Jump to content

oh yes it is!

Weston Saint

By Weston Saint,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

GenevaSaint

GenevaSaint

Posted
Posted
As many have pointed out, we've only got the Scunny chairmans word for it as to what has happened / is happening. Maybe they've jumped the gun, after all it seems from various sources on here (accurate or not) that interviews were continuing. Money does funny things to people and maybe the Scunny chairman could see pound signs....

 

That's all that is required when we're castigating our CEO. Don't you know he's the devil in disguise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted

Sounds like someone at Scünthorpe is leaking info to the press. Saints sound like they are trying to be professional, but are being let down by other parties.

The only thing we can say with any certainly is that Adkins is one of the favored candidates (he might even be the front runner). What we don't know is whether the deal with Adkins is off entirely, or whether there are still discussions. Other mangers might still (and may have all along) been in the frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thynno

thynno

Posted
Posted

As a fan of a much smaller club that is renowned for doing business the 'right' way, looking in, your board and chairman are making an absolute shambles of this.

 

Sadly, half of the people on this forum seem to have delusions of grandeur when it comes to appointing the next manager. Adkins would have been a class appointment. As would Tisdale, but luckily for us, Tis has the integrity and the sense to see that the Saints job is a poisoned chalice at the moment.

 

I hope for the sake of the real fans that somebody upstairs gets their act together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
The OS statement reads more like damage limitation to me. Trying to give second choice candidate a scrap of dignity by making it look as if he isn't second really.
Ken I see where you are coming from but to be fair NC/SFC have been consistant in not going public until all is done and dusted. In theory NA applied for the job, and we asked Scunny for permission to interview him. That does not mean we were to offer him the job and to be fair it is their chairman and the media fed the news by NA/Scunny Chairman/agent that has said he was to be unveiled. Now i do agree that the odds were, he was to be installed but we can only assume/jump to that conclusion.

The club have left their options open with the statement and it looks that we will still have Wilkins in charge of the next game

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted
Ok, well in that case I apologise.

 

Just so ****ing angry that we just look like mugs all the time. I really do hate it.

 

No worries! As much as I think Cortese has made a few poor decisions in the past, I think that (especially in light of the comments on the OS) that Scunny were trying to take us for a bit of a ride in asking for a bit too much compensation. Adkins is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as he obviously wants to leave but understands they will incur costs to replace him. And perhaps it's highlighted a slight lack of desire on his behalf if he won't resign and therefore let the club have whatever contracted severance pay they would then be due. Who knows? certainly not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1976_Child

1976_Child

Posted
Posted
Yes indeed, but it's not going to happen now is it. What a stupidly hypothetical situation.

 

No it is not a stupid 'situation'. The point most football fans fail to realize is that the FA only has the power to assert rules on its member clubs. A lot of people talk as though these are laws. They are not. No Act of Parliament was passed saying that Adkins (or anyone else) could not walk out of S****horpe, get in his car and head down to Southampton to start work. Sure, the FA would not be happy and as a last resort might chuck Saints out of the league but no law will have been broken, only contracts and rules. Yes, S****horpe could pursue him through the civil courts but it would not be a matter for the criminal courts.

 

You may think it is nit-picky, I think it is only right to talk about rules, not law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokingFun

PokingFun

Posted
Posted
No worries! As much as I think Cortese has made a few poor decisions in the past, I think that (especially in light of the comments on the OS) that Scunny were trying to take us for a bit of a ride in asking for a bit too much compensation. Adkins is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as he obviously wants to leave but understands they will incur costs to replace him. And perhaps it's highlighted a slight lack of desire on his behalf if he won't resign and therefore let the club have whatever contracted severance pay they would then be due. Who knows? certainly not me.

 

I think the fact (if true) that NA will not resign until compensation is agreed is borne out of respect for their chairman and fans and his behaviour (if this is the case) is appropriate. It shows that he is a man with morals and integrity so I see that as a good thing and hope they can resolve the issues if there is still potentially a deal to be done as the guy seems to have respect which can be no bad thing when trying to gain buy-in from Southampton fans, staff and players. He definitely has the ability for the job given his record of success in L1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1976_Child

1976_Child

Posted
Posted (edited)
As is a fixed term contract. Even if he didnt play for anybody else, RM could sue Ronanldo for the total cost of that fixed term contract, including the costs that (Signing on fee) that it took to set up.

