Bruce Sack Watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
You must log in or register to see images


Jesus Christ!!!! <laugh>

The twat is dancing now!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flash
Geordieginola said:
Nope. A breach of contract needs to be negotiated. I don’t understand why a lot don’t get what I am saying. I am not taking the piss here either. It’s a legal thing. If it was as simple as paying 8m he would be gone.

The contract issue I have heard has actually been resolved (or is in the process).

The issue isn’t even Bruce. It’s his team. Someone has to look after first team affairs. And that’s the problem.

In addition I genuinely believe that the negative media attention is putting new managers off.

I was told it was going to be this week buy only when a replacement is found and a replacement team.

I was also told Gerrard. But I’m less convinced about that now.

It will happen and A new manager and team will be announced straight after.
Click to expand...
Geordieginola said:
https://www.upcounsel.com/perpetual-contracts-enforceable

I appreciate this is not uk law and I’m not a legal expert I’m just relaying what I am being told however.

“On the other hand, if an agreement specifically defines an initial term but then states the contract will renew automatically at the end of the initial term unless one or more of the involved parties gives a non-renewal notice before the term expires, it would constitute a perpetual contract. In scenarios such as this, unless a non-renewal notice is provided by at least one party within the time frame of the initial term, the contract becomes perpetual at the end of the contract's initial term.”

So this apparently means within the terms of the initial contract. I.e the 3 year contract. On the basis he has not been at the club for 3 years yet and a notice has not been provided, Bruce is protected.

The event to which the contract does not automatically renew (within 3 years) has not happened (I.e relegation).

Thus he is contractually allowed to try and mathematically survive with us this season: Thus extending his contract for a further year.

So, what needs to happen is a notice is provided NOW (as it’s under 3 years of the initial contract) and he is then entitled to his 3 year contract pay and the pay for the season in which it is given notice. So theoretically 4 years severance.

I am told this has been agreed. It’s only an extra 2 million anyways.

As for a new manager, **** knows what is happening here?
Click to expand...
Geordieginola said:
Nope. A breach of contract needs to be negotiated. I don’t understand why a lot don’t get what I am saying. I am not taking the piss here either. It’s a legal thing. If it was as simple as paying 8m he would be gone.

The contract issue I have heard has actually been resolved (or is in the process).

The issue isn’t even Bruce. It’s his team. Someone has to look after first team affairs. And that’s the problem.

In addition I genuinely believe that the negative media attention is putting new managers off.

I was told it was going to be this week buy only when a replacement is found and a replacement team.

I was also told Gerrard. But I’m less convinced about that now.

It will happen and A new manager and team will be announced straight after.
Click to expand...
No a breach of contract does not have to be negotiated. If it was then it would not be a breach of contract it would be a compromise or settlement. Sack him thereby breaching his contract and pay him compensation. End of. No complication. It really is that simple.

I accept other issues may exist about running the first team but they exist every time a manager is sacked. It does not have to mean the manager can't be sacked until they are sorted and it definitely doesn't constitute a contractual complication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back