Honest Col U Fan

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

It is pretty simple this end.  The "permission to speak" was granted with the condition that no offer would be made to Lambert BEFORE the level of compensation had been agreed in advance of that offer.  You got the fax and you acknowledged it.  You then went ahead and hired him before agreeing the level of compensation in breach of the condition that came with the "permission to speak" authorisation.

 

[/quote]Don''t you mean we had a chat over old times without making an offer, CUFC jarred off Lambert so he quit & we made an offer to an "unemployed" man.

[whoareyou? 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="McCanary"][quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

That any offer to our employee could only be made provided that the two clubs had agreed compensation IN ADVANCE OF THAT OFFER.

 

 

[/quote]
Cam mate, I think you are barking and naive on this one.

The Col case rests on the assertion that on the balance of probabilities NCFC directly or indirectly made Lambert an offer at the famous meeting.

Firstly Col have no way in hell of proving this actually happened though this it in itself doesn''t get City off the hook.

Secondly the mere fact that Col gave permission for talks is an implicit acceptance of the approach and conditions aside weakens the case that it was an illegal or against FL rules.

Thirdly Lambert may have breached his contractual terms with Col & there may be a case to answer there.

So take the compo offered or we will see you at the tribunal


[/quote]

 

You appear not to be up to speed with the regulations on this matter.[:|]

[/quote]

Enlighten us then,please. Not with any veiled hints that you know whats going on/went on but with the regulations pertaining to this.

Because I`m with BigFish here!

[/quote]

Here they are:

20 Club / Employees Relationships
20.1 No Club shall take any steps (either directly or indirectly through any third party, including
the making of statements to the media) to induce or attempt to induce another Club’s
employee to terminate his contract of employment with that other Club, whether or not such
termination constitutes a breach of that contract.

 

20.2 No Club shall (either directly or indirectly through any third party) make contact with or enter
into negotiations relating to the employment of another Club’s employee.

20.3 The only exception to this Regulation is where the Club has obtained the prior written
permission of the Chairman (or in his absence, a director or the Secretary) of that other
Club. Any such permission must set out any conditions attaching to it.

Only the last eleven words matter in this case....................

 

[/quote]

Those last eleven words probably have no legal standing. I would guess McNally will claim that once we were given permission to talk to him, clauses 20.1 and 20.2 had been met and since we then had written permission, the conditions attached are for the clubs to sort out between them.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

It is pretty simple this end.  The "permission to speak" was granted with the condition that no offer would be made to Lambert BEFORE the level of compensation had been agreed in advance of that offer.  You got the fax and you acknowledged it.  You then went ahead and hired him before agreeing the level of compensation in breach of the condition that came with the "permission to speak" authorisation.

 

[/quote]

Don''t you mean we had a chat over old times without making an offer, CUFC jarred off Lambert so he quit & we made an offer to an "unemployed" man.
[/quote]

 

That''s the way I see it too, he was unemployed and we employed him.  However I am more than sure that the club would have sought legal advice before a move was made.  If they didn''t then IMHO they are bloody stupid and deserve all they get.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

It is pretty simple this end.  The "permission to speak" was granted with the condition that no offer would be made to Lambert BEFORE the level of compensation had been agreed in advance of that offer.  You got the fax and you acknowledged it.  You then went ahead and hired him before agreeing the level of compensation in breach of the condition that came with the "permission to speak" authorisation.

 

[/quote]

Don''t you mean we had a chat over old times without making an offer, CUFC jarred off Lambert so he quit & we made an offer to an "unemployed" man.
[/quote]

 

That''s the way I see it too, he was unemployed and we employed him.  However I am more than sure that the club would have sought legal advice before a move was made.  If they didn''t then IMHO they are bloody stupid and deserve all they get.

[/quote]

He was under contract with two years to run.  He put his resignation in on Monday.  We have not formally accepted that resignation by the way.

