i would assume your fine once you pay the money owed BEFORE he was sacked, thats all the licience can cover. The dispute in the courts cant be touched surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by adamd164
Good luck anyway.
Printable View
i would assume your fine once you pay the money owed BEFORE he was sacked, thats all the licience can cover. The dispute in the courts cant be touched surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by adamd164
Good luck anyway.
Ah, they are, they just cant enforce rules that aren't in place yet. Just like clubs cant adhere to rules that aren't in place yet either. Thats the way rules work i'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Yeah, thats about the size of it. And AM or the FMAI was dictate how the monies are paid. Back pay and the two years pay are completely different so AM can make all the noise he wants but i cant see it making any difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyderry
Apparently Cobh will be getting a license aswell now all to be revealed on Sunday to members, we must have a fairygodmother, HAPPY DAYS
I still don't understand the subtle differences between the contract Mathews had with Arkaga pre examinership and the one Coughlan offered and then withdrew.
Would the fact that a contract offer was on the table mean that the previous one was null and void at that time?
Meaning Mathews was contractless?
From talking this over with non football people that know Coughlan, a few have told me they'd be pretty sure Tom would have his homework done legally but I guess only time will tell.
I was told earlier in the week that ye'd be heading for the A Championship but thats good to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcplod
It looked like thats where we were headed but thankfully things are looking up for us and hopefully we can concentrate on the football now instead of other crap going on
Mathews was offered every penny he's was owed up to the day his renegotiated contract was withdrawn, if he's refusing to cash a €70k cheque to cover the amount owed due in back wages and bonuses (while he cries to the media that he'll be forced onto the dole) that is completely outside of the clubs control. He's gotten his cheque, he's not cashed it.
Whether he's due compensation for the remaining two years on a contract he'd agreed to re-negotiaite is a matter for the courts, not the licencing committee. If the courts decree that he's due €300k, it only becomes a matter for the licensing committee if we then don't pay it.
He has a cheque for the backpay in his pocket, it'll clear, whether he cashes it or not is his choice, not the clubs, I don't see how the club can be held accountable for an individual not taking the money.
On a completely separate note, is anybody apart from mathews and Keely actually a member of the LMAI, they didn't kick up much of a fuss last year when Rico was in the same position and Mathews was angling for his job.
No mention of Harps? Im disgusted, they don't acknowledge Donegal at all, disgrace.
It doesn't mention who wrote it, ill be writing my letter asap to the indo.
Sorry its been a while and we haven't got an excuse to have a rant about the northwest being ignored in a while :D
The first division doesn't count, remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_Heggy
Ah jeez, I forgot about that, we'll just write our own articles :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
Oh and btw it was sarcasm, I much prefer they didn't mention us, it must mean we are doing something right (or we have hidden our finances superbly).
I actually thought the LMAI was a makey-uppy thing used by the papers first day. I dont know did most managers even know it existed :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Thed North-West wasn't ignored - just the small clubs within it.... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sam_Heggy
From a licencing perspective one is backpay that there is no disagrement over, the other is clearly for the courts and would refer to future payments mainly anyway. So long as they pay the back pay they will get a premier licience.Quote:
Originally Posted by razor
So did the fact that he'd agreed to re-negotiate his Arkaga contract render it null and void or did the fact that we got a new owner (examinership process) do this?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Neither is a legal principle. Your contract is not null and void because you agree to renegotiate it, nor by entering examinership. Simple as that. It's very difficult to prove somebody was justifiably sacked for one and secondly that the proper procedures were complied with, verbal warning, written warning, suspenson, disciplinary proceedings, none of those were carried out by Cork. The majority of employment law cases end in favour of the employee. But as for Licencing if you've paid him his back money, I don't see what they can do about it. I would have given him a draft though as he has no legal obligation to accept a cheque.
That's what the courts will decide. Mathews had agreed a new contract, both parties admit this. He didn't sign it and the club withdrew it. That's all we know for a fact. I'd imagine that the fact that he'd only been employed for 10 months could have an impact on how Mathews would bring 'unfair dismissal' proceeding also.Quote:
Originally Posted by razor
More than a few people heard him state he'd make sure the club didn't get a licence unless he got every penny [while he was still our manager] so it's no surprise really [of course he may well be entitled to the money, but that's not an LC decision].
The LC only cares about what employes are owed if matthews is paid hes back pay, there is no problem, he has a cheque so city can forget about it,
now he has to go to the courts to get the remainder of hes contract paid, he had 2 years left on it i believe, he renegotiated a new contract, but untill you sign on the dotted line you current contract is the one thats valid,
think of lads mangers in england get paid there full contract or at least half, did jose get something like 15 million when he was sacked, i think it also matters how long your unemployed, the english FA had to pay sven up untill he got a job,
id say if matthews goes to court hell get at least half, and that the best case,
Excuse me??Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
I must have missed whoever rattled that bucket and shouted ****e. :D
Woo-hoo - handbags at dawn !Quote:
Originally Posted by cheech
Glad you're finished that school project that was keeping you away so long Cheech.
Nah, Rico had agreed with Arkaga verbally and it was deemed that the new contract had been entered into. Dunno what way it will go but LC cant really say a word about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by don ramo
All the huffing and puffing about matthews is destracting from the real joke of the report which is Bohs entry
Bohemians
Recently expressed concern that they may not be able to sign any players for the 2009 season after a rejected budget from the Licensing department. However, Bohemians have exploded back onto the market after the contracted staff, led by manager Pat Fenlon, took a wage cut, while new signings will increase the potential of extra revenue through trophy success and gate receipts and further ease budgetary concerns.
Apparently Bohs are trying to convince the league that last year's double winning side wasn't exciting enough, and this years newly bolstered team will be increasing gate receipts. The bizarre thing is that the Licensing committee may well belive them.