Niculae Court Case

[StockholmSyndrome]

Still trying to understand exactly what's happened here, and I reckon I never will 100%, but someone has screwed up here and should be held to account. However, I very much suspect that this will not happen and we will never know who exactly is responsible for this situation. I agree that the situation is embarassing and shows, at very best, a startling level of naivity on the part of the people running the club.

[caley100]

I am assuming that the money from the transfer would be held in anticipation of this case being concluded? So we should have the money ready to pay back?

Aye right! the money would have been spent paying off Brew and hiring the present management team in anticipation that there would not be a court case.

[CaleyD]

I am assuming that the money from the transfer would be held in anticipation of this case being concluded? So we should have the money ready to pay back?

As was mentioned in another thread a couple of weeks back, I asked the question at the club AGM and the Chairman told the meeting that no funds had been set aside and that the club would just do as they have done with other things and deal with it if/when it happens.....well, it's happened, and it'll be interesting to see how it's dealt with!!!

[FortressICT]

Niculae did nothing for us apart from probably put us into administration.

It was such a stupid mistake taking him here. 10 goals and none of them were important.

I'd like to ask the board if they think it was a good move? What were they thinking when they took this massive risk.

Hello administration.

[stevico1]

I can only tell you my part of this, I through my contacts in Romania, Popescu etc, was asked to find a player in Romania for ICT. I returned with a DVD of Marius and gave it to the club.

Although he was playing for Mainz 05 in the 1. Bundesliga at the time, so I guess you actually found him in Germany

Not that where you found him matters, but he was therefore bound to be more expensive than someone playing domestically in Romania. And if he was going to be expensive, why therefore Romania specifically? Just curious.

[Edited multiple time as neurons attempt to connect]

No I found him in Romania his contract at Mainz had expired and he was back in Romania

Why Romania, because thats the only place that I had contacts if they had asked me to find a player in Poland for example I would not have known where to start. I lived in Romania for the for best part of 10 years was doing Recruitment business for Alan Savage out there so thats why he asked me.

Getting someone that played domestically wasn't an option it needed to be somebody with at least international experience to have any chance at getting a work permit.

[Alex MacLeod]

Should the current board be held to account for the failings of the board under Mr Savage?

[CaleyD]

Roscoe23.....do you want to back up your claim with some reasoning?

[CaleyD]

Should the current board be held to account for the failings of the board under Mr Savage?

They are, for the most part, the same group of people.

What's more, it's the current board who are continuing the whole saga and making a joke of our club (again).

IMO, had Alan Savage not been hounded out of the Chair, then we would not find ourselves in the position we now do....on many fronts. Not a view I always had of the guy, but when he was in the Chair you could at least see that someone upstairs was trying to do something to take the club forward.

[FortressICT]

Fair enough i'd like to ask Alan Savage those questions.

My reasoning for what? Niculae doing nothing for us? He only scored 10 goals and none were important, I think that explains itself.

[CaleyD]

Fair enough i'd like to ask Alan Savage those questions.

My reasoning for what? Niculae doing nothing for us? He only scored 10 goals and none were important, I think that explains itself.

I don't see how his scoring 10 goals will lead us to Administration.....that's the bit I was looking for some reasoning on.

Even if you mean the cost of having him hear, I again fail to see how that will lead us to administration, so perhaps some reasoning on that iis what you might want to give.

[FortressICT]

The money that we are going to lose from this. Do you think our board have the financial muscle to keep us out of a mess? Given we could lose more money from this than is already quoted?

[stevico1]

The money that we are going to lose from this. Do you think our board have the financial muscle to keep us out of a mess? Given we could lose more money from this than is already quoted?

But Roscoe what has happened to the 475k we recieved from Dinamo for him and the cash we got for him playing in the Euros 40k +

[FortressICT]

Covering Grassa Bennett and the rest of the boards Heathmount tab?

[stevico1]

Covering Grassa Bennett and the rest of the boards Heathmount tab?

I only said 450k

[CaleyD]

We won't lose money on the Niculae deal itself.

475,000 Euro for selling him

200,000 Sign on fee (half of which we've not paid yet)

100,000 1 year salary (a generous figure above the actual, but allows for any other costs)

142,500 Split of Transfer Fee

442,500 Total

His signing also generated a ?275,000 investment from Orion and we got around ?50,000 from his participation in the Euros.....in total, we are at least ?350,000 the better for having had him here....that's a long way from his presence putting us in threat of administration.

It's the total and complete mismanagement of the situation that has, and continues, to damage this club.

Where has all this money gone? If I was offering an answer I would say a large part of it went on Barrowman signing fee (not to mention his salary), along with the salaries of the 6 or 7 players the club signed last January to try and save face and give Brewster something to work with for the remainder of the season, even though it was clear that it was not the playing personnel that was the problem.

