Latest Rumours Tilson still not seen his money?

[GBJ]

Plenty I'm afraid. I'm in no way condoning the way Martin has acted in the matter of Tilson, but we aren't the only club that have treated so called legends or club stalwarts in such a disgraceful manner.

Martin has previous though, which makes it worse, (but expected?). Brushy & Spinner both had problems.

 

[duncan bulgaria]

Whether there is any truth in thsi or not but my Grays supporting mate believes they are still waiting for their sell on fee for Eastwood which was agreed by a handshake ................maybe old news but if true it sheds some light on how much principals mean to our owner .

 

[EastStandBlue]

Whether there is any truth in thsi or not but my Grays supporting mate believes they are still waiting for their sell on fee for Eastwood which was agreed by a handshake ................maybe old news but if true it sheds some light on how much principals mean to our owner .

I'd imagine they'll be waiting for that for a while, as there was no sell-on clause agreed with Grays after they rearranged the permanent transfer to receive a bigger fee upfront.

 

[Mick]

I'd imagine they'll be waiting for that for a while, as there was no sell-on clause agreed with Grays after they rearranged the permanent transfer to receive a bigger fee upfront.

Indeed, there was a contract which included a sell-on fee, but Grays amended the terms at the same time leaving out the sell-on clause (deliberately or accidentally? Given Mike Woodward's track record, probably accidentally).

 

[Firestorm]

" wonder why, though, Tilly has not taken us to court on this is it still a loyalty to the club, or could it be that it would not stand up ?" Firsestorm

that last bit reads like a bit of a snipe - an implication that perhaps hes not actually owed the money .....

if I am reading it wrong I apologise - but why the **** wouldn't it stand up ?

if i am wrong I am sorry but it does seem to imply there might be some reason why after all he did that they couldn't pay him off despite the club having 5 MILLION QUID FROM SAINSBURYS

Not a comment that he is not owed the money, more a thought that there may have been something which prevents him from taking legal recourse to collect it.

It could be many things which would effect the case, its not just about the fact that he is owed the money, but certain processes for collection have to be followed before a court can be approached, I think I posted a link earlier which shows the process.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Indeed, there was a contract which included a sell-on fee, but Grays amended the terms at the same time leaving out the sell-on clause (deliberately or accidentally? Given Mike Woodward's track record, probably accidentally).

I was told years ago that Grays had two options, either receive a smaller fee up-front with a sell-on clause (around 30%), or forego the sell-on and receive a more substantial transfer. Grays opted for the latter, then pleaded ignorance when we fetched £1.5m for him.

 

[Homer]

I was told years ago that Grays had two options, either receive a smaller fee up-front with a sell-on clause (around 30%), or forego the sell-on and receive a more substantial transfer. Grays opted for the latter, then pleaded ignorance when we fetched £1.5m for him.

There was never any sell on clause with Grays for Freddy a family member was involved with the club in the woodman era at the time

 

[McNasty]

There was never any sell on clause with Grays for Freddy a family member was involved with the club in the woodman era at the time

Must be true then.

 

[undercovershrimper]

even if ron shook hands on the sell on fee, that agreement would of been superseeded by the written transfer agreement and if no sell on fee was in that agreement then grays are due sweet fa