Tribunal Day is upon us.......

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="morty"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="morty"]The long and short of it is, we bent the rules, we all know we did.

And its all about just how much savvy MacNally used in doing it as to how much we get away with it.
[/quote]

We may have bent the rules but did we break them? [;)]

[/quote]

Honest answer? Yeah I think we probably did. It all depends on how much savvy was used, how much was actually put into writing.

If it was all verbal and its our word against Cowlings then nothing conclusive can really be proved either way. And lets remember, unless we are actually proven to have acted improperly then Cowling will get nothing by way of compo.
[/quote]

lol I can''t imagine Delia breaking any rules or even bending them, she''s much too much of a goody two shoes to allow that to happen under her watch surely?

 

[/quote]

She has The prince of Darkness McNally to do the dirty business now (Including taking Sunday "newspapers" to task)


Delia says "Frigging hell David, Gunny is cocking this right up, we''re proper bolloxed unless we sort this out sharpish"

David says "I have a plan Delia, its maybe a little iffy but I reckon I can crack a few heads to make it happen"

Delia says "Do it, the fans are already after my head, I don''t want to know details just make sure the bodies are properly disposed of and it doesn''t cost us too much"

David says "Excellent" (and drums his fingers together in a Mr Burns stylee.)
[/quote]

Hehehehe [:D]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Put it into a business world point of view.  People are headhunted, then

resign and go and work for a bigger employer with greater prospects and

a higher wage all the time.[/quote]I don''t.  I wonder why that is ?... 

[8-)]

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Arganth"][quote user="morty"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="morty"]The long and short of it is, we bent the rules, we all know we did.

And its all about just how much savvy MacNally used in doing it as to how much we get away with it.
[/quote]

We may have bent the rules but did we break them? [;)]

[/quote]

Honest answer? Yeah I think we probably did. It all depends on how much savvy was used, how much was actually put into writing.

If it was all verbal and its our word against Cowlings then nothing conclusive can really be proved either way. And lets remember, unless we are actually proven to have acted improperly then Cowling will get nothing by way of compo.
[/quote]

Disagree we broke the rules, but agree with your last statement.

Cowling originally confirmed he gave us permission to speak to Lambert, but then contradicted himself when he realised he''d shot himself in the foot.  There''s no case to answer there, clearly - it''s on their website.

I wouldn''t be at all surprised if he did make all sorts of conditions regarding agreeing compensation before we took Lambert.  This will have been made null and void by Lambert deciding his employer was being unreasonable and tending his resignation.  A perfectly normal thing to do, and again no case for the club to answer.

I''m fairly sure (but am more than happy to be corrected by a legal eagle) that Cowling not accepting that resignation is against EU employment rules. 

To then turn round and say "Well we''ve got a better manager anyway" can only damage his claim for a large compensation.

Put it into a business world point of view.  People are headhunted, then resign and go and work for a bigger employer with greater prospects and a higher wage all the time.
[/quote]

 

One of the key factors is the detail of Lambert''s contract. Contracts work both ways, so if there were restrictive clauses then maybe Lambert breached his contract and presumably Col Who''s argument would be that we encouraged him to do so. As Purple Canary has been pointing out, we simply don''t have enough information to do anything other than speculate, but I''m pretty convinced that we''ll have to stump up cash and may be given a small points deduction of 1 or 2 (ie not enough to affect the title) "pour decouragez les autres", but I suspect that that''s very worst case scenario.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Lambert is King"][quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Lambert is King"]

I dont for one second, but wouldnt it be a slap in the face for Cowling if we were deducted 3 points instead of compensation or fine.

If we were deducted points for me that would be the last straw with the FA for me and nothing would then convince me that they dont just have something against our club.

[/quote]Its the Football League NOT FA![/quote]

You are quite right Wiz. Even so if we are deducted points you will have to think that people for some reason have it in for our club. 

[/quote]Totally agraee LIK, our attendences give League 1 and Paint Pot credabilty, think about it.[:|][/quote]We will not be docked points.League One will still have Leeds, Southampton and likely Sheff Weds next year to give positive attendance figures.

