made to look bad so of course this was never going to go anywhere. 

There has to be a deadline at some point 

What is “immediately after”? 10 minutes, 1 hour? I have some sympathy in this respect 

Contracts are full of these terms: best endeavours, so far as is reasonably practical, reasonably foreseeable etc etc 

The EFL at least gave guidance on the 15 minutes

[superniko]

It’s a shame that I really want Leeds or West Ham or Everton to get relegated as Steve Cooper is really starting to piss me off with his holier-than-thou act 

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, superniko said:

It’s a shame that I really want Leeds or West Ham or Everton to get relegated as Steve Cooper is really starting to piss me off with his holier-than-thou act 

He's a prick.

And a bloody ugly one.

[chaddyrovers]

It's very clear where the blame belong and it isn't with GB or the footballing side of the club but with the club management who deal with the EFL paperwork and have communications with the EFL. 

Forest can't claim for any damages as no contracts with approval by the EFL so I don't see why Mercer thinks they can. 

Feel for the Player Lewis O'Brien tbh. 

Hopefully we see major changes from the EFL and its deals with transfers/paperwork and have a similar system to the PL

[Exiled_Rover]

On 02/03/2023 at 16:01, Rogerb said:

For me this deal had The V,s  mitts all over it. The insistence on pursueing the appeal as far as possible even when the opinion of the DOF was it was highly unlikely to succeed. The sudden availability to pay a wage way above the ceiling. The fact JDT wanted a striker and not another mid fielder. it was another of their special operation punts. Let's not forget they have previous for pursueing pointless legal cases and not listening to advice

There's part of me that's hoping Broughton convinced them to pursue the appeal. 

It's shone a light on the dysfunctional inner workings of the club that were going to be brushed over. 

It's hard evidence to take to the owners to say "look, these guys above me have got to go - they're incompetent and are costing you millions".

[Hasta]

50 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

It's very clear where the blame belong

Waggot

[RoverDom]

50 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

There's part of me that's hoping Broughton convinced them to pursue the appeal. 

That crossed my mind as well. Kept internal then it's one person's word against another and its a he said she said type scenario. We've now got a timeline of events documented by lawyers and laid out in public. 

I want to beleive that because I just don't want it to be true that as a club we thought that silvestre being in a different place to the player, or the CEO being at a football match, is something that the EFL is at fault for and should give leniency on. 

[Upside Down]

4 hours ago, superniko said:

It’s a shame that I really want Leeds or West Ham or Everton to get relegated as Steve Cooper is really starting to piss me off with his holier-than-thou act 

I want all of those clubs relegated. 

Hopefully they all do it twice in a row as well.

[superniko]

19 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I want all of those clubs relegated. 

Hopefully they all do it twice in a row as well.

Oh yeah it would be a brilliant trio - but can’t help feel only 1 spot is up for grabs with Bournemouth and Southampton

[jim mk2]

Southampton, Bournemouth and West Ham would do nicely. Three southern clubs down hopefully to be replaced by three northern clubs, including 2 from Lancashire 😀

[bluebruce]

Steve Cooper. What a hypocritical git.

[Mercer]

5 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Forest can't claim for any damages as no contracts with approval by the EFL so I don't see why Mercer thinks they can. 

Execution of contracts was prevented by what could be construed as negligence by Rovers' personnel.  Forest and O'Brien have suffered financial and other damage as a direct consequence.  I think those two points are quite indisputable.  IMO, the arbitration appeal before William Norris KC has done Rovers no favours, portraying the club in an unprofessional light.  I think some of the conclusions were quite damning which would not help in any future court case.

You should note that Case Law is based on judicial decisions concerning unique disputes - and this could well turn out to be one of them creating a new precedent for the football industry if it went to court (remember how the Bosman ruling came about).   Should Forest and / or O'Brien come gunning for financial recompense,  I think counsel would be advising Rovers to reach out of court settlements - then again, having read the 22 page report from the appeal, I am struggling to believe that counsel actually thought this was an appeal worth pursuing.  Maybe after the Berg, Shaw legal debacles and now this escapade, Rovers should be considering where they source their legal expertise.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Mercer

[phili]

7 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Execution of contracts was prevented by what could be construed as negligence by Rovers' personnel.  Forest and O'Brien have suffered financial and other damage as a direct consequence.  I think those two points are quite indisputable.  IMO, the arbitration appeal before William Norris KC has done Rovers no favours, portraying the club in an unprofessional light.  I think some of the conclusions were quite damning. 

