View Full Version : The Derry City thread - Derry sign first four players
Sam_Heggy
08/10/2009, 4:03 PM
hard part over now all they have to do is get the money
Yeah because getting the money is the easy part :eek::p
Sam_Heggy
08/10/2009, 4:04 PM
Derry should revert to past-time status and rejoin the Irish League :)
They would probably get slightly smaller gate receipts but the costs in playing staff and travel etc would be greatly reduced.
Not even in the same league as Sheridan in the Wumming stakes imo.
dcfc_1928
08/10/2009, 4:21 PM
There's nothing to worry about lads - our board says everything is OK.
(apologies for the poor photoshopping) :D
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/6499/dcpressconference09.th.jpg (http://img410.imageshack.us/i/dcpressconference09.jpg/)
blue til i die
08/10/2009, 5:42 PM
Good to hear its sorted now.
Dungannon Swifts have agreed an out of court settlement with Derry City over money owed to them following Niall McGinn's transfer to Celtic.
The Swifts took legal action, claiming a sell-on clause meant they were entitled to a slice of the fee from McGinn's move in December 2008. The parties reached an agreement on Thursday but the amount Dungannon are to get was not revealed.
Derry have been ordered to pay Dungannon's legal costs.
The player was transferred to Derry from the Swifts in January 2008 but, after less than a year at the Brandywell, the winger moved to Celtic.
At the time, newspaper reports suggested the fee for McGinn had been around 250,000 Euro, meaning Dungannon could pocket 50,000 from the sell-on clause.
Martinho II
08/10/2009, 7:04 PM
thats good news for the smaller clubs as for too long the smaller clubs in Ireland have being trampled into the ground from the bigger clubs.. An example would be the Sean Dillon transfer we found it so hard to get money out of them after he left us.. our ex treasurer famously went into the offices of a certain ex owner and refused to leave unless he got some money that was owed.. a resoultion was solved very quickly.. So fair play to the Swifts for persisting in this..
Acornvilla
08/10/2009, 7:11 PM
thats good news for the smaller clubs as for too long the smaller clubs in Ireland have being trampled into the ground from the bigger clubs.. An example would be the Sean Dillon transfer we found it so hard to get money out of them after he left us.. our ex treasurer famously went into the offices of a certain ex owner and refused to leave unless he got some money that was owed.. a resoultion was solved very quickly.. So fair play to the Swifts for persisting in this..
we have gotten completly screwed transfer fee wise
think of gartland, dillon, mooney, paisley and even a certian avery john!
the development can only be good news in my opinion its certianly considerably better than nothing
paudie
08/10/2009, 7:38 PM
we have gotten completly screwed transfer fee wise
think of gartland, dillon, mooney, paisley and even a certian avery john!
the development can only be good news in my opinion its certianly considerably better than nothing
How could ye have been caught so many times? Sell on clauses must have been less than watertight
Acornvilla
08/10/2009, 7:44 PM
How could ye have been caught so many times? Sell on clauses must have been less than watertight
we got verry small fees or none at all and we seem to be terible at getting players to sign contracts longford have allways been a buy cheap develop player and let go for nothing kind of club..
stephen o brien is another said he was retiring and signed for bohs!
OneRedArmy
08/10/2009, 7:51 PM
Derry have been ordered to pay Dungannon's legal costs.
Do you have a source for this?
I don't doubt it, its just that "sources" close to our club are claiming otherwise.
I would imagine that there is a gag clause in whatever deal was worked out and both clubs will desperately try to spin their side via "sources".
SMorgan
08/10/2009, 8:07 PM
Do you have a source for this?
I don't doubt it, its just that "sources" close to our club are claiming otherwise.
I would imagine that there is a gag clause in whatever deal was worked out and both clubs will desperately try to spin their side via "sources".
I think it’s fair to say that this is a case that Dungannon were almost certainly going to win. Like, I mean, Derry agreed to pay Dungannon a percentage of a selling-on fee and then tried to claim that the deal was confidential and made NO payment whatsoever. The judge had already told Derry to cop themselves on. I don't think Dungannon needed Johnny Cochran's legal dream team to win this one. Why on earth would Dungannon agree to meet its own full costs?
You're probably right, both clubs may spin it. However I think I'll believe what comes out of Dungannon on this one.
MariborKev
08/10/2009, 8:10 PM
In my book whoever gets costs has won, whatever the settlement.
As for the morality, it is a disgrace that Dungannon had to take it this far.
Mr_Parker
09/10/2009, 7:12 AM
Do you have a source for this?
