The club have asked us to publish a press release regarding their appeal over the FIFA Niculae decision. It can be found here: http://caleythistleonline.com/news/footbal...iculae-decision

The club have asked us to publish a press release regarding their appeal over the FIFA Niculae decision. It can be found here: http://caleythistleonline.com/news/footbal...iculae-decision

Good to see the club communicating with the fanbase on this. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the matter, which will obviously be fully determined in due course, it's nice to see that they're communicating with us and putting their perspective /position across (which Niculae has already done through various outlets).

It may be later than the fanbase would have liked, but a positive step nonetheless.

Irrespective of the subject matter, be it Niculae, Stadium ownership, perceived financial problems or anything else that gets debated on here, one of the biggest bug-bears of the support is the lack of communication between club and fans so yes, personally I welcome this kind of thing with open arms and as we have told the club time and time again, we will always publish press releases and any accompanying story regardless of where we sit in terms of our opinion on the matter.

The club have asked us to publish a press release regarding their appeal over the FIFA Niculae decision. It can be found here: http://caleythistleonline.com/news/footbal...iculae-decision

Good to see the club communicating with the fanbase on this. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the matter, which will obviously be fully determined in due course, it's nice to see that they're communicating with us and putting their perspective /position across (which Niculae has already done through various outlets).

It may be later than the fanbase would have liked, but a positive step nonetheless.

my thoughts exactly

Darren sent the release to me, as he has done with all previous releases (not that ICT issue many to be honest and two in one day is almost unheard of :021:) so I have passed on the positive comments made so far about the fact that information has been issued at all !!!!

No idea how this debate will develop - probably much like all of the other Niculae debates - but as has been pointed out already, the mere fact that ICT have issued a press release is actually a step forward !!!!

This clubs just one big farce after another these days isn't it.

This clubs just one big farce after another these days isn't it.

Who cares, when the clubs loses more money from this appeal we can then have a go at them and say "told you so!"

The who's right and who's wrong is old ground, covered many times before, but at least we are being told up front what the clubs intentions are....whether we agree with them or not.

What concerns me is that we'll already have spent a small fortune on legal fees getting to where we are now, and we're going to add to those and now throw a CAS fee on top of that (Somewhere in the region of ?20k just to lodge the appeal I believe).

Our defence seems to hang on the one point...."Who instigated the transfer?" I find it fairly ludicrous that we are trying to claim it was the player, especially as a club director and major shareholder were both talking to the press about how we couldn't afford to keep the guy, and then about how we were happy with the deal we had done and openly acknowledging that we had fees to settle from the transfer monies.

The financial cost of losing is unthinkable, as is the damage that will be done to the clubs name and (already failing) reputation.

Can't help but feel this is more about a couple of people trying to save face as opposed to being for the clubs benefit....not that it really matters, because either way we are the ones that will be paying for it.

Our defence seems to hang on the one point...."Who instigated the transfer?" I find it fairly ludicrous that we are trying to claim it was the player, especially as a club director and major shareholder were both talking to the press about how we couldn't afford to keep the guy, and then about how we were happy with the deal we had done and openly acknowledging that we had fees to settle from the transfer monies.

The financial cost of losing is unthinkable, as is the damage that will be done to the clubs name and (already failing) reputation.

Can't help but feel this is more about a couple of people trying to save face as opposed to being for the clubs benefit....not that it really matters, because either way we are the ones that will be paying for it.

That really is the nub of the matter. Can the club afford to go down this road?

Edited February 22, 201015 yr by Johnboy

are all shareholders being consulted as to the clubs stance and actions over this and if not will the individuals pulling the strings also dig into their own pockets to pay the consequences should their actions prove to be folly?

I cannot see the sense in pursuing this. As far as I can tell Niculai did nothing wrong and seems to be in the right over this. It was us who screwed the whole thing up, whether by incompetence or lack of experience in transfer deals, I cannot say. Throwing good money after bad if you ask me.

As far as I can tell Niculai did nothing wrong and seems to be in the right over this.

But to be fair to the club, only his side of the story has really been publicised.

The full facts as to who did what, and when, and what documents are in place, are not known to us, but will be the deciding factors.

The full facts as to who did what, and when, and what documents are in place, are not known to us, but will be the deciding factors.

One document we know of that isn't in place is a written transfer request from Marius.

A witnessed request/ or discussion might be all thats needed.

