Jump to content

RD saying that Fulham to probably take disciplinary action against our Chris Martin


Curtains

Recommended Posts

The devil in me keeps thinking Fulham you pay us the rest of the loan fee as agreed and Chris it is a shame you are injured for the rest of the season at Fulham, see you next season when we might be ready to give it a real go ????

worth remembering that all this fuss happens because of these stupid hyped up transfer windows where everyone loses focus.???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm not convinced Fulham feel they are in a strong position either - what is the best they can threaten? make him rot in the reserves until the end of the season? That helps no one..will be interesting to see how the money makers sort this out as that is all it is about right now..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Beagle said:

Well they have not paid the full season loan fee yet so if he comes back whatever they have paid will cover a half season loan assuming it is half of the full fee.Wages paid would also be what was owed for the full season.

That's not how contract law works. 

If their contract stipulates that they are entitled to the services of Chris Martin for the full season in return for £3m, then either get to keep Chris Martin for the season or they are entitled to pay a fee of £0. 

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Yani P said:

I'm not convinced Fulham feel they are in a strong position either - what is the best they can threaten? make him rot in the reserves until the end of the season? That helps no one..will be interesting to see how the money makers sort this out as that is all it is about right now..

Well, we can only speculate as to what the worst Chris Martin could do if he is actually left to rot in the reserves having been badly advised *wink wink* and then starts looking for people to blame. I'm sure you can read between the lines. This is why I think Derby need to tread carefully and approach Fulham with a formal offer if they are serious about wanting him back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would agree with you but apparently loan agreements in football are totally different.Was listening to Simon Jordan ex Palace chairman on the subject of loans and he pointed out they are structured totally different to your normal contract.

The fact that a loan can reviewed half way through and cancelled should according to him mean only half  the fee is payable and there is no return of monies already paid.

Obviously in this case the fact a stipulation that all three parties must agree to terminate complicates the matter.

Also the fact that Fulham are not allowed to discipline the player because he is owned by Derby and can only request Derby take action makes things even more complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NorwichLad said:

That's not how contract law works. 

If their contract stipulates that they are entitled to the services of Chris Martin for the full season in return for £3m, then either get to keep Chris Martin for the season or they are entitled to pay a fee of £0. 

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Fulham have to pay us £2-3m over the course of the season, i.e. £1m every 3 months. So far they have paid the first payment and  have another due.

Whenever you loan or rent something you have to pay for the period that have possession of said item (or player). Basic contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Beagle said:

Would agree with you but apparently loan agreements in football are totally different.Was listening to Simon Jordan ex Palace chairman on the subject of loans and he pointed out they are structured totally different to your normal contract.

The fact that a loan can reviewed half way through and cancelled should according to him mean only half  the fee is payable and there is no return of monies already paid.

Obviously in this case the fact a stipulation that all three parties must agree to terminate complicates the matter.

Also the fact that Fulham are not allowed to discipline the player because he is owned by Derby and can only request Derby take action makes things even more complex.

Interesting, will see how it all plays out then.

The above may be true for domestic loans, but it isn't for international loans. They are structured like 1 year long permanent deals. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Duracell said:

I think the simplest course of action is to ask the other 22 clubs in the division if they want to start the season all over again, and reverse every deal from last summer.

Why are they all unhappy at their clubs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Duracell said:

I think the simplest course of action is to ask the other 22 clubs in the division if they want to start the season all over again, and reverse every deal from last summer.

I wholeheartedly agree, reversing the release of Conor sammon and bringing him back would put an end to a striker issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fulham boss is playing hardball alright  

 

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2017/01/02/fulham-boss-makes-joke-about-steve-mcclaren-as-chris-martin-situ/

If McClaren takes notice of him I doubt Martin will be able to come back as we will have signed a replacement by the end of the season. 

Thats why Martin needs to go on strike or he maybe he will have his career ruined by Fulham. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorwichLad said:

That's not how contract law works. 

If their contract stipulates that they are entitled to the services of Chris Martin for the full season in return for £3m, then either get to keep Chris Martin for the season or they are entitled to pay a fee of £0. 

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Thats not how contract law works either. It depends on the expressed terms of the contract which none of us know the ins and out of 

in the other post you suggest giving them their money back and vydra but why? Bet there needs to be a clause & a mechanism in the contract for that to happen

martins allegedly injured, if Fulham fine him then that will be against employment laws. Additionally is there terms in martins personal agreement with fulham regarding being able to fine him & if there is then under what circumstances are they able to fine him? 

If they do fine him they might potentially be in breach of contract and open to a claim from martin

it might be a term of the loan agreement that if the player has an injury they return & receive treatment from the parent club. I imagine this is the case. If fulham play an injured martin or administer treatment om martin they are leaving themselves open to a negligence claim from both derby & martin

whilst on the face of it we initiay look to be in the wrong but if we let the situationplay out there maybe breaches of contract on both sides. For the sake of a legal argument and the reputation of both clubs they might just agree to call it a draw and send him back

plus i wouldnt give fulham the full £3m plus wages. They havent lost £3m or wages. He was playing for them whilst they were paying his wages. They can only claim for what they have lost which is a percentage of the £3m if the £3m is for a season long loan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that this will be resolved over the next few days. Fulham are simply putting their negotiating position out in public to try to extricate the maximum amount of money from us possible, but of course the reality of football is that a deal will be done soon and Martin will return to the fold. They cannot afford otherwise.

