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.

He shouldn't. I guess some targets may have been missed but if Tony and the team havf been doing the job he says he has with recruitment, there will be plenty there. Equally JR will have his own people not only through having them play for him but also from scouting at hibs etc.

nomad wrote:

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

Don't knock it, mate! It's great to feel some positivity and optimism after all the fkn misery we have been through.
 

Finn Seemann wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

dufc2019 wrote:

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!

 

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

Ok.

Finn Seemann wrote:

LarsErikKjell 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!

 

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?

Finn Seemann wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

dufc2019 wrote:

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!

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
 

Pretty sure we thought we'd snared Charlie Telfer on a free.....win some lose some.

AlonsMosely wrote:

Pretty sure we thought we'd snared Charlie Telfer on a free.....win some lose some.

We did.  Hopefully its not lose some lose some....

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.

Bump cos we may end up discussing soon..I hope .

Big Dunc for me, he would sort this heartless bunch

I really hope that the fans don't force Jack Ross out. Yes he's had a poor start, he'd be the first to admit it, but we're only a handful of games in.

Constantly changing managers does the club no good whatsoever. I'd like the board to come out and say Jack will be staying, and if any player does not wish to play for him then the club will listen to offers.

Probably crap, but anybody else seeing the rumours of Ross walking today?