Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MrCanary

Cowling's latest claim...

Recommended Posts

Cowling has now claimed that in a lttere from our legal team to his, we have admitted being in breach of rule 20...

Does anybody know what rule 20 is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mel"]Cowling has now claimed that in a lttere from our legal team to his, we have admitted being in breach of rule 20... Does anybody know what rule 20 is?[/quote]

I thought this was the rule Chelsea broke when signing Kakuta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mel"]I have been trawling through Google, but cannot find it. Any idea what the rule says?[/quote]Someone posted a transcript of it yesterday, but all yesterdays threads have vanished.Its mainly about making approaches for club staff without permission, and written terms for compensation before clubs are allowed to talk to them.It was all a bit vague really, and didn''t really prove anything either way for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was posted on here yesterday, but most of the threads have been lost for some reason. I can''t remember it word for word but there were three basic points

20.1 Clubs can''t induce a staff memeber of another club to break their contract, even if the contract break isn''t outside the terms of the contract.

20.2 You cannot speak to staff memebers of other clubs.

20.3 20.1 and 20.2 don''t apply if you have written permission from the club''s chairman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks...

I reckon that last bit is the crux. I remember reading that we had permission to approach Lambert, but I bet a certain person will be denying that because it was not in writing... Perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mel"]Thanks...

I reckon that last bit is the crux. I remember reading that we had permission to approach Lambert, but I bet a certain person will be denying that because it was not in writing... Perhaps?[/quote]I don''t think we will ever know what really happened.The football league aren''t really interested, both sets of lawyers will thrash it out behind closed doors and both clubs will proclaim to be "happy" with the outcome.And Robbie Cowling will remain a knob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had permission to speak to Lambert negating 20.2 (although there is an argument that when appointing Karsa and Culverhouse this may have been broken).

The main issue is the moment Lambert quit before Norwich had permission to appoint him 20.1 was broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Mel"]Thanks... I reckon that last bit is the crux. I remember reading that we had permission to approach Lambert, but I bet a certain person will be denying that because it was not in writing... Perhaps?[/quote]

I don''t think we will ever know what really happened.

The football league aren''t really interested, both sets of lawyers will thrash it out behind closed doors and both clubs will proclaim to be "happy" with the outcome.

And Robbie Cowling will remain a knob.
[/quote]

Very well said sir! Couldn''t of summed it up better myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here''s the full rule 20:

Rule 20 is about illegal approaches....

"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
Personally I think this is rubbish. If our case is based on a legal approach(then why admit to an illegal one?)

Also I think rule 20 has a lot of debate depending how you look at it. It''s a well known fact we were given permission to speak to Lambert, as it was reported on Sky Sports News at the time.

Colchester maintain that they gave permission, but we weren''t allowed to offer the job. well I don''t know why else we would want to speak to Lambert.

Quite frankly I think the Colchester board messed up here, because they shouldn''t of giving us permission without first agreeing the compensation. And I suspect the tribunal will state this as well.

As for the bit on breaking a contract, well I admit we may have broken this rule, but it will be hard to prove. It may be Lambert resigned on his own free will, on the hope of getting offered the job.

In the end we will have to pay compensation of a little more than we wanted to and a lot less than Cowling wanted. It''s a shame because you would think a simple negotiation could have sorted this out.

Personally I think the suggestion of the point deduction and the way Cowling has conducted himself will be looked down on. I would be amazed if they deducted points, because every time a similar case comes in they would have to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a pity that thread got ''lost''. It was a decent debate.

The bit some of you keep missing is in 20.3.........any permission (to speak) must set out any conditions attaching to it...

RC has said all along that it was subject to agreeing a compensation package. As this is the third time it has happened it is not feasible that RC didn''t put in writing ''any conditions attaching to permission to speak''. Unfortunately Messrs Lambert, McNally and Bowkett creamed their jeans too early and fell foul of 20.3.

20.1 ''most probably'' would have been breached because who else makes an appointment without interview?

20.2 ''most probably'' PL and/or McN tipped a wink at Culvers and Karsa.

Won''t be points because it will disrupt the play offs - but a compo figure in the middle of the ''want'' and the ''offer'' and a slap for City from the FL.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it was subject of agreeing a compensation figure, where that figure is a matter of dispute, then for the last few months Col U and Norwich would have had no manager and Lambert would not have a job. Col U cannot surely deny him the right to seek employment wherever he likes, they don''t own him.

As it turned out both Clubs have had a good season with new managers.

