It's that time of year again, nearly half way through the season. Things are not going our way and the vultures are coming out.

I have noticed that there are some posters, who at the beginning of the season called for calm and time, are now becoming more vocal towards a shift in the personnel running our club. A video was posted by one member comparing a certain person to the worst dictator in human history, surely a breach of site rules.

Instead of all the small digs, and seeding of discontent, could I challenge all of those who feel a change in club management is required to post their thoughts here.

IHE is probably the only member of this site who comes out directly, without all the wee backstabbing digs or unwillingness to quantify his claims, to explain his thoughts.

I may be wrong, I may have missed your (any anti board campaigners) posts, but if you really do feel strongly that you need to convince us you could stop hiding your thoughts in other threads and post here, you could stop hiding behind second accounts and posting videos which are defamatory.

Personally I am not happy with what is happening at our club, I don't want to be supporting a mid table first division side but I can't really see any alternative to what we have, maybe you could point me in the right direction. I think if we end up having a sack the board campaign it will damage ICT more than the fiasco when the Trust delayed Brewster's sacking by flexing their muscles.

Convince me with rhetoric and not mind games, please.

Edited December 7, 200916 yr by Revbirdog

I think the biggest mistakes we made might have been faxing Dinamo confirming the transfer and then admitting Marius was due money.

Reading through all the claims and counter claims it is evident that the club were happy to let Marius go as our major shareholder stated we were not sure we could afford him. Whether we could or could not afford him, or whether Marius actually wanted to go was immaterial, that statement alerted clubs that we were in the market to offload him. Some might call that instigation.

A little grey area for me, and what I believe the club may be clinging onto this as their defence is that we allegedly received multiple offers for the player and the Dinamo one wasnt the highest. However the player preferred Dinamo over the others and may have indicated this to the club. As he would have to agree personal terms with any new club, and could have just sat out the remainder of his contract if he didnt like the deal being put in front of him to go to a different club, that is not instigation, it is just preference.

I can believe the club would somehow try to negotiate something that would allow them to take the difference between the Dinamo offer and the highest offer out of Marius' cut of the fee but the fact remains that they did not get anything on paper showing an agreement between club and player so any discussion that may or may not have taken place matters not a jot. In the absence of any written agreement, they dont have a leg to stand on. They then compounded this mistake by faxing Dinamo to complete the transfer thus making any further talks between ICT and the player unlikely. Bottom line, the player didnt waive his fee and the club accepted that fact by faxing Dinamo to get the transfer completed.

I can also believe that Grassa's comments after the transfer was complete were meant to refer to the remainder of the signing-ON fee that Marius was still due, but unfortunately those were not the words he used he simply said Marius was due some money and that gave the player more ammunition to prove his assertion that he was due the remainder of his signing on and his exit fees. Evidently FIFA agreed !!!

Based on these assumptions - which I concede could be wildly incorrect - I can see how the club might think they have a case but the simple fact is that they have nothing to support any of it and the player has consistently told the same story over the whole transfer. So just pay the man if you havent already and put it to bed.

I can also believe that Grassa's comments after the transfer was complete were meant to refer to the remainder of the signing-ON fee that Marius was still due, but unfortunately those were not the words he used he simply said Marius was due some money and that gave the player more ammunition to prove his assertion that he was due the remainder of his signing on and his exit fees. Evidently FIFA agreed !!!

Whatever Grassa was referring to the club have paid neither the remainder of the signing fee or the percentage of the transfer fee, so whatever Grassa was refering to he appears to have changed his mind later.

The remainder of the signing on fee will be heard in a civil court at the start of next year.

Did we lose out financially on the Marius deal i.e. did we as a club pay out more for his service than we received over the period??

However, in the whole Marius saga my own untrained opinion is that we did indeed lose out in several ways. We may not have made a financial loss over his overall contract but we certainly didnt maximise any profit and we also took a massive PR hit.

