colufan

Who''s gloating? I think Lambert did a fantastic job for you and it won''t be a f*cking long time before we can say that, it will be never so I''m not quite sure what I''m supposed to upset about with that jibe. I was just pointing out that you can''t send or sell Holt anywhere he doesn''t want to go. The most you can do is not pick him and let him run his contract down. In which case you might as well cash in rather than pay his wages for nothing.

Absolutely, after all in this parallel universe we never abolished slavery and the player has no option but to go where his master sends him...

[quote user="morty"]Load of old quotes patched together to cobble a non story.And I think the OP is stirring it a bit in starting this thread.[:)][/quote] Not at all - I was doing my usual Col U google news search and this was the first item. I thought you''d be interested.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/06/13/celts-hero-paul-lambert-fights-to-save-marriage-to-childhood-sweetheart-86908-22330419/ I don''t care what issues we have with the bloke, I hope he can get his family problems sorted - some things transcend football. Might mean him making some tough decisions though.

And I really must learn to spell!

Well done on your promotion. The league table never lies and you''re where you are because that''s where you deserve to be (as are we sadly). Just make sure you take 6 points off the binners next year. Congrats again.

Right let''s clear up the inaccuracy. It''s a Football League tribunal for a breach of Football League rules - nothing to do with the FA at all. If it gets as far as the tribunal then they will judge on the evidence of the rule breach submitted - not on what the sides have said in the build up. As far as what I have seen you at the very least have clearly broken rule 20.3 in that you breached the conditions set by RC when he allowed you to talk to Lambert, namely that no appointment could be made before compensation had been agreed. You may have breached 20.1 and 20.2 as well but that I know nothing about. The part of 20.3 dealing with attaching conditions to an agreement to allow talks is there for precisely that purpose, to allow talks without prejudicing your right to compensation. How we both have done since is also of no regard to the issue. Our manager didn''t serve his notice period, he took two backroom staff members who also didn''t serve their notice periods and it put the club in a position when they had to spend more to back the new manager. So Col U was financially disadvantaged. These are the issues that will be considered - if it gets that far. I stick by prediction of no points deduction and you paying more than you wanted and us getting less than we asked for. It is interesting though - to me at least and probably not to you - that it was NCFC that asked for the latest round of talks.

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="cufcone"][quote user="morty"][quote user="cufcone"] [quote user="chicken"][quote user="Colchester fan"]Your guys were at the WHCS today discussing our compensation claim, I dont know the outcome it is probably an attempt to avoid a tribunal decision who knows.[/quote]If all is to be believed then I actually think this is more likely to be because your chairman has sounded out the tribunal and he didn''t like what he heard.What do I mean by this? They don''t like people telling them what they should do - ''they must be docked points, I want the maximum punnishment.'' Its a bit like going to court and before the proceedings have started you run up the jury and the judge and scream and stamp like a baby saying that the maximum punnishment MUST be dished out in this case. It wouldn''t go down very well either.Then there is the lying bit. Its obvious there has been communication between the clubs just that one man on the Colchester side of things keeps throwing his toys out of his pram and spins another lie when he doesn''t get what he wants. You can''t honestly tell me that when we stuffed your lot there wasn''t communication between clubs when you had all of the officials present! Not to mention prior to that.Then there is the bit where he claims that a certain ruling has been broken. It hasn''t clearly been broken, we did not tap up Lambert, not did we lure him to break his contract in a way that the ruling suggests. We asked for permission to speak to Lambert, we got permission, we spoke to him, he wanted to come to Norwich. We approached your chairman - who get this - says that what we were willing to pay wasn''t inline with their valuation of Lambert. However they swiftly appointed Boothroyd.No you can see where there are several issues - firstly it is quite clear that your club were not that fussed at loosing Lambert. Secondly there was contact with your club in regards to the compensation - just that they were not willing to negotiate on their valuation of Lambert. So actually there was no ruling broken - just that the valuation of Lambert had not been agreed, Lambert obviously got fed up and knowing your chairman decided he wasn''t going to wait until next winter to get an agreement on the compensation.The other thing I find funny is that its called compensation - which suggests it is an amount agreed AFTER the fact which suggests the act has to happen first. Ie I punch you so you sue me for compensation/damages. This means that sometimes it does drag out. Its not like paying a fee for a player which you have to agree to prior to their transfer.So to be honest I should imagine that having spoken to some legal advisers you club is actually backing down realising that the cry baby of a chairman they have has actually caused more problems than there were - possibly even legal issues such as slander. Tribunal won''t look on any of it very kindly really especially the way he conducted himself in the media making demands and accusations and trying to use the tribunal as a threat to get more money out of us.[/quote] But Norwich have ADMITTED they broke rule 20. Sounds to me like Norwich realize they haven''t got a leg to stand on and are trying to settle it away from a tribunal as they are sh*tting themselves of the outcome.... [/quote]Well obviously you would see it a different way!!We have admitted nothing, and the people we have in charge here now are slick operators who take no crap. More likely the football league see it as the storm in a teacup that your numpty has created and aren''t really interested in getting involved.Our Chief exec has been in football long enough, not only to know his onions, but probably to have contacts within the football league to sound them out about likely outcomes of a tribunal. It''ll be sorted behind closed doors (Like it would have been had Cowling not been a big baby about it all) and both parties will proclaim themselves happy with the outcome, without actually releasing a settlement figure.[/quote] Of course we will see it a different way to you. The other thing is this isn''t a straight forward compensation claim,even if we agree compensation Norwich could still be in trouble with the football league as they have been reported for breaking the rules so the football league could even take further action. [/quote]Firstly who has claimed we admitted to it? Your chairman - hardly someone you could believe whole-hartedly. If you want to believe that then you can but I chose to ignore a comment from our side about your chairman being the only one wanting to make a big deal about it.As for reporting us to the football league - that is what the tribunal is supposed to be about. Personaly I am unsure as to whether the FA even want to get involved hence the amount of time that has been given until the tribunal.The actual issue here is the rules the FA have set out and the way inwhich your chairman conducted himself in the first instance of this.FA Rules: The rule you suggest we have admitted to being in breach of was, so far as I am aware, written with players in mind rather than other club staff. And for some reason clubs opperate in a strange manner when it comes to the transfer of a manager. However if you look at the way Wigan handled Bruce going to Sunderland then I thik you get the picture.Which leads on to your chairman. By the letter of the law your own club effectively induced Lambert into breaking his contract as much as we did. How? We asked to speak to him and your chairman said YES but that he would only be allowed to move once compensation had been agreed. I think you can see the error here. He should have said - lets get the compensation sorted first and then you can talk to him - no money, no goods. Simple. The problem with this then came when Lambert wanted to move and your chairman obviously refused to budge on the amount of compensation. I truly believe Lambert broke his contract after we probably told him that we would take the hit - so yes we probably breached the rule but only in part if you catch my drift. In every other way we met the rules - just that the reality of it is is that Colchester Utd should not have let Lambert talk to us until an agreed fee had been reached. I think that is also the stance the FA will look at this with.[/quote] Nope - rule 20 is specifically about club employees other than players, who are covered by a whole other bunch of regulations. Breaches of rule 20 have never been tested in front of the FL so no-one knows what they think (and it''s the FL not the FA). The delay is arranging the diaries of the legal teams and nothing to do with their view of the legitimacy of the case. And what you think RC should have said is neither here nor there. Rule 20 allows him to attach whatever conditions he likes to the talks you had with Lambert - which some here just can''t get their heads around. Permission to talk is not permission to appoint. Hence the breach of the rules. Apparently the latest talks were at the behest of NCFC and attended by Delia, for some reason. Whether anything comes of them God knows.

