Nicky Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 I would think next time the players salaries aren't paid on time Williamson should be well within his rights to walk out on breach of contract. It can't be right that players can be treated like this. Correct. If he doesnt get paid on time this month, he can serve 14 days notice to leave the club, thus becoming a free agent, and free to sign for us. Wouldnt surprise me if thats what Ashley/Hughton are now thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Excuse my ignornace, but what exactly has gone on here? Surely if everything is agreed they can't just stop the deal? its not signed until its signed. and until it is, you can do anything you like tbh. Not that I'm a legal expert or anything but transfers go like this: We fax offer to Portsmouth and they fax back saying they accept (I understand that's how transfers are done?). Wouldn't that be a binding contract for the sale of the players registration? Couldn't we seek damages for breach of contract for them not fulfilling their end? Considering Tesco can offer a product at a certain price, allow you to order it, take your money from your account, tell you the order is processed and give you an estimate delivery date, then a day later tell you they priced it wrong and you won't be getting your goods and its tough shit, then i'd say the answer to your question is no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1878 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Excuse my ignornace, but what exactly has gone on here? Surely if everything is agreed they can't just stop the deal? They can stop it. It's not right though imo. Happened to us with Naughton in the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geordienorway Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 No matter how much they owe Watford how is it going to be to their advantage to keep the player? They can't play him and they owe that money wether they sell him or not so surely getting £1m for him is better then keeping him and getting nothing. What am I missing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonMonty Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 No matter how much they owe Watford how is it going to be to their advantage to keep the player? They can't play him and they owe that money wether they sell him or not so surely getting £1m for him is better then keeping him and getting nothing. What am I missing? I haven't paid much attention to this but I agree with you, a debts a debt whichever way you look at it and their paying him when the can't play him. I'm happy to have someone educate me if I'm missing the obvious Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonMonty Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Apparently according to the Sunday rags (that says it all really) we are going for Taylor from Birmingham. Maybe Ashley reckons a team of Taylor's will confuse man marking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeffers09 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Apparently according to the Sunday rags (that says it all really) we are going for Taylor from Birmingham. Please no he's shite Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stozo Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 No matter how much they owe Watford how is it going to be to their advantage to keep the player? They can't play him and they owe that money wether they sell him or not so surely getting £1m for him is better then keeping him and getting nothing. What am I missing? Because they will have to pay a percentage of the transfer fee they recieve from us to Watford and that on top of the money they still owe Watford from the original transfer will come to more than they will recieve from us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Few different versions of this ive read now. Its either because theres a sell on clause in there, which results in them oweing more than we're offering leaving them out of pocket compared to now. Or they still owe watford 1.2 million for the player in installments & as they dont fully own him theyd have to pay that up the second he was no longer their player. Currently they dont have to so theyre avoiding that. They wont want to hold onto the player either way, theyre just trying to find a better deal & theyre in a very weak position because its just empty wages currently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonMonty Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Few different versions of this ive read now. Its either because theres a sell on clause in there, which results in them oweing more than we're offering leaving them out of pocket compared to now. Or they still owe watford 1.2 million for the player in installments & as they dont fully own him theyd have to pay that up the second he was no longer their player. Currently they dont have to so theyre avoiding that. They wont want to hold onto the player either way, theyre just trying to find a better deal & theyre in a very weak position because its just empty wages currently. Cheers that makes sense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 No matter how much they owe Watford how is it going to be to their advantage to keep the player? They can't play him and they owe that money wether they sell him or not so surely getting £1m for him is better then keeping him and getting nothing. What am I missing? Because they will have to pay a percentage of the transfer fee they recieve from us to Watford and that on top of the money they still owe Watford from the original transfer will come to more than they will recieve from us. That's the way I understood it. But its still going to put them in a much better financial situation to sell him and considering they can't play him I really don't see the point of their stance. I suppose they believe we'll up our offer, I doubt that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 When is the deadline for signing players if we want them to feature on Wednesday? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 When is the deadline for signing players if we want them to feature on Wednesday? Tuesday I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonMonty Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 When is the deadline for signing players if we want them to feature on Wednesday? Tuesday I think. I could be wrong but I remember the deadline being 24 hours before kick off time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 When is the deadline for signing players if we want them to feature on Wednesday? Tuesday I think. I could be wrong but I remember the deadline being 24 hours before kick off time well for saturday games its a 12pm friday dealine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonMonty Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 When is the deadline for signing players if we want them to feature on Wednesday? I did say I could be wrong Tuesday I think. I could be wrong but I remember the deadline being 24 hours before kick off time well for saturday games its a 12pm friday dealine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Loan till the end of the season seems the best option then, they don't have to pay a sell on fee, wont invoke any appearance fee (surely it can only apply to games for them) and it gets his wages off the books. Sort it out! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Vitalfootball (I know, I know) says the deal will be tied up in the next 48 hours and that he's still on Tyneside waiting for the green light from Portsmouth. They cite SSN as their source, though, otherwise I wouldn't have posted this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Williamson deal in next 48 hours Newcastle United are on the verge of completing a deal for out-of-favour Portsmouth defender Mike Williamson, reports Sky Sports News. SSN claims that a deal is imminent, and that the 26 year-old is still on Tyneside awaiting a greenlight from Pompey to put on the black and white stripes of United. Newcastle are understood to have bid £925,000 for the player, but are now ready to up the offer £1.2 million to land a man who is desperately needed by the Magpies to step in for the injured Steven Taylor. The deal will be wrapped up in the next 48 hours, it is also being touted. http://www.newcastle.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=185797 Written 1 hour ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Bring him and Martin Taylor in and things are looking good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Bring him and Martin Taylor in and things are looking good Still need a midfielder and a striker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Solely on the defensive front I should have specified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Solely on the defensive front I should have specified. i'd feel better with a spare left back, but we've all been saying that for years Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 That's Kadar's best position apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now