Lambert tribunal

[Bill 1,788]

"You can''t technically approach a manager or player behind another club''s back. So it''s still very relevant that Norwich needed to give their permission."

 

Then what would be the point of having a clause if it is dependant upon the clubs permission ?

 

Why would it be ''permission'' if it had no choice and was a contractual agreement ?

 

 

ps I would give up now before you dig yourself in any deeeper

 

 

[Jacko 0]

You''ve still got to give the permission City 1st. Say for instance a player has a minimum fee release clause. If a club comes in and offers the right amount of money to trigger that clause. The club still has the right to reject the offer. But its a clear breach of contract.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

FWIW  Either this has been simmering for some while or Lambert is out of time for a tribunal (3 months).tribunal upper limit is still £25k I think.Duty to mitigate loss was upheld by Lambert ie he started work at villa immediately ergo minimal loss probably a gain tbh.As City1st points out if the clause existed then Lambert didn''t need the clubs permission he simply had to enforce the clause himself. If he now claims he didn''t then he''s failed to enforce the remedy under contract. As there was apparently a clause to allow him to talk to other clubs Can''t see Lambert covering his legal fees if this is true at face value, suspect there''s more to this than we (shall ever) know.

[Bill 1,788]

"Constructive dismissal you treat yourself as being dismissed by the club. You don''t technically resign"

 

eh ?

 

so you exist in some twilight world of not being dismissed, but not having resigned ?

 

Meanwhile on planet reality we have this "Constructive dismissal is when an employee is forced to quit their job against their will because of their employer''s conduct." - directgov

 

The point in question therefore is not that you haven''t quit, but why

 

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

"Constructive dismissal is a form of unfair dismissal slim"

 

eh ?

 

one is where you resign

 

the other

 

is where you are sacked

 

how is one a form of the other ?

 

 

[/quote]

 

Because in law if your resignation is an acceptance of your employer''s repudiation of the contract of employment then it is treated as a dismissal.  There has to be a repudiatory breach which relates to a fundamental term of the contract.

 

Does that help?

[Empty Mirror 0]

Hold on a minute.

There''s a statutory cap on compensation for unfair dismissal (£72,300). If, as you say, Lambert has made an unfair dismissal claim, then then the claim can''t be for two million.

And if, as you say, it''s an unfair dismissal claim, then don''t you think we need to find out what it says before branding anyone a scumbag? If the most successful manager at the club for more than a decade and one of the most successful ever was either dismissed or forced out ("constructive dismissal") then that''s not consistent with what we''ve been told so far, and (if it''s true) I think we''re entitled to an explanation.

[Billabong 0]

Paul Faulkner has obviously put PL up to this to counteract our claim.

Even if there is any weight in this claim, by the time it even gets underway, Faulkner will have sacked PL.

Should be interesting.

[hogesar 9,616]

Well personally, I''m guessing Lambert has reasonable grounds or he wouldn''t bother with it in the first place. Just sayin''

[Stig 0]

[quote user="Empty Mirror"]Hold on a minute.

There''s a statutory cap on compensation for unfair dismissal (£72,300). If, as you say, Lambert has made an unfair dismissal claim, then then the claim can''t be for two million.

And if, as you say, it''s an unfair dismissal claim, then don''t you think we need to find out what it says before branding anyone a scumbag? If the most successful manager at the club for more than a decade and one of the most successful ever was either dismissed or forced out ("constructive dismissal") then that''s not consistent with what we''ve been told so far, and (if it''s true) I think we''re entitled to an explanation.[/quote]

Didn''t you get the memo? Us fans come second only to last in this new look NCFC regime! We''ll never know, but if we do it''ll come out in drips and drabs over the months. If we were going to be told the full story it would have been tonight. Same with our transfer dealings this summer, the last minute snatch at Harry Kane was pathetic - saving money for sh*t like this instead of clawing at survival.

We''re missing out on the biggest payment this club will ever likely see because of domestic bullsh*t like this! We''ll be back in the Championship, and when we get back to the premier league the gap between the clubs will be monumental. Luck of the draw I guess!

