iaing Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 read in the paper today that Arbroath are to have the SFA chase us for their money for the re-sale of Webster. Don't they get it. We didn't sell webster on so what money are they after. If anything they should be chasing the player. Fifa has really come up trumps this time, many of these small clubs will lose any future chance of money from re sale of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 ?2.50 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Sod em we got sweet FA so those jokers get the same I hope Webster has an injury plagued career he is a grade A c0ck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Bit disappointing that Arbroath wanna take this to the SFA, but its just another sign of the consequences Webster's actions are having towards the 2 clubs who made him. Ungrateful ****my **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Why on earth would Arbroath be asking the SFA to 'chase up' their cash when the decision was literally made a week ago? Pfft. I don't know about these things but maybe these payments actually go through the SFA anyway? That would make sense. Therefore it's not really 'chasing' is it? More like 'raising an invoice'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 The SFA will no doubt decide that Hearts should pay Abroath ?250,000, because that is what they would have got if Hearts had sold Webster to Rankers/Wigan for the market rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iaing Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 The SFA will no doubt decide that Hearts should pay Abroath ?250,000, because that is what they would have got if Hearts had sold Webster to Rankers/Wigan for the market rate. it was in this mornings record, but agree that sfa will probably rule that we will have to pay them something, outrageously as we never got a penny in transfer fee for him, he only paid off his wages to retract contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 read in the paper today that Arbroath are to have the SFA chase us for their money for the re-sale of Webster. Don't they get it. We didn't sell webster on so what money are they after. If anything they should be chasing the player. Fifa has really come up trumps this time, many of these small clubs will lose any future chance of money from re sale of players. It's nowt to do with FIFA mate. Them and UEFA both are up in arms about this. It's the Court of Arbitration for Sport that's foooked it all up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy52 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 it was in this mornings record, but agree that sfa will probably rule that we will have to pay them something, outrageously as we never got a penny in transfer fee for him, he only paid off his wages to retract contract. With any luck Arbroath can sue him for breach of contract and keep him out of the game for a bit longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 hearts should do the decent thing and give them their percentage of the ?150,000 imo, however they're under no obligation to do so and i dont really blame them if they dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Meldrew Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Just wait - the GFA will determine that we owe Arbroath ?3.5m because we said Webster was worth ?5m!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 It's nowt to do with FIFA mate. Them and UEFA both are up in arms about this. It's the Court of Arbitration for Sport that's foooked it all up! That's not strictly true. The CAS simply applied the rules as set down by FIFA/UEFA. For UEFA to complain about this ruling is ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 That's not strictly true. The CAS simply applied the rules as set down by FIFA/UEFA. For UEFA to complain about this ruling is ludicrous. The CAS took the ruling to the extreme. The ruling was made as an appeasement at the time the Eurocrats were talking about applying the freedom of contract and right to work act to football. Something that would surely ruin the game. As such, I don't think FIFA/UEFA had any other option. I think CAS should've looked at the broader implications of the ruling at what could be the beginning of the end of the beautifull game as we know it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 hearts should do the decent thing and give them their percentage of the ?150,000 imo, however they're under no obligation to do so and i dont really blame them if they dont Agreed. A goodwill gesture if you like. Although no doubt some on here would jump on it and accuse Vlad of trying to use Arbroath and buy some good PR for ?25K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I doubt Arbroath will be willing to pay a % of the court costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I doubt Arbroath will be willing to pay a % of the court costs. Decent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 hearts should do the decent thing and give them their percentage of the ?150,000 imo, however they're under no obligation to do so and i dont really blame them if they dont The problem is of course that after deducting legal fees etc etc there will probably be very little, if any change out of ?150K Hearts lose Arbroath lose Lawyers win Judas wins Rangers/Wigan, win short term but will most likely lose in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I dont see why they dont go after the cheat . If he had to pay Hearts then he has to pay Arbroath They might have to take it through the small claims court As Hearts got nothing for him from his new club then I cant see them getting anything from us There might be able to claim from the cheat himself as he signed the contract, Oh but wait a minute was that not broken so therefore not worth the paper it was written on . But knowning the GFA and their agenda We will have to pay at some point possibly a fine and that would be handed to Arbroath== webster estimated worth 25million now hes a hun :5643::5643: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 The CAS took the ruling to the extreme. The ruling was made as an appeasement at the time the Eurocrats were talking about applying the freedom of contract and right to work act to football. Something that would surely ruin the game. As such, I don't think FIFA/UEFA had any other option. I think CAS should've looked at the broader implications of the ruling at what could be the beginning of the end of the beautifull game as we know it! CAS are there to apply the rules The rules have one legal definition and thats what CAS applied, hearts should have seen it coming Fifa ballsed up here no one else As for arbroath their not entitled to a penny, we