[

That to me is one of the biggest dissapointments of the whole saga, a player who had been out of the International reckoning came to a club like ours and played in one of the biggest football tournaments in the world when he was our player.

If there was something that could be used to counter the "we can't attract players this far North" this was it, instead as Scotty has pointed out we have managed to turn this into a negative.

Seems to be some assumption that their was an error in the contract I've not seen anything from either side to suggest this is the case.

From what I can ascertain, the issue that FIFA decided on surrounds who instigated the transfer. FIFA have obviously ruled that it was the club and Niculae is due payment....as per his contract.

In regards to "losing out"....we're probably getting very close to losing out as the legal fees, interest and exchange rates all mount against us.

I think the bold bit answers it all. Nothing, zilch, nada. There was an error on the contract, evidenced plainly by the fact that ICT sought to dispute the outcome. Therefore the interpretations of what was and was not permissible under the contract diverge.

What we must demand to know is who, why what and so on?

Someone somewhere got it badly wrong. Who?

One says 'Seems to be some assumption that their was an error in the contract..... I've not seen anything from either side to suggest this is the case'

The other says 'There was an error on the contract'

This highlights the situation...nobody knows the full situation and all are guessing. To also offer one side of a story to confirm the situation is maybe a little bit suspect.

At the end of the day it has all happened, let's hope they have learned from it.

This raises a thought, with respect, what right has any fan got to demand the details of a legal document belonging to the club he supports and furthermore to demand the name of the ICT official, or legal practitioner, who was party to the signing of said document?

Next we will have a call for Ian Black's transfer document on this forum - just so we can confirm it is OK by the fans and, when you are in that drawer maybe we can have a wee gander at the Rankin one as well to see you made a good job of it!

We only want to know because we think we have a right!!

.

Not sure what your point is beneath the layers of irony, AF.

However, my minimal understanding of legal practice tells me that solicitors "take instruction" ie you tell them what you want and they frame it for you. As we know however, many a slip between lip and cup; variables in malfunction could include such factors as; the accomplishment of the solicitor, their knowledge of that specific legal environment and, of course, the feasibility of the request.

As I said I have no opinion, I am asking a question. As a season ticket holder, my continued enthusiasm/spend for ICT depends on getting answers.

Your question - Who cocked up the Marius contract?

I assume from the highlighted area that you accept that maybe, just maybe, the Board did employ a legal advisor and he may have made a mistake as opposed to the ICT office girl sending Marius a one line email to confirm the signing.

If this be the case, are you asking for the name of the legal firm involved or the actual solicitor acting, within the legal firm?

I think you speak for a sizeable chunk of the support with that comment.

The anonimity and wall of silence that has surrounded this sorry and costly mess is very hard to bear.

Did we lose out financially on the Marius deal i.e. did we as a club pay out more for his service than we received over the period??

If the deal was concluded at time of transfer the club would have made a tidy little profit, now I have no idea but by the time legal fees, the difference between Euro's and Pounds, interest that will have to be paid to Marius etc I would guess the club is now very close to losing on the whole thing. And bear in mind it is not over by a long way.

Is this the only issue thats draging the club down in some people views? This topics been talked about time and time again and we are going over the same area time and time again.

One says 'Seems to be some assumption that their was an error in the contract..... I've not seen anything from either side to suggest this is the case'

The other says 'There was an error on the contract'

This highlights the situation...nobody knows the full situation and all are guessing. To also offer one side of a story to confirm the situation is maybe a little bit suspect.

At the end of the day it has all happened, let's hope they have learned from it.

This raises a thought, with respect, what right has any fan got to demand the details of a legal document belonging to the club he supports and furthermore to demand the name of the ICT official, or legal practitioner, who was party to the signing of said document?

Next we will have a call for Ian Black's transfer document on this forum - just so we can confirm it is OK by the fans and, when you are in that drawer maybe we can have a wee gander at the Rankin one as well to see you made a good job of it!

