Saints settle out of court with Franny

[hypochondriac]

Yes' date=' I know Franny and speak to him regularly[/quote']

 

If that were true you wouldn't be saying what you were.

[The Kraken]

No one's assuming the club haven't settled in a way that's suitable to them, I think the implication is that it generally is a morally poor way to do business as a matter of course.

Amen to that.

[egg]

Indeed. It certainly doesn't look good from the outside. And only an imbecile would argue that settling out of court is a better option that not facing legal action in the first case. On multiple occasions. With the same outcome.

 

The same outcome?

 

What was the outcome? You don't know.

 

It's highly possible that Franny, and others, have been unreasonable and eventually agreed to more appropriate terms.

 

Settlement doesn't mean tgat we've ever conceded our position. There's every chance the oppo has.

[The Kraken]

The same outcome?

 

What was the outcome? You don't know.

 

It's highly possible that Franny, and others, have been unreasonable and eventually agreed to more appropriate terms.

 

Settlement doesn't mean tgat we've ever conceded our position. There's every chance the oppo has.

 

Whoa there, clime down from that high horse. The same outcome of settling immediately before the court case.

 

Blimey, emotions run high when defending the club it seems.

[egg]

I'm fairly sure it was the consensus previously that Benali was at least pushing his luck with the size of the claim. But I'd also say the bit in bold seems to be a fairly regular occurrence, whether it requires the lawyer involvement or not.

So if Franny was taking the p1ss, why the criticism on here for the club standing its ground before reaching settlement?

[The9]

Worth remembering that "the club"/Cortese would have had every opportunity to agree a cash settlement prior to this even being raised as potentially a court matter and the club effectively forced Benali's hand to litigation by refusing to pay him anything.

 

Also that Benali was clearly lied to to his face when discussing the ambassadorial role and cash-making opportunity around it when agreeing a compromise with Cortese (which IIRC involved £500 per home match with a minimum payment, but he was never allowed to exceed the minimum).

[egg]

Whoa there, clime down from that high horse. The same outcome of settling immediately before the court case.

 

Blimey, emotions run high when defending the club it seems.

 

No high horse mate.

 

The theme here is that the club have been wrong to defend its position until the 11th hour without any knowledge of facts.

 

In this, and other cases, the club may have been right and at the 11th hour the other party conceded position and settled.

 

Don't get me wrong, it may have been us going cap in hand at the 11th hour.

 

The point is neither you, me or anyone has a clue but assume the club are in the wrong. Odd.

[The9]

So if Franny was taking the p1ss, why the criticism on here for the club standing its ground before reaching settlement?

 

Because they could have negotiated a settlement without him needing to go to the court, and also (for me) because Cortese was clearly making settlement agreements for outstanding rent with no intention of honouring them in the first place.

[The9]

Let's not fall into the trap of using "the club" for a matter which initially arose from Cortese's personal renting of Benali's property, which Cortese then shifted onto the club's liability when pressed on the matter after underpayment.

[Matthew Le Tissier]

Surprise, surprise.

 

Lol I agree

 

As predicted.

[Sour Mash]

See my next post.

 

 

 

as I posted, the club may accept a payment is due, but seem to be disputing the claim. As I explained in my first post, if the settlement was far closer to the club's estimate, that would be what you would call "in the club's favour".

 

Again, I have no idea what the actual situation is. What I am pointing out is that others are jumping in saying the club has caved, but that's not what we know from the information made public. If information is later released showing that Benali got what he wanted, fair enough, but otherwise, we can just as well assume that the club paid what they thought was due and no more.

But they did pay out? And were therefore in the wrong? Pretty poor from the club wouldn't you agree?

[The Kraken]

No high horse mate.

 

The theme here is that the club have been wrong to defend its position until the 11th hour without any knowledge of facts.

 

In this, and other cases, the club may have been right and at the 11th hour the other party conceded position and settled.

 

Don't get me wrong, it may have been us going cap in hand at the 11th hour.

The point is neither you, me or anyone has a clue but assume the club are in the wrong. Odd.

 

Which is why you'll notice that plenty of people have commented not on the outcome/terms of the settlement but on the amount of times the club has been recently forced into this sort of action. Appearances are not very good; at all. It seems to have become a regular occurence, with at least one more legal action in the pipeline (Adkins). Certainly not good from an aesthetics point of view, and in my opinion not a great way to be seen to be doing business. Especially so from an organisation that should be seen as central to the community.

 

I don't need to know the ins and outs of every settlement to know that the visuals of being taken to court/arbitration and either not showing up or looking to settle immediately beforehand are pretty ppor.

