Frank's cousin Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Would those so obsessed with the club's approach be so 'upset' had it not been 'Franny club legend', but some local landlord with a bad rep even if the circumstances had been exactly the same.... ? Gien that this is a dispute about the AMOUNT owed, instigated by Franny, and not as to whether anything was owed, is it not right that club hold out until the looming court case forces through a compromise that both parties can live with - a fairly common practice? No one likes the club being seen as some sort of litigacious moster, but 2 -3 cases in nearly 4 years is hardly 'constantly in court' as some seem determined to believe. Nobody is perfect and noone is above criticism. We are in a far better place after 3.5 years of Cortese in charge than we were before - that is his only job. Keeping EVERYONE happy is impossible and simply rolling over on every demand is also not the way to run things. The trolls and some of you seem to get some twisted pleasure/enjoyment from these stories - that is the wierdest thing in all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Would those so obsessed with the club's approach be so 'upset' had it not been 'Franny club legend'' date=' but some local landlord with a bad rep even if the circumstances had been exactly the same.... ?[/b'] Gien that this is a dispute about the AMOUNT owed, instigated by Franny, and not as to whether anything was owed, is it not right that club hold out until the looming court case forces through a compromise that both parties can live with - a fairly common practice? No one likes the club being seen as some sort of litigacious moster, but 2 -3 cases in nearly 4 years is hardly 'constantly in court' as some seem determined to believe. Nobody is perfect and noone is above criticism. We are in a far better place after 3.5 years of Cortese in charge than we were before - that is his only job. Keeping EVERYONE happy is impossible and simply rolling over on every demand is also not the way to run things. The trolls and some of you seem to get some twisted pleasure/enjoyment from these stories - that is the wierdest thing in all this. It wasn't. So what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 It wasn't. So what's your point? Even if it had been, many were annoyed by the club's actions with that local supplier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 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. ''It's pretty clear Franny caved in and was in the wrong. One day they he is claiming £30,000 for a new carpet the next he settles ut of court - why make that statement if he is happy to receive less 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 the club and criticising and joking about it in public, letting it all drag on and on. People can attempt to spin it and defend it how they want to, but the fact is no one knows the facts, no matter how they like to pretend they do....'' The above is completely made up, just as Turk's Troll post - both ontain equa; amounts of BS and made up stuff in support of an opinion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 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. How is it clear that the club caved and not Franny? Explain. How do you know that there was "nothing to defend"? Explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 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. It really shouldn't be difficult to understand - there was nothing stopping the club paying Benali what they believed he was due from day 1. The case then would have been solely about the disputed difference. I work on contract disputes - one of the things you're always taught is to at least pay what you believe is due at the time. It is very poor business practice and really doesn't look great when you reach the point of adjudication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 ''It's pretty clear Franny caved in and was in the wrong. One day they he is claiming £30' date='000 for a new carpet the next he settles ut of court - why make that statement if he is happy to receive less 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 the club and criticising and joking about it in public, letting it all drag on and on. People can attempt to spin it and defend it how they want to, but the fact is no one knows the facts, no matter how they like to pretend they do....[/i']'' The above is completely made up, just as Turk's Troll post - both ontain equa; amounts of BS and made up stuff in support of an opinion.... Which bits re made up? Didn't the club say they were going to defend themselves then? People on here are claiming that it was just a case of not being able to agree compensation, if that's the case what were they preparing, or not as it turned out, to defend themselves against? And its not the first time its happened is it, remember the small company who had done work on the stadium interior that got settled out of court the day before?? So, none of it is made up is it Frankie Boy, its more that you don't like what you read so accuse me of trolling and making things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 It wasn't. So what's your point? The point is that some fans assume that the club were are at fault and that a club legend couldn't possibly have been chancing his arm. That's all done without knowledge of any facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Even if it had been, many were annoyed by the club's actions with that local supplier. ...without having a clue about