Guest mkowl Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Only one winner as usual in all this - the lawyers obtaining their fees This seems to be as much about the breach of honour which we know the Thai population take incredibly seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cognacbarnowl Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, mkowl said: Only one winner as usual in all this - the lawyers obtaining their fees This seems to be as much about the breach of honour which we know the Thai population take incredibly seriously If it is about a breach of honour then fair play to Big Chan. Not much honour shown by brassicahead and Ashley, was there? FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 DC must have run it past his lawyers so it must be worth a shot. Reckon there is more to this than what has been leaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, cognacbarnowl said: If it is about a breach of honour then fair play to Big Chan. Not much honour shown by brassicahead and Ashley, was there? FFS! I genuinely think it is more about the principal than the money. I am no lawyer or expert on contracts, but I know the wording will be vital and the actions taken will be scrutinised. If nothing else it is a distraction, but more for Bruce / Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Mycroft said: DC must have run it past his lawyers so it must be worth a shot. Reckon there is more to this than what has been leaked. The fact that some media appear to know the numbers is probably another breach in itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 13 minutes ago, mkowl said: The fact that some media appear to know the numbers is probably another breach in itself Things leak all the time. What's the actual damage from the leak though, Wednesday getting paid what they want to be paid? Perhaps there are other elements to the contract beyond a simple release clause triggered by a sum, which Newcastle were able to navigate. Still, wouldn't be convinced that would be a fault of Newcastle's, as opposed to whomever "leaked" it. Still think that the tapping up of Bruce is the most likely claim (of the proposed theories), as Newcastle would be held accountable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinger208b Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 7 hours ago, Weshallovercome said: It's difficult to trigger a release clause if no one knows about it. Not sure we'd have much joy pursuing this, if we got our 3.5 mil we should just move on. Which is the idea. They are not there for "this is the target you need to reach" but more like protection... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinger208b Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 7 hours ago, Rogers said: If release clauses are meant to be secret, how are are other clubs supposed to activate it? Maybe Bruce's agent, who probably has a copy of the contract did his job and told them. You're not supposed to trigger them. They are for protection... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookone Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 5 hours ago, TINKERBELL said: Bruce has gone and fk him.let it go as by November he will be looking for a new job. With a huge pay off - he wins either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, slinger208b said: You're not supposed to trigger them. They are for protection... What’s £3.5m going to protect you against; Kidderminster Harriers coming for your manager. When certain players have £225m buy out clauses maybe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 33 minutes ago, bobness said: Things leak all the time. What's the actual damage from the leak though, Wednesday getting paid what they want to be paid? Perhaps there are other elements to the contract beyond a simple release clause triggered by a sum, which Newcastle were able to navigate. Still, wouldn't be convinced that would be a fault of Newcastle's, as opposed to whomever "leaked" it. Still think that the tapping up of Bruce is the most likely claim (of the proposed theories), as Newcastle would be held accountable. I am sure the lawyers will assess what damages have been caused, even if its down to additional costs for having to find a replacement manager. If you have never seen a lawyers letter in such a type of thing they are a joy. I have the misfortune in my profession to have had thankfully very infrequent claims from clients but the opening letters are always a bit gung ho. Employment law and breach of contract is a minefield, you can almost expect a counter claim as standard But just because leaks happen all the time does not mean it is acceptable or that "it happens in football all the time" is zero defence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Thomas Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Let’s be honest here, if Bruce negotiated a contract for himself and his staff that had a £3.5m release clause that means that when that contract was signed and came into effect the club was happy to accept £3.5m as compensation for Bruce and his team. I understand people feel hurt by the whole thing but if this really is the ‘loophole’ the club are supposedly looking at then it’s pointless wasted energy and cash, move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 54 minutes ago, bobness said: Things leak all the time. What's the actual damage from the leak though, Wednesday getting paid what they want to be paid? Perhaps there are other elements to the contract beyond a simple release clause triggered by a sum, which Newcastle were able to navigate. Still, wouldn't be convinced that would be a fault of Newcastle's, as opposed to whomever "leaked" it. Still think that the tapping up of Bruce is the most likely claim (of the proposed theories), as Newcastle would be held accountable. Agree on this plus it would be the matter for the PL rather than getting us more cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, mkowl said: I am sure the lawyers will assess what damages have been caused, even if its down to additional costs for having to find a replacement manager. If you have never seen a lawyers letter in such a type of thing they are a joy. I have the misfortune in my profession to have had thankfully very infrequent claims from clients but the opening letters are always a bit gung ho. Employment law and breach of contract is a minefield, you can almost expect a counter claim as standard But just because leaks happen all the time does not mean it is acceptable or that "it happens in football all the time" is zero defence Not sure finding another boss could be viewed that way as that is what the original compo would be for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leaping Lannys Perm Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 To be honest, it is the concept of tapping up that needs looking into, not the tapping up itself. Footballers and managers have very complicated contracts that only seem to work in areas like sport and entertainment. Are their equivalents in the corporate world? I get why sports have contract periods and transfer fees. It would be anarchy if any club could just sign anyone whenever they wanted for free, like in the real world. But that is for the protection of club football in the first place. I can't however see how it is fair that the actual workers are not allowed to even be contacted about new employment opportunities. Its secret release clauses that cause this. To me, every player or coach should have a release clause negotiated into their contract and it should be public knowledge, or at least available on request. That way, the transfer system is maintained but no-one missed out on the opportunity to be approached for a job. Maybe notice periods need to be included as well to balance it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 22 minutes ago, mkowl said: I am sure the lawyers will assess what damages have been caused, even if its down to additional costs for having to find a replacement manager. If you have never seen a lawyers letter in such a type of thing they are a joy. I have the misfortune in my profession to have had thankfully very infrequent claims from clients but the opening letters are always a bit gung ho. Employment law and breach of contract is a minefield, you can almost expect a counter claim as standard But just because leaks happen all the time does not mean it is acceptable or that "it happens in football all the time" is zero defence If it was a contractual issue hinging on legalities, would it be referred to the PL? Serious question. Regarding leaks, I'm not saying it's acceptable, but to pursue the matter there ought to be damages. One could argue that compensation by definition (especially a figure to "trigger" a release) should have the resulting additional costs built into it. Isn't that the point of compensation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Claw Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Man Utd in a month, bye toon. Fikin TOSA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Farrell Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Total waste of time and focus. We need to accept what has been offered and move forward. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZicoSterland2 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just goes to show what we already knew Bruce has no loyalty to anyone. Need to move on now and be ready for a new season 9 days away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAWAWUTO17 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Could it be Ashley told Bruce to resign so he didn't have to pay the 3.5 million and simply pay his 2 million in wages for the year ? Therefore making someone aware of the clause to get an upper hand is illegal. 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