True but reckon there's not being able to pay and simply not wanting toQuote:
Originally Posted by Pico
Printable View
True but reckon there's not being able to pay and simply not wanting toQuote:
Originally Posted by Pico
just take it away from him first then have the court case in the background. I prefer to avoid further crash n burnQuote:
Originally Posted by Hunter403
Hopefully that's what we'll hear during this week.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk
Rumours rife at Strathfield station yesterday that Mark Rudan is buying the club, and installing himself as Chaiman and manager.
:lulz:
Tinkler would slap an injunction on any action and would continue to run/own the club pending an outcome of the court case which would stretch on for months.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk
Palmer tried the same and failed but imo his breaches were by far more clear cut, Freedom of Speech for example.
Funnily enough I was having dinner the other night with some people who told me about a local footballing 'identity' putting together a deal with the FFA to take over.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
I know the people who told me are well connected to the bloke involved so it sounded legit.
He didn't say how far advanced it was.
I don't know if they are more clear cut. The court respected that FFA has the right to protect the integrity of its own football competition in the case of GCU. I don't see how this situation is any different. How is "Freedom of Speech" any more serious than the circus that is currently going on?Quote:
Originally Posted by borat
I think in these situations, the participation agreement is stacked in the FFA's favour, precisely because they have tv rights obligations and have an ethical requirement to keep the competition fair and honest. It's in no one's interest for a team to tank like this.
Tinkler is a bully. You don't give in to bullies. If you do, he'll just leverage the power you've given him to extract more pain. Bullies also end up finding out they've got no ground to stand on when they are stood up to.
He can scheme all he wants in the background but it seems when all his scheming is brought before the law he gets smashed.
Wouldn't be Andy Roberts by any chance?Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
I think the majority of supporters want the whole place cleaned out and start afresh with new management and coaching staff.
We need good football people with smarts and passion like Roberts and David Eland to take up roles in the new era.
It's Bridgey stupid.
100% agree haus.Quote:
Originally Posted by hausmann
If the FFA take back the licence, there will be no down time. Even if it is challenged by Tinkler, the courts will allow them to run things as the owner of the competition and as well as being the owner of the licence.
FFa have enough ammo now and as suggested by others would have priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by borat
What makes you say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by stopper2
They may have ammo, but if it winds up in the courts they FFA won't take control of the club until the court hands down a favourable finding. Who knows how long that could drag on for.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk
EPL or SPL?Quote:
@SocStoppageTime: Stealth and #SST will tomorrow reveal which A-League Club is days away from finalising a partnership agreement with a Premier League team
Indian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Couscous
Knowing us we will probably signing up with a NPL side in an allianceQuote:
Originally Posted by Couscous
when have they ever dragged out a court case in aleague stopping a team from playing?Quote:
Originally Posted by sammydog
We haven't already with Magic?Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Not saying they will stop us playing, that's not going to happen, but until any case is resolved Tinkler will be in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk
Precisely right.Quote:
Originally Posted by sammydog
FFA Strip licence from Tinkler
Tinkler takes out an injunction to stop it happening
Tinkler can then continue his scorched earth policy as he will still be in charge.
Tinkler is free to do this until the court says otherwise or the FFA and him reach an agreement to drop court action.
Incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
FFA stripped Palmer of the license when he was in breach of the terms.
How do you think Tinkler got the club? That's right FFA stripped Con of the license when he breach his terms.
FFA hold the ascendency here they just have to go through the due process. Weather Tinkler is already in breach of the terms I'm unsure but unpaid super is what got Con, bringing the game into disrepute is what got Palmer arguably they can get Tinks for both of those.
I doubt Tinks has the money to fund frivolous legal applications at present.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
You don't just get an injunction because you ask for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
If FFA has a strong enough case then judge will let decision stand, especially if Tinkler can't didpute facts (unpaid debts, clear breaches etc).
This seems to be the reason why FFA have waited til this point to act.
I'd actually be shocked if the FFA didn't rock straight in whenever they are ready.
