View Full Version : Chris Turner - Which Rovers?
Jicked
11/03/2010, 5:57 PM
The Disputes Resolution Chamber (DRC) today (March 11th) issued its judgement on a case involving Sligo Rovers, Shamrock Rovers and Chris Turner.
The DRC heard that Mr Turner signed a 2009 Standard Players Contract (SPC) with Sligo Rovers FC on 11 November 2009. The FAI League Department refused to register this contract on the basis that the 2009 SPC had been superseded by a 2010 SPC.
Mr Turner subsequently signed a 2010 SPC with Shamrock Rovers FC in January 2010, prompting the Director of the League to bring the matter to the attention of the National League Executive Committee (NLEC), who decided to refer the matter to the DRC.
The DRC today issued its decisions:
1. The Director was entitled to refuse to register the SPC between Mr Turner and Sligo Rovers FC.
2. The Director was entitled to refuse to register the SPC between Mr Turner and Shamrock Rovers FC.
3. The Committee and the Director were entitled to refer the matter to the DRC.
4. Mr Turner is not a Participant in the National League and is a Free Agent, entitled to sign with any club and seek registration of an SPC.
5. Before Mr Turner can be registered, he is to repay the €5,000 paid to him by Sligo Rovers FC.
6. Mr Turner and Sligo Rovers FC are to be the subject of a disciplinary investigation by the National League Director pursuant to Rule 8.1.6 of the Participation Agreement, Schedule One, Section 2.
7. All parties are to bear their own costs, but the administrative costs of the DRC are to be borne by the Committee who referred the matter to the DRC.
8. The parties are reminded of the possibility of an appeal to arbitration pursuant to Article 31 above of the SPC and Article 33 of the FAI DRC Regulations within ten days.
Thanks for that. So yes it looks like the arbitrator has refused to let him sign for Shamrock Rovers, until he pays back the €5k owed to Sligo Rovers. Once he does he's free to sign for us, and that's why they rejected his contract with Shamrock Rovers up to now, as far as I can see. Seems fair enough, and it's right that Sligo and Turner are to be disciplined for carrying on such shoddy business.
Longfordian
11/03/2010, 6:01 PM
It appears Sligo were hoping to keep schtum about that €5k payment. They'll probably get fined and Turner a game or two of a ban.
thanks boneym.
anyone know what Rule 8.1.6 of the Participation Agreement, Schedule One, Section 2 says?
sligoman
11/03/2010, 6:03 PM
We'll prob get fined 5grand so we'll lose it anyway :p.
Ezeikial
11/03/2010, 6:23 PM
There sure is a big heap of what seems to be speculation and conjecture being presented as fact here - so I may as well add another bit!!!!
I understand that Sligo's position is that the up-front payment made to CT was not a signing on fee but an advance on his contract wages. Put another way - that there was no lump sum written into his contact, just €x per week - some of which was paid in up-front as a loan or advance on his contracted wages. I don't know, if that was established, if it would have any implications for the musings of the legal eagles on here.
Whatever about the facts of the case, there is little doubt in my mind that CT's moral character has regularly come into question. When he "signed" for Sligo in November after turning down a contract offer at Dundalk - which was offered to him in September - he gave an interview to a Dundalk newspaper that gave the impression that he was not offered a contract and/or that Dundalk forced him out, while he wanted to stay.
The ink was barely dry on his Sligo "deal" when he was back talking to Dundalk again in mid to late November. The attitude of the Dundalk board had totally changed by then - allegedly becuase of the unusual betting patterns surrounding the last game of the season against Derry. Suffice to say that none of the people speculated upon as being close to this (no hard evidence to my knowledge) were offered deals to re-sign.
Its hard to imagine - based on previous form - that CT is beyond reproach in this saga.
Schumi
11/03/2010, 7:24 PM
If Sligo appeal I'd imagine we would keep paying him as a sign of good faith to our player, then when Sligo lose the appeal Rovers could potentially counter claim for costs or even potentially for damages.If you've been found not to have a contract with him either, I don't see how you could sue Sligo for anything.