whether the club had a case or not - they simply assumed the local supplier was in the right as it suited them to do so. Disputes happen, they are discussed, they are litigated, they are resolved... you go ahead and make a big deal out of it if you want to as it supports your POV on Cortese, but it makes you look rather silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 It really shouldn't be difficult to understand - there was nothing stopping the club paying Benali what they believed he was due from day 1. The case then would have been solely about the disputed difference. I work on contract disputes - one of the things you're always taught is to at least pay what you believe is due at the time. It is very poor business practice and really doesn't look great when you reach the point of adjudication. As per my posts, how do you know the club didn't? You're assuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Would those so obsessed with the club's approach be so 'upset' had it not been 'Franny club legend', but some local landlord with a bad rep even if the circumstances had been exactly the same.... ? Gien that this is a dispute about the AMOUNT owed, instigated by Franny, and not as to whether anything was owed, is it not right that club hold out until the looming court case forces through a compromise that both parties can live with - a fairly common practice? No one likes the club being seen as some sort of litigacious moster, but 2 -3 cases in nearly 4 years is hardly 'constantly in court' as some seem determined to believe. Nobody is perfect and noone is above criticism. We are in a far better place after 3.5 years of Cortese in charge than we were before - that is his only job. Keeping EVERYONE happy is impossible and simply rolling over on every demand is also not the way to run things. The trolls and some of you seem to get some twisted pleasure/enjoyment from these stories - that is the wierdest thing in all this. What a load of absolute BS. You're making more assumptions than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC1906 Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 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'? Don't know Turkish - and couldn't say that I really give a feck either. Do you really think anyone else outside of the Daily Echo readership or this mongboard give a feck either, or even know about this 'massive' David vs Goliath mega lawsuit? Anyways I was only responding to Sour Mash who asked why the club didn't just pay Frannie what he was owed - so I just pointed out that therin lies the reason for the dispute i.e the two parties didn't agree on what was owed. Not rocket science is it? Maybe for some it is? Just to clarify I don't know who was in the right or wrong - and frankly I don't care either. It's been sorted, obviously Frannie is happy as he has accepted an offer from the club, and the club is happy as the issue has now been put to bed. It would appear that only a few Internet Warriors have an ongoing issue with this - not sure why? Perhaps they need a more fulfilling life than just sitting at their keyboards allday micro analysing every aspect of the SFCs workings. The most amusing thing about that is that none of you having a fecking clue about the details of this settlement so are just p*ssing in the wind with your warped conspiracy theories of what 'Evil Nick' is up to lol The sun is shining in our fair city - get yourselves out into it and enjoy your life COYR!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 As per my posts, how do you know the club didn't? You're assuming. No I'm not assuming. We know there has been an out of court agreement. That means that either the club didn't at least pay what it believed Benali was due when it was actually due and have had to pay that now or they've had to pay over that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Good - we do not have to read any more opinions about it Since you posted, there are now three more pages. Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 On the point of SFC paying what they thought was due. Franny would be mad to bank the cheque,because SFC would then be able to claim he accepted payment in full and final settlement. i have returned cheques to customers who were trying it on, on just that basis. To say the club caved in is ridiculous, to franny caved in is equally silly. Turkish made reference to the cludb rigorously defending itself. May be they did against the element of the bill they disputed,however accepted that something needed to be paid. Only a handful of cases get through the doors of the court, because as soon as you do, you lose control of the outcome and the judges actively encourage all parties to come to a conclusion between themselves. Just look at our fishy friends down the road. I suspect that the outcome was more that SFC wanted to pay, but less than Franny wanted. My old boss used to say if all parties are unhappy with the settlement, then it is probably about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 On the point of SFC paying what they thought was due. Franny would be mad to bank the cheque,because SFC would then be able to claim he accepted payment in full and final settlement. i have returned cheques to customers who were trying it on, on just that basis. To say the club caved in is ridiculous, to franny caved in is equally silly. Turkish made reference to the cludb rigorously defending itself. May be they did against the element of the bill they disputed,however accepted that something needed to be paid. Only a handful of cases get through the doors of the court, because as soon as you do, you lose control of the outcome and the judges actively encourage all parties to come to a conclusion between themselves. Just look at our fishy friends down the road. I suspect that the outcome was more that SFC wanted to pay, but less than Franny wanted. My old boss used to say if all parties are unhappy with the settlement, then it is probably about right. Which companies pay for anything by cheque in 2013? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Which companies pay for anything by cheque in 2013? My credit controller has just gone down the bank with half a dozen right this minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 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. Caved in? I'll go to a lawyer if I want legal advice, I'll come to you if I have a paper jam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Caved in? I'll go to a lawyer if I want legal advice, I'll come to you if I have a paper jam. Why didn't they defend themselves like they said they would then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 ...without having a clue about whether the club had a case or not - they simply assumed the local supplier was in the right as it suited them to do so. Disputes happen' date=' they are discussed, they are litigated, they are resolved... you go ahead and make a big deal out of it if you want to as it supports your POV on Cortese, but it makes you look rather silly.[/quote'] The club didn't even send anyone in to court to contest the charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Why didn't they defend themselves like they said they would then? As I said above, nobody wants to go to court and incur the time, the expense, the emotion and probably in Nik Nak's case the publicity. It's a measure of last resort. Courts themselves make strenuous efforts to encourage parties to resolve matters privately. Maybe they're happy with the settlement, maybe it's closer to their valuation than Frannie's. Until we know how much the parties settled for which would give a fair idea of where the rights and wrongs lie, the rest is really just noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 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. I haven't spoken to anyone, I'm going from the Echo article and claims which were presented in detail, and the timelines implied by the reporting of that - I also did a bit of research to cross-reference the claims compared to the fixtures we played in the period in the last thread on this, and it was pretty obvious Cortese intended to mislead Benali into thinking he could make some extra money for being a club ambassador then pulled his access rights so he never got paid more than the absolute minimum. And all this was a "compromise" agreement after Cortese allegedly didn't pay sufficient rent one month, long before the questions about reparations when he left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 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. It's very common, especially under the current Saints ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 (edited) Why didn't they defend themselves like they said they would then? Still banging the same drum eh Turks? If the agreed settlement is acceptable to both parties why would we need to throw extra cash at the situation to fight a moral battle which would cost the club more that it would save? Also, court cases are magnets for journalists who want material for their cheap stories. A court case would see both parties throwing mud at each other to see what they could get to stick - perfect material for the red tops and local rags. Face it, if an acceptable agreement can be made out of court, is almost always a better strategy, and cheaper, for everyone involved, than to allow a case to actually enter the court room. In fact, I would argue, that the most successful way of defending yourself, is to do so outside of court, if that is at all possible. Why are you always so anti anything and everything Cortese? Edited 9 May, 2013 by Joensuu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 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? Absolutely plausible, yes. But that wouldn't be in line with the club's claim that they were going to rigorously defend themselves, so why would they say that publicly if the outcome was also going to be in the public domain and their chosen action would only show them to be lying about their original intentions ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Still banging the same drum eh Turks? If the agreed settlement is acceptable to both parties why would we need to throw extra cash at the situation to fight a moral battle which would cost the club more that it would save? Also, court cases are magnets for journalists who want material for their cheap stories. This would see both parties throwing mud at each other to see what they could get to stick. Face it, if an acceptable agreement made out of court, is almost always a better strategy, and cheaper, for everyone involved, than to allow a case to actually enter the court room. In fact, I would argue, that the most successful way of defending yourself, is to do so outside of court, if that is at all possible. Why are you always so anti anything and everything Cortese? I'm not anti everything Cortese, I've praised him on a number of occasions and like everything in life he will do some very good things but also some things that are wrong. The football side of things