They already despise us because they think we denied them promotion all those years ago when the Derby fans lined the Baseball Ground pitch at the end of the season and one of the crowd upended the Fulham winger. I was there watching from Normanton upper! Sadly, they'll now hate us ever more, when I actually think they're not a bad lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G-Ram said:

in the other post you suggest giving them their money back and vydra but why?

 

How is that even the slightest bit close to being an accurate representation of what I actually suggested?!

 

2 hours ago, NorwichLad said:

Offering them back their £3m, or £2m plus Vydra for the rest of the season, sounds like a fair offer to me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G-Ram said:

They can only claim for what they have lost which is a percentage of the £3m 

Right, so if halfway through your 14 night package holiday to Egypt you and your family were thrown out of your hotel halfway through and told your flight had been brought forward a week at very short notice, you'll be fine when Thomas Cook keep half of the £2000 you paid and told you only lost £1000 because you still got a week in the sun. Don't think you would mate, you'd be writing to the ombudsmen and going to small claims. And you'd probably win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NorwichLad said:

That isn't anywhere near to being an accurate representation of what I actually suggested, disingenuous of you to claim as such. 

I'd have engaged more with the rest of your post if you'd just refrain from using more creative license than a red top journalist. 

You said give them £3m or £2m and loan them vydra. Why would we do that? There is probably nothing in the contract saying we have to give them all their money back. Loaning them an alternative player might be a good will gesture but its irrelivent to this contract. The basic offer and acceptance is we'll pay £3m to loan martin for the season. There will then be various termd of that contract. Both parties cant just loan vydra because there is still a breach of the original deal

Under contract law they're entitled to claim for a loss. What is their loss which they can prove in financial terms? If the £3m loan fee is for the season then we'd only owe them a percentage of that. However if the £3m is in instalments Fulham need to still pay or they'd then be in breach so they need to in effect pay is the loan fee inline with the contract to then claim it back

wages was brought up, but they havent lost wages because martin was playing for them. They cant argue they have lost goals and league position by martin going back its too speculative

All im saying is everyone is arguing that we pay fulham. Why do that? Why not play it out, hopefully they slip up and we have a counter claim which both parties then agree to send him back and we pay back a reduced fee or none at all. 

Its all speculation because nobody knows the exact terms of the agreement but Fulham are also playing a dangerous game if they find him, not pay loan instalments, make him train with the kids or breach their end of the agreement in anyway 

im not personally picking on you when quoting you just picking out points and playing out scenarios so there is no need to accuse me of being a red top journalist. You stated to someone else 'thats not how contract law works' but what you suggested also isn't how contract law works.  

Its not a personal dig, im interested to see how we play things out but its not as simple as give them money back or loan them a player

As it stands derby haven't done anything and martins allegedly injured. Its now up to Fulham. They can Either send martin back (if a contract term is send an injured player back) or believe there is some under hand tactics by derby, refuse to pay an instalment to derby or fine martin. If they do that they will potentially be in breach contract and derby's solicitors will probably bring martin back for nothing & potentially have a legitimate claim for the remaining £3m. As the original agreement is £3m. Alternatively Fulham can pay the installment as agreed & have a player on their books thats 'injured' & they can treat him fairly whilst he is there. None of this training with reserves nonsence or potentially face a claim from martin. 

If we play this right we could end up with Martin back and nothing owed to fulham. We might want to keep relationships sweet with them for future deals but as it stands i dont see what derby have done wrong

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NorwichLad said:

Right, so if halfway through your 14 night package holiday to Egypt you and your family were thrown out of your hotel halfway through and told your flight had been brought forward a week at very short notice, you'll be fine when Thomas Cook keep half of the £2000 you paid and told you only lost £1000 because you still got a week in the sun. Don't think you would mate, you'd be writing to the ombudsmen and going to small claims. And you'd probably win. 

Good one that would come under the sales of goods act (its been replaced with the consumer rights act) probably not contract law. 

Although we'd also need to know what are the terms & conditions of the booking were? We agreed to them terms on book. 

Why have i been thrown out of the hotel? Why has the flight been brought forward? Act of god? Terrorism? In that case id probably get it all back as the travel agent would have insurance against that

i dont fully understand your example? Please can you expand on specifics 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, G-Ram said:

You said give them £3m or £2m and loan them vydra. Why would we do that?

Because Vydra is crap and a flop and nobody else would give you £1m to loan him for the rest of the season, so you may as well try and save yourself some money by palming him off on Fulham in lieu of whatever money you need to settle? 

You seem to have comprehension issues here. As far as we are aware Fulham have no obligation to return Chris Martin to Derby, so I'm clearly working on the assumption that in order to get him back playing at Derby this season you'll need to work out something with Fulham.

I'll take Jokanovic's word for it: "There don't exist any options for Derby to recall him".

You appear to be under the impression that you can just recall Chris Martin and calculate a pro-rata invoice to send to Fulham based on days served. 

That clearly isn't the case, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, he'd have been playing for you today at Carrow Road wouldn't he :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...