Jacks not paying up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28701743
Wonder what the truth is. Is it a case of a leopard not changing it's spots or are the Dutch getting worked up over nothing.

Well, sir Huw said Vorm went to spurs on a free, so 30% of nothing is... nothing!

Official site said undisclosed fee Someones lying? May not done nothing wrong but shows got no morals when it comes to screwing club out of a cut, not 1st time is it? Mmmm
Ps spew said done whats best for cub? like said no morals.

So what is your response to Cardiff doing exactly the same thing in the Gabbidon/collision transfer Allan? Suppose that was fair game eh?

I'm sure I recall Cardiff doing a very similar thing when Gabbidon and Collins were sold. WBA were due a sell on fee for Gabbidon so he was valued at next to nothing compared to Collins in the double deal.

Can't remember the exact sums involved but the Collins fee was higher than gabbs. Think it was 5 million in total and 3 million was Collins and 2 million was fee for gabbs. Should have been other way around. At the time gabbs was the better player however Collins proved to be the better signing. WBA were paid what they were owed

I'm almost certain the total figure was £3.5m for the pair. With Collins valued at £3m and Gabbidon £500k to get out of paying much in the way of a sell on fee to WBA.

It was actually referenced on ccmb recently http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.ph ... sg_4243656

You may well be correct which goes to show that it's gone on for far too long. Football transfers need to be looked at closely by the authorities. Sell on clauses need honouring.

Ccfc have been guilty of messing other clubs around in the past. Sell on clauses are clearly not worth the paper they are written on and are used by clubs to get players for lesser fees.

But you've waited until it's Swansea under the spotlight before airing your views? Or have I got you wrong Gareth? Perhaps you published your views on the matter when it was Cardiff who were "bending the rules"? I suspect not, and I thought you were better than this Gareth .

I'm admitting that my club has bent the rules and have said its wrong. I thought that Swansea were well run and honourable after the 5p in £ fiasco.

We are well run, but I'm not sure a club our size can afford too much in the way of honour in our transfer dealings. We've goto act in our own best interests. Aren't all clubs the same? It's a cut throat business after all. Doesn't make it morally correct, but we all do what we need to survive and compete. Cardiff included. What I take issue with is the hypocrisy of Cardiff fans. Like I said, no mention was made when Cardiff did this, but when it's Swansea the likes of Gareth are all over it like a rash, and of course when all else fails the 5p in the pound gets brought up.

We all know where you'd be if you'd not shafted your creditors. I admit that my club has limited morals whereas you arrogantly think you are well run despite screwing people over and now you continue to do so. Rotten to the core.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28701743
Wonder what the truth is. Is it a case of a leopard not changing it's spots or are the Dutch getting worked up over nothing.

Well, sir Huw said Vorm went to spurs on a free, so 30% of nothing is... nothing!

Official site said undisclosed fee Someones lying? May not done nothing wrong but shows got no morals when it comes to screwing club out of a cut, not 1st time is it? Mmmm
Ps spew said done whats best for cub? like said no morals.

So what is your response to Cardiff doing exactly the same thing in the Gabbidon/collision transfer Allan? Suppose that was fair game eh?

No nothing about those deals so cant comment, as your an expert on our club perhaps you can enlighten me? But point is your lot profess to be so pure and saintly in how your club is run? So my response is to what was said nothing else!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28701743
Wonder what the truth is. Is it a case of a leopard not changing it's spots or are the Dutch getting worked up over nothing.

Well, sir Huw said Vorm went to spurs on a free, so 30% of nothing is... nothing!

Official site said undisclosed fee Someones lying? May not done nothing wrong but shows got no morals when it comes to screwing club out of a cut, not 1st time is it? Mmmm
Ps spew said done whats best for cub? like said no morals.

So what is your response to Cardiff doing exactly the same thing in the Gabbidon/collision transfer Allan? Suppose that was fair game eh?

No nothing about those deals so cant comment, as your an expert on our club perhaps you can enlighten me? But point is your lot profess to be so pure and saintly in how your club is run? So my response is to what was said nothing else!

Scroll back through this thread or google it Allan. It's not hard.

I'm sure I recall Cardiff doing a very similar thing when Gabbidon and Collins were sold. WBA were due a sell on fee for Gabbidon so he was valued at next to nothing compared to Collins in the double deal.

