Chelsea punishment precedent for Lambert situation?

[First Jedi 0]

Colchester''s claim come from the fact we "broke" their "rule" that they themselves made up. Otherwise it''s a totally normal and above board dealing - we approached them, they gave the okay, we talked, made an offer, Lambert accepted, it''ll go to tribunal to determine compensation, a fee will be paid. End of story.

[UEAstudent 0]

[quote user="Attleborough_Canary"]If they are gambling full stop then it''s irresponsible! The board have made mistakes in the past but this is a different board all together with a much different character about it.[/quote]

Perhaps taking a calculated risk is how they would see it. Business is all about taking risks but I doubt our cheif exec would want to be the first to get the clubbed docked points for breaching league rules.

Even an outside chance of this happening seems too risky from where I am.

[Attleborough_Canary 65]

[quote user="First Jedi"]Colchester''s claim come from the fact we "broke" their "rule" that they themselves made up. Otherwise it''s a totally normal and above board dealing - we approached them, they gave the okay, we talked, made an offer, Lambert accepted, it''ll go to tribunal to determine compensation, a fee will be paid. End of story.[/quote]

Agreed, it''s all a bit we said he said really!

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="First Jedi"]Colchester''s claim come from the fact we "broke" their "rule" that they themselves made up. Otherwise it''s a totally normal and above board dealing - we approached them, they gave the okay, we talked, made an offer, Lambert accepted, it''ll go to tribunal to determine compensation, a fee will be paid. End of story.[/quote]

 

You seem to fail to understand the Football League rules on this.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

Reported here by the East Anglian:

 

http://www.greenun24.co.uk/content/greenun/sport/football/league-one/colchester-united/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=ColchesterUnitedFC&tBrand=GreenunOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=IPED18%20Aug%202009%2014%3A34%3A12%3A767

Rob repeated it personally last week and Steve, the CEO, also said the same thing on the Col U radio programme on Thursday week.

[/quote]

 

Maybe Lambert had a clause in his contract that enabled him to leave if a big club came in!

[First Jedi 0]

"You seem to fail to understand the Football League rules on this."

What football league rule have they "broken", that isn''t solved by paying the fee of compensation determined by a tribunal?

[Attleborough_Canary 65]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="First Jedi"]Colchester''s claim come from the fact we "broke" their "rule" that they themselves made up. Otherwise it''s a totally normal and above board dealing - we approached them, they gave the okay, we talked, made an offer, Lambert accepted, it''ll go to tribunal to determine compensation, a fee will be paid. End of story.[/quote]

 

You seem to fail to understand the Football League rules on this.

[/quote]

Please enlighten us football oracle!

[Camuldonum 0]

I have mentioned it on the board before.  FL rules allow the club being asked to impose a condition which is then BINDING on the other club if they wish to pursue the person concerned.

Colchester''s contention is that we imposed a condition: that you could not formally offer a contract to PL until the clubs had agreed the level of compensation.

Colchester say that condition was faxed to you, receipt and acceptance of the terms confirmed to Colchester

Colchester then say you won''t ahead with your deal without agreeing a level of compensation.

If that is correct then it is a clear breach of FL Rule 20 - see just the last few words:

 

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.

 

Colchester say that they set out the conditions (compensation agreed in advance) which you accepted and, in a nutshell, then disregarded.

 

 

[Attleborough_Canary 65]

So, if we assume here that 20.1 could be applicable to PL by way of him terminating employment and thus breaching his contract bearing in mind that Norwich obviously did not coerce PL into doing so, then surely 20.2 and 20.3 are not applicable as he, at the point of being offered the job, was unemployed due to having breached his own contract?

I maybe wrong, and chasing my own tail here. I may even be making an idiot of myself but hey, whats new [:)]

[Attleborough_Canary 65]

[quote user="Attleborough_Canary"]

So, if we assume here that 20.1 could be applicable to PL by way of him terminating employment and thus breaching his contract bearing in mind that Norwich obviously did not coerce PL into doing so, then surely 20.2 and 20.3 are not applicable as he, at the point of being offered the job, was unemployed due to having breached his own contract?

I maybe wrong, and chasing my own tail here. I may even be making an idiot of myself but hey, whats new [:)]

[/quote]

And the point which should have been attached to that is that maybe PL is liable for action to be taken against him but the club is not if the above is correct .

