I'm not going to disappear. And I only raised the issue of money in rebuttal of Canary's Rob patently ignorant dismissal of a job -he labelled an 'in-house lawyer'. Proving he knows nothing about the structure of the legal profession.
davrid bor, I have no problem understanding your original statement, particularly relating to the fundamental issue that rules out the other possible clauses for breach of contract. With Villa able to sign Lambert as a free agent there was obviously a breach of contract by Norwich. That would mean Villa would not have to compensate Norwich for the loss of their manager (they would have to prove "damages" for that loss which would be debateable as they can replace Lambert). The ensuing compensation negotiations can only mean, in my view, they are seeking to obtain Culverhouse and Karsa. Unless Norwich are threatening to use FA rules which forbid members of the FA enticing staff of other members, which, seeing Villa opened negotiations with Norwich could be construed by the FA as an inducement (if they had not started negotiations, Lambert would be still Norwich manager as he expressed only a fornight before negotiations commenced that he was happy at Norwich and making plans for the future). One point I would like to raise with you, using your expertise of company law, is confidentially regarding the contract in question. Villa publictly announced that now infamous clause in Lambert's contract, re permission to talk to another club if enquiries were made to Norwich. How did Villa obtain that information? Obviously Norwich didn't reveal that detail, so it must have been leaked by Lambert or the person acting on his behalf, his agent, when it was announced in the media that Lambert's representatives were in contact with Villa.
Well I don't know if your mikey or not, I don't care really, and a simple IP check from admin will do the trick for those curious What I do know is you strike me as somewhat of a twat
Mate, I'm an associate at CC (let's not compare salaries...). I also have a bit of experience in employment. I'm not doubting your legal competence- I'm doubting your ability to express the legal issues in terms that people on this thread can understand, rather than using legalese (notice no-one actually responded to your post). Everything you said in the post was absolutely correct, but the fact is I could pick up my little LPC book by Jill Poole, write a bitty little essay about how what you wrote was actually inaccurate in parts and send it to you, but that wouldn't really help anyone would it? My point was an assessment of the news story. They claimed Norwich would not be paid compensation because Norwich breached the contract. I was trying to explain in the simplest possible terms, that the news report couldn't possibly know because no-one will have seen the contract. I said as much. I said that there are different types of terms in the contract which essentially mean that if you breach one of them, the contract is not at an end. You chose to use the word "repudiatory"- tell me how many people outside of law will understand what that means without looking it up? We both essentially came to the same conclusion- that it is impossible to know. I fully admit that mine was heavily simplified. The difference is that you used about twice as many words and no-one other than you and I could understand it. Don't deny it- you worked at Shell and 3i- you are an in-house lawyer by every definition.
by all means talk about your qualifications on a subject if they are relevant. nothing wrong with that, but don't start boasting about how much money you earn - that will go down like a lead balloon and you'll look a prick
I have no problem thanks. Well, other than to burst the bubble of misplaced arrogance and ignorance of someone who tried to portray himself as an expert in a field he knows bugger all about. I'm more than happy to take my dicussion with Canary Rob 'offline' but franky my preference is to end it. It's pointless and irrelevant.
It was done purely to highlight the difference in expertise ie to demonstrate we weren't saying the same thing at all. Nothing more. Wasn't intended to be arrogant or to cause offence. It is a structure very commonly used in the legal profession to differentiate expertise as it's a means of identifying billing rates. I even offered to help Canary Rob, and the offer still applies.
FAOD everyone. I can confirm that this guy is not Mike- he is quite clearly a lawyer and probably who he says he is. He also, unfortunately, is quite offensive, but then in my profession there are a few chippy people like that and I apologise for them. Not all lawyers boast about how much they earn, I certainly try not to, because I'm pretty positive that you all work just a hard as I do.
Mate, I explained I'm a lawyer at Clifford Chance (this is a reasonably well known law firm btw guys). I respectfully suggest that the problem of arrogance lies with you.
Damn right I work hard! It is not easy been a student all those late nights drinking really catch up with you
With all respect, I doubt it. I qualified many years ago, following my LLB and LLD...My son is also a Law Student at Keele studying for his LLB, but unlike me, he wants to pursue a career in criminal law - my Articles put me off that, having to do what is known as 'pissed watch' ie non-qualified representaton a police stations....
Well done Davrid hope your family are really proud of you, now let's talk about Norwich and our new appointment
Oh jesus wept; it's always good to have the stereotypical view of the legal professionals reinforced.
