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.

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

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)

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

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

Do you think this is deliberate?

Billy Joel - We Didn’t Start The Fire

Sister Sledge - We Are Family

No he’s not, he’s just forgotten to mention why it took longer - they forgot to turn the oven on 😁

Roy Orbison - Pretty Woman

Do you agree with my interpretation I posted a while ago?: Loan agreement entered into - ‘sueable’ losses Permanent contract agreed but not entered into - no ‘sueable’ losses

Or even know about the losses…

I don’t think anyone knows because that one hasn’t gone to arbitration Based on the O’Brien one I guess we’d all go for incompetence…

A look in the mirror might suffice…

As I’ve just mentioned, we didn’t just propose the loan agreement (a contract in itself) we also executed it. What we didn’t do is execute the playing contract related to a permanent transfer - we merely agreed what that contract would be should the option be exercised.

23:28 of the timeline confirms the loan agreement had been fully executed - this is a standard form of which I can only find the Irish FA’s version but this states… ‘Upon execution of this standard professional contract the club shall submit the registration of the player to the IFA in accordance with the relevant regulations’ Assuming the EFL version has the same clause, then we’ve breached it and could be subject to provable losses related to the loan only 20:47 mentions a contract that would be entered into if the option (to buy) was exercised. Given this means this contract (following a permanent transfer) hadn’t yet been entered into we can’t be subject to losses in relation to this. Edited to add: We also entered into an option deed - to breach this we would have to have been promoted and then refused to sign the player. I still can’t see the claimable loss from this as if we go up we could still offer to buy him at the same fee and on the same terms to the player. Clearly either could reject this, but what they couldn’t do is reject this and also sue for losses.

I imagine we will have to pay the EFL costs i can see an argument for having to pay O’Briens appearance bonuses and having to compensate Forest for his basic salary. I’m not seeing any other provable costs. I absolutely think we’re at fault - you can’t not do so having read the judgment.

20:47 refers to a draft contract that would be entered into if the option was exercised. So the contract hasn’t been entered into and therefore no losses can be linked to it. That’s my interpretation anyway.

I wonder if it hinges on if the contract includes something along the lines of ‘subject to the successful registration of the player’?

Could they have included him in their squad whilst an appeal was pending? I genuinely don’t know