Alan Curbishley wins case against West Ham

[johnnypd]

NUFC didn't "go" to a tribunal, as part of an FA agreement they had to do so. It's an independent arbitration panel overseen by QCs.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

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.

Good Lord! What idiot wrote that? Common sense dictates that's not the way things are run.

[madras]

NUFC didn't "go" to a tribunal, as part of an FA agreement they had to do so. It's an independent arbitration panel overseen by QCs.

probably overall for the best but i'll bet in time this idea will change about what the managers role is and reflected in the contract.

[johnnypd]

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.

Good Lord! What idiot wrote that? Common sense dictates that's not the way things are run.

 

agreed, but there you go. these cases reflect very badly on the people in charge of the clubs.

[johnnypd]

NUFC didn't "go" to a tribunal, as part of an FA agreement they had to do so. It's an independent arbitration panel overseen by QCs.

probably overall for the best but i'll bet in time this idea will change about what the managers role is and reflected in the contract.

 

agreed. i think in the past its been something of a 'convention' upheld by good faith and a strong working relationship in which remits are generally understood even if not precisely defined in the small print. in both these cases the working relationship collapsed and people started acting like arses buying and selling behind people's backs.

[PineBarrens]

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.

 

Irrespective of such conjecture, it would still have returned to the finer points of the contract of employment; If the club had stipulated that he would not have the final say regarding the acquisition of players, they would have won. They didn't and subsquently lost.

 

 

 

 

[hazeyb]

If west ham had gone to the manager and said 'we need to raise x million from player sales, and get the wage bill down to y' but let him chose who, that would have been ok. The problem is that they decided they knew who best to get shot of, and that's unfair on the manager when he is the one in the firing line when results go bad.

[madras]

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.

 

Irrespective of such conjecture, it would still have returned to the finer points of the contract of employment; If the club had stipulated that he would not have the final say regarding the acquisition of players, they would have won. They didn't and subsquently lost.

 

 

 

 

then again did the club stipulate he would have the final say ?

[TRon]

Curbishley did a shit job at West Ham. They should be suing him in my opinion.

[PineBarrens]

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.

 

Irrespective of such conjecture, it would still have returned to the finer points of the contract of employment; If the club had stipulated that he would not have the final say regarding the acquisition of players, they would have won. They didn't and subsquently lost.

 

then again did the club stipulate he would have the final say ?

 

Again, the burden of proof such it were, typically rests with the employer rather than the employee in such cases. Therefore, the bit in the contract about how he would be expected to perform the duties usually associated with the role of a manager (the clincher being the but not limited to). Very careless really, and I suspect the club's legal team knew they were fighting the proverbial lost cause from the outset.

[madras]

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.

 

Irrespective of such conjecture, it would still have returned to the finer points of the contract of employment; If the club had stipulated that he would not have the final say regarding the acquisition of players, they would have won. They didn't and subsquently lost.

 

then again did the club stipulate he would have the final say ?

 

Again, the burden of proof such it were, typically rests with the employer rather than the employee in such cases. Therefore, the bit in the contract about how he would be expected to perform the duties usually associated with the role of a manager (the clincher being the but not limited to). Very careless really, and I suspect the club's legal team knew they were fighting the proverbial lost cause from the outset.

quite probably and i've spent the last few months telling people that managers quite often do not have the final say.

[Cronky]

It sounds like Curbishley's contract was a lot more explicit and powerful than Keegan's when it comes to this 'final say' issue. West Ham's lawyers must have been half asleep when they allowed that clause to go through.

 

Nearly all working relationships depend on a bit of give and take and partnership working. People's roles and boundaries can never be rigidly defined, although when you get to the legal process often this piece of common sense goes out of the window. I think that's why so many of these tribunals end up being a bit unfair on employers.

[The Prophet]

It's just stupidity from the club. With the amount of money at stake in the modern game you'd think they'd have a specialist draftsman to clearly outline the significant points of the contract to both parties. That way if the contact is undermined by either party they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[jdckelly]

how did they think they'd get away with it though? thats as clear cut as it gets whereas keegans was vague enough so that ma thought he had a chance

[Offshore]

All they've probably lost is the fact that they've been found guilty. The actual cost of this would be near enough the same if they had sacked him before he jumped.