As stated above this is the way it went down with Con and Clive.
Did either Palmer or Con try and fight it in the courts? I didn't think they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Premy
This could be the difference. Tinks may well try and take his sinking ship and try it on just to piss people off. How the courts deal with it is anyones guess and depends on the cases put forward, but don't rule out this one getting ugly.
I am aware you don't get one frivolouslyQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
I am of the belief still that the game between Tinker V FFA is exactly where Tinker wants it to be.
I do not believe he seriously wishes to run the club in the future
I do not believe though that he has just spent the last week causing carnage for a laugh.
I believe there is some deliberate thought and purpose to his actions.
I don not see the FFA saying your out and him walking away peacefully without some cash or at the minimum a fight
I agree there is more to go before its over.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
I just believe the FFA will get control of the team the moment it wants it.
After that I expect Tinks to fight back but he won't have the club to use as leverage.
I honestly believe he's entitled to something from the FFA if it can be proven he was duped into paying the $5m.
From memory Palmer was going to and then dropped the case when threatened with with more legal action by FFA, it all comes down to what legal advice he is getting I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by sammydog
IMO if Palmer with all his resources didn't take on FFA then Tinkler will have no chance. Also the license agreement are stacked that far in favor of the FFA, Tinkler won't' have a leg to stand on.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/fo...-1226287765842Quote:
GOLD Coast United will finish the season under the control of Football Federation Australia after Clive Palmer's application for an injunction against the termination of his A-League licence was dismissed on Friday night.
In a Supreme Court hearing in Brisbane, Justice Jean Dalton ruled against Palmer, who on Wednesday had his licence terminated for material breaches of the A-League club participation agreement.
FFA will now pay Gold Coast players for the remainder of their contracts, with the team to fly to New Zealand on Saturday for Sunday's clash against Wellington Phoenix.
However, coach Mike Mulvey, an employee of Palmer's, will not be with the team after refusing to sign an FFA deal.
Instead, Matildas mentor Tom Sermanni will guide the fortunes of the Gold Coast team for the remainder of the season.
Peter Flanagan, SC, acting on behalf of Gold Coast United, felt the termination of the licence was "a classical case of the punishment not fitting the crime".
"We say the termination is wrong," he said.
But Justice Dalton disagreed, saying comments made by Palmer about FFA and the sport were of a serious nature.
Justice Dalton was also concerned by Palmer's statement in a press release on Thursday, when he said it was his intention for his newly formed organisation Football Australia to take over the running of soccer from FFA.
Mr Flanagan wanted an injunction until next Wednesday, but Justice Dalton rejected the request and had severe doubts that FFA and Palmer could work together for the rest of the season.
She also dismissed Mr Flanagan's argument that breaches of the licence did not mean the club had breached the club participation agreement.
Just hope Uncle Frank pulls out a little bit of loose change from his account and says "here young fellow - now go away".
Tinks big problem with the license is that he never really got involved with the takeover and left it to Edwards, Palmer etc. As someone said before his lack of due diligence is what will cost him.
cannot see FFA giving tinks a cent he isn't undeniably entitled too. it would be quite a precedent to set.
The way I see it, the FFA doesn't act unless the case is clear. They are acting.
In both the case of Clive Palmer and Con, once the license was revoked they did kick and scream but it quickly became a sideshow and then nobody paid attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belchardo
Both of these. The above statement you quoted, Hausmann, is exactly what I could see happening in regards to the employees. I reckon someone from the FFA has had a word in the ear of people at the club and said "get out before we move". It also begs the question, will Stubbins be offered an FFA contract like Mulvey was? He is, after all, a HSG employee. As reported in the Herald last week Rickie Herbert is reportedly interested in the role - I think the FFA have him waiting in the wings.Quote:
Originally Posted by hausmann
This promises to be an interesting week.