[The Butler 0]

Just heard that they have agreed that providing we make a sacrifice of a Wizard that they will settle just for money[6]

[Mr. Bump 0]

First Wizard you are so paranoid it''s unreal.The club will not get a points deduction!!

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Mr. Bump"]First Wizard you are so paranoid it''s unreal.

The club will not get a points deduction!!
[/quote]Tis true, when it comes to City I do worry a lot.[:S]

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]We were given permission to speak to him, how is that tapping him up?  Sorry just don''t understand that[/quote]Exactly mate, and what were we supposed to talk to him about, the state of the bloody cathedral stone work?

[Lambo 0]

I''d be very suprised if we got a points deduction that actually affects our status as Champions.

I think it''s just a matter of how much money well be sending to Essex myself.

[Row D Seat 7 0]

My guess would be a 200-500k fine, mainly to try and make an example of us (not sure what we''ve done), also as colchester now can''t go up, our fine will go up. If they had been confirmed in the play-off''s, our fine would have not been as high.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"]My guess would be a 200-500k fine, mainly to try and make an example of us (not sure what we''ve done), also as colchester now can''t go up, our fine will go up. If they had been confirmed in the play-off''s, our fine would have not been as high.[/quote]Col Who fans think any points deducted will go to them...........deluded or what?

[Snoots 0]

OK, I''m going for a 5 figure sum only. Fact is that Lambert''s move took place almost at the start of the season and Colchester were able to bring in a more experienced, proven manager (at the time) than Lambert very quickly. Therefore, Colchester can''t claim that Lambert''s departure caused long term chronic disruption and destroyed their chances of mounting a promotion campaign. In fact, under Boothroyd Colchester managed to stay in the play-off zone until almost the end of the season. Therefore, IMO the League will take the view that there is no prima facie case for compensation and that 50K will be the maximum penalty imposed on City.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]We were given permission to speak to him, how is that tapping him up?  Sorry just don''t understand that[/quote]Exactly mate, and what were we supposed to talk to him about, the state of the bloody cathedral stone work?[/quote]

Maybe Delia''s pies or something more erm.....boring lol

 

I know one thing, I will be glad when this is all done and dusted mate [;)]

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Row D Seat 7"]My guess would be a 200-500k fine, mainly to try and make an example of us (not sure what we''ve done), also as colchester now can''t go up, our fine will go up. If they had been confirmed in the play-off''s, our fine would have not been as high.[/quote]Col Who fans think any points deducted will go to them...........deluded or what?[/quote]

Seriously? PMSL

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Row D Seat 7"]My guess would be a 200-500k fine, mainly to try and make an example of us (not sure what we''ve done), also as colchester now can''t go up, our fine will go up. If they had been confirmed in the play-off''s, our fine would have not been as high.[/quote]Col Who fans think any points deducted will go to them...........deluded or what?[/quote]

Seriously? PMSL

[/quote]

Seriously mate, a few on their message board have suggested it, I didn''t have the heart to tell them.[:D][

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Row D Seat 7"]My guess would be a 200-500k fine, mainly to try and make an example of us (not sure what we''ve done), also as colchester now can''t go up, our fine will go up. If they had been confirmed in the play-off''s, our fine would have not been as high.[/quote]Col Who fans think any points deducted will go to them...........deluded or what?[/quote]

Seriously? PMSL

[/quote]

Seriously mate, a few on their message board have suggested it, I didn''t have the heart to tell them.[:D][

[/quote]

Oh my how amusing lol

[Lambert is King 0]

Have you got a link Wiz,must be so funny

[Barclay hero 0]

My colleague has just pointed out (quite reasonably) this is a TRIBUNAL - not a discipliniary panel.  Discipliniary panels deduct points, tribunals decide compensation.

Thats not to say that the tribunal won''t refer to the league and advise a DP should become involved - but the current meeting wont be docking points.....

[UEAstudent 0]

[quote user="Barclay hero"]

My colleague has just pointed out (quite reasonably) this is a TRIBUNAL - not a discipliniary panel.  Discipliniary panels deduct points, tribunals decide compensation.

