Ron's Xmas Card List Shortens Further!..

[Smiffy]

Getting a bit of a reputation is our Ron!..

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/sport/lo...74.0.no_sell_on_clause_for_striker_freddy.php

:D

 

[mattytheshrimper]

i always thought we did have an agreement to give them something like 15%. unlucky to them but good news for us!

 

[Boreham Shrimper]

Oh dear this could get nasty :(

If it was a verbal agreement, Ron could still find himself obliged to honour it as part of the contract.

 

[stickyboy]

Southend in transfer disagreement shocker....cant be true!

 

[Shrimpersarmy]

The Grays chairman seems pretty adamant that they will be getting their (alleged) part of the cash though, even threatens to take us to court

 

[P6DFH]

I thought Ron was quoted late last year saying we did have an agreement with Grays for some fees should we sell Freddy

 

[South Bank Hank]

Oh dear this could get nasty :(

If it was a verbal agreement, Ron could still find himself obliged to honour it as part of the contract.

There's no doubting for me that Ron is as tough a businessman as they come, and I couldn't be more pleased that he is working for us.

Seems to me our argument goes as follows:

• A price is mooted for signing Freddy (with a sell-on clause)
• This "deal" is verbal and "witnessed"
• SUFC agree to take Freddy on loan
• Freddy is initially successful and Grays put the price up
• SUFC agree to the new price but at the expense of the sell-on clause
• A new contract is drawn up and signed

If Ron Martin's side of the story is to be believed, then the point of dispute seems entirely down to whether the final contract was intended to supercede any former verbal agreement. It's been a fair while since I studied Law, but as I understand it, Grays would need to prove that the conversation regarding any agreed sell-on clause that wasn't captured in writing, should have been included in the contract but was merely left out as an oversight. That or they'd need to prove that the conversation took place after the contract was signed and that it was seen by both parties as new terms.

Either way, that's a tough thing for Grays to prove.
After all, if it was intended, why was it not captured in writing?


Over to you Matt...

 

[stickyboy]

The Conference club sold Eastwood to the Shrimpers and chairman Mick Woodward said "We have a 15% sell-on clause. I shook hands with chairman Ron Martin over it. I know he's an honest man so if Freddy is sold everyone will beneift".

- that sounds to me as nothing was done in writing so presume impossible to prove

 

[C C Csiders]

Getting a bit of a reputation is our Ron!..

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/sport/lo...74.0.no_sell_on_clause_for_striker_freddy.php

:D

I'd have thought that if Ron values his kneecaps he might want to consider paying Grays.

 

[Boreham Shrimper]

t's been a fair while since I studied Law, but as I understand it, Grays would need to prove that the conversation regarding any agreed sell-on clause that wasn't captured in writing, should have been included in the contract but was merely left out as an oversight. That or they'd need to prove that the conversation took place after the contract was signed and that it was seen by both parties as new terms.

That's how I understood it but the problem is proving whether or not the omission of the sell-on clause deliberate, whether this was a term intended to form part of the contract. This is how lawyers earn their fees :)

 

[Bielzibubz]

Well that's fairly buggered up any future signings we might have gone for from Grays :rolleyes:

They could always have his house/mobile home....certainly look better than some of the mock georgian carbuncles currently being put up over there :D

 

[stickyboy]

this could also be the reason we struggle to sign players - we seem to upset every club we deal with.

 

[wiggy]

I'd have thought that if Ron values his kneecaps he might want to consider paying Grays.

At the time there was a percentage payable to Grays if Freddy got sold on. If he is welching out of this one as well then hope he knows how it feels to be treated like **** tomorrow when his plans get turned down!

 

[Bielzibubz]

At the time there was a percentage payable to Grays if Freddy got sold on. If he is welching out of this one as well then hope he knows how it feels to be treated like **** tomorrow when his plans get turned down!

Wondered where you and your positive vibes had gone Wiggy, welcome back :rolleyes:

 

[MrB]

First time I've heard us described as 'Big Time Charlies'!

 

[Boreham Shrimper]

First time I've heard us described as 'Big Time Charlies'!

I was wondering that too!

:D

 

[fbm]

I really liked the acronym that Yeovil fans used to refer to Bristol City.

It was "TBCDTR" which translated to "the big club down the road".

In comparison to Grays, I suppose we are big-time charlies

 

[Kent Shrimper]

So my source who suggested this a few weeks ago was correct. And that Echo report is as i heard it. Even down to our scouts having to pay for tickets to get into Grays.

 

[wiggy]

Wondered where you and your positive vibes had gone Wiggy, welcome back :rolleyes:

Good to be back, feeling really positive with this new board!

 

[Lancashire shrimper]

"Southend have denied it because now they are big time Charlies as they are in the Championship and they think they can get away with it, but trust me they will not."

Sounds like sour grapes if the best the Grays Chairman can do is resort to slagging Southend off. It's poor business acumen if Grays failed to get that written in the contract, and demonstrates just how sharp Ron Martin is.