Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sheffield uni Canary

Colchester want a points deduction!?!?

Recommended Posts

Just a heads up I got a ad-ware threat from that link  !

Re: Subject , i think they need to stop crying over spilt milk and deal. They are evidently gonna be sliding back down the league and have a right to be jealous. When we raid a few of thier players be prepared for another little crying fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn''t have thought so, if Lambert resigned they can''t do anything, he wanted to leave, we still paid them compensation as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also thought they said at the time that their new manager wouldnt be employed as they didnt think its right that we took theirs but noticed on cam''s article that they said the 6th person interviewed is employed already? double standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly, they need proof and they don''t have any.

Appointing a manager without an interview doesn''t prove anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The manager in question is currently employed in another job and

Colchester received the go-ahead from his club, before talking to the

mystery man.

Cowling added: “We have spoken to another club about their manager and we had been given permission to talk to him.

Can''t believe they''re poaching someone elses manager, disgusting!! I dislike Colchester nearly as much as Ipswich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand their anger though - remember how we felt when Everton poached Mike Walker? It is football at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn''t matter if Lambert resigned the problem is the agreement said Norwich were not to offer Lambert employment untill compensation was agreed. Compensation was not agreed and Lambert was unveiled as your new manager so Norwich went against what was agreed between the clubs. I think a points deduction is going a bit far but if it is proved Norwich broke the rules then they are looking at having to pay alot in compensation and will probably be hit with a big fine aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cufcone"]It doesn''t matter if Lambert resigned the problem is the agreement said Norwich were not to offer Lambert employment untill compensation was agreed. Compensation was not agreed and Lambert was unveiled as your new manager so Norwich went against what was agreed between the clubs. I think a points deduction is going a bit far but if it is proved Norwich broke the rules then they are looking at having to pay alot in compensation and will probably be hit with a big fine aswell.[/quote]No, not true.We approached Colchester. Colchester said yes on condition we did not offer employment. Lambert returned to Colchester and tendered his resignation then was offered the job. Let''s get our facts straight before we wade into the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This happened last season with Grayson going to Leeds, I can''t remember exactly what happened, but I think it went to court or Blackpool threatened to do that, and some sort of compensation was sorted out.

They are most likely just trying to get as high amount of compensation has they can from you by threatening this, and who can blame them tbh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TheGoogler"][quote user="cufcone"]It doesn''t matter if Lambert resigned the problem is the agreement said Norwich were not to offer Lambert employment untill compensation was agreed. Compensation was not agreed and Lambert was unveiled as your new manager so Norwich went against what was agreed between the clubs. I think a points deduction is going a bit far but if it is proved Norwich broke the rules then they are looking at having to pay alot in compensation and will probably be hit with a big fine aswell.[/quote]

No, not true.

We approached Colchester. Colchester said yes on condition we did not offer employment. Lambert returned to Colchester and tendered his resignation then was offered the job. Let''s get our facts straight before we wade into the situation.
[/quote]

 

Not correct, I''m afraid.  You were given the "Permission to speak" by Rob Cowling subject to a condition, faxed to you and acknowledged by Norwich, that no contract was to be offered to Lambert without compensation being agreed between the two clubs first.

Colchester''s case is that you ignored that condition and went ahead anyway.  Colchester believe that is in breach of FL Regulation 20 (iii).

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Camul, Yes, that may well be Colchester''s argument - but I defy you to tell me exactly where Norwich have "directly or indirectly induce(d) or attempt(ed) to induce" Lambert. The version of events I stated were correct - and the breach of contract was Lambert''s through his resignation. As was stated by Mr Cowling, Lambert "could not concentrate on his duties" at Colchester and resigned. I of course appreciate that his resignation was not accepted. However, frankly, anyone who thinks that a resignation can be refused needs to look at the reality of the situation.This is a brazen, disgusting attempt by Colchester to lever more compensation out of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="TheGoogler"][quote user="cufcone"]It doesn''t matter if Lambert resigned the problem is the agreement said Norwich were not to offer Lambert employment untill compensation was agreed. Compensation was not agreed and Lambert was unveiled as your new manager so Norwich went against what was agreed between the clubs. I think a points deduction is going a bit far but if it is proved Norwich broke the rules then they are looking at having to pay alot in compensation and will probably be hit with a big fine aswell.[/quote]No, not true.We approached Colchester. Colchester said yes on condition we did not offer employment. Lambert returned to Colchester and tendered his resignation then was offered the job. Let''s get our facts straight before we wade into the situation.[/quote]

 

Not correct, I''m afraid.  You were given the "Permission to speak" by Rob Cowling subject to a condition, faxed to you and acknowledged by Norwich, that no contract was to be offered to Lambert without compensation being agreed between the two clubs first.

