Messages

31

Football / Re: six to seven months

« on: June 08, 2008, 05:46:02 PM »

Either way,it should be interesting to see who will get the bill. I seem to remember Jack saying in an interview that the clubs provide insurance for International matches. Now, I'm pretty sure thats not the case.

In fact, I recall when Michael Owen got injured at the World Cup, the FA were forced to pay over £1 million to Newcastle in compensation.

Jack may have to mortgage a few more houses to pay out Sunderland!

32

Football / Re: Thread for the T&T vs England Game (01-Jun-2008).

« on: June 01, 2008, 04:23:21 PM »

It may be just coincidence, but on BBC, both Alan Shearer and Alan Hansen are wearing black shirts. Its unusual to see that, so maybe they're supporting the players??

33

Football / Re: Thread for the T&T vs England Game (01-Jun-2008).

« on: June 01, 2008, 03:51:27 PM »

I hope Jack is pleased with himself. Playing with a 50% second string is embarrasing for T&T. And BBC haven't mentioned the blacklisted players, which would explain to English viewers why T&T are so weak.

Cupid is looking out of his depth and I bet Maturana regrets not having Scottie on the bench!

34

Football / Re: Fuentes to Sunderland: Trust us with Kenwyne!!

« on: May 23, 2008, 07:02:31 AM »

"It is the biggest game ever to be staged in our country," added Fuentes. "The interest is huge. We sold out our 24,000 tickets in two days and if we had an extra 15,000 or 20,000 seats we could probably sell them, too."

 
 
 I just saw a light bulb come on at Jacks house 
 
 

35

Football / Re: Soca Warriors request interim World Cup payment.

« on: May 23, 2008, 04:30:22 AM »

I just read the Commercial Breach of contract thread that Weary bumped, and saw this, which under the current circumstances, becomes more interesting.


And the Claimants claim:

A. An account of all sums due from the First Defendant to the Claimants under the Agreement including sums received by

a. any company, or companies, that were owned by the First and/or Second Defendants, or, were owned or controlled, legally or beneficially, individually or together, by Jack Warner and/or the Second Defendant and/or Richard Groden or any nominee of any of them;

b. Jack Warner and/or the Second Defendant and/or Richard Groden, individually or together, legally or beneficially, and/or by to an agent acting on their behalf; or

c. any other party under the effective ownership or control of or serving as agent of the First Defendant, the Second Defendant, Jack Warner and/or Richard Groden

B. An account of all sums paid to the Second Defendant of the type referred to under the Agreement.

C. An order for payment by the First Defendant and/or Second Defendant to the Claimants of all sums found to be due from the First Defendant and/or Second Defendant to the Claimants on the taking of the account under A above.

D. Payment of the Charity Withheld Sum, being US$26,608.70.

E. Payment of the Tax/Insurance Withheld Sum, being CHF 755,550.

F. Further, or alternatively, damages for breach of contract.

G. The Claimants further claim against the First Defendant interest pursuant to section [        ] of the [Supreme Court Act], on any sums found to be due to the Claimant, at such rate and for such period as the court thinks fit.

H. Costs

I. Further or other relief, including all further necessary or appropriate accounts, inquiries or directions.


So it looks like when the arbitrator orders the audit, it will be not just TTFF, but also business and personal accounts of Warner, Groden and Camps, their families and business partners. 

36

Football / Re: JACK WARNER AND GARY HUNT - CNC3 - 8.35PM - TONIGHT

« on: May 23, 2008, 03:42:37 AM »

Ah really want to do some research, but ah goh ask men out here fus....please...it has been burning me for de past couple years....How de hell Jack Warner end up FIFA vice president?.....what line ah progression he went chroo.....promoted from what?, qualified chroo what?.........not to throw off de topic, but somebody help meh please ah begging.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Jack was sacked as president by TTFF after the overselling of tickets fiasco. He then reappeared a few months later when he stood for election as Vice President of FIFA. I seem to recall there was something fishy there as well. However, he was voted in and even though he was guilty of the mis selling of tickets , he bacame special adviser to TTFF.

37

Football / Re: FA will make a financial loss on T&T trip

« on: May 22, 2008, 06:54:06 PM »

All joking aside, someone needs to find out he truth here. My friend at the BBC said that the BBC isn't exactly awash with money, and a friendly match screened at 10.30pm on a sunday night will not be a big event. (Many people watch England matches in bars, but many won't want to do that if they have to work monday morning).

