Jump to content

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

Curtains

By Curtains
in Derby County Forum

Recommended Posts

G-Ram

G-Ram

Posted
Posted
Just now, NorwichLad said:

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.

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:

Ive never said simply recall him and pay the difference

Im telling you what they would be entitled to under contract law

im also telling you that if we havent breached terms of the contract & fulham do breach the terms then we'd owe them nothing. If anything we'd have a claim for the remaining £3m

if the contract... the orignal agreement doesnt have a specific mechanism for recalling him & loaning them vydra (which i doubt it does) then we couldnt do this without being in breach of the orignal agreement. Also we have no obligation to do so. We cant just palm vydra off as it would be a separate agreement 

Also im not the one that has comprehension issues. You were the one telling others what they can and cant do under contract law but were wrong  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply
NorwichLad

NorwichLad

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, G-Ram said:

Im telling you what they would be entitled to under contract law

im also telling you that if we havent breached terms of the contract & fulham do breach the terms then we'd owe them nothing. If anything we'd have a claim for the remaining £3m

if the contract... the orignal agreement doesnt have a specific mechanism for recalling him & loaning them vydra (which i doubt it does) then we couldnt do this without being in breach of the orignal agreement. Also we have no obligation to do so. We cant just palm vydra off as it would be a separate agreement 

Also im not the one that has comprehension issues. You were the one telling others what they can and cant do under contract law but were wrong  

 

Right so you have 29 days left to get Chris Martin back in your squad for the remainder of the season.

What are you going to do? 

Are you going to attempt to resolve the issue with Fulham by sitting around the table and seeing what they propose as a severance package to end the loan agreement?

That's the only option available if the objective is to get Chris Martin back in your side this season.

You are clouding the issue somewhat by picking holes in my hypothetical offer. It makes sense to me to see whether they'd be interested in taking Vydra, because his football will be limited if Martin returns to you. It may not sound like a good idea to you, but you could just say "that's a rubbish idea", you didn't.

I'm sure you'll find a mirror to have an argument with, or you could go and kick a cat, I can't be bothered - I've got a hat-trick to rewatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Animal is a Ram

Animal is a Ram

Posted
Posted

Not sure I understand why SJ is so intent on keeping a player that doesn't want to be there - other than to punish Derby.

Even if he's just trying to make CM sweat, why bother keeping him around when it could have a very negative impact on the rest of the Fulham squad? Nose, face, spite?

If it was me in SJ's position, I don't think I'd want to have anything to do with CM - for that reason, I'm not sure I'd want him back here. 

That said, we don't, and won't know all the facts. Perhaps Martin's got a genuine reason, other than just being a mardy bum, and he's being poorly advised. Naïve, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G-Ram

G-Ram

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, NorwichLad said:

 

Right so you have 29 days left to get Chris Martin back in your squad for the remainder of the season.

What are you going to do? 

Are you going to attempt to resolve the issue with Fulham by sitting around the table and seeing what they propose as a severance package to end the loan agreement?

That's the only option available if the objective is to get Chris Martin back in your side this season.

You are clouding the issue somewhat by picking holes in my hypothetical offer. It makes sense to me to see whether they'd be interested in taking Vydra, because his football will be limited if Martin returns to you. It may not sound like a good idea to you, but you could just say "that's a rubbish idea", you didn't.

I'm sure you'll find a mirror to have an argument with, or you could go and kick a cat, I can't be bothered - I've got a hat-trick to rewatch.

It might be a good idea im not saying it isnt but its a seperate agreement & contract to any deal involving the original martin deal. Sometimes you cant say right give us vydra and some cash back if the orignal contract doesnt allow that. 

If Fulham have anything about them they would be sending Martin back to Derby's medical staff to assess his 'injury'. Both parties would probably also then get an independent medical report on the'injury' then bring that to the table fir negotiation

if martins 'injury' is real and the terms of the contract say an injured loan player must return to the parent club then why not gather evidance to exercise that term rather than shelling out more money to have our own player back?

All im saying is why offer them any deal when Fulham could slip up take disaplinary action against martin which they may not be allowed to do thus breaching contract which potentially could leave us holding all the cards

the sensible approach might be to sit around a table. But why bother if you can pick holes in the contract agreement and potentially get martin back for nothing or significantly reduce derby's liability to Fulham. We wont just be caughing up the loan fee back to fulham as it stands we've not done anything wrong their issue is with martin. 

Potentially they should be saying 'how about you have him back and we wave the rest of the £3m we owe you' to which we'd be in a position to say shove it keep him and pay us the full loan amount 

im sorry if Ive annoyed you, im bot intentionally on the wind up i just think its good to lock horns and play out the potential contractual scenarios and obligations  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigbadbob

bigbadbob

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

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.

I was there for that. Great occasion. Know the lad who did the upending

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kernow

Kernow

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SuperDerbySuperRams said:

Don't let SJ wind you up. He is having zero input in any discussions between the clubs. Trust me

I think if anybody is wound up in this situation, it's SJ. He seems to have taken this very personally indeed and I'm a bit surprised by how he's reacted. Fulham fans like it because they see him as defending their club and showing they can't be walked over. If Jokanovic was our manager I'm sure he would do exactly the same though. I wonder if the Fulham chairman agreed to his stance of still paying for Martin but not playing him, with the condition that the cost comes out of his wages, would he be so firm in saying Martin won't be leaving? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rammieib

rammieib

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, G-Ram said:

It might be a good idea im not saying it isnt but its a seperate agreement & contract to any deal involving the original martin deal. Sometimes you cant say right give us vydra and some cash back if the orignal contract doesnt allow that. 

