Remove this ad
avatar

NottyImp

Time I got out more!

Posts: 5,635 Member Since:02/08/2006

#41 [url]

Apr 2 09 11:37 AM

How convenient. Let me put it another way - is Posh's interpretation broadly wrong? Answering that at least does no "breach confidentiality".

"Help, help I'm being repressed!"

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Keith Roe

Posts: 84 Member Since:02/01/2008

#42 [url]

Apr 2 09 12:26 PM

Why should it be convenient. If Posh Imp has got his information from a 'reliable source' then we shall have to wait and see if it is accurate. My previous posting cannot be enlarged upon.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ForumerDeletedUser

Newbie

Posts: 0 Member Since:11/04/2016

#43 [url]

Apr 2 09 1:53 PM

Impsforever wrote:
How convenient. Let me put it another way - is Posh's interpretation broadly wrong? Answering that at least does no "breach confidentiality".


Amazing how the 'Pro-boarders' are always satisfied with the lack of response or detail from those they are 'pally' with yet want blood and more from the likes of Keith Roe.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ForumerDeletedUser

Newbie

Posts: 0 Member Since:11/04/2016

#44 [url]

Apr 2 09 1:54 PM

Impsforever wrote:
I was involved in the sale of Jack Hobbs. Two offers were made by Premier League Clubs. The Liverpool deal was far more favourable financially to the Club, and was unanimously passed by the Board. In fact the sale brought in approx twice the amount often mention on this board. I have handled numerous sales in league and non-league and the comments made by Posh Imp, GazBlades and Impsforever are only looking for confrontation. If they have any experience with transfers, contracts etc they would understand and should know better than make such coments.


I would still be interested to know the sell-on clause terms, however. The section in bold suggests £320k, but I don't recall anything like that showing up in the accounts.


Why don't you ask the same question to Wright about Frecklington, or is this another bash-Keith Roe session?

You tit.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

NottyImp

Time I got out more!

Posts: 5,635 Member Since:02/08/2006

#45 [url]

Apr 2 09 3:46 PM

Why don't you ask the same question to Wright about Frecklington, or is this another bash-Keith Roe session?


I don't need to as Frecklington isn't about to be sold on as it appears Hobbs may be. I will happily do so when the time comes that he may be. Unlike yourself, I have no particular attachment to certain personalities at the club. If they've made a codpiece-up on the Frecklington deal, I'll be one of the first to complain, believe me.

You tit.

"Help, help I'm being repressed!"

Quote    Reply   
avatar

NottyImp

Time I got out more!

Posts: 5,635 Member Since:02/08/2006

#46 [url]

Apr 2 09 3:49 PM

Why should it be convenient. If Posh Imp has got his information from a 'reliable source' then we shall have to wait and see if it is accurate. My previous posting cannot be enlarged upon.


Convenient because if you have codpieceed it up, you can hide behind "confidentiality". Still, you're right in the sense that eventually the accounts will reflect any transfer fees accrued.

"Help, help I'm being repressed!"

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Keith Roe

Posts: 84 Member Since:02/01/2008

#47 [url]

Apr 2 09 5:44 PM

Does 'Impsforever' understand democracy. The Board unanimously agreed the package for Jack Hobbs, as they should on any major decision. I'm perfectly happy with my accomplishments during my time on the Board and do not wish to get into his 'how convenient' absurd comments.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Posh Imp

Time I got out more!

Posts: 15,298 Member Since:26/10/2006 Site Admin

#48 [url]

Apr 2 09 6:11 PM

Keith Roe wrote:
Why should it be convenient. If Posh Imp has got his information from a 'reliable source' then we shall have to wait and see if it is accurate. My previous posting cannot be enlarged upon.


I am not prepared to divulge from where I did receive this information, but it was, as you suggest a 'reliable source'.

Like I said in an earlier post; we shall see...

We've got (another) new manager. Will he be a very good manager? I do hope so.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Posh Imp

Time I got out more!