agreed a % of a future transfer fee. We never got a penny for a transfer fee, we got a sum for breach of contract Give the money already lost by hearts here I wouldnt be paying them anything, even as a gesture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 CAS are there to apply the rules The rules have one legal definition and thats what CAS applied, hearts should have seen it coming Fifa ballsed up here no one else As for arbroath their not entitled to a penny, we agreed a % of a future transfer fee. We never got a penny for a transfer fee, we got a sum for breach of contract Give the money already lost by hearts here I wouldnt be paying them anything, even as a gesture What? When nobody else did? Don't talk ***** mate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 What? When nobody else did? Don't talk ***** mate! I did and im sure anyone who knows how the CAS work did too I bet our lawyers and the club suspected too CAS are not there to apply fairness, they are there to apply the rules A read of this ridicolous rule gives one figure- the remainder of the contract therefore thats all CAS were ever awarding Fifa introduced this stupid rule and they are the ones to blame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 The problem is of course that after deducting legal fees etc etc there will probably be very little, if any change out of ?150K Hearts lose Arbroath lose Lawyers win Judas wins Rangers/Wigan, win short term but will most likely lose in the future good point. would still be nice, for hearts to do it as a goodwill gesture but as you say theres really no benefit to hearts in doing so. lets send them Miko instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockside jambo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 but we didn't sell him, he effectively bought out his contract, therefore we did not receive a sell on transfer fee as such, so if arbroath have a contract for a %fee of a future sale then they are entitled to nothing, has the club actually received the ?150,000 from judas/wigan/rangers yet, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 CAS are there to apply the rules The rules have one legal definition and thats what CAS applied, hearts should have seen it coming Fifa ballsed up here no one else As for arbroath their not entitled to a penny, we agreed a % of a future transfer fee. We never got a penny for a transfer fee, we got a sum for breach of contract Give the money already lost by hearts here I wouldnt be paying them anything, even as a gesture Have you actually read the case notes Prancer? I can only assume you haven't because the rules definitely don't have just one legal definition, they have several available to them. CAS chose to interpret the case in the manner that they did by picking and choosing which laws they would apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Surprise! Surprise! Another negative about Hearts in the media this week! I think that now makes 6 "stories" they've dredged up to fill their neanderthal news! I'm really beginning to think that there may be something seriously 'big' going to happen and it's enough to get them worried again!!! Or is it just that the recent recognition of the rough deal we're getting from referees, compounded by "oops, hand-ball-a-daisy" McCurry, has rattled the cages of Murray's minions and woken the Trolls up from their stupor - and they want to make sure it gets buried like all the other pathetic performances of match officials down through the years!!! GFA! Guilty as Sin!!! ................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Personally I think we should give Arbroath the entire ?150k! It is soiled money and would appear an excellent gesture that the media would have to report. And it's not as if ?150k will be too badly missed by the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Personally I think we should give Arbroath the entire ?150k! It is soiled money and would appear an excellent gesture that the media would have to report. And it's not as if ?150k will be too badly missed by the club. it certainly wouldnae make much difference if we lumped it on top of the debt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 We should give arbroath their percentage of the sell-on fee minus our legal costs. I would expect that they would then owe us money. What a bunch of muppets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishop1874 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 before wages we actually lost 10k on webster, not sure if there wre any add ons for international caps to make it worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'M IBRAHIM TALL Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I think we should drag it out for a couple of years and then give them some ridicoulasly sill fee like 74p. Whats good for the goose must be good for the gander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I would actually agree that the best we could do in the circumstances is try and work this to our advantage. I think I worked out, based on the date of settlement and the period of increase at 5%, we will actually receive around ?162,000 from Wigan/Rangers. Costs are expected to be around ?100,000, approximately, leaving around ?60K. In the circumstances the best Hearts could do is possibly give Arbroath a lump sum, say ?50K, and put the rest into something connected to Hearts, the Disabled Hearts club, Tynie Tigers, something like that maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokHearts Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Quite simply we did not sell him so there is no % of sell on due to Arbroath. They must be gutted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunxjambo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 CAS are there to apply the rules The rules have one legal definition and thats what CAS applied, hearts should have seen it coming Fifa ballsed up here no one else As for arbroath their not entitled to a penny, we agreed a % of a future transfer fee. We never got a penny for a transfer fee, we got a sum for breach of contract Give the money already lost by hearts here I wouldnt be paying them anything, even as a gesture they are not rules, they are laws. in a strict legal sense there is a difference. as for hearts seeing it comin, behave yourself. when u have the necessary legal skills to interprate laws, then maybe u might have an opinion worth reading. the operative word here is interpretaion of the laws; CAS did that & there have been threads on this ad nauseum. when lawyers are involved then opinions on law digress enormously. as for arbroath, they may be pushing it but any payment should be comensurate with the CAS ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 