Chris Turner - Which Rovers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

so he didnt sign any valid contract at all? How the hell could they arrive at that conclusion!?!?

what if Sligo appeals the decision of the DRC, Jicked? What will Rovers do then? Continue to pay him until the appeal is heard or what? Genuinely interested and a bit confused.

---

Rovers simply wouldn't have got involved with Turner unless they were pretty sure that he had no valid deal with Sligo, and hey we've got a pretty good track record when it comes to legal issues so obviously the lawyers know their stuff. 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.

I wasn't surprised at all that we won the case, if you go back a page I said this, and I'd be pretty confident that it turned out to be gospel

Anecdotally it seems that Sligo payed Turner a lump sum on the understanding he'd then sign a proper contract at the start of the new season/pre-season. After Sligo didn't win the cup/qualify for Europe, they revised their budget downwards and tried to get Turner to sign for a lower deal. Turner walked away at that point and signed for Shamrock Rovers (having turned them down originally to sign for Sligo's original offer + lump sum). The matter will turn on whether or not Sligo had a contract with him, giving him a lump sum on the understanding he'd sign a deal at a later date might not cut it, and if Sligo then offered him a lower deal than they had originally suggested he'd also be able to walk away from any gentleman's agreement they had.

On those facts he didn't have a contract, they paid him to consider an offer, which was then revoked, and he chose not to sign their new offer, making him a free agent.

[QUOTE=SkStu;1332681]so he didnt sign any valid contract at all? How the hell could they arrive at that conclusion!?!?
Because they had all the facts in front of them ,unlike most on here,as for an appeal lets just say it would not be in their intrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rovers1

Sligo Rovers are expected to offer Turner another contract. For the craic. See what happens.

If the contract between us and him never existed, shouldn't we be entitled to money back from him? (wages, SOF etc.)

---

I don't think you ever did pay him wages, you may be entitled to the lump sum (€5k) back, but Turner could argue that that payment was consideration for a deal for him to consider signing for Sligo on the original terms you offered him, that deal was fulfilled, so he can keep his cash. Again, that will be a private law issue and will drag on for some time if Sligo do decide to chase him for the money and an out-of-court settlement isn't reached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoversHead

Because they had all the facts in front of them ,unlike most on here,as for an appeal lets just say it would not be in their intrest.

---

okay - taken - but youre missing my point - how does he not have a contract with Shamrock Rovers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

okay - taken - but youre missing my point - how does he not have a contract with Shamrock Rovers?

---

You mean for Sligo Rovers?

Because Sligo offered him a contract at say €500 per week, and gave him a lump sum to keep his head from turning in the meantime.
Before that deal was finalised Sligo had to scale down their budget after not brushing aside Fingal as they thought, so offered him a lesser deal.
Turner rejected this new deal, and the first offer was now off the table, so he was a free agent.
You can argue that Turner is liable to pay back the lump sum, but not that he had a contract just because he accepted a lump sum payment before a contract was finalised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rovers1

But he still hasn't signed for Shamrock though?

Would be funny if he signed for Bohs now.

---

Presumably we and Turner reached a decision to set aside his contract, pending the resolution of the arbitration. Now that's resolved, expect him to re-sign the deal with us as to my understanding he's been training with us in the meantime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jicked

You mean for Sligo Rovers?
.

---

no, i mean for Shamrock Rovers. He signed two documents right? One with Sligo (and i can understand now how it wasnt a valid contract) and one for Shamrock Rovers. Neither have been deemed to be in effect, right? Im wondering how that is the case...

Rovers1, we wouldnt sign him again. Never played well for us and Fenlon and him had a mutual loathing by all accounts.

edit: your response doesnt make sense Jicked as that would compromise Shamrock Rovers' claim and indicate that they might have felt there was some validity to Sligo's claim. Anyway, dont worry about it - its unfair to expect you or RH to have the answers but it is an interesting question.

Turner has to return the signing on fee plus he was also banned for a few games ( not sure how many ) its not mentioned on the ruling however

I don't see how it would compromise Rovers' claim, both Turner and Rovers probably agreed to set aside the deal pending the disputes resolution, especially considering how long this thing has dragged on and may still drag on. Rip up that deal, have him train with the squad (and attend games in Rovers tracksuit etc) and sign a new one once everything is done and dusted and he can be registered as ours. It's the sensible way to do it.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boneym

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.

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?

We'll prob get fined 5grand so we'll lose it anyway :p.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jicked

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boneym

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boneym

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...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

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

I hope Sligo enjoy the" brown envelope" derby v Derry in a few weeks time.

Cheerio lads!

bhs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackholesun

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dong

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

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.

Can anyone provide me a link to a copy of the Participation Agreement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

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"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

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...ews&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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gufct

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...

His wikipedia says he's a Sligo player, so there must be something in it. :p

Signing was announced in the Sligo Champion, 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.

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...add-breen.html

Quote:

---

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.

That is exactly my point and if Players are being paid but not officialy signed that is even more serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gufct

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sligoman

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sligoman

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.