Villa waiting for us to release culverhouse and karsa

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

How could we make a mistake ? If Lambert had that clause in his contract all he had to do was show it to McNally and there could have been no argument. I cannot see how McNally would make such a basic error. Unless of course Lambert knew the clause was there, McNally did not, and Lambert did not tell McNally until after he resigned. Then it was a fait accompli and Lambert had deliberately used underhand tactics to exit his contract without compensation.  This scenario is probably why it is heading to the courts and why we are confident of winning. Just my opinion of course.

[/quote]

 

That is a different argument! And the truth is neither of us knows what was in the contract, or what happened at the time and what discussions there were. It might be the contract was open to different interpretations. I assume Lambert took legal advice of his own before jumping ship. Possibly from the LMA.

But I think you have touched on the subtext here, which is that some fans have absolute faith (a common phrase) in McNally and can''t imagine him making a mistake, let alone one that might cost us a million pounds or so. And so are trying to find an argument to obscure that. Not having that faith, I can. So far the new regime has dealt with three managerial switches. One (Hughton) was impeccably handled. One (Colchestergate) was badly handled and cost us dearly. As to Lambertgate, we don''t yet know, but it is not as if we have so far had an error-free record.

[/quote]

 

As you say, Purple, none of us posting are likely aware of what was in the contract, however, I find it difficult to follow your line of thinking regarding McNally as being reasonable. If he made a mistake ( very possible ) then it is more difficult to believe he would have compounded that mistake by making another and hiding it from the Board by pursuing something that was not well-founded. That would be foolish, particularly, as you say, given the Colchester experience. It would also seem improbable to me that the Board would be complicit in going along a path that was a) not well justified and b) demostrating poor character given the service they had just experienced with Paul Lambert over the past three seasons. These latter points are, in my view, supported by the very point you made, namely, that the acquisition of Hughton was impeccably handled. Therefore, I am left to conclude that NCFC believe there was something in the contract that justifies their taking a position with Aston Villa. We shall see.

[/quote]

Yankee, I am not suggesting for a moment that McNally has tried to hide his mistake - IF that is what it is - from the board. Not at all. As to whether the board might go along with pursuing the matter even if it thinks we are in the wrong, I think it might. After what is the alternative? Simply giving up and acknowledging that we will get no compensation. That would be mean we didn''t rack up legal costs, to be sure, but would be humiliating.

More sensible to pursue the matter, hope that the Culverhouse/Karsa situation might give us some bargaining power, and if not pray for something from a tribunal. Even if we did screw up Lambert''s contract there might counter-arguments or mitigation we could use to get some money. These things are not always black and white.

As to whether we did screw up, like you I don''t know. And I hope we didn''t even if I am perhaps more of a mind than some to countenance that possibility!

[canaryfairy 0]

I''m not surprised by Lambo''s lack of loyalty to NCFC but Cully played at CR for 9 years, is a previous player of the year and is in our Hall of Fame. Norwich is his club and so he would likely be far less keen to leave us for Villa. Still likely he''ll go to Villa but surely it''s not that far fetched to think he disagreed with PL''s choice to leave to Villa - could explain some of the weirdness.

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="Muddy funster"][quote user="snake-eyes"]

My thoughts are that, if there was such a clause that stated the manager must be allowed to talk to a Premier League Club, if they offically approached, this was written in early in PL''s contract and with the intention of being, whilst the club were in the ''Lower Divisions''.  It is probably the spirit of this clause that is being argued here.

It would be of no use to the club to have agreed a clause like this, that effectively gave the easy exit of a major asset, to a direct rival.

This, however, may have been lost in the speed of transition the club made from League 1 to the Premiership.

Although contracts are usually judged by the written word, there are precedents for the upholding of the spirit in which an agreement is made.

From what I have seen so far of tribunals involved in sporting employment and disagreements, the Spirit of the sport and any agreements are strongly considered.

I await the outcome of this with great interest!

Snake

[/quote]

 

I think they also argue the "loss" of that person to the club they are leaving.  Two subsequent promotions and a 12th place in the Prem should boost the figure  I would have thought

[/quote]

 

Also the reported £2m it has cost us to replace him

[Icecream Snow 761]

I work for a division of a large American multi-national (who is in the process of selling us off). One of our customers tries to claim breach of contract several times a year (the previous owners signed the contract and they are desperate to get out of it). The thing is - after a contract is signed, only a judge can dissolve it (or so it seems to me), and that only happens if it''s serious, contracts don''t get dissolved on a technicality.

