egg

But I don't have an opinion, that's the point! It's the fans criticising the club without knowing what, if anything, they've done wrong. It's nuts.

There's a vehicle upholstery place just off of Bedford Place. I forget the name but it's the little side streey by the car park opposite the launderette. I know a couple of people who have used them and talk highly of them.

I couldn't care less whether we are at fault or Franny is. I have no opinion on it because I don't know the facts. I get uppity because alleged fans assume that because we settle a claim that we are a terrible club who treat people badly. I just don't get why people jump to such stupid conclusions without any knowledge of the facts.

Deeds, as such, no longer exist. Properties are registered at the land registry and the old papers traditionally referred to as deeds get lost in time. The office copy entries (basically the modern equivalent of the deeds, available from the land registry for a few quid) are unlikely to have the answer. You need the original conveyance which may be referred to in the office copy entries. If it is you may be lucky and get a copy from the land registry. If not, you need the pre-registration documents (basically the old school deeds) as the conveyance should be amongst them. They may be on your solicitors file if it hasn't been destroyed, or with the previous owners. First port of call should be land registry. If that doesn't assist then the solicitors who dealt with the purchase. As for rule of thumb, there is none. People say it's normally the right side but that's about as accurate as saying a spun coin normally lands tails side up. Good luck.

If there was evidence that we had done so I would agree with you. The problem is, and the sole reason for me getting uppity about it, is that nobody has a clue that we have actually treated Franny badly. Indeed, the only "facts" on this thread suggest that Franny was being a little over zealous in his claim and that the club stood it's ground before settling the case. There's nothing factual in the public domain which suggests that the club behaved badly in this case, and thus nothing to support what you say.

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.

I'm inclined to agree. He's a very good fullback but I think would a very effective wide midfielder. Clyne would also be great LB cover for Shaw. Signing another good RB gives good options and cover.

As per my posts, how do you know the club didn't? You're assuming.

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.

How is it clear that the club caved and not Franny? Explain. How do you know that there was "nothing to defend"? Explain.

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.

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.

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

Amen.

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.

Cracking

Are you serious?!? Perhaps he wanted more but wasn't due it!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Indeed, a man with a brain. Franny may have been taking the p1ss. He may not. I'm unaware of any facts of any dispute. However, Cortese is a businessman. Does anyone really think that we go around avoiding our obligations whilst wasting money on lawyers defending claims that we can't win?