Jamal Campbell Ryce

[Benfleet Blue]

It's gone so quiet on the JCR front and I personally feel sorry that firstly JCR has been left out in the cold, and secondly, that he would be a very valuable asset to us, especially as we, I feel, could really do with him during the final games.
The board have made no statements whatsoever, and everything has gone really quiet over this issue since we heard that an adjournment of the FA hearing had been requested. Given Rotherham's plight it must surely be in everyones interest to get the matter resolved and I really feel that we should be made aware of the current situation and also no statement has ever been issued at our end to give the SUFC side of the story which, I feel, is long overdue.

 

[* ORM *]

Perhaps Mitchell Cole is impressing so much that we're having second thoughts about pursuing JCR

 

[MilkeySUFC]

Quote[/b] (Benfleet Blue @ Feb. 17 2006,08:08)]The board have made no statements whatsoever

Perhaps SUFC have been advised not to give comment, of any nature, by their legal representatives?

 

[Shrimp in a Kilt]

Quote[/b] (MilkeySUFC @ Feb. 17 2006,09:47)]

Quote[/b] (Benfleet Blue @ Feb. 17 2006,08:08)]The board have made no statements whatsoever

Perhaps SUFC have been advised not to give comment, of any nature, by their legal representatives?

That is a well thought-out, reasonable and probably accurate view of the situation....





And therefore has absolutely no business being on SZ!

 

[MilkeySUFC]

I'll get me coat.

 

[Hooly]

Per MillersMad message board

Quote[/b] (Posted by millerchad @ 17 Feb,09:24)]
JCR latest ...

JCR is training with Southend and refuses to come back he regards himself as a Southend player but we hold his registration and are paying his wages (£2.5 k per week). We have Signed paperwork(directer told me last night that it's air tight)Southend are trying delay tactics knowing we are in financial difficulty and are hoping we lower the price in fact it's going the other way we are demanding £117k they owe us for the transfer plus his wages from January 1st which will be another £10k. We are hoping to get it solved in the next fortnight.

Obviously you'd expect it to be our fault! But seems a plausible explanation, other than the contract, price, registration & timescale.

 

[Shrimp in a Kilt]

Quote[/b] (Hooly @ Feb. 17 2006,10:14)]Per MillersMad message board

Quote[/b] (Posted by millerchad @ 17 Feb,09:24)]
JCR latest ...

JCR is training with Southend and refuses to come back he regards himself as a Southend player but we hold his registration and are paying his wages (£2.5 k per week).  We have Signed paperwork(directer told me last night that it's air tight)Southend are trying delay tactics knowing we are in financial difficulty and are hoping we lower the price in fact it's going the other way we are demanding £117k they owe us for the transfer plus his wages from January 1st which will be another £10k. We are hoping to get it solved in the next fortnight.

Obviously you'd expect it to be our fault!  But seems a plausible explanation, other than the contract, price, registration & timescale.  

If the paperwork the Millers have is "airtight" then, as Matt has so cogently pointed out, why are we the ones wanting to take it to the courts?

 

[fbm]

Quote[/b] (Shrimp in a Kilt @ Feb. 17 2006,10:24)]

Quote[/b] (Hooly @ Feb. 17 2006,10:14)]Per MillersMad message board

Quote[/b] (Posted by millerchad @ 17 Feb,09:24)]
JCR latest ...

JCR is training with Southend and refuses to come back he regards himself as a Southend player but we hold his registration and are paying his wages (£2.5 k per week).  We have Signed paperwork(directer told me last night that it's air tight)Southend are trying delay tactics knowing we are in financial difficulty and are hoping we lower the price in fact it's going the other way we are demanding £117k they owe us for the transfer plus his wages from January 1st which will be another £10k. We are hoping to get it solved in the next fortnight.

Obviously you'd expect it to be our fault!  But seems a plausible explanation, other than the contract, price, registration & timescale.  

If the paperwork the Millers have is "airtight" then, as Matt has so cogently pointed out, why are we the ones wanting to take it to the courts?

It might be airtight but we're the seasiders and I'll bet it isn't watertight...

 

[Hooly]

Also. Were he "refusing" to come back why aren't they with-holding his pay. Surely if a player were deliberately in default of his contract they would have a "airtight" clause covering that!

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Shrimp in a Kilt @ Feb. 17 2006,10:24)]If the paperwork the Millers have is "airtight" then, as Matt has so cogently pointed out, why are we the ones wanting to take it to the courts?

Although, as has been pointed out to me elsewhere, the case of Enderby Town v. The Football Association (1971) (and no, I'm not making that up) may be conisdered as legal precedent which requires Rotherham to pursue their grievance in front of the Football League before the matter can be heard by a judge...