Can't remember the exact sums involved but the Collins fee was higher than gabbs. Think it was 5 million in total and 3 million was Collins and 2 million was fee for gabbs. Should have been other way around. At the time gabbs was the better player however Collins proved to be the better signing. WBA were paid what they were owed

I'm almost certain the total figure was £3.5m for the pair. With Collins valued at £3m and Gabbidon £500k to get out of paying much in the way of a sell on fee to WBA.

It was actually referenced on ccmb recently http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.ph ... sg_4243656

You may well be correct which goes to show that it's gone on for far too long. Football transfers need to be looked at closely by the authorities. Sell on clauses need honouring.

Ccfc have been guilty of messing other clubs around in the past. Sell on clauses are clearly not worth the paper they are written on and are used by clubs to get players for lesser fees.

But you've waited until it's Swansea under the spotlight before airing your views? Or have I got you wrong Gareth? Perhaps you published your views on the matter when it was Cardiff who were "bending the rules"? I suspect not, and I thought you were better than this Gareth .

I'm admitting that my club has bent the rules and have said its wrong. I thought that Swansea were well run and honourable after the 5p in £ fiasco.

We are well run, but I'm not sure a club our size can afford too much in the way of honour in our transfer dealings. We've goto act in our own best interests. Aren't all clubs the same? It's a cut throat business after all. Doesn't make it morally correct, but we all do what we need to survive and compete. Cardiff included. What I take issue with is the hypocrisy of Cardiff fans. Like I said, no mention was made when Cardiff did this, but when it's Swansea the likes of Gareth are all over it like a rash, and of course when all else fails the 5p in the pound gets brought up.

We all know where you'd be if you'd not shafted your creditors. I admit that my club has limited morals whereas you arrogantly think you are well run despite screwing people over and now you continue to do so. Rotten to the core.

Are you saying we're not a well run club Gareth? Only a blinkered bluebird would argue otherwise. With regards to the current situation, why did both the Premier league and FIFA approve the transfer of Vorm if there was anything untoward going on?

As for screwing our creditors see link below..

http://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=137237

THE future of debt-ridden Swansea City was virtually assured last night after creditors voted overwhelmingly in favour of accepting the club's five pence in the pound offer.

The Swans who are 1.7m in the red and in danger of going out of business, saw Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) as the only way of securing their future.

And yesterday, at a sombre meeting at Swansea's Marriott Hotel, the vast majority of unsecured creditors backed the club's proposal which means the Swans now have to pay around £450,000 to wipe its financial slate clean.

Most of that sum (£358,000) is owed to the Inland Revenue.

Former manager Colin Addison and his assistant Peter Nicholas voted against the CVA offer, as did former youth team manager Paul Compton and ex-defender Mathew Bound.

Ex-Swansea manager John Hollins, who is claiming £250,000 from the club, was not present at the meeting but he sent a representative to vote against the offer.

But Hollins scored a bureaucratic own goal - his vote did not count because he failed to return the appropriate forms to Stones & Co, the accountants overseeing the CVA, which would have allowed someone to vote on his behalf.

Hollins's vote would not have mattered anyway. The club needed creditors responsible for 75 per cent of the unsecured debt to vote in favour of CVA and in the end they got 92.4 per cent.

So you see, 92.4% of our creditors voted yes.

I'm sure I recall Cardiff doing a very similar thing when Gabbidon and Collins were sold. WBA were due a sell on fee for Gabbidon so he was valued at next to nothing compared to Collins in the double deal.

Can't remember the exact sums involved but the Collins fee was higher than gabbs. Think it was 5 million in total and 3 million was Collins and 2 million was fee for gabbs. Should have been other way around. At the time gabbs was the better player however Collins proved to be the better signing. WBA were paid what they were owed

I'm almost certain the total figure was £3.5m for the pair. With Collins valued at £3m and Gabbidon £500k to get out of paying much in the way of a sell on fee to WBA.

It was actually referenced on ccmb recently http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.ph ... sg_4243656

You may well be correct which goes to show that it's gone on for far too long. Football transfers need to be looked at closely by the authorities. Sell on clauses need honouring.

Ccfc have been guilty of messing other clubs around in the past. Sell on clauses are clearly not worth the paper they are written on and are used by clubs to get players for lesser fees.

But you've waited until it's Swansea under the spotlight before airing your views? Or have I got you wrong Gareth? Perhaps you published your views on the matter when it was Cardiff who were "bending the rules"? I suspect not, and I thought you were better than this Gareth .