Thats not to say that the tribunal won''t refer to the league and advise a DP should become involved - but the current meeting wont be docking points.....

[/quote]

Colleague = FAIL

[First Jedi 0]

Is the decision given today, or is it something they need to think about...

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]We were given permission to speak to him, how is that tapping him up?  Sorry just don''t understand that[/quote]Exactly mate, and what were we supposed to talk to him about, the state of the bloody cathedral stone work?[/quote]Whether he''d be interested in the Celtic job.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="First Jedi"]Is the decision given today, or is it something they need to think about...[/quote]

 

Isn''t the hearing supposed to be over two days? Good news for the QCs of course....

[Norfolk Mustard 94]

[quote user="Alf Tupper"]OK, I''m going for a 5 figure sum only. Fact is that Lambert''s move took place almost at the start of the season and Colchester were able to bring in a more experienced, proven manager (at the time) than Lambert very quickly. Therefore, Colchester can''t claim that Lambert''s departure caused long term chronic disruption and destroyed their chances of mounting a promotion campaign. In fact, under Boothroyd Colchester managed to stay in the play-off zone until almost the end of the season. Therefore, IMO the League will take the view that there is no prima facie case for compensation and that 50K will be the maximum penalty imposed on City.[/quote]

Very good points Alf; Colchester''s disruption was minimised to the beginning of the season and they did (on the face of it) have little trouble attracting someone their Chairman stated as being ''as good as, or better than Paul Lambert''.

Cowling may rue making that comment to the media now!

[First Jedi 0]

"Isn''t the hearing supposed to be over two days? Good news for the QCs of course...."

Cheers for the info! :D

(Nice Avatar BTW)

[evertoniancolufan 0]

you won''t face a points deduction, but you will have to give us subtanstial compensation and maybe a fine as wellI have never known a club appoint a manger without compensation being

agreed. Bolton waited to appoint Coyle because they had to agree

compensation with Burnley and the same happened with Mark Robins when he

moved from Rotherham to Barnsley. If compensation hadn''t have been agreed in those cases they wouldn''t have appointed the manager. Norwich are the only club I can

remember who seemingly had to appoint him immediately and just bulldozed

ahead with their plan without doing it properly. It doesn''t matter if you value him a lot lower than we do because he was ours in the first

place, if you don''t agree with the price of something you don''t go and

steal it then haggle over the price later. In getting promoted, you have won, so the compensation shouldn''t really matter because we''d much rather be in your position, but you have done something wrong and that is plainly obvious, you took our manager who was under contract with us and didn''t pay for him, we''d like that money now please

[First Jedi 0]

"you took our manager who was under contract with us and didn''t pay for him, we''d like that money now please"

He wasn''t under contract - he resigned.

[tom1902 0]

evertoniancloufan

you forget that lambert actually resigned

[evertoniancolufan 0]

[quote user="tom1902"]evertoniancloufan

you forget that lambert actually resigned[/quote]and conviently was Norwich manager the next morning, so he resigned before he knew about Norwich being interested did he? How come Owen Coyle didn''t resign then so that Bolton could appoint him quicker and avoid the compensation?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="tom1902"]evertoniancloufan

you forget that lambert actually resigned[/quote]and conviently was Norwich manager the next morning, so he resigned before he knew about Norwich being interested did he? How come Owen Coyle didn''t resign then so that Bolton could appoint him quicker and avoid the compensation?

[/quote]Ask Owen Coyle.

[Mike 2]

evertoniancolufan,

We wanted to pay compensation but you were unreasonable. I have never know a chairman be so pathetically childish in a dispute and he should have been fined for stoking up bad feeling before your derby game (not ours we only have one derby game).

Lambert was probably told by us that we could not reach a settlement as Robbie had thrown his toys out of the pram & then resigned. Everybody has the right to resign from a job or employer that is being unreasonable.

Many a manager has resigned & joined another club, in fact it has happened to us a few times. It''s life.

Can''t wait for this to be settled & we can carry on with important things, such as enjoying our promotion.