Posts: 15,298 Member Since:26/10/2006 Site Admin

#49 [url]

Apr 2 09 6:42 PM

Keith Roe wrote:
I was involved in the sale of Jack Hobbs. Two offers were made by Premier League Clubs. The Liverpool deal was far more favourable financially to the Club, and was unanimously passed by the Board. In fact the sale brought in approx twice the amount often mention on this board. I have handled numerous sales in league and non-league and the comments made by Posh Imp, GazBlades and Impsforever are only looking for confrontation. If they have any experience with transfers, contracts etc they would understand and should know better than make such coments.


Keith, with due respect, that amount could easily have included the gate receipts from the friendly.

As for your comment about 'experience with (...) contracts' - I would love to be involved in such dealings as I believe I have the wherewithall...

We've got (another) new manager. Will he be a very good manager? I do hope so.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

impede

More than a Demi-God

Posts: 1,681 Member Since:26/07/2006

#50 [url]

Apr 2 09 10:11 PM

No offence intended Posh but your assertions about the deal make no sense whatsoever. Why the hell would we sell Hobbs for 25% of £600,000 plus 25% of any accrued amount over £600,000, and not just sell him for £150,000 plus a sell on of 25% of any accrued amount over £600,000? Pefectly legal and an identical effect. Makes more sense the way you state for it to be something like 25% of the original £600,000, the remainder of the £600,000 if sold (or for instance £250,000 if sold for £400,000 (£400,000-£125,000 already paid) and then 25% of any amount over the £600,000. This would of course mean that Liverpool would have to sell him for more than £600,000 to make any profit.

image

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Posh Imp

Time I got out more!

Posts: 15,298 Member Since:26/10/2006 Site Admin

#51 [url]

Apr 3 09 5:36 AM

redclanger wrote:
No offence intended Posh but your assertions about the deal make no sense whatsoever. Why the hell would we sell Hobbs for 25% of £600,000 plus 25% of any accrued amount over £600,000, and not just sell him for £150,000 plus a sell on of 25% of any accrued amount over £600,000? Pefectly legal and an identical effect. Makes more sense the way you state for it to be something like 25% of the original £600,000, the remainder of the £600,000 if sold (or for instance £250,000 if sold for £400,000 (£400,000-£125,000 already paid) and then 25% of any amount over the £600,000. This would of course mean that Liverpool would have to sell him for more than £600,000 to make any profit.


It might have been that way round, but it still amounts to the same deal. It's the correlation between £150k and £600k that matters; and that amounts to 25% which is the figure to be worked on over and above £600k.

We've got (another) new manager. Will he be a very good manager? I do hope so.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

The Greatest Dancer

The almighty is risen!

Posts: 2,289 Member Since:25/07/2006

#52 [url]

Apr 3 09 11:10 AM

Keith Roe wrote:
Does 'Impsforever' understand democracy. The Board unanimously agreed the package for Jack Hobbs, as they should on any major decision. I'm perfectly happy with my accomplishments during my time on the Board and do not wish to get into his 'how convenient' absurd comments.


So do you take equal blame for the Jamie McCombe fiasco then Keith?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Keith Roe

Posts: 84 Member Since:02/01/2008

#53 [url]

Apr 3 09 3:08 PM

TGD. Here you go again. Stupid comments to try and bring conflict between myself and others. You may be a simpleton so far as realising what you are actually trying to do, but just to please you, I will answer your question. The Jamie McCombe fiasco, as you put it, was fully explained by Rob Bradley, which I'm sure your read. It was not a decision taken by the Board as you well know.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GazBlades

Posts: 1,961 Member Since:05/08/2006

#54 [url]

Apr 3 09 3:23 PM

Keith Roe wrote:
TGD. Here you go again. Stupid comments to try and bring conflict between myself and others. You may be a simpleton so far as realising what you are actually trying to do, but just to please you, I will answer your question. The Jamie McCombe fiasco, as you put it, was fully explained by Rob Bradley, which I'm sure your read. It was not a decision taken by the Board as you well know.


I don't ever remember that. Without being accused of 'looking for confrontation', or being a 'simpleton', could you let me know what that explaination was?

image

Give this man two years and a damn testimonial!!!!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Dean

Gott in Himmel!