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Icecream Snow"]I work for a division of a large American multi-national (who is in the process of selling us off). One of our customers tries to claim breach of contract several times a year (the previous owners signed the contract and they are desperate to get out of it). The thing is - after a contract is signed, only a judge can dissolve it (or so it seems to me), and that only happens if it''s serious, contracts don''t get dissolved on a technicality.[/quote]

As I keep saying on this thread. If Villa and Lambert are serious about a claim for constructive dismissal. They would have to prove the breach was a fundamental one which went right to the heart of the contract. That is the actual employment law governing this issue. We don''t know whether there was a clause or if so how it was worded. Until  then it is pointless to speculate.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Jacko"]

As I keep saying on this thread. If Villa and Lambert are serious about a claim for constructive dismissal. They would have to prove the breach was a fundamental one which went right to the heart of the contract. That is the actual employment law governing this issue. We don''t know whether there was a clause or if so how it was worded. Until  then it is pointless to speculate.

[/quote]A little speculation if I may....[;)]If a clause existed within PL''s contract which awarded him the contractual right to speak with any Premier League club:1) Why did Villa approach our club in the first place to seek permission to talk to him? They would have been made aware of such a clause from the agent so why didn''t they just approach Lambert directly?2) Knowing Villa wanted to speak with him why didn''t Lambert choose to enforce his contractual rights? This was after all the primary reason such a right was awarded him in contract? To specifically negotiate such a contractual right and then fail to enforce it when the opportunity arose is actually a far greater contractual shortcoming than anything we''ve been accused of.Effectively Lambert/Villa are pleading that our reluctance to let Lambert speak with Villa was a breach of contract and as Lambert resigned upon the strength of this perceived breach then as you say jacko the test is that "breach was a fundamental one which went right to the heart of the contract".But!!! And it''s a big but there existed a remedy within the contract ie a clause permitting Lambert to talk to any PL club (allegedly).Now Villa are a PL club (just [:D]) so all PL had to do was enforce the term and speak to them. This would have been the adult and legally correct thing to do but Lambert resigned and then spoke with them.So Lambert threw a hissy fit and failed to enforce such a uniquely self serving clause within the contract until after he had resigned. Which of course technically means he deemed himself out of contract ergo NOT enforcing the term of the contract.Seems a bit odd to me for all he had to do was say "Sorry David I''m talking to them anyway because my contract permits it".A Judge would look at all breaches and all contractual remedies available and since there was a primae facie remedy available within the contract for PL specifically included for to cover the eventuality he was refused permission by the club to talk with another club then IMO legally it cannot be held that any perceived breach buy us was significant enough for the contract to be terminated.The law expects all avenues of remedy within a contract to be explored prior to dissolution, Lambert had a primary remedy available and deliberately CHOSE NOT TO USE IT.I suggest that Lamberts failure to use the contractual remedy available to him will have caused grave damage to any claim of constructive dismissal Villa might be clinging to. Admitting there was a breach such as we''ve been accused of is little more than a minor breach such as an employer asking you to work til six one day when your contract says you''re contracted to work til five. they''ve asked you to do something outside the terms of your contract but you have a contractual right not to do it so if you don''t want to work til six you enforce it.Lambert didn''t enforce his contractual right and IMO that was a far greater breach of contract than anything we''ve been accused of doing.Constructive dismissal my bottom, any legally trained person will see straight through this as a case of constructive resignation in an attempt to negate a contract.

[7rew 0]

What I''m really wondering about this is whether the clause wasn''t worded to be about ''bigger'' clubs.

Somewhat like the arguments on here over the last few weeks, the fact we finished above Villa might have (in our view) invalidated that clause, while not under another interpretation (ie Lamberts and Villas).

I expect we will find out what it said in due course.

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="7rew"]What I''m really wondering about this is whether the clause wasn''t worded to be about ''bigger'' clubs. Somewhat like the arguments on here over the last few weeks, the fact we finished above Villa might have (in our view) invalidated that clause, while not under another interpretation (ie Lamberts and Villas). I expect we will find out what it said in due course.[/quote]

 

7rew, the wording of the clause is probably crucial. This, from all that has been published, seems to be what happened:

1. Lambert has a clause in his contract that he can talk to a club (possibly limited to PL clubs) that makes an approach for him.

