Stephen Kennys off to Court!

[horton]

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...f-3279442.html

SOLICITORS acting on behalf of Stephen Kenny are looking for a substantional pay-off from Shamrock Rovers after lodging papers in the High Court to seek judgment on the manner of his sacking in September.The Dubliner was dismissed by the Hoops just nine months into a three-year contract, and Kenny's legal representatives are claiming that the termination of his employment without his consent constitutes a breach of contract.
They are seeking substantial compensation on that basis, and have requested a summary judgment. It is understood that there has been some dialogue between Kenny's representatives and the club about reaching a settlement, but they have failed to reach agreement.
The Rovers hierarchy are believed to be confident of reaching a resolution before the matter goes to court, although they will be keen to avoid a hefty pay-off.
Trevor Crolly, meanwhile, is favourite to get the nod over Martin Russell as Rovers prepare to appoint a new manager.
Crolly, currently first-team coach at St Patrick's Athletic, is well known to the Hoops board, having served as assistant to Michael O'Neill before they fell out midway through last year.
..............
- Daniel McDonnell

So we have our first court case of the off-season started! I assume if Kenny was offered a job somewhere, taking it would wreck his chances of getting a big payday from Rovers?

[Mr A]

The high court, ouch, expensive business for all involved.

[Charlie Darwin]

No way it'll go to the high court for the aforementioned reason - Kenny knows he has the club over a barrell so he can play hardball. I'm a little surprised he doesn't want to get back into management though - any big payment will likely mean he can't look for another job for up to two years.

I would prefer Russell to Crolly next year. It would really be something to see an actual footballing manager in Tallaght.

[adamd164]

I'd say most Rovers fans will be disgusted with either of those two appointments, they'll be after some 'big name' from abroad again.

[Mr A]

I'm a little surprised he doesn't want to get back into management though - any big payment will likely mean he can't look for another job for up to two years.

But would anyone that's likely to employ him be able to pay anything resembling what Rovers were able to? Maybe better for him financially to go with the 'make Rovers pay' route.

Given the speed of the Irish court system it could be years before this is heard in any case.

[Charlie Darwin]

I'd say most Rovers fans will be disgusted with either of those two appointments, they'll be after some 'big name' from abroad again.

Again? Anybody who attends games will know what a good manager Russell is.

But would anyone that's likely to employ him be able to pay anything resembling what Rovers were able to? Maybe better for him financially to go with the 'make Rovers pay' route.

They wouldn't necessarily need to if he had a modest settlement from Rovers. The damage to his career of taking a year or two out of the game could outweigh any step down in wages.

[oldfan]

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...f-3279442.html


?

So will the SDCC pay for this if SK wins ?

[Lim till i die]

This is one of the problems with having fans on a board.

Sacking 3 (THREE) year contract Stephen Kenny after a few months was an absolutely nuts decision.

[Mr A]

In all fairness it's not like non-fans on boards aren't prone to making rash decisions!

[Lim till i die]

In all fairness it's not like non-fans on boards aren't prone to making rash decisions!

They're far more likely to contain lots of stubborn **** the fans, I RUN THIS TOWN, types though.*















*With admitedly mixed results.

[Longfordian]

A "substantional payout" no less. What a great new word.

[Mr A]

Sounds a bit holy. Maybe he's going to turn the money into the body of Jesus or something.

[SkStu]

A "substantional payout" no less. What a great new word.

its not great, its fantabulous!

[gormacha]

No way it'll go to the high court for the aforementioned reason - Kenny knows he has the club over a barrell so he can play hardball. I'm a little surprised he doesn't want to get back into management though - any big payment will likely mean he can't look for another job for up to two years.

I'm not an expert in employment law, but I think that's very unlikely to be the case. He had a three year contract. They broke the contract. In the absence of gross misconduct, they owe him the balance of the contract. To the best of my knowledge, even if they pay up in full, they cannot restrain him from getting another job. That would be a denial of rights.

[Charlie Darwin]

But they haven't breached his contract - he's still being paid to the best of my knowledge, he's just not being asked to fulfill his end of the contract.

In the event of a breach, the club would be obliged either to fulfill the contract (meaning Kenny couldn't work until it was up) or pay some sort of forfeit (i.e. a settlement). There is nothing in employment law that states breach of contract means the offending party has to pay it in full with no conditions attached.

[dong]

Any truth in the rumour Shams are handing Croly a three year deal after Laws turned the job down?

[gormacha]

But they haven't breached his contract - he's still being paid to the best of my knowledge, he's just not being asked to fulfill his end of the contract.

In the event of a breach, the club would be obliged either to fulfill the contract (meaning Kenny couldn't work until it was up) or pay some sort of forfeit (i.e. a settlement). There is nothing in employment law that states breach of contract means the offending party has to pay it in full with no conditions attached.

If Rovers weren't in breach, then there would be no way Kenny's legal team would have them in court.

If someone is taken on for a job, and is then denied the opportunity to do that job - even if they're still being paid - then the other party muct be in breach of contract. It could be regarded as an attempt at constructive dismissal, and I'm sure you could get them for damage to reputation and future employment.

[SkStu]

But they haven't breached his contract - he's still being paid to the best of my knowledge, he's just not being asked to fulfill his end of the contract.

In the event of a breach, the club would be obliged either to fulfill the contract (meaning Kenny couldn't work until it was up) or pay some sort of forfeit (i.e. a settlement). There is nothing in employment law that states breach of contract means the offending party has to pay it in full with no conditions attached.

if he's filed a High Court motion or statement of claim then you can rest assured that his legal advisors believe there has been a breach of contract. Removing him from his duties was humiliating - worse than being sacked in some ways. Hiring Laws for three months was stupid. Handing Kenny a 3 year contract in the first place was also stupid. In this league you tend to pay the price for being stupid.

edit - well said Gormacha.

[Charlie Darwin]

If someone is taken on for a job, and is then denied the opportunity to do that job - even if they're still being paid - then the other party muct be in breach of contract. It could be regarded as an attempt at constructive dismissal, and I'm sure you could get them for damage to reputation and future employment.

I suppose Rovers may have signaled an intention to breach the contract as they are looking for a new manager, but otherwise they're under no legal obligation to allow him to manage the club, no more than they're under a legal obligation to play Ronan Finn or Ciaran Kilduff.

Kenny's contract, unless it's one of the most bizarre contracts ever written, entitles him to a salary in exchange for work. If the club chooses not to require him to work but pays him regardless, they have not voided the contract. Kenny has absolutely no entitlement to take control of team affairs if the club does not want him to.

if he's filed a High Court motion or statement of claim then you can rest assured that his legal advisors believe there has been a breach of contract. Removing him from his duties was humiliating - worse than being sacked in some ways. Hiring Laws for three months was stupid. Handing Kenny a 3 year contract in the first place was also stupid. In this league you tend to pay the price for being stupid.

Agreed on all points of stupidity, but the motion is an attempt to force a settlement. Kenny is on gardening leave - it's a very common situation for a manager to find himself in. Unless the club has stopped paying him, they haven't breached anything.

[SkStu]

so will they be paying him and Croly for the same job? Paying for two managers would be stupid.