[Bury Yellow 2]

This thread mentions a possible cock up by McNally....... er I don''t thinks so plus, believe me, no one messes with Mr Bowkett

[whoareyou? 0]

Who gives a shit!Can we forget about PL now? He''s gone and had three great years which ended in acrimony. No surprise there has he has left every club he has managed in the same way.Maybe the rumour i heard about a player squaring up to him, perhaps he should have twatted PL harder![:D]Maybe that player is due a goalfest at Viler park at the end of the month!

[shefcanary 2,383]

[quote user="Empty Mirror"]Hold on a minute. There''s a statutory cap on compensation for unfair dismissal (£72,300). If, as you say, Lambert has made an unfair dismissal claim, then then the claim can''t be for two million. And if, as you say, it''s an unfair dismissal claim, then don''t you think we need to find out what it says before branding anyone a scumbag? If the most successful manager at the club for more than a decade and one of the most successful ever was either dismissed or forced out ("constructive dismissal") then that''s not consistent with what we''ve been told so far, and (if it''s true) I think we''re entitled to an explanation.[/quote]

 

EM you are right I believe.  I have an average director''s knowledge of employment law and what has been said tonight does not add up.  I just hope Bowkett hasn''t shot from the hip tonight to deflect criticism of the current situation, as that could lead to a £2m claim from Lambert for defamation!  The journo''s at the Pink''Un have to get to the bottom of this.  It''s doing my head in.....

[Empty Mirror 0]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]This thread mentions a possible cock up by McNally....... er I don''t thinks so [/quote]

Hmmm. McNally said at the time that he would "fight" to keep Lambert (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18057488).

Clearly, McNally lost that "fight". Plus, we''ve had no compensation. But if the truth were that Lambert was either dismissed or forced out (whether or not the forcing out technically amounted to a constructive dismissal in law) then that''s not consistent with what McNally said about fighting to keep Lambert. I think we have a right to be told what happened.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

It''s all so clouded in secrecy it''s hard for anyone to know whats going on which i guess might be normal until after a tribunal. But i can only see one injured party here and it''s not Villa or Lambert who ultimately got what they wanted, maybe members of our board have made some sort of huge financial mistake with the terms of the contract but it wont have changed the ultimate fact Lambert was going to join Villa.

[flecky76 0]

Could his ''untenable'' position, leading to resignation and now suing for unfair dismissal, be anything linked to this?....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/paul-lamberts-wife-targeted-by-text-1280265

[Bill 1,788]

NcNally is hardly likely to say we were glad to be rid of him - just as he said he would fight to keep Culverhouse and Karza

 

What is claimed is 

 

that Lambert resigned before he was in talks with Villa so no compensation - he did the same (supposedly) at Colchester and we had to stump up compensation

 

he resigned because although he had an agreement with us about allowing him to talk to other clubs we then refused, causing him to resign - why would he resign if he was not already in talks, been tapped up etc

 

it would appear both Villa and Lambert are on very dodgy ground here - I can only surmise that Lambert''s claim is based on the club wanting shot of him and this was their one way of doing it, hence McNally story about fighting to keep him, which was obviously for show as Lambert had pretty much gone when he made that statement

 

tucked up like a kipper is the expression I believe - no wonder the poor fellow wants a couple of million

 

McNally may be a bad ass mo fo, but he''s our bad ass mo fo !

 

 

[Zak Van Burger 0]

There is no evidence whatsoever supporting the theory that McNally or any other person or persons at the club made a mistake expensive or otherwise in the terms of Lamberts contract. In the absence of corroborating proof can we please remember that us not yet being compensated by Villa for Lambert might just as well be down to Villa being a bunch of cheapskates as down to our club and its legal representatives being incompetent buffoons?Sick to death of people regurgitating the "Fact" that our club must be at fault as we haven''t received a penny for Lambert. No we haven''t but £ to a p we will and I strongly suspect Villa will want this tribunal just as much as they wanted the Mcleish one.

[Empty Mirror 0]

I don''t think we can make judgements about who is on dodgy ground until we have details of what Lambert is alleging, and what the club''s response is. A chance for Archant''s journalists to show their mettle?

[Thumbelina 0]

[quote user="Resident Canary Stig"]

We''re missing out on the biggest payment this club will ever likely see because of domestic bullsh*t like this! We''ll be back in the Championship, and when we get back to the premier league the gap between the clubs will be monumental. Luck of the draw I guess!

