Fenn Announces his Retirement

**bullit** · 07/08/2010, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Rasputin

How much work exactly do you have to put in to get that nice jaundice glow?

He should ask his Ex-team mate Gary Breen who is currently in hospital with that illness.

**Ciaran W** · 08/08/2010, 1:08 AM

Hopefully he can knock one in against the bohs tomorrow

**bullit** · 08/08/2010, 1:14 AM

If he scores(and i mean on the field

) Ciaran i will paypal you �20,he not only a ****e human but also a ****e player.

**Ciaran W** · 08/08/2010, 1:18 AM

Deal

**White Horse** · 08/08/2010, 1:28 PM

Now we know what was so atractive about Rover's offer.

Sit on the bench and pick up big wages. Fenn didn't like having to lead the line for Dundalk week in week out.

The work was too hard for him.

**hoopy** · 08/08/2010, 4:33 PM

Originally Posted by White Horse

Now we know what was so atractive about Rover's offer.

Sit on the bench and pick up big wages. Fenn didn't like having to lead the line for Dundalk week in week out.

The work was too hard for him.

So you honestly expected him to walk straight into the team, especially playing a 4-5-1 formation? If he had, by some miracle, started you would've moaned about that as well. As for big wages, comical.

**Macy** · 09/08/2010, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by wexfordned

It would seem Shamrock, PFAI & FAI have decided contracts are not worth the paper they are written on anymore.

But Dundalk cancelled his contract, not Fenn. And as keeps being pointed out, they could've retained his registration to stop this happening.

So could you explain how this effects existing contracts?

**marinobohs** · 09/08/2010, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

But Dundalk cancelled his contract, not Fenn. And as keeps being pointed out, they could've retained his registration to stop this happening.

So could you explain how this effects existing contracts?

According to Mc Guinness clubs will not in future facilitate players by rescinding contracts (first time a union official has willfully worsened his members options ?). There have been a limited number of incidences where contracts were cancelled due to domestic reasons (Kevin Hunt at Bohs one instance and possibly Simon Webb ?) that was the basis Dundalk agreed to cancel the Fenn contract.

**HammerNThongs** · 09/08/2010, 1:12 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

But Dundalk cancelled his contract, not Fenn. And as keeps being pointed out, they could've retained his registration to stop this happening.

So could you explain how this effects existing contracts?

I could be wrong here, but I understand that they released his registration so he could play local football while he worked with his coaching school which is what he requested to be able to do

**osarusan** · 09/08/2010, 1:15 PM

Originally Posted by HammerNThongs

I could be wrong here, but I understand that they released his registration so he could play local football while he worked with his coaching school which is what he requested to be able to do

It would be very interesting to see a reliable record of exactly what comments lead to his registration being released. I doubt there is one though, just his word against Foster's (or the board, etc).

**Dodge** · 09/08/2010, 1:19 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

It would be very interesting to see a reliable record of exactly what comments lead to his registration being released. I doubt there is one though, just his word against Foster's (or the board, etc).

And Fenn didn't say anything about how he asked Dundalk for his release.

**White Horse** · 09/08/2010, 1:21 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

It would be very interesting to see a reliable record of exactly what comments lead to his registration being released. I doubt there is one though, just his word against Foster's (or the board, etc).

"At the moment, I don’t feel as if I’m going to miss the game, but obviously in a month’s time I think I’ll say I really miss it and I’ll be itching to get back in. But I’ll have the coaching and I’ll still be playing a little bit of football, so that will keep me going. I think once you finish you might as well finish rather than making all sorts of comebacks. At the moment, I can’t see myself coming back at all."

http://www.dundalkfc.com/news/100729_Fenn.asp

Fenn's comments on announcing his "retirement".

Whose account do these comments support; Foster or Fenn?

**marinobohs** · 09/08/2010, 1:29 PM

Originally Posted by White Horse

"At the moment, I don’t feel as if I’m going to miss the game, but obviously in a month’s time I think I’ll say I really miss it and I’ll be itching to get back in. But I’ll have the coaching and I’ll still be playing a little bit of football, so that will keep me going. I think once you finish you might as well finish rather than making all sorts of comebacks. At the moment, I can’t see myself coming back at all."

http://www.dundalkfc.com/news/100729_Fenn.asp

Fenn's comments on announcing his "retirement".