Posts: 3,037 Member Since:09/09/2007

#55 [url]

Apr 3 09 3:26 PM

GazBlades wrote:
Keith Roe wrote:
TGD. Here you go again. Stupid comments to try and bring conflict between myself and others. You may be a simpleton so far as realising what you are actually trying to do, but just to please you, I will answer your question. The Jamie McCombe fiasco, as you put it, was fully explained by Rob Bradley, which I'm sure your read. It was not a decision taken by the Board as you well know.


I don't ever remember that. Without being accused of 'looking for confrontation', or being a 'simpleton', could you let me know what that explaination was?




I have a feeling Gaz it was a clause insisted upon by McCombe and his agent.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

impede

More than a Demi-God

Posts: 1,681 Member Since:26/07/2006

#56 [url]

Apr 3 09 3:34 PM

My understanding of the McCombe 'fiasco' was that it was a delegated duty and that the delegatee let it pass without referring it upstairs as it should have been. As the delegatee was acting as agent of the club (and this only has to be a reasonable perception by the otherside), the contract was enforceable and if the club wanted to do anything about it, their action would have been against their agent and not McCombe or his agent.

image

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Peter Griffin

More than a Demi-God

Posts: 1,681 Member Since:02/08/2006

#57 [url]

Apr 3 09 3:45 PM

A history lesson.

robbradley wrote:
First time I've contributed on here, so here goes ! I'm a bit cheesed that the Jamie McCombe "Rob made a mistake" myth has been brought up again. I've had it said to my face by an individual high up in the club that I made a mistake and ignored that, but if fans are saying it then I'll put the record straight. When I was chairman I was at the club a lot but had a small business to run too. Consequently as well as spending a lot of time there I also sometimes dashed in and out and if a contract had to be signed, which as chairman I has to do, it wasn't right to do it hurriedly. At my request therefore standing orders were changed and contracts would be prepared by others much more capable than me ready for me to sign without having to check every single detail / clause / etc. Thats what happened with Jamies and, whilst I may have made vast swathes of mistakes during my time there, this mythical one that keeps being brought up wasn't one of them. Sorry for this cringing explanation but the post needed answering. Up the imps !

If I'm a child that means you're a pedophile, and I'll be damned if I'm going stand here and take this from a pervert.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GazBlades

Posts: 1,961 Member Since:05/08/2006

#58 [url]

Apr 3 09 3:54 PM

Thanks. So was the individual who ballsed up ever named? And have they had a brick through their window yet?

I am joking, by the way. As some people don't seem to be able to tell.

image

Give this man two years and a damn testimonial!!!!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

The Greatest Dancer

The almighty is risen!

Posts: 2,289 Member Since:25/07/2006

#59 [url]

Apr 3 09 3:55 PM

Keith Roe wrote:
TGD. Here you go again. Stupid comments to try and bring conflict between myself and others. You may be a simpleton so far as realising what you are actually trying to do, but just to please you, I will answer your question. The Jamie McCombe fiasco, as you put it, was fully explained by Rob Bradley, which I'm sure your read. It was not a decision taken by the Board as you well know.


It was not a stupid comment nor am I a simpleton, as you well know. Really Keith, resorting to such nastiness on such a beautiful spring day really is most unbecoming of one who is not seeking confrontation.

I know the explanation that Rob gave and I know the reasons why BUT the board at the time HAS to take collective responsibility for this decision. They were the ones who agreed delegated authority to whatever club official it was who made the decision so, whether you or any other Board member at the time like it or not, it is the Board who have to take responsibility for the consequences of that delegated authority. If he/she acted outside their remit then they should have been disciplined but the Board still has the responsibility to check that person's work and decisions. I'm afraid that turning the other cheek as you are attmepting to do here is not the way to run a business.

At the end of the day the Jamie McCoombe clause cost the club some money. Its not the worst decision an LCFC Board has ever taken and its not the greatest. I wouldn't get too hung up on something that happened so long ago except for the fact that no-one will take responsibility for it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Posh Imp

Time I got out more!

Posts: 15,298 Member Since:26/10/2006 Site Admin

#60 [url]

Apr 3 09 8:36 PM

live">TGD - it was probably my fault...

We've got (another) new manager. Will he be a very good manager? I do hope so.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help