6. Mr Turner and Sligo Rovers FC are to be the subject of a disciplinary investigation by the National League Director pursuant to Rule 8.1.6 of the Participation Agreement, Schedule One, Section 2.What does this mean?
superjohnny
11/03/2010, 8:43 PM
The Disputes Resolution Chamber (DRC) today (March 11th) issued its judgement on a case involving Sligo Rovers, Shamrock Rovers and Chris Turner.
The DRC heard that Mr Turner signed a 2009 Standard Players Contract (SPC) with Sligo Rovers FC on 11 November 2009. The FAI League Department refused to register this contract on the basis that the 2009 SPC had been superseded by a 2010 SPC.
Mr Turner subsequently signed a 2010 SPC with Shamrock Rovers FC in January 2010, prompting the Director of the League to bring the matter to the attention of the National League Executive Committee (NLEC), who decided to refer the matter to the DRC.
The DRC today issued its decisions:
1. The Director was entitled to refuse to register the SPC between Mr Turner and Sligo Rovers FC.
2. The Director was entitled to refuse to register the SPC between Mr Turner and Shamrock Rovers FC.
3. The Committee and the Director were entitled to refer the matter to the DRC.
4. Mr Turner is not a Participant in the National League and is a Free Agent, entitled to sign with any club and seek registration of an SPC.
5. Before Mr Turner can be registered, he is to repay the €5,000 paid to him by Sligo Rovers FC.
6. Mr Turner and Sligo Rovers FC are to be the subject of a disciplinary investigation by the National League Director pursuant to Rule 8.1.6 of the Participation Agreement, Schedule One, Section 2.
7. All parties are to bear their own costs, but the administrative costs of the DRC are to be borne by the Committee who referred the matter to the DRC.
8. The parties are reminded of the possibility of an appeal to arbitration pursuant to Article 31 above of the SPC and Article 33 of the FAI DRC Regulations within ten days.
Oh dear, i hope sligos books are in order. They could be scrutinised.
it would help if we knew what the clause said!! I dont see what Sligo have to be investigated over - theres no difference between 5k now and a 500 every week for 10 weeks. Unless they werent accounting for it in their budget?? Thats really about all i can think of. But if they get it back from Turner then its not expenditure...?
it would help if we knew what the clause said!! I dont see what Sligo have to be investigated over
Well they do, and they've been presented with all the facts (unlike us)
Id say the €5k wasnt shown in Sligo's budget and if the the league go sniffing around on the rest of their signings they could be found to be further in breach.John Russells Situation seems very strange.
Right lads I'm not a mod here anymore but can people not start posting up speculaive posts about what might be wrong. Wait for the investigation
blackholesun
11/03/2010, 10:25 PM
I hope Sligo enjoy the" brown envelope" derby v Derry in a few weeks time.
Cheerio lads!
bhs
I hope Sligo enjoy the" brown envelope" derby v Derry in a few weeks time.
Cheerio lads!
bhs
Have to hold my hands up and admit I misread the Turner situation.
The club have done so too, almost spectacularly by the sounds of it.
You could well be right blackholesun....
I hope to God our accounts are in order, I wouldn't bet the house on it though.
RoversHead
11/03/2010, 11:10 PM
Have to hold my hands up and admit I misread the Turner situation.
The club have done so too, almost spectacularly by the sounds of it.
You could well be right blackholesun....
I hope to God our accounts are in order, I wouldn't bet the house on it though.Anecdotaly speaking if you add the match ticket sorry cloakroom ticket fiasco of last week into the mix it starts to look very ropey indeed.
SkStu
12/03/2010, 12:23 AM
Right lads I'm not a mod here anymore but can people not start posting up speculaive posts about what might be wrong. Wait for the investigation
alright then - i wont speculate on who might win tomorrow between Sligo and Fingal while im at it.