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

It is pretty simple this end.  The "permission to speak" was granted with the condition that no offer would be made to Lambert BEFORE the level of compensation had been agreed in advance of that offer.  You got the fax and you acknowledged it.  You then went ahead and hired him before agreeing the level of compensation in breach of the condition that came with the "permission to speak" authorisation.

 

[/quote]Don''t you mean we had a chat over old times without making an offer, CUFC jarred off Lambert so he quit & we made an offer to an "unemployed" man.[/quote]

 

That''s the way I see it too, he was unemployed and we employed him.  However I am more than sure that the club would have sought legal advice before a move was made.  If they didn''t then IMHO they are bloody stupid and deserve all they get.

[/quote]

He was under contract with two years to run.  He put his resignation in on Monday.  We have not formally accepted that resignation by the way.

[/quote]Now that would be between you and him, wouldn''t it? Also, whether you accept it or not doesn''t really involve us.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

It is pretty simple this end.  The "permission to speak" was granted with the condition that no offer would be made to Lambert BEFORE the level of compensation had been agreed in advance of that offer.  You got the fax and you acknowledged it.  You then went ahead and hired him before agreeing the level of compensation in breach of the condition that came with the "permission to speak" authorisation.

 

[/quote]

Don''t you mean we had a chat over old times without making an offer, CUFC jarred off Lambert so he quit & we made an offer to an "unemployed" man.
[/quote]

 

That''s the way I see it too, he was unemployed and we employed him.  However I am more than sure that the club would have sought legal advice before a move was made.  If they didn''t then IMHO they are bloody stupid and deserve all they get.

[/quote]

He was under contract with two years to run.  He put his resignation in on Monday.  We have not formally accepted that resignation by the way.

[/quote]

 

Accept it or not he didn''t want to say with your club, it''s quite simple, and personally if a manager didn''t want to be at the club then AFAIC he can do one.

Well if the resignation hasn''t been accepted and agreed by your club then why are they now looking for a new manager?  Because really isn''t the still your manager?

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

It is pretty simple this end.  The "permission to speak" was granted with the condition that no offer would be made to Lambert BEFORE the level of compensation had been agreed in advance of that offer.  You got the fax and you acknowledged it.  You then went ahead and hired him before agreeing the level of compensation in breach of the condition that came with the "permission to speak" authorisation.

 

[/quote]

Don''t you mean we had a chat over old times without making an offer, CUFC jarred off Lambert so he quit & we made an offer to an "unemployed" man.
[/quote]

 

That''s the way I see it too, he was unemployed and we employed him.  However I am more than sure that the club would have sought legal advice before a move was made.  If they didn''t then IMHO they are bloody stupid and deserve all they get.

[/quote]

He was under contract with two years to run.  He put his resignation in on Monday.  We have not formally accepted that resignation by the way.

[/quote]

 

Accept it or not he didn''t want to say with your club, it''s quite simple, and personally if a manager didn''t want to be at the club then AFAIC he can do one.

Well if the resignation hasn''t been accepted and agreed by your club then why are they now looking for a new manager?  Because really isn''t he still your manager?

[WeAreYellows49 0]

**stay**

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

It is pretty simple this end.  The "permission to speak" was granted with the condition that no offer would be made to Lambert BEFORE the level of compensation had been agreed in advance of that offer.  You got the fax and you acknowledged it.  You then went ahead and hired him before agreeing the level of compensation in breach of the condition that came with the "permission to speak" authorisation.

 

[/quote]

Don''t you mean we had a chat over old times without making an offer, CUFC jarred off Lambert so he quit & we made an offer to an "unemployed" man.
[/quote]

 

That''s the way I see it too, he was unemployed and we employed him.  However I am more than sure that the club would have sought legal advice before a move was made.  If they didn''t then IMHO they are bloody stupid and deserve all they get.

[/quote]

He was under contract with two years to run.  He put his resignation in on Monday.  We have not formally accepted that resignation by the way.