I'm admitting that my club has bent the rules and have said its wrong. I thought that Swansea were well run and honourable after the 5p in £ fiasco.

We are well run, but I'm not sure a club our size can afford too much in the way of honour in our transfer dealings. We've goto act in our own best interests. Aren't all clubs the same? It's a cut throat business after all. Doesn't make it morally correct, but we all do what we need to survive and compete. Cardiff included. What I take issue with is the hypocrisy of Cardiff fans. Like I said, no mention was made when Cardiff did this, but when it's Swansea the likes of Gareth are all over it like a rash, and of course when all else fails the 5p in the pound gets brought up.

We all know where you'd be if you'd not shafted your creditors. I admit that my club has limited morals whereas you arrogantly think you are well run despite screwing people over and now you continue to do so. Rotten to the core.

Are you saying we're not a well run club Gareth? Only a blinkered bluebird would argue otherwise. With regards to the current situation, why did both the Premier league and FIFA approve the transfer of Vorm if there was anything untoward going on?

As for screwing our creditors see link below..

http://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=137237

THE future of debt-ridden Swansea City was virtually assured last night after creditors voted overwhelmingly in favour of accepting the club's five pence in the pound offer.

The Swans who are 1.7m in the red and in danger of going out of business, saw Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) as the only way of securing their future.

And yesterday, at a sombre meeting at Swansea's Marriott Hotel, the vast majority of unsecured creditors backed the club's proposal which means the Swans now have to pay around £450,000 to wipe its financial slate clean.

Most of that sum (£358,000) is owed to the Inland Revenue.

Former manager Colin Addison and his assistant Peter Nicholas voted against the CVA offer, as did former youth team manager Paul Compton and ex-defender Mathew Bound.

Ex-Swansea manager John Hollins, who is claiming £250,000 from the club, was not present at the meeting but he sent a representative to vote against the offer.

But Hollins scored a bureaucratic own goal - his vote did not count because he failed to return the appropriate forms to Stones & Co, the accountants overseeing the CVA, which would have allowed someone to vote on his behalf.

Hollins's vote would not have mattered anyway. The club needed creditors responsible for 75 per cent of the unsecured debt to vote in favour of CVA and in the end they got 92.4 per cent.

So you see, 92.4% of our creditors voted yes.

They had little choice.

I'm sure I recall Cardiff doing a very similar thing when Gabbidon and Collins were sold. WBA were due a sell on fee for Gabbidon so he was valued at next to nothing compared to Collins in the double deal.

Can't remember the exact sums involved but the Collins fee was higher than gabbs. Think it was 5 million in total and 3 million was Collins and 2 million was fee for gabbs. Should have been other way around. At the time gabbs was the better player however Collins proved to be the better signing. WBA were paid what they were owed

I'm almost certain the total figure was £3.5m for the pair. With Collins valued at £3m and Gabbidon £500k to get out of paying much in the way of a sell on fee to WBA.

It was actually referenced on ccmb recently http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudforum/index.ph ... sg_4243656

You may well be correct which goes to show that it's gone on for far too long. Football transfers need to be looked at closely by the authorities. Sell on clauses need honouring.

Ccfc have been guilty of messing other clubs around in the past. Sell on clauses are clearly not worth the paper they are written on and are used by clubs to get players for lesser fees.

But you've waited until it's Swansea under the spotlight before airing your views? Or have I got you wrong Gareth? Perhaps you published your views on the matter when it was Cardiff who were "bending the rules"? I suspect not, and I thought you were better than this Gareth .

I'm admitting that my club has bent the rules and have said its wrong. I thought that Swansea were well run and honourable after the 5p in £ fiasco.

We are well run, but I'm not sure a club our size can afford too much in the way of honour in our transfer dealings. We've goto act in our own best interests. Aren't all clubs the same? It's a cut throat business after all. Doesn't make it morally correct, but we all do what we need to survive and compete. Cardiff included. What I take issue with is the hypocrisy of Cardiff fans. Like I said, no mention was made when Cardiff did this, but when it's Swansea the likes of Gareth are all over it like a rash, and of course when all else fails the 5p in the pound gets brought up.

We all know where you'd be if you'd not shafted your creditors. I admit that my club has limited morals whereas you arrogantly think you are well run despite screwing people over and now you continue to do so. Rotten to the core.

Are you saying we're not a well run club Gareth? Only a blinkered bluebird would argue otherwise. With regards to the current situation, why did both the Premier league and FIFA approve the transfer of Vorm if there was anything untoward going on?

