Not single bit of it makes sense to me, but then again, legal stuff is pretty much a different language to people who aren't trained in those particular dark arts...
Eh? A dig from who? All dreamboy was saying, which we all already knew, was that hecky had publicly mentioned it while he was a barnsley player so if hull had done an ounce of research before spending close to a million quid they'd have been aware of the problem. He was criticising hull not hecky
There'd be a certain irony if we finally break our record transfer fee paid and it turned out to be on an outgoing player sale.
Link here to the bbc article. Apologies if already posted... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56487648 This is the last paragraph... "Barnsley have told BBC Radio Sheffield that they consider the case closed, and individuals associated with this matter are no longer employed by Barnsley FC". Basically we've made a **** up and there's nowt we can do about it
It’s bizarre we even let it go to the panel. How much were Hull asking for? In the end, we could’ve paid them a lot more and not as been as much out of pocket, given the legal fees.
Agreed, although on the flip side I'm sure someone earlier in the thread said Hull were asking for a lot more than what they've been awarded. Maybe we tried to negotiate a much lower settlement outside of the hearing and Hull refused knowing they had such a strong case? Basically it looks like they had us over a barrel either way. With our own legal fees we could easily be looking at £1.5m down the swanee. A very expensive **** up!
They were claiming £1.6m. Their schedule of loss only included outlays and didn't include the benefit of having him as a player and any transfer value. We pleaded that there had been no loss. The judgment reads: "BFC, in pleading by its Defence to Counterclaim that “there are no losses, therefore Barnsley’s position is that Hull is entitled to £0. . .”, could not be accused of understating its case." which is professional legal speak for "nice try lads, but wind thi necks in"
So they wanted 1.6m, it’s cost us 1.5m but they’ll only get just over 400k. So, we know who the real winners are. Wouldnt be surprised if egos got in the way of reaching a settlement, costing both clubs.
A huge stonking issue here in my opinion is that we sold a player who'd been doing very well for us to a divisional rival for £600k. I remember at the time it was reported as being as much as £2million which didn't look like bad business.
What this thread shows, Is, at the beginning, conclusions were reached without all the facts. Then Chef tyke and Mansfield showed the facts and everyone did a U turn. So bear in mind. sound bites do not cover a story in full.