We only want to know because we think we have a right!!

.

To repeat myself again...

The fact that ICT dispute the terms of the transfer means that either the contract or their negotaiting behaviour was incorrect. To the tune of a lot of money.

Scotty's scenario may be correct but, as he says, it is only supposition. All this gentleman's agreement stuff - see Pele's contract, see Brewter's first contract. Amateur Hour, they got off with it these times, but not third time. Again supposition, we need the facts.

As for "right to know" AF, you are absolutely right. The documents belong to a private PLC (whatever) and as a non-shareholder, I have no right to be privvy to the detail. However, I am a repeat customer of the business, and as such they should be trying to hold on to my goodwill, by dealing fairly and squarely with me.

As you well know, custom has fallen off, we have less money for players, and will continue to do so, resulting in further loss of on-the-pitch performance. To find out the cause of some of this cashflow might help restore some of that goodwill.

Edited December 8, 200916 yr by gordyfromsneck

Is this the only issue thats draging the club down in some people views? This topics been talked about time and time again and we are going over the same area time and time again.

It's a long way from being the only issue that's dragging the club down!

Is this the only issue thats draging the club down in some people views? This topics been talked about time and time again and we are going over the same area time and time again.

It's a long way from being the only issue that's dragging the club down!

We are going over it again, Georgeios, because no-one has given us an honest definitive account, of what happened.

As you say, there are other issues, Johnboy, but I believe this is a good clear place to start.

Is this the only issue thats draging the club down in some people views? This topics been talked about time and time again and we are going over the same area time and time again.

It's a long way from being the only issue that's dragging the club down!

We are going over it again, Georgeios, because no-one has given us an honest definitive account, of what happened.

As you say, there are other issues, Johnboy, but I believe this is a good clear place to start.

The sad thing is that a number of our board are successful businessmen, and therefore should know their way round a contract (or if not, have access to someone who does). What a pity that they do not seem to think it as important at the club.

Is this the only issue thats draging the club down in some people views? This topics been talked about time and time again and we are going over the same area time and time again.

It's a long way from being the only issue that's dragging the club down!

We are going over it again, Georgeios, because no-one has given us an honest definitive account, of what happened.

As you say, there are other issues, Johnboy, but I believe this is a good clear place to start.

The sad thing is that a number of our board are successful businessmen, and therefore should know their way round a contract (or if not, have access to someone who does). What a pity that they do not seem to think it as important at the club.

You are right, HtG. As Scotty mentions such oversights have made us look like clowns, again. Ross County were better run than us even when we were in the SPL. But who is responsible for the Marius mistake.

Is this the only issue thats draging the club down in some people views? This topics been talked about time and time again and we are going over the same area time and time again.

It's a long way from being the only issue that's dragging the club down!

We are going over it again, Georgeios, because no-one has given us an honest definitive account, of what happened.

As you say, there are other issues, Johnboy, but I believe this is a good clear place to start.

The sad thing is that a number of our board are successful businessmen, and therefore should know their way round a contract (or if not, have access to someone who does). What a pity that they do not seem to think it as important at the club.

You are right, HtG. As Scotty mentions such oversights have made us look like clowns, again. Ross County were better run than us even when we were in the SPL. But who is responsible for the Marius mistake.

I suspect that we'll never find out. I'm sure that we'll see a name at the bottom of the contarct signing on behalf of the club, and there may well be a sacrificial lamb offered to try and appease the seething masses. But the identitity of the individual who didn't apply due dilligence may never come to light.

Or am I being too cynical?

To repeat myself again...

The fact that ICT dispute the terms of the transfer means that either the contract or their negotaiting behaviour was incorrect. To the tune of a lot of money.

Scotty's scenario may be correct but, as he says, it is only supposition. All this gentleman's agreement stuff - see Pele's contract, see Brewter's first contract. Amateur Hour, they got off with it these times, but not third time. Again supposition, we need the facts.