 

Actually, no they could not. At least not in Britain, Spanish law might be different (but I very much doubt it, and anyway the EU law covers all member states and also speaks to this). Under English law, if he is on the pay-roll of a club and is paying PAYE income tax and NI contributions he is legally an employee of the company/club. As such he is fully with in his rights to withdraw his labour at any time, at which time his employer is not obliged to pay him anymore. If there was evidence that he had committed a fraud by taking a signing on bonus with the full intention of quitting shortly there after then the club could pursue him for redress and, if they could prove it was intentional (fraud) then it could end up in the criminal courts. It would, however, be nigh-on impossible to prove a fraud in this case.

 

Where contract law comes into play is when he is providing a product or service to the club. If the club could prove that he had broken his contract leaving the club at a financial disadvantage then they could seek redress. But footballers are not 'providing services', they are employees. The contract is only binding under the FAs rules.

Edited by 1976_Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
Actually, no they could not. At least not in Britain, Spanish law might be different. Under English law, if he is on the pay-roll of a club and is paying PAYE income tax and NI contributions he is legally an employee of the company/club. As such he is fully with in his rights to withdraw his labour at any time, at which time his employer is not obliged to pay him anymore. If there was evidence that he had committed a fraud by taking a signing on bonus with the full intention of quitting shortly there after then the club could pursue him for redress and, if they could prove it was intentional (fraud) then it could end up in the criminal courts. It would, however, be nigh-on impossible to prove a fraud in this case.

 

Where contract law comes into play is when he is providing a product or service to the club. If the club could prove that he had broken his contract leaving the club at a financial disadvantage then they could seek redress. But footballers are not 'providing services', they are employees. The contract is only binding under the FAs rules.

 

You are wrong. but not the time to argue about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted
I think the fact (if true) that NA will not resign until compensation is agreed is borne out of respect for their chairman and fans and his behaviour (if this is the case) is appropriate. It shows that he is a man with morals and integrity so I see that as a good thing and hope they can resolve the issues if there is still potentially a deal to be done as the guy seems to have respect which can be no bad thing when trying to gain buy-in from Southampton fans, staff and players. He definitely has the ability for the job given his record of success in L1.

 

I don't disagree with his motives for not resigning; I just question his true desire. He will have a contracted "buy out" figure in his contract, whether it be a pre-determined figure or simply the amount of salary and term left on contract. So the method is there for him to leave and for his club to receive a set figure they previously agreed with him. Which leaves only two scenarios; he either doesn't think that figure is high enough and wants Sunny to get more; or SFC have told him he is personally liable for the severance figure if he quits. I personally don't believe the second one, which only really leaves the first one to base my opinion on, which is why I come back to the issue of Adkins' true desire to leave. If he really wanted the job here he has no need to depart from his principles; if the serverance figure was good enough when he signed his contract it should still be good enough now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
speed demon

speed demon

Posted
Posted
The OS statement reads more like damage limitation to me. Trying to give second choice candidate a scrap of dignity by making it look as if he isn't second really.

 

It could be that S****horpe are full of **** and whilst NC remains silent on ins and outs of his business, enough is enough. If it is not true what they are saying why shouldn't the OS set the record straight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted

Take note from the scunny chairmains comments

 

 

“The Southampton people have been very difficult to deal with.

 

“They are probably not the right sort of people for Nigel to be working with.''

 

This is not just the s****horpe chairmain saying this.

 

It's also the view of the media, the echo, sky tv, MLT, Francis Benali and the contractors at staplewood.

 

I'm really concerned about what he's doing and how he's acting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
Take note from the scunny chairmains comments

 

 

“The Southampton people have been very difficult to deal with.

 

“They are probably not the right sort of people for Nigel to be working with.''

