Bradford City must pay £150,000 for Mark Stewart

City's appeal against FIFA's ruling on the Mark Stewart deal was

City's appeal against FIFA's ruling on the Mark Stewart deal was "partially upheld"

First published in Sport
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Bradford City Reporter

City were this afternoon told they must pay Falkirk just over £150,000 in development compensation for Mark Stewart.

The club's appeal against FIFA's ruling was "partially upheld" by the Court of Arbitration for Sport when they announced their verdict.

The fee is around £65,000 less than they would have had to pay if they had not appealed the original decision.

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:11pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Dannyp1892 says...

Lesson learned I would suggest. But at least it's done and dusted now. What a drama
Lesson learned I would suggest. But at least it's done and dusted now. What a drama Dannyp1892
  • Score: 3

4:37pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Adam1903 says...

Nice chunk of next seasons budget down the pan
Nice chunk of next seasons budget down the pan Adam1903
  • Score: 1

4:48pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Storck says...

Adam1903 wrote:
Nice chunk of next seasons budget down the pan
No, it actually means extra money for next year.
[quote][p][bold]Adam1903[/bold] wrote: Nice chunk of next seasons budget down the pan[/p][/quote]No, it actually means extra money for next year. Storck
  • Score: 3

4:50pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Pablo says...

On the face of it, this appears an outrageous decision. The cost of fighting the case has probably taken the final figure close to the original award. I guess that's Nahki's fee all spent, or committed.

As Dannyp says, it's done and dusted but it's still a bitter pill.
On the face of it, this appears an outrageous decision. The cost of fighting the case has probably taken the final figure close to the original award. I guess that's Nahki's fee all spent, or committed. As Dannyp says, it's done and dusted but it's still a bitter pill. Pablo
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Fri 14 Mar 14

jamiejoe says...

Eurocrats - the delays were just typical of how slow the process is to make a decision in Europe. Little regard to the facts of the case. As a club we got some seriously wrong with the process - and look what Stewart did for us and since!!

I guess it is a welcome boost for Falkirk and its finances ... just glad that we are in a stronger shape than has been the case for years.

Just ironic how this is by far the highest (or one of the v few) transfer fees in years and years ...
Eurocrats - the delays were just typical of how slow the process is to make a decision in Europe. Little regard to the facts of the case. As a club we got some seriously wrong with the process - and look what Stewart did for us and since!! I guess it is a welcome boost for Falkirk and its finances ... just glad that we are in a stronger shape than has been the case for years. Just ironic how this is by far the highest (or one of the v few) transfer fees in years and years ... jamiejoe
  • Score: -1

5:18pm Fri 14 Mar 14

minkiebantam says...

What a joke. Stewart is anx never will sell for anywhere near that amount, so how they got this figure is beyond me!?? Prob played deal or no deal with this been the banker offer!?
At least we have 65k extra to spend in nxt years budget. Should pay for the leccy bill at least!? ; )
CTID!!
What a joke. Stewart is anx never will sell for anywhere near that amount, so how they got this figure is beyond me!?? Prob played deal or no deal with this been the banker offer!? At least we have 65k extra to spend in nxt years budget. Should pay for the leccy bill at least!? ; ) CTID!! minkiebantam
  • Score: 2

6:13pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Waynus1971 says...

What I don't understand is how CAS can partially uphold the appeal. Surely they found that compensation is payable or not; isn't that what we were appealing against? As far as I understand, we weren't challenging the amount of compensation, only that we didn't believe any was due. So why have they upheld FIFA's ruling but disagreed with the amount of the compensation?
What I don't understand is how CAS can partially uphold the appeal. Surely they found that compensation is payable or not; isn't that what we were appealing against? As far as I understand, we weren't challenging the amount of compensation, only that we didn't believe any was due. So why have they upheld FIFA's ruling but disagreed with the amount of the compensation? Waynus1971
  • Score: -2

6:26pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Cityman23 says...

The City board's intransigence has cost us dearly. They carried on maintaining they owed nothing and were not willing to compromise and unprepared to offer anything. This was a mistake. If City had offered something short of this final figure Falkirk might have settled but it was obvious that this issue was going to cost something substantial because it wasn't thrown out at an early stage. Hopefully the lesson will be learned At least the money's going to a cash-strapped football club and NOT to a well-heeled one or some other organisation outside the game.
The City board's intransigence has cost us dearly. They carried on maintaining they owed nothing and were not willing to compromise and unprepared to offer anything. This was a mistake. If City had offered something short of this final figure Falkirk might have settled but it was obvious that this issue was going to cost something substantial because it wasn't thrown out at an early stage. Hopefully the lesson will be learned At least the money's going to a cash-strapped football club and NOT to a well-heeled one or some other organisation outside the game. Cityman23
  • Score: -5

6:38pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Storck says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
What I don't understand is how CAS can partially uphold the appeal. Surely they found that compensation is payable or not; isn't that what we were appealing against? As far as I understand, we weren't challenging the amount of compensation, only that we didn't believe any was due. So why have they upheld FIFA's ruling but disagreed with the amount of the compensation?
Due to how the compo is worked out they might have interpreted dates and categories differently to FIFA and therefore come to a different figure
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is how CAS can partially uphold the appeal. Surely they found that compensation is payable or not; isn't that what we were appealing against? As far as I understand, we weren't challenging the amount of compensation, only that we didn't believe any was due. So why have they upheld FIFA's ruling but disagreed with the amount of the compensation?[/p][/quote]Due to how the compo is worked out they might have interpreted dates and categories differently to FIFA and therefore come to a different figure Storck
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Peter300 says...

