11 hours ago, Andy said:

I do think this summer is massive, for both GB and JDT; we can't have another January.

I've said before, but we seem to be fishing in the right ponds (Anel / Cantwell / Hyam / O'Brien / etc), so we have to land a few this summer.

Obviously the league we're in will dictate our draw, but it really is a pivotal summer.

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

5 hours ago, phili said:

There is normally a clause stating the loan agreement is enacted upon league registration and is null and void without league approval. So there will be no claims from Forest. If that was the case multiple claims would be going through court now including against Forest last year for missing the deadline by 7 seconds.

However I still do not understand why the EFL are not using the Premier League system where you have 2 hours to submit final paperwork once the deadline has passed so long as the deal sheet has been submitted by 11pm deadline.

Looking at the timeline and the missing hour, we can safely assume Waggot/Pasha had to be consulted for approval which being towards the end of the Birmingham match they would have been busy being entertained by the Birmingham hierarchy so would have been difficult to contact. Also I have no idea why Silvester wasn't at Brockhall with the players and Greg, as they were all busy doing interviews and marketing material. So would have been pretty easy to sort the last few things out.

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 

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Im certainly not convinced by Garrett at this level yet. Wharton I really rate but I dont think that Tomasson is his biggest fan. The other 2 have definitely improved although all 4 I guess were here last summer. Rankin Costello's recent form has been remarkable, for example with Brereton who went from awful to being key, there was that year inbetween of significant improvement. With Rankin Costello it has been so sudden.

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 

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Is that stronger? Losing our main asset (down to Venkys) and also our most experienced defender, adding Hyam, Brittain and Szmodics. Definitely not from a value perspective, maybe from losing 2 and gaining 3 although the most difficult to replace of the 5 (as much as I rate Hyam and appreciate that Brereton has been out of form) is Brereton.

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.

8 minutes ago, M_B said:

If he didn't leave a squad capable of challenging for promotion, how are we 4th with 12 games to play, having been in the top 6 virtually all season? 

Tomasson has done a cracking job, but apart from Hyam, his signings haven't really broken any pots, it's been down to the bulk of existing players. 

The table doesn't lie after so long,we might not have seen it coming, but the players were obviously there, they've proven it. 

I don't know why people can't accept it, it's obviously true, the table proves it🤷‍♂️

Would you not say Brittain has been a good signing?

Maybe you’ve omitted him because of his injuries 

2 hours ago, BRFC_Polky said:

I’m struggling to think of any strikers that have moved on from Rovers recently and done well.

Gestede, Rhodes and Armstrong all failed to impress following their ‘big’ moves.

 

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

4 minutes ago, booth said:

We had Leonard on the bench on Tuesday because we have no other centre forwards but Vale and Gallagher. 17 year old Philips came off the bench to bolster the defence in the closing moments. Earlier in the season he had to step up to the first team.

Wharton had to because our other midfielders had a collective mental breakdown.

I don't think there's a game gone by without a teenager or two on the bench.

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!

2 hours ago, The Gull said:

All signings and contracts are subject to the leagues approval, if that doesn’t happen there is no deal, no claim or liability possible. 
 

What will cost us is any future deal with Forest, LOBs agent, or any other club and agent that have paid attention to this farce. 
 

Everyone needs to move on, including the half wits that messed this up, and put in place a robust system to ensure that doesn’t happen again. 

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!

2 hours ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

It's like an episode of Kavanagh QC. 

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

31 minutes ago, booth said:

We shouldn't be forced to use teenagers in the first team, they should be brought in at the correct time for the good of their development and the team.

Absolutely - though I’m not convinced we have been forced to use them.

Again, I’m happy to be corrected 

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

More that the aim should have been to improve on last season, otherwise we may aswell have given Mowbray a new deal. A safe pair of hands who wouldnt push us too far on but would always have us well away from danger.

Whether he would have had us in the same position now is irrelevant. He had us on I think the same points as we have now after the same number of games after a summer in which he wasnt allowed to spend any of the Armstrong money but I doubt he would even still.

We spent 4 or 5 million in the summer and got more loans to replace those who left to build on the core of the squad that finished 8th.

We have moved well away from my point anyway that the states in which both managers inherited the playing staff in are poles apart. Id rather have Tomasson now and am glad that Mowbray left but he is not the waste of space that people like to paint him as after things went sour.

Mowbray brought through young players in his time here. Again, a criticism of him from his time that is unfair with people seemingly desperate to criticise him in any way possible. An average manager who did a decent job here.

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

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

You are right it does 

The duty of care is established by proximity and fairness 

Could it be argued we were close enough to Nottingham Forest to reasonably foresee any harm that could arise from our negligence? Maybe. We knew if we didn’t get the deal ratified they would not receive the contributions we promised and would have to continue paying his salary in full. Just speculating there - I don’t think it will come to that at all 

As Wisden points out if that loan agreement constitutes a contract then maybe there’s an argument for breach of contract. Can’t see it myself. Would bet my last quid there’s some Regulation in the EFL documents that say contracts are not valid until they have been ratified by their Board, or similar 

 

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.