[The9]

The criticism of "the club" here is not even particularly relevant to the specific case, the broadest criticism is the tendency to take the "drag out and pay off" option and the dubious moral rectitude of that apparent policy.

[Sour Mash]

Let's not fall into the trap of using "the club" for a matter which initially arose from Cortese's personal renting of Benali's property, which Cortese then shifted onto the club's liability when pressed on the matter after underpayment.

Exactly that. The club are paying for private damage to private property by our Chairman - not very impressive at all.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

Point of principle you say? Well read the statement again, the club say they will defend themselves rigorously in the best interests of the club and it reputation. They've decided now not to defend themselves, you have to wonder why this is.

Financial probity - sword rattling is one thing but actions are another

[egg]

Because they could have negotiated a settlement without him needing to go to the court, and also (for me) because Cortese was clearly making settlement agreements for outstanding rent with no intention of honouring them in the first place.

 

How do you know we didn't offer fair terms at the beginning and Franny declined before accepting at the last minute?

 

Do you accept that is plausible?

[egg]

Which is why you'll notice that plenty of people have commented not on the outcome/terms of the settlement but on the amount of times the club has been recently forced into this sort of action. Appearances are not very good; at all. It seems to have become a regular occurence, with at least one more legal action in the pipeline (Adkins). Certainly not good from an aesthetics point of view, and in my opinion not a great way to be seen to be doing business. Especially so from an organisation that should be seen as central to the community.

 

I don't need to know the ins and outs of every settlement to know that the visuals of being taken to court/arbitration and either not showing up or looking to settle immediately beforehand are pretty ppor.

 

So should the club just pay whatever is demanded of it when asked, even if unreasonable, rather than defending its position?

 

That would look great.

[The Kraken]

So should the club just pay whatever is demanded of it when asked, even if unreasonable, rather than defending its position?

 

That would look great.

Yes, it really is that black and white. F*cking hell. I'm out; you carry on thinking there's nothing at all wrong.

[hypochondriac]

Worth remembering that "the club"/Cortese would have had every opportunity to agree a cash settlement prior to this even being raised as potentially a court matter and the club effectively forced Benali's hand to litigation by refusing to pay him anything.

 

Also that Benali was clearly lied to to his face when discussing the ambassadorial role and cash-making opportunity around it when agreeing a compromise with Cortese (which IIRC involved £500 per home match with a minimum payment, but he was never allowed to exceed the minimum).

 

Nonsense. You don't know that. You may have spoken to Benali or people who know him well but they are clearly biased and nothing in the public domain supports what you say.

[shurlock]

The criticism of "the club" here is not even particularly relevant to the specific case, the broadest criticism is the tendency to take the "drag out and pay off" option and the dubious moral rectitude of that apparent policy.

 

You do realise its very common for cases to be settled just before they go to court. In many cases, parties are encouraged to do everything they can to settle and will go to the wire, trying to thrash out a settlement. It's no different from the way many contracts are tied up at the eleventh hour.

 

Going to court is often a way of forcing a settlement rather than an end in itself. It is and has always been a measure of last resort, leading to inefficient outcomes.

 

Some of the views on this thread -not necessarily yours- are staggering.

Edited 8 May, 2013 by shurlock

[DuncanRG]

I don't know a thing about this and won't speculate, but I'm glad it's over.

[Sour Mash]

You do realise its very common for cases to be settled just before they go to court. In many cases, parties are encouraged to do everything they can to settle and will go to the wire, trying to thrash out a settlement. It's no different from the way many contracts are tied up at the eleventh hour.

 

Going to court is often a way of forcing a settlement rather than an end in itself. It is and has always been a measure of last resort, leading to inefficient outcomes.

 

The ignorance on this thread is staggering.

How often do you hear of similar sized clubs as ours going to court?

[egg]

Yes, it really is that black and white. F*cking hell. I'm out; you carry on thinking there's nothing at all wrong.

 

If you bothered to get off your high horse and actually read my posts you'd see that I'm saying that it isn't black and white.

 

I'm not supporting or criticising the club, Franny or anyone.

 

I, like you, and most others know nothing at all about this or other dispute.

 

I find it pathetic that people assume that because litigation is settled it means that the club have been unreasonable. That attitude shows complete naivety.

[Sour Mash]

If you bothered to get off your high horse and actually read my posts you'd see that I'm saying that it isn't black and white.

 

I'm not supporting or criticising the club, Franny or anyone.