As for "right to know" AF, you are absolutely right. The documents belong to a private PLC (whatever) and as a non-shareholder, I have no right to be privvy to the detail. However, I am a repeat customer of the business, and as such they should be trying to hold on to my goodwill, by dealing fairly and squarely with me.

As you well know, custom has fallen off, we have less money for players, and will continue to do so, resulting in further loss of on-the-pitch performance. To find out the cause of some of this cashflow might help restore some of that goodwill.

Can I therefore accept from the highlighted area in your above posting that, as a repeat customer and to deal fairly and squarely with you, you feel you are entitled to the name of the ICT official, or legal practitioner, who was party to the signing of said document?

To repeat myself again...

The fact that ICT dispute the terms of the transfer means that either the contract or their negotaiting behaviour was incorrect. To the tune of a lot of money.

Scotty's scenario may be correct but, as he says, it is only supposition. All this gentleman's agreement stuff - see Pele's contract, see Brewter's first contract. Amateur Hour, they got off with it these times, but not third time. Again supposition, we need the facts.

As for "right to know" AF, you are absolutely right. The documents belong to a private PLC (whatever) and as a non-shareholder, I have no right to be privvy to the detail. However, I am a repeat customer of the business, and as such they should be trying to hold on to my goodwill, by dealing fairly and squarely with me.

As you well know, custom has fallen off, we have less money for players, and will continue to do so, resulting in further loss of on-the-pitch performance. To find out the cause of some of this cashflow might help restore some of that goodwill.

Can I therefore accept from the highlighted area in your above posting that, as a repeat customer and to deal fairly and squarely with you, you feel you are entitled to the name of the ICT official, or legal practitioner, who was party to the signing of said document?

I feel that you and I are not communicated very efficiently, AF.

Entitled no, desirous, yes. And also the story.

btw I see that Mike Smith has left the club.

Defamation : Definition

Defamation law exists to protect the reputation of a person from defamatory statements made about him/her to a third party without lawful justification. A statement is defamatory if, when said about a person and published to a third party, it would make ordinary people think less of that person.

"I have worked for years on this, I was going to sell that land for a f*cking mint and finally retire"- 1min 49secs in.

If you want to comment on the Youtube clip could youi please do so on that particular thread. The only way that statement above can be construed as defamatory would be if the person whom you think may have made the statement's name was attached.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about contracts. To set the record straight there was nothing wrong with the contract Marius signed. It was a standard contract approved by the legal department of the SPL. The problem has arisen because of interpretation of the transfer rules. It's very unfair to make out that our lawyer and or the others concerned had written up some mickey mouse contract.

One says 'Seems to be some assumption that their was an error in the contract..... I've not seen anything from either side to suggest this is the case'. The other says 'There was an error on the contract'. This highlights the situation...nobody knows the full situation and all are guessing. To also offer one side of a story to confirm the situation is maybe a little bit suspect. At the end of the day it has all happened, let's hope they have learned from it.

Personally, I doubt there was an "error" on the contract, we have been told that it was a standard SPL contract ..... it is the interpretation of the contract at the time of termination that is the crux of the matter.

As I said above, I do believe (unfortunately) that our club were the instigators of the transfer based on comments made whilst he was still an ICT player and that they are clinging onto the fact that Marius chose Dinamo over other clubs - that may (or may not) have made higher offers - to try and prove that he was the instigator.

It doesnt wash as far as I am concerned as he would be in a position to negotiate personal terms with any club that had a bid accepted and could quite simply have said no and waited out his contract if he didnt fancy any of them.

This raises a thought, with respect, what right has any fan got to demand the details of a legal document belonging to the club he supports and furthermore to demand the name of the ICT official, or legal practitioner, who was party to the signing of said document?

