Dan Ashworth (now working for Manchester United)

[Matt1892]

19 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Matt, as this is your area of expertise is there anything stopping him buying up his contract at its face value? Say he’s paid a million a year if he stumps it up he can walk no?

No, he cannot buy himself out.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

No, he cannot buy himself out.

Ohhh that’s really interesting, in Singapore it’s common for employee to buy out notice periods to start a new job without delay. (Yes I realise it’s totally different). 

[Matt1892]

11 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I thought UK Corporate Governance practice limited notice periods to one year maximum for executives (this is from memory like - it happened to a director of a firm I used to work for) - and I would have thought Ashworth could take the club to tribunal if he thought he could show that the notice period is unreasonable.  I’m struggling to see a judge agreeing that an 18 month notice period for a senior administrator is reasonable.  

An employer can put whatever notice period they want in to a contract. However, that doesn’t mean it is enforceable.

 

The only way to test that in this case would be for Ashworth to give a leaving date before his notice period was due to end, then defend himself on it not being enforceable when the club go after him for breach of contract, although even if he did do that he would still have the covenants within his contract for not working for a competitor for a set period.

 

I am not sure what his notice is by the way, I don’t think it has been made clear what time period is his notice and what the length of time is the restricted covenant.

 

If he did walk out before his contract finished he would be liable for any costs we could prove were associated by his departure. Again, that isn’t without even considering the covenant within his contract.

[et tu brute]

6 minutes ago, Zero said:

let me add more on this. I think the key reason why Eddie won the battle is because he arrived 6 months earlier than Ashworth, hence the club in fact has been running under Eddies vision / setup already. It is very difficult for Ashworth get his power back. Of course Eddies magnificent season result also matters.

 

Thats why I have been asking Froggy what’s the point of not paying the compensation and wait for the 18 months, if Man Utd really wants Ashworth to lead the system restructuring work. That’s what he is good at (according to media anyway) and no way Man Utd would just stall all the restructuring works and wait for him. Instead Man Utd would just assign the other executives like Wilcox to lead the restructuring project. Ashworth would either just be given up (Man Utd took back the contract) or become just part of the new system designed by others, instead of being the one that has the controlling power.

 

Yes, history repeats.

 

 

 

I might be totally wrong, but I think it came down to the summer transfer window. I said after it had ended it had been a poor window. As I've said many times, in our current placement, we needed to concentrate on recruitment of 'first team' players. Players replaced then become squad players, which automatically improves the squad. This didn't happen, and my opinion is that this was down to Ashworth, and Howe wasn't happy.. 

[manorpark]

6 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The publicly produced UEFA & PL regs and our published accounts and likely forecast for the season are pretty good starters for ten if you don't want to believe the meeja tbf.  And that would suggest we're not on a great wicket.

 

The only relevant accounts are for the y/e 30th June 2024.

 

These will be very different to 2023.

 

Wait and see if you don't believe me, and if you would still rather believe the crap media !!!

 

 

Edited April 26 by manorpark

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

I might be totally wrong, but I think it came down to the summer transfer window. I said after it had ended it had been a poor window. As I've said many times, in our current placement, we needed to concentrate on recruitment of 'first team' players. Players replaced then become squad players, which automatically improves the squad. This didn't happen, and my opinion is that this was down to Ashworth, and Howe wasn't happy.. 

not sure this adds up though, was Tonalis Howe dream signing which was deemed out of reach?

[FloydianMag]

47 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

I work within employment law and it doesn’t work like that, the scope of an Employment Tribunal is limited and you cannot go there on the grounds of thinking it isn’t fair that your employer won’t let you leave without completing the notice period you are contractually committed to.

 

Even if he did raise it to an Employment Tribunal, it would never get as far as a full case hearing as he would have to set out what specific part of legislation his employer has broken and their isn’t any regarding him signing a notice that he no longer wants to work, which is why people can’t go purely on the grounds of thinking their employer isn’t being fair.

 

They would judge that his case has no reasonable prospects of being successful and the case would never be heard.

Ok fair enough, the club however should drag it out as long as possible. 

[et tu brute]

12 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

not sure this adds up though, was Tonalis Howe dream signing which was deemed out of reach?

He's the first team player though so my theory is right. All the others were squad players. 

[TheBrownBottle]

25 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

The only relevant accounts are for the y/e 30th June 2024.

 

These will be very different to 2023.

 

Wait and see if you don't believe me, and if you would still rather believe the crap media !!!

 

 

 

We know what the differences are though - they’re not a secret.  

[TheBrownBottle]

29 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

An employer can put whatever notice period they want in to a contract. However, that doesn’t mean it is enforceable.

 

The only way to test that in this case would be for Ashworth to give a leaving date before his notice period was due to end, then defend himself on it not being enforceable when the club go after him for breach of contract, although even if he did do that he would still have the covenants within his contract for not working for a competitor for a set period.

 

I am not sure what his notice is by the way, I don’t think it has been made clear what time period is his notice and what the length of time is the restricted covenant.

 

If he did walk out before his contract finished he would be liable for any costs we could prove were associated by his departure. Again, that isn’t without even considering the covenant within his contract.

Makes sense - thanks Matt

[healthyaddiction]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We know what the differences are though - they’re not a secret.  

Isn't there a big difference in the 3 year loss we can make though? This year we had to balance our two losses of nearly 60m and so has to make a right 10m profit. Assuming we've made that 10m profit this year, next season we could take another nearly 60m loss and still be within PSR for three year losses. Anything the new 70% roles don't come in for next season, which they're not meant to.

 

 

Edited April 26 by healthyaddiction

[gdm]

9 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

If you saw Ratcliffe's interview after the marathon you'd see he was worried about not having people in place.

 

Far more pressure on them to get things in order ahead of the summer.

 

Aside from rebuilding the team, which needs significant work, they also need to get a new manager in place too.

 

We seem more than happy for him to sit things out and aren't concerned about paying him to do so. We are also already down to the final stage of getting in a replacement.

 

The joke is on Man Utd, and that will become increasingly evident.

Cant wait for their fans meltdown when we appoint a successor and Ashworth is still on gardening leave faffing about with arbitration 

[gdm]

3 hours ago, Froggy said:

 

Genuine question, would you be calling us a joke if we had just paid £20m straight up?

 
I think Man Utd not only wanting to get him on the cheap but also expecting him to be able to start work this summer is the biggest joke of all. 

[KaKa]

3 hours ago, Froggy said:

 

Genuine question, would you be calling us a joke if we had just paid £20m straight up?

 

I would have celebrated getting the money and taken a cheeky dig, but in reality I would have thought to myself ... man, these guys aren't messing about and know what they want.

 

Or even if you didn't pay it, just negotiate down in a more low key fashion, and get to maybe £10 million possibly, or whatever.

 

Instead Ratcliffe has been all over the place running off at the mouth, saying he's not paying more than what we did Brighton, and has now got Ashworth to take it to arbitration.

 

Very haphazard approach to the whole thing. I don't think the guy is coming across well at all, and at some point it likely bites you lot in the backside too.

[GeordieDazzler]

If Man U are only offering £2m then I think we are fully justified in our stance. I’m sure there would be room to compromise if they made a more reasonable offer. 
 

Reckon the out come of arbitration is probably a meeting in the middle on both counts 7/8m and can’t take up duties until after the summer? 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said:

If Man U are only offering £2m then I think we are fully justified in our stance. I’m sure there would be room to compromise if they made a more reasonable offer. 
 

Reckon the out come of arbitration is probably a meeting in the middle on both counts 7/8m and can’t take up duties until after the summer? 

Fuck meeting in the middle. 
 

20m or wait until Jan 1st 2026

[ohmelads]

Would the fact we waited for his extended gardening leave at Brighton and eventually settled financially with Brighton not be a factor in any arbitration?