I don't doubt it, its just that "sources" close to our club are claiming otherwise.
Not like the BBC to get things wrong.....:rolleyes:
Seems these claims are rubbish, would you not agree?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/irish/8297854.stm
I would imagine that there is a gag clause in whatever deal was worked out and both clubs will desperately try to spin their side via "sources".
Who asked for the non-disclosure and why. That will tell you all you need to know. ;)
EalingGreen
09/10/2009, 10:18 AM
Not like the BBC to get things wrong.....:rolleyes:
Seems these claims are rubbish, would you not agree?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/irish/8297854.stm
The key statement (for me) in the BBC Report is the following:
"Derry have been ordered to pay Dungannon's legal costs"
Since the award of costs must be a matter of fact, then it is entirely open to DCFC to deny it.
The fact that DCFC have not publicly denied it seems to vindicate the BBC's report pretty conclusively.
That being so, then only the Judge can have made that order and since the case did not come to trial, then such an order can only have come after the Judge considered it in his private chambers. And Judges do not order costs outwith a trial unless they are happy that the plaintiff (in this instance Swifts) has a sound case.
Who asked for the non-disclosure and why. That will tell you all you need to know. ;)A Pound to a Penny says it was DCFC. Swifts will be presumably happy enough so long as they got their transfer money and costs - they don't need to rub DCFC's nose in it by putting it all in the public domain.
And the Judge won't have cared either way, seeing as he has managed to avoid the time and expense of a trial.
Not much of a fig-leaf for DCFC, though (imo).
sonofstan
09/10/2009, 10:57 AM
stephen o brien is another said he was retiring and signed for bohs!
You got the better of that deal just on those facts....
Longfordian
09/10/2009, 11:25 AM
How could ye have been caught so many times? Sell on clauses must have been less than watertight
They were all out of contract. They would have all been on two year contracts which expired. We couldn't be committing to three year contracts and the players wouldn't have signed them anyway. We got decent enough compensation for Gartland, Mooney and Dillon and we also received some more money when the latter two were transferred to the UK. Paisley famously/infamously got himself out of his contract. Not sure what Avery John has to do with anything as we were well shut of him. The best bit of business we did was selling Barrett to Drogs for 55k though we then rather foolishly handed over 10k of it to UCD for Robbie Martin.
Schumi
09/10/2009, 11:38 AM
The best bit of business we did was selling Barrett to Drogs for 55k though we then rather foolishly handed over 10k of it to UCD for Robbie Martin.
An LOI club with money is like a mule with a spinning wheel...
thischarmingman
09/10/2009, 11:40 AM
An LOI club with money is like a mule with a spinning wheel...
MH5AaZS7RpA
Martinho II
09/10/2009, 3:40 PM
They were all out of contract. They would have all been on two year contracts which expired. We couldn't be committing to three year contracts and the players wouldn't have signed them anyway. We got decent enough compensation for Gartland, Mooney and Dillon and we also received some more money when the latter two were transferred to the UK. Paisley famously/infamously got himself out of his contract. Not sure what Avery John has to do with anything as we were well shut of him. The best bit of business we did was selling Barrett to Drogs for 55k though we then rather foolishly handed over 10k of it to UCD for Robbie Martin.
thats a good one as I wasnt sure if we got money when moons moved to uk..I heard before that the club got money alright from Dillos move..
Longfordian
09/10/2009, 3:43 PM
We didn't get an awful lot but it was an extra few thousand due under the UEFA training compensation rules. Dillon's was an actual sell on clause.
Candystripe
09/10/2009, 4:28 PM
The key statement (for me) in the BBC Report is the following:
"Derry have been ordered to pay Dungannon's legal costs"
That being so, then only the Judge can have made that order and since the case did not come to trial, then such an order can only have come after the Judge considered it in his private chambers. And Judges do not order costs outwith a trial unless they are happy that the plaintiff (in this instance Swifts) has a sound case.
A Pound to a Penny says it was DCFC. Swifts will be presumably happy enough so long as they got their transfer money and costs - they don't need to rub DCFC's nose in it by putting it all in the public domain.
And the Judge won't have cared either way, seeing as he has managed to avoid the time and expense of a trial.
Not much of a fig-leaf for DCFC, though (imo).
That BBC report may also be wrong. ie:the part you highlighted.
I'm hearing as both parties agreed outside the court to what Derry originally offered 8 months ago but with the costs taken from the original offer and the remainder paid to DS.
DS thought that Derry had received more than they had claimed but were able to prove the original offer was in fact right.
