AlwaysUnited wrote:

I don't think United fans are interested in granular contract details. Leave that to the men in suits, as fans we should be thrilled at the new manager and the potential for some huge new signings.

 
You obviously haven't read the New Club Badge thread.  Folks on here get their knickers in a twist about all sorts of pointless nonsense.  And rightly so, that is what bring a fan is to most of us. We care about this club more than is sensible and everything about it matters.

I might not be a part of the Ashgar witch hunt, but if someone mucked up the paperwork and we miss out on a fee we at least deserve to know that the cause has identified and processes put in place to ensure it cannot happen again (no need to through someone under the bus, as I imagine any mistake is most likely to have been made by a relatively junior member of staff)

If we get what we are due then I for one will forgive a snide remark on DUTV from big Tony about how quickly internet fans assumed our club was the one to cock up.

Good interview up now on DUTV

Talks about looking to strengthen attacking options in particular, will keep looking to develop young players but ultimately it’s about winning games.  Pre season starts on Thursday.  Doesn’t mention specifically when he hopes to make signings but work is underway…

Snacks94 wrote:

Good interview up now on DUTV

Talks about looking to strengthen attacking options in particular, will keep looking to develop young players but ultimately it’s about winning games.  Pre season starts on Thursday.  Doesn’t mention specifically when he hopes to make signings but work is underway…

 
He watched United a fair bit last season with Hibs and as a pundit on sportscene, he’s not stupid so I’m hoping he will of had a list of targets in his hand that he passed to Asghar when he signed the deal.

Having read more about him and seen him in several interviews, I'm definitely feeling more positive about the appointment. Hope he doesn't get hamstrung by a lack of quality signings, given we are a couple of weeks behind everyone else thanks to the managerial change.

All this positivity about the new head coach is making me nervous.

Last edited by nomad (23/6/2022 11:43 am)

Finn Seemann wrote:

dufc2019 wrote:

AlwaysUnited wrote:

I don't think United fans are interested in granular contract details. Leave that to the men in suits, as fans we should be thrilled at the new manager and the potential for some huge new signings.

You dont think its an issue that potentially we have arsed up a contract which has cost us 300-400K?   ok then
 

No no, brush brush, sweep sweep, nothing to see here...

At last a statement has been made.  Reading between the lines, Hearts clearly think we have not ticked all the boxes.  We think there is at least a good argument that we have.  I think that therefore means that we probably cannot categorically say there is an absolutely solid case for compensation, (Tony would have to say that we are very confident), as why would Hearts risk going to tribunal if they thought we had ticked all the boxes?  To me it seems a ball has been dropped and the question is how fatal.  Hopefully we've done enough right, but to me the rules are pretty clear....unless Hearts are being badly advised (which is possible) I am not very confident that we'll get compensation.  I also hope that we are not throwing good money after bad and chasing a lost cause.  I think the outcome of all of this is a pretty big deal - let's hope Hearts are wrong!

LarsErikKjell wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

No no, brush brush, sweep sweep, nothing to see here...

At last a statement has been made.  Reading between the lines, Hearts clearly think we have not ticked all the boxes.  We think there is at least a good argument that we have.  I think that therefore means that we probably cannot categorically say there is an absolutely solid case for compensation, (Tony would have to say that we are very confident), as why would Hearts risk going to tribunal if they thought we had ticked all the boxes?  To me it seems a ball has been dropped and the question is how fatal.  Hopefully we've done enough right, but to me the rules are pretty clear....unless Hearts are being badly advised (which is possible) I am not very confident that we'll get compensation.  I also hope that we are not throwing good money after bad and chasing a lost cause.  I think the outcome of all of this is a pretty big deal - let's hope Hearts are wrong!

 

So he comes out and says he is very confident, and your first instinct is "this must mean we've fucked up"

Ok.

We'll see.  I am a contracts lawyer with over 25 years experience so I do know how to read between the lines...

Also, all I am saying is this is not a slam dunk - still very possible that we will get some compensation.

Last edited by Finn Seemann (23/6/2022 1:03 pm)

Tangy wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

LarsErikKjell wrote:

 

So he comes out and says he is very confident, and your first instinct is "this must mean we've fucked up"

Ok.

We'll see.  I am a contracts lawyer with over 25 years experience so I do know how to read between the lines...

Also, all I am saying is this is not a slam dunk - still very possible that we will get some compensation.

Fancy doing the club a casher to sort it out then?

Are you suggesting tax avoidance  

Lancashire-Arab wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

No no, brush brush, sweep sweep, nothing to see here...

At last a statement has been made.  Reading between the lines, Hearts clearly think we have not ticked all the boxes.  We think there is at least a good argument that we have.  I think that therefore means that we probably cannot categorically say there is an absolutely solid case for compensation, (Tony would have to say that we are very confident), as why would Hearts risk going to tribunal if they thought we had ticked all the boxes?  To me it seems a ball has been dropped and the question is how fatal.  Hopefully we've done enough right, but to me the rules are pretty clear....unless Hearts are being badly advised (which is possible) I am not very confident that we'll get compensation.  I also hope that we are not throwing good money after bad and chasing a lost cause.  I think the outcome of all of this is a pretty big deal - let's hope Hearts are wrong!