Next we will have a call for Ian Black's transfer document on this forum - just so we can confirm it is OK by the fans and, when you are in that drawer maybe we can have a wee gander at the Rankin one as well to see you made a good job of it!

We only want to know because we think we have a right!!

Quite a number of fans on here are part owners of the company by virtue of being shareholders. I dont actually see anyone asking to see this or any other contract, merely to have the elected officials of the club, who are there to represent those shareholders by running the club in a professional manner, offer up an explanation of what appears to have been yet another complete cluster**** in our basic admin.

Your question - Who cocked up the Marius contract?

Scotty, maybe I am reading the above incorrectly but I see this as a wish to have the person who carried out the deal named - and indeed shamed, in their opinion, as they feel the contract was not drafted correctly, whereas I feel that it could be a legal beagle dispute and the matter be grey as opposed to black and white!

I do agree that statements made does not help our cause, if indeed we do have any grounds for reducing the amount due, but I feel that it is so wrong to criticise without being in command of facts and indeed payment should be withheld until the need to pay be satisfied.

If you look through previous postings you will find some people being surprised that a SPL contract was in place, as Alex has stated, as the inference has been that ICT did not carry out that part of their duty.

I feel, like you, that it was not the contract but the termination actions that presents the greyness of the case but the overturning of a verdict is not unknown.

Your question - Who cocked up the Marius contract?

Scotty, maybe I am reading the above incorrectly but I see this as a wish to have the person who carried out the deal named - and indeed shamed, in their opinion, as they feel the contract was not drafted correctly, whereas I feel that it could be a legal beagle dispute and the matter be grey as opposed to black and white!

I do agree that statements made does not help our cause, if indeed we do have any grounds for reducing the amount due, but I feel that it is so wrong to criticise without being in command of facts and indeed payment should be withheld until the need to pay be satisfied.

If you look through previous postings you will find some people being surprised that a SPL contract was in place, as Alex has stated, as the inference has been that ICT did not carry out that part of their duty.

I feel, like you, that it was not the contract but the termination actions that presents the greyness of the case but the overturning of a verdict is not unknown.

Contract according to FIFA are not grey, they are back or white. Money is owed or it is not.

If the SPL contract = good.

Then ICT conduct of the transfer = bad.

As Alex stated the contract is not the issue, it is a standard SPL contract and the club never lost the case because the contract was wrong. FIFA judged against them as in this contract it stated that Marius was entitled to a % of the transfer fee, the club didn't want to pay this so stated that Marius insitgated the transfer to Dinamo, FIFA decided that this wasn't the case so ruled in Marius favour.

I'm kind of lost with the whole saga......... In simple terms how much money are we going to have to fork out?

I'm kind of lost with the whole saga......... In simple terms how much money are we going to have to fork out?

There are 2 actions at present,

The one that FIFA have ruled in Marius's favour for 142,500 Euros and there will be a hearing in Feb next year in the Civil courts for a further 100k Euros.

for those who cant work in euros (like me) ?242,500.00 = ?211,918.81

I'm kind of lost with the whole saga......... In simple terms how much money are we going to have to fork out?

There are 2 actions at present,

The one that FIFA have ruled in Marius's favour for 142,500 Euros and there will be a hearing in Feb next year in the Civil courts for a further 100k Euros.

Not a bad bonus for a years work.

I'm kind of lost with the whole saga......... In simple terms how much money are we going to have to fork out?

There are 2 actions at present,

The one that FIFA have ruled in Marius's favour for 142,500 Euros and there will be a hearing in Feb next year in the Civil courts for a further 100k Euros.

Not a bad bonus for a years work.

Don't forget the club received almost 500k Euros for him from Dinamo and almost 50k Euros for him taking part in the Euro's also not a bad years work

for those who cant work in euros (like me) ?242,500.00 = ?211,918.81

I don't have the figures to hand but the 242,500.00 Euros would have been a heck of a lot less than ?211,918.81 if paid at the time of his transfer