Bottom line - none of us knows what the paperwork surrounding JCR says. We just have to have faith that Ron is being properly advised in his current course of action, namely standing our ground in this particular dispute. Unfortunately, it seems that all sides (Rotherham, us and JCR) potentially have a lot to lose in this dispute, which does make me wonder as to why some sort of acceptable compromise hasn't been hammered out by now.

Perhaps it's something to do with the bloke who's advising JCR. It would be fair to say that his reputation precedes him somewhat...

 

[shrimperman]

Quote[/b] (Hooly @ Feb. 17 2006,10:41)]Also.  Were he "refusing" to come back why aren't they with-holding his pay.  Surely if a player were deliberately in default of his contract they would have a "airtight" clause covering that!  

thats a very good point. surely they should suspend his wages until he reports back to the club. surely this should be seen as misconduct and failure to forefill his contract to rotherham?

 

[fbm]

As I've always said, blame Cody.

He's an agent... it MUST be his fault...

 

[Its Only A Game]

Quote[/b] (shrimperman @ Feb. 17 2006,10:54)]

Quote[/b] (Hooly @ Feb. 17 2006,10:41)]Also.  Were he "refusing" to come back why aren't they with-holding his pay.  Surely if a player were deliberately in default of his contract they would have a "airtight" clause covering that!  

thats a very good point. surely they should suspend his wages until he reports back to the club. surely this should be seen as misconduct and failure to forefill his contract to rotherham?

and they should therefore dismiss him for gross miscounduct & then we can pick him up for no fee

 

[MilkeySUFC]

Got this off the SU Mailing List:

-----Original Message-----
I just lifted this from Shrimpers.net forum:


DavidR Posted on 17/2 11:05Email this Message | Edit | Reply JCR - the
"agreement" is published

in the Rotherham Advertiser. I agree that the S Yorks coverage has been
heavily in favour of our case and I had assumed that there was some wriggle
room involved. However, I have to say that I can understand why our board is
upset.

The document in question is a "record of agreement" (as it is headed) sent
by your chairman to ours. I think it makes interesting reading for all
concerned.

First up, it confirms that personal terms had been agreed and states "for
the sake of good order and completeness i am copying this note to Richard
Cody and can confirm that personal terms with Jamal have been agreed". The
meat of it is this section:

"this is our best and final offer and the £75000 would be paid this
financial year as follows

£15000 upon signing

£20000 payable 1 december 2005
£20000 payable 1 feb 2006
£20000 payable 1 May 2006

Furthmore we would pay an additional £25000 bringing the total commitment to
£100000 in accordance with the following schedule.

£10000 for twenty starting appearances
£10000 for thirty starting appearances
£5000 for 40 starting appearances "

I do believe that Jamal would make thirty starting appearances and in that
regard I am prepared to underwrite the £75000". The document is signed by
Ronald Martin, chairman of Southend United FC.

RUFC accepted this offer in writing.

Only the £15,000 has been paid. Our chairman reports that Mr Martin has told
him - in terms - that we will have to accept a lower fee because of our
financial difficulties and that he is therefore not paying. I cannot say if
this is true or not.

At the very least, £40,000 should be coming our way (money which is VITAL to
our club). We also say that the wages that we have paid to JCR in the period
in which he cannot play for either side should be re-imbursed to us. Not
sure about the legality of that, but I can see the moral point. The £75,000
turns on the meaning of "underwriting", and I'd be less confident on that.

How many games has he played, btw? 6 or so?

One thing I do believe is that your chairman has behaved poorly. Leaving
aside what's enforceable and what's not, that signed document is pretty
clear in its intention. We, like you, are a small club and I'm surprised
that your chairman is apparently using our lack of financial clout as a
means of getting "one over" on us. I'm sad that there wasn't more solidarity
on this: the Premier$hite will screw all of us plenty, without doing one
another over.

We've raised £100,000 so far to save our club. In that context, you can see
how important the £40,000 and, of course, the £125K would be.

----------------------
Reading this, this seems to suggest that this agreement is based on a FULL TRANSFER of JCR at the outset (back in August) of 75k in installments plus add -ons;

i.e.
15k on signing,
20k on 1 Dec,
20k 1 Feb,
20k 1 May.

There's no mention of the 20-odd-K loan payment and 2 of those dates would have passed before we'd even SIGNED JCR!!

Is this not actually the agreement to a FULL TRANSFER that Rotherham rejected in the first place? Resulting in us agreeing the 3 month loan pending full signing in Jan? If so, this makes even more compelling arguement on our side. As we, rightly, have said that signing JCR in Jan depends on agreeing terms with the player TO SIGN IN JAN. If we have realised our error in agreeing JCR's wages, based on his performances for us during the 3 month loan period, surely we are entitled to offer JCR terms which we now consider to be more comensurate with his abilities?

Milkey