Appeal to EFL

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

47 minutes ago, Gordon Gekko said:

Surely if it’s taking this long there’s a chance of it being successful?

Never going to happen, sadly. 

[roverandout]

1 hour ago, sabino said:

I do. Were you  there on Monday?

 

No but I'm on a self imposed exile

[sabino]

24 minutes ago, roverandout said:

No but I'm on a self imposed exile

Well then, of course you won't care!

[Gordon Gekko]

1 hour ago, roverandout said:

Who cares anymore 

Getting him in is probably the only chance of us making the play offs so I think a lot of people!

Edited February 9, 2023 by Gordon Gekko

[Andy]

In theory, the fact that it’s not been rejected immediately is a good sign.

[den]

19 minutes ago, Andy said:

In theory, the fact that it’s not been rejected immediately is a good sign.

Not necessarily. To be fair, the league would have to inform all the clubs involved and the players concerned also.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

5 minutes ago, den said:

Not necessarily. To be fair, the league would have to inform all the clubs involved and the players concerned also.

Not if it upheld its original decision. An e-mail informing them of the decision would do.

[47er]

13 hours ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

Ignoring everything else - when did we miss the transfer deadline previously?

We miss the deadline for signing a striker quite regularly!

[jim mk2]

Wasn't a decision expected today ? 

[ItsRoverZ]

For them to take it to the next day has to be a good sign?

Bring in Lewis grandad grabban who's been around the block and knows how to rustle defenders up then we are sorted until next season 

[Dreams of 1995]

13 minutes ago, ItsRoverZ said:

For them to take it to the next day has to be a good sign?

Bring in Lewis grandad grabban who's been around the block and knows how to rustle defenders up then we are sorted until next season 

I would snap him up in a heart beat 

Can find the back of the net at this level

[Sweaty Gussets]

Reason for the appeal:-

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Sweaty Gussets

[Andy]

If the leaked information is to be believed (albeit we’re likely taking Waggott’s word via Nixon here…), we submitted our paperwork on time.

But the EFL’s daft question of ‘ok, £10m if you get promoted. But what about if you get relegated?’ is the crux of the issue.

Rovers’ stance was, well, we obviously wouldn’t sign him as we’ve not been promoted.

I genuinely think we have half a chance with this one, as (if that was indeed the case), the delay was caused by the EFL asking a stupid and unnecessary question.

Forest and O’Brien are also not blameless in this instance, allowing him to leave on deadline day and the player only deciding to join Rovers in the afternoon.

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Andy

[Displaced Rover]

Just now, Andy said:

 

But the EFL’s daft question of ‘ok, £10m if you get promoted. But what about if you get relegated?’.

Rovers’ stance was, well, we obviously wouldn’t sign him as we’ve not been promoted.

 

 

I might have misunderstood, but wasn't the EFLs point, "what happens to the player and his outrageous Premier League wages if you go up, sign him and then subsequently get relegated from the Premier League?" 

Now a wage reduction on relegation is fairly normal but they'd have to then agree the terms with the player before going back to the EFL no?

[Sweaty Gussets]

2 minutes ago, Andy said:

But the EFL’s daft question of ‘ok, £10m if you get promoted. But what about if you get relegated?’ is the crux of the issue.

So the EFL were wanting a clause in there stating what Rovers would do about LOB signing if we got relegated this season to League 1? That's why it was late?

Seems utterly bizarre. 

[Sweaty Gussets]

3 minutes ago, Displaced Rover said:

I might have misunderstood, but wasn't the EFLs point, "what happens to the player and his outrageous Premier League wages if you go up, sign him and then subsequently get relegated from the Premier League?" 

That would be equally bizarre. The EFL would have to demand that Forest inserted the same clause for the 50 players they signed in the summer, or for any club that signs players in the summer after getting promoted to the Prem. 

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

1 minute ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

That would be equally bizarre. The EFL would have to demand that Forest inserted the same clause for the 50 players they signed in the summer, or for any club that signs players in the summer after getting promoted to the Prem. 

I would agree - down to Rovers what contract we offer and any clauses in it

[Displaced Rover]

1 minute ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

That would be equally bizarre. The EFL would have to demand that Forest inserted the same clause for the 50 players they signed in the summer, or for any club that signs players in the summer after getting promoted to the Prem. 

The point is that with an obligation to buy you have to submit the details of the agreed personal terms. It's not the EFL demanding it's in there is it? More them checking a fundamental point of Premier League contracts has been considered and agreed? 

You'd be mad to sign a player on £65k a week as a newly promoted team without a relegation wage reduction being agreed.

[Sweaty Gussets]

1 minute ago, Displaced Rover said:

You'd be mad to sign a player on £65k a week as a newly promoted team without a relegation wage reduction being agreed.

Do the EFL always request player contract details when a player signs somewhere? If clubs are legally bound to submit player contract clauses based on hypotheticals to the EFL then Rovers won't have a leg to stand on. But if this is something the EFL have asked for on a whim and it isn't legally binding then the EFL could possibly be sued by Rovers. 

[wilsdenrover]

It would be crazy if you also had to submit all the terms that weren’t agreed - where would it end…

[phili]

17 minutes ago, Displaced Rover said:

I might have misunderstood, but wasn't the EFLs point, "what happens to the player and his outrageous Premier League wages if you go up, sign him and then subsequently get relegated from the Premier League?" 

Now a wage reduction on relegation is fairly normal but they'd have to then agree the terms with the player before going back to the EFL no?

The relegation clauses etc in the player contract were all agreed and submitted with the initial deal submission.

The issue according to Nixon was that the deal made no mention of what happened if we were relegated to L1 this season. I believe we argued that's covered in not gaining promotion but the EFL wanted specific terms added to the loan to cover if we are relegated to L1.

[Displaced Rover]

3 minutes ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

Do the EFL always request player contract details when a player signs somewhere? If clubs are legally bound to submit player contract clauses based on hypotheticals to the EFL then Rovers won't have a leg to stand on. But if this is something the EFL have asked for on a whim and it isn't legally binding then the EFL could possibly be sued by Rovers. 

When transferring a players registration one of the key submissions to the EFL is the contract/key parts of contract, so yes they do. 

[Displaced Rover]

1 minute ago, phili said:

The relegation clauses etc in the player contract were all agreed and submitted with the initial deal submission.

The issue according to Nixon was that the deal made no mention of what happened if we were relegated to L1 this season. I believe we argued that's covered in not gaining promotion but the EFL wanted specific terms added to the loan to cover if we are relegated to L1.

If that's truly the case then it's complete nonsense because we wouldn't be obligated to buy him. It's such a stupid point that I can't believe it's the reason it was held up?

[Sweaty Gussets]

Just now, Displaced Rover said:

When transferring a players registration one of the key submissions to the EFL is the contract/key parts of contract, so yes they do. 

So Rovers have missed a 'key part' of the contract submission? I wonder why they are saying it's irrelevant? Think it was referred to as a 'moot point' by Waggott?

[phili]

1 minute ago, Displaced Rover said:

If that's truly the case then it's complete nonsense because we wouldn't be obligated to buy him. It's such a stupid point that I can't believe it's the reason it was held up?

Which is why we believe we have a case to appeal.