Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK

[Westdene Seagull]

And what evidence is there that Sunderland insisted Gus drop his case or he wouldn't get the job? Interestingly, he dropped the case some time after getting the Sunderland job.

You're a fine one to be asking for evidence - you've never provided one ounce of evidence to back up your claims. How do you know he dropped the case sometime after getting the Sunderland job ? Evidence please ?

 

[Diego Napier]

Perfect analogy. Although perhaps you should add that she is now selling her wears at a £1 a go.

Hey! Steady.

or do you mean wares?

 

[B.W.]

You're a fine one to be asking for evidence - you've never provided one ounce of evidence to back up your claims. How do you know he dropped the case sometime after getting the Sunderland job ? Evidence please ?

Read the papers, and look at the respective dates of (a) Gus' appointment as Sunderland manager, and (b) him dropping the case. Please note that (a) is before (b).

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Read the papers, and look at the respective dates of (a) Gus' appointment as Sunderland manager, and (b) him dropping the case. Please note that (a) is before (b).

What's in the papers and point (b) don't actually state when exactly he dropped the case it could have been days after his appointment. Provide me a link as evidence to the exact date he dropped it.

 

[B.W.]

What's in the papers and point (b) don't actually state when exactly he dropped the case it could have been days after his appointment. Provide me a link as evidence to the exact date he dropped it.

Oh come on! Ridiculous.

 

[Acker79]

Let me put a scenario forward - manager A has a contract that stipulates if he wishes to leave and work for another club then that club will have to pay them a fee to release the manger from his contract.

A job is offered to the manager but he is told that this is conditional on no fee being payable to his current employer.

Manager A does something 'bad' and his current club sacks him. Do you think the club has a claim under the contract against his new club?

An old example that possibly doesn't apply now due to changes in employment law also illustrates the principle. A contract of employment contains a clause that states the employee may not work for a competitor within 6 months of leaving - the employee is sacked for gross misconduct but that did not entitle them to walk straight into a job with a competitor.

I imagine such circumstances would need to handled through court. There are many options for an employer, and if he suspects someone is deliberately breaching their contract in an effort to get fired so they can join another club compensation free, the employer would be more likely to go the 'gardening leave' route. If the employer believes that was the motivation after the fact (and can prove it), there would probably be ways to appeal (via the FA, Fifa, the Football league, etc.). Such acts would probably be counter productive to the new employer, who would then earn a reputation, and may find doing business with clubs becomes more difficult - especially if they are looking to sign players from the team they just conned the manager from.

My only knowledge of non-compete clauses comes from pro-wrestling, where if a WWE wrestler is released from his contract he is usually given his basic pay for 90 days with the proviso he can't work for a competing company (i.e. any wrestling company that is televised or releases dvds/streams video of their shows). These are only in effect when the company chooses to release them and continue paying a downside on their contracts. If their contracts expire there is no non-compete clause.

Within football, I would imagine it was an unworkable clause because of unions, laws regarding restriction of trade, etc. The nearest to a non-compete clause is gardening leave, but that requires the employer to continue paying the person who would technically remain an employee.

 

[Acker79]

Great song!

I prefer the cast song, or even the craig david one.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Oh come on! Ridiculous.

Oh dear !

So Sunderland ask him to drop the case as part of his employment. He agrees but due process has to go through before it's announced publicly. If he's already issued papers it takes time. As you're so in the KNOW and have a traitor of an informant I'm sure you'll be able to check.

 

[B.W.]

Oh dear !

So Sunderland ask him to drop the case as part of his employment. He agrees but due process has to go through before it's announced publicly. If he's already issued papers it takes time. As you're so in the KNOW and have a traitor of an informant I'm sure you'll be able to check.

Bitter.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Bitter.

Yes, I agree, you are.

Every time you are asked to back up your statements you can't or won't.

 

[ROSM]

But you implied PB was, in some way, responsible for GP's actions...

No he didn't. If there is any implication then it could be that an atmosphere existed in which a lot of peolple did some silly things and one may have committed (and in the club's view did commit) gross misconduct

 

[ROSM]

OK, so the snide dig is?

That I am apparently some brainwashed sheep that a) is defending (blindly) dick knight
b) wants him to return to power
c) am somehow anti (blindly) the current board

 

[Acker79]

Here is the offending post, LB. (bolded to highlight the important bit)

My posts were certainly NOT removed or deleted.

And it's NOT fair to say that "a libelous allegation was made by someone about somebody else, and the target of the slur pointed out the legal position, and required the post content to be deleted".

What happened was that I received a roundabout message from someone in the Club to the effect that I was posting "libelous comments about the Gus Poyet/Paul Barber relationship" and that "the board are now very close to running out of patience."

What I had said (and am happy to repeat now) is that the breakdown in the Poyet/Barber relationship occurred long before the end of last season and that this made it inevitable that Poyet would leave.

Any suggestion that this is "libelous" is laughable.

My understanding is that Tony Bloom's version of the breakdown in Poyet's relationship with the Club (and its timing) is not very different.

The blame you heap on Barber in there is clear for all to see. I don't see how you can deny apportioning the entirety of blame on Barber.

(Should I add a smiley to indicate my sarcasm? - I assume it's the offending post, it's the only one of yours in this thread to mention the poyet/barber relationship or poyet leaving)

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Here is the offending post, LB. (bolded to highlight the important bit)



The blame you heap on Barber in there is clear for all to see. I don't see how you can deny apportioning the entirety of blame on Barber.

(Should I add a smiley to indicate my sarcasm? - I assume it's the offending post, it's the only one of yours in this thread to mention the poyet/barber relationship or poyet leaving)

Boom !!!!

 

[drew]

Let me put a scenario forward - manager A has a contract that stipulates if he wishes to leave and work for another club then that club will have to pay them a fee to release the manger from his contract.

A job is offered to the manager but he is told that this is conditional on no fee being payable to his current employer.

Manager A does something 'bad' and his current club sacks him. Do you think the club has a claim under the contract against his new club?

An old example that possibly doesn't apply now due to changes in employment law also illustrates the principle. A contract of employment contains a clause that states the employee may not work for a competitor within 6 months of leaving - the employee is sacked for gross misconduct but that did not entitle them to walk straight into a job with a competitor.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Even so, in your scenario, the employer would, if they had evidence, have grounds for breach of contract and could sue on that basis, ie if they had, for example, a £2m compensation clause they'd claim that. Presumably they would sue the other club for an illegal approach if they had tapped up the player. If they suspected that was the case, they could bite the bullet and put the manager on gardening leave but have to pay him for that time.

Nearly all contracts contain that clause and it's totally and utterly unenforceable. People should ignore it.

I'm sure Gus felt he had enough on his plate at Sunderland without pursuing a long-distance claim against Albion. And I agree that Sunderland would want him giving his full attention to keeping them up.

Are you seriously suggesting that it would be difficult to pursue a case over such a distance. You are aware this is the 21st century!

 

[Creaky]

I imagine such circumstances would need to handled through court. There are many options for an employer, and if he suspects someone is deliberately breaching their contract in an effort to get fired so they can join another club compensation free, the employer would be more likely to go the 'gardening leave' route. If the employer believes that was the motivation after the fact (and can prove it), there would probably be ways to appeal (via the FA, Fifa, the Football league, etc.). Such acts would probably be counter productive to the new employer, who would then earn a reputation, and may find doing business with clubs becomes more difficult - especially if they are looking to sign players from the team they just conned the manager from.

My only knowledge of non-compete clauses comes from pro-wrestling, where if a WWE wrestler is released from his contract he is usually given his basic pay for 90 days with the proviso he can't work for a competing company (i.e. any wrestling company that is televised or releases dvds/streams video of their shows). These are only in effect when the company chooses to release them and continue paying a downside on their contracts. If their contracts expire there is no non-compete clause.

Within football, I would imagine it was an unworkable clause because of unions, laws regarding restriction of trade, etc. The nearest to a non-compete clause is gardening leave, but that requires the employer to continue paying the person who would technically remain an employee.

Which brings us full circle - I suggested that it was a perfectly feasible suggestion that GP came to a 'mutual agreement' with the club over possible legal action as any claim would almost certainly be met with a counter-claim

Such agreements used to be very common, especially in salesmen contracts. As you suggest current employment law has now almost completely wiped them out.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Now you're moving the goalposts. Even so, in your scenario, the employer would, if they had evidence, have grounds for breach of contract and could sue on that basis, ie if they had, for example, a £2m compensation clause they'd claim that. Presumably they would sue the other club for an illegal approach if they had tapped up the player. If they suspected that was the case, they could bite the bullet and put the manager on gardening leave but have to pay him for that time.





Are you seriously suggesting that it would be difficult to pursue a case over such a distance. You are aware this is the 21st century!

I'm assuming quoting me was either a mistake or you forgot to add some commentary ?

 

[drew]

I'm assuming quoting me was either a mistake or you forgot to add some commentary ?

I was but then didn't. Apologies. I agree with your comment but was going to add that once you sack someone, restrictive covernants, for what they are worth, become redundant.

 

[Working class pride]

Derek Chapman makes some interesting points but something makes me think this is all hot air to sell a book.

 

[Acker79]

Which brings us full circle - I suggested that it was a perfectly feasible suggestion that GP came to a 'mutual agreement' with the club over possible legal action as any claim would almost certainly be met with a counter-claim

Such agreements used to be very common, especially in salesmen contracts. As you suggest current employment law has now almost completely wiped them out.

Yes, but this time round it is clearer what you are saying. Last time it seemed like you were suggesting he would have to continue doing parts of his job after he was fired.

The certainty of a counter claim would require proof or even a suggestion that he was deliberately trying to get fired. At no point has such a suggestion been made, I'd even suggest the comments from the club or Bloom seem to suggest he just wanted out, without any sense of a particular destination so their own public account of things would undermine their claims. So I think it's unlikely there would have been a counter suit, at least on those grounds.