The Incredible Adam Spark Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 As if we had received the money, we wouldn't be giving it back, even if it was gained by misunderstaning the rules. You think? And you don't think ICT would have appealed to have the cash back if the mistake had ever came to light? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 You think? And you don't think ICT would have appealed to have the cash back if the mistake had ever came to light? Ah, but the masterplan was to give them Boyle in lieu of repayment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 You think? And you don't think ICT would have appealed to have the cash back if the mistake had ever came to light? I'm sure they would, but I don't see that they would have any legal right to get it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 (edited) I don't know where the blame lies ultimately, but they were happy enough to let the press know that they hoped Jonny would go to a Scottish Club so the Club would get compensation, ICT expected to pay compo and have indicated that they made two previous offers. The one cast iron certainty is that someone in authority has cost the Club a few thousand quid! Have they really though? Unless you take "someone in authority" to include, well, "UEFA" then absolutely no one has "cost the Club" anything, as they were never entitled to anything in the first place! That they thought they were is largely academic. I'm sure they would, but I don't see that they would have any legal right to get it back. I reckon they would be able to get it back, actually. Any payment would be made in error as to belief in the legal requirement to compensate Thistle in order to sign Tuffey on a professional contract, thus would be an undue transfer. Edited July 17, 2010 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted July 17, 2010 Members Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 The scenario was he would have been signing for them whilst still a Thistle player. So no they wouldn't have been due any money back. Have you ever bought anything only to find it in the sales a few days later and took it back expecting a refund on the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incredible Adam Spark Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 The scenario was he would have been signing for them whilst still a Thistle player. What scenario? Tuffey's contract expired at the end of May. I don't believe Inverness were in for him before that, where they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 The scenario was he would have been signing for them whilst still a Thistle player. So no they wouldn't have been due any money back. Have you ever bought anything only to find it in the sales a few days later and took it back expecting a refund on the difference? No they wouldn't Will. Tuffey ceased to be a Thistle player when his contract expired at the end of May. He rejected a contract extension so became a free agent. Training compensation is in technical terms totally different from a transfer fee because it applies to a very limited set of circumstances and is designed to prevent bigger clubs from poaching young players when their contracts run out or getting the full financial benefit of a sell on without tangibly affecting the player's development. The reason we're not entitled to compensation is because simply Tuffey isn't a young player any more for the purposes of training compensation. No amount of knowing or not knowing about the rule changes the fact that we are legally 'entitled' to nothing. If ICT paid us training compensation, which is a separate obligation to those created by forming a contract between ICT and Tuffey, they'd have made a transfer in the erroneous belief that it discharged an obligation necessary to sign Tuffey. Depending on the nature of the agreement between us and ICT, that would, legally, likely mean that we wouldn't be allowed to keep any money paid to us. The Club saying they're entitled to compensation if he goes to a Scottish Club is tantamount to the Club saying they'd win a tenner if the numbers 1 and 47 are drawn. In reality you need a third number to win the tenner (in the Club's case Tuffey also having to satisfy the age criteria). Either way they don't lose £10 as a result of ignorance of the rules; they merely aren't and never were entitled to it. If the lottery paid out to an online account on a non-winning ticket you might get away with it but if they noticed and demanded it back you'd be legally obliged to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erzamacaroonbars Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Well thank you Woodstock Jag, thank goodness somebody has a clue what's going on! Now can you help sort out the JT situation and directors payments? Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted July 18, 2010 Members Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 (edited) What scenario? Tuffey's contract expired at the end of May. I don't believe Inverness were in for him before that, where they? In the scenario where Tuffey was still under contract to us when Inverness first made their offer. And yes I believe I read that ICT wanted him and Thistle had knocked back their initial offers before he went out of contract. In fact here....ICT invited to make an offer. Perhaps you'll recognise the OP? Edited July 18, 2010 by Willjag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted July 18, 2010 Members Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 No they wouldn't Will. Tuffey ceased to be a Thistle player when his contract expired at the end of May. He rejected a contract extension so became a free agent. Training compensation is in technical terms totally different from a transfer fee because it applies to a very limited set of circumstances and is designed to prevent bigger clubs from poaching young players when their contracts run out or getting the full financial benefit of a sell on without tangibly affecting the player's development. The reason we're not entitled to compensation is because simply Tuffey isn't a young player any more for the purposes of training compensation. No amount of knowing or not knowing about the rule changes the fact that we are legally 'entitled' to nothing. If ICT paid us training compensation, which is a separate obligation to those created by forming a contract between ICT and Tuffey, they'd have made a transfer in the erroneous belief that it discharged an obligation necessary to sign Tuffey. Depending on the nature of the agreement between us and ICT, that would, legally, likely mean that we wouldn't be allowed to keep any money paid to us. The Club saying they're entitled to compensation if he goes to a Scottish Club is tantamount to the Club saying they'd win a tenner if the numbers 1 and 47 are drawn. In reality you need a third number to win the tenner (in the Club's case Tuffey also having to satisfy the age criteria). Either way they don't lose £10 as a result of ignorance of the rules; they merely aren't and never were entitled to it. If the lottery paid out to an online account on a non-winning ticket you might get away with it but if they noticed and demanded it back you'd be legally obliged to do so. Great big post all irrelevant if the first offer was made in May. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Great big post all irrelevant if the first offer was made in May. Even if the offer was made in May, his new contract wouldn't have begun until after May. If Tuffey had signed a pre-contract agreement in January for anyone we would still have been entitled to nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incredible Adam Spark Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 And yes I believe I read that ICT wanted him and Thistle had knocked back their initial offers before he went out of contract. In fact here....ICT invited to make an offer. Perhaps you'll recognise the OP? Great big post all irrelevant if the first offer was made in May. I believe the key word in the article you've highlighted is "invited". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted July 18, 2010 Members Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Even if the offer was made in May, his new contract wouldn't have begun until after May. If Tuffey had signed a pre-contract agreement in January for anyone we would still have been entitled to nothing. You presume that the deal would be done after his contract was finsihed. However I'm talking about what date Partick Thistle could still accept money for him. I could be wrong as I don't know the full in's and out's, but I'd say we could have taken cash for him right up until midnight of the last day of his contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted July 18, 2010 Members Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 I believe the key word in the article you've highlighted is "invited". You're splitting hairs now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incredible Adam Spark Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 You're splitting hairs now. No, I'm not. There's no evidence to suggest Inverness made Tuffey an offer while he was still contracted to Thistle or before the "end of the season" as it's defined in the rules governing training compensation. We never stood to make any money from his move so, as embarrassing as it is that they weren't fully aware of the regulations, no-one at the club has cost us money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted July 18, 2010 Members Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 I apologise. I had no idea you were involved with the Club and know the dates of when the offer may or may not have been made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incredible Adam Spark Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 I apologise. I had no idea you were involved with the Club and know the dates of when the offer may or may not have been made. I suppose the same could be said for you. But answer me this, why would a club make an offer for a player who was out of contract at the end of the season, even if they thought they were going to have to pay a minimal fee for his training? From the Press & Journal piece it appears Tuffey's agent contacted a few clubs who had either sent scouts to watch him or made note of his performances 3-4 days before his client became free of his contract. As much as you and a number of us are frustrated with the board's performance I think it's safe to say they didn't cost us money on this occasion. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure it was repeatedly reported while we were waiting for him to confirm whether he would accept a new deal that no club had came in for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted July 18, 2010 Members Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 But answer me this, why would a club make an offer for a player who was out of contract at the end of the season, even if they thought they were going to have to pay a minimal fee for his training? From the Belfast Telegraph....... "Inverness Caledonian Thistle have won the sprint to sign Northern Ireland goalkeeper Jonathan Tuffey. The Banbridge man turned down a new contract offer at Partick Thistle to agree a two-year deal with Inverness. It appeared that Caley had given up their pursuit of the out-of- contract 23-year-old when they had a second offer turned down by Partick but Terry Butcher has got his man." You'll need to ask ICT that question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incredible Adam Spark Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 It appeared that Caley had given up their pursuit of the out-of- contract 23-year-old when they had a second offer turned down by Partick but Terry Butcher has got his man." That relates to training compensation - something we were never entitled to in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted July 18, 2010 Members Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 We're not going to agree, so I'll leave it there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 Bit of a wobbly start, it seems, for JT at the hands of my local(ish) Conference team, Fleetwood Town: Fleetwood Town 2, Inverness CT 1 "The Scottish Premier League newcomers were very much second-best to a Fleetwood side much improved from the one beaten 3-0 by Rochdale on Tuesday. Caley keeper Jon Tuffey was soon looking uncomfortable, fumbling the ball clear from Town left-back's Alan Wright high cross. Tuffey was then well beaten by Ian Craney's shot but was relieved to see the ball rebound off a post." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 Always said he'd be found out when he didn't have sure footed defenders like Maxwell and Kinniburgh in front of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin energy Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 Always said he'd be found out when he didn't have sure footed defenders like Maxwell and Kinniburgh in front of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.