But even so, I cannot believe that they got the rights for free.

TTFF: We have received no $$.
T&T Guardian Reports.

The TTFF last night denied that it had received money for the television rights for the T&T-England clash on June 1 at the Hasely Crawford Stadium.

The TTFF indicated that the TV rights were given to the English FA for England and Europe as a condition precedent for them to play in Trinidad.

“To date, no one has contracted with the TTFF for the TV rights of the Caribbean or the Americas or even Trinidad,” the statement added.

There is absoloutely no reason for the FA to lie. In fact, it is damaging for them to announce this game will lose money for the FA. Given the feeling in England towards Jack, a loss to the FA is very embarrasing.

So, if the FA aren't lying.......

38

Football / Re: FA will make a financial loss on T&T trip

« on: May 22, 2008, 06:40:40 PM »

There you go. Everyone says people make money out of football.

Jacks not making any money. The FA aren't making any money and now Hunts not allowed to make any money.

But wait. Whats this?

"With so many superstars in the England team, which allows the hosts to cash in through gate money and television rights, the FA would normally drive a hard bargain and come home with a healthy profit. But experienced FA politicians will say that the “small loss” is a price that has to be paid if England are to be serious bidders for 2018, given Warner’s influence at Fifa."

I thought Jack had agreed to give the TV rights to the FA as part of the deal?

So, if Jack hasn't sold the TV rights and FA haven't sold them, BBC must be sneaking in without a ticket.

You know, I bet this is what happened with the world cup money. Jack thought Camps had done the deal, Camps thought Jack had done the deal and nasty old Adidas, Carib, KFC, ebay etc got free WC sponsorship. Now I understand why Jack could only give players $5,000TT.

39

Football / Re: Football Agent Scam warning

« on: May 22, 2008, 02:47:30 PM »

And you've been practising penalties all day for nothing 

40

Football / Re: Game vs England: We wearing Black!

« on: May 22, 2008, 12:52:24 PM »

This might be out of context, but I read it today and thought of your protest.

Martin Luther King said:-

Now, we are poor people, individually, we are poor when you compare us with white society in America. We are poor.
Never stop and forget that collectively, that means all of us together, collectively we are richer than all the nation in the world, with the exception of nine.
Did you ever think about that?
After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world.
We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada.
 Did you know that?
That's power right there, if we know how to pool it. 

Powerful words from a man who knew how to lead and make people think, and bring about change just by using words.

Now think of what you guys want to achieve. Collectively, you have power.

Use it.

41

Football / Re: $250m to TTFF from TV rights—Hunt.

« on: May 22, 2008, 12:40:50 PM »

I think that you have to distinguish between corruption and incentives.

For instance, say England gave Jack £50,000 to vote to give them 2018 wc. That is corruption. But, say England give Jack a first class trip to the FA cup final and then agree to send some FA coaches over to T&T to hold seminars. That could still be termed a bribe, but I think, as long as it is disclosed, that its acceptable.

Lets face it. If you work your butt off to gain a position of power, why should you not get a treat?

I was talking to a BBC journalist today who is a friend of Rio Ferdinand. Rio has set up his own foundation in Africa and asked the journo if he would like to cover his visit there for the BBC. Good story, eh? A multi million pound footballer helping develop the game in Africa.

Even though Rio was paying for the journo's flights, the BBC are unhappy because Rio's foundation is a private enterprise and, as a public owned company, they don't want to be seen to promote Rio.

How crazy is that?

My point is that transparency and accountability are essential, but there must be some leeway. Gary Hunts crusade is long overdue, but he must be careful that it doesn't stifle creative networking.

 

42

Football / Re: Government institutes levy on use of Stadium effective Immediately

« on: May 22, 2008, 03:32:31 AM »

I juss vex Hunt boil down from 10% to $150,000

Hunt was never going to let the game be cancelled. He wanted to put down his marker and let Jack know-publicly-that he can no longer do what he wants, when he wants. If he doesn't follow correct procedure, Hunt will stop him.

