Town seek Swans sanction

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 49,00.html


all fun and games then

Storm in a teacup.

We had him on loan and he got injured and went back.I dont blame Huw for not paying.It'll only be peanuts anyway.

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

haha well said nerd

Even if he gets injured you still have to pay him maybe someone should tell huw the thick c*nt

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

Well obviously Huw feels that they dont deserve paying.It's how we've got to where we are today.Tighter than a mouses ear is Huw.

So in Swansea, you get a car on monthly payments, you write it off, you stop paying and send them the left overs of the purchase?

Need to get myself down to Ford Thorne in Swansea then if thats how things work

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

Well obviously Huw feels that they dont deserve paying.It's how we've got to where we are today.Tighter than a mouses ear is Huw.

Didnt his own business go tits up because he didnt pay the creditors

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

Well obviously Huw feels that they dont deserve paying.It's how we've got to where we are today.Tighter than a mouses ear is Huw.

Yes. We can tell by his business doing so well recently.

Priskin was injured playing for you. In which parallel universe does Huw live in that magically implies a contract is no longer binding?

Or are we meant to magically believe you luckily got a loan contract which failed to contain the same terms as every other loan deal?

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

and no doubt if we are obliged to pay it we will. However, it's clear those obligations are in dispute.

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

and no doubt if we are obliged to pay it we will. However, it's clear those obligations are in dispute.

Funnily enough, none of your fans seem to consider that logic give regards to say Langston, hmmm?

Clue; forensic accountants are reviewing as we speak.

Now, again, how plausible is it that you magically got a loan contract without one of the standard loan terms in?

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

and no doubt if we are obliged to pay it we will. However, it's clear those obligations are in dispute.

lol - talk about no understanding of legal or business ethics.

huw hasn't paid

ipswich are pursuing the issue because they want payment.

if swansea dont pay what is agreed in the contract they SIGNED then they will get an embargo placed on them until you pay up.

quite a simple analogy for most.

Last edited by Bloobirds101 on Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

and no doubt if we are obliged to pay it we will. However, it's clear those obligations are in dispute.

Funnily enough, none of your fans seem to consider that logic give regards to say Langston, hmmm?

Clue; forensic accountants are reviewing as we speak.

Now, again, how plausible is it that you magically got a loan contract without one of the standard loan terms in?

So by your reasoning, why do you think we haven't paid the disputed sum?

If it's only peanuts, then pay your obligations.

Since that's something you remind us about...

and no doubt if we are obliged to pay it we will. However, it's clear those obligations are in dispute.

Funnily enough, none of your fans seem to consider that logic give regards to say Langston, hmmm?

Clue; forensic accountants are reviewing as we speak.

Now, again, how plausible is it that you magically got a loan contract without one of the standard loan terms in?

Nerds rattled,go and get em fella

So by your reasoning, why do you think we haven't paid the disputed sum?

because he got injured which is tough luck, its a risk you take, and your owner doesn't want to pay, even though he signed him.

to be honest, if hes signing players and then doesn't want to pay when they get injured your club should be banned from the market as you're conning other clubs out of the money they're due. You deserve an embargo.

As i've already said,if Huw thinks they need paying then we'll pay.And if he doesn't,then............

it really is that simple and a non story.

So by your reasoning, why do you think we haven't paid the disputed sum?

because he got injured which is tough luck, its a risk you take, and your owner doesn't want to pay, even though he signed him.

to be honest, if hes signing players and then doesn't want to pay when they get injured your club should be banned from the market as you're conning other clubs out of the money they're due. You deserve an embargo.

And that is just conjecture on your part.

http://www.swanseacity.net/page/Latest/ ... 60,00.html

So by your reasoning, why do you think we haven't paid the disputed sum?

Ask Huw Jenkins why.

It could be breathtaking arrogance. It could be incompetence. It could be the club may have short term cash issues.

Maybe he's syphoning money off for a nose reduction operation.

Who knows? We do however know the Ipswich chairman has gone public with precise information about the loan agreement. I'd say he's fairly confident of his position.

Ah, the great Jacks response, as seen before.

"Debt? What debt?"

Swansea claim there has been no correspondance.

Clegg has claimed Swansea failed to respond to invoices sent.

Swansea's statement smacks of pedantry; there may well have been no nice hand written notes with kisses drawn on them, but if invoices were sent, then it's pretty clear they were well aware of the situation.

Which doesn't bode well if it's proven there was contact from Ipswich. Because that would show Swansea deliberately and cynically lied.

And of course, the after effect would be anybody selling, loaning players to Swansea would want deals pre-loaded to pay the vast majority of fees up front - to avoid being stiffed. Something we've experienced ourselves.

EDIT:

And of course, the statement shows there's no intent to pay, despite what some Jacks on here are saying...

Ah, the great Jacks response, as seen before.

"Debt? What debt?"

Swansea claim there has been no correspondance.

Clegg has claimed Swansea failed to respond to invoices sent.

Swansea's statement smacks of pedantry; there may well have been no nice hand written notes with kisses drawn on them, but if invoices were sent, then it's pretty clear they were well aware of the situation.

