|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 16, 2017 21:32:02 GMT
To incompetent security or to wilful culpability? As the culprit, I've heard. Wouldn't it be better not to speculate?
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 16, 2017 21:38:44 GMT
Was any explanation offered as to how one individual could syphon off so much money w/o anybody on the committee realising? It seems the SC have been a bit lucky here that the person who stole the money was able to pay most it back.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 21:40:58 GMT
Question about Easter "The 'Easter' question was asked to SH. He said if he plays he is likely to trigger a clause that gives him another years contract, plus his agent is the same one as Matty Taylor had and i think SH said ' you don't invite someone in your home who has stole off you before' or along those lines."
Ouch, that avenue has gone then.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 22:05:40 GMT
Was any explanation offered as to how one individual could syphon off so much money w/o anybody on the committee realising? They should have been given an open top bus tour.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 22:42:45 GMT
Have they now 'C'ed a person to handle the money? Have they given an indication that they've blocked the easy access to bank account? Have they given an indication that they've got over the head-in-the-sand sulk behind Jim's Jottings? Have they given an indication that they're identifying a new role, now 'suck up, make do, and make excuses' is irrelevant? Basically, has anything changed?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 22:58:24 GMT
I think they could save a lot of time and watch this, as it sums up the current state I've never seen that before, but the analogy is wonderful. Except, I'm not sure they've got to that stage of realisation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 23:02:46 GMT
Have they now 'C'ed a person to handle the money? Have they given an indication that they've blocked the easy access to bank account? Have they given an indication that they've got over the head-in-the-sand sulk behind Jim's Jottings? Have they given an indication that they're identifying a new role, now 'suck up, make do, and make excuses' is irrelevant? Basically, has anything changed? They are going to review the constitution. Make of that what you will. Access to accounts / security, I thought that was addressed last week? Already dealt with it seems. Can't promise that Jim or 50/50 sellers won't ever sulk again though, one seller complained at this evening's meeting that the umbrellas provided on rainy days were sub-standard.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 17, 2017 7:19:45 GMT
Question about Easter "The 'Easter' question was asked to SH. He said if he plays he is likely to trigger a clause that gives him another years contract, plus his agent is the same one as Matty Taylor had and i think SH said ' you don't invite someone in your home who has stole off you before' or along those lines." Ouch, that avenue has gone then. Probably a fair call by SH then. Feel sorry for Easter as he's a victim of circumstance but maybe he needs to pick his agent more carefully in future. I applaud the club for taking a stand (as I simultaneously put my tin hat on...)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 7:58:55 GMT
Question about Easter "The 'Easter' question was asked to SH. He said if he plays he is likely to trigger a clause that gives him another years contract, plus his agent is the same one as Matty Taylor had and i think SH said ' you don't invite someone in your home who has stole off you before' or along those lines." Ouch, that avenue has gone then. Probably a fair call by SH then. Feel sorry for Easter as he's a victim of circumstance but maybe he needs to pick his agent more carefully in future. I applaud the club for taking a stand (as I simultaneously put my tin hat on...) It seems a bit convenient to me. Easter was put in the bin by Clarke alongside the other five players on January 19th. That's 12 days before Taylor's move, which by all accounts happened very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 17, 2017 8:41:27 GMT
Probably a fair call by SH then. Feel sorry for Easter as he's a victim of circumstance but maybe he needs to pick his agent more carefully in future. I applaud the club for taking a stand (as I simultaneously put my tin hat on...) It seems a bit convenient to me. Easter was put in the bin by Clarke alongside the other five players on January 19th. That's 12 days before Taylor's move, which by all accounts happened very quickly. If Easter wasn't going to be played as his next match triggers his release clause, he's on 59 appearances, whoever his agent is seems irrelevant anyway.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 17, 2017 9:11:07 GMT
It seems a bit convenient to me. Easter was put in the bin by Clarke alongside the other five players on January 19th. That's 12 days before Taylor's move, which by all accounts happened very quickly. If Easter wasn't going to be played as his next match triggers his release clause, he's on 59 appearances, whoever his agent is seems irrelevant anyway. So surely rather than dump easter from the squad and continue paying him you sit down explain because of the contract clause he won't be selected again (and therefore miss out on playing bonuses) but in the interests of both parties sign a new contract same terms to end of season but excluding said clause? We get an extra body in the squad (who knows where the back of the net is) easter gets games to put him in the frame for a contract elsewhere next season and potentially playing bonuses, everyone's a winner ad opposed to new where everyone is a loser. If that approach wasn't taken then I despair.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 9:22:49 GMT
If Easter wasn't going to be played as his next match triggers his release clause, he's on 59 appearances, whoever his agent is seems irrelevant anyway. So surely rather than dump easter from the squad and continue paying him you sit down explain because of the contract clause he won't be selected again (and therefore miss out on playing bonuses) but in the interests of both parties sign a new contract same terms to end of season but excluding said clause? We get an extra body in the squad (who knows where the back of the net is) easter gets games to put him in the frame for a contract elsewhere next season and potentially playing bonuses, everyone's a winner ad opposed to new where everyone is a loser. If that approach wasn't taken then I despair. Something doesn't add up with Jermaine. I would have been more than happy to see him for the rest of this year and next season as well. As you say, he chips in with a few goals, but more than that, he pulls defenders and midfielders all over the place and creates space. Can't be about cost cutting, the manager has always said that he has the support of the board. Can't wait to see the player lined up to replace him.....
