Mcnamara - You Couldn't Make It Up...

[Chicofan]

nae luck Jackie..Karmas a bitch

[allyo]

Dearie me. Personal stuff going a bit far?

 

Just playing devil's advocate here... I've never heard before of a situation where a manager has left and it is he himself who is liable for the compensation. I've heard the stories about Dundee United originally offering it in various payments, and the fact that this wasn't accepted effectively forcing McNamara to resign if he wanted to take the United job. If this is the case then didn't McNamara do United a massive favour? Wouldn't you expect them to cover him for that, rather than leaving him to fight a personal battle? £80,000 is a very large sum for any individual, regardless of football background etc.

 

What I'm saying is that regardless of the legal mechanisms, it seems to me that Dundee United the club are the party here who are acting unreasonably, putting their new manager in a difficult position and denying Thistle the money we're due.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the Who TF is McNamara, I've gone right off him, thought he acted poorly in the transfers etc etc. I just don't think we should take it to a point that is nasty and vindictive. It's ugly, it makes Thistle look bad, and I also think that DUFC should be our main target.

Edited May 6, 2013 by allyo

[ThickAsThieves]

Dundee United will of course pay the fee if it's decided a fee needs to be paid, but McNamara has made a lot of significant choices in this matter and should bear the brunt of our anger. He was OUR manager, and he's treating us like total scum.

[allyo]

Dundee United will of course pay the fee if it's decided a fee needs to be paid, but McNamara has made a lot of significant choices in this matter and should bear the brunt of our anger. He was OUR manager, and he's treating us like total scum.

 

I don't get it. If it's Dundee United who should pay the fee then they must be pulling the strings, so why's McNamara the main villain? Even the bonus dispute, most people seem to see that as a counter claim against our main compensation, so is the club behind that too? The way I see it there are two possibilities:

 

A - DUFC are behind he whole thing, pulling McNamara's strings and he has little option,

 

B - DUFC have left McNamara to his own devices and he's been left to fight against a significant payment which his club should have been willing to pay.

 

Either way, it's the club that seems to be the main problem. It also wasn't McNamara who released the picture of Erskine and Paton signing pre-contracts (I assume). So my view is that while it's easy, and more fun, to blame McNamara, we shouldn't go overboard with the personal attacks and we should save the worst of our anger for the second most despicable club in the top tier of Scottish football.

Edited May 6, 2013 by allyo

[ThickAsThieves]

Well, you might see it as him having "little option", but I feel he could've stood firm and treated us, his employers, with more respect than he has done. His decision to resign will undoubtedly - in my mind - have been on the advice of Dundee United, but he could've chose not to. Out of respect for us. His decision shows how little he thought of us though. He signed a contract which was specifically drawn up to get us more compensation, and then ditched us meaning we've received nothing. I take on board your insistence that Dundee Utd will be pulling strings, but McNamara is far from blameless.

[allyo]

Well, you might see it as him having "little option", but I feel he could've stood firm and treated us, his employers, with more respect than he has done. His decision to resign will undoubtedly - in my mind - have been on the advice of Dundee United, but he could've chose not to. Out of respect for us. His decision shows how little he thought of us though. He signed a contract which was specifically drawn up to get us more compensation, and then ditched us meaning we've received nothing. I take on board your insistence that Dundee Utd will be pulling strings, but McNamara is far from blameless.

 

To be honest I don't disagree. He's not blameless and as I said, I'm all in favour of the general slagging he's taken from our support. Just think it can go a bit far.

[Chicob]

I think it is obvious that Dundee Utd are pulling the strings here but McNamara cannot be blameless. He is not a gullable teenager who is desparate for a break in football. He clearly did have a choice and decided to go along with the shameless tactics.I think I am right in saying that Tommy Burns used similar tactics when leaving Kilmarnock to go to Celtic and later claimed that doing so was one of the biggest regrets in his life. Not sure how the compensation in that case turned out though?

[allyo]

I suppose part of my thinking is if the club (United) is behind this, and the promotion bonus is a counter claim tactic, then they really are hanging McNamara's reputation out to dry for their own benefit. Virtually all football fans, including many of United's, see this as a greedy, money grabbing act on McNamara's part. If he's been put up to it, even pressured into it, then it doesn't say much for them as employers.

 

Remember Chris, you can always come home if you don't like it!