Colchester''s case is that you ignored that condition and went ahead anyway.  Colchester believe that is in breach of FL Regulation 20 (iii).

20 Club / Employees Relationships20.1 No Club shall take any steps (either directly or indirectly through any third party, includingthe making of statements to the media) to induce or attempt to induce another Club’semployee to terminate his contract of employment with that other Club, whether or not suchtermination constitutes a breach of that contract.

 

20.2 No Club shall (either directly or indirectly through any third party) make contact with or enterinto 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 writtenpermission of the Chairman (or in his absence, a director or the Secretary) of that otherClub. Any such permission must set out any conditions attaching to it.

 

 
[/quote]and in which section does it mention any points deduction for breaking the rules? Or indeed, an example of a club being deducted points for poaching? Colchester are understandably agrieved but they''re just posturing imo in an attempt to up the compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TheGoogler"]Camul,

Yes, that may well be Colchester''s argument - but I defy you to tell me exactly where Norwich have "directly or indirectly induce(d) or attempt(ed) to induce" Lambert. The version of events I stated were correct - and the breach of contract was Lambert''s through his resignation. As was stated by Mr Cowling, Lambert "could not concentrate on his duties" at Colchester and resigned.

I of course appreciate that his resignation was not accepted. However, frankly, anyone who thinks that a resignation can be refused needs to look at the reality of the situation.

This is a brazen, disgusting attempt by Colchester to lever more compensation out of us.
[/quote]

 

We are happy this end to let the Football League rule on the matter if you don''t want to come to an agreement through negotiation between the two clubs.

If it goes to a tribunal our argument will be as set out and it will be for the tribunal to decide if any rules have been broken. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="TheGoogler"]Camul,

Yes, that may well be Colchester''s argument - but I defy you to tell me exactly where Norwich have "directly or indirectly induce(d) or attempt(ed) to induce" Lambert. The version of events I stated were correct - and the breach of contract was Lambert''s through his resignation. As was stated by Mr Cowling, Lambert "could not concentrate on his duties" at Colchester and resigned.

I of course appreciate that his resignation was not accepted. However, frankly, anyone who thinks that a resignation can be refused needs to look at the reality of the situation.

This is a brazen, disgusting attempt by Colchester to lever more compensation out of us.
[/quote]

 

We are happy this end to let the Football League rule on the matter if you don''t want to come to an agreement through negotiation between the two clubs.

If it goes to a tribunal our argument will be as set out and it will be for the tribunal to decide if any rules have been broken. 

 

[/quote]

FFS Cam, when are you bitter, Essex losers going to accept that even after beating us in a freak 7-1 game we''re still seen as a far big and better prospect by Lambo, than your little Sh*thouse tinpot outfit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="TheGoogler"]Camul,

Yes, that may well be Colchester''s argument - but I defy you to tell me exactly where Norwich have "directly or indirectly induce(d) or attempt(ed) to induce" Lambert. The version of events I stated were correct - and the breach of contract was Lambert''s through his resignation. As was stated by Mr Cowling, Lambert "could not concentrate on his duties" at Colchester and resigned.

I of course appreciate that his resignation was not accepted. However, frankly, anyone who thinks that a resignation can be refused needs to look at the reality of the situation.

This is a brazen, disgusting attempt by Colchester to lever more compensation out of us.
[/quote]

 

We are happy this end to let the Football League rule on the matter if you don''t want to come to an agreement through negotiation between the two clubs.

If it goes to a tribunal our argument will be as set out and it will be for the tribunal to decide if any rules have been broken. 

