I’d rather not but thanks for the offer…

Did this coincide with the upturn in form? Whatever else you do, don’t put it back on for the rest of the season!

I think you’re right - they might have a good winge for a while longer though… Hopefully it doesn’t set back his career.

Brentford = Moneyball Rovers = Balls To The Money

The loan agreement (a contract) was finalised, the agreed timeline in the judgment confirms it was fully executed. As I’ve just said above, whether our failings constitute a breach of this contract will depend on the wording of any ‘subject to’ clause in either the agreement or the regulations. (As far as I’m aware) none of us has seen this so none of us can be certain as to whether or not there’s basis for a claim ( loan losses only)

On the £20 Million loss. Surely to negate any claim, if promoted we just offer Forest the same fee - they can’t both reject it and sue for it at the same time. If Forest accept, but O’Brien rejects, and takes a lower wage elsewhere, he can’t sue for something he has turned down. Of course if we’re not promoted then the option wouldn’t have been triggered so no losses have been occurred I guess they could argue that we would have been promoted if he had signed - I can’t see that being a winnable case. Regarding claims on the loan period - I think this hinges on whether the loan agreement, or the regulations, have a clause along the lines of ‘subject to registration with the EFL’

I agree with that but how on earth did George Hirst end up in that pond…

Technotronic - Pump Up The Jam

Tom Jones - She’s A Lady

Dr Hook - When You’re In Love With A Beautiful Woman

I guess in its simplest form: Any breach of contract hinges on whether such a clause was in the loan agreement If it was, and the contract is null and void, Forest/O’Brien would have to prove this was caused by negligence (and not ‘mere’ incompetence)

Fats Domino - Ain’t That A Shame

I guess the point I was trying to make was that some of the players are the same but their ‘ability to contribute’ (perceived or actual) has increased. By the way, I agree that the squad JDT inherited was stronger than the one TM inherited. I suppose the frustration is it could have been even stronger - but maybe we’d always feel that way

I guess you can add the emergence of Carter and the resurgence of JRC. Possibly also the confidence that A Wharton and Garrett are good enough for this level.

Would you not say Brittain has been a good signing? Maybe you’ve omitted him because of his injuries

Maybe this doesn’t count as recent, but Josh King?

Fair enough, my instinct is that Mowbray may have played more experienced players out of position ahead of picking such young players. It could be argued that sometimes that is the better option - you could definitely argue that my instinct is incorrect!

I promise this is the last time I’ll bring this up but… The EFL agreed that a fully executed loan agreement was submitted to them (as per the timeline) Surely fully executed = legally binding? Part of me wants Forest to ‘give it a go’ just so we can all find out!

Possibly a less qualified version - well certainly in the case of me 😁

Absolutely - though I’m not convinced we have been forced to use them. Again, I’m happy to be corrected

Did he bring through teenagers?- I’m happy to be corrected just none are coming to mind

In case anyones interested (also posted on FA cup draw thread) just noticed tickets are in home end so maybe not!

In case anyones interested just noticed tickets are in home end so maybe not

Having looked at what documents you have to submit for a loan (ignoring the option element) I can’t see how the loan agreement isn’t the contract. Can the EFL ‘annul’ a contract that they are not a party to? - clearly they can refuse to accept the registration because they have done so, but I think that’s a different issue. (The timeline in the judgement does describe the loan agreement as fully executed) Edited to add - See clause 49.1 (which I think covers loan transfers as well as permanent ones) of the EFL handbook, I’m not sure this invalidates the contract - what do you think? https://www.efl.com/contentassets/b3cd34c726c341ca9636610aa4503172/efl-handbook-202223_digital_regs.pdf Even if we accept that Forest/the player could sue for a breach of contract, they’d still have to mitigate their losses and the MLS transfer window is still open. Regarding the negligence angle, proving our incompetence is easy but like you said proving this is negligence is far more onerous.