The DS Chairman (who wasn't involved at the time of the original transfer) was the solicitor dealing with the case for DS.Court costs were to a minimum because of this.
Looks like Derry didn't get anything near as much as we could of for McGinn though.
Mr_Parker
09/10/2009, 5:46 PM
And watch out for the latest part of the Derry City saga.....coming soon....:o
Mr_Parker
09/10/2009, 5:49 PM
That BBC report may also be wrong. ie:the part you highlighted.
I'm hearing as both parties agreed outside the court to what Derry originally offered 8 months ago but with the costs taken from the original offer and the remainder paid to DS.
DS thought that Derry had received more than they had claimed but were able to prove the original offer was in fact right.
The DS Chairman (who wasn't involved at the time of the original transfer) was the solicitor dealing with the case for DS.Court costs were to a minimum because of this.
Looks like Derry didn't get anything near as much as we could of for McGinn though.
A response to a similar post from another forum
Total Rubbish,
Far from it.
From what I’ve heard from a very reliable source (not a Dungannon supporter) Derry are delighted with the outcome that was agreed yesterday (never made it to court this morning at all, another fact) Dungannon got exactly what the club had originally offered them 8 or 9mths ago with no additional costs!
IF Derry had made an offer 8 months ago, they made it to the wrong club, as none was ever offered to us, hence the court case. Our correspondance was ignored, and we were finally contacted by email on the day we lodged papers in the High Court.
Dungannon actually insisted that the clubs make no public statements to save the embarrassment of their solicitor chairman who took them down this road in the first place.
Derry insisted on the "No statements bit" or to be more correct, we can't tell how much Derry are paying us.
It amazes me that so many simply believe a source from Dungannon, they were advised to drop their claim for extra money and to accept Derry’s original offer so another one up for Des Doherty and the Club just as in the Tommy Stewart case with Linfield.
Again, no offer was made, and our claim was never for "extra" money. it was for us to try and get what we were entitled to.
Does anyone really believe that Des Doherty would have advised the Club to go this far if they were going to lose?
If Derry were so sure they would win, why did they make offer after offer to us over the last few weeks to stop the case? Why not let it go to court and have the judge throw it out? and then we would have to pay costs.
I know who I trust.
Candystripe
09/10/2009, 6:06 PM
Would that be the club who were adamant they owed Linfield nothing in the Tommy Stewart case or almost everyone else including some Derry fans.
I'm away to the game now. Not very hopeful though.
Just heard Sunday's friendly with Celtic is off. Ouch.
Mr_Parker
09/10/2009, 8:59 PM
And watch out for the latest part of the Derry City saga.....coming soon....:o
Just heard Sunday's friendly with Celtic is off. Ouch.
As I was saying......;)
Mr_Parker
09/10/2009, 9:07 PM
http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2009/1009/derry_celtic.html
Can anyone pass me the 'spin' bottle please....:rolleyes:
belfastred
09/10/2009, 9:34 PM
I heard Derry have sold bugger all tickets so they have cancelled to avoid any embarassment :rolleyes:
I heard Derry have sold bugger all tickets so they have cancelled to avoid any embarassment :rolleyes:
Careful now, or you'll be hearing from their invincible solicitor!
VinnyDCFC
09/10/2009, 9:50 PM
I heard Derry have sold bugger all tickets so they have cancelled to avoid any embarassment :rolleyes:
Would you rather they went ahead with the game and made a loss?
Mr_Parker
09/10/2009, 9:55 PM
Would you rather they went ahead with the game and made a loss?
How would they have made a loss given that this game was part of a transfer deal? :rolleyes:
VinnyDCFC
09/10/2009, 10:07 PM
How would they have made a loss given that this game was part of a transfer deal? :rolleyes:
You've never heard of match day costs?
Mr_Parker
09/10/2009, 10:27 PM
You've never heard of match day costs?
Not much when there is only a few hundred attending. :rolleyes:
Btw, you can still buy a ticket if you want...http://www.derrycityfc.net/
VinnyDCFC
09/10/2009, 10:36 PM
Not much when there is only a few hundred attending. :rolleyes:
Btw, you can still buy a ticket if you want...http://www.derrycityfc.net/
:cool:
MariborKev
10/10/2009, 8:48 AM
Changed now Mr P,
No one told me it was changed and I was out last night, only saw it this morning......
Another shambles.
DmanDmythDledge
10/10/2009, 2:40 PM
Would you rather they went ahead with the game and made a loss?