Warner knows he's in a fight and cannot be seen to be subservient to the government (which every citizen should be). Therefore, despite Hunt saying he will revert to original agreement (which was probably his intention all along), Warner still wants to take it to court so he can prove a point. No Minister is gonna tell him what he can do in the country he owns. If he loses the England game, he knows some unintelligent people will side with him. He can go to Sydney and tell FIFA "Look what I'm up against. I've been planning this game for 3 years and the stupid minister cancelled it because of politics"

43

Football / Re: JACK WARNER AND GARY HUNT - CNC3 - 8.35PM - TONIGHT

« on: May 22, 2008, 03:27:28 AM »

My view on this from a distance is as follows:

Hunt was never going to let the game be cancelled. He wanted to put down his marker and let Jack know-publicly-that he can no longer do what he wants, when he wants. If he doesn't follow correct procedure, Hunt will stop him.

Warner knows he's in a fight and cannot be seen to be subservient to the government (which every citizen should be). Therefore, despite Hunt saying he will revert to original agreement (which was probably his intention all along), Warner still wants to take it to court so he can prove a point. No Minister is gonna tell him what he can do in the country he owns. If he loses the England game, he knows some unintelligent people will side with him. He can go to Sydney and tell FIFA "Look what I'm up against. I've been planning this game for 3 years and the stupid minister cancelled it because of politics"

People on here complaining about inflation and rising cost of living, yet this agreements been in place for 20 years. More government departments have to get out of their comfort zone like Hunt has and get tough. Problem is, if they get tough, many voters will not see the long term benefits and start whining and vote for Warners flunkies.

This is not about winning votes. Hunts move here is a vote loser. But, if he can clean up football before the election, he could have a job for life.

Also, he is not a football person. He views football as important, but not to the detriment of other sports. This has to be agood thing. Football should be able to fund itself....if the right people are in charge and money is'nt being taken out of the game. You heard Hunt  $100 million TT since 2006. Where is it? It sure as hell didn't get paid to the players or stadiums!!

44

Football / Re: Soca Warriors request interim World Cup payment.

« on: May 21, 2008, 04:53:38 PM »

From the Sporting Life

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/overseas/other/story_get.dor?STORY_NAME=soccer/08/05/20/SOCCER_Trinidad.html&TEAMHD=foreign#


Sixteen members of Trinidad and Tobago's 2006 World Cup squad are in line for six-figure pay-outs after winning a dispute over cash owed from the tournament.

The players, who include Sunderland striker Kenwyne Jones, Southampton forward Stern John and former West Ham and Newcastle keeper Shaka Hislop, had taken their case against the Trinidad and Tobago Football Federation (TTFF) to an arbitration hearing in London last month.

Now the arbitrator Ian Mill QC has ruled that the players are entitled to 50% of the cash the TTFF earned from sponsorship revenues and half the profits from six pre-World Cup friendlies.

The exact figure each player should receive has yet to be decided upon by Mill but they should be in line to pocket around £125,000 each.

FIFA vice-president Jack Warner, the TTFF's special adviser, who made the initial agreements with the players, had originally offered them around £500 per player.

The 16 refused and began legal action believing they were entitled to much more.

The Sports Dispute Resolution Panel in London were told last month that the TTFF had signed a £5.5million ($11.5million) sponsorship deal with adidas before the World Cup and that the players were entitled to half that sum plus 50% of FIFA's participation money and profits from pre-tournament friendlies.

Neither the TTFF nor the players are permitted to comment as the arbitration ruling contains a confidentiality clause.

But a leaked copy of Mill's ruling states: "It seems to me that the applicants (players) have done enough to raise a case for the TTFF to answer in this respect.

"I therefore find, not without some hesitation, that Mr Warner did promise on June 12, 2006, to increase the players' share under the commercial revenues sharing agreement from 30% to 50%, in order to obtain 'practical benefits' for the TTFF, and that, therefore, that promise was, and is, legally binding on the TTFF."

45

Football / Re: Trinidad or Trinibabwe

« on: May 21, 2008, 04:46:34 PM »

Surely the FIFA vice president, concacaf president, president of CFU, special adviser to TTFF and owner of a ProLeague football club, by standing as an MP, is the person who brought politics into football?

Or am I missing something here?

And as joint party leader, if they got into power, how the hell will they abide by FIFAs rules of governments not interfering with football? I can't see Jack stop meddling in football, in fact, he'll want even more control.

