Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Colchester fan

Lambert compensation

Recommended Posts

I reckon £250k but think they might actually put something in like promotion clauses so if he gets us to the Prem in 3 years they get the same again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="a1canary"]Wizard, that''s not nice.  [/quote]

What? she''s a damn fine cook, what else did you think I meant? [;)]

And I reckon at least £450,000 to shut him up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we weren''t so skint I suggest buying the tin plot club, and dismantling it just to make them go away. As Leeds have described us, Col U are like a pussy boil on our bum this season. The 1-7, the Lambert compensation, Cowling being a twit for the second match, and they just won''t go away on the league table either! 

Give them 400K just to make them go away please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="a1canary"]Wizard, that''s not nice.  [/quote]

What? she''s a damn fine cook, what else did you think I meant? [;)]

And I reckon at least £450,000 to shut him up.

[/quote]

Blimey, i don''t think her services stretch that far!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="a1canary"]Wizard, that''s not nice.  [/quote]

What? she''s a damn fine cook, what else did you think I meant? [;)]

And I reckon at least £450,000 to shut him up.

[/quote]

 

Really? Do you honestly think it will be that much? At the end of the day it was a manager of a 3rd division club going to another 3rd division club. One which happens to be 23 million in debt! I think it will be 150k max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="FatboySlimfast"][quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="a1canary"]Wizard, that''s not nice.  [/quote]

What? she''s a damn fine cook, what else did you think I meant? [;)]

And I reckon at least £450,000 to shut him up.

[/quote]

 

Really? Do you honestly think it will be that much? At the end of the day it was a manager of a 3rd division club going to another 3rd division club. One which happens to be 23 million in debt! I think it will be 150k max.

[/quote]I thought the normal way to do it was to buy out their contract and add a little more. Lambert was on a rolling contract was he not? Could be what all the song and dance is about. I think £150k tops. Just have a look at the amount paid elsewhere for this kind of thing.How much did Wigan get for Bruce? Wasn''t it like £2mill tops? Take that down a couple of divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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]

[:-*] There''s a rumour emanating from the "corridors of power" suggesting that you could end up being docked points for squealing[:O]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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]I doubt that, if compensation is paid and both parties are happy I doubt the football league would be bothered about further action.If they saw it as serious there would have been a hearing by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err, the real issue here is that it is "compensation" they are seeking, not damages.  So present the facts.

1. At the beginning of the season where were most people predicting norwich would finish and where would ColU finish.  I bet a lot would say Norwich would be in the top two or three, and Col U would be scraping into the play-offs at best.  So, if anything ColU are better off than they were at the time of the alledged offence (officer) and Norwich are there or thereabouts!  So any compensation from a variance from the original expectation would potentially see nothing going to ColU as they are actually doing better than they were expected to!

2.  ColU have actually appointed a manager with Premier League experience, thus on paper a better bet than Lambert.  It is not clear how much they have had to pay over the amount that they were paying Lambert originally.  However even if they are paying more for Boothroyd, it is only because they have not replaced like with like - they have gone for a Premiership qualified manager versus a League 1 qualified manager and thus would be expected to pay more.  Thus any payment to Boothroyd above what Lambert was getting would have to be discounted by the difference in experience, thus reducing the "compensation" they could get. 

On both counts therefore I see practically no compensation being payable other than of the costs of the administrative costs of replacing one manager with another and related changes to back room staff and perhaps some on changes of playing staff.  I just can''t see how the total of all this would get anywhere near £200K, let alone £450K.  ColU''s legal costs alone on pursuing the claim have probably cost them this already.  That is the real reason they are talking now.

Whatever we''ll never know unless someone puts in a FOIA claim later on when the financial statements for ColU and Norwich are out, because the deal will be confidential on both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I am not an internet hard man just someone who does not like being called revolting names for no reason, hence I told this young man to grow up, at least my original post has sparked a bit of debate which was the original idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="shefcanary"]

Err, the real issue here is that it is "compensation" they are seeking, not damages.  So present the facts.

1. At the beginning of the season where were most people predicting norwich would finish and where would ColU finish.  I bet a lot would say Norwich would be in the top two or three, and Col U would be scraping into the play-offs at best.  So, if anything ColU are better off than they were at the time of the alledged offence (officer) and Norwich are there or thereabouts!  So any compensation from a variance from the original expectation would potentially see nothing going to ColU as they are actually doing better than they were expected to!

