Quist Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 45 minutes ago, the mighty wednesday said: I agree it all seems a bit too much like the cliched "methinks the lady doth protest too much". They are pleading their innocence too much to be convincing now and trying to throw mud. It appears (allegedly) that Bruce was talking/approached well before he resigned or had permission to speak with them. It appears they even told Bruce to ask for permission to speak to them rather than make an official approach like Chelsea did with Lampard. I can only think this was to reduce compensation and to distance themselves from any tapping up allegations. If it goes to court the more you say the worse it gets. Shearer comments about dinner indicae he knew far more than he admitted in public and betting shows somebody made a small fortune (wonder who that was) . Basically they have to pay what is in contract. At a guess with DC saying they did not want to part with money would they do it in players wage discounts if we took a couple on loan. This reasonable option as money spending any way but DC wants ull pint of blood and he is right as effectively buggered our season. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, McRightSide said: Aaaaaaand you’ve fallen for it I know it's popular on here to be part of the circle jerk which is convinced that we've handled the Steve Bruce saga like geniuses, and that ultimately we're going to show Newcastle who's boss. Reality dictates however, that in many respects (outside of this specific issue) the club hasn't been shrewd in its business. Would you honestly be surprised if the club ballsed this up a bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRightSide Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, bobness said: I know it's popular on here to be part of the circle jerk which is convinced that we've handled the Steve Bruce saga like geniuses, and that ultimately we're going to show Newcastle who's boss. Reality dictates however, that in many respects (outside of this specific issue) the club hasn't been shrewd in its business. Would you honestly be surprised if the club ballsed this up a bit? See my original reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRightSide Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, Quist said: If it goes to court the more you say the worse it gets. Shearer comments about dinner indicae he knew far more than he admitted in public and betting shows somebody made a small fortune (wonder who that was) . Basically they have to pay what is in contract. At a guess with DC saying they did not want to part with money would they do it in players wage discounts if we took a couple on loan. This reasonable option as money spending any way but DC wants ull pint of blood and he is right as effectively buggered our season. It’s not going to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quist Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, McRightSide said: It’s not going to court. Have you heard that from good source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRightSide Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, Quist said: Have you heard that from good source. No. Common sense & and understanding of the law. Not a chance it’s going to court. Closed settlement with both sides able to say they’re happy with the result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 2 hours ago, asteener1867 said: Did Newcastle start the stories...Or did the media? Honest question...cos there is a difference.. and tbh..I won't accept "Sources from Newcastle"...cos thats simply press bllx for making a story up Well if Newcastle are volunteering they are shocked about a story that hadn't been in the press before I'd say it's pretty bleedin obvious they started the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethel The Tree Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 A quick glance down the various headlines posted on the newsnow webpage is enough to convince me Sheffield Wednesday blackmail NUFC with new offer – but Mike Ashley says no – Report Unbelievable demand from Sheffield Wednesday in Steve Bruce saga. English club owner unexpectedly informs Newcastle he wants to sign duo - Transfer Talk Report: Championship owner demands two Newcastle players sign amid feud, Magpies snub him Newcastle United stand firm on Steve Bruce and our own local rag ... Sheffield Wednesday: Owls 'demand two players' from Newcastle United to 'drop legal threat' Funny really, I thought it more likely negotiations were still ongoing 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 We don't know what the contract between SB and SWFC said. Only the direct parties really know. We don't know if it had an written compensation clause (amount), payable by another club in the event that they asked permission off Wednesday directly or via SB, to talk to SB and offer him the role. We do know (as has been said by SB), that DC 'allowed' SB to talk to NUFC, who offer SB their job allowing him to then resign as our manager. We don't know if NUFC have paid this amount, or even offered it, or said 'we'll give you half or what. If they have agreed to pay the SB compensation clause money, and the legal issues are down to the other two employees, then above applies to their scenario. Looking at it, I do think there was an explicit amount insert. Whether this applies to the other two is uncertain but you would think if was explicit, why would NUFC pay SB's money but not the other two? I also wonder how employment contracts work when the contract is personal between the employee and employer, but a third unknown party seems to be affected without their knowledge in a compensation release clause. In the end, SB and the other two resigned - why was this if the explicit compensation clause was known and paid? It all seemed to unravel the weekend of the Lincoln game. It just doesn't add up - there's either a fixed amount to pay in writing or there isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Animis said: We don't know what the contract between SB and SWFC said. Only the direct parties really know. There's still room to speculate a bit. While I'm also unfamiliar with these type of contracts, based on what's being said, there must at the very least be a quantifiable figure in there, even if not an explicit number. The £4m bandied about seems a excessive for a one-year rolling contract (which is also an assumption). Theoretically that figure might be in there, but knowing Bruce's history I'd be surprised if his agent would let that in. Further, as a one-year rolling contract, how much guaranteed time was remaining on Bruce's contract at the time of his resignation? Half a year's worth? £4m for a manager with half a year guaranteed left doesn't compute for me. Still, I don't really know what I'm talking about. Can someone here put me straight at least on these points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveyboy66 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, bobness said: There's still room to speculate a bit. While I'm also unfamiliar with these type of contracts, based on what's being said, there must at the very least be a quantifiable figure in there, even if not an explicit number. The £4m bandied about seems a excessive for a one-year rolling contract (which is also an assumption). Theoretically that figure might be in there, but knowing Bruce's history I'd be surprised if his agent would let that in. Further, as a one-year rolling contract, how much guaranteed time was remaining on Bruce's contract at the time of his resignation? Half a year's worth? £4m for a manager with half a year guaranteed left doesn't compute for me. Still, I don't really know what I'm talking about. Can someone here put me straight at least on these points? At the time of his resignation the time left on his contract was 12 months because it's a " rolling contract " repeat adnauseum in infinity FFS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WatfordOwl Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Some people will honestly use any excuse to beat Chansiri with a stick. Despite only 'speculating', and going on what they perceive to be bad business acumen, whilst also having literally zero qualifications or inside knowledge of what's been discussed. For once, can't we recognise that he's acting in the best interests of the club by not simply rolling over and taking it? There's no wonder the club never makes any progress when the biggest critics of anything that's associate with the club is literally attacked whenever there's a story to report. The paper's talk a load of cack in order to punt a few more editions out or for clicks on their site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Just now, daveyboy66 said: At the time of his resignation the time left on his contract was 12 months because it's a " rolling contract " repeat adnauseum in infinity FFS Cheers. Wasn't familiar with the term, thought it was an "indefinite" one that automatically renews. Appreciate you pointing it out. So how does that work when it comes to sacking a manager, considering the contract never expires? Always on the hook for one year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveyboy66 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 7 minutes ago, bobness said: Cheers. Wasn't familiar with the term, thought it was an "indefinite" one that automatically renews. Appreciate you pointing it out. So how does that work when it comes to sacking a manager, considering the contract never expires? Always on the hook for one year? Not sure but if he had six months left of a contract then he was on a year contract so the repayment should be six months...perhaps that's why it's negotiable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Animis said: We don't know what the contract between SB and SWFC said. Only the direct parties really know. We don't know if it had an written compensation clause (amount), payable by another club in the event that they asked permission off Wednesday directly or via SB, to talk to SB and offer him the role. We do know (as has been said by SB), that DC 'allowed' SB to talk to NUFC, who offer SB their job allowing him to then resign as our manager. We don't know if NUFC have paid this amount, or even offered it, or said 'we'll give you half or what. If they have agreed to pay the SB compensation clause money, and the legal issues are down to the other two employees, then above applies to their scenario. Looking at it, I do think there was an explicit amount insert. Whether this applies to the other two is uncertain but you would think if was explicit, why would NUFC pay SB's money but not the other two? I also wonder how employment contracts work when the contract is personal between the employee and employer, but a third unknown party seems to be affected without their knowledge in a compensation release clause. In the end, SB and the other two resigned - why was this if the explicit compensation clause was known and paid? It all seemed to unravel the weekend of the Lincoln game. It just doesn't add up - there's either a fixed amount to pay in writing or there isn't. Your last sentence.. I know from personal experience that an offer can be made to withdraw from a contract that may be lower than that stipulated..it can be accepted or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said: Not sure but if he had six months left of a contract then he was on a year contract so the repayment should be six months...perhaps that's why it's negotiable What I gather after a brief consultation with Professor Google is that a rolling contract runs its established course (in this case one year), after which is continues indefinitely until notice is provided by one of the parties. Details of how the notice must be provided would be stipulated within the contract (e.g. contract concludes 30 days from notice). So perhaps there were 6 + x months remaining (and fewer for the Clemence and Agnew - assuming they were on a similar arrangement) This idea of Bruce being on a one-year rolling contract, where did it come from? I'm fairly certain DC stated that he doesn't disclose this sort of information. Supposedly Carlos and Jos were on one year contracts, which maybe caused people to assume it was the same for Bruce. Perhaps DC had more confidence in Bruce, and tied him on a longer term deal. From Bruce's perspective, a one-year deal can't have been that attractive. Edited July 22, 2019 by bobness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatbloke Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Me thinks this could cost Ashley a lot of dosh cos I don’t think Mr C will back down this time no restrictions on the cash he can spend ,he feels dishonoured and my guess he’s a tad angry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Claw Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 How long does it take for an application to be allowed into China ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelowl Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, The Claw said: How long does it take for an application to be allowed into China ? may be a prob for them we have friends in that region Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hangonrose Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 16 hours ago, Buddy Repperton said: I fully expect that, ultimately, the loser in all this will be (drum roll) - Sheffield Wednesday Football Club! Much like the SUFC and West Ham/Tevez situation all those years ago.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now