Dan Ashworth (on gardening leave)

[Groundhog63]

8 minutes ago, Cf said:

It'll be considerably more common for employment law to be applied at the executive level. 

 

I suspect the relevant part of his contract is you are with us until 2026 and you may not work for a rival before that time without our permission. And we are under no obligation to release him from that contract. 

 

The fact we are where we are suggests to me Ashworth is fucked and probably knows it. He expected Man Utd to pay what they needed to and he'd be over there already. Now he's looking at losing 2 years of his career and it's self inflicted. 

 

 

 

One of the joys of being on here is reading knowledgeable stuff about things I know little or nothing. 

Exec level contracts being one, of many. 

I so hope you're correct on this because, if you're not, that little twinge I just got was all for nothing 😜

[worthy]

Arbitration, you fucking pathetic little shitstain. Hope your career goes to utter shit and that you wake up stepping on legos every day. Make your boyfriend pay the price or be a good little boy and sit down and shut the fuck up until your contract is over.

 

Fits right in with the rest of the manuER wankers. 

[FloydianMag]

45 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

Ashworth can’t go to an Employment Tribunal though, his options are he negotiates his way out of an early release or he ends his notice early and we try to have an injunction put in place to stop him working for Man Utd, or having to claim compensation.

 

By going to arbitration we will be confident of our position under employment law and Ashworth will not be able to walk out.

Ashworth has every right to go to an Employment Tribunal if he feels that his employer is being unfair or breaking employment law, that is exactly the place he should take it to.

[Matt1892]

7 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Ashworth has every right to go to an Employment Tribunal if he feels that his employer is being unfair or breaking employment law, that is exactly the place he should take it to.

You cannot go to an Employment Tribunal if you are not happy with something in your contract though, you certainly cannot go if you think your employer is being unfair.

[Froggy]

6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Ashworth has every right to go to an Employment Tribunal if he feels that his employer is being unfair or breaking employment law, that is exactly the place he should take it to.

 

I must say, I have no clue what grounds he has. He's signed a contract.

[Cf]

Us: You signed a contract until 2026. 

 

Him: But you didn't really mean that did you?

 

I think is probably the extent of his argument. 

[PauloGeordio]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

He’s friends with Brailsford. It might be Manchester red but if our ambition is to be bigger than them it’s not a relevant point. Job hopper? Yeah maybe him leaving flys in the face of all his public statements mind. 
 

Anyways, I think it will be easier to make more definitive statements about the clubs ambitions once to hear more about the future of the stadium. 

I have no doubt they are extremely ambitious. For me retaining a guy that wants away isn’t a measure. Slow builders. One aim. World domination.

 

[r0cafella]

5 minutes ago, Cf said:

Us: You signed a contract until 2026. 

 

Him: But you didn't really mean that did you?

 

I think is probably the extent of his argument. 

If his claim is groundless as your suggest he’s clearly trying to fight in the court of public opinion as well, basically trying to put more pressure on us to lessen our demands. 
 

We can imagine Sir Jim has no intentions of paying what we are demanding. 

[FloydianMag]

5 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

You cannot go to an Employment Tribunal if you are not happy with something in your contract though, you certainly cannot go if you think your employer is being unfair.

Yes you can……..if he feels that Newcastle are acting unlawfully by holding him to his contract,or being treated unfairly he has a right, this is an employment dispute.

 

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/employment-tribunal

[Checko]

If he really wants to get to work, perhaps we could send him to Man U on secondment for a few weeks, on the provision that while he's there he negotiates the fee for his release.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, PauloGeordio said:

I have no doubt they are extremely ambitious. For me retaining a guy that wants away isn’t a measure. Slow builders. One aim. World domination.

 

That isn’t the point I was making, the point being that it are so ambitious why are our staff being poached so easily. 
 

I think it’s pretty clear that the appointment of Ashworth was a huge mistake and a poor choice (20:20 hindsight of course). 

[Superior Acuña]

Don’t get at all why ManU won’t pay up if they want him. Surely someone so influential is easily of comparable value to a cheap player. 