46

Football / Re: Letter issued to minister of sports.

« on: May 21, 2008, 04:40:19 PM »

Trinidad stadium row threatens England friendly
By Linda Hutchinson-Jafar, Reuters

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (Reuters) - England's friendly international with Trinidad and Tobago on June 1 risks being cancelled due to a domestic row over rental terms for the Hasely Crawford Stadium.

The Caribbean nation's football federation (TTFF) and Ministry of Sports are in dispute over advertising issues, rental fees and other elements of an agreement the TTFF said was changed last week by the ministry, which owns the ground.

On Wednesday, Jack Warner, a TTFF 'special advisor' and FIFA vice-president, said unless the terms were changed or an injunction against the sports minister was successful the England match would be cancelled.

"If the minister does not answer and withdraw this agreement, we have authorised (our attorney) to file an injunction to restrain the minister for imposing these conditions. If the injunction fails, the match fails, I refund people their money and apologise to the world.

"If the injunction wins, then the game is on. If the minister chooses to withdraw this today, then there is no injunction, the game is on, " Warner, who is also joint-leader of the country's opposition party, said on local radio.

A letter from the TTFF's attorney, published in local media on Wednesday, said the conditions demanded by the ministry "will result in a breach of contract with the English FA and may result in a cancellation of the match".

LATEST SPAT

The dispute is the latest in a series of spats involving the TTFF and comes after it was ordered this week by an arbitration panel in London to pay its 2006 World Cup squad extensive bonuses.

The players, who have been refusing to play for the national team due to the nearly two-year long dispute, were told by the panel they should receive half the country's participation money and commercial revenues and income from pre-tournament friendly matches.

The players' England-based attorney, Michael Townley, said on Wednesday he intended to file for an interim award of US$7 million to be split among his clients based on the "limited information made public by the TTFF".

It would mean each player would be entitled to about US$280,000 (142,000 pounds). The TTFF initially offered them US$910 each in October, 2006.

"At the moment, the players have not received a single cent and it is important to have some money flowing from this exercise," said Townley.

(Additional reporting by Lasana Liburd; editing by Simon Evans and Ken Ferris)

Isn't it amazing, with so much information available, that these guys can still get their facts so wrong. Its especially annoying when they've linked Lasana to this story, and thereby assigned blame to him by association. We all know Lasana checks his facts, but the rest of the world will assume it was him that gave out incorrect info to these people.

47

Football / Re: Black T-shirts....let mih know if yuh want one, or 2, or 3

« on: May 21, 2008, 02:42:24 PM »

Oh yes the slogan we going with...at the front of the T-shirt

I SUPPORT ALL SOCA WARRIORS...

continued at the back...

RED, WHITE & BLACKLISTED!!...

Love the slogan. Woulda be better a year ago though. Still...

I DID make it up a year ago. I'm sure there's a thread discussing a boycott of the Gold Cup, where it was mentioned, but as the idea for making banners never got off the ground, the slogan itself got buried.

Brownsugar I'll see if Midlady wants one and i'll pm you about it. I had a idea for the prize, but I go have to PM that to you as well...

And doh let midlady know eh...

Damn, if I had known Brown Sugar was the prize, I would have worked thru the night to get a winning slogan 

48

Football / Re: Jack Warner on i955fm Right Now!

« on: May 21, 2008, 01:49:23 PM »

Wht doesn't one of these radio guys grow some balls and just ask Jack where the WC money got spent, how can they budget for a year and run out half way through and why the hell they can't employ a financial director who knows how to keep accurate books.

49

Football / Re: Unethical ManU in $1Billion Debt

« on: May 21, 2008, 12:12:59 PM »

The author is a financial analyst.

It has been some time that people have been talking about a financial crisis in-the-making at Old Trafford. There are also those who insist we are already seeing one. The team, however, is doing extremely well on the pitch. That suggests, at least from a financial point of view (perhaps not conclusively though), that players are happy with their wages. After all, the club spent 74m on wages and salaries in 2006-07 (majority of which must have gone to players).

Even football clubs like Manchester United can hardly rely on money from T-shirts, posters or footballs – they really have to sell football – in the ground and on the TV. For Manchester United that makes up ¾ of their revenue which is showing excellent growth (30% year-on-year). Compared to previous year, the administration has done a great job in keeping a lid on operating expenses (despite the widespread belief that Manchester United uses a Russian cheque book too). The club has grown from a position of gross loss (persistent gross loss is an outright indicator of a failed business model) to a modest gross profit.

