Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:45 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:10 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:31 am
caerblue wrote:The club should have learnt a lesson(they never will), and inserted various clauses in his contract,can’t for the life of me work out why he was given a three year contract in the first place,or why he would receive such figures to terminate,it’s not that he was in demand when we made the appointment,part of the reason I thought he was taken on in the first place,was because he was a cheap option
Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:36 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:36 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:37 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:53 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:53 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:04 am
Bakedalasker wrote:Morally - It does not exist in football due to the amount of money involved. Whoever wrote the contract should take the full blame for this and resign. MM should do the decent thing and walk as he accepted the conditions, said everything was good BUT its gone all wrong. So morally he should resign.
Legally - MM has the right for full compensation according to his contract. What that is well none of us really know. The club could refuse to pay and force him to take them to court. I'm not sure the club have a good argument though. I there anything in the contract that highlights poor performance?
Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:28 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:15 am
JJ1927 wrote:caerblue wrote:The club should have learnt a lesson(they never will), and inserted various clauses in his contract,can’t for the life of me work out why he was given a three year contract in the first place,or why he would receive such figures to terminate,it’s not that he was in demand when we made the appointment,part of the reason I thought he was taken on in the first place,was because he was a cheap option
The rumour that Celtic were considering him for their vacant post panicked the board. Don't know where the rumour started but I can have a good guess.
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:17 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:17 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:19 am
Northwalesblues wrote:The basic premise of a Contract is to provide protection to all parties involved, it can be tested by “fairness” and each party has a “duty to perform”. Obviously football contracts appear to give huge protection to players and managers whilst seemingly offering little to the clubs, other than than the “double edged” benefit that the player or manager is theirs until contract end.
VT spent huge amounts in legal fees to dismiss Malay, probably far more than paying up MM’s contract, being in league 1, which is surely where we’re currently heading, will cost VT considerably more.
Looking at it from MM’s position, this could be his last job, there’s little chance than that any club would be seeking his services. He, probably with good reason, has little or no respect for the current Board and doesn’t make “eye” contact with them on a daily (weekly!) basis. However, although after so many years, he has become very “thick skinned”, he must realise that we’re well past blaming unlucky bad results and the most moderate fan is very upset and angry.
The only perverse “positive” after Sunday was surely that NO Manger could show his face after that and NO Board could allow the situation to continue. It shows how little respect we have for both, that we seem resigned to allow this debacle to roll on.
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:55 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:57 am
Postby Sven » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:15 am
JJ1927 wrote:
caerblue wrote:
The club should have learnt a lesson(they never will), and inserted various clauses in his contract,can’t for the life of me work out why he was given a three year contract in the first place,or why he would receive such figures to terminate,it’s not that he was in demand when we made the appointment,part of the reason I thought he was taken on in the first place,was because he was a cheap option
The rumour that Celtic were considering him for their vacant post panicked the board. Don't know where the rumour started but I can have a good guess.
I don't hold with the Celtic theory, as the Scottish club quickly denied any interest and no one realistically thought it might actually happen
Cardiff City FC employed Mick McCarthy to firefight after a disastrous start to the season, which is now ironically similar (and IMHO) worse than that of the man he replaced, Neil Harris
The original deal was until the season's end but the start Mick McCarthy had was pretty spectacular and even without the old 'hindsight', it is easy to see why the club acted when they did to secure his (and Terry Connor's) futures; but it was pretty much at that moment it started to go pear-shaped
By coincidence or not is a debate in itself, but the 'style' of the team seemed to change at the same point
I recall many on here asking for him to be given a contract at the time, whilst others (including me) implored the club to wait until the end of the season before committing to a manager who hadn't 'achieved' for some years and was recently sacked from a club in Cyprus after only a short tenure
On the topic in hand, I believe the two should meet in the middle now and put this to bed quickly. The club (Vincent Tan or not) should accept their latest 'mistake' and Mick McCarthy should accept he simply isn't doing his job in a way that can even reasonably be called 'satisfactorily' in a profession where points and league positions are the ultimate measures of success
If what we here is correct, the next few days will be key and if we lose tonight and fail to win Saturday, then the pressure will be pretty unbearable on both sides
Morally, Mick McCarthy and his team (TC only?) should do the decent thing and walk but equally morally the club should compensate him somewhat for the contract both sides agreed to
Legally, I guess Mick McCarthy has the stronger case with his contract and I sincerely hope the club don't drag this out in similar fashion to which they have before
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:58 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:28 am
ReesWestonSuperMare wrote:Well maybe the legal genius at the city who writes up the employment contract can add the following clause.
If the team has not won a game after X matches played then the club exert the right to terminate the contract immediately - with 4 weeks wages paid as an act of good faith.
All future managers need to agree to it - or we dont employ them.
Talking of which - they should not be classed as employees - they should be classed as self employed. They run their own limited company and the club and the company have a contract to hire the services of the company etc
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:07 am
Crayfish wrote:ReesWestonSuperMare wrote:Well maybe the legal genius at the city who writes up the employment contract can add the following clause.
If the team has not won a game after X matches played then the club exert the right to terminate the contract immediately - with 4 weeks wages paid as an act of good faith.
All future managers need to agree to it - or we dont employ them.
Talking of which - they should not be classed as employees - they should be classed as self employed. They run their own limited company and the club and the company have a contract to hire the services of the company etc
Agree MM would have been desperate for a job when we employed him and I suspect given how much money he got would have been very flexible on agreeing terms. There should have been a clause saying something like if we were in the bottom six for more than two weeks the contact could be terminated with only say a quarter of the compensation to be paid. Does not seem like any of our board had the foresight to do something like this.
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:59 pm
ReesWestonSuperMare wrote:Northwalesblues wrote:The basic premise of a Contract is to provide protection to all parties involved, it can be tested by “fairness” and each party has a “duty to perform”. Obviously football contracts appear to give huge protection to players and managers whilst seemingly offering little to the clubs, other than than the “double edged” benefit that the player or manager is theirs until contract end.
VT spent huge amounts in legal fees to dismiss Malay, probably far more than paying up MM’s contract, being in league 1, which is surely where we’re currently heading, will cost VT considerably more.
Looking at it from MM’s position, this could be his last job, there’s little chance than that any club would be seeking his services. He, probably with good reason, has little or no respect for the current Board and doesn’t make “eye” contact with them on a daily (weekly!) basis. However, although after so many years, he has become very “thick skinned”, he must realise that we’re well past blaming unlucky bad results and the most moderate fan is very upset and angry.
The only perverse “positive” after Sunday was surely that NO Manger could show his face after that and NO Board could allow the situation to continue. It shows how little respect we have for both, that we seem resigned to allow this debacle to roll on.
I work through my own limited company, I sign contracts with other companies - and those contracts have termination clauses. Football management should be no different