 

This is not just the s****horpe chairmain saying this.

 

It's also the view of the media, the echo, sky tv, MLT, Francis Benali and the contractors at staplewood.

 

I'm really concerned about what he's doing and how he's acting.

 

I have seen the Scunny chairmans quote but I have not seen any of the contractors at Staplewood, benali and Sky's. What were they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
I have seen the Scunny chairmans quote but I have not seen any of the contractors at Staplewood, benali and Sky's. What were they?

 

I know a couple of sky media people, and they say it is almost impossible to get access to St Mary's and it's incredibly hard to deal with them.

 

The FL guy has also said that he's tried to get a few player interviews sorted for the football league show, but we're very hard to deal with and he's not been able to.

 

Benali was kicked out of St Mary's because of a disagreement with Cortese, and is now banned from the ground - along with MLT.

 

I can see a pattern developing here, and it's not really helping our image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
I know a couple of sky media people, and they say it is almost impossible to get access to St Mary's and it's incredibly hard to deal with them.

 

The FL guy has also said that he's tried to get a few player interviews sorted for the football league show, but we're very hard to deal with and he's not been able to.

 

Benali was kicked out of St Mary's because of a disagreement with Cortese, and is now banned from the ground - along with MLT.

 

I can see a pattern developing here, and it's not really helping our image.

but MLT is not banned as far as Im aware. What aobut the contrators?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
but MLT is not banned as far as Im aware. What aobut the contrators?

 

afaik MLT was not allowed in last year, and has chosen not to attend whilst NC is in charge.

 

Contractors had a disagreement over something with Cortese, which is why they walked - apparently, that's not 100%. The work was meant to start in june.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solentstars

solentstars

Posted
Posted
I think the fact (if true) that NA will not resign until compensation is agreed is borne out of respect for their chairman and fans and his behaviour (if this is the case) is appropriate. It shows that he is a man with morals and integrity so I see that as a good thing and hope they can resolve the issues if there is still potentially a deal to be done as the guy seems to have respect which can be no bad thing when trying to gain buy-in from Southampton fans, staff and players. He definitely has the ability for the job given his record of success in L1.

 

100% agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1976_Child

1976_Child

Posted
Posted (edited)
You are wrong. but not the time to argue about it.

 

No I am not. I state categorically once more. As an employee of a company - any company, it matters not that it is a football club - he would be fully entitled to withdraw his labour at any time. This is a basic human right granted and protected by not only UK law but also EU law and a whole bunch of international treaties. It is the basic principle of employment law. Employees may, at any time and with out giving a reason, withdraw their labour with out suffering penalty or forfeit. In other words they can not be sued for doing so. They can of course be sacked without compensation.

 

There is no separate Law governing football clubs. Nothing is different. The confusion comes because the FA stupidly refers to its rules as laws. They are nothing of the sort. They are rules determining how affiliated clubs wishing to play within the auspices of the FA umbrella should conduct themselves. In no way do they take precedent over the laws of the land. If a player decides not to turn up for training one day, sends a text message to the manager saying "Stuff football, I quit for good" then there is nothing that the club can do about it. The employment contract is between him and the club and is covered by exactly the same body of law as an employee of MacDonalds has. If the player has signed additional contracts wrt image rights etc then there may be cause for redress if monies have already been advanced against provision of, say, one season's worth of sponsorship/shirt sales etc. But that does not fall under employment law, it is a civil contract falling under the law of contract. It does not affect his right to withdraw his labour.

 

Edit: Certain jobs such as soldiers slightly different. A soldier can still withdraw his labour, but will suffer penalty of court marshal.

Edited by 1976_Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokingFun

PokingFun

Posted
Posted
I don't disagree with his motives for not resigning; I just question his true desire. He will have a contracted "buy out" figure in his contract, whether it be a pre-determined figure or simply the amount of salary and term left on contract. So the method is there for him to leave and for his club to receive a set figure they previously agreed with him. Which leaves only two scenarios; he either doesn't think that figure is high enough and wants Sunny to get more; or SFC have told him he is personally liable for the severance figure if he quits. I personally don't believe the second one, which only really leaves the first one to base my opinion on, which is why I come back to the issue of Adkins' true desire to leave. If he really wanted the job here he has no need to depart from his principles; if the serverance figure was good enough when he signed his contract it should still be good enough now.

