jonny1403

As much as he is a prick he's not going to just stop and have a chat and tell some random guys how much he wants for the club ffs...

Annoys me even more with results like these when Rafa gets slagged off for losing 2-1 to City away when you look at our relegation rivals - 6-1 Huddersfield, 5-0 Cardiff, 5-0 Burnley, 5-1 Southampton as it stands

Shola was on Soccer AM - took around 7 attempts to even get a volley on target

Mata’s was close to perfect - he didn’t just get it up and down, but the ball was only a foot or two above the ground when it scraped inside the post. Even if Dubravka could get across, he was never going to get down in time. The wall was set properly. A wall isn’t perfect - it’s a risk mitigation tactic. When Juan Mata is twenty yards out, it’s a huge risk to reduce. i'm not convinced his positioning was perfect, google it there's a YT vid a fan took from behind the goal and you can see how open he's left the near post with the angle That's bollocks to be fair. A free kick that close you have to cover the right side of the goal. When it is subsequently hit that well you simply aren't going to get across to the left in time. If it was 25-30 yards out, fair enough, but Dubravka did nothing wrong there.

Quoted for a few months time...

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions. Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it. You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing. If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario. Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement. Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract. I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like. Again, they have unilaterally terminated his contract because he has breached it, in my opinion materially so. They are entitled to claim damages as a consequence of that breach and one of those heads of damages will naturally be the value of his transfer fee. They may or may not be successful as there is virtually no precedent here in a football context but as a matter of contract law its a natural course of action to assess loss suffered by that breach. They aren't preventing him for moving somewhere else, but saying that if he does so, that's a transfer fee they have missed on as a direct result of his breach. The Bosman case has nothing to do with this I'm afraid - the facts are completely irrelevant. Bosman is relevant if they're holding his registration or if they're deemed to be restricting his right to free movement by threatening his future potential employers. You appear very confident in your assertions but I don't agree with your conclusions. Time will tell I guess. End of the day the facts are they can't afford him, have found an excuse to stop paying him and sack him, but now also want to make money out of the deal. I'm really not sure that's gonna fly in the real world mate. I'm confident because I'm required to know about cases such as the Bosman ruling as part of my job I have explained to you several times the reasons why Sunderland would be entitled to claim a transfer fee. They are entitled to under the law of contract. I'm not saying they'll be successful but there's a clear basis for claim there. 'Finding an excuse to stop paying him' is certainly one of saying he's massively breached his contract and the club are trying to claim associated damages, yes.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. Have they? that's completely indeterminable though. Obviously I wouldn't know the figure but it clearly is determinable - young players moving on at the end of their contract have their values determined by a tribunal so that a compensation fee can be agreed. You mean between academies? they don't anymore, they have agreed compensation structures in place for Age/Cat of club. Either way that isn't really applicable here. His contract is terminated, therefore they aren't in a position to be looking at potential transfer fees. He does not belong to them, he is not their player. You can't sack a player, and then demand that you get the money from a theoretical transfer that might have materialized somewhere down the line if you hadn't sacked him for breach of contract. And a new club will no way pay them anything for that. Why would they? he's a free agent now. Again...obviously this is quite a unique scenario but of course you can claim damages for a breach of contract. One of those heads of damage will be the transfer fee Sunderland have lost as a consequence of his breach. You absolutely can do that as a matter of law, its whether the employment and football context affects this somehow. Right, I get that they can pursue damages from Ndong, though I very much doubt they will get it but that statement specifically said they'd pursue a new club for compensation. I can not see how there is anyway that a buying club is going to pay that and surely they are restricting his employment opportunities by threatening them with that. The only comparable case I can remember is Mutu, and he was banned for 7 months from playing and sacked for gross misconduct. He paid them personally but none of his subsequent clubs did. Yes, I agree with you on the new club part. I think what they are trying to say (but badly worded) is that as they are entitled to sue for (let's say £5m for sake of argument) £5m as lost transfer income, while NDong is technically liable for that they would expect the buying club to pay that on his behalf. But as a standalone point, it doesn't seem as if they are restricting his employment opportunities because regardless of where he ends up, Sunderland have lost £5m as a consequence of that breach and are entitled to claim for it.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions. Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it. You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing. If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario. Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement. Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract. I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like. Again, they have unilaterally terminated his contract because he has breached it, in my opinion materially so. They are entitled to claim damages as a consequence of that breach and one of those heads of damages will naturally be the value of his transfer fee. They may or may not be successful as there is virtually no precedent here in a football context but as a matter of contract law its a natural course of action to assess loss suffered by that breach. They aren't preventing him for moving somewhere else, but saying that if he does so, that's a transfer fee they have missed on as a direct result of his breach. The Bosman case has nothing to do with this I'm afraid - the facts are completely irrelevant.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. Have they? that's completely indeterminable though. Obviously I wouldn't know the figure but it clearly is determinable - young players moving on at the end of their contract have their values determined by a tribunal so that a compensation fee can be agreed. You mean between academies? they don't anymore, they have agreed compensation structures in place for Age/Cat of club. Either way that isn't really applicable here. His contract is terminated, therefore they aren't in a position to be looking at potential transfer fees. He does not belong to them, he is not their player. You can't sack a player, and then demand that you get the money from a theoretical transfer that might have materialized somewhere down the line if you hadn't sacked him for breach of contract. And a new club will no way pay them anything for that. Why would they? he's a free agent now. Again...obviously this is quite a unique scenario but of course you can claim damages for a breach of contract. One of those heads of damage will be the transfer fee Sunderland have lost as a consequence of his breach. You absolutely can do that as a matter of law, its whether the employment and football context affects this somehow.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions. Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it. You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing. If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. Have they? that's completely indeterminable though. Obviously I wouldn't know the figure but it clearly is determinable - young players moving on at the end of their contract have their values determined by a tribunal so that a compensation fee can be agreed.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions. Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

