Pressley suing CCFC (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
I guess the fuss is that the article says the club now have 8 days to pay or appeal to a court or pressley can issue a winding up order, this is what happened with ACL isn't it? Of course the likely scenario is that they are going to pay are just hoping to have to pay a little less or hanging on to the last possible moment and it will all be sorted, it is worth fuss though because if they don't it's very serious and by doing this they are again decreasing the chance of mowbray signing in the summer, they certainly are demonstrating to him not to believe what they are telling them because it was only a few months ago they were blowing smoke up pressleys arse.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Cheers Vic.
We don't know that he is actually owed that much, it's a claim at the moment that appears to be disputed. If it is shown that he is owed 18 months pay then yes it should certainly be paid.
I suspect both parties will settle somewhere in the middle though.
The article says he has issued a statutory demand.
They either pay him, go to court, or agree a deal with him, otherwise in 8 days or pressley can issue a winding up order. Not that I believe it will come to that.
If they dispute that he is owed it they have to take the court option if pressley doesn't agree a deal.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What's so special about the cheesemakers?
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Think they can keep him on the wage bill, I believe Strachan was for a good while, what is interesting is what about the coach should Mowbray or any other manager not want him.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
@ Monners......Would you like some Ritz crackers with that?
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
It is possible that the club have to pay up to 18 months of his contract or until he finds new employment? In which case they'd just leave him on the wage bill instead of paying a lump sum. They might try to agree a reduced lump sum to cut the overall cost of the settlement. I Don't think for one minute that they won't pay him what's been or is agreed.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
But how do they pay him when they have no money or income ? ask an investor !!
Covstu
Well-Known Member
Depends on the wording of the contract, i would assume it would be 18 months on termination of employment then yes thats his notice/settlement. You can bet your ass the wording is so open to interpretation that SISU are trying to wriggle out of this.
Chances are like the last court case(s), they are banged to rights and need to agree a number and move on.
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
What concerns me is Mowbray ( or any other decent manager) will see how SISU do not honour a contract, even one of employment and decide that there are other jobs in football.
Once again the club is took to the edge of its own existence.
Once again the club is took to the edge of its own existence.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'd be surprised if this wasn't pretty clear-cut. It's hard to imagine an employment contract that doesn't cover notice periods and suchlike - I'm presuming SISU are just trying to drag it out in the hope that he might settle for less.
Unless the club really are completely broke, which I doubt given they're obviously paying all of the other staff etc., then I would imagine this will be settled out of court before the hearing. As torchy has said it does happen at other clubs too, but it feels like our owners seem to participate in this sort of brinkmanship more than most. It's not exactly served us well so far, this approach...
I find it hard to see how Sisu didn't have a contract with SP that had safeguards in for any situation like this.. But then again shows Sisu are still learning on the job and with SW steering the ship this was an inevitable outcome .. Sisu had no option other than to fire SP that is not in question, time was running out to save this club from relegation but surely SW should of dealt with this in a better manner.. Now again the club might pay for the way sisu run this club and its dealings within this business,, FL will be again asked to look into this and be asked is the club run by fit and proper people..
SP would of held meetings with the club and must not be happy with the way he was sacked and the amount offered as part of his contract, he has no other option and will be doing this with legal advice.. He is really in the driving seat with this one and SISU know it,, court is not what they want at the minute, bad press is not what they want and unless they pay close to what is owned i can see SP taking this all the way.. He knows what his contract is he knows how much is owed and has already gone to organizations that will be helping him in every way to get his money.. Already SFA have spoken about this so he is using others to paint the picture,, Sisu are in a very difficult position here.. This is one more thing that seems be be heading for a very important summer for the clubs future.....
SP would of held meetings with the club and must not be happy with the way he was sacked and the amount offered as part of his contract, he has no other option and will be doing this with legal advice.. He is really in the driving seat with this one and SISU know it,, court is not what they want at the minute, bad press is not what they want and unless they pay close to what is owned i can see SP taking this all the way.. He knows what his contract is he knows how much is owed and has already gone to organizations that will be helping him in every way to get his money.. Already SFA have spoken about this so he is using others to paint the picture,, Sisu are in a very difficult position here.. This is one more thing that seems be be heading for a very important summer for the clubs future.....
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
In fairness the statutory demand against them from Higgs failed
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Didn't someone say that SP was offered another role? If that's was true could they argue his refusal of that position impacts on his rights to a termination payment?
Anyway think this is being blown out of proportion. Imagine it will get sorted without the club being wound up!
Anyway think this is being blown out of proportion. Imagine it will get sorted without the club being wound up!
albatross
Well-Known Member
This is a potentially a dangerous game that SISU are playing. it is now acrimonious as SP was bitterly disappointed to be shown the door after making a long term commitment.
If they don't pay because the money is not in the club then SISU have to put money in. If they don't sort something out by next week potentially SP can seek to have them wound up and another 10 points deduction is a possibility.
SP is holding the cards here and knows that the Club is in a tight spot with a deadline of the 28th. He is playing hard ball with them
If they don't pay because the money is not in the club then SISU have to put money in. If they don't sort something out by next week potentially SP can seek to have them wound up and another 10 points deduction is a possibility.