 

I would have thought they'd also be wary of what legal precedent they're setting if he's able to go there before the summer window closes.

[Guest]

Man U trying to out lolspurs lolspurs at this point.

[The College Dropout]

There's either something in the contract that is ambiguous or it's bluster.

[vidooq]

1 hour ago, Geogaddi said:

I don't see how we are stopping him for working though? He is free to work for Man United as long as they pay what we value him at.
 

Imagine say Arsenal bid 10 million for Bruno in the summer and we reject it as it's way below our value , Bruno couldn't then take us to arbitration and expect to leave for a cheaper fee than we value him at.

 

 

 

 

You can easily point out the Declan Rise fee, and demand 100 million, as it's something that Arsenal has paid for before, so it's not unprecedented. Where I'm afraid this cunt will have a standing leg on in a potential court case is that nobody has ever paid more than 5 million for a Sporting Director, and we are asking for 20m. He will claim that we've put in an unreasonable fee in order to prevent him from switching jobs. 

[Fezzle]

13 minutes ago, vidooq said:

 

You can easily point out the Declan Rise fee, and demand 100 million, as it's something that Arsenal has paid for before, so it's not unprecedented. Where I'm afraid this cunt will have a standing leg on in a potential court case is that nobody has ever paid more than 5 million for a Sporting Director, and we are asking for 20m. He will claim that we've put in an unreasonable fee in order to prevent him from switching jobs. 

Apart from their record being about £30m shy of Rice's fee......

[Paully]

Their fans' comments on social media are absolutely magnificent to read!

 

Entitled bellends - having the audacity to blame us for this situation rather than that snake Ashworth and the mouthy bellend Ratcliffe!

 

If you want him, pay up - if not, I hope we make him rot!

[Erikse]

5 hours ago, Froggy said:

 

Genuine question, would you be calling us a joke if we had just paid £20m straight up?

 

Genuine question, how would you feel about Boehly offering £30m for Højlund, get rejected, and then cry in the media about how it's one of the issues with football?

[Joelinton7]

23 minutes ago, Paully said:

Their fans' comments on social media are absolutely magnificent to read!

 

Entitled bellends - having the audacity to blame us for this situation rather than that snake Ashworth and the mouthy bellend Ratcliffe!

 

If you want him, pay up - if not, I hope we make him rot!

They seem to think they’re still massive (they are commercially, not on the pitch) and that we’re trying to bask in their “massiveness glow” for relevance by starting a war with them. No, you tapped up our DOF and want him for much less than his worth to us. He’s taking all of our future plans and club secrets with him. IMO that’s easily worth £15-£20m. Can’t believe I forgot how detestable these chumps can be. It’s just gotten worse with social media. 
 

 

[Abacus]

3 hours ago, Matt1892 said:

I am not sure what his notice is by the way, I don’t think it has been made clear what time period is his notice and what the length of time is the restricted covenant.

 

Yes, conflicting reports - anywhere between 12 months and two years in various media, but I wonder if reports are sometimes mixing up the notice period and the covenant.

 

The Athletic says the extended notice period is 'believed to be' in excess of 18 months, but let's assume it's 18 which is the most common guess.

 

To a layman like me, so I may be completely wrong, I think it is true that 12 months is more common in senior execs, and beyond that is pretty unusual. Mind, it's an unusual sport.

 

But still, you'd imagine there could be grounds to argue that's excessive (per Ratcliffe's moaning) whether he's signed it or not. If so, in that case an Employment Tribunal would presumably strike out the clause - not replace it with something more reasonable. I.e. if we lost that, there'd be no notice period and he'd be free to go already. I guess the same stands for any compensation payment.

 

But that would all take time, legal expense, and there would be no certainty of winning on either side as it would be a bit of an unusual case, and yes this is all guesswork.

 

So, a lot of ifs and buts there, but I'm wondering whether that's why they've tried the arbitration route first, just in case we weren't sure of the outcome of any future case and wanted to test that.