gassedup
Frankie Prince
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 210
|
Post by gassedup on Jun 16, 2014 9:24:02 GMT
To Basel, How could a transfer in 2010 lead to an advantage in 2013/14 season ? ................that is the FA/FL's problem in understanding the BRFC claim. Please keep up godofthunder we debated this ages ago with very positive results (for us anyway); go have a rummage and you will find what you are looking for.
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jun 16, 2014 9:30:49 GMT
There is not more than has been released by both BRFC and WWFC................you really are clutching at straws, sorry. From the word in the industry, the FA asked the WWFC Chairman what the BRFC claim was about and why they referred to the Phillips transfer that had already been dealt with. It seems that they are now more interested in taking the BRFC Board to task for wasting their time over this issue. Well WW will be alright then,congratulations old boy.
|
|
|
Post by godofthunder on Jun 16, 2014 9:31:38 GMT
You may have debated it but with no real evidence behind it.
The FA/FL do not understand how this could have an effect especially as WWFC did not receive any money from the deal (£200k went straight to the previous owner to pay off a debt).
The worry for BRFC really now is the fact that the FA/FL may take them to task for dealing with a banned agent.
|
|
|
Post by godofthunder on Jun 16, 2014 9:31:54 GMT
You may have debated it but with no real evidence behind it.
The FA/FL do not understand how this could have an effect especially as WWFC did not receive any money from the deal (£200k went straight to the previous owner to pay off a debt).
The worry for BRFC really now is the fact that the FA/FL may take them to task for dealing with a banned agent.
|
|
dinsdale
Andy Rammell
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 495
|
Post by dinsdale on Jun 16, 2014 9:37:37 GMT
You may have debated it but with no real evidence behind it. The FA/FL do not understand how this could have an effect especially as WWFC did not receive any money from the deal (£200k went straight to the previous owner to pay off a debt). The worry for BRFC really now is the fact that the FA/FL may take them to task for dealing with a banned agent. Not true, he lost his licence to be an agent, we have not used him as an agent. He told our board that Wycombe have cheated and we have asked the fa took investigate. Likely action is naff all, status quo maintained, we all move on. Lots of bad blood with Wycombe after their safety officer cost us 3 points but hey, lets move on
|
|
gassedup
Frankie Prince
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 210
|
Post by gassedup on Jun 16, 2014 9:41:29 GMT
Bloody hell LIGHTNING does strike twice! You must be concerned.
Did it? That makes things even worse then! I'm now thinking that if the money did go straight to the agent a few Government Agencies will be very interested! It also kept a debt off the books did it? Even more for WW to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by godofthunder on Jun 16, 2014 9:45:45 GMT
Sorry but it is true. The fact that you have consulted with him over this has caused the FA conncern.
Understand the bad blood but the Ref called the game off not the Safety Officer.
|
|
|
Post by godofthunder on Jun 16, 2014 9:47:56 GMT
To Gassed Up,
No money went to the agent.
Read my reply again, it went to pay off the debt to the previous owner. This is what we were fined £ 10k for.......oh you have forgotten that
|
|
Gashead
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 260
|
Post by Gashead on Jun 16, 2014 9:55:08 GMT
1. You may have debated it but with no real evidence behind it. 2. The FA/FL do not understand how this could have an effect especially as WWFC did not receive any money from the deal (£200k went straight to the previous owner to pay off a debt). 3. The worry for BRFC really now is the fact that the FA/FL may take them to task for dealing with a banned agent. 1. Why would there be documented evidence when the investigation isn't finished yet? 2. I don't know how you know the conclusions of the incomplete investigation. It's not about the Matt Phillips deal either, which I presume you're alluding to. 3. He's not being hired as an agent. Reminds me of the Lincoln fan trying to tell us our own stadium situation, although to be fair at least his club aren't involved in that. There is probably feck all in the investigation and Wycombe will come out of this smelling like roses, but do read through the 20-page thread on here before telling us what we're trying to investigate.
|
|
lockleazer
Tarki Micalleff
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 411
|
Post by lockleazer on Jun 16, 2014 10:01:43 GMT
What exactly are rovers to be charged with then thunder? Asking the FA/FL to investigate a matter? under what charge? what rule does that break? If you know so much someone appears to be letting loose lips tell tales... not 1st hand i assume? chinese whispers? The likelyhood is nothing will come of all this however Rovers are more than entiltled to ask for an investagation if they are told there may have been some wrong doing... the way it was done could have been handled better in my book but the right thing was to infor the FA/FL that they had been informed of wrong doing and seek clarification and ask for the investigation. The FA/FL even replied to say they would investigate so they obviuously believed Rovers had a right for the matter to be looked at otherwise they would have just told Rovers to do one!
|
|
gassedup
Frankie Prince
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 210
|
Post by gassedup on Jun 16, 2014 10:04:24 GMT
To Gassed Up, No money went to the agent. Read my reply again, it went to pay off the debt to the previous owner. This is what we were fined £ 10k for.......oh you have forgotten that Did I say it went to the agent? I understand where it went.