Cowling feels personally slighted and this action is about the feelings of one man who has lost face through his own actions; just as he did in the 0-5 defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]If it was subject of agreeing a compensation figure, where that figure is a matter of dispute, then for the last few months Col U and Norwich would have had no manager and Lambert would not have a job. Col U cannot surely deny him the right to seek employment wherever he likes, they don''t own him. As it turned out both Clubs have had a good season with new managers. Cowling feels personally slighted and this action is about the feelings of one man who has lost face through his own actions; just as he did in the 0-5 defeat.[/quote]

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]If it was subject of agreeing a compensation figure, where that figure is a matter of dispute, then for the last few months Col U and Norwich would have had no manager and Lambert would not have a job. Col U cannot surely deny him the right to seek employment wherever he likes, they don''t own him. As it turned out both Clubs have had a good season with new managers. Cowling feels personally slighted and this action is about the feelings of one man who has lost face through his own actions; just as he did in the 0-5 defeat.[/quote]

Agreed

[/quote]

Spilt milk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="pete_norw"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]If it was subject of agreeing a compensation figure, where that figure is a matter of dispute, then for the last few months Col U and Norwich would have had no manager and Lambert would not have a job. Col U cannot surely deny him the right to seek employment wherever he likes, they don''t own him. As it turned out both Clubs have had a good season with new managers. Cowling feels personally slighted and this action is about the feelings of one man who has lost face through his own actions; just as he did in the 0-5 defeat.[/quote]

Agreed

[/quote]

Spilt milk

[/quote]

That''s more like it, as I said yesterday he''s not done himself any favours by keep opening his trap and whining to anyone who will listen how hard done by he is.  After a while people get fed up of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Magnificent yes what a shame really good debate. However this article has now appeared that seems to have got to where we were getting ie

1. Cowling gave verbal permission not written

2. He says compensation had to be agreed - but like we said last night was that in writing

3. Lambert then resigned I think we reckoned that threw both clubs

4. Interestingly this does show why there has never been a case before - there are player rules and not manager rules, therefore rule 20 used as a member of staff - which it seems has never been done before.

I think that is where we got to hope thats right as I havent tried to ba biased.

Here is the article

“Without any precedent to fall back on it''s difficult to gauge what possible punishments there might be,” he said. “There are specific clauses, rules and regulations for players and disputes arising from movement between clubs but none for managers - other than under general staff which is covered in rule 20.

“They could seek to use those guidelines for players as a starting point but you can''t really predict that and having done a little research I can''t find any previous case of a manager going before a tribunal in a similar way. Effectively the commission can choose to impose anything from a slap on the wrist to expulsion from the Football League but given there is no previous example of a club being expelled you feel it''s unlikely and even if that was the case they have leave to appeal.”

Colchester maintained from the outset that City had breached Football League rule 20 over Lambert''s exit which relates to the movement of personnel between clubs.

Cowling turned down Norwich''s initial request to appoint Lambert following Bryan Gunn''s departure after failing to agree a satisfactory compensation figure with City chief executive David McNally.

The Colchester chairman, however, then allowed Lambert to speak to Norwich officials but stipulated compensation would have to be agreed between the two parties.

“If the chairman says he gave permission for his manager to speak to another club it may have been on the understanding that he also imposed certain conditions,” said Sharpe. “As a result, perhaps he feels they were not adhered to. Both clubs clearly have a compensation figure in mind and of course if you are Colchester in this particular case then you could get a lower figure offered or even nothing at all.

“Without knowing the specifics of the case I would be surprised if it does go all the way to a tribunal - for that simple reason. It could just be a case of last minute brinkmanship. You have to factor in the nature of the clubs, their close proximity to each other and the fact they are both in the same league which are all elements you might not find in similar cases elsewhere.”

Seems like in the summing up because there is no precident it is in both teams interests to settle as it could literally go from Cols claim being thrown out and receiving nothing to Norwich being thrown out of the league. One assumes neither of those extremes would apply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="pete_norw"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]If it was subject of agreeing a compensation figure, where that figure is a matter of dispute, then for the last few months Col U and Norwich would have had no manager and Lambert would not have a job. Col U cannot surely deny him the right to seek employment wherever he likes, they don''t own him. As it turned out both Clubs have had a good season with new managers. Cowling feels personally slighted and this action is about the feelings of one man who has lost face through his own actions; just as he did in the 0-5 defeat.[/quote]

Agreed

[/quote]

Spilt milk

[/quote]

That''s more like it, as I said yesterday he''s not done himself any favours by keep opening his trap and whining to anyone who will listen how hard done by he is.  After a while people get fed up of it.

[/quote]

It seems to me that he is banging on his big drum loud enough that some might hear it and in the same breath he''s hopeing this noise will get to our players and throw them off course for the rest of the season, this man come''s with the heading  of Spoilt little bratt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robbie Cowling really is a sad sad little man now.. we all know its going to court, we are sick of hearing it, im sure both sets of fans are sick of it, and the FA are sick of it...

Cowling, have a word with yourself mate... no one cares anymore.

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...