[First Jedi 0]

I still call bobbins on this... those rules cover agreements are just about the conditions needed to be met, __prior__ to the initial approach and only prior to the initial approach... therefore aren''t applicable after that initial approach. The conditions Colchester set were not about initial approach, they were about the offer which those rules don''t cover the offer as they are about a different thing. You''ll need to copy and paste more, I guess... :)

Otherwise - all clubs could say "you can only approach our manager, if you don''t make an offer" (didn''t ColWho originally say this anyway?!?! It was laughing when I first read it....) and therefore no manager could ever leave a club, ever, before their contract expired... which is obviously bobbins and is again human rights for a start.

Colchester could''ve said you could agree compensation *before* approaching, but that wouldn''t make sense, since there was no compensation to be paid until an offer is made, and there was no guarantee of that.

ColU just seemed to have most of this arse about face. Wanting more than just the money which they are due, to asking for point deductions, player signing bans, etc etc., just makes them look desperate. Equally - if they have, as they claim, hired a better man than Lambert, surely they have just argued themselves out of compensation they are actually due, as compensation is due in the case of a loss of something, rather than a gain...! :)

[Camuldonum 0]

Let us leave the blazers to decide.  I suspect it will end up in their hands.

[First Jedi 0]

Aye... I''d be seriously pissed that anything but monetary compensation was in the offing....Got to apologise for my bad explanation of everything, BTW!

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="First Jedi"]Aye... I''d be seriously pissed that anything but monetary compensation was in the offing....

Got to apologise for my bad explanation of everything, BTW!
[/quote]

No apology necessary.  It is a complex situation. I can''t see you getting a points deduction (just my opinion) but the problem is that if it goes to a Blazers Tribunal who knows what will happen?  Their track record is none too good.

I still hope Colchester and Norwich can settle it "out of court" as it were, shake hands and move on.

Good luck for tomorrow and for the season except, of course, at Cuckoo Farm.[;)]

[First Jedi 0]

Won''t need any luck there! :D

[Brendo 0]

Nothing can happen, surely?

think how many other managers have done the same...

Robins may be doing it form Rotherham to Barnsley.

Redknap to Spurs from Pompey.

I know theres loads more but i cba to say or think who..

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Brendan"]Nothing can happen, surely? think how many other managers have done the same... Robins may be doing it form Rotherham to Barnsley. Redknap to Spurs from Pompey. I know theres loads more but i cba to say or think who..[/quote]

Of course, lots of managers have done the same and will in the future.

Normally the buying club simply coughs up and it gets nowhere near a Blazer Tribunal.

It is the coughing up which is the stumbling block.

Spurs just coughed up.  No doubt Barnsley will, if he is their man. and Rotherham will thank him for his services and wish him well in the future while pocketing a wedge of money.[:D]

 

 

[Camuldonum 0]

Update on the Norwich-Colchester row over compensation:

 

Robbie Cowling said on ColU Live tonight that Colchester have placed the question of compensation for the departure of Paul Lambert and two other staff in the hands of lawyers and a letter was sent today giving Norwich "one last chance" to settle in the next seven days.

If they don''t settle within that time the matter will be taken to a Football League Tribunal.

[O.T.B.C 0]

Fcuk em I say.

[UEAstudent 0]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]Fcuk em I say.[/quote]

*** = PAY ?

[WeAreYellows49 0]

Who is to be believed?

Paul Lambert came in to replace Gunn, although the dispute over the way City tempted him to Carrow Road lingers, with the clubs unable to reach a compromise over compensation and the Essex club''s chairman calling for a fine and point deduction should Norwich be found guilty of acting against the rules.

But McNally insists he played it by the book.

“It still remains private,” he told members of the Norwich City Independent Supporters'' Association. “We are attempting to resolve it as amicably as we can. We did not break any code of conduct, we did not break any rules.

“If we are guilty of anything we are guilty of employing the person we thought was right for the football club and not paying too much attention to the 100-odd applications we received.

“We believe we did things the right way at all times.

“We want this resolved as soon as possible so we can concentration on other things. Sometimes these things go to tribunal, but if this does we care confident - and don''t worry about points.”