Mathews gone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holidaysong

Still though, why sign new players at all if you can't afford them? Part time or full time..

On the one hand you are getting rid of the manager because you cannot afford him but on the other you are bringing in new signings..

---

We only had 7 players, if we want to play in any league we needed a few more, even if cheap.

The manager was on huge money, reportedly more than Dolan and Rico were on combined. He's being sacked for someone a hell of a lot cheaper which will allow us to bring in a couple opf players and a manager for the same money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centre mid

He always has the Bank job to go back too........oh wait...........

Seriously though, he would be top of the list of a few clubs I would have thought. Bad move by Coughlan if what is being suggested in this thread is correct. I'm loving the shrug of the shoulders by some city fans "Cant pay what we dont have" attitude, If Coughlan has boobooed than you will have to pay what you dont have.

---

City fans reaction as far as I can see, is that if we have to pay out full compensation then its the most ridiculous decision in a long time, considering our situation

But if we get away with none or little compensation, then its the right decision.

I dunno what coughlan is thinking or what he's been advised but teh amount fo compensation paid will decide whether this was a good move. Its not as clear cut as either it is or it isnt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

I thought those contracts were null & void ;)

---

Did you?

I dunno tbh, but I would see players contracts as different because whether they were legally valid or not, we wouldnt get a premier license without honouring them which would be a big motivation.

i only heard the news at half six this evenin.. its a shock to hear the news... whats going to happen next?? rico comes back or god forsake dolan?? whos bein linked with the job now??

i personally think matthews has being let down badly he goes down to ye because our committee lets him down off the pitch and now this happens to him... i feel very sorry for the bloke after taking leave from his regular job and having moved down?? why does coughlan say about the two year deal being agreed? its certainly gettin stranger and stranger..:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

We only had 7 players, if we want to play in any league we needed a few more, even if cheap.

---

I'm sure you could get cheaper players if you tried though.. Youths? Amateurs? Obviously, I can see why you want to bring in good players though..

However, if this ends up in court it won't look too good for CCFC if they are ripping up their manager's contract while also bringing in players (even if you only have 7) at the same time..

It'll be interesting to see what avenue Mathews goes down.

Your manager is part of the same condition for Licencing is he not?. Nobody's arguing that he wasn't on a high wage but he'd agreed to take a cut. Surely the figure is the first thing that's discussed even if the deal wasn't 100% agreed, for your chairman and general manager to come out and say they'd agreed a new two year deal with him would suggest he wasn't going to stick to an extortionate wage. Coughlan may feel that by the time Mathews gets any compensation awarded to him either he won't be there or he'll have found some way of covering it by then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holidaysong

I'm sure you could get cheaper players if you tried though.. Youths? Amateurs? Obviously, I can see why you want to bring in good players though..

---

We brought in 1 full timer and 2 part timers....at teh same time reducing the wages of 2 players. Doesnt really seem like going all out to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holidaysong

However, if this ends up in court it won't look too good for CCFC if they are ripping up their manager's contract while also bringing in players (even if you only have 7) at the same time..
.

---

Tbh i havent a clue.

The only thing I can think of is that they claim Mathews wages was an Arkaga contract which doesnt fit in to the new wage structure and isnt affordable by the club, while the other 3 contracts are within the wage structure/budget given in during examinership.

As I said though I dont know what will happen with it, but it will decide how I feel about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longfordian

Your manager is part of the same condition for Licencing is he not?.

---

I dont think so but Im not 100% on that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longfordian

Nobody's arguing that he wasn't on a high wage but he'd agreed to take a cut. Surely the figure is the first thing that's discussed even if the deal wasn't 100% agreed, for your chairman and general manager to come out and say they'd agreed a new two year deal with him would suggest he wasn't going to stick to an extortionate wage

---

Rumour is that while an original deal was agreed, Mathews came back wanting a few extra things that would push up the price, we said we couldnt afford it and he said he wasnt signing so.

I actually started a thread a couple of days ago asking about confirmation that Mathews signed, wondering why he hadnt.

Devil in the detail I suppose, who is the likely replacement? even in the short term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centre mid

Devil in the detail I suppose, who is the likely replacement? even in the short term?