couldn't have gone much better and for that I've dpgiven him credit on numerous occasions. There have been several court cases involving SFC which have worked out this way, with it being left to the days before to settle this and the general treatment of staff and suppliers is one thing he does that is wrong. Unlike some on here I don't blindly defend him at all times believing him unable to make mistakes or act wrongly, coming up with all sorts of fanciful excuses and reasons as to what might have happened when if you take a balanced view its glaringly obvious. Sadly some on here don't seem to possess that ability and think that anyone that dares to critise is anti Cortese. Praise when able. Criticise when nessasary, not difficult is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 My credit controller has just gone down the bank with half a dozen right this minute. Why couldn't the companies pay by BACS or something similar? It's what every single company I know does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 I'm not anti everything Cortese, I've praised him on a number of occasions and like everything in life he will do some very good things but also some things that are wrong. The football side of things couldn't have gone much better and for that I've dpgiven him credit on numerous occasions. There have been several court cases involving SFC which have worked out this way, with it being left to the days before to settle this and the general treatment of staff and suppliers is one thing he does that is wrong. Unlike some on here I don't blindly defend him at all times believing him unable to make mistakes or act wrongly, coming up with all sorts of fanciful excuses and reasons as to what might have happened when if you take a balanced view its glaringly obvious. Sadly some on here don't seem to possess that ability and think that anyone that dares to critise is anti Cortese. Praise when able. Criticise when nessasary, not difficult is it. It's quite difficult when certain trolls choose to take a black and white view on everything though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Sport Turks, I'm not sure I'm getting why settling out of court at the last minute is a bad thing? Surely, avoiding an expensive court case can only be commended. Doing so at the last minute is fairly standard practice (a bit like the way the transfer window works). Also, don't get your 'open minded' argument. It's you who seems to be failing to stay open minded about the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Sport Turks, I'm not sure I'm getting why settling out of court at the last minute is a bad thing? Surely, avoiding an expensive court case can only be commended. Doing so at the last minute is fairly standard practice (a bit like the way the transfer window works). Also, don't get your 'open minded' argument. It's you who seems to be failing to stay open minded about the situation. Maybe you should ask the the judge in this case why he thought it wasn't a great thing we'd settled out of court so late. Read his comments here. He didn't think it was usual and a great move. I'm sure you know better though. http://m.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10052525.Saints_ordered_to_pay___60k_debt_by_court/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 I'm not anti everything Cortese, I've praised him on a number of occasions and like everything in life he will do some very good things but also some things that are wrong. The football side of things couldn't have gone much better and for that I've dpgiven him credit on numerous occasions. There have been several court cases involving SFC which have worked out this way, with it being left to the days before to settle this and the general treatment of staff and suppliers is one thing he does that is wrong. Unlike some on here I don't blindly defend him at all times believing him unable to make mistakes or act wrongly, coming up with all sorts of fanciful excuses and reasons as to what might have happened when if you take a balanced view its glaringly obvious. Sadly some on here don't seem to possess that ability and think that anyone that dares to critise is anti Cortese. Praise when able. Criticise when nessasary, not difficult is it. I think the problem is with this one is that we don't know the facts. However, it wasn't a case of the club saying it didn't owe Benali anything (from what I remember being reported/commented on), but just that we didn't agree with the amount that was stipulated by Benali. There are 3 main situations that could have happened as far as I can see. 1) Cortese was in the wrong. Having consulted a property lawyer and not the clubs lawyer (who would frankly have no idea) he was advised that going to court would result in a loss of the case, so it was settled out of court. 2) The amount that Franny was asking for was opportunistic, and far more than the alleged amount owed. Due to Southampton hardballing over the last couple of months and sticking to the amount actually owed, Benali caved and accepted the correct amount. 3) They were both wrong and got an independent specialist or mediator to set the amount. All IMHO of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Maybe you should ask the the judge in this case why he thought it wasn't a great thing we'd settled out of court so late. Read his comments here. He didn't think it was usual and a great move. I'm sure you know better though. http://m.