they are not rules, they are laws.in a strict legal sense there is a difference. as for hearts seeing it comin, behave yourself. when u have the necessary legal skills to interprate laws, then maybe u might have an opinion worth reading. the operative word here is interpretaion of the laws; CAS did that & there have been threads on this ad nauseum. when lawyers are involved then opinions on law digress enormously. as for arbroath, they may be pushing it but any payment should be comensurate with the CAS ruling. Read the "law" It clearly states the compensation will be the final year of the contract:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Paying a % to Arbroath would amount to accept the CAS decision and I?m not sure Hearts are ready to do that just yet. I have sympathy for Arbroath as they must have thought they?d get a significant fee when Webster moved on again, but they got slapped down with Hearts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Paying a % to Arbroath would amount to accept the CAS decision and I?m not sure Hearts are ready to do that just yet. I have sympathy for Arbroath as they must have thought they?d get a significant fee when Webster moved on again, but they got slapped down with Hearts... It doesnt matter if we accept it, theres not really a lot else we can do We need to move on and accept it, I wouldnt give arbroath a cent though as it can only help highlight our point of how bad this decision is for football as a whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dboy Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Perhaps morally Rangers should be paying some compensation to Arbroath! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Read the "law"It clearly states the compensation will be the final year of the contract:mad: http://www.tas-cas.org/en/pdf/Award%201298%201299%201300.pdf You're wrong. Read it and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KisLas Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Hope Webster never plays again what a fek up that ****** did to our club and the team that started his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 The whole thing is disgusting and I just want it over. I don't think Webster realises what this means for football. Just look at him FFS. He's like something out of the Goonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 The whole thing is disgusting and I just want it over. I don't think Webster realises what this means for football. Just look at him FFS. He's like something out of the Goonies. What a frightening photo. One to scare the kids in years to come. That photo really sums it all up- a ned bampot fandan whose been blessed with an ability he doesnt deserve, who supports a team he probably watched twice live as a kid and who's been so misled its untrue---> a picture really does say more than a thousand words.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 The whole thing is disgusting and I just want it over. I don't think Webster realises what this means for football. Just look at him FFS. He's like something out of the Goonies. P.S. Thats some neck.... obv the key to makin it as a modern centre half Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 What a frightening photo. One to scare the kids in years to come.That photo really sums it all up- a ned bampot fandan whose been blessed with an ability he doesnt deserve, who supports a team he probably watched twice live as a kid and who's been so misled its untrue---> a picture really does say more than a thousand words.... True. I though his mullet style hairdo at Hearts was odd but this is just unacceptable. Does anyone remember the game him and Gordon had a square go? Maybe Killie? I wish Gordon had knocked the Judas out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 True. I though his mullet style hairdo at Hearts was odd but this is just unacceptable. Does anyone remember the game him and Gordon had a square go? Maybe Killie? I wish Gordon had knocked the Judas out. He's always had that glaikit(sp) look about him whilst trying to maintain the whole 'im a pretty footballer' look- hes just never quite pulled that off. Must be hard bein as ugly as that- ill bet the story sellin page 3 slags wont even give him a look in. jeez they'd rather waste there time on raith rovers' marco pelosi.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KisLas Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Is Webster the new Bosman? I mean this thing could have a huge inpact if not handeld by fifa properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Is Webster the new Bosman? I mean this thing could have a huge inpact if not handeld by fifa properly. It could mate but i think FIFA will find a way of closing the current open 'loophole.' Maybe not but the big clubs are worried by this and that usually means FIFA will try to act at all costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Is Webster the new Bosman? I mean this thing could have a huge inpact if not handeld by fifa properly. I don't think the impact will be as big as the Bosman but you may well see the likes of Lampard and Ronaldinho try using this joke of a rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 If they are due money, we should give it to them. We have been shafted over this, but Hearts should act with dignity if they owe them money. I am interested to see what will happen when its two big big clubs having this scenario with a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 If they are due money, we should give it to them. We have been shafted over this, but Hearts should act with dignity if they owe them money. I am interested to see what will happen when its two big big clubs having this scenario with a player. Agreed but i can only see the sole possibility of the arrangement with Arbroath being that they get a % of the next transfer fee.... we have received **** all as a transfer fee so as bad as that is for Arbroath i guess thats just the way it goes..... Webster is to blame not us. Im sure Hearts would have loved to give Arbroath ?250k of a ?2.5M transfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Agreed but i can only see the sole possibility of the arrangement with Arbroath being that they get a % of the next transfer fee.... we have received **** all as a transfer fee so as bad as that is for Arbroath i guess thats just the way it goes..... Webster is to blame not us. Im sure Hearts would have loved to give Arbroath ?250k of a ?2.5M transfer If Hearts had a % mate, no matter how high or low a fee we got - we owe them the %. Its a couple of hundred thousand of K? Pay it and move on. Tough one, but Hearts misfortune is not Arbroath's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.