SP is holding the cards here and knows that the Club is in a tight spot with a deadline of the 28th. He is playing hard ball with them
duffer
Well-Known Member
I think that would only apply to a redundancy situation, which wouldn't apply here because we haven't made the manager's post redundant. But then I'm not a solicitor... so I could be entirely wrong! Either way, I'd agree that this probably won't be the thing that tips us back into insolvency...
If he was offered another role the money must be there to pay him,,, so if that's the case pay the man his money and move on.. I would assume they got rid thinking a deal could be reached , signed TM and all will blow over with a deal in place for SP... SP is an angry man with a contract that has been broken to suit the owners,, not smart and not for the first time this has happened. Sisu have to pay up or get very close to matching what is due,, make no mistake about this,, SP was working under tough conditions and played Sisu's tune for a long time,, pay back is round the corner.....
Nick
Administrator
I think it was also broken to suit the football club and to stay in this division.
It is amazing how Pressley was a hero and needed a longer contract, then he was a baddy, now he is a goody again? He was absolutely shocking, it was pointed out at the time he got his new contract too.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
It all comes down to the finite terms in his contract. many football clubs never pay up a full contract and I bet there will be no difference with Gus Poyet either. It may well be that his contract is payable on minimum results and if anything less it affects his pay structure, who knows? I suspect a deal somewhere in the middle will be amicably arranged and paid. What's despicable is sacking him and not sitting down and sorting out an agreed level of pay and compensation to leave beforehand. But that's the nature of SISU I guess.
TM is a far different prospect I suspect and if there is a contract negotiation at the end of the season then SISU had better be sure to stick with it or he will be gone...
TM is a far different prospect I suspect and if there is a contract negotiation at the end of the season then SISU had better be sure to stick with it or he will be gone...
It's perfectly reasonable to have believed we wanted Pressley to stay when Huddersfield were sniffing around (though 4 years was silly), later have felt Pressley had lost the Dressing room and needed to go and that he is entitled for his contract to be fulfilled.
This doesn't suggest you think he is a goody, baddy, goody again. This doesn't make you someone who can't make up their mind.
However much someone dislikes Pressley assuming the contract is as we've been told he deserves to be paid and the club are (as they are so so often sadly and infuriatingly for someone who wants to love and support them) completely and utterly wrong.
Johhny Blue
Well-Known Member
Are you Kidding? Have you ever tried a cheese sandwich with no cheese?
PAY UP SKY BLUES
At least according to the article the clause was 18 months salary within a week, he isn't seeking his entire contract to be paid out that is more like 28 months. So it doesn't seem like there is anything to discuss, that discussion obviously happened with the writing of the contract.
I agree Nik, and wrote the same in a previous post,, they had little option, but how they done may fall into SP hands in what he is asking for..What i would never of done no matter how current form is going is sign any manager up on a 4 year deal. With a club as unstable as ours SP was laughing his arse off when that was put in front of him... You offer a 2 1/2 year deal with another year option 15 months paid if dismissal happens.. Not 4 years without and cover,, SW is the man that should be answering questions now,, not us guessing on the details....
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
It's got nothing to do with being a "Goody" again. The simple fact is he is owed money, couldn't give a fat one that it's SISU, it's their fault for giving him a 4 years contract. S**t owners, and S**t bosses, deserve all that's coming to them.
I am going with a wild shot here, but what if there was a release clause in his contract that could be triggered if we entered the relegation zone?
Then even if he was fired at a time we were out of the zone (though only on goal difference) ... there could be cases for both sides to argue.
The club could say the clause was triggered by entering the relegation zone.
SP could say we were not actually in the relegation zone when he was fired and thus the clause was void.
The club could say we were technically in the relegation zone as we had the same points tally as 21st placed (Crawley I believe).
Maybe there is a reason for the sides to have a different stand point?
Then even if he was fired at a time we were out of the zone (though only on goal difference) ... there could be cases for both sides to argue.
The club could say the clause was triggered by entering the relegation zone.
SP could say we were not actually in the relegation zone when he was fired and thus the clause was void.
The club could say we were technically in the relegation zone as we had the same points tally as 21st placed (Crawley I believe).
Maybe there is a reason for the sides to have a different stand point?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
This will be the dispute - there almost certainly was.
People really write crap on here. This happens all the time.
There was also a suggestion that Pressley was offered an alternate position.
All this crap about this being a big issue for sisu. It's a far bigger issue for Pressley.
If he takes the club to court no other club will touch him with a barge pole.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It's always IF he's owed money. The assumption is that he is but it isn't definite. It should be paid if he is.
hill83
Well-Known Member
True.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It took several months for Man Utd to pay Moyes after a protracted argument in which the managers association were very critical of the club.
I guess no manager ever wants to work there again.
Johhny Blue
Well-Known Member
Covstu
Well-Known Member
I would agree in a common employment status but with football it is obviously a very different culture (alot more short term). He could still be employed by CCFC but on Garden leave despite the fact that he is not 'doing the job', there are probably a myriad of different scenarios here which we probably will never know the real 'facts'. This situation it is a case of SISU trying their luck and seeing if he will look to a quick settlement in the end but thats our guess!
I would love to see his contract or a footballers for that to see how they are structured!