If it went straight to the previous owner:- 1) was it showing as a debt in the accounts? 2) were the appropriate taxes paid on that income? 3) did it make the accounts look better than they where hence allowing WW to spend more on players than they otherwise could have? 4) if there are other debtors how do they feel that one persons debt appears to have been ring-fenced?
I have no idea (do you?) but strongly believe BRFC are correct to ask the questions. Surely common sense dictates that any "hidden debt" must give an entity an advantage over its rivals? If of course that is what has happened.
|
|
|
Post by godofthunder on Jun 16, 2014 10:10:10 GMT
Lockleazer,
1) Have not said BRFC will be charged with anything but the fact that they have been in contact with a banned agent has raised questions in FA. 2) FA reply was a standard reply given the 24hour timeline placed by the lawyers. They could not say that there was no case to answer in that timecale if they had wanted to as it would appear that they had not looked at it properly.
Gashead, 1) See answer above re the agent. 2) I don't know the conclusions of the investigations. I have not said that. Let's restate.....I am a Sports Lawyer, the word in the industry is that the FA do not understand why BRFC have raised the transfer in 2010 as giving WWFC an advantage in season 2013/14. They do not feel that WWFC have a case to answer.
|
|
gassedup
Frankie Prince
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 210
|
Post by gassedup on Jun 16, 2014 10:11:23 GMT
What exactly are rovers to be charged with then thunder? Asking the FA/FL to investigate a matter? under what charge? what rule does that break? If you know so much someone appears to be letting loose lips tell tales... not 1st hand i assume? chinese whispers? The likelyhood is nothing will come of all this however Rovers are more than entiltled to ask for an investagation if they are told there may have been some wrong doing... the way it was done could have been handled better in my book but the right thing was to infor the FA/FL that they had been informed of wrong doing and seek clarification and ask for the investigation. The FA/FL even replied to say they would investigate so they obviuously believed Rovers had a right for the matter to be looked at otherwise they would have just told Rovers to do one! I must admit I thought Lincolnfan, Martyhopkirk and godofthunder were the same person. However, godofthunder is not as articulate as the others so maybe I'm wrong? Or maybe his blood is boiling and he's losing it a little?
|
|
|
Post by godofthunder on Jun 16, 2014 10:14:07 GMT
Gassedup,
No idea but knowing that the FA Chairman is an accountant who has led on many multi-national acquisitions, I would be surprised if he did not declare this in the 600 page document at the time of the Supporters Trust takeover which was ratified by the FA/FL.
If this is the case then WWFC will be cleatred and the best BRFC could hope for is compensation from FA/FL, which is very unlikely.
|
|
gassedup
Frankie Prince
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 210
|
Post by gassedup on Jun 16, 2014 10:17:56 GMT
Gassedup, No idea but knowing that the FA Chairman is an accountant who has led on many multi-national acquisitions, I would be surprised if he did not declare this in the 600 page document at the time of the Supporters Trust takeover which was ratified by the FA/FL. If this is the case then WWFC will be cleatred and the best BRFC could hope for is compensation from FA/FL, which is very unlikely. What was the £10,000 fine for?
|
|
|
Post by godofthunder on Jun 16, 2014 10:19:11 GMT
Gashead,
For info, we are not the same person.
Also I have not lost anything, it seems lockleazer has though as I have not said that there are charges coming to BRFC but that the fact that they have been in contact with a banned agent has raised questions in FA
|
|
|
Post by godofthunder on Jun 16, 2014 10:20:30 GMT
Sorry, last answer was for Gassedup as is this one.
The £ 10k fine was for irregularities over the Phillips deal
|
|
gassedup
Frankie Prince
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 210
|
Post by gassedup on Jun 16, 2014 10:23:49 GMT
Sorry, last answer was for Gassedup as is this one. The £ 10k fine was for irregularities over the Phillips deal I was actually hoping you would reply with what those irregularities were.
|
|
|
Post by empirebaypete on Jun 16, 2014 10:38:37 GMT
Sorry, last answer was for Gassedup as is this one. The £ 10k fine was for irregularities over the Phillips deal I was actually hoping you would reply with what those irregularities were. Already been covered mate. Money went straight to the former owner of Wycombe. From memory because of that the agent missed out on commission. I would have thought if godofthunder was a lawyer he would be educated enough to have put THEIR decision in one of his / her earlier posts, not THERE decision. Also saying Rovers should be worried, then saying Rovers aren't charged with anything Don't feed the troll fellow Gasheads.
|
|
lockleazer
Tarki Micalleff
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 411
|
Post by lockleazer on Jun 16, 2014 10:39:02 GMT
Gashead, For info, we are not the same person. Also I have not lost anything, it seems lockleazer has though as I have not said that there are charges coming to BRFC but that the fact that they have been in contact with a banned agent has raised questions in FA You said the worry for Rovers is that the FA/FL may take action for wasting there time ... i ask... what action ? what rules have rovers broken, they havent used Smith as a football agent so no rule broken there? so as a sports lawyer surely you would have an idea as to what rules Rovers have broken. also as you are a sports laywer and have the inside word, when will all this become offical ? or do you actually know the same as the rest of us ..... diddly squat!!!
|
|