Guest BTR_FTG Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 The following quotes are from the official site: Quote 9th September 2003 Rosenior insisted the letter offering him a new deal had not been sent in time to comply Football League regulations. When that claim was upheld by a tribunal last month, it effectively made him a free agent. City say the letter was posted on Friday 16th May, although the postmark on the envelope showed Thursday 22nd May, four working days after the deadline. Endquote Quote 28th November 2003 Steve Lansdown had to bite his lip when answering a question about the Liam Rosenior affair at last night's AGM......... " The fact is that Liam did receive our contract offer. The letter was posted on time and I don't believe that should have been an issue." Endquote So which was it? Wish I'd been there as I might have asked Steve to clarify how he was so sure Liam, "had," received the contract offer, for surely if he had been able to prove so Liam might still be our player. Then again, I had the audacity to ask Steve to clarify the Pulis/Pulis representative/club loan accusation that was made in open Court & that was another question to which he refused to provide a definitive answer. BTR FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thornbury Red Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 I guess your points are fair enough, but if the matters are embarrassing to the Chairman, and to admit them weakens his position, and costs the club money then hes hardly going to agree with you is he? I mean in his position you wouldnt, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BTR_FTG Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Yes, because if you're anything less than transparent & honest those with long memories will always be there to catch you out & to question your motives. In the case of Pulis a number of statements were knowingly made by the club & its represenatives & were false. Apologies should have been forthcoming to those defamed. City weren't big enough, or honest enough, to do so. In Liam's case either he or City are right, so which is it? If City screwed up big time then they should have been big enough to have admitted the error & should be in a position to ensure the mistake isn't repeated. If City are right then we've been done down big time, the club has lost out financially & that is wrong. Why should City stand for that? In the past two years City have had at least four instances where the club has shot its mouth off, made big, bold claims & have slunk away when asked to justify them. Pulis,Cardiff Tickets, Cardiff TV beamback, Rosenior... it seems to me we're not learning from those mistakes are we? Arrogance perchance ? BTR FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thornbury Red Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 I dont know about arrogance, and I dont know the full facts about the issues you raise. You may well be right, but my point is that any Chairman would put 'spin' onto any staement to ensure that they dont look like an incompetent fool. City have made mistakes in the past, havent we all, as long as they learn from them and things improve in the future Ill be happy. The four issues you raise arent exactly linked and are really four seperate bones of contention which we will never probably know the full facts, and probably dont want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATCHER Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Wish I'd been there as I might have asked Steve to clarify how he was so sure Liam, "had," received the contract offer, for surely if he had been able to prove so Liam might still be our player. BTR FTG You may well of asked your question, but would you have got a reply. This shareholder continued his questioning after Steve Lansdown had said he did not wish to discuss the matter further, only to get a rather scornful look and "Let's have another question". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BTR_FTG Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 But that's my point Thornbury. City are begining to look foolishly incompetent & it would appear from the reoccurance of these problems, which are linked in terms of City saying 'x' then not being able to justify why they have said it, that we aren't learning from our mistakes. Now if we're known as a dishonest & incompetent club would you, as a potential shareholder, or employee want to do business with us? Not so much who you are, but how you're seen..... BTR FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BTR_FTG Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Natcher, Steve's developing something of a habit in avoiding answering those shareholder's questions he doesn't want to answer. Now if we can't get honest answers to the simple questions of postmarks on a letters, or accusations made in open Court, how seriously might shareholders take his responses to questions of ground development or relocation? BTR FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thornbury Red Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 I think theres a big difference between dishonest and incompetence - If the board have been dishonest in any way with the courts, tribunals or supporters then thats a massive slap in the face for all of us. I dont know that weve been accused of dishonesty and as i said before i dont know the facts in the cases youve mentioned. As for incompetence, well once is acceptable, we all make mistakes, twice or thrice, by the same person is unacceptable. However the issues youve raised have been levelled at the Chairman , Sexstone, Gould et all, so at what point does collective responsibillity cease and individual negligence