Pressley suing CCFC (2 Viewers)

[Grendel]

It's not the club suing SP - it's the other way around. And maybe - just maybe - the club has a good case?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Careful - you will accused of still supporting sisu. No pointing out the facts allowed on here.

 

---

[Astute]

It's not the club suing SP - it's the other way around. And maybe - just maybe - the club has a good case?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

It isn't our club he is taking to court. It is SISU.

I didn't say it was SISU bringing the litigation forward. And why is it always a maybe SISU are not guilty? It sounds like there was a clause in the contract of 18 months pay and payable within a week. Would SP take action if it looked dodgy for him and knowing how much SISU love using litigation?

 

[Astute]

Careful - you will accused of still supporting sisu. No pointing out the facts allowed on here.

So "maybe - just maybe" is now a fact?

 

[shmmeee]

It's not the club suing SP - it's the other way around. And maybe - just maybe - the club has a good case?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

ROFL. Especially coming from you.

(NB: I don't have an issue with your main point, just find it funny how you can chop and change values based on whether it's Sisu or not)

 

[James Smith]

If the contract says he's due money, then he should be paid. Simple.

I agree and if that's 18months salary then that's what you owe him Tim.

"We are hopeful of reaching a sensible settlement for all parties"

If his contract does say he is owed the money then pay up and avoid yet another court case please. That would be a sensible settlement.

 

[Astute]

I agree and if that's 18months salary then that's what you owe him Tim.

"We are hopeful of reaching a sensible settlement for all parties"

If his contract does say he is owed the money then pay up and avoid yet another court case please. That would be a sensible settlement.

Sounds like most of us are wrong :thinking about:

And maybe - just maybe - the club has a good case? Careful - you will accused of still supporting sisu. No pointing out the facts allowed on here.

 

[James Smith]

Is there any other career where you get sacked for being useless at your job and get paid 18 months salary?

I thought it was usual that even if you did get a payout you only got it until you were back in employment so unless nobody else will give him a job we shouldn't be on the hook for 18 months of paying him should we?

A job in the City like Banking?

 

[bigfatronssba]

It's not the club suing SP - it's the other way around. And maybe - just maybe - the club has a good case?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Surely its a good thing then?

We all want to know the truth don't we? And if the club is in the right then they have nothing to worry about.

 

[Godiva]

ROFL. Especially coming from you.

(NB: I don't have an issue with your main point, just find it funny how you can chop and change values based on whether it's Sisu or not)

You forgot to put in a quote, so I am a bit lost. I can only assume you mean that I have said something about the council ...

 

[Godiva]

Surely its a good thing then?

We all want to know the truth don't we? And if the club is in the right then they have nothing to worry about.

Are they worried?

 

[Astute]

Surely its a good thing then?

We all want to know the truth don't we? And if the club is in the right then they have nothing to worry about.

The problem we have is we have seen what SISU think of contracts. And as they have said that they want to come to an amicable arrangement it seems as though they are admitting that it is in the contract but they want to pay less than they should.

To me SP doesn't deserve a penny. He got a managers pay when he wasn't much of a manager. We have ended up with yet another wasted season. But SISU did offer him the contract. Fools and their money...........

 

[Godiva]

Is there any other career where you get sacked for being useless at your job and get paid 18 months salary?

I thought it was usual that even if you did get a payout you only got it until you were back in employment so unless nobody else will give him a job we shouldn't be on the hook for 18 months of paying him should we?

There is ... CEO's can make a lot of damage and still receive a nice golden handshake.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Are they worried?

How would I know?

 

[skybluebeduff]

This is just a non story that will be quickly settled fairly. Why their is 19 pages of it is only in true SBT fashion. ZZZZ

Swiftly moving on.

 

[Grendel]

The problem we have is we have seen what SISU think of contracts. And as they have said that they want to come to an amicable arrangement it seems as though they are admitting that it is in the contract but they want to pay less than they should.

To me SP doesn't deserve a penny. He got a managers pay when he wasn't much of a manager. We have ended up with yet another wasted season. But SISU did offer him the contract. Fools and their money...........

What do sisu think of contracts then? Has this been an issue before with all the other sacked managers?

 

[Astute]

You forgot to put in a quote, so I am a bit lost. I can only assume you mean that I have said something about the council ...

Can't have anything to do with attacking CCC every chance you have but look for excuses for SISU whenever you can......can it?

 

[Astute]

What do sisu think of contracts then? Has this been an issue before with all the other sacked managers?

Are you saying that they have always honored contracts now? Just like your last 'fact' comment

 

[bigfatronssba]

The problem we have is we have seen what SISU think of contracts. And as they have said that they want to come to an amicable arrangement it seems as though they are admitting that it is in the contract but they want to pay less than they should.

To me SP doesn't deserve a penny. He got a managers pay when he wasn't much of a manager. We have ended up with yet another wasted season. But SISU did offer him the contract. Fools and their money...........

There is a difference though between what SP deserves and what he is legally entitled too.

I don't think any of us on here would argue that he deserves this money, but if (and I do stress if) that is what his contract says then the club should just pay it. No more messing about in court cases.

All of us in Presley's situation would do the same.

I had hoped the club had learned its lesson in handing out stupid contracts, it seems I was wrong.

 

[Godiva]

Can't have anything to do with attacking CCC every chance you have but look for excuses for SISU whenever you can......can it?