The full facts as to who did what, and when, and what documents are in place, are not known to us, but will be the deciding factors.

One document we know of that isn't in place is a written transfer request from Marius.

Indeed, when Marius was spouting off to the tabloids, the only card he repeatedly played was that the club couldn't produce written proof that he requested a transfer.

It is not inconceivable though that the circumstances and his actions (eg allegedly refusing to join the club's training camp because he was busy arranging his own transfer) could lose him the case, depending again on the club's ability to substantiate their version of events.

What about the other half of this? The case that is due to be heard by the courts in 10 days time? Whilst everyone seems to be concentrating on the "Who instigated the transfer" question, the fact the club are (allegedly) still due Marius half of his signing on fee seems to have been ignored.

This thread is about ICT appealing the FIFA decision, the other case will be the hot topic in early March and I might start the sensationalist topic title "Niculae in shock return to Inverness" :021:

Well, I wish the club well in its appeal. There are obviously some contentions about what constitutes 'initiating' a transfer, where the actions are deemed to decide the case in absence of any written evidence. I have always felt Marius was here for an easy ride, as much dosh as he could extract, and use it as a stepping stone to getting back to a wealthy club. It may be that he thinks a little club can be bullied by his lawyers. I can understand the club feeling they were done over, and want to resist being rolled over by him.

I don't get why so many seem more eager to use it as another excuse to bash their club, or it just a reflex which kicks in every time?

Edited February 22, 201015 yr by The Long Man

I think that's a bit harsh on Marius, if he feels he's contractually entitled to something then you can't blame him for pursuing it, regardless of the size of the club.

Until or unless it is proved otherwise, Marius holds all the cards and is due any and all outstanding fees as per the terms of his contract, be that signing on fees, a cut of the transfer fee when he left us, or anything else that was in the paperwork. Admittedly, there are those on here who are pro-Marius (we all know Stevico's connection for example) but of all the information that has come out in the public domain so far - and I will concede that most of it has come from Marius' side - it has done nothing but support his argument. The fact that FIFA also backed him further supports his contention.

At the end of the day I believe it will all come down to "what constitutes instigation?" and who did it first. Did our major shareholder and Director of Football instigate proceedings by coming out before the Euros and (naively) stating that we may not be able to hold onto him due to finances, effectively putting him in the shop window (and alerting clubs he could be had for a knockdown price) or did Marius instigate it after the Euros by choosing to go to Dinamo rather than perhaps going to another club who made a more lucrative offer to ICT?

Obviously, both sides think they are in the right, and most of us have an opinion one way or another, but the sad thing is that is has had to go this far and regardless of the outcome will leave a bitter taste and a hole in the wallets of many (except the lawyers).

Thanks Scotty, for summarising. It's a pity that both parties could not have come to a compromise which would have saved dragging it out with lawyers and courts involved.

No one else spotted the blatant spin on what happened then?

Niculae joined Caley Jags in summer 2007 and scored 10 goals in 37 games before in summer 2008 he refused to join a pre-season training camp in Denmark and instead flew to Bucharest where he signed for Dinamo.

I'm pretty sure at the time, I remember reading along the lines of "the club gave him permission to go to Bucharest..."

That, Jay7, is a very good point...

Was it not also reported that the club had offers from german teams for Marius, yet he stated his wish to stay with ICT or at least have a say in where he goes.

No one else spotted the blatant spin on what happened then?

Niculae joined Caley Jags in summer 2007 and scored 10 goals in 37 games before in summer 2008 he refused to join a pre-season training camp in Denmark and instead flew to Bucharest where he signed for Dinamo.

I'm pretty sure at the time, I remember reading along the lines of "the club gave him permission to go to Bucharest..."

I don't want to go to much into the debate again, but just to say Jay that you were not the only ones noticed this as Marius lawyers have also noticed.

I am a little bit lost as to why if Marius was in such a breach of club rules as they state why was he not disciplined and why were the club prepared to supply his release papers.

I don't want to go to much into the debate again, but just to say Jay that you were not the only ones noticed this as Marius lawyers have also noticed.

I am a little bit lost as to why if Marius was in such a breach of club rules as they state why was he not disciplined and why were the club prepared to supply his release papers.

It was the first thing that caught my eye while glancing over the release. I'm sure the reasoning cited at the time was either wedding/honeymoon related, IIRC?

I think the official reason at the time was "family reasons".