[/quote]

 

Accept it or not he didn''t want to say with your club, it''s quite simple, and personally if a manager didn''t want to be at the club then AFAIC he can do one.

Well if the resignation hasn''t been accepted and agreed by your club then why are they now looking for a new manager?  Because really isn''t the still your manager?

[/quote]

Keeping our powder dry for legal reasons I would think.  Hopefully, a deal will be done.

[Pinks 0]

I''m pretty sure our board will have budgeted for the financial consequences of filching your manager. Lets face it, everything else has been budgeted for.

I am fairly certain someone of  Mcnally''s background would see all this coming.

In that respect I''m not worried at all. You might get a few quid after the transfer deadline or we might have a legal scrap. Whatever.

Look at my face. Bovvered?

We have new manager and we have football games to win.

END OF.

[Camuldonum 0]

Fans certainly won''t be worrying about it.  We''ve both got tough games this weekend and I doubt anyone at those will be discussing compensation!

[Pinks 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]Fans certainly won''t be worrying about it.  We''ve both got tough games this weekend and I doubt anyone at those will be discussing compensation![/quote]

In that Casa Cam it must only be you worrying about it.

You need need to relax, put your feet up, chill.

You''ll get your money.... as soon as we get our memory back [:D]

In fact next year you''ll all be millionaires.

[Pinks 0]

[quote user="WEEN_NASTY"]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]Fans certainly won''t be worrying about it.  We''ve both got tough games this weekend and I doubt anyone at those will be discussing compensation![/quote]

In that case Cam it must only be you worrying about it.

You need need to relax, put your feet up, chill.

You''ll get your money.... as soon as we get our memory back [:D]

In fact next year you''ll all be millionaires.

[/quote]

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

It is pretty simple this end.  The "permission to speak" was granted with the condition that no offer would be made to Lambert BEFORE the level of compensation had been agreed in advance of that offer.  You got the fax and you acknowledged it.  You then went ahead and hired him before agreeing the level of compensation in breach of the condition that came with the "permission to speak" authorisation.

 

[/quote]

Stikes me that whilst the critical word is indeed "BEFORE" any team in your position can keep saying that the offer is unacceptable just to strenghten their position on compensation.

Your only justification for considering our action underhand was if no offfer had actually been forthcoming at all. Just how you can actually claim this to be the case, I just don''t know and, even if you do have some inside track, I''m sure you wouldn''t be detailing it on a forum such as this.

The sad fact is that this sort of thing goes on all the time in football and there''s not much ordinary fans can do about it. Doesn''t make it right, but that''s the way it is.

[Gentleman Jim 0]

This is all toooooo complicated ![8-|]

Why don''t we just say SORRY and send him back ? [:D]

 

[jibbajabba 0]

lol....

We''ll take the money thanks :-)

Ironically, we''ll probably end up giving it to Ipswich for Lisbie.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="GMF"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

It is pretty simple this end.  The "permission to speak" was granted with the condition that no offer would be made to Lambert BEFORE the level of compensation had been agreed in advance of that offer.  You got the fax and you acknowledged it.  You then went ahead and hired him before agreeing the level of compensation in breach of the condition that came with the "permission to speak" authorisation.

 

[/quote]

Stikes me that whilst the critical word is indeed "BEFORE" any team in your position can keep saying that the offer is unacceptable just to strenghten their position on compensation.

Your only justification for considering our action underhand was if no offfer had actually been forthcoming at all. Just how you can actually claim this to be the case, I just don''t know and, even if you do have some inside track, I''m sure you wouldn''t be detailing it on a forum such as this.

The sad fact is that this sort of thing goes on all the time in football and there''s not much ordinary fans can do about it. Doesn''t make it right, but that''s the way it is.

[/quote]

You are right that I can''t go into it on a message board but basically you made an offer on compensation which was unacceptable and we then refused you permission to speak to PL.

Obviously negotiations continue.  Should they fail I believe the club will let the FA sort it out.