Hope so! Hope it doesn't just fizzle out then come what may we are still stuck with the 2 useless muppetsQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
If it does, I am sure Stubbins will receive a less-than friendly reception form the fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommyjet
Besides the reception the FFA will probably have to get rid of him anyway. The players ain't gonna play for him and the fans hate himQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
Agree, but I meant if Tinks and Stubborn are still there come Friday.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
The SBS interview bewtween Lucy Zelic and Tinkler raises some interesting points:
- re the sacked players. Tinkler seems confused as to his obligations. He thinks that all he has to do is pay out their contracts. In his mind he has sacked them and states clearly "They have no say in it". This is not fulfilling his obligations. Clayton Zane in another interview said that Tinkler said to him "I'm giving you 4 weeks notice" clearly not understanding that he had a 2 year contract with 12 months to run. I think he lives in a world of sackable employees rather than mutually enforceable contracts.
- In talking about performance he said of the sacked players that they didn't score many goals this year "and there hasn't been a lot in them over their careers". Excuse me? Golden boot Joel Griffiths leading goal scorer in Newcastle history. None of the others are strikers.
- With regards to his leadership, he says that now he can officially be blamed for things now that he is not relying on other people for advice but when Lucy says "what do you know about football?", he fully admits he knows nothing and says "that's the CEO's job". So what changes? He will still be relying on people for advice.
- He hints that Middleby and Baartz resigned because they wanted to get rid of Stubbins and when Tinkler refused they wanted to dissociate themselves from the fallout.
- His response to "why does the public have such a negative perception of you?" He just spouts bullshit about bring a coal barron and climate change, nothing about not paying people any of the other issues that people from the public bring up. As if people in Newcastle, many of whom are employed because of the coal industry, hate him because of climate change.
- Lucy does not even raise the question of his ability to fund the club into the future. Given that the FFA are trying to breach him on his current debts, isn't this an important question?
- Anyone got an idea on why Andrew Hoole is leaving the club? Tinkler says that it was because he could see no future in the club playing with the sacked senior players and that it was a major reason why Tinkler took the actions he did. If that's the case, lets hear from Hooley. Is he leaving because of the players or the coach?
Tinkler talks a very good game. That's probably why he got to be billionaire on paper at one stage.
Based on this interview, it looks like he has changed tact. He realises he going to get nothing for the Jets the way it is run but sees value in it and hints that his plan is to sell it to an EPL club as part of his 5 year plan.
I think he lives in la-la-land.Quote:
Originally Posted by hausmann
If Tinkler has gone down the performance management track with Zane, Packer and Young then he could theoretically sack them as he has. If their position is REDUNDANT then he could simply give them 4 weeks notice and put them on gardening leave. It all depends on what was contained within the contract they signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by hausmann
That's a really naïve statement. Even Carney, Madaschi have played for Australi, Kew played at a World Cup. Did Celeski play for Australia?Quote:
- In talking about performance he said of the sacked players that they didn't score many goals this year "and there hasn't been a lot in them over their careers". Excuse me? Golden boot Joel Griffiths leading goal scorer in Newcastle history. None of the others are strikers.
Tinkler does cop some blame because he has employed them for their opinion and advice. If he is holding them accountable for their performance then he's even more to blame.Quote:
- With regards to his leadership, he says that now he can officially be blamed for things now that he is not relying on other people for advice but when Lucy says "what do you know about football?", he fully admits he knows nothing and says "that's the CEO's job". So what changes? He will still be relying on people for advice.
Yep. Poor reporting and an opportunity missed. maybe it was "off limits" as part of the agreement for an interview?Quote:
- Lucy does not even raise the question of his ability to fund the club into the future. Given that the FFA are trying to breach him on his current debts, isn't this an important question?
The entire interview was as soft as you could go, even the non-soft serve questions that were asked were answered poorly and allowed to slide. The entire SBS acting as Tinklers mouth piece throughout the Asian Cup just stinks of bitterness that SBS wasn’t awarded the broadcast rights, why else would they time every single one of the releases to coincide with sooceroos performances.