As for screwing our creditors see link below..

http://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=137237

THE future of debt-ridden Swansea City was virtually assured last night after creditors voted overwhelmingly in favour of accepting the club's five pence in the pound offer.

The Swans who are 1.7m in the red and in danger of going out of business, saw Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) as the only way of securing their future.

And yesterday, at a sombre meeting at Swansea's Marriott Hotel, the vast majority of unsecured creditors backed the club's proposal which means the Swans now have to pay around £450,000 to wipe its financial slate clean.

Most of that sum (£358,000) is owed to the Inland Revenue.

Former manager Colin Addison and his assistant Peter Nicholas voted against the CVA offer, as did former youth team manager Paul Compton and ex-defender Mathew Bound.

Ex-Swansea manager John Hollins, who is claiming £250,000 from the club, was not present at the meeting but he sent a representative to vote against the offer.

But Hollins scored a bureaucratic own goal - his vote did not count because he failed to return the appropriate forms to Stones & Co, the accountants overseeing the CVA, which would have allowed someone to vote on his behalf.

Hollins's vote would not have mattered anyway. The club needed creditors responsible for 75 per cent of the unsecured debt to vote in favour of CVA and in the end they got 92.4 per cent.

So you see, 92.4% of our creditors voted yes.

They had little choice.

It was a yes or no vote, so of course they had a choice, and 92.4% voted yes. However had they voted no, Swansea city would in all likely hood have gone out of business, and these companies would not have received a single penny. As it turns out we've continued to trade with many of them to this day and they've made their money back many times over. So you see Gareth, this myth that the Jack's cheated and manipulated their way to the top is nothing more than that... a myth.

The one and only thing you thought you had over us isn't even true. Sorry.

Swans win Vorm case...

FIFA initially ruled that Swansea had acted correctly, leaving Utrecht to take the case to the Court of Arbritation for Sport.

That court, according to van Shaik, have disagreed with FIFA's ruling and judged that this was a player exchange deal.

However, they have ruled that no money is owed, determining that there was nothing untoward about the value of the deal.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... e-11398740

Well well well.

Corruption is ripe or should I say fraud

Corruption is ripe or should I say fraud

More like cheap get out for a cheap club!

there were 3 separate deals, and huw thought he was being clever by manipulating the values so that we are supposed to accept vorm went for £0, despite being under contract and having significant transfer value, i.e. this was not an arms length transaction.

no-one knows here the terms or construction of the contract, so its impossible to say either way, though.

edit: just seen this is an old thread

Swans win Vorm case...

FIFA initially ruled that Swansea had acted correctly, leaving Utrecht to take the case to the Court of Arbritation for Sport.

That court, according to van Shaik, have disagreed with FIFA's ruling and judged that this was a player exchange deal.

However, they have ruled that no money is owed, determining that there was nothing untoward about the value of the deal.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... e-11398740

Well well well.

Well, well, well. Swansea have got away with screwing someone else and like a true jb you are on here proud of the fact. Strange how you weren't on here last season mr tragic green flash.

Couple of things Gareth...

Firstly, we haven't screwed anyone. Both FIFA and the court of arbritatuon for sport have said said the transfer of Vorm was all above board and no money is owed. Are you suggesting we chuck a few million to FC Utrecht as a good will gesture? Would Cardiff do that? No they wouldn't and neither would any club.

Secondly, I'm assuming your reference to screwing "someone else" you're referring to the fairytale Cardiff fans like to tarnish us with over the "going into administration and shafting of local businesses" that went to the wall as a result? Need I remind you that there is no evidence that any business went bust over our CVA, and as a result many of the affected business continue to trade with us to this day, and have made their money back many times over. Also lets not forget that over 90% of these businesses voted to accept the terms of the CVA. You seem to have forgotten the facts Gareth and fallen back on hearsay and false truths. A typical Cardiff trait I'm sorry to say. Would you like me to repost the facts for you to freshen your memory? It'll only take a sec.

Thirdly, I'm not proud, just thought those involved in the original thread might be interested in the outcome of the case.

And lastly, I've not felt the need to post much recently. They've been very few jack related threads over this last 12 months or so. I usually only post when there's anti Jack propaganda being posted and I feel it my duty to keep you all informed of the facts. Performing a public duty of cutting through all the bullshit and lies you might say.

Ps, can't you come up with your own witty insults? Tragic flaps and green flash are insults used by other users and are so last season.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6880