Compensation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

If you're posting about me, you'd want to read my posts again.

I'm agreeing with you that without agreement (from Fenlon in this case) simply paying the money owed doesn't automatically mean there are no longer grounds for a breach in contract.

The logical conclusion of this assumption (and it may be wrong) is that Bohs could only have removed grounds for breach of contract with Fenlon's consent, and therefore claims that he was screwed by Bohs are wrong.

Either way, Bohs have ended up in a situation where they either keep their manager or get what they think he's worth. Apart from the embarrassment of ending up owing him money in the first place, I think the situation has been handled well enough.

---

No I didn't mean to come across that that comment was particularly aimed at you. As you've read there are quite a few here that are practically baying for blood and as far as Bohs are concerned (not really that concerned with them to be honest), we as a club are damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.

By the way, I would hazard a guess that there are a large amount of contracts that owe a certain amount to bonuses are in exactly the same boat where this principle is concerned. While it is not nice for it to be aired in public the way this has I would say that there are several other managers and possibly players that have similar agreements in place with their clubs - and I don't know this to be a fact, however it is not inconceivable that Bohs - were due to receive money (from the transfer of Gary Deegan to Coventry) and asked the contracted party (Pat Fenlon in this case) to hold on until this money came through. The money comes in and all's back to square one.

This thread had turned into a bit of a Bohs "bash".... Personally, I'm gutted to see players/managers leaving these shores and their Clubs not being rewarded... Bohs didnt get their valuation, then fair play to you for standing up for yourselves... Think you could have got more for Deegan tho'...? If Babel is valued at £9 Million, he had to be worth £20 Million

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

You believe that if Fenlon was owed X (for an unknown amount of time), thus constituting a breach of contract, but Bohs put that X into his account, his contract is now valid again, as if no non-payments had never happened?

I doubt that myself. If somebody says they'll pay you 5,000 a week, but doesn't pay you at all for 20 weeks, then pays you 100,000, are you saying that after receiving the 100,000, an employee would have no grounds for saying contract had been breached?

---

Would depend very much on how specific the contract was and did it contain "execution" dates (as in pay X on Y date etc). Nobody can determine this without access to the actual contract, (except Shams, because they know EVERYTHING about Bohs ;) ).
There is no proof that Nutsey even sought to exit his contract so even if such a possibility existed it might not have been activated.
Most of the posts on here was speculation by posters with an anti bohs agenda and nothing more.
In your example the "weekly" aspect/clause of the contract would probobly be the breach wheras if the contract said pay you 100,000 (5,000 X 20 weeks) it would probobly be OK to pay in a lump sum. Breach of contract cases require the claimant to identify the specific part(s) of the contract breached so without knowing the specific wording/terms it is all guess work.

yeah, but contracts are also usually very specific (unless its a derry contract, then thy're as open as a field). i'ld hazard the guess that bohs did technically breach the contract, but that agreement was reached with fenlon to alter the payment structure prior to dundee expressing an interest. the fact that he didn't try to walk away or contest it in court is indicative that agreement was reached.

and ye know what? fair play to bohs. bout time someone took the assets that this league has seriously and prevented an anal raping from other leagues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shantykelly

yeah, but contracts are also usually very specific (unless its a derry contract, then thy're as open as a field). i'ld hazard the guess that bohs did technically breach the contract, but that agreement was reached with fenlon to alter the payment structure prior to dundee expressing an interest. the fact that he didn't try to walk away or contest it in court is indicative that agreement was reached.

and ye know what? fair play to bohs. bout time someone took the assets that this league has seriously and prevented an anal raping from other leagues.

---

Interestingly, enough someone on Bohs website posted about Dundee Utd turning down a 75 K bid from Blackpool for one of their players. The Chairman is quoted as saying "he won't be leaving on the cheap"

No doubt the media will be giving out about DU depriving him of his "dream" move :rolleyes: and suggesting he should seek ways to break his contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

But the media weren't suggesting Nutsy should break his contract. They were suggesting he should take advantage of the fact it had been broken by Bohs and move up a level.

---

would that have been a good thing in your opinion?

You talk like it would have been though i hope that thats just so you could have laughed at Bohs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

You are almost there.

But the media weren't suggesting Nutsy should break his contract. They were suggesting he should take advantage of the fact it had been broken by Bohs and move up a level.

If the defender in question was owed money, maybe he would have walked for nothing... Who knows?

---

Still spouting the same old distorted rubbish ? prove the "fact" or move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

For me, yes. I don't buy into this peace and love we are all in it together LoI nonsense. If Nutsy had, or still, leaves Bohs, it would have significantly weakened you for next season and given you a harsh lesson about your business model.

---

thanks. Its simply an anti-Bohs thing. Thought as much.

if you took those goggles off for a second, you'd see that this has turned out to be a positive for the league overall, Shamrock Rovers included.

You're so bitter. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

He was owed money. Not in dispute. FAI rules clearly state that money due voids contracts. Not in dispute.

He got paid that money in the middle of negotiations. Not in dispute. Bohs valuation was higher than DU were willing to pay. Not in dispute. He was unable to move for free as a result of that payment. Appears to be in dispute.

What other "FACTS!" do you wan't.

---

contract was void OR contract was not void ? Nice try, but there is a difference between money owed and breach of contract, as shown by "appears to be in dispute". If the first two "facts" were true there would be no dispute. Have I explained it clearly enough for you ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Of course it is, when did I pretend otherwise?



I disagree. I don't follow a league. Bohs being even weaker than they were last year is a good thing for Rovers.



I'm actually not. I see my clubs main rivals in disarray as being a very, very good thing and actively encourage it. I'm actually quite happy you are stoically ignoring the imminent collapse of your club and doing nothing about it.

---

I think you just proved his point :D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

For me, yes. I don't buy into this peace and love we are all in it together LoI nonsense.

---

No way. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

But its not bitterness. I'm just enjoying Bohs slide back to mid table obscurity where they belong.

---

And we ll look enjoy Rovers eventual slide back to the first division where they belong.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...s/simpsons.gif