No Money

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


I stand by my statements and certainly not going to get in a row with you.
By the way I sometimes wish I had an ordinary life fortunately I still have much to offer in my chosen business.
Have you?
I suppose if we make loan signings you will. class this as no money spent ?
 
Can’t say that I’ve heard much about No Money but, if he’s available, let’s get a bid in, I hear we’ve got money to spend.......

No Money would be even better value than Juan P, too. It’s a no brainer, gerrimin.
 
A mate of mine who is ITK at the Lane has told me what went on at the last director's meeting.

Apparently United will spend big in January, doing 'whatever it takes' to set up multiple threads guessing whether they have any muneh or not.
They are even prepared to get some of these going in December, to show their committment to wildly inaccurate threads, based on no genuine information whatsoever.

Remember, you heard it here first.
 
The art of negotiation: tell sellers we have a barrel of money or tell sellers we're broke.

Its not rocket science.
 
One more thing, if Chris Wilder is chatting with his mates and one asks if there's any money to spend, what answer is he going to give:
"yes mate we have millions" or
"nothing to spend we're broke"
I think its in Chris's personality to go with the second, whatever the truth.
 

In the past since CW arrived we've gone about our transfer business quietly and often effectively (OK Leonard and Holmes didn't work in practice).

Keep the faith boys and girls, I trust Chris and his staff to convince those 'upstairs' what and who we need. Personally I think we'll take a considered 'risk' and use the loan market, rather than spunkin moneh on transfers, just in case we don't make the cut
 
Or at least blame someone else, Agents may be in fashion in the next couple of months .......... :rolleyes:

Agents and their clients hold no power whatsoever. A contract is a contract is a contract. It’s that straightforward.

As can be seen in the case of McCabe v Prince A.
 
Agents and their clients hold no power whatsoever. A contract is a contract is a contract. It’s that straightforward.

As can be seen in the case of McCabe v Prince A.

Player to Agent.

“Look Leechy, I know you’ve lined up a move that will treble my wages and yield handsome signing on fees for both me and, er...you, but I’m under contract for another two years and the club don’t want me to leave. You’ve been around the game for long enough to know that we can’t do anything about it...”

Mr. Leech says nothing. He smiles knowingly to himself, walks away, lights a Cohiba with a smouldering twenty pound note and begins to tap on his mobile...
 
The clubs have created monsters with these agents in any other walk of life the players would pay them from their money but the club's found a way of outbidding each other by giving the agents millions and millions of pounds to basically encourage them to join their club

They also have absolutely no regulation either
And now the club's are up in arms
 
Player to Agent.

“Look Leechy, I know you’ve lined up a move that will treble my wages and yield handsome signing on fees for both me and, er...you, but I’m under contract for another two years and the club don’t want me to leave. You’ve been around the game for long enough to know that we can’t do anything about it...”

Mr. Leech says nothing. He smiles knowingly to himself, walks away, lights a Cohiba with a smouldering twenty pound note and begins to tap on his mobile...

He then turns round to the player and says "sorry Mr Sessignon/Grealish, unless the buying club comes up with £42m you're staying put..."
 
I still can`t get my head around how KM allowed himself to be boxed into that particular corner.

There has to be an element of trust somewhere although you'd expect that there would be an option for the other party to have first dibs on purchasing any shares the other owner is disposing of.

If it's sharp practice then it puts HRH in a whole new light.
 
There has to be an element of trust somewhere although you'd expect that there would be an option for the other party to have first dibs on purchasing any shares the other owner is disposing of.

If it's sharp practice then it puts HRH in a whole new light.
KM’s a property developer. I’m fairly sure he’ll have done some joint ventures, as this is how a lot of property is developed. I’d be surprised and shocked if any of his jv contracts aren’t watertight and haven’t considered that other parties may try to get out of their obligations by transferring shares.

It’s hardly a sophisticated move by the Prince. I find it incredible that KM’s team didn’t cover this in the contract.
 
KM’s a property developer. I’m fairly sure he’ll have done some joint ventures, as this is how a lot of property is developed. I’d be surprised and shocked if any of his jv contracts aren’t watertight and haven’t considered that other parties may try to get out of their obligations by transferring shares.

It’s hardly a sophisticated move by the Prince. I find it incredible that KM’s team didn’t cover this in the contract.

We'll find out soon enough.

Well, not soon enough soon enough obviously.
 
We'll find out soon enough.

Well, not soon enough soon enough obviously.
I doubt there’s anything in the contracts or the clause would have been referred to in the pre action papers and it would be fairly cut and dried.

My fear is that they are relying on precedent (but I don’t recall any cases being quoted) or simply ‘equity’. It’s well beyond my basic legal understanding though. If it’s at the high court and I’ve got time, I may see if I can go and watch it (I’m not even sure if you can watch civil cases, the only time I’ve had to give evidence was settled out of court just before the case started)
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom