Maybe part of updating the processes could include not employing idiots in the first place…

To be followed by?: ‘We have carried out a full review and will be actioning our findings in due course’

Reactive not proactive?

“…hopefully once you’ve heard…” i guess ‘technically’ you can hope for something without looking for it but personally I think it’s the same thing.

I think it’s because you can’t look at any one issue in isolation. As every one of us is very aware, this isn’t the first mistake they’ve made…

I think any point on the day was too late. Not having come across a situation before doesn’t mean you shouldn’t already know how to deal with it should it arise. That’s unless it’s something very niche that you couldn’t possibly of thought of beforehand - and this certainly isn’t one of those Fail to prepare, prepare to fail Edited to add - Broughton said they’d been talking to O’Brien’s representatives for six weeks…

I’m glad it won’t take a genius or the club will never work it out…

I was just postulating. Even if it was these technicalities (or others) - they should already have had the answers. If it was my job, and trust me you wouldn’t want it to be!, I would have long since gone through all the transfer regulations, written down any queries I had, and clarified them with the EFL so that I knew exactly what I would have to do in any given transfer situation. I think it’s called preparation - or just plain doing you’re job properly. I don’t see why the EFL would have asked about the immediate relegation issue, but like you say surely that information should already have been to hand. I personally, don’t see any complications beyond possibly the obligation vs option to buy thing I mentioned earlier - but as mentioned above I’d have clarified that point with the EFL before it became a ‘live’ issue Miller11 - I was replying to Revidge and have managed to quote you by accident

We only have a four point head start!

I’d presume the EFL would only check the legality of the contract and not whether we could afford to meet its obligations. I might well be wrong though!

I’m wondering if the legal advice sought was over the wording of 47.3.1 of the regulations which includes supplying ‘any contract which it proposes to enter into which gives the club…any rights to the employment of the player…’ I wonder if they didn’t know if *any contract* rather than *the contract* meant it only needed to be provided if it had already been agreed. Or it could be *proposes to enter into* rather than *has entered into * raised the same question. If either of those were the case I’m not sure how they thought you could sign an *obligation* to buy with Forest if the player wasn’t also obliged to sign with us(ie contract agreed) It could also be that the guidance for this section only confirms options to buy (which I’d suggest is in essence just agreeing a fee in advance) are allowed in loan agreements but is silent on allowing an obligation to buy. I thought the Brereton deal had been an obligation to buy though, was that actually confirmed by anyone?

I don’t understand that either, a contract only has to say what conditions it has, not those that it doesn’t. The club said what would happen if we were promoted, allegedly they asked what would happen if we were relegated - why not ask what would happen if neither was to happen as well??

I don’t have 100% faith in myself yet alone anyone else!

It’s the fact that there is any obligation to buy that triggers the requirement to submit the contract I say fact, I mean my reading of the regulation - I may be wrong!

The EFL regulations require the submission of the future ‘permanent’ contract when registering a loan with an obligation to buy.

Me neither - I guess my point was from a regulatory point of view ‘loan club is paying all his wage’ doesn’t have to equal ‘loan club is paying his usual wage’ I’m sure in reality it does always mean the former.

The regulations do allow for a players contracted wage to be altered for the duration of a loan - maybe he agreed to a pay cut and we’d have paid 100% of this lower wage (ie no forest contribution)? i don’t know why he would, but in theory he could have

Even if what he’s reported is true, and I’ve no idea if it is - this and us making a complete mess of things are not mutually exclusive. I also think it’s always useful to ask ‘why are they telling me this?’ and ‘what have they not told me? In this case - given Broughton has said that there were both external and internal factors, why have only the ones I presume they consider to be external been leaked?

I’m in the too early to tell camp. Some promising signs but some concerning ones as well

If no one has ever succeeded with an appeal (no idea if Broughton is right on this) the why have an appeal process at all? oh and good luck…

A lot of what Broughton said in the video, about Undav for example, had appeared in the press (not sure whether they were Nixon articles though)

Some of us… (I’m not offering!)

I understand all that, so far I’ve not seen anything disrespectful though - which is good. Now what can we use to plug that hole…

I literally said I’m not defending us - in fact I’ve spent most the day criticising us. I was just merely pointing out there are other ways of not being ‘respectable’ towards players. The O’Brien situation is entirely on us! Re: replacing players after a promotion , I agree that’s perfectly normal - I just think 29 new ones is a tad excessive. O’Brien was bought by forest after their promotion - unless I’ve got that wrong?

Granted this is the only social media I look at but any praise for the statement I’ve seen has been heavily caveated.