You have the evidence of a couple of statements that have rubbed Norwich fans up the wrong way and a refusal to roll over and play dead. We have the evidence of everything he has done for our club since he arrived. I''m happier with our mountain rather than your molehill. You keep telling us to get over it, it''s probably about time a few of you guys did.

My money is on whatever the outcome both parties saying they are happy with the result. You''re entitled to your opinion on Robbie - you''re wrong, but you''re entitled.

Seeing as no-one apart from the parties concerned knows what the compensation offer is you can have no idea whether it''s reasonable or not. Opinion on this is straightforward, for the most part. If you support Norwich you believe what your club says, if you support Colchester you believe what our club says. The lines you are reading between are only half of the story. I could just as easily say reading between the lines not only have Norwich broken FL rules but they are trying to shaft us and Robbie is holding out for what is fair for Col U.

I can''t see Mowbray getting the push until summer so think you''re probably safe this season. However don''t underestimate the pull to the Celtic board of a popular appointment, particularly after the disaster that Mowbray has become plus there is also the major factor of Lambert''s family still living in Scotland.  

[quote user="Smudger"]Colufan, credit where it is due for showing your face on here tonight. I believe that we must have had a good 65% plus of the possesion today and it made me giggle at half-time when so many Colchester fans were bitching about us only having two shots on target and two goals. I think we had most of the possesion and the better finishing.  You had numerous chances in the first half and could not hit the target with hardly any of them.  May I suggest that you get a better striker than an Ipswich Reject??? [/quote] 47% to 53% in your favour apparently.

A very poor run or injuries aside - which can never be predicted - I don''t think you''ll be needing the play-offs.

[quote user="AVFC-NCFC"]Looks like we are seeing another side to you now. Respect to you for coming out and saying this. And for the ifs and buts. If we didn''t give you 7 goals we would have one 1-0 so i don''t want to here them.[/quote]   No you''re not seeing another side to me. If you care to search my posts, though I doubt if you do, you''ll see for themost part I''ve tried to have a sensible debate with Norwich supporters and have only bitten when someone''s had a dig. I don''t artgue that we were gifted most of the goals when we won and today we returned the compliment. You may not want to hear it but I think most fair minded Norwich fans would agree that you capitalised on some woeful defending. That said, as I said earlier, you still have to put them away and 5 goals from 6 shots shows you did that immaculately.