Come on Dodge, thats a ridiculous post. Surely, its okay to speculate as long as you dont present it as fact or start throwing wild accusations around? I think its quite clear from my post that i wasnt doing either. :roll:
My post wasn't address at you Stu, but gufct' s
"Id say the €5k wasnt shown in Sligo's budget and if the the league go sniffing around on the rest of their signings they could be found to be further in breach.John Russells Situation seems very strange."
That, to me, is just a "wild accusation"
I agree there's a difference betwween your post and his
EDIT; BTW I think does looks really bad for Sligo. Obviously it'd help if we knew what that particular article of the participation Agreement was about, but any investigation on contract matters can't lead to good news
Unless they're cleared of any wrong doing of course.
baoithe
12/03/2010, 8:23 AM
Can anyone provide me a link to a copy of the Participation Agreement?
Ezeikial
12/03/2010, 9:07 AM
My post wasn't address at you Stu, but gufct' s
"Id say the €5k wasnt shown in Sligo's budget and if the the league go sniffing around on the rest of their signings they could be found to be further in breach.John Russells Situation seems very strange."
That, to me, is just a "wild accusation"
I agree there's a difference betwween your post and his
EDIT; BTW I think does looks really bad for Sligo. Obviously it'd help if we knew what that particular article of the participation Agreement was about, but any investigation on contract matters can't lead to good news
Unless they're cleared of any wrong doing of course.
Speculation on "what might be wrong" has been a constant feature of posts on foot.ie (for right or wrong) - and you have authored plenty of them!
A post that starts with "I'd say" is hardly presenting anything other then the posters opinion -gufct is speculating that the €5k may not be in Sligo's budget and hence there could be trouble. Seems pretty similar to what you say in a general way - "I think does looks really bad for Sligo"
pineapple stu
12/03/2010, 9:13 AM
Not when he's bringing another, named, player into the equation. Then it turns into potential libel. gufct has been asked to back up or delete his post.
Speculation on "what might be wrong" has been a constant feature of posts on foot.ie (for right or wrong) - and you have authored plenty of them!
A post that starts with "I'd say" is hardly presenting anything other then the posters opinion -gufct is speculating that the €5k may not be in Sligo's budget and hence there could be trouble. Seems pretty similar to what you say in a general way - "I think does looks really bad for Sligo"
Again, I've no problem with the posts about Turner (as the investigation announced certainly indicates something may be wrong)
Saying another player's situation is "strange" without anything to back it up, or without previous reporting of it, is quite different IMO. As I said earlier, its just my opinion, I'm not a mod here anymore
John Russell is known to have been signed by Sligo Rovers and has been widely reported in the media but Sligo have not Officialy announced it http://www.sligorovers.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=868:almeida-returns-to-bit-o-red&catid=13:news&Itemid=246 .There are reasons why this hasnt been announced and Ill leave it up to yourself to guess why but the €5k paid UPFRONT to Turner will lead to a full trawl of all Sligo's signings and contracts.
Dodge
12/03/2010, 10:03 AM
John Russell is known to have been signed by Sligo Rovers and has been widely reported in the media but Sligo have not Officialy announced it
So its only me out of the loop then? Ha!
Carry on so...
pineapple stu
12/03/2010, 10:07 AM
His wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Russell_(footballer)) says he's a Sligo player, so there must be something in it. :p
Signing was announced in the Sligo Champion (http://www.sligochampion.ie/sport/soccer/rovers-complete-russell-deal-2075716.html), but isn't on the Sligo site as gufct notes. There could be a few reasons for this - a typo, for example - but gufct's conclusion drawn isn't entirely unreasonable given what's gone before.
Ezeikial
12/03/2010, 10:33 AM
Sligo's agreement with John Russell was "strange" at the time (and was commented on as such here) given that he is unlikely to be even able to train until April or May because of the tibia fracture -
http://blackandwhitetown.squarespace.com/home/2010/2/3/foster-keen-to-add-breen.html
Foster was keen to add both to his squad but he said that both deals had fallen through. Russell picked up a stress fracture of his tibia while on trial in the UK last week and has been ruled out for 12-14 weeks.