Why did the club spend so heavily and freely when they had this whole thing hanging over their heads? Surely te common sense/sensible/business approach would have been to hold this money back.....in fact, was it not negligent of the Board to not do this, and then go one step further and fail to include the potential liability in the last set of accounts, presenting the shareholders with a false impression of the state of the business.

[Scotty]

Should the current board be held to account for the failings of the board under Mr Savage?

most of them are the same people so YES. Any new members recruited since then could be exempted, but only if they are asking hard questions, otherwise they are just condoning any mistakes that were made.

As I said earlier, I wish we would just put this to bed and move on. I would actually respect the club more if they did that. In life and in business, I always respect a person more if they can admit to their mistakes, hold their hands up and say they ****** up, take their punishment or row and then get on with doing a better job having learned from those mistakes. I try to do it myself, and I like to see that honesty in those who I work with/for or who work for me.

It seems clear from the Times article that whilst the club may have thought they had a good reason to challenge the payments (the "instigation" defence), two key comments made by club figures meant that there was only ever going to be one winner - Marius. there seems no reason to assume we would win on appeal so it would be throwing more money away.

It is very difficult to argue instigation when months earlier a senior club official / shareholder says we cant afford to keep him (or may not be able to keep him) ... THAT is instigating ... it is basically saying he is in the shop window if someone wants to make us an offer. Marius may have instigated which actual club he went to, and I dont blame him for wanting a say in that, but the for sale sign went up the minute the comment was made. Secondly, at the conclusion of the deal, another statement was made stating that Marius was due money. That suggests that the instigation clause in the "standard contract" hadnt even been thought of at that stage and the club knew he was to get 30%. Only later (presumably when the kerfuffle over ? & ? emerged) did we seem to try and wriggle out of it.

So ICT, please put this to bed. Unless we have a written transfer request from the player that pre-dates comments made by club officials, he is going to win. Lets hold our hands up and admit we didnt handle it the best way and conclude the whole sorry saga before it goes any further. Lets learn from this humungous mistake and make sure that in future our handling of contracts like this is tightened up immensely especially as it relates to specific payments, signing on fees or sell-on clauses. I am not going to call for anyone's head but those involved need to look at themselves and consider their own positions very carefully.

[FortressICT]

Fair enough on the Marius front then. But I still think it was a bad mistake taking him in (that is me looking at it now, at the time it was great, an international striker playing for us), he did let us down with his performances for the money he was being paid.

I totally agree with what you've said about the backing Brewster by bringing in all those players in Jan transfer window, very bad decisions were made.

[Jay_7]

in fact, was it not negligent of the Board to not do this, and then go one step further and fail to include the potential liability in the last set of accounts, presenting the shareholders with a false impression of the state of the business.

Ok, so what can be done about it?

[Yngwie]

.....in fact, was it not negligent of the Board to not do this, and then go one step further and fail to include the potential liability in the last set of accounts, presenting the shareholders with a false impression of the state of the business.

No, not if they had reason to believe that they would win the case.

Do we actually know for certain that they did not include the potential liability? Is it at all possible that they did include the potential liability but have kept that fact hidden? Because if they came out and said "we expect to lose these case and have therefore provided for the cost" then that does actually influence the outcome.

[CaleyD]

As I said earlier in the thread, I asked the question at the AGM about whether any money had been set aside and was told it had not been. When asked how we might fund it if things went against us, I was told it would be dealt with if/when it became necessary.

Someone else then asked the question about whether or not it should have been mentioned in the accounts (at least as a comment in the Chairmans/Auditors report, and a very nervous auditor skirted around the issue and could only offer a "it was something we talked about and didn't include it" response.

I wouldn't have expected anything that said "we expect to lose", but it probably should have been something that was covered off. None of us expect to have accidents/breakdowns (car, household appliances, house itself) etc, but that's no excuse for not having insurance and failing to be prepared "just in case" would be extremely naive....and illegal in terms of motor insurance.

[Alex MacLeod]

It seems to me that the main shareholder of the club is the one behind the issue in the first place. Probably still trying to outdo Savage. Maybe he is prepared to be the insurance.

[CaleyD]

Would certainly give him a good excuse to come in looking for a controlling shareholding.

[Alex MacLeod]

Would certainly give him a good excuse to come in looking for a controlling shareholding.

Doesn't he already have that? Hence we are now a private limited company.

[CaleyD]

He actually only has 250 shares....it's Tullochs who currently have a majority shareholding (they would need 50% +1 share to have a controlling shareholding).

[alimci]

No I found him in Romania his contract at Mainz had expired and he was back in Romania

Why Romania, because thats the only place that I had contacts if they had asked me to find a player in Poland for example I would not have known where to start. I lived in Romania for the for best part of 10 years was doing Recruitment business for Alan Savage out there so thats why he asked me.

Getting someone that played domestically wasn't an option it needed to be somebody with at least international experience to have any chance at getting a work permit.

Thanks Stevico. None of my business really, I was just always curious why Romania when we had barely looked in England at the time.