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.

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.