If Sligo's advance payment to Chris Turner falls foul of the league authorities it is fair to speculate that this signing (among others at Sligo) may be scrutinised. I can't for the life of me see what would be wrong with an advance payment of wages/ a loan/ or a signing-on fee unless it was undeclared in the budget submissions.
gufct
12/03/2010, 10:55 AM
That is exactly my point and if Players are being paid but not officialy signed that is even more serious.
marinobohs
12/03/2010, 12:17 PM
That is exactly my point and if Players are being paid but not officialy signed that is even more serious.
Would it be fair to ask if shams are paying the porn star as they don't have a contract with him either ?
He doesnt have to be employed as a player to be legit in Rovers Books (Bohs Fans should be quite used to this).
sligoman
13/03/2010, 1:53 PM
Russell signing is hardly a big secret. Davoren mentioned it in his interview on loi.ie, it's been in the papers. Probably not in the squad list on Rovers site either by mistake or just cos he's not signing until July afaik, signed a pre-contract agreement.
Ezeikial
13/03/2010, 7:25 PM
Russell signing is hardly a big secret.
I don't think that whether it is a "secret" or "common knowledge" is the issue that is being discussed / speculated about in relation to Russell
gufct
15/03/2010, 10:05 AM
Russell signing is hardly a big secret. Davoren mentioned it in his interview on loi.ie, it's been in the papers. Probably not in the squad list on Rovers site either by mistake or just cos he's not signing until July afaik, signed a pre-contract agreement.
By Mistake sligoman now even you could come up with something better than that.
gufct
15/03/2010, 11:56 AM
Russell is not a Rovers player.
I am totally confused but I would hate to think what John Russell thinks.
Jicked
15/03/2010, 4:54 PM
Looks like the Turner to Shamrock Rovers deal may be dead in the water after we today signed Robert Bayly.
http://gdtww.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/change-of-plans-bayley-in-turner-out/#more-143
Longfordian
15/03/2010, 4:56 PM
That'd be ironic. I wonder is he in danger of a signficant ban or something?. He could end up back at Sligo yet!.
sligoman
15/03/2010, 5:46 PM
We've appealed the decision on Turner being a free agent.
superjohnny
15/03/2010, 7:01 PM
Looks like the Turner to Shamrock Rovers deal may be dead in the water after we today signed Robert Bayly.
http://gdtww.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/change-of-plans-bayley-in-turner-out/#more-143
You guys dont need turner now, that bayly lad is top quality player, was wondering where he ended up. He is a top signing.
dublinred
15/03/2010, 8:29 PM
We've appealed the decision on Turner being a free agent.
Thats great news good to see we have the balls to stand up to the FAI after being threatened with an audit.
Looks like the Turner to Shamrock Rovers deal may be dead in the water after we today signed Robert Bayly.
http://gdtww.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/change-of-plans-bayley-in-turner-out/#more-143
Bayly's an emergency signing. ROvers were looking at any attacking players for cover, and he was about as good as it got (and considering he couldn't find a deal elsewhere, thats not saying much)
placid casual
15/03/2010, 8:56 PM
Your talking outta your hoop dodge
MON had bayley as back up for the turner deal. he is imo the better player anyway so thats good
the turner shenanigans has got too messy now so let him go back to sligo and earn his under/over the table payment.
Jicked
15/03/2010, 9:58 PM
Bayly's an emergency signing. ROvers were looking at any attacking players for cover, and he was about as good as it got (and considering he couldn't find a deal elsewhere, thats not saying much)
like placid says this is a replacement for Turner, not attacking cover for Twigg/Baker. Turner deal became too messy, and it's no surprise that we sign Bayly the day Sligo decide to appeal the Turner arb. That's another few weeks before we could sign Turner, it's just not getting worth it. Could be a very bad mistake by Sligo if they lose the appeal
Jicked
15/03/2010, 10:12 PM
Yeah, good one. Why is it Sligo fans on here seem to do nothing but come out with rubbish 'digs' like that, and then quickly "thank" each other for them as quick as they can?