If the statement is true Derry would surely be able to get the money they would have gained anyway from Celtic for breach of contract...
thischarmingman
10/10/2009, 3:12 PM
If the statement is true Derry would surely be able to get the money they would have gained anyway from Celtic for breach of contract...
That assumes we inserted a clause in the contract that stated Celtic had to bring over a full-strength squad. I don't know if we did or not, but it's never been confirmed.
DmanDmythDledge
10/10/2009, 3:17 PM
That assumes we inserted a clause in the contract that stated Celtic had to bring over a full-strength squad. I don't know if we did or not, but it's never been confirmed.
If that was the case then cancelling the game would have nothing to do with the squad brought over.
Mr_Parker
10/10/2009, 3:36 PM
If the statement is true Derry would surely be able to get the money they would have gained anyway from Celtic for breach of contract...
Would love to see Derry taking Celtic to court :rolleyes: http://www.irishleaguesupporters.com/forums/images/smilies/laughing92yn.gif
SMorgan
10/10/2009, 4:54 PM
That assumes we inserted a clause in the contract that stated Celtic had to bring over a full-strength squad. I don't know if we did or not, but it's never been confirmed.
As with all legal issues it depends on the wording. I am sure Celtic will argue that they intended to take over the strongest squad that was available to them.
Derry City would have known from the minute this friendly was set up that there couldn't possibly be anything like a full strength Celtic team. For the life of it, it looks like Derry City wasn't happy with the advanced tickets sale and was concerned about the lack of interest and just decided to pull the plug. They could have done this 3 weeks ago.
A face
11/10/2009, 10:49 AM
It'll be interesting to see what way Celtic react to this. I would like to see it being rescheduled with a full strength team because thats what Derry would have signed up to in good faith.
In my opinion (from what i can see) Derry have lived up to their end of the bargain, the ball is now in Celtics court.
I think all League of Ireland fans should take note of this and remember its outcome.
Graemerz
11/10/2009, 11:59 AM
Oh dear... clearly an act of bitterness there... :D
A face
11/10/2009, 12:47 PM
Oh dear... clearly an act of bitterness there... :D
What do you mean?
dcfcsteve
12/10/2009, 2:03 PM
The writing was on the wall for this Celtic friendly for a long time though.
There was very little passion amongst City fans to watch a 3rd string Scottish club yet again, and the supposedly loyal Celtic fans in the area have had plenty of opportunities tro watch their beloved British team over the last year.
Mr_Parker
12/10/2009, 4:21 PM
It'll be interesting to see what way Celtic react to this.
It might be a while before you find out.
Mr_Parker
12/10/2009, 4:23 PM
The writing was on the wall for this Celtic friendly for a long time though.
Then why the 11th hour cancelation?
OneRedArmy
12/10/2009, 4:30 PM
Then why the 11th hour cancelation?You do realise that fans and club officials don't always have a completely overlapping view of every situation and that when someone posts something on here it isn't necessarily the view of the club in question :confused:
In our own case, our Board's views have diverged significantly from the views of many fans over the last year. Hardly a surprise and referred to on many separate threads recently.
Mr_Parker
12/10/2009, 4:34 PM
You do realise that fans and club officials don't always have a completely overlapping view of every situation and that when someone posts something on here it isn't necessarily the view of the club in question :confused:
In our own case, our Board's views have diverged significantly from the views of many fans over the last year. Hardly a surprise and referred to on many separate threads recently.
I'm well aware. Hence I asked the poster for his thoughts and not your board. :rolleyes:
Mr_Parker
12/10/2009, 4:44 PM
Celtic Squad announced
http://www.cliftonvillefc.net/news_celticnews_121009.html
The game is live on Setanta btw.
dcfcsteve
12/10/2009, 5:05 PM
Then why the 11th hour cancelation?
Because of the voices in their head.
Why do you think.....? The Board may or may not have known how limited the interest amongst City fans was in this game, but probably hoped the Celtic 'massif' would show up to make up the numbers anyway.
Turns out the Celtic massif is in fact miniscule. Unless there's lots of protestant fans supporting the other team for them to goad in a medieval fashion, that is....
OneRedArmy
12/10/2009, 5:07 PM
I'm well aware. Hence I asked the poster for his thoughts and not your board. :rolleyes:Roll your eyes all you want. He gave you his view in his post, then you asked the question.
I'm glad quite a few of our fans still have an independent mind and aren't anyone's patsies. A lot of us are delighted the game is cancelled/postponed. The idea that Derry fans should be contributing to paying the transfer fees of our best players is absurd.
Anyway, enjoy your game with them across the water, based on previous experience, we're not missing much.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.