You have to ask shmmeee - he is probably busy finding a quote or two.

 

[Godiva]

There is a difference though between what SP deserves and what he is legally entitled too.

I don't think any of us on here would argue that he deserves this money, but if (and I do stress if) that is what his contract says then the club should just pay it. No more messing about in court cases.

All of us in Presley's situation would do the same.

I had hoped the club had learned its lesson in handing out stupid contracts, it seems I was wrong.

Which is why I offered a possible case for their dispute:

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?

 

[Grendel]

Are you saying that they have always honored contracts now? Just like your last 'fact' comment

They have always honoured players and managers contracts to my knowledge

 

[torchomatic]

Swiftly avoided answering. He said "sacked managers", didn't he?

Are you saying that they have always honored contracts now? Just like your last 'fact' comment

 

[Astute]

There is ... CEO's can make a lot of damage and still receive a nice golden handshake.

A contract is a contract. If my company wanted to get rid of me they can. If it is gross misconduct I get sacked. If not they can still get rid of me. But it would cost them about 80k. This also includes if they wanted to change my terms of contract and I would be worse off. It is in my contract. I would get a certain amount for each year I have been with them. And I have worked for them since I was in my 20's. A contract is a contract. End of.

 

[Astute]

Swiftly avoided answering. He said "sacked managers", didn't he?

Swiftly avoided not honoring contracts I see. And this is a contract.

 

[James Smith]

Right lets all be fair to the man, whether you rate him as a manager or not he should be paid what he is owed. Contracts work both ways.

If any of us were made redundant from a job, you would be expecting the money you were owed! You'd all be straight down the pub and whining if your employer said he wasn't going to pay you a penny of what you were owed!

I had to fight for my money when leaving one job (through redundancy) because I was listed at head office as having taken all my holiday for the year when in fact I hadn't used any. They were also proposing to dock my redundancy pay because I had used holiday time I hadn't accrued according to them. The shop had gone and I couldn't contact my manager to help prove my case. I provided copies of every months rota from that year and they were still saying it wasn't proof. When they said that, I told them to talk to my lawyers as I was no longer willing to talk to them and gave them the details. Three days later a cheque arrived with an apology that there had been a mix up and my staff number had been put on someone else's holiday form. Never found out if that was genuine cockup or them attempting a fast one.

 

[torchomatic]

And there you go again. Where did I say that I do want litigation at our club. Personally, I don't think there will be litigation, he will be paid off. End of another non-story. As I said, the CT are just stirring the pot as there is an air of positivity after the last two games. Can't have that, can we?

So what is wrong with not wanting any more litigation at our club? Not done us any good so far has it.

 

[Grendel]

Swiftly avoided not honoring contracts I see. And this is a contract.

I clearly stated managers contracts - they have haven't they?

 

[Godiva]

A contract is a contract. If my company wanted to get rid of me they can. If it is gross misconduct I get sacked. If not they can still get rid of me. But it would cost them about 80k. This also includes if they wanted to change my terms of contract and I would be worse off. It is in my contract. I would get a certain amount for each year I have been with them. And I have worked for them since I was in my 20's. A contract is a contract. End of.

Me too. If the board want to sack me I am due compensation and I will pursue it.

A contract is contract - yes, but it's a list of terms and conditions and not everything that can happen is included. That's why litigation over contracts are much more common than you would think.

 

[Astute]

And there you go again. Where did I say that I do want litigation at our club. Personally, I don't think there will be litigation, he will be paid off. End of another non-story. As I said, the CT are just stirring the pot as there is an air of positivity after the last two games. Can't have that, can we?

I never said anyone wanted litigation. I said what is wrong with not wanting any more litigation. Re read it and see.

 

[Astute]

I clearly stated managers contracts - they have haven't they?

I clearly stated contracts. Then you changed it to managers contracts. Not willing to play your silly games.

 

[Astute]

Me too. If the board want to sack me I am due compensation and I will pursue it.

A contract is contract - yes, but it's a list of terms and conditions and not everything that can happen is included. That's why litigation over contracts are much more common than you would think.

If what we have heard so far is true if he got the sack he would get 18 months pay within a week. SISU say they want to negotiate. Why would they want to negotiate if they had a get out clause?

 

[Grendel]

I clearly stated contracts. Then you changed it to managers contracts. Not willing to play your silly games.

So when you said "we know what sisu think of contracts" what you meant was in 99.9% of cases pay them and pay 100% of those contracts they negotiated with the third party.

Fair enough - I thought you were implying the norm is they don't pay them.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

What do sisu think of contracts then? Has this been an issue before with all the other sacked managers?

One mahoooosive difference here Grendel...None of the other managers were on anywhere near the length of contract SP was on.

 

[torchomatic]

Apologies, I forgot that you're one of the posters where everything must be explicitly mentioned/listed.

Swiftly avoided not honoring contracts I see. And this is a contract.

 

[Grendel]

One mahoooosive difference here Grendel...None of the other managers were on anywhere near the length of contract SP was on.

Boothroyd and colemans wages (especially colemans) would have meant their settlements would have been far higher.

On one of those guess what Pressley said on Monday threads that if we didn't beat Sheffield he will not be quoting. I firmly believe a clause regarding bottom 4 position existed - in which case the club would have the right to use it.