 

I, like you, and most others know nothing at all about this or other dispute.

 

I find it pathetic that people assume that because litigation is settled it means that the club have been unreasonable. That attitude shows complete naivety.

The fact that the club has paid anything shows that the club has been unreasonable.

[DuncanRG]

The fact that the club has paid anything shows that the club has been unreasonable.

 

That just isn't true. Court cases cost a lot of money even if you're innocent. And again, even if they are innocent, they probably wouldn't have wanted this case rumbling on in the press.

[egg]

The fact that the club has paid anything shows that the club has been unreasonable.

Oh come on, that's the most ridiculous post on this thread.

 

We may have acknowledged from day 1 that we owed something and offered it. Franny may have declined and claimed more. We may then settled on our figure, his or somewhere in between.

[Sour Mash]

Oh come on, that's the most ridiculous post on this thread.

 

We may have acknowledged from day 1 that we owed something and offered it. Franny may have declined and claimed more. We may then settled on our figure, his or somewhere in between.

Why did we just "offer it"? Why didn't we actually pay it on "day 1"?

[Sour Mash]

That just isn't true. Court cases cost a lot of money even if you're innocent. And again, even if they are innocent, they probably wouldn't have wanted this case rumbling on in the press.

If they didn't want it rumbling on and costing money it would have been dealt with before it got to this point. Thanks for telling me that court cases cost a lot of money. None of us knew that.

[egg]

Why did we just "offer it"? Why didn't we actually pay it on "day 1"?

 

Are you serious?!?

 

Perhaps he wanted more but wasn't due it!

[shurlock]

How often do you hear of similar sized clubs as ours going to court?

 

That's a different issue -was discussing the issue of settling as if this indicates a cave-in by the club, an unwillingness to defend the club rigorously or perhaps a lack of confidence in its position (see earlier posts).

Agree its odd that the spectre of legal action is again raised. Am under no illusions that NC is bit of a c**t but I put it down to him being penny wise pound foolish rather than him being consistently wrong on matters. Most settlements in being compromises suggest that there's responsibility on both sides.

[shurlock]

Oh come on, that's the most ridiculous post on this thread.

 

We may have acknowledged from day 1 that we owed something and offered it. Franny may have declined and claimed more. We may then settled on our figure, his or somewhere in between.

 

Eggsactly.

[egg]

Eggsactly.

 

Cracking

[Sour Mash]

Are you serious?!?

 

Perhaps he wanted more but wasn't due it!

Why didn't the club just pay what it felt he was due? It's not a difficult question to answer is it.

[Sour Mash]

That's a different issue -was discussing the issue of settling as if this indicates a cave-in by the club, an unwillingness to defend the club rigorously or perhaps a lack of confidence in its position (see earlier posts).

Agree its odd that the spectre of legal action is again raised. Am under no illusions that NC is bit of a c**t but I put it down to him being penny wise pound foolish rather than him being consistently wrong on matters. Most settlements in being compromises suggest that there's responsibility on both sides.

Fair enough, that's your opinion if you just think it's a coincidence that all these cases just happen to be responsibility on both sides hence ending in an out of court last minute settlement, rather than a fairly regular policy by the club when dealing with such cases.

[egg]

So you're sating that if we just sent a cheque for what we thought was the right amount that would have sorted it even if Franny wanted more? Business disputes don't work like that.

[Sour Mash]

So you're sating that if we just sent a cheque for what we thought was the right amount that would have sorted it even if Franny wanted more? Business disputes don't work like that.

No, it would have meant we wouldn't have to have pay anymore now unless we are actually in the wrong.

[egg]

That's a different issue -was discussing the issue of settling as if this indicates a cave-in by the club, an unwillingness to defend the club rigorously or perhaps a lack of confidence in its position (see earlier posts).

Agree its odd that the spectre of legal action is again raised. Am under no illusions that NC is bit of a c**t but I put it down to him being penny wise pound foolish rather than him being consistently wrong on matters. Most settlements in being compromises suggest that there's responsibility on both sides.

 

Amen.

[egg]

No, it would have meant we wouldn't have to have pay anymore now unless we are actually in the wrong.

Who's saying we paid anymore? We may have paid less. Stop jumping to conclusions.

[shurlock]

Fair enough, that's your opinion if you just think it's a coincidence that all these cases just happen to be responsibility on both sides hence ending in an out of court last minute settlement, rather than a fairly regular policy by the club when dealing with such cases.

 

Very few cases actually go to court and everything is done to avoid it. Settlements are contract renogiations by other means - the fact that we go to the wire is probably down to last minute haggling.