[Colonel G]

Never fully understood why we didn't accept the installments. Hope it wasn't a case of the Thistle board spitting out the dummy.

 

Don't think that will sit well with the courts.

 

Regardless of the legal position, how well / badly drafted the contract, the fact is that there was a new contract that both the club and manager mentioned included a compensation clause.

 

The fact that compensation was involved means at best he is morally wrong trying to wriggle out of this. Unless his position is that he is not personally responsible for this and the club had their opportunity to receive the £80,000 all be it in installments.

[yoda-jag]

I don't get it. If it's Dundee United who should pay the fee then they must be pulling the strings, so why's McNamara the main villain?

 

 

They are both a pair of kunts.

 

 

 

Next.

[Willjag]

Why should the Club accept the payment in installments?

 

I read it at the time that Thistle granted United permission to speak to McNamara thinking that JM, having recently signed a new contract and having on ongoing project that was very well placed at the time, would see the job through. I think he then shocked everyone by accepting the post. Then it came down to the terms of the agreement. I cant remember if it was rumour or if it was fact, but Utd were said to have offered Thistle the cash in installments. Thistle, well within their rights refused this and asked for the full £80k up front. United have obviously knocked this back. At this point if JM still wanted the job, his only option would have been to resign, which he did, and that in turn would have triggered the clause that says if either party terminates the contract, then the other must pay the 12 months of the rolling contract, £80k in this case.

 

United, to me have clearly shifted the onus of paying the £80k onto JM. I don't think for a minute that JM would have signed for Utd if they hadn't promised him the £80k that was needed to free him for Thistle. I reckon Utd would have not had the £80k to spend up front on a manager so soon after terminating Houston's contract as well, hence why they wanted to pay in installments. We owe them nothing and they wanted to weaken us by taking our manager at a crucial point of the season, so we correctly, IMO, refused installments.

 

This brings us back to Jackie's role in this. He knows that it's going to cost him £80k to resign from Thistle and join Utd. No matter how well off you are, that's a lot of cash and I highly doubt he'll have done this without having it written into an agreement with Utd that he will get that money back from them, but only in installments. It may be that instead of him getting, £100k/annum, he'd be getting £130K/annum over a 3 year period (guessing at wages and period). One scenario would be if he can get Thistle to accept less than £80k, he'd be walking away with the remainder in his pocket as well as his improved salary. Or another scenario could be that his budget for the coming season depends on how much Utd end up having to pay Thistle. By keeping Thistle waiting, he's probably already cost us the chance of keeping Erskine and Paton as we wouldn't have had the cash up front to make promises to these two guys.

 

This is all obviously guess work. But when all's said and done, JM really comes out looking bad whatever way you look at it. Future employers will be looking closely at how he conducts himself and right now, he aint looking good. He comes across as a very greedy individual.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Can someone remind me just why Houston's contract was terminated early or did he leave thinking the Hearts job was his?. I know that getting rid of him was a cost saving exercise and that McNamara or Pressley would be cheaper options but that could've been done at the end of the season.

 

Two things we do know is that Archie became manager and we won the league. Two things we don't know is would we have gone on to win the league under McNamara and just how disruptive would things be just now if there was uncertainty over the manager staying? Can only draw the conclusion that he unintentionally did us a favour jumping ship. Getting justly compensated will be a bonus.

[Willjag]

Here you go LIB.

[Colonel G]

Why should the Club accept the payment in installments?

 

I read it at the time that Thistle granted United permission to speak to McNamara thinking that JM, having recently signed a new contract and having on ongoing project that was very well placed at the time, would see the job through. I think he then shocked everyone by accepting the post. Then it came down to the terms of the agreement. I cant remember if it was rumour or if it was fact, but Utd were said to have offered Thistle the cash in installments. Thistle, well within their rights refused this and asked for the full £80k up front. United have obviously knocked this back. At this point if JM still wanted the job, his only option would have been to resign, which he did, and that in turn would have triggered the clause that says if either party terminates the contract, then the other must pay the 12 months of the rolling contract, £80k in this case.

 

United, to me have clearly shifted the onus of paying the £80k onto JM. I don't think for a minute that JM would have signed for Utd if they hadn't promised him the £80k that was needed to free him for Thistle. I reckon Utd would have not had the £80k to spend up front on a manager so soon after terminating Houston's contract as well, hence why they wanted to pay in installments. We owe them nothing and they wanted to weaken us by taking our manager at a crucial point of the season, so we correctly, IMO, refused installments.