You should note that Case Law is based on judicial decisions concerning unique disputes - and this could well turn out to be one of them creating a new precedent for the football industry if it went to court.   Should Forest and / or O'Brien come gunning for financial recompense,  I think counsel would be advising Rovers to reach out of court settlements - then again, having read the 22 page report from the appeal, I am struggling to believe that counsel actually thought this was an appeal worth pursuing.

Forest were not sued last for damages last year for a similar occurrence so they won't this year.

Also if they did, I would expect our lawyers would go back further in the day and say why did O'Brien complete his training till 1pm when we had agreed the loan between all parties by 11am? Surely as it was deadline day he should have left training immediately and headed up to Brockhall and sorted everything out. In essence those couple of hours training resulted in the transfer not being completed in time.

[Upside Down]

1 minute ago, phili said:

Forest were not sued last for damages last year for a similar occurrence so they won't this year.

Also if they did, I would expect our lawyers would go back further in the day and say why did O'Brien complete his training till 1pm when we had agreed the loan between all parties by 11am? Surely as it was deadline day he should have left training immediately and headed up to Brockhall and sorted everything out. In essence those couple of hours training resulted in the transfer not being completed in time.

That and the complete ineptitude of Rovers' management. 

[Officer Barbrady]

6 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

He's a prick.

And a bloody ugly one.

Somebody beat the hell out of him with an ugly stick, and then beat his mom for being ugly as fuck too.

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, Hasta said:

Waggot

Yes he needs to taking a full review and make the changes needed to the admin side of the club. No way should the club admin team ballsed it up like they did

3 hours ago, bluebruce said:

Steve Cooper. What a hypocritical git.

He's getting my nerves keep moaning. 

27 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Execution of contracts was prevented by what could be construed as negligence by Rovers' personnel.  Forest and O'Brien have suffered financial and other damage as a direct consequence.  I think those two points are quite indisputable.  IMO, the arbitration appeal before William Norris KC has done Rovers no favours, portraying the club in an unprofessional light.  I think some of the conclusions were quite damning which would not help in any future court case.

You should note that Case Law is based on judicial decisions concerning unique disputes - and this could well turn out to be one of them creating a new precedent for the football industry if it went to court (remember how the Bosman ruling came about).   Should Forest and / or O'Brien come gunning for financial recompense,  I think counsel would be advising Rovers to reach out of court settlements - then again, having read the 22 page report from the appeal, I am struggling to believe that counsel actually thought this was an appeal worth pursuing.  Maybe after the Berg, Shaw legal debacles and now this escapade, Rovers should be considering where they source their legal expertise.

Forest won't be suing us. Failed transfers happened all the time. Move on

[Upside Down]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yes he needs to taking a full review and make the changes needed to the admin side of the club. No way should the club admin team ballsed it up like they did

100%.

He should start by removing himself.

[XLM]

45 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Execution of contracts was prevented by what could be construed as negligence by Rovers' personnel.  Forest and O'Brien have suffered financial and other damage as a direct consequence.  I think those two points are quite indisputable.  IMO, the arbitration appeal before William Norris KC has done Rovers no favours, portraying the club in an unprofessional light.  I think some of the conclusions were quite damning which would not help in any future court case.

You should note that Case Law is based on judicial decisions concerning unique disputes - and this could well turn out to be one of them creating a new precedent for the football industry if it went to court (remember how the Bosman ruling came about).   Should Forest and / or O'Brien come gunning for financial recompense,  I think counsel would be advising Rovers to reach out of court settlements - then again, having read the 22 page report from the appeal, I am struggling to believe that counsel actually thought this was an appeal worth pursuing.  Maybe after the Berg, Shaw legal debacles and now this escapade, Rovers should be considering where they source their legal expertise.

The Bosman ruling was about footballers being classified as workers in EU law. There were already laws governing workers, but they weren't being applied for professional athletes.