[FloydianMag]

9 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I must say, I have no clue what grounds he has. He's signed a contract.

Same here, none of us do Froggy, however he has the right to take legal action if he feels his employer is acting unlawfully by holding him to his contract.

[Dokko]

Manure & Ashworth don't have a leg to stand on. We'll point to our way of bringing in Ashworth and how it should be handled and compensation agreed. The fact Ratface thinks he can get him immediately for less than what we paid is laughable, especially as we'll have made sure the contract is watertight after going through so much pain to get him. 

 

Imagine him moving in the summer to manure for £10m and at Christmas Madrid approaching him wanting him immediately and for £2m? There would be hell on. 

 

Can't wait for them to pay all our court costs as well. 

[et tu brute]

9 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

That isn’t the point I was making, the point being that it are so ambitious why are our staff being poached so easily. 
 

I think it’s pretty clear that the appointment of Ashworth was a huge mistake and a poor choice (20:20 hindsight of course). 

Don't think that this has anything to do with ambition. To me it's down to a power play between him and Howe, which Howe has won (rightly or wrongly)

[PauloGeordio]

7 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

That isn’t the point I was making, the point being that it are so ambitious why are our staff being poached so easily. 
 

I think it’s pretty clear that the appointment of Ashworth was a huge mistake and a poor choice (20:20 hindsight of course). 

It sent out a statement of intent to hire him. He chose to leave. That says more about him than us (see Brighton) Now we’ll hire somebody more aligned with our vision. I for one will never doubt the patience, determination and ambition of our new owners, purely based on the fact that they never gave up on us when they had many opportunities to walk away. They’ve given us our club back. Have a slow burn plan (but as quick as constraints allow). Onwards and upwards. 

[Zero]

5 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Don't think that this has anything to do with ambition. To me it's down to a power play between him and Howe, which Howe has won (rightly or wrongly)

that’s my wild guess as well

[Matt1892]

11 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Yes you can……..if he feels that Newcastle are acting unlawfully by holding him to his contract,or being treated unfairly he has a right, this is an employment dispute.

 

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/employment-tribunal

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.

[r0cafella]

1 minute 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.

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?

[TheBrownBottle]

12 minutes ago, Dokko said:

Manure & Ashworth don't have a leg to stand on. We'll point to our way of bringing in Ashworth and how it should be handled and compensation agreed. The fact Ratface thinks he can get him immediately for less than what we paid is laughable, especially as we'll have made sure the contract is watertight after going through so much pain to get him. 

 

Imagine him moving in the summer to manure for £10m and at Christmas Madrid approaching him wanting him immediately and for £2m? There would be hell on. 

 

Can't wait for them to pay all our court costs as well. 

In all honesty I wouldn’t be too sure of that - punitive clauses in contracts are not enforceable in England, regardless of them being inserted into a contract or not, and he might be able to claim against us stopping him from working.

[GeordieDazzler]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

In all honesty I wouldn’t be too sure of that - punitive clauses in contracts are not enforceable in England, regardless of them being inserted into a contract or not, and he might be able to claim against us stopping him from working.

He’s getting paid though? It’s not like he’s being stopped from earning.

[Geogaddi]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

In all honesty I wouldn’t be too sure of that - punitive clauses in contracts are not enforceable in England, regardless of them being inserted into a contract or not, and he might be able to claim against us stopping him from working.

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.

 

 

Edited April 26 by Geogaddi

[TheBrownBottle]

8 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.

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.  

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said:

He’s getting paid though? It’s not like he’s being stopped from earning.

 

1 minute 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.

 

 

 

We’ve packed him off on gardening leave - we’ve stopped him from working.  Perhaps he could argue that this is detrimental to his career?  
 

In terms of transfers - in all honesty I’ve always been curious to see what would happen if a player took a club to court for that very thing.  Transfer fees were always a weird derogation of employment law.

[Zero]

22 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Don't think that this has anything to do with ambition. To me it's down to a power play between him and Howe, which Howe has won (rightly or wrongly)

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.