 

Surely he must have true desire to come and do the job otherwise he surely would not have applied or wanted to talk to us if approached?

 

I don't think it is anything to do with desire, the simple issue for NA is that he wants our club and their club to agree on the compensation figure so that he can leave on good terms still hold his head high at a club where he spent many years and has achieved some success. If he resigns then the fans may consider him a "Judas" for want of a better phrase and it seems he has more respect for them and his chairman to be remembered for walking out and shafting them. That does not suggest he has no true desire it just shows that he likes to go about his business in a sensible and appropriate manner.

 

Now if his club were being unreasonable then he could probably come out and say so, resign and join us and let any tribunal decide (if there is such a thing). It just seems we cant agree compensation with them and NA does not want to get involved in that spat. Perfectly fair in my opinion and nothing at all to do with desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
afaik MLT was not allowed in last year, and has chosen not to attend whilst NC is in charge.

 

Contractors had a disagreement over something with Cortese, which is why they walked - apparently, that's not 100%. The work was meant to start in june.

 

again it is hearsay. Im sure somebody said on here they saw MLT at the stadium but i could have been wrong. The same rumour was about him at Wembley but then he was in a corporate box. i doubt he has time to go to games with his Sky commitment either. I have no doubt that NC is a difficult man to dela with though, but is mildly successful in life and so must do somethings right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solentstars

solentstars

Posted
Posted
I know a couple of sky media people, and they say it is almost impossible to get access to St Mary's and it's incredibly hard to deal with them.

 

The FL guy has also said that he's tried to get a few player interviews sorted for the football league show, but we're very hard to deal with and he's not been able to.

 

Benali was kicked out of St Mary's because of a disagreement with Cortese, and is now banned from the ground - along with MLT.

 

I can see a pattern developing here, and it's not really helping our image.

 

well would you trust a banker after they screwed the world economy:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chin Strain

Chin Strain

Posted
Posted
I think the fact (if true) that NA will not resign until compensation is agreed is borne out of respect for their chairman and fans and his behaviour (if this is the case) is appropriate. It shows that he is a man with morals and integrity so I see that as a good thing and hope they can resolve the issues if there is still potentially a deal to be done as the guy seems to have respect which can be no bad thing when trying to gain buy-in from Southampton fans, staff and players. He definitely has the ability for the job given his record of success in L1.

 

Exactly - 'if true'. Truth is we only know what's coming from S****horpe. Have they got an agenda? Have they jumped the gun? Are they asking for zillions in compensation?

 

There's quite a lot of conjecture and very little fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DT

DT

Posted
Posted
I know a couple of sky media people, and they say it is almost impossible to get access to St Mary's and it's incredibly hard to deal with them.

 

The FL guy has also said that he's tried to get a few player interviews sorted for the football league show, but we're very hard to deal with and he's not been able to.

 

Benali was kicked out of St Mary's because of a disagreement with Cortese, and is now banned from the ground - along with MLT.

 

I can see a pattern developing here, and it's not really helping our image.

I call it Berlusconi-lite

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted
Surely he must have true desire to come and do the job otherwise he surely would not have applied or wanted to talk to us if approached?

 

I don't think it is anything to do with desire, the simple issue for NA is that he wants our club and their club to agree on the compensation figure so that he can leave on good terms still hold his head high at a club where he spent many years and has achieved some success. If he resigns then the fans may consider him a "Judas" for want of a better phrase and it seems he has more respect for them and his chairman to be remembered for walking out and shafting them. That does not suggest he has no true desire it just shows that he likes to go about his business in a sensible and appropriate manner.

 

Now if his club were being unreasonable then he could probably come out and say so, resign and join us and let any tribunal decide (if there is such a thing). It just seems we cant agree compensation with them and NA does not want to get involved in that spat. Perfectly fair in my opinion and nothing at all to do with desire.