This is all good. But here comes a mighty financial challenge (note: I do not want to carelessly use the word “crisis”). The club incurred financial costs of 81m. That is more than what the club has paid the people who make this club – the ground staff, administration and of course players. This is, at least in an academic sense, a highly inefficient and unsustainable cost structure. But there are worse and more practical issues here.

Despite closing the acquisition transaction in the preceding year, the club incurred more debt and re-profiled existing loans this year. Pricing that Manchester United has received from financiers is not going to make things any easier. And given the deteriorating financial health of the club, overall credit tightening and the very nature of the risk financial institutions have taken on red devil’s football, finance costs will only increase.

If you doubt that then there is one simple explanation I can give.

The collateral offered to financial institutions is 425m of “first fixed and floating charge over fixed assets”. A charge is a piece of paper that gives legal claim to bankers over collateral in an event of default. But Manchester United only has 252m of tangible assets, the rest are largely intangible. In other words, this acquisition exposes banks more than Glazers themselves. The Glazers simply bought the club on bankers’ wallet, and if push comes to shove, they will handover the “soccer club” to banks, endure manageable loss, swim back home and watch “football clubs” play in America. Now wouldn’t a bank squeeze every penny out of Manchester United after taking such a risk on it?

Let us say, my view so far has been very subjective. Then let us look at some crisp objective facts. Financial institutions do not like to keep their credit lines evergreen for corporate customers unless the business model is one of low risk (e.g. a heavily regulated power utility). One day all banks will ask Manchester United to repay the principal amount which currently stands at 666m.

A very dirty (read: conservative) multiple of debt-to-free cash flow (using current figures for both debt and free cash flow) stands easily above 25x! This is too high, even with all the grace period in debt maturity schedule. Going forward, this multiple must come down or the club will be at mercy of financial institutions (whether or not they agree to rollover). What are the possible ways of doing it?

Stop piling more debt - not possible until the club makes enough operating income to at least repay its finance costs i.e. interest cover above 1x. Currently, this ratio stands at 0.23x.
Continue to post solid revenue growth e.g. at least at least 15-odd % each year. Keep up the branding. Media money is all about that. There is a reason why TV in Malaysia will not pay 2 cents for covering a Derby match.
Win competitions. Duh!
Become more efficient i.e. increase its operating margin. The current 9-odd % is not going to work.
Buy like Wenger, not like Abramovich. The club does not have financial liberty as many would think.
A 194m accumulated loss on the balance sheet has reduced Glazer’s equity to only 80m (year-on-year 42% decline). This is alarming. Imagine, if loss in financial year 2008 is going to be anything above 80m (2006 loss: 135m; and let us say, Glazers don’t bring in more money from America), the club will have negative equity. In English that means bankruptcy for Manchester United where banks are involved. For clubs where no banks are involved, and Russians are involved, negative equity does not matter because the owner pays for his hobby, not the banks.

Even in the beginning of the article I clearly said, this is a challenge and not a crisis. One has to understand the buyout of Manchester United. These leveraged acquisitions, a couple of years back when things were not as bad, were in fashion. Financial institutions make good money in these. Where time is merciful enough to pan things out more or less the same way as those Excel sheets suggested in investment banks when the deals are struck, the equity investors (like Glazers) in these deals make money for their generations to come.

But huge risks are involved. There are too many assumptions, from the club itself to the economy at large. If you ask me in a nutshell if Manchester United is heading for a serious financial crisis – I will say it is not so certain at the moment. Glazers should really kneel down and thank the outstanding team and some great fans who continue to buy season tickets despite $120+ crude oil and a terribly confused Brown-Darling-King tripod.

The greatest positive surrounding all of this is the debt profile – the club does not really repay any principal in the next 5 years. That is a good breathing space. But even then, for this Glazer deal to let Manchester United live, this club needs to grow really badly. Did not we all think Manchester United is an enormous club? Size is relative. You are only as big as your debt makes you look.

