04 Aug 2015 14:43:17
Seems I was spot on last night with the post about Hamer.
My source is very close to the club and would not lie about the things that happen
To the 14 who put unbelievable Sorry but you were wrong

1.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 14:59:02
Though is a FFP problem not because we can't afford it. Suggestion is that the League has refused to sanction it as would've involved a fee which is we're not allowed to pay due to the terms of our embargo.

2.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 15:04:53
sorry 1978 you was right but it didn't seem possible for a club our size who have been in a embargo for a while now to get this wrong. I've had every respect for fawaz for taking our club on but now i'm losing it so heres a bit of advice for our owner next time you go hunting don't kill the animal bring it back and put it in charge.

3.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 15:09:37
I've read somewhere that we're going to try to resolve this and get him back. Maybe Leicester will have to pay more towards his wages.

4.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 15:15:05
This is about paying a bond fee which is a fee paid to ?
it is like paying insurance in case a player is injured and then can't play again. so the lending club could still pay his wages.
I am not sure who the Bond is paid to, but all I was told was His bond fee had not been paid.
I am sure it could all be sorted if it was paid. but until it is he has gone back

5.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 15:38:06
To be fair 1978, 6 of the unbelievable votes were from me. 😊
Can your source confirm that it is a temporary glitch? DF has stated he wants him back by the weekend.

6.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 16:54:36
Why didn't the club realize this before signing him? School boy error again, please nffc get someone in charge who understands what they are doing.

7.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 17:12:39
Just watched Freedman interview on Forest player and he's saying its a technical gliche to do with the embargo and it will hopefully be resolved by the weekend, maybe even before the Brighton game.

8.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 15:42:45
Forest going for a big striker apparently and it might be crouch or berbatov.

9.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 15:42:56
Spot on would mean you got it all right,what you mean was half right.

10.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 15:53:53
He's been with us 10days so he would of got his weekly wage on the 7th day of being here,he has now gone back.so looking from the outside and thinking logically (never heard of the bond) it has to be something with his wages,did he get a payrise for fester staying in the prem which has only just taken effect therefor his wage %what we will pay will be higher or fester have to pay a little more?

11.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 15:56:38
All I was told was that He was sent back to Leicester because we had not paid a bond fee that should have been paid I am not sure who it should have been paid to or if it was within the FFP rules, but I do Know that DF went crazy at Fawaz advisor for not sorting it out.

As I said before we hope it can be resolved soon

12.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 15:57:11
Sounds like the Bond Fee is the players Insurance Costs for the season, normally when you sign a player you also get insurance cover for the player in case they suffer a long term injury or have their career finished, the insurance will then pay the players contract (this is part of the reason the Boyd deal fell through as our Insurers wouldn't cover him without addition tests/paperwork). So I'm guessing that this fee is the insurance cost for the season, normally this is covered with the Loan Fee but since we can't pay a loan fee this could be where it's become muddled.

13.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 16:08:56
Apologies from me 1978, i just could not believe we could be so stupid (but then again)

14.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 16:40:33
It does sound like a bit of a shambles: no doubt the rules around FFP are not particularly straightforward but but you'd think we'd make it our business to have a proper handle on what we can and can't do while under sanction. It also seems unlikely that Leicester would recall the player on the basis of an alleged technical issue that can be sorted out in 48 hours. I smell another nail in the coffin of our reputation as a professionally-run club, I'm afraid.

15.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 16:50:37
This is yet another case of the club continued mismanagement. Surely if we are to abide by FFP regulations we should actually know the rules. It even helps to know the rules if you wish to be cute and try to bend them in your favour.

16.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 17:46:24
Upthe Forest
I was spot on Freedman would not come out publicly and state we have money problems.

17.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 18:23:11
So am I right in saying that you are saying fawaz won't or can't pay it and it's not the fl that have questioned it?

18.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 18:36:18
It's the football league that has put a hold on the deal not because we havnt paid.thats what I've seen and who iv seen it off is pretty reliable.

19.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 19:10:02
I was told We had not paid and that is what I posted
when DF was asked He knew nothing about it and tore into Fawaz adviser It is up to the owner in the end and as for other things I have been told the staff have to sign for the cups of Tea and coffee they have daily

20.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 20:30:15
There are a lot of assumptions on here that the fault lies with Forest when it could in fact be an error at Leicesters end,there have been other players loaned out by Leicester that have had to return in this window,and when i had a cup of coffee or tea at work i had to pay for it,how revolutionary is that,i think a lot of things are getting over exaggerated don't you

21.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 21:47:55
Bit harsh of DF to tear into somebody on his first day! Maybe he'll do a Faulkner! As trivial as it seems, if hot drinks are provided for free and not through a vending machine, they are a perk and taxable so every staff member would have to sign so that HMRC can work out what tax they should be charged. Not FAWAZ, Dougie or Forests problem

22.) 04 Aug 2015
04 Aug 2015 21:48:28
I heard that the glitch is to do with ffp. Apparently signing Hamer is regarded as a direct replacement for the departing Darlow and as such we cannot pay Hamer more than we were paying Darlow in accordance with for rules. Please don't shoot the messenger this is just what I have heard. Here's hoping we can get it sorted pronto!!!!

23.) 05 Aug 2015
05 Aug 2015 06:40:35
Footballers are paid monthly not weekly and even if it was weekly it would be a week in hand so wouldn't be paid until the second week.

24.) 05 Aug 2015
05 Aug 2015 08:08:20
hamer apparently was viewed as a replacement for Darlow and we only allowed to pay up to 80% of darlows wage up to a max of 10 k a week .since darlow was paid by newcastle last season we paid nothing and this is the problem

25.) 05 Aug 2015
05 Aug 2015 08:55:05
Regarding the Tea/Coffee comment, this isn't unusual as Liverpool charge their players for all the food & drink that they have at the club and training ground including team meals.

26.) 05 Aug 2015
05 Aug 2015 09:20:49
So it is to do with wages and the football league then and not that we are skint like the original poster tried to make out!

27.) 05 Aug 2015
05 Aug 2015 12:32:19
A thousand apologies to 1978. Good call, mate. It would appear that I am a massive prat.