 

It's hard to say either way without being in posession of the facts; however, I tend to lean towards the suggestion of your last paragraph that Scunny are being unreasonable in their demands. As I previously said, Adkins would have a set compensation figure if he walked out on the club. It is up to SFC to match that figure in an agreement with Scunny. That we haven't done that would suggest that they are asking for a higher figure, which is unreasonable. In light of that, a manager who really wanted to leave would then talk to the club and explain it's that figure, whether SFC pay it or he does by buying out his contract.

 

Whether that happens or not, I guess we'll see. I understand your point about him not wanting to be seen as walking out. But if the club insist on asking for significantly more money than it would receive if hee simply resigned, then I would expect him to bypass his principles and hand in his notice.

 

But its all conjecture at this point, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
Surely he must have true desire to come and do the job otherwise he surely would not have applied or wanted to talk to us if approached?

 

I don't think it is anything to do with desire, the simple issue for NA is that he wants our club and their club to agree on the compensation figure so that he can leave on good terms still hold his head high at a club where he spent many years and has achieved some success. If he resigns then the fans may consider him a "Judas" for want of a better phrase and it seems he has more respect for them and his chairman to be remembered for walking out and shafting them. That does not suggest he has no true desire it just shows that he likes to go about his business in a sensible and appropriate manner.

 

Now if his club were being unreasonable then he could probably come out and say so, resign and join us and let any tribunal decide (if there is such a thing). It just seems we cant agree compensation with them and NA does not want to get involved in that spat. Perfectly fair in my opinion and nothing at all to do with desire.

 

I have been to interviews for jobs I didn't want, I just wanted it to get about that I was 'looking around' to get more money out of my then current employer.Still that was the mad 80s when you could double your salary in a month if you were unscrupulous enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webby

Webby

Posted
Posted

South Today just reported that Adkins and his assistant agreed to the job around midnight last night and that NC wanted them to stay in Southampton and take training/meet the players this morning. Adkins wanted to go home and 'say goodbye' to staff and players at Scunny and did so against NC's wishes.

 

If that is the case, then IMO Adkins is in the wrong. His allegiance should switch immediately and he should do everything in his power to take Southampton forward, even if that meant starting at 8am this morning. I can't believe he went home!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
surrey1saint

surrey1saint

Posted
Posted
South Today just reported that Adkins and his assistant agreed to the job around midnight last night and that NC wanted them to stay in Southampton and take training/meet the players this morning. Adkins wanted to go home and 'say goodbye' to staff and players at Scunny and did so against NC's wishes.

 

If that is the case, then IMO Adkins is in the wrong. His allegiance should switch immediately and he should do everything in his power to take Southampton forward, even if that meant starting at 8am this morning. I can't believe he went home!!

 

Sounds like this may be reason enough for it to fall through.IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solentstars

solentstars

Posted
Posted
South Today just reported that Adkins and his assistant agreed to the job around midnight last night and that NC wanted them to stay in Southampton and take training/meet the players this morning. Adkins wanted to go home and 'say goodbye' to staff and players at Scunny and did so against NC's wishes.

 

If that is the case, then IMO Adkins is in the wrong. His allegiance should switch immediately and he should do everything in his power to take Southampton forward, even if that meant starting at 8am this morning. I can't believe he went home!!

i admire him for that a man who wants to say his farewell to his friends,players just hope he takes the job now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
South Today just reported that Adkins and his assistant agreed to the job around midnight last night and that NC wanted them to stay in Southampton and take training/meet the players this morning. Adkins wanted to go home and 'say goodbye' to staff and players at Scunny and did so against NC's wishes.

 

If that is the case, then IMO Adkins is in the wrong. His allegiance should switch immediately and he should do everything in his power to take Southampton forward, even if that meant starting at 8am this morning. I can't believe he went home!!

 

Ooooh juicy one, South Today will get hammered for that if it's not 100% correct, wouldn't be in their shoes if they've made that up or even exagerated a teensy weensy bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...