 

This brings us back to Jackie's role in this. He knows that it's going to cost him £80k to resign from Thistle and join Utd. No matter how well off you are, that's a lot of cash and I highly doubt he'll have done this without having it written into an agreement with Utd that he will get that money back from them, but only in installments. It may be that instead of him getting, £100k/annum, he'd be getting £130K/annum over a 3 year period (guessing at wages and period). One scenario would be if he can get Thistle to accept less than £80k, he'd be walking away with the remainder in his pocket as well as his improved salary. Or another scenario could be that his budget for the coming season depends on how much Utd end up having to pay Thistle. By keeping Thistle waiting, he's probably already cost us the chance of keeping Erskine and Paton as we wouldn't have had the cash up front to make promises to these two guys.

 

This is all obviously guess work. But when all's said and done, JM really comes out looking bad whatever way you look at it. Future employers will be looking closely at how he conducts himself and right now, he aint looking good. He comes across as a very greedy individual.

If United have shifted the onus onto JM then that doesn't lend itself to a great working relationship, as you say it's a lot of money.

As far as installments are concerned we may have been within our rights to knock that back, but the reality is we would get the £80,000 eventually, whereas at the moment lawyers cost money and no guarantee of a victory. That seems like a bit of a gamble over as you say a lot of money.

[Blackpool Jags]

Scenario A - It's McNamara who is personally liable for the debt to his former employers whom he knows to be cash-strapped: he's a first class c#nt, and so are Dundee Utd for giving him free rein to poach our players, while they know full well a significant debt is owed to a fellow SPL club.

 

Scenario B - It's Dundee Utd who are liable for the debt to Thistle, whom they know to be cash-strapped: they are a first class set of c#nts, and snake man is too for poaching players from his former employers who looked after him, and to whom his current employers are indebted to the tune of £80,000.

 

And on top all that Mr International Brass Neck 2013 dives in with a not insignificant cash claim against the very people whom he has (attemptedly) shafted twice in rapid succession. The rodent in human form has committed a string of acts equivalent to mugging an old lady in the street, then coming back to burgle her and making her watch as he pillages her treasured family possessions and shites on her new living room carpet, followed by serving a civil claim against her for a new pair of troosers, ripped while escaped over the garden wall with her worldly belongings in his swag bag.

[Norgethistle]

If United have shifted the onus onto JM then that doesn't lend itself to a great working relationship, as you say it's a lot of money.

As far as installments are concerned we may have been within our rights to knock that back, but the reality is we would get the £80,000 eventually, whereas at the moment lawyers cost money and no guarantee of a victory. That seems like a bit of a gamble over as you say a lot of money.

 

Would we, they had to let the previous manager go as they are on record as stating they need to drastically reduce their costs, now say they never managed that, and with administrations popping up all over the place they are next, where does that leave us?

Also how do we know what the installment plan was? it could be a Kays catalogue special with them paying us £8K a year over 10 years, yes we get the money but how much money is your £8k worth in 5 or 10 years.

 

He signed the contract, he knew the get out clause which he would have informed United. Now if United stated to him you break it and we'll pay you back over 3 years then more fool him. Our contract was with Jackie NOT United, he broke it NOT United, he'll be liable NOT United. United may be liable to him but that is of no concern to us.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

don't post here much but this makes my blood boil, I fully endorse a tannadice boycott....in fact id happily just send my admission fee directly to thistle and miss the match, hope more get on board with this

 

A most noble proposition.

 

Taking it a step further, how about a "Protest Day" on the day that we play at Tannadice. Instead of donating cash in return for nothing we stage a competitive reserve fixture at Firhill. Just like we used to do in the old days. We could make it a proper Firhill matchday experience as normal. The reserves get a chance to shine, the club gets a good cash boost, and the fans get a rare chance to check how the youth development's coming along. If the club get behind it I'm sure it'd be a huge success.

 

This proposition will give choice to both the yay / nae camps of the boycott...

[MerryHell]

In a funny sort of way, JMac has probably done us a bit of a favour.

 

Previously, when it was reported that we were taking him to court for the contractual sum due to us, it would have been easy for fans of other teams to think of Thistle as the bad guys - just sour grapes on our part. Now just about everyone agrees, he looks like a pr!ck.