4 minutes ago, islander200 said:

If Tony Mowbray was the manager with this squad we would not be sitting in fourth place now.

Van Hecke, Khadra, Nyambe ,Lenihen and Rothwell were part of our strongest 11 last season.

A club loses 5 of it's better players from their first 11 but the new manager Should be bettering last seasons finish according to Roversfan.Ridiculous way of thinking imo.It wasn't squad players we lost ,they were major players in the excellent 3 month spell we had last season that led us to second place.As soon as a few injuries hit including Brererton we fell away.

I doubt we’d have seen Philips, A Wharton or Garrett either 

5 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

The claim for negligence arising under the law of tort, which is separate from the law of contract, requires that the party being sued owes a duty of care to the injured party. I can't see how Blackburn Rovers could be regarded as having a duty of care to either Nottingham Forest or Lewis O'Brien.

See my reply to Dreams of 1995

This could be a simple breach of contract claim rather than a claim for negligence (again loan agreement aspect only)

20 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I haven't, sorry

You see, a claim for loss usually arises from a breach of contract. I don't know, but I will look up, whether the "loan agreement" facilitates a binding contract

I'd actually more side with Mercer, in that the contract was frustrated due to negligence by Rovers, therefore as no contract was entered into there cannot be a breach

What I believe Mercer is then insinuating is that a claim arises from a 'Tort of Negligence'. It is an area of law that is complex and very difficult to prove

Below is the link to the Irish FA’s standard loan agreement, I mentioned in my earlier post that I couldn’t find the EFL version online, but drew attention to clause 23.

On the assumption that the EFL contains a similar clause:

The timeline in the arbitration judgement confirmed we submitted an executed loan agreement 

By failing to comply with this clause we have breached this agreement

On that basis, I do wonder if that opens us up to a claim solely on the loan aspect of the deal

Again, it is the Irish FA version, but it does state that this is a contract 

https://www.irishfa.com/media/17270/r4-loan-of-professional.pdf

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

You can disagree with his legal perspective all you like, but given that he is right and you are not, we are going to need some reasons as to why

You feel certain and you strongly suspect, yet from any sort of legal standpoint I just do not see it

The only damages we are liable to pay, and will pay, are the ones suffered by the EFL in preparing their arbitration

Have you seen what I put about the standard loan agreement?

I feel that ‘opens us up’ to a claim regarding the loan (but not the option to buy) - whether one will be made is an entirely different matter

Sonny And Cher - I Got You Babe 

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I don't think the squad was "in a state" and I certainly don't think it was anything remotely close in terms of the state he inherited, which is the primary point that I have made. What Tomasson inherited could have been even stronger had the owners not intervened to stop us selling and reinvesting the Rothwell money, had they allowed delegation of Brereton's future and had any of the money from the massive profit made on a Mowbray signing last summer been reinvested, notwithstanding the fact that the main reason that it probably didn't was having to cover the general way that Venkys mismanage our club that hindered Mowbray and will hinder Tomasson.

Brereton as I said will have definitely had a confidence boost, but it is IMO from a point of refusing to give Mowbray any praise at all to not acknowledge his part in it. As I said, he had noticeably improved in the season prior to the Copa America, he was using his body better, he looked more confident and he was starting to score and assist. As I said, I also think that the tactics employed by Mowbray last season really got the best from him, playing on the counter attack a lot giving him space to run into, having him much further up the pitch than he has been this season and finding a role that allowed him to essentially be a hybrid of a striker whilst still coming from that left hand side. On Gallagher, he has only had a couple of good games this season, in general it has been a season again of a mixture of playing wide and central and not one in which his goal return has increased.

I thought that the aim should be to improve upon the league position we finished in last season yes, we have improved in all but one of the last 5 seasons and fingers crossed we will improve again upon that this season. As far as I was concerned, Mowbray had probably reached a glass ceiling, the point of the next manager is to go the next step. A play off place certainly would be exactly that.

I suppose a potential issue with the current footballing structure is that it is hard to assign responsibility as easily. I don't think we did have good windows really, but we have to take Tomasson's word that he is at least part of the recruitment process. That process won't change so it would undermine any point in saying "give Tomasson x windows" if he is that far removed from recruitment.

Do you think this is deliberate?

5 minutes ago, lraC said:

One has to wonder how many others have gone wrong in the last, but we have managed to sort them out, as we had time? Maybe the EFL were fed up of for example sending the Hyam papers back 2 or 3 times, before the finally got them right.

They may well do this all the time, but on this one deadline day deadline minute, meant we had no time to go back and correct it.

Billy Smart would do a better job.