ian_mac Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if McNamara's contract had massive holes in it that allows him to walk away with nothing. It's the Thistle way. My info is that the club are very confident of their agreements with Jackie being "water-tight" legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 My info is that the club are very confident of their agreements with Jackie being "water-tight" legally. We were also very confident of getting planning permission & winning a legal appeal against Caley ground sharing, really hope we have a better legal eagle since then 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peagreenboy Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) My info is that the club are very confident of their agreements with Jackie being "water-tight" legally. Hmmm. I wonder why I get the feeling that we're going to end up with nothing at all ... I wonder why getting the money in three instalments was unacceptable to the club? edit: also, is it really down to McNamara, as the club statement seems to say - or is it not the responsibility of Dundee United, who I assume agreed to pay the compensation as part of offering McNamara his contract? Edited March 22, 2013 by peagreenboy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted March 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Very good points that apply to Facebook and Twitter too. Only the club staff and directors know the circumstances in which McNamara and Donnelly left. Our results, especially away from home, have improved since then. Let's focus on supporting the new management team and players. You can say what you like on twitter as because it is based in the US, our legal system does not apply. Ask Ryan Giggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) We were also very confident of getting planning permission & winning a legal appeal against Caley ground sharing, really hope we have a better legal eagle since then Ian Maxwell "Ian’s role at the Club sees him deal with all football administration functions which entails liaising with both the SFA and the SFL as well as dealing with contracts and the day to day running of the Club. "Player recruitment and playing budgets is an important part of football and Ian works very closely with manager Jackie McNamara on that front." Edited March 22, 2013 by kni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Hmmm. I wonder why I get the feeling that we're going to end up with nothing at all ... I wonder why getting the money in three instalments was unacceptable to the club? edit: also, is it really down to McNamara, as the club statement seems to say - or is it not the responsibility of Dundee United, who I assume agreed to pay the compensation as part of offering McNamara his contract? I would guess it is down to the manner in which it happens. When players are signed the cash usually moves from club to club, however Jackie (and Sid) handed in their notice, so I would guess it is down to them to buy out their own contracts in that situation, should Thistle require compensation in those circumstances. Again, I'm just speculating though, I really have no idea what was in the contract and what any of it would actually mean. The club and Jackie will know, and it's down to the legal experts to sort it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 You can say what you like on twitter as because it is based in the US, our legal system does not apply. Ask Ryan Giggs. I would not be so confident and suggest you that read this article. "Mrs Bercow, the wife of the Commons speaker, is being sued by Lord McAlpine for naming him on Twitter after a report by BBC's Newsnight claimed a senior Tory was a paedophile. "Mrs Bercow, a Labour party activist, closed her Twitter account last year after taking advice from her lawyers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peagreenboy Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 it's down to the legal experts to sort it out. *gulp* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunfermline Jag Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) In general terms, If a club - lets call them "club P" - has a contract is with its manager - lets call him "M" - and in it there is a compensation clause then it will be M that is due to pay club P if he terminates the contract early. Therefore, if M chooses to move to another club - lets call them "club D" for the hell of it -club D is not liable to club P for anything. Club D may choose to negotiate the compensation payment with club P but will be acting as agent for M, not on its own account. If agreement is not reached and the matter requires Court action club P can only sue M although M may have his own agreement with club D to cover the liability. That explains the difference between what PTFC are saying and the quite separate question DUFC's lawyers seem to have answered in the Sun report. Edited March 22, 2013 by Dunfermline Jag 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Is this why Archie and his team haven't even been confirmed until the end of the season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simoncordiner Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 If agreement is not reached and the matter requires Court action club P can only sue M although M may have his own agreement with club D to cover the liability. Yip, but I believe, in your hypothetical example, the problem is not necessarily manager M, but instead club D. Manager M, although liable for breaking the contract, would never be the one to pay that. Club D are clearly refusing to pay. But as the contractual agreement is between club P and manager M, club P's only recourse is to pursue manager M for the compensation. I'm sure I could make up other hypothetical examples where club D have reneged on payments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Is this why Archie and his team haven't even been confirmed until the end of the season? I don't think so. Beattie has explained the appointment process which, presumably, is still ongoing. However, the lack of compensation income could be a significant factor in contractual discussions with applicants/candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunfermline Jag Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Yip, but I believe, in your hypothetical example, the problem is not necessarily manager M, but instead club D. Manager M, although liable for breaking the contract, would never be the one to pay that. Club D are clearly refusing to pay. But as the contractual agreement is between club P and manager M, club P's only recourse is to pursue manager M for the compensation. I'm sure I could make up other hypothetical examples where club D have reneged on payments... Indeed, and it may be interesting to speculate as to how M feels about D playing games that get M dragged into Court and make him look (more) mercenary. I wouldn't take any pleasure in M and D falling out about it - no, really I wouldn't - if, of course, it were not an entirely hypothetical example. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 We were also very confident of getting planning permission & winning a legal appeal against Caley ground sharing, really hope we have a better legal eagle since then None of the current board were involved in any of that, so it's unfair to bring this up with regards to them IMO. I have issues with the current BoD set up but not nearly as many as I did with the last shower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Also, let's not kid ourselves here. The story came from a Dundee based journalist, that indicates to me that the leak came from up there, not from PTFC. The bottom line is that PTFC are due compensation and Jackie is trying to renege on that agreement. He can't - it's written in to the contract. PTFC gave Jackie his first opportunity in management, supported him through a very poor first season. All that considered, the way Jackie is now behaving leaves a sour taste in the mouth. I'm also surprised at the complete lack of class coming from the man. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peagreenboy Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Club D are clearly refusing to pay. But maybe Club D said they would pay in instalments? And is it just a point of principle that Club P don't like that situation? It just seems that refusing and calling in Lawyers X,Y, and Z means giving money to vipers and possibly not getting any money, instead of keeping it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 But maybe Club D said they would pay in instalments? And is it just a point of principle that Club P don't like that situation? It just seems that refusing and calling in Lawyers X,Y, and Z means giving money to vipers and possibly not getting any money, instead of keeping it all. Which would be fine, if hypothetically club P acceptted the payment in installments, if however they told club D's condescending patronising chairman to GTF and pay it in one lump sum, i'd imagine in a hypothetical world, we'd be right here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peagreenboy Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Which would be fine, if hypothetically club P acceptted the payment in installments, if however they told club D's condescending patronising chairman to GTF and pay it in one lump sum, i'd imagine in a hypothetical world, we'd be right here. In an ideal world, telling Club D to F off is fine, but is this hypothetical club rich enough to do that? That money could go to getting Player E signed up for next season, or getting Manager A a proper budget for next year, instead of risking it all in the courts. But perhaps there is more that I'm missing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 In an ideal world, telling Club D to F off is fine, but is this hypothetical club rich enough to do that? That money could go to getting Player E signed up for next season, or getting Manager A a proper budget for next year, instead of risking it all in the courts. But perhaps there is more that I'm missing here. rich enough to tell club D that they don't want installments and want the money upfront? i don't understand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/partick-thistle/206450-new-deals-for-jackie-mcnamara-and-simon-donnelly-at-partick-thistle/ He knew the deal. He knows the situation at our club. The least he could do is honour our wishes on this matter. One might expect U-sh*t*d to play silly buggers and stall paying the full amount. Regardless of the strength of the terms of payment in the contract, I doubt the sum is in question. I've said it before, and I repeat it now without apology or doubt, C**T! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 http://sport.stv.tv/...artick-thistle/ He knew the deal. He knows the situation at our club. The least he could do is honour our wishes on this matter. One might expect U-sh*t*d to play silly buggers and stall paying the full amount. Regardless of the strength of the terms of payment in the contract, I doubt the sum is in question. I've said it before, and I repeat it now without apology or doubt, C**T! And 6 weeks later, he was away! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peagreenboy Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 rich enough to tell club D that they don't want installments and want the money upfront? i don't understand Well, what I'm trying to say (perhaps poorly) is that by rejecting the instalment plan, Club P is not only risking getting nothing in a court decision (because they always go so well for Club P), but also having to pay money to lawyers to resolve the case. What's so bad about getting the money in instalments? Does Club P need the money by next Monday to pay off Loan Shark W and avoid getting it's legs broken? If Club P were Celtic, they could perhaps risk all the money on a point of principle, but hypothetical Club P can't, because they're always bloody skint! But like I said, there's perhaps more going on than is obvious from the outside. Both sides seem to think they have a watertight case - but don't all lawyers tell their clients that? So long as they get paid in the end ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peagreenboy Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 And 6 weeks later, he was away! Why should he care? We're just a pishy wee team, not the Glorious Glasgow Celtic, which is all he obviously cares about. Can't wait for Lennon to get sacked now, just to see him stick his brass neck right out, and his tongue lodged back where it has always belonged. WE'RE ON THE MARCH WITH ARCHIE'S ARMY ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 But like I said, there's perhaps more going on than is obvious from the outside. Both sides seem to think they have a watertight case - but don't all lawyers tell their clients that? So long as they get paid in the end ... I am surprised that they are not more claims on lawyers' professional indemnity insurance. If a poorly drafted contract costs the client a substantial sum, it should make a claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted March 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Well, what I'm trying to say (perhaps poorly) is that by rejecting the instalment plan, Club P is not only risking getting nothing in a court decision (because they always go so well for Club P), but also having to pay money to lawyers to resolve the case. What's so bad about getting the money in instalments? Does Club P need the money by next Monday to pay off Loan Shark W and avoid getting it's legs broken? If Club P were Celtic, they could perhaps risk all the money on a point of principle, but hypothetical Club P can't, because they're always bloody skint! But like I said, there's perhaps more going on than is obvious from the outside. Both sides seem to think they have a watertight case - but don't all lawyers tell their clients that? So long as they get paid in the end ... I'd be more concerned that club D would become skint far quicker than club P hence the reason that club P want the full amount up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.