To be fair - to those saying they can't do that, looking at it objectively there's a pretty clear breach of contract. There's no precedent for it backfiring on a club.

He didn't turn up to his job for a month ffs. Of course there's grounds for being sacked

His Grandad is Welsh. Do you have a Welsh Grandad?

Satka playing for DAC Dunajská Streda, Mbabu for Young Boys and Kadar for Dynamo Kiev. Think we're ok with that lot

He’s making millions of pounds to play football, his partner doesn’t have to work ever, he can even hire a whole army of nannys and servants to look after the whole family. Or else just use a f***ing condom the babies can likely come in his mid-30s once he’s set for life. It’s a poor excuse. It doesn’t matter how much money a person is making, if they’re a good father he’ll want to be close to the kid. This includes waking up numerous times during the night.. Newcastle is just a job to these players. Work will always come off second best to a newborn. But we mere mortals do think about our career when planning a family. My work comes second to my kid but I made damn sure that I had progressed up the career ladder in my 20s to the point where I now in my 30s I had all the necessary promotions so that I could work my job doing flexible hours etc so that my work life balance was not adversely affected. Kenedy is still very young. This year is his big chance to cement his position as a credible Premier League player and create opportunities to either get a new Chelsea contract or go elsewhere either way doubling his salary and creating better opportunities to be successful. At this moment (well 40 weeks before) he decides to have a baby. It’s pure stupidity. There's some exceptionally stupid people on this forum like

I couldn't disagree more. The whole brand is becoming toxic, tainted. It will definitely be having an effect and any serious investor will check every aspect of a company before investing in it. From someone who works in the industry, I'm afraid it won't. Or at least it hasn't yet as it would have been reported on in the financials. The annual report and the Debenhams issue accounts for the recent share price drop.

Can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not

Saivet off to Bursaspor on a permanent deal - what a disastrous signing

Everyone is saying that all over social media. The title of this thread jokes about that

Are they hell. Linking the club's incoming funds with Ashley's buyout, definitely. But there's a clear and obvious link between the club's lack of spending and Ashley's investment elsewhere. Got to disagree. It's his desire to reach the aim (staying in the prem while spending as little as possible). Do you really think if the HoF deal wasn't in the offing NUFC would have spent more ? This. NUFC's transfer business does not affect whether Sports Direct acquire House of Fraser ffs. They're not all little pots of money that Ashley moves around as he sees fit

Paul Merson gave us a B+ in the transfer market Missing our biggest sale off the major outs list as well

This shows how tragic an entity of a club we have become when someone as utterly hopeless as Paul fucking Dummet can be seen as one of our most important players Smh Paul Dummett is a good, midtable premier league left back.