2. Villa make an approach.

3. NCFC either reject the approach and don''t tell Lambert about it, but he finds out anyway. Or NCFC do tell Lambert but refuse him permission to talk to Villa. It doesn''t really matter.

4. Lambert contacts his agent, Athole Still, who is as high-powered as they come. And Still''s legal department says NCFC have broken Lambert''s contract, and so he can jump ship.

5. Aston Villa''s legal department comes to the same conclusion, and also that Villa will not need to pay any compensation.

6. NCFC legal advisers, examining the same facts, tell McNally...probably either that Villa have a strong case but Norwich have counter-arguments, or Norwich have a strong case and Villa the counter-arguments, or that it is 50-50, because everything does depend on the wording of the clause and its interpretation. To give some examples, which are supposition but may be close to the truth:

Lambert''s legal advice is that he has to be told about (and be able to respond to) every approach, no matter how insubstantial. NCFC''s advice is that he only needs to know about serious approaches. Straight away there is scope for argument on both sides. Unless absolutely strictly defined (which would be hard) what is frivolous and what is serious? Or that NCFC believe Lambert need only be told about formal approaches. And NCFC define formal as written. Whereas Lambert''s advice is that formal can be verbal. It might even be that "formal" appears in the clause. But is it defined at all? As written, for example? If not, then there is more scope for the lawyers on different sides to argue the toss.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

A breach doesn''t terminate per se, Lambert had a remedy to the alleged breach available within the contract yet still chose to terminate. That''s why Villa will be coughing up.

[YankeeCanary 0]

If I were an upwardly mobile football manager and I wanted my lawyers/agent to ensure my future interests were being protected it would be essential to me that any contract I signed contained a clause that not only a) gave me the right to speak to other clubs that were interested in my services but b) ensured I had the freedom to accept an subsequent offer that I deemed acceptable. If I were Paul Lambert I would have made that a condition of my employment with Norwich City FC. No point in having a) agreed to if b) was not also present.

 

On the other hand, If I were the either the CEO or legal representative for NCFC and responsible for the content of such contracts, particularly if the contract was of a twelve month rolling nature, then I would have ensured that such a clause was also amended, before signature of all parties, to protect my clubs interest should another club make an offer for the services of Paul Lambert. To suggest that David McNally would NOT have thought of this is possible....but a stretch. To suggest that a legal representative would have ALSO overlooked such a point is more than a stretch. Therefore, it is more than likely that such a clause, if agreed to, would have contained some protection of compensation for NCFC if such an offer was made to Paul Lambert by another club. Paul Lambert would have likely had no difficulty signing such a contract with NCFC, believing that, if he was doing well, any suitor would be more than willing to meet the compensation clause to break his existing contractual obligation ( even if it was 12 month rolling ).

 

Until someone presents some facts to the contrary, I will continue to believe that this is the most likely of conditions that were agreed between NCFC and Paul Lambert insofar as the core issue was concerned with respect to any other forthcoming offers. Of course, then one moves to the subtleties and legalise which is what often drives the positions in negotiations. However, if such matters go to a tribunal the core understanding will carry significant weight.   

[Nuff Said 5,141]

Well done YC, first use of the phrase "insofar as" - but you lose marks for misspelling "legalese". Bonus points for anyone working in "notwithstanding", "aforementioned", "ipso facto" or "inter alia".

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

However, if such matters go to a tribunal....   

[/quote]

 

Yankee, it does seem that will be what happens. And we shall see what we shall see.The practical effect, if so, is that we now have to budget for paying Birmingham around £2m in compensation but cannot budget for receiving anything from Aston Villa. That £2m, added to the perhaps £6m we need to pay off in debt in this financial year, is not insignifcant.

[SwindonCanary 455]

The case of Culverhouse and Karsa is an interesting one. On the face of it they seem likely to follow Lambert to Villa. On the other hand if they are unwilling to pay compensation, they would be an ideal additon to the team that have just joined, helping pass on information gained over the last 3 years.

On the subject of compensation, if it''s believed we paid 2m to Birmingham we should look to at least make a profit out of the ''merry go round''