ICT to appeal Niculae decision

[Renegade]

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

[CaleyD]

Article is no longer on the BBC Website for some reason....but I had saved information from it and it read as follows.

Romania striker Marius Niculae has been given a week's leave from pre-season training after Inverness rejected a transfer bid from Kaiserslautern.

But Caley Thistle insist that the two events are not connected.

"He was at the European Championships and needs a few days to sort out some business back home," director of football Graeme Bennett told BBC Sport.

"But we expect him back after the squad return from Denmark next Sunday. We have had bids, but none were accepted."

Bennett confirmed that Kaiserslautern, now in the second division of the Bundesliga, had made an offer for the 27-year-old on Sunday.

"It was a realistic offer, but it still did not meet our valuation of the player," he said.

"We also had offers from Turkish club Kayserispor and PAOK of Greece, but none have been acceptable."

Caley Thistle have a verbal agreement with Niculae that he can leave if a major club makes an acceptable offer.

[Scotty]

and then of course you get stories like this that muddy the water: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12874_3864254,00.html

could some of this be instigation?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3810129,00.html

or maybe not

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3693946,00.html

or maybe this was the first mistake?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t..._ct/7364125.stm

or

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t..._ct/7354271.stm

[The Long Man]

Ok, so none of us really know what occurred, and we all have half-remembered stories and media speculation. ICT must have some legal advice which encourages them, so all we can do is wait and see what happens. I hope they win, though.

[+DoofersDad]

Caley Thistle have a verbal agreement with Niculae that he can leave if a major club makes an acceptable offer.

[/

To me that reads as though Niculae wanted to go and the club were not standing in his way. The fact that clubs from various parts of Europe had submitted bids suggests that someone other than ICT had put word around that he was available.

It will cost the club to appeal the FIFA ruling but I feel it is a bit too easy just to say the appeal is being lodged to save face. If that was the motive then to lose the appeal would result in more loss of face than ever. If the club do not feel they have a strong case then they would save face and earn a bit of respect by saying "OK, we got it wrong, we have to accept it, cut our losses and move on".

The club will be taking the decision on legal advice. It would be interesting to know whether the club has taken legal advice on this independent of the legal advisers who drew up Niculae's contract in the first place. It would also be interesting to know the basis on which the legal advisers are paid. It would be very wrong if lawyers were being paid to persue a hopeless case resulting from a poorly drawn up contract if they themselves drew up that contract and recommended the appeal.

For now, I feel there is so much detail we do not and cannot know that we have to accept the club's position on this and support this decision. However, should the club lose the appeal, we can expect a full explanation from the club on the affair.

[stevico1]

It may be that he thinks a little club can be bullied by his lawyers. ,

I think this is probably a good time to point out that Marius did not use lawyers for the FIFA ruling...he felt that as he had all the paperwork in order and things were so clear cut he did not need them so represented himself, he is using lawyers for the appeal and for the case in Inverness in March. I should also point out that the club used lawyers for the Fifa ruling so who is bullying who????

[The Long Man]

I should also point out that the club used lawyers for the Fifa ruling so who is bullying who????

Eh, I don't know. Like everybody else here, I was speculating as to whether the lawyers were encouraging one or other. It is all rather mystifying. :025: Why can't they just settle on a compromise out of court?

[stevico1]

Longman , I agree that would have been the sensible thing

[Jay_7]

Why can't they just settle on a compromise out of court?

The club had long enough to attempt to. As has been mentioned, Marius now has a ruling in his favour saying he is owed a large sum of money. If it was you, would you be willing to take less than you were owed to settle out of court?

[Scotty]

Caley Thistle have a verbal agreement with Niculae that he can leave if a major club makes an acceptable offer.

To me that reads as though Niculae wanted to go and the club were not standing in his way. The fact that clubs from various parts of Europe had submitted bids suggests that someone other than ICT had put word around that he was available.

Niculae was at the Euros and got a fair bit of attention ...... so there are two possible scenarios in my mind.