 

Obviously you have to go on a case by case basis - for example, what we don't know is how much NC/the club and Frannie settled for - that will give you a fair indication of where the rights and wrongs and respective responsibilities lie. The rest is just noise.

[Sour Mash]

Who's saying we paid anymore? We may have paid less. Stop jumping to conclusions.

So why didn't we just pay what we owed when it was due? You seem incapable of answering this straight forward question for some reason.

[Joensuu]

This thread has convinced me that Cortese must be evil, and I whenever there is an absense of facts I must learn that the club are always in the wrong.

 

Next step, I need to learn how to troll like the pros on here. I take it that the best technique is to always try to find the most negative interpretation and post like its definitely the only possibility. Is that how you pros do it?

[SaintBobby]

I don't know the ins and outs. But the overall circumstantial evidence seems pretty grim.

 

Maybe Franny was trying it on completely and has accepted 5p.

 

Maybe Nigel Adkins has also been trying it on completely and is also only owed tuppence.

 

Maybe The Sun were totally unreasonable in their demands to have their own photographers take pictures at SMS.

 

Maybe the builders who ceased work at the new academy development were total crooks chancing their arm.

 

Maybe MLT has the emotional maturity of a 6 year old and is just a petulant pr1ck, whatever his previous contribution on the pitch.

 

Maybe Cortese is the most reasonable man on Earth and has just been unlucky to run into a bunch of money-grabbing parasites and tossers.

 

It's possible. But the evidence to the contrary does seem to keep mounting up.

[Sour Mash]

Very few cases actually go to court and everything is done to avoid it. Settlements are contract renogiations by other means - the fact that we go to the wire is probably down to last minute haggling.

 

Obviously you have to go on a case by case basis - for example, what we don't know is how much NC/the club and Frannie settled for - that will give you a fair indication of where the rights and wrongs and respective responsibilities lie.

Yes, I know not many cases actually go to court. But I've never heard of a football club following this process several times - none of us know for certain - but it seems like a predetermined process for dealing with any sort of dispute - it's widely regarded as bad business practice at the very least.

[egg]

So why didn't we just pay what we owed when it was due? You seem incapable of answering this straight forward question for some reason.

 

Mate, I've answered your question. I'm not saying that either party has done wrong.

 

You think that the dispute would have ended if we paid what we believed we owed but Franny had a different opinion of the right number. Perhaps we sent that cheque but it was shredded - who on here knows.

 

If you want to, carry on assuming that the club are in the wrong. I'll stay in the open minded camp but with the caveat that I'll criticise people that express an opinion without knowledge of the facts.

[Sour Mash]

Mate, I've answered your question. I'm not saying that either party has done wrong.

 

You think that the dispute would have ended if we paid what we believed we owed but Franny had a different opinion of the right number. Perhaps we sent that cheque but it was shredded - who on here knows.

 

If you want to, carry on assuming that the club are in the wrong. I'll stay in the open minded camp but with the caveat that I'll criticise people that express an opinion without knowledge of the facts.

So you can't answer the question. Fair enough, you should have just said that at the start.

[egg]

So you can't answer the question. Fair enough, you should have just said that at the start.

 

I can't say that we did of didn't do anything, or that Franny was or wasn't due anything!

 

I have answered your question, more than once.

[SFC1906]

So why didn't we just pay what we owed when it was due? You seem incapable of answering this straight forward question for some reason.

 

Because the club and Frannie didn't agree on what was owed - hence the dispute and subsequent issues. You seem incapable of understanding this straight forward issue for some reason.

[Turkish]

It's pretty clear Saints caved in and were in the wrong. One day they are claiming they are going to 'defend themselves riurously' - why make that statement if there is nothing to defend or its just a matter of meeting in the middle as to what compensation is owed? This follows the precident that we've had of falling out with companies and people and then settling out of court in the days before, letting it all drag on and on. People can attempt to spin it and defend the club how they want too andif this is the only time this has happened then they may have a point, the fact is that it isn't.

Edited 9 May, 2013 by Turkish

[Turkish]

Because the club and Frannie didn't agree on what was owed - hence the dispute and subsequent issues. You seem incapable of understanding this straight forward issue for some reason.

 

If it was just a case of agreeing what was owed why were the club claiming only a few weeks ago they were going to 'defend themselves rigourously'?

[brmbrm]

Come on, if Franny settled for a small fraction (a) Cortese would have declined and gone to court and/or (b) the terms of the settlement would be public. All bluster from SFC i am afraid.