Which doesn't bode well if it's proven there was contact from Ipswich. Because that would show Swansea deliberately and cynically lied.

And of course, the after effect would be anybody selling, loaning players to Swansea would want deals pre-loaded to pay the vast majority of fees up front - to avoid being stiffed. Something we've experienced ourselves.

EDIT:

And of course, the statement shows there's no intent to pay, despite what some Jacks on here are saying...

Nicely twisted although what Jenkins actually says is there has been no correspondence since they spoke a couple of weeks ago, rather than there simply being no correspondence at all.

Ah, the great Jacks response, as seen before.

"Debt? What debt?"

Swansea claim there has been no correspondance.

Clegg has claimed Swansea failed to respond to invoices sent.

Swansea's statement smacks of pedantry; there may well have been no nice hand written notes with kisses drawn on them, but if invoices were sent, then it's pretty clear they were well aware of the situation.

Which doesn't bode well if it's proven there was contact from Ipswich. Because that would show Swansea deliberately and cynically lied.

And of course, the after effect would be anybody selling, loaning players to Swansea would want deals pre-loaded to pay the vast majority of fees up front - to avoid being stiffed. Something we've experienced ourselves.

EDIT:

And of course, the statement shows there's no intent to pay, despite what some Jacks on here are saying...

Nicely twisted although what Jenkins actually says is there has been no correspondence since they spoke a couple of weeks ago, rather than there simply being no correspondence at all.

Right, so invoices don't count then? Which was my point.

Jenkins has stated the club are unaware of any dispute. His words.

So basically, he's calling Clegg a liar.

Dangerous game that. If Ipswich prove there was contact, invoices were received, instantly Huw is shown to be a liar.

At least on the bright side his nose can't get any longer.

Right, so invoices don't count then? Which was my point.

Jenkins has stated the club are unaware of any dispute. His words.

So basically, he's calling Clegg a liar.

Dangerous game that. If Ipswich prove there was contact, invoices were received, instantly Huw is shown to be a liar.

At least on the bright side his nose can't get any longer.

Where is it stated that these invoices were received after the conversation where Jenkins states no contact has been received since?

The Ipswich chairman is quoted as saying "The deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms by their chairman is not fitting for a club which has just secured the ultimate prize in Championship football and with it a £90m windfall"

Firstly, having a £90m windfall is an irrelevance. Secondly a "deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms" is basically a contract dispute. Without knowing the exact language on the written contract, It could equally be said that the Ipswich chairman is doing the same.

Right, so invoices don't count then? Which was my point.

Jenkins has stated the club are unaware of any dispute. His words.

So basically, he's calling Clegg a liar.

Dangerous game that. If Ipswich prove there was contact, invoices were received, instantly Huw is shown to be a liar.

At least on the bright side his nose can't get any longer.

Where is it stated that these invoices were received after the conversation where Jenkins states no contact has been received since?

The Ipswich chairman is quoted as saying "The deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms by their chairman is not fitting for a club which has just secured the ultimate prize in Championship football and with it a £90m windfall"

Firstly, having a £90m windfall is an irrelevance. Secondly a "deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms" is basically a contract dispute. Without knowing the exact language on the written contract, It could equally be said that the Ipswich chairman is doing the same.

1) Invoices don't have to have been sent after any conversation. If the invoices were already sent and received, no need to fire more off.

2) Having a £90m windfall is a PR stunt, same as the Motherwell chairman tried against us. Designed to shame. Directly relevant? No, but it makes you look incredibly cheap. Which affects your reputation within the game. As I've said, expect clubs selling you to want pre-loaded fees.

3) "Deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms" isn't a contract dispute per se. It's uncouched language intimating Jenkins is trying to applying situations so divorced from reality to claim his view is valid. "Deliberate misinterpretation" intimates Jenkins knows he's wrong, has fingers in ears going "nyah nyah nyah".

4) It could equally be said Clegg is doing the same. In my experience, you don't shout the odds from a position of weakness. It would certainly explain why you've signed no-one since Graham - the fee of which almost certainly triggered Ipswich's complaint given a seeming refusal to pay Ipswich.

Nerd 1 - 0 Swansea Town

Right, so invoices don't count then? Which was my point.

Jenkins has stated the club are unaware of any dispute. His words.

So basically, he's calling Clegg a liar.

Dangerous game that. If Ipswich prove there was contact, invoices were received, instantly Huw is shown to be a liar.

At least on the bright side his nose can't get any longer.

Where is it stated that these invoices were received after the conversation where Jenkins states no contact has been received since?

The Ipswich chairman is quoted as saying "The deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms by their chairman is not fitting for a club which has just secured the ultimate prize in Championship football and with it a £90m windfall"

Firstly, having a £90m windfall is an irrelevance. Secondly a "deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms" is basically a contract dispute. Without knowing the exact language on the written contract, It could equally be said that the Ipswich chairman is doing the same.