kick in? As i said before - its water under the bridge now - as long as the board have learnt the lessons, then fair enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BTR_FTG Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Thornbury, Perhaps the reason you don't know that facts in these cases is that, when asked , certain individuals have refused to answer. Now if mistakes have been made & have been apologised for, fine. End of. But they're not apologised for. If anything mistakes made tend to be masked in a shroud of silence, strange given the vociferousness of the parties aforehand. The buck stops with Steve & he doesn't clarify & lead by example then the whole club is damned by his silence. "Water under the bridge" one of Steve's own favourites I recall, like Sexstone's, "going forward." Not that Mr. Sexstone would particularly want to look back as he might not like some of the things he might see. BTR FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tinnions Right Leg Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Hi a newbie here, I thought I would ad my twopenneth Well as far as I understand the law dictates once a document has been posted a legally binding contract has been made. So if it was put in the post on the very last day possible then Bristol City have done everything above board. It doesn't matter if arrives after the date. If they did send it after the agreed date then we are very lucky to have any sort of compensation (but for one minute I can't believe they would make such a fundamental oversight). On the other hand it would have made sense to send it out a fortnight before hand and had it made recorded delivery so none of this ever happened in the first place eh. Something to learn from definately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thornbury Red Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 The thing is though, the club have been proved right in the Rosenior issue, although the relatively small level of compensation awarded says to me that the tribunal were not 100% convinced. So as far as that issue goes the Club have been proved to have acted honestly and within the terms of the contract. The Pulis issue probably took place when Davidson was chairman, although most of the current board were there as well, so it will depend on who authorized giving the loan to Pulis to fight his battle with Gillingham. This we will probably never know. The cardiff beamback - staright forward cock up - resolved quickly enough after a climbdown. Cardiff tickets - do you mean the LDV?, I though the club had carried out an investigation in to this and had mad recomendations for future events - again fair enough. Or have i missed something somewhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BTR_FTG Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 No contract is made by posting a letter. A royal mail postmark indicates at what time & where the item first entered their network (or in the case of self franking when it is alleged to have entered their netowrk) but provides no evidence of actual posting or delivery. That's why the recorded/registered systems exist which do provide such proof. So far as I'm aware League regulations state that City must have offered Liam a written offer of a contract, even if the contract wasn't to his liking & was never agreed, so as to retain his registration. He had to have had that copntract offer by date 'x'. It would seem the letter received by him was postmarked 'x+4'. Now if City could prove the Royal Mail didn't collect the post for a given number of days, or that the Royal Mail were negligent in their handling of the letter City might have a case. So were enquiries made to the local office to see if any problems were notified in the area of posting at that time? Might have thought that if the Royal Mail were to blame we'd have heard about it by now. BTR FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BTR_FTG Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Thornbury, You appear to have missed a number of comments made by both Mr. Sexstone & Mr. Lansdown relating to employees of both Gillingham & Cardiff City football clubs. Some of the comments made were scathingly critical & called into question the honesty & integrity of those individuals. When it was proven that these individuals were, indeed, telling the truth & that it was Mr. Sexstone & Lansdown who were incorrect did we see them making public apology? Did they retract their comments? Actually, NO they did not. How have City been proven right on the Rosenior issue? My understanding was that Fulham agreed a 'ex-gratia' payment for Liam's services that did not concede City had any claim over his registration. The tribunal found against City, can't be more definitive than that. City had the option of appeal & of introducing new evidence & this they did not do, though they huffed & puffed insisting they would do so. BTR FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thornbury Red Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 As I said - i dont know the full facts bout these issues, id rather read about the first team than other club issues. My point remains that if the club ha acted dishonestly in any matter, i would be up in arms, if they are negligent then thats a whole different kettle of fish. I dont think i know enough facts to debate with you further, so i am gracefully accepting defeat and stepping away from the despatch box! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 City as a club b#llesd up - anyone disciplined or reprimanded, don't be silly, it only cost us tens of thousands of pounds - I expect Archie promised to make good - NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.