[/quote]I still think that if we do miss out on survival then it will be because the NCFC board of directors got the call on Lambert''s replacement wrong. Let''s not forget that we still have almost the same squad of players as last season.

[shefcanary 2,383]

City 1st, Ricardo has reported from the forum on Bowketts statement tonight.  Bowkett recevied a call from Lambert whilst abroad that he wanted to talk to Villa.  Before Bowkett was able to discuss it with him, as he was on a flight back, Lambert had walked out the door assuming that no reply meant no permission to talk.  Bowkett appears to be saying this is going to be the area of contention in the ET - was the delay suffiicient proof that Norwich were going to deny him permission? 

[Thumbelina 0]

[quote user="Empty Mirror"] The journo''s at the Pink''Un have to get to the bottom of this.  It''s doing my head in.....[/quote]Titter ye not!

[Stig 0]

If we go down who do you reckon we will retain?

Ruddy? No way, someone will make a bid for him we can''t refuse - and we won''t be able to refuse much.

Snodgrass will actually probably take full advantage of this rumored buyback clause if Leeds do well at all

Pilkington will probably pop his clogs

Garrido won''t sign full time

Harry Kane would go back, we wouldn''t be able to afford him

etc etc.

The old faces would remain, Holt, Martin, Martin, Hoolahan, Barnett, Jackson - we''d have a competent Championship squad for sure, but with other teams spending big back in the Prem, we''d get muillered upon our return!

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

Sounds like someone got it wrong somewhere. Wonder if it was the same person who misjudged the sale price of Grant Holt?

[Bill 1,788]

" Bowkett recevied a call from Lambert whilst abroad that he wanted to talk to Villa. Before Bowkett was able to discuss it with him, as he was on a flight back, Lambert had walked out the door assuming that no reply meant no permission to talk"

 

I believe Bowkett stated it was 3 hours between telling us he wanted to talk toVilla and his resignation.  Hardly a reasonable amount of time for there to be a qualified response. Lambert would know the board would have to meet, so maybe it was done whilst he knew the chairman was in the Isle of Man.

 

It then begs the question then, what did Lambert tell Villa in that time ? Without the Norwich City boards official response I doubt Villa would have been willing to enter into negotiations, knowing full well the implications.

 

So why the rush on the part of Lambert ?

 

 

 

 

[Thumbelina 0]

[quote user="Resident Canary Stig"]If we go down who do you reckon we will retain?

[/quote]Chris Hughton more than likely!

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

So why the rush on the part of Lambert ?

Maybe it has something to do with the link that someone posted earlier about Lambert''s wife and his private life. Did we ever find out if the Canary Catering Team or admin team replaced the staff member who unexpectedly left around the same time as him?

[Norfolk Mustard 94]

This whole episode is likely to suck the lifeblood out of two clubs who can ill-afford it right now!

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

" Bowkett recevied a call from Lambert whilst abroad that he wanted to talk to Villa. Before Bowkett was able to discuss it with him, as he was on a flight back, Lambert had walked out the door assuming that no reply meant no permission to talk"

 

I believe Bowkett stated it was 3 hours between telling us he wanted to talk toVilla and his resignation.  Hardly a reasonable amount of time for there to be a qualified response. Lambert would know the board would have to meet, so maybe it was done whilst he knew the chairman was in the Isle of Man.

 

It then begs the question then, what did Lambert tell Villa in that time ? Without the Norwich City boards official response I doubt Villa would have been willing to enter into negotiations, knowing full well the implications.

 

So why the rush on the part of Lambert ?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]This is just an opinion.It does make me wonder if NCFC can argue whether Lambert had to tender his request in writing and he may not have.  It may sound pedantic but with these contracts every single word is there for a reason

[Thumbelina 0]

[quote user="Norfolk Mustard"]

This whole episode is likely to suck the lifeblood out of two clubs who can ill-afford it right now!

[/quote]Yes, why don''t we just play in blue and white stripes and be done with it?

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

Sounds like an episode of Being Human or some other vampire show Norfolk Mustard.

 

Have to agree it''s not a good state of affairs