50

Football / Re: Unethical ManU in $1Billion Debt

« on: May 21, 2008, 11:58:19 AM »

Platini is right. The Glazers have come in and allowed their debts to be passed on to Man U. As mentioned, they were doing fine couple of years ago. People like the Glazers and Gillette shouldn't be allowed to walk in and saddle football clubs with debts. These guys should mess up sport in their own countries. Look at Man City. How the hell can Ericksson's job be threatened after the change he's brought to the club. 

51

Football / Re: Government institutes levy on use of Stadium effective Immediately

« on: May 21, 2008, 11:51:14 AM »

What is BS is that you decide when everything done fix for the game to adjust the terms , less than 2 wks before the game.

 Whilst Jack and cronies may not operate in a fair and honest manner it does not give the authorities the right to do so also.

Apparently you still spending too much time in bars...because everything was not "done fix" for the game.  If anything there was an incomplete agreement in place with cost of the lease being deferred to a future time.  Lalla's letter does not actually indicate when those terms were agreed upon, and since the TTFF agreed to defer such an important term they cannot now cry about the timing...that should have been the first matter agreed upon "how much allyuh charging we tuh rent de stadium?"

You know, in these two current stories involving TTFF (arbitration and stadium) one thing is clear (and f*cking amazing). No written agreements were in place. Either Jack prefers this because he can then alter terms after the event, or Jack & TTFF are a bunch of amateurs. TTFF should have issued a contract immediately after the meeting with the players, or at least sent them a letter confirming the outcome. They should also, in the absence of confirmation from the stadium manager, written to him conirming their conversation and detailing their understanding of the rental agreement inc financial figures.

In both instances, the liability falls to TTFF.

Hopefully, they will learn from this.

52

Football / Re: Cloud hangs over T&T/England match.

« on: May 21, 2008, 11:28:00 AM »

English FA want Jacks 2018 votes. They'll probably offer to pay the increased fee for Jack.

What increased fee? 


Smoke and mirrors.

Point taken. I was just trying to simplyfy things! Whatever amount Jack whinges about having to spend because of the new rent agreement. I bet Jack uses this as a reason to screw more money out of the FA.

53

Football / Re: Cloud hangs over T&T/England match.

« on: May 21, 2008, 10:54:48 AM »

English FA want Jacks 2018 votes. They'll probably offer to pay the increased fee for Jack.

54

Football / Re: Cloud hangs over T&T/England match.

« on: May 21, 2008, 10:46:41 AM »

FA EXPECT FRIENDLY TO GO AHEAD
 
By Jim van Wijk, PA Sport
 
The Football Association "fully expect" England's friendly against Trinidad
and Tobago to go ahead next month, despite a dispute over use of the stadium on
the Caribbean island.
 The disagreements began yesterday when the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs
released a statement saying it had reached an agreement with the Trinidad and
Tobago Football Federation to charge rent of around #100,000 to use the Hasely
Crawford Stadium for the showpiece game on June 1.
 However, the federation responded angrily, insisting that figure did not match
the original agreement between the parties reached in March.
 The TTFF has now issued an ultimatum to the Minister of Sport and Youth
Affairs, Gary Hunt, demanding that his department honour the original agreement
or face legal action which could lead to the cancellation of the match in Port
of Spain.
 However, the English FA remain confident the fixture will be fulfilled as
planned.
 "We have not been made aware of any threat to the game and fully expect it to
go ahead as planned," a spokesman for the FA told PA Sport.
 "This is an internal issue which we are confident will be resolved soon."
 According to a report in the Trinidad Express newspaper, the federation's
attorney, Om Lalla, has written to the ministry demanding that they indicate
whether they are "prepared to honour the terms of the agreement of March 15,
2008", giving a deadline of Friday morning before he initiates legal
proceedings.
 Lalla warned that failure to honour the original agreement "will cause
irreparable damage to reputation of the TTFF and subject each and every citizen
of Trinidad and Tobago to shame and humiliation, and will result in a breach of
contract with the English FA and may result in a cancellation of the match".

55

Football / Re: Letter issued to minister of sports.

