Because he doesn't want to spend two years riding out a contract when he can sue and force a settlement. Stupid as Rovers have been over this whole issue, they wouldn't be dumb enough to stop paying him.Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy_éire
Printable View
Because he doesn't want to spend two years riding out a contract when he can sue and force a settlement. Stupid as Rovers have been over this whole issue, they wouldn't be dumb enough to stop paying him.Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy_éire
Eehhh............NoQuote:
Originally Posted by wonder88
You mean the players HE brought in?Quote:
Originally Posted by wonder88
I sign a contract for $300k. I am honouring the contract but the contractor breaches the terms while i am still owed $150k. I mitigate my losses by accepting a shorter contract for $50k. My losses still stand at $100k. I am owed $100k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
He's not a contractor, he's an employee, and even if the club have stopped paying him (doubtful) the contract is still in effect and for the time being he is only entitled to compensation for the weeks he hasn't been paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
If Kenny is getting €500 a week from Rovers and is offered €250 at Dundalk, he can't just take the job and expect Rovers to pay the difference. This is where mediation comes in. He can accept the job at Dundalk conditionally and negotiate some form of compensation from Rovers for his lost wages - either Rovers garnish his wages for the duration of his Dundalk contract or they pay him a lump sum. Rovers might not be too happy about this but it's a damn site better than paying him his wages in full.
Alternatively, he can put his feet up for the next two years and take €500 a week from Rovers, but the point is that he can't take another job. The only circumstances in which he is entitled to €500 a week is if is fit and available to fulfill his contract with Shamrock Rovers. That means at any point in the next two years, Rovers can call him up and say 'you're taking charge on Friday night.'
You're wrong. As i said earlier, he has a duty to mitigate his losses once dismissed (constructive or actual). Once he does this by accepting the highest paying contract on offer then he is entitled to the difference, probably in a lump sum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
By the way, even though i know what you mean, youve used garnish incorrectly there...
He's not entitled to the difference, he's entitled to negotiate a settlement which could be equal to the difference. He's still an employee of Shamrock Rovers until his contract is officially rescinded. And yeah, I used garnish incorrectly, I just couldn't think of the right word. Subsidise I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Let me spell this out - he is legally entitled to the mitigated difference* if it goes to a court of law. He is obviously always entitiled to negotiate whatever deal he wants but he is holding all the aces here, make no mistake. His contract doesnt have to be officially rescinded. He has a case (in my lay opinion, a strong one) for constructive dismissal.
*Mitigated difference = if he signed a lesser contract with Dundalk.
He is legally entitled to the full amount/balance of the contract if his contract is terminated by Rovers and he's unable to secure alternate employement after making every reasonable effort to do so.
Oh you're completely right on the last point, and he will obviously be entitled to compensation for diminished earnings at a tribunal, but he has to negotiate that (or have a judge decide it for him) because he's not automatically and unequivocally entitled to the difference. I think if it did go to an employment tribunal he'd be awarded some of the difference but not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
why do you think that?
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubba Bubba
Gamble has a year left on his contract with us.
To be more precise all Kenny is entitled to at the moment is to sue Rovers , and all Rovers are entitled to do is to defend those proceedings.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Of course looking in it is reasonable to assume Kenny has a decent case, thus it will come down to (1) Rovers agree to a settlement "on the steps of the High Court" or (2) The parties can't agree a settlement and thus the case is heard in front of a High Court judge, who is the person who will decide what kenny is entitled to and also make an award re costs etc.
So we'll see when it comes to it whether Kenny wishes to take the risks associated with going in front of a judge or settle for a lower amount outside of court - methinks he'll settle for a lot less than the two years salary that is been bandied about as being his legal entitlement - it's not ,as I said above all he's entitled to is to take a case for damages against Rovers, what the amount of damages he gets is not in any manner clearcut at this point
Because there is actually a case for constructive dismissal - he was terrible at his job. His diminished earning capacity now is not down to the fact he lost his job, his diminished earning capacity is down to his poor performance. It's all very well to say "he has a contract therefore he should be paid in full" but in the real world common sense applies. In theory, a judge could rule that he's entitled to nothing, so it's somewhat surprising he's taken this route.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Oh dear...
Did Bohs not have to pay 'Blackie' Connor the full-amount of his contract plus costs. Was Kenny really doing a worst job than Connor ?
Charlie - you were making some sense up until this postQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
its got nothing to do with how bad a job is being done. CD is so wrong im not even going to respond any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonder88
It does. Poor performance is acceptable grounds to cancel a contract. I was being a bit facetious about not being entitled to anything, but I'd have thought he was better off negotiating than letting a judge decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
You add in being locked out of a dressing room, obstruction to him carrying out his duties in full by other employees(players) as it looked thus impeeding his performance as he will claim, not terminating his employment but just telling him not to turn up to work and taking in another person to fulfill the role left open regardless of the temporary persons title. Croly now added to the complexities as mentioned below. It will be a very weak position Shams will be negotiating from not as CD is saying. Yes poor performance is grounds for dismissal, though not very often in Ireland as we all know, but as long as Kenny remained professional and with the other circumstances above the employee holds all the aces here! If the judge is not a shams fan or is a rugby/gaa person then thats the cherry on top (and it does often make a difference!).