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 17, 2017 9:25:28 GMT
The owner of the property have to agree to the charge. Not if the debt is pursued through the courts but I expect that in this case they agreed to it. i guess having been caught out and perhaps the relationships between the parties has allowed this to haooen reasonably easily if monies have also been recovered. Just a sad state of affairs and whatever can be said and the SC exec committee, it must be difficult to comprehend someone you know, someone you probably consider a friend to have done this Will be interesting what happens with criminal proceedings if the money is being recouped and said person is losing property over it. Suspended sentence? Although not a crime against BRFC, would said person be likely to be banned from the ground, not that should be necessary as embarrasment would surely keep you away
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 10:19:08 GMT
If Easter wasn't going to be played as his next match triggers his release clause, he's on 59 appearances, whoever his agent is seems irrelevant anyway. So surely rather than dump easter from the squad and continue paying him you sit down explain because of the contract clause he won't be selected again (and therefore miss out on playing bonuses) but in the interests of both parties sign a new contract same terms to end of season but excluding said clause? We get an extra body in the squad (who knows where the back of the net is) easter gets games to put him in the frame for a contract elsewhere next season and potentially playing bonuses, everyone's a winner ad opposed to new where everyone is a loser. If that approach wasn't taken then I despair. I'm amazed that it was allowed to happen again. We had the same issues with Bradley Allen, John Anderson who both refused to drop the clauses and Ali Gibb ended up winnning an out of court sum from the club for their failure to honour a contract. Wael said in the Bristol Post today that he is learning about how to run a football club. Hopefully he won't allow these sort of clauses again.
|
|
shakes
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 117
|
Post by shakes on Feb 17, 2017 10:57:16 GMT
It's a stupid clause that benefits neither player nor club. Easters agent has perhaps cost him a good contract next season at a new club since he can now not prove he's a league one player still or he's fit. Stupid clause.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 17, 2017 11:42:13 GMT
So surely rather than dump easter from the squad and continue paying him you sit down explain because of the contract clause he won't be selected again (and therefore miss out on playing bonuses) but in the interests of both parties sign a new contract same terms to end of season but excluding said clause? We get an extra body in the squad (who knows where the back of the net is) easter gets games to put him in the frame for a contract elsewhere next season and potentially playing bonuses, everyone's a winner ad opposed to new where everyone is a loser. If that approach wasn't taken then I despair. I'm amazed that it was allowed to happen again. We had the same issues with Bradley Allen, John Anderson who both refused to drop the clauses and Ali Gibb ended up winnning an out of court sum from the club for their failure to honour a contract. Wael said in the Bristol Post today that he is learning about how to run a football club. Hopefully he won't allow these sort of clauses again. We have been bit by these before but I'm sure other clubs have been happier with these clauses. Either way when it becomes apparent a player won't play because of this clause why wouldn't both parties agree to drop the clause? Only reason I can fathom is because neither party has proposed that as a solution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 11:59:36 GMT
I'm amazed that it was allowed to happen again. We had the same issues with Bradley Allen, John Anderson who both refused to drop the clauses and Ali Gibb ended up winnning an out of court sum from the club for their failure to honour a contract. Wael said in the Bristol Post today that he is learning about how to run a football club. Hopefully he won't allow these sort of clauses again. We have been bit by these before but I'm sure other clubs have been happier with these clauses. Either way when it becomes apparent a player won't play because of this clause why wouldn't both parties agree to drop the clause? Only reason I can fathom is because neither party has proposed that as a solution. As I said, it was proposed, I can't speak for the Easter case, and the players refused to drop the clause. I spoke to John Anderson personaly and it is a shame that he refused to drop the clause because he later assisted Paul Trollope when Trolls took over but his appeal for a new contract the following season was refused due to his earlier stance. Stupid clause, don't insert them if you aren't willing to honour them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 12:01:44 GMT
It's a stupid clause that benefits neither player nor club. Easters agent has perhaps cost him a good contract next season at a new club since he can now not prove he's a league one player still or he's fit. Stupid clause. It's a stupid decision by the manager, unless aligned with the contract extension is some form of financial bonus. The player is easily good enough for L1. We don't have another player who does the same thing that Jermaine does, he causes defenders problems that none of our other players can, creates space for attackers in front of him and chips in with a fair number of goals. Hard to believe that the useless Puddy was given a reprieve and made the bench whilst Jermaine was left out of the squad, one will cost you a tight game, the other will give you a decent chance of winning it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 12:21:02 GMT
It's a stupid clause that benefits neither player nor club. Easters agent has perhaps cost him a good contract next season at a new club since he can now not prove he's a league one player still or he's fit. Stupid clause. It's a stupid decision by the manager Surely the manager just tells the players he wants to retain, not writes every single contract?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 12:22:28 GMT
It's a stupid clause that benefits neither player nor club. Easters agent has perhaps cost him a good contract next season at a new club since he can now not prove he's a league one player still or he's fit. Stupid clause. It's a stupid decision by the manager, unless aligned with the contract extension is some form of financial bonus. The player is easily good enough for L1. We don't have another player who does the same thing that Jermaine does, he causes defenders problems that none of our other players can, creates space for attackers in front of him and chips in with a fair number of goals. Hard to believe that the useless Puddy was given a reprieve and made the bench whilst Jermaine was left out of the squad, one will cost you a tight game, the other will give you a decent chance of winning it. It might be a decision made on medical advice due to the nature of his current injury which needs an operation. Does the manager want a player under contract next season who might not be able to play? Welcome to the nasty side of football.
|
|