Chris Turner - Which Rovers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You don't remember two years ago - "We need E100k in two weeks to survive", followed two weeks later by "Thanks for the E100k - now we need E100k by the end of the season to survive"?

---

Yes indeed I do remember that time.
Was a good fundraising event.
But in the end of the day we paid all our bills as always, tax and wages included so your point is redundant.
The rehtorric behind the fundraising is irrelevant its the final line so to speak which is important.

Quote:

---

Aside from that, your post is nonsense.

---

Merely dismissing it as nonsense because of your failure to engage with it does not legitmise your statement which lacks substance.

Quote:

---

You judge a case by the facts, and the fact is that Sligo are the ones under investigation here, not Rovers.

---

Yes indeed they are.
That is relevant why exactly?

Quote:

---

What Rovers' previous owners did is of no relevance to the facts here.

---

Its of pivitol importance to this current debate because many comments about under hand deals and not meeting financial commitments are being raised here.
As I stated before the current debate is largely confined to subjective assumptions as such it is wholey understandable to look at both clubs financial history over the past short to medium term to help determine some form of pattern of behaviour.
To dismiss this as nonsense is really quite foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoversHead

Can any of the Sligo fans delighted with the appeal tell me what they expect from it?what do you think your club has to gain from it?Is it worth the risk?do you even see a risk?In my opinion your club has just scored a big og and will get hammerd over the slightest thing now such as ticketing.

---

My guess is there is something more to this than meets the eye because our board are not exatly renowned for gung ho antics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Yes indeed I do remember that time.
Was a good fundraising event.
But in the end of the day we paid all our bills as always, tax and wages included so your point is redundant.
The rehtorric behind the fundraising is irrelevant its the final line so to speak which is important.

Merely dismissing it as nonsense because of your failure to engage with it does not legitmise your statement which lacks substance.

Yes indeed they are.
That is relevant why exactly?

Its of pivitol importance to this current debate because many comments about under hand deals and not meeting financial commitments are being raised here.
As I stated before the current debate is largely confined to subjective assumptions as such it is wholey understandable to look at both clubs financial history over the past short to medium term to help determine some form of pattern of behaviour.
To dismiss this as nonsense is really quite foolish.

---

To be honest Rasputin, while your loyalty to the club is to be applauded you should just let this one lie. At least until the appeal decision comes back. For the record, once again, I think it is a foolish move.
"Patterns of behaviour"? This is all irrelevant. Also, to suggest that the fundraising initiative taken at the time were just run of the mill is just untrue. Plus your spelling is muck.:o

Just a quick note on this.

Its laughable to read all of the wannabe lawyers on here surmising whether a legitimate contract existed.

Armed with the knowledge we have, which is very little apart from conjecture and hearsay, I would be of the opinion that Rovers (Sligo) are acting out of principle rather than looking at the arbitration decision with cool heads i.e. they have a statable case if not a winnable one. It should also be remembered that it is most likely that Rovers must follow the procedures for appeal set out in the FAI's T&Cs/Participation Agreement before they can have recourse to the Courts.

If the appeal succeeds and the arbitration decision was reversed, then presumably Rovers are hoping Turner would be deemed to be contracted to Rovers. In that case, although he will almost definitely not play for Rovers again, they would be entitled to seek compensation from any club that would sign him during the period for which he is allegedly contracted - notwithstanding the "connor clause" he had allegedly inserted into the agreement. Moreover, Rovers' motives may be based on the "optics" of the matter. That is to say, they will not be treated this way by players in the future.

Further I might also say that in order for Rovers to recover the €5000 paid to Turner they may ultimately have to turn to the Courts to seek an Order for same as he may well claim he is not in a position to pay it. The arbitration decision will not have the effect of a Judgment which can be enforced in various ways.

Mod note - Can people keep to the point here - don't go dismissing people's points because of the clubs they support. Any more posts like that will be deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dong

To be honest Rasputin, while your loyalty to the club is to be applauded you should just let this one lie. At least until the appeal decision comes back. For the record, once again, I think it is a foolish move.

---

Its hard to come to a definitive conclusion when we are not privy to all the information.

Quote:

---

"Patterns of behaviour"? This is all irrelevant.

---

Not at all.
In the present situation we do not have all the required information to come to conclusions hence why looking over previous track records is imperative to establishing a wider context in order to come to some conclusions.

Quote:

---

Also, to suggest that the fundraising initiative taken at the time were just run of the mill is just untrue.

---

Come now, every off season we have the same calls from the board.
This season it was apparently a disaster because of a plummet of sales in season tickets etc.
But sure if it raises funds for the club in the off season who am I to point fault in it.

Quote:

---

Plus your spelling is muck.:o

---

Irrelevant pedantic point scoring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You don't remember two years ago - "We need E100k in two weeks to survive", followed two weeks later by "Thanks for the E100k - now we need E100k by the end of the season to survive"?

---

Can you explain why that fund-raising drive was anything other than 'straight and consistent'.

This point was put to me yesterday, could he feck off up North and play as per any other normal player and eventually come back to our league or are the FAI refusing to release his international clearance if he doesnt cough up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

the FAI, in liege with the reverse vampires who don't want to set out to away games before sunset

---

Wouldn't reverse vampires be more keen to set out before sunset?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

The issue around contracts is an important one for the league- especially since the implication here could be that you can't get players committed to your club before the new contract for that year comes out, possibly irrespective of you budget/financial situation.
.

---

Highlighted this point before - we signed seven players while under transfer embargo. I Am always amazed that the PFAI have not sought greater certainty around the whole issue of contracts and their execution.
Simple solution would be for clubs to have budgets agreed/passed earlier and so only be able to sign players at that point. I understand that legally people can agree contracts of employment anytime but nothing to stop this being prohibited via the participation agreement. It is however, madness to try and limit signings to after budgets agreed if they are not agreed until 1/2 weeks before the season begins.

Crap split here. There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with stuff on Foot.ie, and as long as ye take the wrong way, ye'll get no help from me. Use the system or STFU.

Any more in this thread and I'm binning the lot.