 

[/quote]

FFS Cam, when are you bitter, Essex losers going to accept that even after beating us in a freak 7-1 game we''re still seen as a far big and better prospect by Lambo, than your little Sh*thouse tinpot outfit!

[/quote]

 

You must ask our owner, Wiz.  We want our money.[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="TheGoogler"]Camul, Yes, that may well be Colchester''s argument - but I defy you to tell me exactly where Norwich have "directly or indirectly induce(d) or attempt(ed) to induce" Lambert. The version of events I stated were correct - and the breach of contract was Lambert''s through his resignation. As was stated by Mr Cowling, Lambert "could not concentrate on his duties" at Colchester and resigned. I of course appreciate that his resignation was not accepted. However, frankly, anyone who thinks that a resignation can be refused needs to look at the reality of the situation.This is a brazen, disgusting attempt by Colchester to lever more compensation out of us. [/quote]

 

We are happy this end to let the Football League rule on the matter if you don''t want to come to an agreement through negotiation between the two clubs.

If it goes to a tribunal our argument will be as set out and it will be for the tribunal to decide if any rules have been broken. 

 

[/quote]

FFS Cam, when are you bitter, Essex losers going to accept that even after beating us in a freak 7-1 game we''re still seen as a far big and better prospect by Lambo, than your little Sh*thouse tinpot outfit!

[/quote]Nicely put Wiz!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="TheGoogler"][quote user="cufcone"]It doesn''t matter if Lambert resigned the problem is the agreement said Norwich were not to offer Lambert employment untill compensation was agreed. Compensation was not agreed and Lambert was unveiled as your new manager so Norwich went against what was agreed between the clubs. I think a points deduction is going a bit far but if it is proved Norwich broke the rules then they are looking at having to pay alot in compensation and will probably be hit with a big fine aswell.[/quote]

No, not true.

We approached Colchester. Colchester said yes on condition we did not offer employment. Lambert returned to Colchester and tendered his resignation then was offered the job. Let''s get our facts straight before we wade into the situation.
[/quote]

 

Not correct, I''m afraid.  You were given the "Permission to speak" by Rob Cowling subject to a condition, faxed to you and acknowledged by Norwich, that no contract was to be offered to Lambert without compensation being agreed between the two clubs first.

Colchester''s case is that you ignored that condition and went ahead anyway.  Colchester believe that is in breach of FL Regulation 20 (iii).

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.

 

 

[/quote]

The problem with Colchester''s argument here is that Norwich may very well have complied with their conditions when speaking with Lambert. The thing is, telling their manager in the first place that another club wishes to speak to him makes it obvious that the club wants to offer him the job. And even if when speaking to Lambert they told him they wanted to give him the job but only when Colchester gave permission, Norwich would not be breaking the rules. However, once Lambert has gone back to Colchester and resigned, were that resignation accepted then Norwich are free to offer a contract without breaking any rules. So the question is whether or not Lambert was a free agent when he took the job with Norwich. If he led Norwich to believe he was a free agent then Colchester''s case would be against Lambert and not Norwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="TheGoogler"]Camul,

Yes, that may well be Colchester''s argument - but I defy you to tell me exactly where Norwich have "directly or indirectly induce(d) or attempt(ed) to induce" Lambert. The version of events I stated were correct - and the breach of contract was Lambert''s through his resignation. As was stated by Mr Cowling, Lambert "could not concentrate on his duties" at Colchester and resigned.

I of course appreciate that his resignation was not accepted. However, frankly, anyone who thinks that a resignation can be refused needs to look at the reality of the situation.

This is a brazen, disgusting attempt by Colchester to lever more compensation out of us.
[/quote]

 

We are happy this end to let the Football League rule on the matter if you don''t want to come to an agreement through negotiation between the two clubs.

If it goes to a tribunal our argument will be as set out and it will be for the tribunal to decide if any rules have been broken. 

 

[/quote]

FFS Cam, when are you bitter, Essex losers going to accept that even after beating us in a freak 7-1 game we''re still seen as a far big and better prospect by Lambo, than your little Sh*thouse tinpot outfit!

[/quote]

 

We want our money.[;)]

[/quote]

You can have it in the form of Cureton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...