If Fulham have anything about them they would be sending Martin back to Derby's medical staff to assess his 'injury'. Both parties would probably also then get an independent medical report on the'injury' then bring that to the table fir negotiation

if martins 'injury' is real and the terms of the contract say an injured loan player must return to the parent club then why not gather evidance to exercise that term rather than shelling out more money to have our own player back?

All im saying is why offer them any deal when Fulham could slip up take disaplinary action against martin which they may not be allowed to do thus breaching contract which potentially could leave us holding all the cards

the sensible approach might be to sit around a table. But why bother if you can pick holes in the contract agreement and potentially get martin back for nothing or significantly reduce derby's liability to Fulham. We wont just be caughing up the loan fee back to fulham as it stands we've not done anything wrong their issue is with martin. 

Potentially they should be saying 'how about you have him back and we wave the rest of the £3m we owe you' to which we'd be in a position to say shove it keep him and pay us the full loan amount 

im sorry if Ive annoyed you, im bot intentionally on the wind up i just think its good to lock horns and play out the potential contractual scenarios and obligations  

 I think you are missing one point in your assumptions - the loan payments are in segments. If it's tue there is another one due this month then I'd love to know the date this payment is due. If they don't pay it, Fulham are in breach of contract but does that actually allow for the loan deal to be cancelled and the player returns to us? I'm not 100% sure it does - I think Derby appeal to the FA/FIFA for the other club to go into embargo. However, this is likely to be a case first given its a loan!

Howev I think we have a straight negotiation here. How much can Fulham get back from Derby on what they have already paid whilst Derby will be thinking how can we get him back and not pay anything/keep money already received.

As you say and I currently agree, Derby have done nothing contractually wrong (Ethically and morally yes they have as they are bound to have spoken to Martin). Martin by claiming injury has done nothing wrong (Unless otherwise proven) but I'm sure he wants the clubs to resolve this before the attention goes back onto him. I'm sure he will be expected into training tomorrow morning.... If he is injured he would be expected into the Fulham physio's room.

Therefore it's in Derbys interests to resolve this quickly - thus pushing a bit more of the power back to Fulham. So now we get to see Rush earn his Significant salary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve How Hard?

Steve How Hard?

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, SuperDerbySuperRams said:

Don't let SJ wind you up. He is having zero input in any discussions between the clubs. Trust me

I reckon you're spot on there. Saliva Jokeandadick (think that's his name or something like that) is just lashing out because he knows that this situation has put massive dent in their promotion aspirations. The bigwigs at each club will ultimately decide how this plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G-Ram

G-Ram

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, rammieib said:

 I think you are missing one point in your assumptions - the loan payments are in segments. If it's tue there is another one due this month then I'd love to know the date this payment is due. If they don't pay it, Fulham are in breach of contract but does that actually allow for the loan deal to be cancelled and the player returns to us? I'm not 100% sure it does - I think Derby appeal to the FA/FIFA for the other club to go into embargo. However, this is likely to be a case first given its a loan!

Howev I think we have a straight negotiation here. How much can Fulham get back from Derby on what they have already paid whilst Derby will be thinking how can we get him back and not pay anything/keep money already received.

As you say and I currently agree, Derby have done nothing contractually wrong (Ethically and morally yes they have as they are bound to have spoken to Martin). Martin by claiming injury has done nothing wrong (Unless otherwise proven) but I'm sure he wants the clubs to resolve this before the attention goes back onto him. I'm sure he will be expected into training tomorrow morning.... If he is injured he would be expected into the Fulham physio's room.

Therefore it's in Derbys interests to resolve this quickly - thus pushing a bit more of the power back to Fulham. So now we get to see Rush earn his Significant salary!

Exactly ... i agree

To be honest I imagine Fulham want to send him back but don't want to turn around to Derby and say have him back because potentially they are leaving themselves open to us saying well you owe us the full £3m because your not honouring the orignial agreement

I agree if they miss a payment he wont just be sent back it will go through a process and potentially a lengthy one

Its about who holds the aces contractually  & who can form the best argument or counter argument. Potentially waiting it out a week to see what they do with Martin might be the best bet. 

Ive said previous drawing this out & getting into legal wranglings benefits nobody. Both clubs also have to consider their reputations & the impact this will have on future transfers not just between each other but with other clubs. Footballs a small world

I agree its about minimising loss for both sides. Its what ive been trying to explain. Derby will want martin back for nothing & fulham will want to make sure they dont have to pay money any more money to Derby. 

Regarding an injury i imagine it depends on what the terms if the contract are. I imagine there is a standard contract format to abide by the FA's rules. Then i imagine following on there are terms outlined by each club. IE what to do in the event of an injury. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jagerbob

jagerbob

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Gritters said:

I think the way Fulham are treating CM is outrageous. 

The poor chap is injured and they are talking of taking disaplinary action. What kind of club are they. What have they done to help him?

If I was CM I'd come back to Derby where he would be taken well care of.

Fulham take disaplinary action what are they going to do sack him?

What a joke.

I think the jokes on you mate.

I cant decide if you are being ironic or not.

He is their player, and Martin is refusing to play, damn right Disciplinary action is needed. Funny how martin is injured only after he has said he has played his lat game for them. Its just Martins excuse. This stinks of Van Hoojidnk and Saido Berinihoo at WBA. Serious faul play by both Derby and Martin, and all because Derby cant move on, and sign a better player who might actually be able to hold down a place in the premiership when we get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ninos

Ninos

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Cam the Ram said:

And then do what? Get both himself and possibly us in trouble. He wouldn't be able to play for us anyway so that would be a silly thing for him to do.

I don't think b4 is actually being serious but rather expressing that gung ho pro derby attitude which we love him for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...