No question of constructive dismissal as SK hasn' ( and wont) resign.He's presumably gone to court looking for specific performance of his contract as team manager. He would be unlikely to win that as he only has a handful of players to manage in theory and no games until February.Rovers unnecessarily complicated their case by appointing Crolly to a post which Sk can legitimately claim to be his.I would see this circus trundling along for a few months. SK will get his payout when the hard ball merchants in Rovers get the first invoices for legal costs to date.Clubs never learn.
That's an interesting point. I wonder if the players freezing him out could be seen as bullying the club turned a blind eye to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99
To clarify, I'm not disputing Kenny has the upper hand. What I mean is he's got a better chance of a good pay-off through negotiation rather than a court decision. Poor performance is grounds for dismissal but he's still entitled to reasonable severance.Quote:
It will be a very weak position Shams will be negotiating from not as CD is saying.
I believe that he will get what he is looking for and a lot more than what shams would offer, if it needs to go before a judge it would benefit kenny. Performance is a non runner as the club did themselves no favours by not taking action on the player rebels preventing kenny from performing...no judge would back the employer here, as was mentioned 2 other have been given kennys duties while he is on 'shore leave'. im sure he would have more to add. He was being squeezed out probably hoping he would walk. A winner for all is if or when he gets a job at say Dundalk and they offer 50%of what he was getting then shams would pay the balance of 50%. Dundalk get their man at a reduced rate, kenny gets the same amout of money as if he had stayed at shams and shams get a settlement by default
What's he looking for though?
Of course, the employee has all the rights here, which is how it should be.Quote:
no judge would back the employer here
I can't agree with this though - any fool could see Kenny was never going to walk. He was the wrong man for the job but he's an honourable man and believed he could do a good job. He's probably just a bit weak as a person. The club weren't trying to get him to walk, they just didn't know what to do and (correctly) judged that the players taking control was better than Kenny.Quote:
He was being squeezed out probably hoping he would walk.
I'm really not sure Rovers would be a winner in that situation. Still, you hire a manager on a ridiculous contract, you take the risk of losing big.Quote:
A winner for all is if or when he gets a job at say Dundalk and they offer 50%of what he was getting then shams would pay the balance of 50%. Dundalk get their man at a reduced rate, kenny gets the same amout of money as if he had stayed at shams and shams get a settlement by default
Kenny hasn't asked for the full amount of the balance of his contract, or anything near it. My understanding is that he'll settle for about half of the balance of his contract.
I wouldn't be dismissing the idea of fools being on the rovers board BTW. Nopt given we're dscussing Stephen Kenny's 3 year contract...Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Quigley and Rogers to Shams... Anyone else hearing that?
Madness if true.
EVERYONE else is hearing it.
Don't see what's so mad though?
Cos i would like to see Sligo keep them and have them for Europe next year.
What you would like doesn't really define whats mad though, surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Players move for money. Thats about it
I think it's mad. It's madness in my opinion. Therefore I believe it's mad if it's true. Nothing more to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I really don't know why you persist in being obtuse about the inconsequentials sometimes.
Damn straight players move for better money and more power to them.
Chris Deans and Paul Hunt confirmed via their twitter accounts that they are staying for next season with us!
So don't answer then. Its the internet, I'm just asking questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
I did answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
What was the other information you required? I seemed to have missed the other question.
mad b@stards.
Bonnieshels demonstrating the multi-quote feature to devastating effect.
I would tend to agree, it would be fairly mad of them to move to Shams now.
Sligo Rovers - champions league football, league winners, big crowds, greater chance of exposure to the English leagues.
What have Shamrock Rovers got to persuade them? An extra 50 quid a week? Surely they can't afford to be paying much higher wages than Sligo?
Dublin. Doesn't Quigley still live in Dublin?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
The auld fella was telling me during the week he saw an interview with Baraclough who said that he isn't overly concerned if players decide to jump ship within the LOI, he reckoned there's a large enough pool of quality that he has the links to get in the UK and players who'd jump at the chance of CL football.
I asked 2 questions and you answered. I didn't say differently. I was suggesting that if the questions annoyed you, you should probably ignore them. I won't mind (hence the the 'only the internet' line)Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Anyway...
Players don't really care about Europe. Not at our level. They like the odd big game but no one is delighted to play in Iceland, Lithuania etc.
So it boils down can we win, will I paid more, and will I live closer to home?
Down to the player in what order he has them but generally all good players in the league have those parameters (if they can choose their club. Some just happy to have any deal)
What a romantic notion!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Or maybe..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Will I get paid every week?
The off season is in full swing and not a mod in sight!! ding ding