 

The rest of my extended family are Celtic season ticket holders and he was one of their all time favourites and nothing could be said against him. Now nothing has to be, as his actions have done it all.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Here you go LIB.

 

Thanks, Will. As thought before while Levein is out of a job (I don't know if his case against the SFA is still on the go) McNamara will have to look over his shoulder. By and large CL is still held in high regard amongst the Arabs.

[German Jag]

Thanks, Will. As thought before while Levein is out of a job (I don't know if his case against the SFA is still on the go) McNamara will have to look over his shoulder. By and large CL is still held in high regard amongst the Arabs.

 

Resolved at the end of March. BBC

[mgow]

Our ex-manager clearly has some moral obligations here: he freely chose to sign a new contract less than 1 month before his departure that had the 2 key goals of increasing his salary and increasing the compensation due to Thistle should he leave.  I'm sure he happily accepted the increased salary, so morally the compensation agreement is part of that deal too.  

 

Despite the fact that "technically" McN*m*r* is in the frame for the compensation claim, like many people I am sure that it is D*nd** *td that are pulling all the strings with this.  The main worry is that courts don't decide on the basis of morals.  

 

Just over a week ago, I spoke with someone I can confidently describe as "close to McN*m*r*".  This was just before the new twist regarding the counter-claim for a promotion bonus appeared.  Given they are close to him, they were hardly likely to be fully open with me.  Anyway, this is the gist of what they said:

- "Patrick" would get some money in the end, but no where near what they wanted [i hate it when people all us "Partick"]

- The compensation clause in the contract had a scale depending on the level of the club that came in for him and "wouldn't stand up in court" [Their words and not sure how that reconciles with first statement!]

- Beattie and the directors "handled it very badly".  [i took this to mean that they didn't just wave him good-bye with a cheery smile and stuck to their guns about the terms of the contract].

- "If the directors had handled it better then he might have stayed".  [i pointed out that the directors only stopped being fully obliging at the point he handed in his resignation so that statement was clearly nonsense.]

 

I certainly haven't heard the part about the sliding scale mentioned elsewhere.

[Mr Bunny]

 

Just over a week ago, I spoke with someone I can confidently describe as "close to McN*m*r*". This was just before the new twist regarding the counter-claim for a promotion bonus appeared. Given they are close to him, they were hardly likely to be fully open with me. Anyway, this is the gist of what they said:

- "Patrick" would get some money in the end, but no where near what they wanted [i hate it when people all us "Partick"]

- The compensation clause in the contract had a scale depending on the level of the club that came in for him and "wouldn't stand up in court" [Their words and not sure how that reconciles with first statement!]

 

I certainly haven't heard the part about the sliding scale mentioned elsewhere.

 

So basically we're not getting as much (partly) because he's claiming Dudee U***** are not that big a club? That will endear him to his new club's fans.

 

BTW Was it Ja**** M*cna**** you were talking to?

[peagreenboy]

The compensation clause in the contract had a scale depending on the level of the club that came in for him and "wouldn't stand up in court"

 

If that's true, and I hope it isn't, it seriously worrying that Thistle can't write a bloody contract properly.

 

I'm worried that this will be resolved - most likely in a way which isn't particularly beneficial to us - and the truth of the matter will never be known.

 

Thistle fans will be remarked upon as being petty and vindictive, whilst the media -- people like Pat Nevin and all the others who revere McNamara as a 'Celtic Legend' -- will keep their tongues firmly lodged up his posterior. Don't want to get on the wrong side of someone who could potentially manage one cheek of the Old Firm in the future!

[Blackpool Jags]

I know this wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, but I went onto their official site hoping to find an email address for D*FC where I could write to express my anger and disgust at the way RatNamara has shat on us. Well, they don't seem to have one, or at least advertise it.

 

Can anybody help here, and what about a stream of guilt-trip letters / emails to that stinking outfit?

 

Sorry, probably a daft idea but I just want to do something, anything, to vent my spleen at that shower.

[Norgethistle]

I know this wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, but I went onto their official site hoping to find an email address for D*FC where I could write to express my anger and disgust at the way RatNamara has shat on us. Well, they don't seem to have one, or at least advertise it.

 

Can anybody help here, and what about a stream of guilt-trip letters / emails to that stinking outfit?

 

Sorry, probably a daft idea but I just want to do something, anything, to vent my spleen at that shower.

 

http://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/index.asp?pg=255