Whose account do these comments support; Foster or Fenn?

Pretty damning evidence I would have thought. Presumably would be a case for breach of contract as such a public statement could be taken as a commitment not to play at this level (possible argument around "I cant see myself" wonder was the use deliberate to keep his options open ?).

**Dodge** · 09/08/2010, 2:05 PM

Its not breach of contract as Dundalk terminated his contract. That he got them to do so is immaterial IMO

**marinobohs** · 09/08/2010, 3:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Its not breach of contract as Dundalk terminated his contract. That he got them to do so is immaterial IMO

Could it not be found that the parties agreed to nullify the contract with Fenn withholding relevent information and thus negate the cancellation ? (phew, I think thats what I meant). This might require Dundalk to prove fenn knew in advance of his move which would be very difficult to prove.

**Charlie Darwin** · 09/08/2010, 3:30 PM

No, the contract is canceled and Fenn has signed a new one so it would be impossible for him to fulfill the original contract with Dundalk.

Dundalk could take civil proceedings against him where the balance of probability would be enough to get an award, but it might not even be worth the trouble for the compensation they'd get. Dundalk's best course of action is to make their allegations clear to the FAI in the hope of initiating a disciplinary procedure against Fenn/Rovers.

**Macy** · 10/08/2010, 7:51 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Dundalk could take civil proceedings against him where the balance of probability would be enough to get an award, but it might not even be worth the trouble for the compensation they'd get. Dundalk's best course of action is to make their allegations clear to the FAI in the hope of initiating a disciplinary procedure against Fenn/Rovers.

Under the participation agreement don't they have to keep it within the association first, and I actually think the civil courts want it to get first hearing through the sporting organisations own procedures first as well.

**marinobohs** · 10/08/2010, 9:56 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

No, the contract is canceled and Fenn has signed a new one so it would be impossible for him to fulfill the original contract with Dundalk.

Dundalk could take civil proceedings against him where the balance of probability would be enough to get an award, but it might not even be worth the trouble for the compensation they'd get. Dundalk's best course of action is to make their allegations clear to the FAI in the hope of initiating a disciplinary procedure against Fenn/Rovers.

To be honest I hope Dundalk decide to let it lie* although I can understand them feeling aggreived about what happened. As you say, any compensation would be minimalist and the ensuing publicity would not reflect well on the LOI (like we need more bad publicity !!!)
Would like to think the FAI would make it clear that in future a dim view would be taken of clubs/players indulging in this type of behaviour

* this does not prohibit/limit discussion on FOOT.IE of course.

**White Horse** · 10/08/2010, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by marinobohs

To be honest I hope Dundalk decide to let it lie* although I can understand them feeling aggreived about what happened. As you say, any compensation would be minimalist and the ensuing publicity would not reflect well on the LOI (like we need more bad publicity !!!)
Would like to think the FAI would make it clear that in future a dim view would be taken of clubs/players indulging in this type of behaviour

* this does not prohibit/limit discussion on FOOT.IE of course.

I cannot see Dundalk FC pursuing this matter any further. The club have to concentrate in trying to get up the table and avoid getting sucked into the relegation battle.

Furthermore, there is the issue of player contracts for next year.

In addition, the club are confronting a hooligan element and have issued a number of stadium bans.

Neale Fenn is gone (along with his reputation). I suggest we leave it at that.

**Rasputin** · 10/08/2010, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by marinobohs

To be honest I hope Dundalk decide to let it lie* although I can understand them feeling aggreived about what happened. As you say, any compensation would be minimalist and the ensuing publicity would not reflect well on the LOI (like we need more bad publicity !!!)
Would like to think the FAI would make it clear that in future a dim view would be taken of clubs/players indulging in this type of behaviour

Just like we let it lie with Turner? That worked out well for the League and Dundalk specifically.