The deal's been polluted by Sligo's carry on anyway, and I really can't see why they're going to appeal the decision. Unless they were doing so to frustrate him signing for Shamrock Rovers out of spite? I mean, best case scenario is whatever point of law they're (attempting) the challenge on is somehow ruled in their favour. What then? The initial arb already left them with getting their €5k. They're not going to get damages out of Turner, they could never possibly have gotten damages from Shamrock Rovers. There's 0% chance of a valid contract being upheld with Sligo and forcing Turner to play for them. No court or quasi-judicial body in the land would agree to that, so they won't be putting him in their team, or getting a transfer fee from another club for him. So what are they appealing for? If they feared the disciplinary action from the FAI mentioned in the original arb verdict, surely their books are clean and they've nothing to worry about?
Expect to see Turner sign for Galway in the summer when Connors has managed to get a few bob from somewhere to afford him.
CarrickFan
15/03/2010, 10:34 PM
Why is it Shamrock fans come on here with the moral high gound when they would still be homeless pi*sing around in the 1st Division if they hadnt got a Stadium and fanbase handed to them.
Jicked
15/03/2010, 10:39 PM
Hey hey, there's another one boys, crack out the oul thanks button!
You're right though, thank god we got Tallaght 'handed' to us in 2009 (I await your next post where we're "rentboys" with much anticipation) otherwise we'd never have got out of the First Division in 2006. Top bit of deduction that, and it really has been illuminating to the topic at hand. I'm ever so sorry for claiming the moral high ground by suggesting Turner might sign for Galway and wondering why Sligo were going to appeal. That moral high horse takes some beating eh.
*goes off to find the ignore button*
CarrickFan
15/03/2010, 11:01 PM
No..no retort..not going to get into a tit for tat slagging match with ya...i dont know you im sure your a decent guy and your sticking up for your club as any of us would..its just i loathe your club and manager...Just to clarify my point..had ye not got Tallaght and the huge increase in attendances and the obvious financial implications that brought ye would not be in the position ye are in now to challenge for honours..i dont remember seeing crowds that big in Tolka and the various other places ive had to go to see your "home" matches.
as for Turner ye can have him.
Dodge
15/03/2010, 11:04 PM
Lads trust me, the Bayly deal is defo an emergency. He was only contacted after several others wanted more money. He only had his medical today. Rovers needed to sign a free agent, and Bayly fitted the bill. Ask the lad himself
Jicked
15/03/2010, 11:07 PM
Oh I'm not saying it isn't a deal rushed through, but he's been rushed through to replace Turner, not to replace our lack of attacking options (even though he is an attacking midfielder). I can't see who the several others we contacted would have been though, there aint a lot left on the free transfer market that Rovers would have gone to before Bayly.
Dodge
15/03/2010, 11:23 PM
Fair enough, several others might be overstating it but at least two were approached (One I know pretty well)
Jicked
15/03/2010, 11:33 PM
Out of contract League of Ireland midfielders I presume?
Dodge
16/03/2010, 12:29 AM
Ons striker, one attacking midfielder.
The Observer
16/03/2010, 8:05 AM
To be fair from what i've seen of Bayly he's a talented player & on the face of it Rovers appear to have done a nice bit of business there, whether or not he's there to replace Turner is another thing altogether though i'd imagine had the Turner deal gone through trouble free its a signing they'd have unlikely bothered with. Given the lack of striking options i'm suprised they havent gone for a striker, though i did see Thomas Stewart formerly of Derry City being mentioned in one of the papers this morning so perhaps Dodge is right and a few last minute deals are being rushed through, wouldnt suprise me at all as theres alot of pressure on Rovers this year IMO to deliver silverware & starting with one recognised striker isnt the smartest way to go about it.
blackholesun
16/03/2010, 8:16 AM
Bayly training with Rovers weeks and weeks ago before going to Blackpool on trial. He played very well against us in the two cup games last season. A good addition to any teams squad.
bhs
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.