cp40 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 SSN, . Alan Curbishley wins case for constructive dismissal agains West Ham Utd. Wonder how much he will get awarded, or what the deciding factors were? To Admin, delet if theres already a thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Boo. Hiss. Scum. He's trying to bankrupt them. He should've never walked out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 All about broken promises, players were being sold behind his back.....hmmm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Thieving cunt!! How can he do that to West Ham, a club he loves? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Thieving cunt!! How can he do that to West Ham, a club he loves? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 How can the West Ham fans ever forgive him for betraying them? I'm sure he could have easily rode it out. Fucking hell what a quitter and a tosser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Managers rights! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 lol at the alterior motive of posting this. Similar, yet very different at the same time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Boo. Hiss. Scum. He's trying to bankrupt them. He should've never walked out. Thieving cunt!! How can he do that to West Ham, a club he loves? How can the West Ham fans ever forgive him for betraying them? I'm sure he could have easily rode it out. Fucking hell what a quitter and a tosser. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 not exactly what west ham need right now with the money they owe to sheffield united too, sorry to say i think they're screwed and will sell cole upson and green in jan just to pay the bills Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 not exactly what west ham need right now with the money they owe to sheffield united too, sorry to say i think they're screwed and will sell cole upson and green in jan just to pay the bills It's alright though, because Curbs was RIGHT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineBarrens Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Well, they should have thought about that before fucking him over then. It's called justice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I still do not understand what right the managers have to be winning these cases. According to this he quit because two rather rubbish players (McCartney and Ferdinand) were sold against his wishes. I mean they don't own the club, so why is it a breach of contract for people above them to change the staff? I feel like whoever wrote up these contracts must have been fools. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I still do not understand what right the managers have to be winning these cases. According to this he quit because two rather rubbish players (McCartney and Ferdinand) were sold against his wishes. I mean they don't own the club, so why is it a breach of contract for people above them to change the staff? I feel like whoever wrote up these contracts must have been fools. i think you've answered your own question Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Baba, I was just about to post that I think we'll be seeing some serious rethinking of contracts for managers from now on. I mean, I thought it was a basic part of being a manager that sometimes players would be sold who you wanted to keep. If the manager has to have overall financial control of the whole club, some more training is going to be needed! 10 years in top flight football, plus an MBA and accountancy training maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Have to agree. Will lower league managers now start resigning whenever a player is sold for big money now, claiming unfair dismissal or whatever and then suing the club for it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The whole 'final say' debate is a bit unreal. As with any business, in practice, the final say always rests with the person who holds overall financial responsibility. It can't be any other way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The whole 'final say' debate is a bit unreal. As with any business, in practice, the final say always rests with the person who holds overall financial responsibility. It can't be any other way. I agree, but Kevin Keegan and the Premier League have different views apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The whole 'final say' debate is a bit unreal. As with any business, in practice, the final say always rests with the person who holds overall financial responsibility. It can't be any other way. I agree, but Kevin Keegan and the Premier League have different views apparently. I think the Keegan situation might be slightly different. While I don't think he should have won his case outright, it seemed as though people within the organization were trying to limit his role and lessen his influence. Seems more severe than Curbishley's case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 it surprised me at the time that NUFC went to a tribunal as opposed to a court of law. i'm not so sure a court of law would have saw the managers role in the same light as the panel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The whole 'final say' debate is a bit unreal. As with any business, in practice, the final say always rests with the person who holds overall financial responsibility. It can't be any other way. I agree, but Kevin Keegan and the Premier League have different views apparently. but this thread is about Curbishley. The keegan situation is different - not about selling players over a manager's head but buying them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I agree, but Kevin Keegan and the Premier League have different views apparently. I think the scenario of a player being brought in is different to a player being sold in order to help the financial status of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 anyway, for Curbishley the key is what the LMA Said - "The findings of the Tribunal demonstrate the critical importance of respecting contracts which need to set out the roles and responsibilities of the parties in clear and unequivocal terms.” apparently his 'service agreement' said "The Manager alone shall select players for [the Club] to transfer to and from the Club" and it's pretty obvious the club didnt stick to that agreement. West Ham have no one to blame but themselves for this one. or at least, the previous clowns who ran the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineBarrens Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 it surprised me at the time that NUFC went to a tribunal as opposed to a court of law. i'm not so sure a court of law would have saw the managers role in the same light as the panel. Would have led to the same outcome, as it was a legal technicality the case was decided upon. Happens quite often in employment law, whereby employers fail to grasp even the basics of a standard contract of employment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 it surprised me at the time that NUFC went to a tribunal as opposed to a court of law. i'm not so sure a court of law would have saw the managers role in the same light as the panel. Would have led to the same outcome, as it was a legal technicality the case was decided upon. Happens quite often in employment law, whereby employers fail to grasp even the basics of a standard contract of employment. but the mater of what constitutes a mangers role may have been gone into a bit more and it may have came out that managers often do not have the final say on comings and goings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now