The Derry City thread - Derry sign first four players

**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

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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.....

Seems these claims are rubbish, would you not agree?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...sh/8297854.stm

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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

Originally Posted by Mr_Parker

Not like the BBC to get things wrong.....

Seems these claims are rubbish, would you not agree?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...sh/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.

Originally Posted by Mr_Parker

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

Originally Posted by Acornvilla

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

Originally Posted by paudie

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

Originally Posted by Longfordian

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

Originally Posted by Schumi

An LOI club with money is like a mule with a spinning wheel...

**Martinho II** · 09/10/2009, 3:40 PM

Originally Posted by Longfordian

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

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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....

**Mr_Parker** · 09/10/2009, 5:49 PM

Originally Posted by Candystripe

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

Originally Posted by Goonerg

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.