If the EFL/EFL clubs have standard clauses written within their contracts that void that contract if it is not ratified by the EFL - as you would expect, otherwise we would currently be paying O'Brien's wages, he just wouldn't be allowed to play for us - what you're suggesting is that from nowhere courts could decide that you can be sued for not entering into a contract...

What have Rovers done wrong in law? They've cocked up sure, but legally how is this different to saying you'll sign Peter Odemwingie, have him travel down to your ground and then say "nah mate, off you pop"?

It isn't.

[philipl]

In the published agreed time line, the player didn't countersign the loan agreement until 23.15.

If we are going to be legalistic, that is when the contract came into being which is when Rovers would have had the legal right to register him.

It feels very unjust that the EFL apparently bent their rules to allow Sheffield United registration of Ahmedhodzic when they were aware the stage payment to Liverpool had been missed and the same money in effect used to gazump Rovers, then successfully used 13 minutes as a reason not to register O'brien.

That said, I am still perplexed why a Company Secretary as experienced as Ian Silvester allowed us to get into this situation. 

 

 

[Mercer]

8 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yes he needs to taking a full review and make the changes needed to the admin side of the club. No way should the club admin team ballsed it up like they did

 

Forest won't be suing us. Failed transfers happened all the time. Move on

IMO, Waggott himself has to go  - full stop.  I do not think Waggott has moved Rovers forward one iota as CEO and showed his true colours with the Brockhall shenanigans.  You had a meeting with him and ever since you seem to have been blinded by his bullsh1t.

Forest wont be suing us - just how the feck do you know?  They have 'lost' a minimum of £500k (employment costs over loan period)  to a potential of £20MILLION (transfer fee and wages) should Rovers get promoted.  Frankly, I would be staggered if they don't seek redress.

Take a coffee or two this morning!!!

[Mercer]

8 hours ago, XLM said:

The Bosman ruling was about footballers being classified as workers in EU law. There were already laws governing workers, but they weren't being applied for professional athletes.

If the EFL/EFL clubs have standard clauses written within their contracts that void that contract if it is not ratified by the EFL - as you would expect, otherwise we would currently be paying O'Brien's wages, he just wouldn't be allowed to play for us - what you're suggesting is that from nowhere courts could decide that you can be sued for not entering into a contract...

What have Rovers done wrong in law? They've cocked up sure, but legally how is this different to saying you'll sign Peter Odemwingie, have him travel down to your ground and then say "nah mate, off you pop"?

It isn't.

"They've cocked up sure" = negligence preventing execution of contracts.

Bosman was a ground breaking case.  This could also be a ground breaking case should Forest decide to test it in the courts.

[Mattyblue]

This cock up by the incompetents at Ewood is going to be the biggest thing to hit football since the Bosman ruling… not like our Merce to engage in hyperbole

😁

[Mike E]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

"They've cocked up sure" = negligence preventing execution of contracts.

Bosman was a ground breaking case.  This could also be a ground breaking case should Forest decide to test it in the courts.

Execution of a contract is a contract adhered to after being entered into.

It looks like you're muddling/conflating 'entering into' and 'execution'.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Mike E

[rigger]

It's gone, let's concentrate on the rest of the season.

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

IMO, Waggott himself has to go  - full stop.  I do not think Waggott has moved Rovers forward one iota as CEO and showed his true colours with the Brockhall shenanigans.  You had a meeting with him and ever since you seem to have been blinded by his bullsh1t.

Forest wont be suing us - just how the feck do you know?  They have 'lost' a minimum of £500k (employment costs over loan period)  to a potential of £20MILLION (transfer fee and wages) should Rovers get promoted.  Frankly, I would be staggered if they don't seek redress.

Take a coffee or two this morning!!!

On the £20 Million loss.

Surely to negate any claim, if promoted we just offer Forest the same fee - they can’t both reject it and sue for it at the same time.

If Forest accept, but O’Brien rejects, and takes a lower wage elsewhere, he can’t sue for something he has turned down.

Of course if we’re not promoted then the option wouldn’t have been triggered so no losses have been occurred 

I guess they could argue that we would have been promoted if he had signed - I can’t see that being a winnable case.

Regarding claims on the loan period - I think this hinges on whether the loan agreement, or the regulations, have a clause along the lines of ‘subject to registration with the EFL’

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by wilsdenrover