2.  ColU have actually appointed a manager with Premier League experience, thus on paper a better bet than Lambert.  It is not clear how much they have had to pay over the amount that they were paying Lambert originally.  However even if they are paying more for Boothroyd, it is only because they have not replaced like with like - they have gone for a Premiership qualified manager versus a League 1 qualified manager and thus would be expected to pay more.  Thus any payment to Boothroyd above what Lambert was getting would have to be discounted by the difference in experience, thus reducing the "compensation" they could get. 

On both counts therefore I see practically no compensation being payable other than of the costs of the administrative costs of replacing one manager with another and related changes to back room staff and perhaps some on changes of playing staff.  I just can''t see how the total of all this would get anywhere near £200K, let alone £450K.  ColU''s legal costs alone on pursuing the claim have probably cost them this already.  That is the real reason they are talking now.

Whatever we''ll never know unless someone puts in a FOIA claim later on when the financial statements for ColU and Norwich are out, because the deal will be confidential on both parties.

[/quote]

Does the Freedom of Information Act apply to private companies?  I don''t think so unless you know otherwise!

Its bad enough with public sector bodies who it does apply to evading FOI. requests.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="shefcanary"]

On both counts therefore I see practically no compensation being payable other than of the costs of the administrative costs of replacing one manager with another and related changes to back room staff and perhaps some on changes of playing staff.  I just can''t see how the total of all this would get anywhere near £200K, let alone £450K.  ColU''s legal costs alone on pursuing the claim have probably cost them this already.  That is the real reason they are talking now.

[/quote]

You dont think they want the money (£200k if that)  so they can get someone in on loan with a view to a purchase later?

BTW.  I thought Cowling was reported to have said that Boothroyd was a better manager than Lambert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Football League just wants the clubs to settle it between themselves.   So, I suspect, do the fans of both clubs - we''ve got a common enemy down the A140 / up the A12 and it would be good if we could get back to hating them.   There''s normally some sort of tariff for this sort of thing, so it''s time Delia and Robbie sat down and agreed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently McNally has said that Cowling needs to take into account the money City fans spent on buying seats in the home areas for the game in January...Col U have now accepted 27p in compensation to make up the amount. Oh no, there weren''t many Norwich fans in the home areas were there? [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colu fan.I think you will find it really does matter what he has said. The FA do not take kindly to managers dictating them their jobs - trust me I know! I used to be coached by someone who worked for the FA in London and they didn''t take too well to maveric chairmen or managers or players telling them how to do their job.As for the tribunal - that is the result of the complaint to the FA. It is taken into account when the tribunal makes its decision so far as I am aware. If they decide that there is a breaking of the rule it may well add up the sum.As for the breaking of the rule - what I was pointing out was not whether we had broken it, but that we had not clearly broken any one part of rule 20. By that I mean the only bit you could say we MAY have broken is inducing him to leave his contract with Colchester Utd.However if you look at things logically the problem started when your chairman said he could be spoken to PRIOR to agreeing to the compensation fee. By doing this in a way what happened was enevitable. So in a way it would be a very difficult situation to sort. We didn''t tap him up and we didn''t make an illegal approach which is the main part of this ruling - which by the way was written mainly for the purpose of player transfers. The transfers of managers has always been done slightly differently for some reason.It may well have been on our request that these talks have happened but it is still a long way from the ''I wont settle for anything less than maximum punnishment'' stance of your chairman.Like I said he could have made it so much more clearer if had said - ''You want to talk to Paul Lambert? We want to arrange a compensation package prior to you doing so, so that should you both be happy to do a deal we avoid any complications.'' The problem is everything that has happened since should not be taken into account in regards to the compensation - another reason as to why the compensation fee should have been sorted out originally.Where we are now was no sure thing when Lambert took over and as others have said Colchester are also doing very well having brought in Boothroyd possibly better than had they kept Lambert. Neither of that should be brought into it but I fear it will now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="colufan"]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]

Funny how the Norwich Chief exec was saying  how he was going to play hardball and not give in and now they call this meeting to try and sort it out. Sounds like someone is losing their bottle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the evidence that we asked for talks?

If we did, don''t you think that might have been just to appear cooperative, since it was Cowling who has been crying about being ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="NCFCWebbo"]Well you have breached rule 58.4 set by the Football League, ''you have to have a blade of grass on the playing surface''.[/quote]

We don''t need grass as the ball is always in the air remember

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...