Swans in Court

Dai - that is not what the court has to decide. It has to decide on the interpretation of the contract, nothing more. It has nothing to do with a finding of honesty or dishonesty. If they find that the intention within the contract was one thing then we win. If another, then we lose.

Look, we've been told that we are not exactly flush with cash and the Board have a legal duty to the shareholders as well as an overarching duty to the Club as a whole, including the fans, not to unnecessarily squander funds. It's obvious that their interpretation has some merit otherwise UEFA and FIFA would not have sided with us. If it goes the other way then the Board were still right to try and save money.

 

It would not be entertained by the court if there was not a case to answer. I hope they find in U's favour for the simple reason we signed a deal when we bought vorm off them. The club would not like it if we were robbed and we should be big enough to honour the deal...Vorm was worth a lot more than when we bought him so we should pay up and leave it at that....If we dont it will come back to haunt in the future....

 

Business is Business, and as such if there was no details in Vorm's contract restricting a free transfer, in light of the obvious sell on clause, then it's tough tity, I very much doubt we will be found wanting......

 

It goes to arbitration when either side refuses to accept the findings of the governing body. The Court of Arbitration has to hear it if the sides won't agree to settle. Nothing to do with a case to answer. They may find against us but it depends on their findings regarding the interpretation of the intention behind the contract.

As for hoping we lose, well that's nothing new. Why is it so-called fans of our Club are so quick to do us down? If we are in the wrong then so be it but I can see the logic behind fighting it. If the Board rolled over no doubt they'd get stick for that too.

 

Well im sorry if i prefer fair play in everything and you are willing to rip a club off for what they are due if we can get away with it.......says a lot that....

 

There is no doubt it feels wrong, but it will come down to the contract, and at the end of the day it was a rather complicated deal with Spurs, and I very much doubt our Legal team got this wrong........

 

This stinks and puts a bad light on the club that other clubs wont forget, We signed a contract on a sell on clause with vorm and although his value increased with us we are saying we let him go on a free......Its stinks man and im sure jinx would be up in arms if we lost out on a few quid if it happened to us.....What happens if Spurs get an offer for vorm that is substantial, We would be well pissed off as his value that we put on him is zero and everyone knows he is worth a lot of money....We did the wrong thing and we must face the consequences..

 

Putting Vorm on the official web site the day the deal was done as "Undisclosed fee " instead of "Free transfer " will be a bone of contention for whomever oversees the proceeding imo , may be the straw ......coupled with how it just looks bad .

 

No, what it "says" is that you are prepared for our Club to pay out money when they are not legally obliged to do so (unless and until the Court goes against us). I'm sorry but in business nobody does that, at least if they want to stay in business. You are forgetting the governing bodies have backed us 100% so far.

I fully agree that this doesn't put us in a good light, but not for the reasons you give. The Vorm contracts would have been drafted with input from the Swans AND Utrecht and if there are lessons to learn it's that football clubs, our included, need to be better at covering every contingency. It's amateurish at best, incompetent at worst.

We're not the first to be in the Court and won't be the last yet good business is still done with other clubs when it blows over - and it will this time too.

 

I understand what the club did but im sure they meant no malice intended but the fact remains that at the time we all valued vorm around the £10m+ so i can also understand the other sides beef. Any future deals now will make clubs who insist on a sell on clause wonder if we can be trusted to honour the deal and may even sell to someone else first.....Our reputation is on the line here and i bet the club never thought of that when they let Vorm go on a free. If we had been honest and said vorms deal is part of the payment which in essence it was then his value would be taken into account and we could have honoured the sell on clause in the right manner and we would not be in this mess.....

 

Yes I see that point too. We'll just have to wait to see how this turns out I guess. Backing down now would be even worse I think.

 

I think we should back down TBH as it shows that it was an oversight on our part and it was never meant to disrespect in any way.. we are not talking big money here and should come to an agreement out of court so we can both keep our reputations intact.

 

In football, as opposed to other walks in life, I don't care whats fair, right or wrong as long as it's in our favour.

 

And that's how other clubs will see us and who would want to do business with a club of that attitude ?

 

But they will - they always do. It's a tough business.

 

Take a look at Levy at Spurs, Ruthless and always gets his moneys worth.

 

If in the agreement with Spurs we officially gave him to them on a free, then that will soon become apparent and that will be that. It matters not what his value was at the time. Michu was worth more than £2m when we bought him, but we bought him from a club that needed cash and got a cheap deal. A player is only worth what his employers are willing to sell him for - if that's nothing, then that's nothing. We had Fabianski in on a free - so effectively we had a keeper leave and come in on a free, and then did a swap deal of Siggy for Ben. No money spent, two players out who wanted to leave, and two immediate replacements. Good business. If it comes out that we've done the dirty over Utrecht, it will soon come out and we'll pay up - but on the face of it, we've had a 2 in 2 out scenario with a profit/loss of £0, FIFA have agreed that we've done nothing wrong, and now it's down to the court to see if, legally, we actually have done something wrong.