« on: May 21, 2008, 10:46:11 AM »

FA EXPECT FRIENDLY TO GO AHEAD
 
By Jim van Wijk, PA Sport
 
The Football Association "fully expect" England's friendly against Trinidad
and Tobago to go ahead next month, despite a dispute over use of the stadium on
the Caribbean island.
 The disagreements began yesterday when the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs
released a statement saying it had reached an agreement with the Trinidad and
Tobago Football Federation to charge rent of around #100,000 to use the Hasely
Crawford Stadium for the showpiece game on June 1.
 However, the federation responded angrily, insisting that figure did not match
the original agreement between the parties reached in March.
 The TTFF has now issued an ultimatum to the Minister of Sport and Youth
Affairs, Gary Hunt, demanding that his department honour the original agreement
or face legal action which could lead to the cancellation of the match in Port
of Spain.
 However, the English FA remain confident the fixture will be fulfilled as
planned.
 "We have not been made aware of any threat to the game and fully expect it to
go ahead as planned," a spokesman for the FA told PA Sport.
 "This is an internal issue which we are confident will be resolved soon."
 According to a report in the Trinidad Express newspaper, the federation's
attorney, Om Lalla, has written to the ministry demanding that they indicate
whether they are "prepared to honour the terms of the agreement of March 15,
2008", giving a deadline of Friday morning before he initiates legal
proceedings.
 Lalla warned that failure to honour the original agreement "will cause
irreparable damage to reputation of the TTFF and subject each and every citizen
of Trinidad and Tobago to shame and humiliation, and will result in a breach of
contract with the English FA and may result in a cancellation of the match".

56

Football / Re: Letter issued to minister of sports.

« on: May 20, 2008, 07:58:42 PM »

But its still the same fee...10% of gate receipts. Even Jack has agreed that. Its the advertising that has changed.

57

Football / Re: Government institutes levy on use of Stadium effective Immediately

« on: May 20, 2008, 07:54:56 PM »

Silly me, but isn't  The Guardian was informed that, in recent years, the TTFF was called upon to pay a rental of $3,000 plus VAT or ten per cent of the gate receipts, whichever sum was greater, plus $2,000 and VAT for electricity.

the same as "He has asked for a rental of $150,000 or ten per cent of the gate receipts.

“This match is costing us $15 million. We have sold $7.8 million in tickets, that means he wants $780,000 for the rental of the stadium.

Ok, the initial figure is lower, but the 10% rule would apply either way. So Jacks really arguing about advertising. Now I have to admit, I've been to over 30 English matches this season and I do't remember any pitchside alcohol advertisements. Sponsorships such as the Carling Cup, yes, but no product adverts pitchside.

Personally, in this instance, if I was Hunt, I would waive the advertising fees for this game and take the $780,000.

58

Football / Re: Government institutes levy on use of Stadium effective Immediately

« on: May 20, 2008, 07:43:52 PM »

Just an observation, but if the govt has been charging the same fee for 20 years, how the hell can the stadium be maintained satisfactorily?

Gary Hunt has come in and decided that sport should be run professionally. For 20 years TTFF have been increasing ticket prices, yet paying the same rent. Which means Jack makes the money while taxpayers subsidise TTFF.

I sense this is a move to antagonise Jack, but, lets face it, its about time he got his cumuppance. TTFF will still make money. Maybe, at last, Jack has found his nemesis?

Regardless of timing or the effects on the England match, you guys should see a new dawn on the horizon. Twice in two days Jack has got a bloodied nose.

The war is going nuclear!

59

Football / Re: Letter issued to minister of sports.

« on: May 20, 2008, 07:42:44 PM »

Just an observation, but if the govt has been charging the same fee for 20 years, how the hell can the stadium be maintained satisfactorily?

Gary Hunt has come in and decided that sport should be run professionally. For 20 years TTFF have been increasing ticket prices, yet paying the same rent. Which means Jack makes the money while taxpayers subsidise TTFF.

I sense this is a move to antagonise Jack, but, lets face it, its about time he got his cumuppance. TTFF will still make money. Maybe, at last, Jack has found his nemesis?

Regardless of timing or the effects on the England match, you guys should see a new dawn on the horizon. Twice in two days Jack has got a bloodied nose.

The war is going nuclear!

60

Football / Re: Soca Warriors get big bucks.

« on: May 20, 2008, 03:21:12 PM »

I haven't checked FIFA regs, but I'm sure that if a country's federation is bankrupt, they are automatically suspended from all FIFA competitions.

My question, if that is true, is this. Will everyone blame these players or will they blame TTFF if the Warriors are kicked out of the world cup qualifiers?