1. Clubs picked up on the fact that this player, at the Euros, was playing for a small club who had gone to press weeks before the competition to say they were not sure they could pay him for another year effectively inviting bids for him ...... astute clubs would know that in this scenario they could pick up an international striker for what to bigger clubs was 'pennies'.

2. Someone put the word out at the Euros. Could it be the player? or could it have been someone from ICT attending the event?

At the end of the day I doubt the full story will ever come out or will ever sound the same from both sides ofthe argument, but if it drags on for a few months more it will have been hanging round us for two seasons and that is just not doing anyone any good.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Not being lawyers , and not knowing the basis on which the club's lawyers are advising them to go forward, we can only speculate. Which is too irrational and exhausting a process for us to waste time on any more.

This appears to be specially true when one takes into account that the club have only recently had the advantage of reviewing the FIFA ruling. We, as onlookers, in many cases have been willing to go out on a limb with our views without the benefit of having evn studied that document. Which reminds me of the adage...."Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread."

On this Forum this case has just about been done to death so I, for one, am content to let the club proceed and see if, in fact, they have a case.

I doubt very much that saving "face" is the prime, or any, motivator because saving face for any offciial at the club will not help them avoid insolvency or increasing financial troubles and, in any event, the main players in this dramatic stage play DO appear to be busy people who probably could se this case far enough and would much rather spend their time in a more productive manner.

This news is interesting and we may yet be surprised at the outcome of this case.

[Guest]

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.

Three questions Don.

1 Do you believe all you read in newspapers from directors of football clubs? I remember reading about Maurice Johnston re-signing for Celtic once.

2 Even if members of the board were talking about the club's inability to afford the wages of a player it in no way equates to that player being told to go and find a new club, did Marius approach Bucharest with a view to a move there or did Bucharest approach ICT with a view to buying the player?

3 Might it just be possible that ICT were happy with the deal because they believed that they would not owe Marius any payment due to the circumstances surrounding the transfer?

I suppose anything is possible though, Paul McCartney died in 1966 you know?

[Guest]

and then of course you get stories like this that muddy the water: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12874_3864254,00.html

could some of this be instigation?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3810129,00.html

or maybe not

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3693946,00.html

or maybe this was the first mistake?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t..._ct/7364125.stm

or

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t..._ct/7354271.stm

Several clubs were interested but I told Scottish bosses that I only wanted to play for Dinamo

Sounds very much like he was told he had to move on so he instigated the board of directors at ICT to contact Bucharest in order to facilitate the move knowing that ICT would have to do so in order to remove him from the wage bill after it had been widely publicised that the club could no longer afford him. ICT could easily have sold him on to another club should he have agreed but he refused to accept any other option than his chosen one and in my mind instigating the transaction which was to follow.

[stevico1]

and then of course you get stories like this that muddy the water: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12874_3864254,00.html

could some of this be instigation?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3810129,00.html

or maybe not

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3693946,00.html

or maybe this was the first mistake?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t..._ct/7364125.stm

or

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t..._ct/7354271.stm

Several clubs were interested but I told Scottish bosses that I only wanted to play for Dinamo

Sounds very much like he was told he had to move on so he instigated the board of directors at ICT to contact Bucharest in order to facilitate the move knowing that ICT would have to do so in order to remove him from the wage bill after it had been widely publicised that the club could no longer afford him. ICT could easily have sold him on to another club should he have agreed but he refused to accept any other option than his chosen one and in my mind instigating the transaction which was to follow.

In one post above this you were telling Don not to believe what he reads in the papers, yet in the very next one you are disputing a FIFA desision by what you have read in the papers....consistent stuff birdog

[Scotty]

I think you may be close to what the two arguments will be Birdog and the interpretation of them is the nub of the matter .... this is how I think it will pan out in terms of standpoints.