---

No idea tbh, everyones being mentioned at the moment.

Personally I think itl be local and cheap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longfordian

Nobody's arguing that he wasn't on a high wage but he'd agreed to take a cut.

---

Did he though?

Well nobody knows for sure but he'd indicated his willingness to do so in interviews and the most reasonable conclusion to draw from your chairman announcing he'd agreed a new deal would be that he was willing to take a cut. Now maybe it came apart at the last minute but from Mathews' interview he genuinely didn't see it coming and seems to feel the negotiations will be important for his case. Just to go back to micls' post above I just checked the rule again and the manager does come under the same provison as the players for Licencing. "The licence applicant must prove that... it has no payables overdue towards employees or Revenue/social/tax authorities as at November 30 of the year preceding the season to be licensed unless by the following January 31 they have been fully settled, deferred by mutual agreement with the creditor or are subject to a not obviously unsound dispute submitted to a competent authority.". So it doesn't seem to me you can acknowledge some contracts and not others.

but if that were the case the same would be applicable to our backroom staff, shop staff etc and they are definitely not getting all their money.

I was under the impression it was just players

They may have agreed to defer it or write it off, both of which are acceptable. It's when there's no agreement or the agreement isn't adhered to that the problem arises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holidaysong

I'm sure you could get cheaper players if you tried though.. Youths? Amateurs? Obviously, I can see why you want to bring in good players though...

---

What's the point of having a full time manager on huge wages if your team is going to be part-time and amateur, who's he going to spend his time training if they have to get off work to train? The wage Mathews was rumoured to be on was a bit much to work in the club shop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiktok

What's the point of having a full time manager on huge wages if your team is going to be part-time and amateur, who's he going to spend his time training if they have to get off work to train? The wage Mathews was rumoured to be on was a bit much to work in the club shop.

---

If the rumours are true he'd want to be managing, playing working in the club shop and the CEO

I was never his biggest fan but even I would have liked him to have gotten a shot at next season [as with Rico before him, I find the idea of sacking a manager who brings in silverware to be daft].

The fact of the matter is if employing him meant we were spending beyond our means, he had to go.

We're aiming, if TC is to be believed, at having 16 full time players and a full-time manager next season and there is a fixed budget for that. If Mathews moving on means that we're more viable next season, it's for the best.

If we end up with a court battle and paying compensation [effectively paying two managers for the year] then it's a stupid stupid decision.

The big question [the compensation one aside] really is why the contract that both parties admit was agreed to was never signed, obviously one of two things happened after the agreement, the club tried to take something out or Mathews tried to put something in.

I don't mean to be harping on at ye but I'm just bored and curious, how much roughly do people reckon would the deal he had agreed more or less and the amount you pay your new manager will be?. Obviously his old contract wasn't sustainable everyone knows that but just how much out of bounds was this new one that it seems was almost done?. It sounds to me from the interviews that Mathews didn't get much of a chance to think about the terms on offer and whether he'd come down that little bit more?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiktok

What's the point of having a full time manager on huge wages if your team is going to be part-time and amateur, who's he going to spend his time training if they have to get off work to train? The wage Mathews was rumoured to be on was a bit much to work in the club shop.

---

You're mixing legal and emotional/rational points though.

Rationally it wouldn't make any sense to pay a Manager big sums if you can't afford to.

Legally - if that's the contract you have him on and he doesn't agree to changing it, then that's what he's entitled to demand, end of story.

The law doesn't care if you can't fulfil your agreements - unles you want to avoid them totally by being wound-up, that is.

But he didnt sign the new deal......

lets put it this way, unless he was taking a near on50% pay cut(highly doubtful) then he'd still be on more than any other manager we've had.

If we paid a new man what Rico or Dolan was on(still too much imo) , then we'd be almost halving the money paid out based on the original contract

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

You're mixing legal and emotional/rational points though.

---

No, he's not.

He's saying if it was possible to sack him with little or no compensation then its the right decision but if we have to pay him the full amount then its a stupid decision.

Thought he made that fairly clear.

I dont know what will happen legally, if theres some loophole. Do you?