Tuesday, 09 February 2010

Watford get Danny Graham fee tribunal delayed

Carlisle United’s transfer plans have been thrown into chaos after the tribunal to set a fee for Danny Graham’s move to Watford was postponed.

Danny Graham photo
Danny Graham

The Football League accepted the Hornets’ request to put back the hearing – scheduled for next Monday – because the Championship club have a friendly in Spain on that day.

A new date has not been fixed and the Cumbrians have only been assured that the tribunal will sit before the league season starts on August 8.

United are hoping they will be awarded a significant six-figure sum by the panel and the cash could prove invaluable to manager Greg Abbott as he searches for a replacement for top scorer Graham.

But he may now be unable to spend until the season is underway.

The Cumbrians are privately angry that Watford’s directors have declared themselves unavailable to attend the London hearing on Monday simply because their team is playing on that date.

It is understood that the Blues were not consulted before the decision was made to postpone the tribunal.

Watford are currently on a pre-season tour of Spain and are on Monday due to play third-tier side UE Lleida.

United’s chief executive David Allen said today: “We have received confirmation from the Football League that the tribunal planned for July 27 has been postponed.

“We are very disappointed with that, because we have prepared our case and believe we have good grounds to get compensation for Danny Graham well in excess of what we have been offered already by Watford.

“We want to get this matter resolved and move on, and hopefully we will get a new date soon.”

The Hornets signed out-of-contract striker Graham on a two-year deal earlier this month after he rejected new terms at Brunton Park.

The Championship outfit then offered Carlisle a paltry £25,000 in compensation. This was immediately rejected by Carlisle, who had turned down a £250,000 bid from Huddersfield for the striker in January.

The clubs have since been unable to strike an agreement and the fee will now be set by the League panel.

Manager Abbott, along with directors Steve Pattison and John Nixon, were due to argue the Blues’ case at Monday’s hearing.

No-one at the league was available for comment today.

United were today awaiting a date for player-coach Graham Kavanagh to see a specialist about the shoulder problem which kept him out of Tuesday’s friendly against Hull.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Have your say

As I understand it we asked the tribunal to be moved before we went on pre season,as their was a slight problem with Grahams medical that needed to be ironed out,so the signing of him took a further 9 days,and their was a possability we were going to send the player back.Also in regards to the tribunal you won't get anywhere near £250k because you purchased him on a free yourselfs and he didn't come through your academy,so no money was spent on him.You will proberly get a max of £100k which would include add-on's and a sell on fee.Tribunals are a farst,just ask c/palace fans when spurs got their player for a "price of a packet of crisps" as quoted by sismon Jordon.

Posted by Tony on 24 July 2009 at 18:37

Matt, what I can't understand is the lack of respect shown by watford to us. Who cares if you are on pre-season in spain surely you new this 3 weeks ago when you signed danny? Surely this has nothing to do with the squad in spain when its the chairman/owner who will be paying the fee. What you are doing is wrong and quite frankly the way you are handling yourselfs as a club stinks. I hope the panel sting you for a 500k fee. Just remember the grass isn't always greener on the other side and it wasn't to long ago both our teams were playing each other and I'm sure we will again soon.

Posted by scottie h on 24 July 2009 at 14:23

View all comments on this article

Make your comment

Your name

Your Email

Your Town/City

Your comment


Vote

More than two-thirds of children aged 5-7 use the internet at home. Is this a good idea?

Yes, if they are supervised and made aware of the dangers

No, it's much too young and they should be playing with other kids

Show Result