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10052525.Saints_ordered_to_pay___60k_debt_by_court/ Forgive me if I'm wrong, but we don't appear to have settled out of court in the case you've linked to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 They didn't defend themselves, they settled out of court, so either they rolled over or knew they wouldn't win. What do you think it is? Yes, they're the only circumstances in which anyone settles out of court, aren't they? It's almost like ADR doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Why didn't they defend themselves like they said they would then? You have an overly simplistic view that "defending yourself" occurs in court. This would all have been settled in solicitors' offices. Saints solicitors would have defended their position rigourously (or even vigorously which is the usual expression). Still I guess it does not suit your little anti SFC agenda to understand how things work in reality, instead just keep on banging on (trolling) about something you have little or no understanding of. Probably all down to the Cult of Cortese members. Really glad that this little matter has been sorted to everyone's satisfaction. No-one knows the details and 99% don't actually care. Only the trolls will continue to fuel this thread without any recourse to factual information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Benali Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Forgive me if I'm wrong, but we don't appear to have settled out of court in the case you've linked to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Forgive me if I'm wrong, but we don't appear to have settled out of court in the case you've linked to. We didn't contest it in court either though and wasted a lot of people's time. That article makes terrible reading for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Absolutely plausible, yes. But that wouldn't be in line with the club's claim that they were going to rigorously defend themselves, so why would they say that publicly if the outcome was also going to be in the public domain and their chosen action would only show them to be lying about their original intentions ? The club did defend its position, hence the case was listed for trial. The case then settled. The club/case would not need to proceed to trial if sensible terms are agreed as appears to have happened here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red&white56 Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 According to one of the original reports on the issue Mr.Benali claimed that uncleaned windows, a dirty swimming pool, garden not maintained and damage to a hob needed £33,000+ to make right. Even if Mr.Cortese did inflict this damage the claim is outrageous and I'm not surprised the club contested it. Settling out of court implies, at least to me, that a more reasonable sum was agreed upon between both parties than was in the original claim, and that the club did defend itself against an unreasonable claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 According to one of the original reports on the issue Mr.Benali claimed that uncleaned windows, a dirty swimming pool, garden not maintained and damage to a hob needed £33,000+ to make right. Even if Mr.Cortese did inflict this damage the claim is outrageous and I'm not surprised the club contested it. Settling out of court implies, at least to me, that a more reasonable sum was agreed upon between both parties than was in the original claim, and that the club did defend itself against an unreasonable claim. Did Nasty Nic leave a poop in the swimming pool? Utter bastard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 191 posts of supposition and not one fact beyond what was in the Echo article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Out of interest, am I the only one who couldn't give a flying f*ck about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 You have an overly simplistic view that "defending yourself" occurs in court. This would all have been settled in solicitors' offices. Saints solicitors would have defended their position rigourously (or even vigorously which is the usual expression). Still I guess it does not suit your little anti SFC agenda to understand how things work in reality, instead just keep on banging on (trolling) about something you have little or no understanding of. Probably all down to the Cult of Cortese members. Really glad that this little matter has been sorted to everyone's satisfaction. No-one knows the details and 99% don't actually care. Only the trolls will continue to fuel this thread without any recourse to factual information. You see that post above where I said that anyone who dares to criticise the club on here is accused of being Anti Saints, Anti Cortese etc? Well I rest my case, a typically idiotic reply from one of the forums biggest clowns, a man who has accused me of not rating Tanadari Lee because he's Japanese, ignoring the fact that im on record as being a yoshida fan, so forgive me if I pay no credence to any of the drivel you spout. Typical response from forum weirdos isn't it, say anything against the club you've got an anti Saints/Cortese agenda, you couldn't make it up, you know what, is almost cult like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Why couldn't the companies pay by BACS or something similar? It's what every single company I know does. A lot do, however many still retain old cheque printing systems that for some reason they don't feel the need to replace. Ican't say I understand why cheques still exist especially in business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 You see that post above where I said that anyone who dares to criticise the club on here is accused of being Anti Saints, Anti Cortese etc? Well I rest my case, a typically idiotic reply from one of the forums biggest clowns, a man who has accused me of not rating Tanadari Lee because he's Japanese, ignoring the fact that im on record as being a yoshida fan, so forgive me if I pay no credence to any of the drivel you spout. Typical response from forum weirdos isn't it, say anything against the club you've got an anti Saints/Cortese agenda, you couldn't make it up, you know what, is almost cult like. For future reference, it would be good to know what things you give NC credit for and what he's done wrong - and where they rank in order of importance and priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Out of interest, am I the only one who couldn't give a flying f*ck about this? Not at all!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 (edited) For future reference, it would be good to know what things you give NC credit for and what he's done wrong - and where they rank in order of importance and priority. Well in the last few months alone I've given him enormous credit on here for the long term contracts signed by Our key players and for the FACT that players are treated like royalty meaning that they all enjoy being here, you don't hear many stories about unhappy players at SFC do you. When i spoke about the Clyne deal weeks before it happened and anyone on here knew about it or it was in the press last summer (and was told i never did later, but thats another story) i said, that contray to some reports about us, i was told and said on here Cortese and his team were absolute gents during negotiations and a pleasure to deal with. As I said earlier, the football side couldn't have gone much better since he's been here. What i dont want to see if my club treating local business and people with distain and in court and the media for these reasons. I cant see anything wrong with that and when it happens we should criticise. But hey, that must just be my anti Saints/Cortese agenda coming out again. Edited 9 May, 2013 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 ...without having a clue about whether the club had a case or not - they simply assumed the local supplier was in the right as it suited them to do so. Disputes happen' date=' they are discussed, they are litigated, they are resolved... you go ahead and make a big deal out of it if you want to as it supports your POV on Cortese, but it makes you look rather silly.[/quote'] Pretty sure the judge had a clue. Not knowing the facts of what I am talking about makes you look quite silly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Well in the last few months alone I've given him enormous credit on here for the long term contracts signed by Our key players and for the FACT that players are treated like royalty meaning that they all enjoy being here, you don't hear many stories about unhappy players at SFC do you. When i spoke about the Clyne deal weeks before it happened and anyone on here knew about it or it was in the press last summer (and was told i never did later, but thats another story) i said, that contray to some reports about us, i was told and said on here Cortese and his team were absolute gents during negotiations and a pleasure to deal with. As I said earlier, the football side couldn't have gone much better since he's been here. What i dont want to see if my club treating local business and people with distain and in court and the media for these reasons. I cant see anything wrong with that and when it happens we should criticise. But hey, that must just be my anti Saints/Cortese agenda coming out again. And I doubt you'll find anyone who'll disagree with that. Which makes it all the more baffling when you know that as soon something like this happens again with the club not exactly appearing to be a shining light of integrity that any comments reflecting on it will again be treated with the "anti-Cortese agenda" horsesh*t from the regular brigade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 Well in the last few months alone I've given him enormous credit on here for the long term contracts signed by Our key players and for the FACT that players are treated like royalty meaning that they all enjoy being here, you don't hear many stories about unhappy players at SFC do you. When i spoke about the Clyne deal weeks before it happened and anyone on here knew about it or it was in the press last summer (and was told i never did later, but thats another story) i said, that contray to some reports about us, i was told and said on here Cortese and his team were absolute gents during negotiations and a pleasure to deal with. As I said earlier, the football side couldn't have gone much better since he's been here. But hey, that must just be my anti Saints/Cortese agenda. And where does this stuff rank in importance -compared to the things you're more critical of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 May, 2013 Share Posted 9 May, 2013 And where does this stuff rank in importance -compared to the things you're more critical of? My personal opinion is that how the club treats local businesses, club legends and fans is just as important as success on the pitch. It is possible to have both as well. I appreciate though that for some this will not be the case and they do not give a toss how the club behaves as long as we win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now