QuoteEehhh............NoOriginally Posted by wonder88
You mean the players HE brought in?
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.
Eehhh............No
You mean the players HE brought in?
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.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
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.
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.
By the way, even though i know what you mean, youve used garnish incorrectly there...
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
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 He's still an employee of Shamrock Rovers until his contract is officially rescinded.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.
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.
Last edited by SkStu; 07/11/2012 at 6:07 PM.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
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.
why do you think that?
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
What?
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.
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.
Oh dear...
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
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 post
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.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
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.
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!).
Last edited by Nesta99; 07/11/2012 at 10:06 PM.
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.
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.It will be a very weak position Shams will be negotiating from not as CD is saying.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks