Pulis wanted (and tried to) leave without a payoff

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, alanharper said:

 

Doubt very much that he was on anywhere near that.

 

Just because Steve Bruce was said to be on a £2m a year contract, it doesn't mean that every subsequent manager will be getting the same. 

A few folk have said he was 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, McRightSide said:

You’re allowed to resign mate.

 

Contracts have clauses that govern the terms around it.

 

Usually there’s a penalty depending on what action has been taken

 

Nope, apparently Tony Pulis, a manager with around 30 years experience in professional football management signed a contract that meant if he chose to resign and walk away, he could well be left with the burden of paying for whatever failure Sheffield Wednesday endure on the field over the next 24 games!

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

A few folk have said he was 

 

What did the oracle Nixon say?

[ChinaOwl]

7 minutes ago, McRightSide said:

You’re allowed to resign mate.

 

Contracts have clauses that govern the terms around it.

 

Usually there’s a penalty depending on what action has been taken

 

OK, formal resignation is different again from just walking away from a job but then I think there should be a notice period, whether this is required to be worked or not. It sounded to me like Pulis was not planning to do either but instead sought to get some form of legally binding mutual consent.

[Vaughan]

Not read all thread.  Couldn’t Pulis have just resigned ? 
 

*but have now read this page. 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Vaughan

[Rodger Wylde]

Unless someone has actually seen Pulis's contract or the subsequent correspondence between relevant lawyers, this thread is just complete bo!!ocks really.

[DeeJayOne]

4 hours ago, WatfordOwl said:

This was the single most crazy thing I read from the press conference text yesterday.

 

I mean - who does that? 

 

Who, when an employee states they want to leave your club/business, takes a decision to pay someone off that would have walked for much less? 

 

 

A pay-off usually comes with an agreement (i.e. to not discuss the circumstances, and maybe some 'gardening leave' where the guy can't take up another job for a certain period, etc). It is a way for the employer to control the circumstances/perception/fallout of the employee leaving and is really common for football managers.

 

It is a reason why football managers hardly ever resign nowadays — because they know they'll get a payoff if they get sacked.

 

 

[Devonstrix]

Maybe it is all the supporters fault. Many of us spend so much time on here and presumably on social media, telling the world and his wife that DC knows next to nothing about football, not very savvy etc. Then the likes of Pulis comes slithering out from under whatever rock he’s been hiding under, rubbing his hands in glee, thinking ‘this’ll be like taking candy from a baby'. 
 

The  more I think about it, I have a less than grudging admiration for DC for booting this footballing charlatan's. 4rse out of Hillsborough before anymore damage could be done. I do hope he means it when he says he won’t make that sort of mistake again though

 

ps I don’t really think it’s our fault. The customer is always right! 

[Quist]

5 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

Pulis is understood to have been surprised, disappointed and hurt by the comments made by Chansiri.

 

Sky Sports News were told that Pulis wanted to leave the club with dignity and respect.

 

However, he feels that became impossible to achieve.

 

Pulis offered to leave Wednesday on mutually agreed terms, which would have seen him leave without a payoff, but the club would not accept that and chose instead to sack him.

 

During his short period at Hillsborough, Pulis felt he had a good working relationship with both the players and staff.

Everything I have read about TP tells me he knows the colour of money. His past reputation tells me he squeezes every last drop he can get out of a club. To come out with he would leave without a pay off somebody is having a laugh.

He had no intention of doing a job did no homework prior to taking over and could not get coaching team in place. His trusted guy Kemp who went everywhere with him did not turn up which I think gives it away.

[matthefish2002]

2 hours ago, Willow Owl said:

There’s a 250 million bail out for clubs agreed.  So yes other clubs are struggling financially because of the pandemic. 

 

Yes other clubs are struggling but because they are better run are able to withstand it better the Wednesday.

 

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

1 hour ago, akbuk said:

Yes they do if there's a problem solve ASAP he did by getting rid of Pulis

At what cost to the club though? 

Could have been done cheaper apparently.

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

14 minutes ago, Quist said:

Everything I have read about TP tells me he knows the colour of money. His past reputation tells me he squeezes every last drop he can get out of a club. To come out with he would leave without a pay off somebody is having a laugh.

He had no intention of doing a job did no homework prior to taking over and could not get coaching team in place. His trusted guy Kemp who went everywhere with him did not turn up which I think gives it away.

Monk mark 2

[SiJ]

This club is f00king nuts. 

[WatfordOwl]

33 minutes ago, DeeJayOne said:

 

A pay-off usually comes with an agreement (i.e. to not discuss the circumstances, and maybe some 'gardening leave' where the guy can't take up another job for a certain period, etc). It is a way for the employer to control the circumstances/perception/fallout of the employee leaving and is really common for football managers.

 

It is a reason why football managers hardly ever resign nowadays — because they know they'll get a payoff if they get sacked.

 

 

I consider all of that, but Pulis was requesting to go - if that was the case as an employer you would literally just let them carry out their own wish.

 

He'd be paid up to the date he/she tendered resignation and leave without any of the statements being made. 

 

There are a lot of variables of course, and all of that is nothing other than conjecture, but it's just a very odd thing to do regardless of honest your own character is to discuss (in detail) why a manager has been released from their role. 

 

I think tbf to DC. he probably expected a backlash because of how short TP was in the role, it wasn't really forthcoming - not a universally popular appointment, and the results/performances were clearly going backwards. TP wasn't up for the challenge, wanted out - DC facilitated it on his terms, and then made more of it in a bizarre press conference. 

 

Aside from the financial damage incurred, it's the damage it'll do in attracting someone to the role - will anyone want to work with a chairman that can make career ending statements about them should it not work out as planned? 

 

That's the bigger picture for me, and extremely difficult to look past. 

 

[SiJ]

What an absolute shocker of an appointment though. 

 

Good grief. 

 

What on earth did Chansiri think he was getting when he brought Pulis in? 

 

You are talking about a manager in his 60s with a very well defined playing "style" and who has a reputation for not being the most trustworthy of characters. 

 

 

 

 

[SiJ]

2 minutes ago, WatfordOwl said:

I consider all of that, but Pulis was requesting to go - if that was the case as an employer you would literally just let them carry out their own wish.

 

He'd be paid up to the date he/she tendered resignation and leave without any of the statements being made. 

 

There are a lot of variables of course, and all of that is nothing other than conjecture, but it's just a very odd thing to do regardless of honest your own character is to discuss (in detail) why a manager has been released from their role. 

 

I think tbf to DC. he probably expected a backlash because of how short TP was in the role, it wasn't really forthcoming - not a universally popular appointment, and the results/performances were clearly going backwards. TP wasn't up for the challenge, wanted out - DC facilitated it on his terms, and then made more of it in a bizarre press conference. 

 

Aside from the financial damage incurred, it's the damage it'll do in attracting someone to the role - will anyone want to work with a chairman that can make career ending statements about them should it not work out as planned? 

 

That's the bigger picture for me, and extremely difficult to look past. 

 

I can't see any half decent British based manager going for it now unless they are desperate to get back into employment. 

 

[WatfordOwl]

1 minute ago, SiJ said:

I can't see any half decent British based manager going for it now unless they are desperate to get back into employment. 

 

There's few around - Pardew notably, he would absolutely be the type of appointment we'd make. 

 

Cowley's another, Marco Silva, Wagner, Poyet and Holloway perhaps. 

 

tbh - I don't think any bar the Cowley's would go near it. 

[dani_armo]

I think the most worrying thing (if people take their Chansiri branded blue and white tinted specs off), is that whether people rated Pulis or not one of the most experienced managers in English football has come in for 45 days and walked. We are not talking about an inexperienced young British yes man or a random johnny foreigner, we are talking about a vastly experienced and to be honest a successful British manager.

The man has taken a look at the club from top to bottom, looked at the squad and his chairman and packed his desk up after ONE month. I think this speaks volumes.

 

Another vastly experienced manager Bruce said the Chairman was one of the strangest hes ever worked with and lets be honest he jumped at the chance to leave...although you cannot blame him for wanting to manage his club

[SiJ]

3 minutes ago, WatfordOwl said:

There's few around - Pardew notably, he would absolutely be the type of appointment we'd make. 

 

Cowley's another, Marco Silva, Wagner, Poyet and Holloway perhaps. 

 

tbh - I don't think any bar the Cowley's would go near it. 

Perhaps Cook (ex-Wigan). 

 

It's a strange one, as prior to this Pulis debacle, I'd always got the impression that Chansiri is pretty loyal to his managers. He obviously kicked off a bit when Bruce decided to leave, but I can't remember there having been quite such a fallout. 

 

With this, all the dirty laundry has been aired and we are making headlines for the wrong reasons...again. 

 

I said in another thread that I was willing to give Chansiri the benefit of the doubt re: what he said about Pulis yesterday. Still stick by that given some of the things Pulis has done previously, but I'm not sure going off on some rant was the best option. 

 

In saying that, if what Chansiri said was not true, then one would think Pulis will be getting his lawyers involved, surely? 

Edited January 1, 2021 by SiJ

[DeeJayOne]

16 minutes ago, WatfordOwl said:

I consider all of that, but Pulis was requesting to go - if that was the case as an employer you would literally just let them carry out their own wish.

 

He'd be paid up to the date he/she tendered resignation and leave without any of the statements being made. 

 

There are a lot of variables of course, and all of that is nothing other than conjecture, but it's just a very odd thing to do regardless of honest your own character is to discuss (in detail) why a manager has been released from their role. 

 

I think tbf to DC. he probably expected a backlash because of how short TP was in the role, it wasn't really forthcoming - not a universally popular appointment, and the results/performances were clearly going backwards. TP wasn't up for the challenge, wanted out - DC facilitated it on his terms, and then made more of it in a bizarre press conference. 

 

Aside from the financial damage incurred, it's the damage it'll do in attracting someone to the role - will anyone want to work with a chairman that can make career ending statements about them should it not work out as planned? 

 

That's the bigger picture for me, and extremely difficult to look past. 

 

 

Hypothetically... if as an employer you knew an employee had very close links to and was speaking to certain members of the press, and potentially lifting the lid on the bizarre way things are being run, you'd perhaps want to put an agreement in place that essentially bars that person from speaking out for a certain amount of time in a vain attempt to protect your reputation somewhat — which would come with a payoff.

 

Totally hypothetical of course. *cough*.