Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by Tykeored, Dec 3, 2019.
Still doesn't add up. Clubs must " tamper" with players and managers all the time. I fail to see how a court could rule compo needs to be paid if Daniel had been relieved of his role and wasnt being paid. Slavery has supposedly been abolished in thus country! Hope he makes a good job of it in Scotland and then comes back to England to carry on where he left off
So basically he’s on Garden Leave.
Which tbf works well for both parties - Stendel still gets paid, but saves the club having to settle his contract as a lump sum.
This usually applies more when the employee has quit, and not been sacked - and effectively is his notice period.
No, he’s on the payroll still. Garden leave. The club are right to ask for compo.
But compensation for what?
Presumably we stop paying his wage (if we are) once he goes to another club if hes still.on the payroll?
He’s under contract still until end of season.
This is normal for any player or manager.
So why compensation then as we're not losing out financially? Its not as though we have no manager, the owners wanted this change.
it often happens when companies dismiss employees to be fair
Breaking of contract.
99% of managers who leave whilst under contract have to have compo paid to his current club. Otherwise the contracts are worthless. This is standard.
This may be intentional or a by-product of the situation. I’m happy with it, and the article states that it won’t put Hearts off either.
he's still under contract to us, its like mowatt walking out and going to southampton and just saying its ok they're paying me now it doesnt matter about the remains of my contract
Yes, but In terms of football contracts, which are different to normal contracts, it’s usually a notice period from the employee.
Unless the club have used this notice to pay monthly rather than just a lump sum (which makes sense).
Wasn't he under something similar before he came to Barnsley.
So he feels the need to tell us nothing beyond the rubbish statement at the time yet is happy to chat with the daily mail. I realise not many of us in Barnsley will read the daily mail, but he must realise it will come to our attention.
I find it offensive.
And as for " we will file a claim against them. And if any club wants to fight it, we will win."
He just sounds more like Donald trump every time I think about it. Like best transfer window in history. Its just narcissistic bullying nonsense
My curiosity was peaked with Conways ‘There is already a tampering issue with us concerning his existing contract.’ comment. At first I wondered if a club had tried to get him away before the he left Oakwell, but it equally be another one since. Sunderland perhaps?
they’re the same usually mate, they follow the standard LMA precedent. A few different clauses re liquidated damages but that’s it.
We can't talk about it, it's a legal matter. Oh hang on, yes we can.
Two completely different subjects though.
The article is about Hearts interest in him, your talking about why he was ‘relieved’ of his duties.
It works on the basis of the employer at any time can call on his services if they require(and he has to be available).
It does feel like either penny pinching or bloody mindness but from a legal standpoint they are right.
As you said later most companies would be glad to get him off payroll (unless there is a strategic aspect).
THE BARNSLEY FC
BBS FANS FORUM
Separate names with a comma.