1) Invoices don't have to have been sent after any conversation. If the invoices were already sent and received, no need to fire more off.

2) Having a £90m windfall is a PR stunt, same as the Motherwell chairman tried against us. Designed to shame. Directly relevant? No, but it makes you look incredibly cheap. Which affects your reputation within the game. As I've said, expect clubs selling you to want pre-loaded fees.

3) "Deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms" isn't a contract dispute per se. It's uncouched language intimating Jenkins is trying to applying situations so divorced from reality to claim his view is valid. "Deliberate misinterpretation" intimates Jenkins knows he's wrong, has fingers in ears going "nyah nyah nyah".

4) It could equally be said Clegg is doing the same. In my experience, you don't shout the odds from a position of weakness. It would certainly explain why you've signed no-one since Graham - the fee of which almost certainly triggered Ipswich's complaint given a seeming refusal to pay Ipswich.

My point on the invoices is that Jenkins says that no communication has been received since they spoke. Invoices received prior to that conversation would not class as communication post that conversation.

"Deliberate misinterpretation" is simply another way of saying "A different interpretation to mine and one I don't agree with"

Why would it explain why we've signed no one since Graham? Please walk me slowly through that one.

My point on the invoices is that Jenkins says that no communication has been received since they spoke. Invoices received prior to that conversation would not class as communication post that conversation.

"Deliberate misinterpretation" is simply another way of saying "A different interpretation to mine and one I don't agree with"

Why would it explain why we've signed no one since Graham? Please walk me slowly through that one.

1) That was my point. "No communication" is merely a semantic comment with little relevance. Unless Jenkins has written confirmation the invoices are not to be persued / relevant credit notes for the sum, then there's zero chance said invoices have been withdrawn. Meaning invoices remaining outstanding, lying on file. Credible for Jenkins to thus act surprised when Ipswich complain? "Oh we spoke, I thought those lovely invoices weren't relevant anymore?" Do me a lemon!

2) It may be simply another way to you, I'd suggest the tone of said comment is fairly harsher than your interpretation. As in, "You're a liar". One thing is for certainly. One of them is lying; would you really like a back either with a 50% chance of losing?

3) Football is an incestuous business. People talk. This issue may have come up, Ipswich may have already approached the relevant authorities. One scenario I've given you is that clubs may have suddenly revisited deals close to completion with you, wanting more money up front. Who knows? It's certainly a possibility.

My point on the invoices is that Jenkins says that no communication has been received since they spoke. Invoices received prior to that conversation would not class as communication post that conversation.

"Deliberate misinterpretation" is simply another way of saying "A different interpretation to mine and one I don't agree with"

Why would it explain why we've signed no one since Graham? Please walk me slowly through that one.

1) That was my point. "No communication" is merely a semantic comment with little relevance. Unless Jenkins has written confirmation the invoices are not to be persued / relevant credit notes for the sum, then there's zero chance said invoices have been withdrawn. Meaning invoices remaining outstanding, lying on file. Credible for Jenkins to thus act surprised when Ipswich complain? "Oh we spoke, I thought those lovely invoices weren't relevant anymore?" Do me a lemon!

2) It may be simply another way to you, I'd suggest the tone of said comment is fairly harsher than your interpretation. As in, "You're a liar". One thing is for certainly. One of them is lying; would you really like a back either with a 50% chance of losing?

3) Football is an incestuous business. People talk. This issue may have come up, Ipswich may have already approached the relevant authorities. One scenario I've given you is that clubs may have suddenly revisited deals close to completion with you, wanting more money up front. Who knows? It's certainly a possibility.

And everything you've just typed there is pure conjecture.

Without knowing the content of the conversation between the two parties that took place a couple of weeks ago, any comment is guesswork. As far as we know, it may have been prior to the play off final and the Ipswich chairman verbally agreed to waive any supposed right to additional payments from promotion due to the fact Priskin had played little part in it and is now seeing £££ signs and going back on that agreement. This could be the reason for HJ saying he was not aware of any dispute.

Like I said, all conjecture.

just remember this is well run goody goody swansea.(who went into admin twice owing creditors thousands).surely cant be true.

And everything you've just typed there is pure conjecture.

Without knowing the content of the conversation between the two parties that took place a couple of weeks ago, any comment is guesswork. As far as we know, it may have been prior to the play off final and the Ipswich chairman verbally agreed to waive any supposed right to additional payments from promotion due to the fact Priskin had played little part in it and is now seeing £££ signs and going back on that agreement. This could be the reason for HJ saying he was not aware of any dispute.

Like I said, all conjecture.

Indeed, and your conjecture is not that realistic.

Are you telling my Jenkins, such a great businessman, wouldn't get that agreement notarised? Seriously? I mean, don't get me wrong, he's a c***, but that's a Ridsdale style ballsup if it happened as you claimed. Which is why I'd assess it as being not particularly likely.

If Ipswich waived any agreement, provided documentation to that extent, then it would have been very, very easy to refute Ipswich's claims with the evidence. Instead Jenkins' comments reference no such evidence, instead basing his view off a conversation.