MN - He felt pushed out based on the earlier statements of directors and the major shareholder, so felt he had no other option than to move (in his eyes on ICT's instigation and with their blessing). He looked at Dinamo, a club in his homeland and where he had played before as the ideal solution as they would pay ICT a decent fee (thus earning him a decent cut) and he would be in his homeland rather than some far flung outpost of Europe (or even MLS !!!).

ICT - Basically did want to get him off the wage bill but will argue that he chose and actively promoted Dinamo over other clubs that may have paid more and therefore (in ICT's eyes) instigated the transfer.

I still think Niculae will win this, especially as he has already been ruled by FIFA to be in the right, and fear we are throwing money at it that we can ill afford but thinking about it the way I have listed above, I can also see why ICT think they may have a case even if the 'other club' defence would effectively be nullified by the fact that whichever bid ICT accepted, the player could veto by not agreeing personal terms ........

[stevico1]

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.

Don you are right...the one for 100k of the signing fee was not dependant on who did or didn't ask for a transfer and will be heard in court in the beginning of March. This is just a case of the club saying Marius was not due the cash, a case for unlawful deduction of wages will also be heard here.

Edited February 23, 2010 by stevico1

[Yngwie]

Is Marius being given time off training to attend?

[stevico1]

Yes Marius will be attending the hearing

[Guest]

In one post above this you were telling Don not to believe what he reads in the papers, yet in the very next one you are disputing a FIFA desision by what you have read in the papers....consistent stuff birdog

I never once said "not" to believe the papers, I did hint that he should be more cautious as to what he believes from the papers and that is why I used the term "sounds very much like" I was merely offering an alternative view to the conspiracy stuff which seems to be taking a firm grip of this forum these days.

[stevico1]

Ok Birddog sorry about that

[Yngwie]

Yes Marius will be attending the hearing

Does he have permission or is he throwing a sicky?!

If I were Dinamo's manager I would rather have him in training than let him disappear for a couple days simply to increase his personal wealth.

[stevico1]

Yes Marius will be attending the hearing

Does he have permission or is he throwing a sicky?!

If I were Dinamo's manager I would rather have him in training than let him disappear for a couple days simply to increase his personal wealth.

No he wont be throwing a sicky, wouldn't really be advisable considering some of the Romanian media will be coming across to cover the hearing.

As you are not Dinamo's manager I suppose it doesn't really matter what you would rather. :024:

Edited February 23, 2010 by stevico1

[Yngwie]

As you are not Dinamo's manager I suppose it doesn't really matter what you would rather. :024:

My lack of Romanian was a bit of a problem at the interview. Some of my gesticulating to explain tactics seemed to mean something else to them.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Said it all before - the club have the legal and financial backing of the SPL on this one - but NOT the tother - they may well have done their sums in regard to the money kept under the mattress and it wont come out in the dirty wash.

And as fer their statement - give me a feckin break - read it and weep. :024: :(

[Council Juice]

I still think Niculae will win this, especially as he has already been ruled by FIFA to be in the right, and fear we are throwing money at it that we can ill afford but thinking about it the way I have listed above, I can also see why ICT think they may have a case even if the 'other club' defence would effectively be nullified by the fact that whichever bid ICT accepted, the player could veto by not agreeing personal terms ........

Fifa and the CAS are very different. How often do you hear of appeals to the CAS overturning the Fifa ruling. It seems to happen alot.

I dont really have a clue, like anyone else, who is right. Just that the club obviously think they have a valid right of appeal otherwise wouldn't be following it up and paying for it.

Marius went to Bucharest. Thats fact. What personal business he had to sort out is anyones guess. Sort out a deal with Dinamo 1st and get them to bid when he had got his contract? perhaps? maybe he just went on Honeymoon. Though I thought most went away from home to do that. Say Rome, NY etc?

Perhaps we approached Dinamo or they approached us and the fact he was in Bucharest made it seem the deal was all sorted before he had a contract agreed. I dont know. Nobody (bar perhaps Stevieco) seems to really.