Cityman23 wrote:
The City board's intransigence has cost us dearly. They carried on maintaining they owed nothing and were not willing to compromise and unprepared to offer anything. This was a mistake. If City had offered something short of this final figure Falkirk might have settled but it was obvious that this issue was going to cost something substantial because it wasn't thrown out at an early stage. Hopefully the lesson will be learned At least the money's going to a cash-strapped football club and NOT to a well-heeled one or some other organisation outside the game.
What utter nonsense. If City believed they had a case, they were right to pursue it. They were successful in being reinstated in the FA Cup last season, because they took advice and challenged the decision. I think you are trying to be wise after the event. Presumably you studied all the facts and the evidence. Details were handed to you for you to examine.
[quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: The City board's intransigence has cost us dearly. They carried on maintaining they owed nothing and were not willing to compromise and unprepared to offer anything. This was a mistake. If City had offered something short of this final figure Falkirk might have settled but it was obvious that this issue was going to cost something substantial because it wasn't thrown out at an early stage. Hopefully the lesson will be learned At least the money's going to a cash-strapped football club and NOT to a well-heeled one or some other organisation outside the game.[/p][/quote]What utter nonsense. If City believed they had a case, they were right to pursue it. They were successful in being reinstated in the FA Cup last season, because they took advice and challenged the decision. I think you are trying to be wise after the event. Presumably you studied all the facts and the evidence. Details were handed to you for you to examine. Peter300
  • Score: 6

7:32pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Waynus1971 says...

Cityman23 wrote:
The City board's intransigence has cost us dearly. They carried on maintaining they owed nothing and were not willing to compromise and unprepared to offer anything. This was a mistake. If City had offered something short of this final figure Falkirk might have settled but it was obvious that this issue was going to cost something substantial because it wasn't thrown out at an early stage. Hopefully the lesson will be learned At least the money's going to a cash-strapped football club and NOT to a well-heeled one or some other organisation outside the game.
Yep, I'm with Peter Vile on this one. Do you believe Jean-Marc Bosman believed he shouldn't challenge the ruling set against him? At the end of the day, we believed there was a discrepancy in the laws and sought legal advice thinking we could get the original decision overturned.

Sadly, it appears that CAS have refused to commit to defending us or at least clarifying the rule. As it stands, there is still a disparity between transfers made between clubs in England and those made in Europe
[quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: The City board's intransigence has cost us dearly. They carried on maintaining they owed nothing and were not willing to compromise and unprepared to offer anything. This was a mistake. If City had offered something short of this final figure Falkirk might have settled but it was obvious that this issue was going to cost something substantial because it wasn't thrown out at an early stage. Hopefully the lesson will be learned At least the money's going to a cash-strapped football club and NOT to a well-heeled one or some other organisation outside the game.[/p][/quote]Yep, I'm with Peter Vile on this one. Do you believe Jean-Marc Bosman believed he shouldn't challenge the ruling set against him? At the end of the day, we believed there was a discrepancy in the laws and sought legal advice thinking we could get the original decision overturned. Sadly, it appears that CAS have refused to commit to defending us or at least clarifying the rule. As it stands, there is still a disparity between transfers made between clubs in England and those made in Europe Waynus1971
  • Score: -1

8:17pm Fri 14 Mar 14

shaun from richmond says...

BLIMEY!!......that money could have paid McLeans wages for 30 weeks!.......OUTRAGE
OUS!
BLIMEY!!......that money could have paid McLeans wages for 30 weeks!.......OUTRAGE OUS! shaun from richmond
  • Score: -2

8:20pm Fri 14 Mar 14

bcfc1903 says...

Incredibly, Falkirk originally wanted 330,000 euros for Stewart, I guess the club will put this down to experience and be extremely careful when signing other players. Thankfully the fee agreed is far smaller and has been put aside with the extra plus interest going towards next season plus the 20% costs due to be given back to BCFC . Just glad there has been some sense shown by the court in regards to reducing the ludicrous original FIFA judgement.
Incredibly, Falkirk originally wanted 330,000 euros for Stewart, I guess the club will put this down to experience and be extremely careful when signing other players. Thankfully the fee agreed is far smaller and has been put aside with the extra plus interest going towards next season plus the 20% costs due to be given back to BCFC . Just glad there has been some sense shown by the court in regards to reducing the ludicrous original FIFA judgement. bcfc1903
  • Score: 4

2:38am Sat 15 Mar 14

Bradford1903 says...

