Re: Francis Cummings : Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:40 pm  

I would presume that under TUPE regulations the terms of a contract cannot be changed in a takeover unless specifically agreed by both parties? In which case if the clause was there under OK it remains there under Green?

Re: Francis Cummings : Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:39 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I really don't understand this at all.

Like most if not all managers he'd be on a fixed term contract, and it doesn't matter whether you then have him working for you or not, that's up to you, the deal is
a) I will work for you for 3 years and
b) you will pay me for 3 years.

Under this sort of contract, as you can see, as long as I am ready and willing to work, then you have to pay me. If you want to get rid of me it is not relevant. You have to pay me. You pay me for 3 years. Or give me a 3 year payoff.

Deals can and often are struck, for a clean break, but ATEOTD if there is no deal then the employer simply has to pay up the contract.

The only hint in the report is this:

Why I don't understand it is that in the case of a written contract, there is no scope for "belief" as to whether an early-termination clause is in the contract, or it isn't. Surely, it's the simplest question of fact: RTFC? Surely, it can't be that the contract was purely verbal?

All very sad, especially remembering how Franny worked for nothing for a long spell.

"Cummins had expected to be paid the remainder of the three-year contract he signed following his appointment in September 2012".

So a 'signed' contract exists. And,"Very specifically, the three-year deal was agreed with the previous incumbent board of Gerry Sutcliffe and Omar Khan.

"The fact the club's ownership has since changed hands is completely irrelevant – the contract still continues through." Well er I guess Marc Green don't think so.

A genuine pity for it to end like this. There is a real edge to Green that the club have been crying out for many years, but it won't always be pretty. COYB.

[Bulliac]

Re: Francis Cummings : Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:33 am  

It does seem a strange thing to be hazy about. I'd expect the [presumably] solicitors who drew up these contracts would take great care to NOT be ambiguous, or even, as in the case of players, some kind of standard contract with standard clauses about early dismissal. I mean, it's not as though a coach leaving mid-contract is anything new.

That said, players contracts contain stipulations about being available to play, but to the best of my knowledge, nothing about not being good enough, and if he turns up to training I assume the club must pay him. If they've signed a pup it's their mistake, not the player's.

Re: Francis Cummings : Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:21 am  

I also read about "the contract he signed", it just doesn't make sense to then have a dispute as whether there was an early termination clause in it, or not. You'd merely have to look.

IF a contract is written, but then something additional is agreed verbally, then technically it counts, but how would you prove it?

The point in similar circumstances is an employer has no choice but to accept an existing contract warts and all, but that (if written) would be the extent of it for both parties. If some time later, the employer claims there's an additional verbal wart, then how would he know? And how would he prove it? Call the previous employers who alleged it as witnesses?

Would be interesting to know how those general observations fit the facts of this case, but I doubt we'll find out as I expect a deal surely must be done.

[Bulliac]

Re: Francis Cummings : Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:50 am  

As the old adage goes FA, "a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on".

Re: Francis Cummings : Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:30 am  

Cramer states, "We are aware that Bradford believe there was an early-termination clause but that was not what was agreed."

This is very curious language. Bradford believe there WAS an early termination clause. Does it no longer exist? 'but that was not what was agreed'. is he saying the contract contains a 'clause' that wasn't agreed.

Either, Green has had site of a written clause in the contract.
or
Cummins gave his word to Green at the outset of the season in front of witnesses that he would resign if we were in the relegation places at a certain juncture.
or
There is no verbal or written clause .

Re: Francis Cummings : Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:40 am  

I wonder if MG is trying to argue that with relegation his 3rd yr would be null and void ala a playing contract? Not sure if coaches contracts would be same as players, ie a super league contract???

Re: Francis Cummings : Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:43 am  

Bets'y Bulls wrote:

I wonder if MG is trying to argue that with relegation his 3rd yr would be null and void ala a playing contract? Not sure if coaches contracts would be same as players, ie a super league contract???

Interesting point.

Re: Francis Cummings : Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:08 am  

Bets'y Bulls wrote:

I wonder if MG is trying to argue that with relegation his 3rd yr would be null and void ala a playing contract? Not sure if coaches contracts would be same as players, ie a super league contract???

You would have thought though that if this was the case it would form part of the written contract - so would not be open to dispute?

Re: Francis Cummings : Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:15 am  

If that is the case would suspect MG is arguing we were as good as down and ended up relegated and FC is arguing mathematically we weren't down? Also could FC be claiming without a six point deduction and admin that meant him getting rid of 3 players meant he had little chance. Could say all arguments hold water hence no agreement can be reached