[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.