jonny1403

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.

Just came on here to make that point. what gives with these two? they been given limited access/inside info as long as they say nowt too controversial? the influence of nufc.com has definitley reduced over recent years - they were at one time the go to site. now just an income stream - may be advertisers would pull out if too radgy. #sellouts. the lads at nufc.com are both cracking and have helped me out many a time in the past i think that you have to appreciate that they may not have a for or against view on the protest etc and what is occurring Saturday morning. if you ask them to mention it then they might put it up on the site It should absolutely be up on the site, unless they are happy with Ashley. They have a great platform yet have hardly gave Ashley any negative coverage over the years. Bastards Slagging people off because you can't read a website properly

Were Hebburn the team that was going out of business last season?

Harry Arter the Bournemouth player?

A sensible solution would be Rondon with an option to buy and then buying a Josh King type to support him but like hell are we buying two strikers even if Mitrovic leaves

Exactly. Burnley, Everton & Leicester could have been a result in any direction for starts. Even Arsenal & Spurs away we could have won. Same with Huddersfield away, Brighton both home and away, Spurs at home (before Jonjo went radge), Southampton away, Burnley, Bournemouth, Palace, West Brom, hell even Man City at home we could have gotten something. Thing last season were just very slim in terms of the margins to win games, things that this squad is now accustomed to, and will know how to better grind out results. You can say that about the games we won aswell. If Lascelles hadn't of nicked late winners etc. Exactly - I don't like the whole 'what if' argument as over a season these things do tend to even themselves out. There were numerous games that we won as well that were very tight - it's the nature of being a mid table team where 10 other teams are roughly at your level. Palace and WBA away we arguably should have lost, and our wins against Huddersfield, Stoke, Swansea, Man U could easily have finished in draws. 10th was about right.

Would be a disaster given how impatient our fans are.