Sounds like a classic case of trying to appease both sides; reducing the amount to appear to make our appeal worthwhile, yet not to the extent that it would undermine FIFA's original decision.

I really must go and visit Falkirk's state of the art academy; I am truly amazed as to how they haven't managed to produce the next Kenny Dalglish or Denis Law.

It just shows how out of touch with the game FIFA are, if there were any development costs to be paid, then a realistic figure would not even by a fifth of that.

What do you expect though from the corrupt and undemocratic organisation that is FIFA. It says it all that a 78 year old is likely to seek re-election when they should've retired years ago, and despite his many gaffes has still managed to cling to power.
Sounds like a classic case of trying to appease both sides; reducing the amount to appear to make our appeal worthwhile, yet not to the extent that it would undermine FIFA's original decision. I really must go and visit Falkirk's state of the art academy; I am truly amazed as to how they haven't managed to produce the next Kenny Dalglish or Denis Law. It just shows how out of touch with the game FIFA are, if there were any development costs to be paid, then a realistic figure would not even by a fifth of that. What do you expect though from the corrupt and undemocratic organisation that is FIFA. It says it all that a 78 year old is likely to seek re-election when they should've retired years ago, and despite his many gaffes has still managed to cling to power. Bradford1903
  • Score: 4

6:29pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Cityman23 says...

Peter300 wrote:
Cityman23 wrote:
The City board's intransigence has cost us dearly. They carried on maintaining they owed nothing and were not willing to compromise and unprepared to offer anything. This was a mistake. If City had offered something short of this final figure Falkirk might have settled but it was obvious that this issue was going to cost something substantial because it wasn't thrown out at an early stage. Hopefully the lesson will be learned At least the money's going to a cash-strapped football club and NOT to a well-heeled one or some other organisation outside the game.
What utter nonsense. If City believed they had a case, they were right to pursue it. They were successful in being reinstated in the FA Cup last season, because they took advice and challenged the decision. I think you are trying to be wise after the event. Presumably you studied all the facts and the evidence. Details were handed to you for you to examine.
I don't see the two cases being comparable. You're not comparing 'like with like'. In the FA cup case, it was worth doing because the worst that could happen was City would be where they started ie out of the FA cup. City either won or lost.

But in the Stewart case, there was surely a third middle result! Some cases involving disputes over money get settled out of court because both sides realise it's the best way to avoid losing the maximum amount. ie Falkirk get something/City pay less-this was never tried.

City perhaps thought they were in the right but the fact they are being asked to hand over this large amount suggests the judging body didn't agree with them. So something must have emerged that City didn't bank on or the 'evidence' was not clear-cut enough.

In law, it's not enough to think you're right, you have to prove it and going to law is often costly meaning you can win and it still is costly!

In truth, I thought that City made a mistake in not offering Falkirk 'something' ages ago, early in the dispute so I am not guilty of using 'hindsight' but sadly City have been found 'guilty' of trying to get a player for nothing, to which they were not entitled. THAT is the result of this case, whatever 'spin' you, or I or City themselves try to put on it.
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: The City board's intransigence has cost us dearly. They carried on maintaining they owed nothing and were not willing to compromise and unprepared to offer anything. This was a mistake. If City had offered something short of this final figure Falkirk might have settled but it was obvious that this issue was going to cost something substantial because it wasn't thrown out at an early stage. Hopefully the lesson will be learned At least the money's going to a cash-strapped football club and NOT to a well-heeled one or some other organisation outside the game.[/p][/quote]What utter nonsense. If City believed they had a case, they were right to pursue it. They were successful in being reinstated in the FA Cup last season, because they took advice and challenged the decision. I think you are trying to be wise after the event. Presumably you studied all the facts and the evidence. Details were handed to you for you to examine.[/p][/quote]I don't see the two cases being comparable. You're not comparing 'like with like'. In the FA cup case, it was worth doing because the worst that could happen was City would be where they started ie out of the FA cup. City either won or lost. But in the Stewart case, there was surely a third middle result! Some cases involving disputes over money get settled out of court because both sides realise it's the best way to avoid losing the maximum amount. ie Falkirk get something/City pay less-this was never tried. City perhaps thought they were in the right but the fact they are being asked to hand over this large amount suggests the judging body didn't agree with them. So something must have emerged that City didn't bank on or the 'evidence' was not clear-cut enough. In law, it's not enough to think you're right, you have to prove it and going to law is often costly meaning you can win and it still is costly! In truth, I thought that City made a mistake in not offering Falkirk 'something' ages ago, early in the dispute so I am not guilty of using 'hindsight' but sadly City have been found 'guilty' of trying to get a player for nothing, to which they were not entitled. THAT is the result of this case, whatever 'spin' you, or I or City themselves try to put on it. Cityman23
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree