Sunderland

[Ketsbaia]

Hope it goes all Ricky Alvarez on them.

[Pilko]

SunderLALawnd

[Benwell Lad]

The Don thinks he's still running a Sunday league team 

[Wallsendmag]

The Don thinks he's still running a Sunday league team 

 

He is really. Their last 3 fixtures have been Fleetwood Town, Burton Albion and Rochdale.

[Tubestationatmidnight]

If Ashley had done there what he has here he would be a fucking god. His tackiness would fit right in there as well they would suit each other. That first sentence sums them up.

 

Smalltime

[jonny1403]

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.

[geordiedean]

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.

 

"nd their intention to pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation"  this will not happen, I doubt its even legal

 

That's like saying he cant ever work again because hes pissed Sunderland off, that's against employment law. Imagine being fired from your job then told we will sue you if you go get another one

[geordiesteve710]

I'm not an employment law expert but, if a player can't be arsed to turn up for work, doesn't make himself available for training and (crucially) doesn't provide a good reason for it, I can't see how he can expect to keep his lucrative contract for, you know, being a footballer.

 

Not sure about the legality of suing him/his future club. Although it could be argued that sunderland have the right to sack him - and again, I'm not an employment law expert -nobody has actually forced them to do so and they could have chosen to keep him had they wanted to do so. In fact, I'd imagine threatening it publicly could be construed as a restraint of trade as the player seeks gainful employment following his sacking? If they don't want to keep him on/pay him, they surely can't stop somebody else from doing so??

[Raconteur]

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.

 

"nd their intention to pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation"  this will not happen, I doubt its even legal

 

That's like saying he cant ever work again because hes pissed Sunderland off, that's against employment law. Imagine being fired from your job then told we will sue you if you go get another one

 

It’s perfectly legitimate - Sunderland have released him from his employment contract but have withheld his playing registration for the length of his (now terminated) contract. I’m pretty sure Chelsea did it with Adrian Mutu.

 

Much as we laugh at Sunderland, it would be good if they could successfully set a legal precedent like Bosman - clubs don’t need more power, but surely the players need to be curbed and held accountable?

[pinkeye]

Whether it is legal or otherwise aside, what this idiot at Sun'lun has achieved is to ensure that any player considering a move to them will surely 'think again' .  It throws out a clear message that players really don't want to be there, to the point that some would give up on collecting a salary just to be able to leave.

 

 

[Paully]

Cringe!

 

[Benwell Lad]

The bottom line in this is that Sunderland just decided that they no longer wanted to pay his wages.

However no matter how many relegations you suffer, or how bad a decision it originally was you can't break or change the player's contract without mutual consent.

If no other club would match his salary, nor Sunderland be prepared to pay a percentage of it, impasse arrives and he is perfectly entitled to sit on his contract until it's termination date.

It looks from the outside that they have tried to push him out because they simply cannot afford him. However it is not his fault that he isn't good enough to earn an equivalent salary elsewhere or that they gave him a stupid deal in the first place.

It's happened dozens of times before to relegated clubs and they have had to take the inevitable hit. Sunderland seem to be trying to get out of it and it could end up getting messy.

[Chris_R]

The bottom line in this is that Sunderland just decided that they no longer wanted to pay his wages.

However no matter how many relegations you suffer, or how bad a decision it originally was you can't break or change the player's contract without mutual consent.

If no other club would match his salary, nor Sunderland be prepared to pay a percentage of it, impasse arrives and he is perfectly entitled to sit on his contract until it's termination date.

It looks from the outside that they have tried to push him out because they simply cannot afford him. However it is not his fault that he isn't good enough to earn an equivalent salary elsewhere or that they gave him a stupid deal in the first place.

It's happened dozens of times before to relegated clubs and they have had to take the inevitable hit. Sunderland seem to be trying to get out of it and it could end up getting messy.

 

He's only entitled to sit on his contract if he actually bothers to turn up to his place of work. Football is no different to any other job, if you don't turn up for long enough, your employer is entitled (though not obliged) to sack you.

 

I think the player has been amazingly stupid here if he's just not bothered to turn up to work for long enough to get sacked.

[Benwell Lad]

The bottom line in this is that Sunderland just decided that they no longer wanted to pay his wages.

However no matter how many relegations you suffer, or how bad a decision it originally was you can't break or change the player's contract without mutual consent.

If no other club would match his salary, nor Sunderland be prepared to pay a percentage of it, impasse arrives and he is perfectly entitled to sit on his contract until it's termination date.

It looks from the outside that they have tried to push him out because they simply cannot afford him. However it is not his fault that he isn't good enough to earn an equivalent salary elsewhere or that they gave him a stupid deal in the first place.

It's happened dozens of times before to relegated clubs and they have had to take the inevitable hit. Sunderland seem to be trying to get out of it and it could end up getting messy.

 

He's only entitled to sit on his contract if he actually bothers to turn up to his place of work. Football is no different to any other job, if you don't turn up for long enough, your employer is entitled (though not obliged) to sack you.

 

I think the player has been amazingly stupid here if he's just not bothered to turn up to work for long enough to get sacked.

 

Well first of all football actually is very different to any other (normal) job 

Of course that's not to say that should a footballer behave badly or be in breach of contract he can't be sacked.

No one will know the absolute details of what has occured but it does smack of the club needing him off the payroll by whatever means they thought they could get away with.

I'm no employment lawyer, but the part of this where he was allegedly told to take a month out to find another club, failed to do so and returned to Sunderland for them to tell him he wasn't fit, won't take much for his representatives to find loopholes in.

[Guest]

I'm with Sunderland on this one, like. Any player that thinks they can just not turn up for work and collect their wages needs to be shown the door. Hopefully more clubs follow through on this to set the trend, otherwise it gives more reason for players to take the piss when things don't go their way.

[Greg]

The bottom line in this is that Sunderland just decided that they no longer wanted to pay his wages.

However no matter how many relegations you suffer, or how bad a decision it originally was you can't break or change the player's contract without mutual consent.

If no other club would match his salary, nor Sunderland be prepared to pay a percentage of it, impasse arrives and he is perfectly entitled to sit on his contract until it's termination date.

It looks from the outside that they have tried to push him out because they simply cannot afford him. However it is not his fault that he isn't good enough to earn an equivalent salary elsewhere or that they gave him a stupid deal in the first place.

It's happened dozens of times before to relegated clubs and they have had to take the inevitable hit. Sunderland seem to be trying to get out of it and it could end up getting messy.

 

He's only entitled to sit on his contract if he actually bothers to turn up to his place of work. Football is no different to any other job, if you don't turn up for long enough, your employer is entitled (though not obliged) to sack you.

 

I think the player has been amazingly stupid here if he's just not bothered to turn up to work for long enough to get sacked.

 

Well first of all football actually is very different to any other (normal) job 

Of course that's not to say that should a footballer behave badly or be in breach of contract he can't be sacked.

No one will know the absolute details of what has occured but it does smack of the club needing him off the payroll by whatever means they thought they could get away with.

I'm no employment lawyer, but the part of this where he was allegedly told to take a month out to find another club, failed to do so and returned to Sunderland for them to tell him he wasn't fit, won't take much for his representatives to find loopholes in.

That what happened though is it? They gave him one month off and he came back two months later.

[Chris_R]

 

Well first of all football actually is very different to any other (normal) job 

 

That's the thing though, it isn't. Employment law is employment law. It's universal. There's no special "football employment law".

 

What IS different is that footballers are regarded as more important assets - MOST of the time - in their jobs than you or I. The further down the list of skilled jobs you go, the less slack you get cut. That's not because the law changes, it's because your value to your employer changes.

 

Let's imagine 3 hypothetical people; a shelf stacker, a brain surgeon, and a footballer.

 

If you stack shelves at Tesco or whatever, and you don't turn up for a few days, you're liable to be binned off. Because you're incredibly easy to replace. Anyone off the street can do your job with a few hours training.

 

If you're a brain surgeon, you'll still get a bit of a bollocking but you'll probably be still in employment because you're much harder to replace and a good asset to your employer. They've invested time in you and money, and replacing you - whilst possible - will be quite disruptive to their organisation. That's not because the law is different, it's because you're more valuable to them. They still could sack you if they want but they probably won't want to. There's limits though, if you persistently cause trouble you'll be out the door just as above.

 

If you're a footballer, and they've spent £20m on acquiring you, and they have a realistic hope of recouping that money, then there's no danger at all that going AWOL for a week or a month will result in your dismissal. That's not because the law is any different, they'd be ENTITLED to sack you, but they won't because the club will lose all that financial investment in you. And if you do get sacked, there's a very real possibility that you'll end up lining up against your club for a rival. You can basically do what you want, you're fireproof. Again though, the actual law is not any different here, the club are just choosing to let the player off and not enforce their legal right to terminate the contract, because doing so will be detrimental to the club themselves.

 

Finally, now let's imagine that the footballer is no longer an asset but a liability. You have NO chance of getting your £20m back (or whatever, that number is irrelevant), and you've sunk down the leagues. You can't afford the player's wages. You actively WANT the player to leave at any price. You're looking for an excuse.

 

The player goes AWOL.

 

This player has less value to the club than the shelf stacker above, they're a hinderance to the club not an asset. So instead of disregarding their legal right to terminate the player's contract as above, they enforce it.

 

The law doesn't change in any of these examples, it's the same for all employees of all levels of all businesses. It's just only optional for the employer to enforce the law depending on the value of the employee. High value employees will get cut more slack, lower value ones will be out on their ear in no time. Maybe that's not fair, but it's how it works.

[Conjo]

No club can force a player to move. They can permit a bidding club to negotiate a contract with one of their players based on what has been agreed between the bidder and seller but the player can just turn around and say no thanks, not interested.

[Chris_R]

 

I'd be interested to see the actual intricacies in the contracts that states if you aren't at training you can be sacked.

 

There'll be no such clause, and there doesn't need to be. The contract will say you are expected to attend training. He's refused to do so, which is refusing to do his job. That's gross misconduct and an immediate (IF the employer wishes to enforce it) sacking in any job in the land. The contract doesn't need to say explicitly "If you don't turn up to training you're fired" any more than my job needs to say if I don't turn up to work I'll be fired. If I don't turn up though, I'll be just as sacked and no amount of me saying "But it didn't explicitly say that in my contract" is going to help me. It's gross misconduct.

 

Either way, yes it's theoretically good that a player is punished for shit behaviour, but what money are they trying to recruit here? The transfer fee is paid as a one off payment for an asset. That isn't contingent on the player's performance at the next club. That's the end of it. He's been sold to them. Players lose value all the time, you can't just start demanding other clubs recoup the money you spent on a player, that is not going to happen.

 

They're not trying to recoup the transfer fee, they've written that off. They're trying to not pay his wages anymore, which are crippling them.

 

Honestly, I hope they get utterly rinsed in the court and they're found at fault, and have to pay him every penny of his contract. But if it's as it appears, that he just hasn't gone to training when he should have done for a month with no excuse, I can't see how this isn't an open and shut case where he's been fairly dismissed. If that happened to me in my job I'd be out, and the law is the same for all contracts of employment. The only differential is that normally football clubs want to keep their wayward players so don't enforce their rights to terminate. Here they want rid and he's given them an excuse.

[loki679]

Same as the other guy, he didn't turn up for work for a month so he's been rightly sacked.  I'd expect they can probably go after him for breach of contract at least, them holding onto his registration and not allowing it to be transferred to another club is a bit murkier if he's no longer under contract I think.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

The legality of Sunderland's actions will likely hinge on the terms of the players contract.  I would be staggered if Sunderland didn't at least take advice and get told they had an arguable case before taking the course they have.

 

I should think that they will have done this in the hope that they can negotiate less liability than what they would have if his contract remained in full.

[mrmojorisin75]

The legality of Sunderland's actions will likely hinge on the terms of the players contract.  I would be staggered if Sunderland didn't at least take advice and get told they had an arguable case before taking the course they have.

 

I should think that they will have done this in the hope that they can negotiate less liability than what they would have if his contract remained in full.

 

this is my feeling

 

as regards holding his registration that's surely not possible since bosman is it?  wasn't that the whole point of bosman in the first place, once out of contract you're free to go wherever you want

 

sunderland have made him free from contract of their own accord

[1964]

If only he'd said he was grooming underage girls he'd have been ok for 12 months. Still you live and learn

[jonny1403]

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

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.

[Scoreboard82]

Cringe!

 

The obligatory FTM on his daft suit, the clown. Says it all about them. We're always at the forefront of their thoughts.