My thinking on this point is Hearts are banking on a tribunal coming up with a lower calculation than any other method so for them its low risk to go down that route as no matter what the outcome they will probably be no worse off than if they had paid full compensation - just them playing games with the process and getting their new signing to agree to their message
 

Agreed, totally plausible.  The mood music from them is more that we've arsed up though.  If there are any cracks in our armour then I agree it is still a decent place to start the tribunal wrangling.  We say £400K, they say £0K, tribunal likely to be somewhere in between, unless we have arsed it.

Snacks94 wrote:

Good interview up now on DUTV

Talks about looking to strengthen attacking options in particular, will keep looking to develop young players but ultimately it’s about winning games. Pre season starts on Thursday. Doesn’t mention specifically when he hopes to make signings but work is underway…

What i took from this was his relaxed demeanor and a huge smile.....looks like he's already enjoying this adventure....

Finn Seemann wrote:

At last a statement has been made.  Reading between the lines, Hearts clearly think we have not ticked all the boxes.  We think there is at least a good argument that we have.  I think that therefore means that we probably cannot categorically say there is an absolutely solid case for compensation, (Tony would have to say that we are very confident), as why would Hearts risk going to tribunal if they thought we had ticked all the boxes?  To me it seems a ball has been dropped and the question is how fatal.  Hopefully we've done enough right, but to me the rules are pretty clear....unless Hearts are being badly advised (which is possible) I am not very confident that we'll get compensation.  I also hope that we are not throwing good money after bad and chasing a lost cause.  I think the outcome of all of this is a pretty big deal - let's hope Hearts are wrong!

There's the "by the book" legal side of things, and there's the "spirit of the rule" side of things.

For me, the spirit of the rule is that if a club has invested years into the development of a youngster, at significant cost, and that youngster then chooses to move on to a different club (while still a youngster) when the parent club wants them to stay, the parent club absolutely deserves financial compensation for their investment.

If our "right" to compensation is overturned because a box wasn't ticked on a form somewhere, then while that may be a correct legal "by the book" decision, it's clearly one that would go against the spirit of the rule, and why the rule was introduced in the first place.

Put it another way, while it could turn out to be "our fault" that a box wasn't ticked, it takes a special kind of cnut to use that to try and fcuk over another club when it's clear what the right thing to do is. And if Hearts try and pull a stunt like that, I wouldn't be giving them any comp tickets for future games at Tanny, and I wouldn't even invite their brass into the board room for the usual tea and sandwiches. They can do one. 

Canadian Arab wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

At last a statement has been made.  Reading between the lines, Hearts clearly think we have not ticked all the boxes.  We think there is at least a good argument that we have.  I think that therefore means that we probably cannot categorically say there is an absolutely solid case for compensation, (Tony would have to say that we are very confident), as why would Hearts risk going to tribunal if they thought we had ticked all the boxes?  To me it seems a ball has been dropped and the question is how fatal.  Hopefully we've done enough right, but to me the rules are pretty clear....unless Hearts are being badly advised (which is possible) I am not very confident that we'll get compensation.  I also hope that we are not throwing good money after bad and chasing a lost cause.  I think the outcome of all of this is a pretty big deal - let's hope Hearts are wrong!

There's the "by the book" legal side of things, and there's the "spirit of the rule" side of things.

For me, the spirit of the rule is that if a club has invested years into the development of a youngster, at significant cost, and that youngster then chooses to move on to a different club (while still a youngster) when the parent club wants them to stay, the parent club absolutely deserves financial compensation for their investment.

If our "right" to compensation is overturned because a box wasn't ticked on a form somewhere, then while that may be a correct legal "by the book" decision, it's clearly one that would go against the spirit of the rule, and why the rule was introduced in the first place.

Put it another way, while it could turn out to be "our fault" that a box wasn't ticked, it takes a special kind of cnut to use that to try and fcuk over another club when it's clear what the right thing to do is. And if Hearts try and pull a stunt like that, I wouldn't be giving them any comp tickets for future games at Tanny, and I wouldn't even invite their brass into the board room for the usual tea and sandwiches. They can do one. 

 
If you don't think that United wouldn't do precisely the same thing in the scenario that you described, then I can only say you have a very generous spirit indeed.

Canadian Arab wrote:

AlwaysUnited wrote:

If you don't think that United wouldn't do precisely the same thing in the scenario that you described, then I can only say you have a very generous spirit indeed.

No, I don't believe we would. And I have many e-mails from Derek Robertson received over the years that give details of exactly how some transactions were done, often contrary to what had been reported in the press (which always tried to paint United in a poor light), showing we dealt with clubs honourably and were sometimes more generous than we were required to be. That's one of the things that makes us different from Hearts.
 

You have clearly forgotten about the extremely unpleasant episode surrounding the transfer of Barry Douglas from Queens Park to United in 2010 where the club exploited a loophole to avoid paying compensation.

It happens. If Hearts "forgot" to offer a £400,000 player a legally binding contract and United had the chance to sign them for free, do you really think they would pay the £400k in order to remain within the spirit of the law?

The answer, sir, is no they would not.