NCFC have stated that compensation has not been agreed and private talks are ongoing between the clubs!
Quelle surprise Aston Villa appointed Lambert after he quit Norwich without agreeing compensation. I hate to tell you I told you so again, but I have been proved right once again. So much for BudgerigarRobâs rabid squawking. No gardening leave or injunctions, further demonstrating that he doesnât have a clue when it comes to the rules and regulations of football.
Do you work hard at being stupid, or does it come naturally? There was no gardening leave because the two clubs have agreed to negotiate in private! No public toy throwing a la Robbie Cowling!
Err, no. Clearly you have misunderstood the reports in the newspapers. This was new information that appeared since our conversation, so it is impossible that you have been proved right by this, you wouldn't have known; judging by your post you also don't understand what this signifies. Let's go back to the original situation: - If Aston Villa induced Paul Lambert to breach contract, then they will owe Norwich compensation. - By Paul Lambert resigning and taking up another post without Norwich's acceptance, he will have breached the contract. HOWEVER, the latest reports suggest that a term of the contract was that Lambert could speak to other clubs while still a manager of Norwich. If Norwich breached this term, this may invalidate ALL other terms of the contract- including notice periods. In other words, Lambert would not have breached the contract, because the contract would have ended. This, presumably, is what he reports were meaning. Equally, however, the clause may not be considered a condition of the contract, rather it could be seen as a warranty. This would mean that, even though Norwich breached the contract first, the clauses restraining Lambert would still be in existence. Then Aston Villa would need to pay compensation in order to "buy out" Lambert from his contract. This is what Norwich will be arguing. Given that we don't know the terms of the contract, is difficult to advise one way or another. However, it has been reported in the news and compensation is still being discussed, so it would seem likely that Norwich and Aston Villa are arguing about whether it was a warranty or a condition. Compensation will probably be paid anyway in order to avoid going to court. Even in the circumstances that the clause about speaking to others is found to be a condition, compensation may still be ordered under FA rules for "tapping up". But that is something entirely different. Basically, all contracts have terms. These terms can be described as conditions or warranties. If a condition is broken by one party to the agreement, the contract ends and compensation can be claimed. If a warranty is broken by one party to the agreement, the contract continues and compensation can be claimed. So the scenario here is: - Norwich breached a warranty (arguably) - Lambert can claim damages (negligible) - Lambert breached a condition (definitely) - Norwich can claim damages (substantial) Don't worry about me feeding the troll. I replied to this because I saw the reports earlier today and I thought everybody on here might like an explanation as to why compensation may not be paid in the circumstances given the new information.
Technically, there was gardening leave- as soon as Lambert's resignation was rejected, he was on gardening leave. However, practically speaking, you are correct. Gardening leave was waived on the basis that Villa entered negotiations with Norwich privately re. compensation.
For the first time I actually agree with you! We can't complain, because we did the exact same thing to Colchester! Although I'm not sure where the again part comes into you being right again?
Why? How can we call Villa cheapies for trying to pay an offensively little fee for Lambert when we did the exact same thing to Colchester? To a neutral it would appear like a large dose of karma for mugging Col who.
Not because of that, because Col Who "I don't understand law" Mike accused me of getting it wrong and you agreed with him!
No, I was agreeing with the part he said that he told us so [As in this happening] because he did many times! Other than that, everything else he says in nonsense.
Great ! He is a ****ing moron. Mind you, it's hardly impressive predicting a manager will leave a club, given that all managers eventually leave!
I wasn't praising the accuracy of his prediction, I was just saying that anyone feeling sorry for ourselves if we get a pittance for Lambert would do well to remember we also paid a pittance for him too.
I thought the £400k in compo was quite a bit actually- by any stretch of the imagination that is a huge sum for a simple breach of employment contract. Given that he was a League 1 manager and can't have been earning anywhere near what he was on at Norwich, Colchester did pretty well out of it.
This is probably the right thread for this, but I'm not sure. Wonderful tweet from McNally. In response to the comment: "You're not very popular with other clubs"
I don't pretend to comprehend any of the contractual liabilities of all parties but I think there ought to be some sort of recompense for all that involves us in searching out a new manager. To be honest, it would be satisfying to see everyone return to a sensible arrangement without resorting to law each time.
In reply to Canary Rob's post, which I trust is given in good faith but unfortunately is fundamentally incorrect - I am a Corporate Lawyer (for 3i and previously for Shell and Axa Private Equity) specialising in Contract Law; a qualified Commercial Litigant (Solicitor) who spends half of my life in Civil Courts pursuing damages or other remedies for breach. Obviously we do not know the specifics of Paul Lambert's contract with Norwich City - however, what is committed to paper need not be the full extent of the contract as there can be implied obligation, rights and responsibilities plus those which have verbally agreed. More important than what is written (or verbally agreed) in the contract is the intention of the parties. Inducement to breach a contract - which is an element of tortious interference - does not automatically give rise to a claim for damages (what Canary Rob mistakenly calls compensation which is a completely different legal construct). Generally, such remedial action must establish financial loss ie simply inducing the breach of a contract is insufficient to establish grounds for damages - there are many other remedies including equitable remedies eg injunctive relief - ie preventing Lambert from assuming a role with Aston Villa, and which may or may not include what is known as specific performance ie executing certain obligations of a contract. As for Canary's Rob discussion of 'breach' owing to the right to talk to Premier League Clubs, again this is incorrect. For a start there are several types of breach of contract, anticipatory, fundamental, material, minor, renunciatory etc. Unless agreed and prescribed within the Contract of Employment, the court will deem what is the nature of breach based upon whether it represents a condition, a warranty or covenant - this will not necessarily be based upon what is written in the contract but around implied conditions and the intentions of the parties in entering into the contract. So for example, if a contact provides for Paul Lambert to 'talk' to Premier League clubs - no report I have seen provides any clarity around what this could actually represent. However, it has been established that the term was one year rolling, which is likely to mean that many rights, responsibilities, obligations etc. will be considered on the basis of the prevailing context at the time of signature. So, whatever a right to supposedly 'talk' to Premier League Clubs may or may not represent, it doesn't follow that it is necessarily enforceable on the basis the intention was created when Norwich were not themselves in the Premier League. Canary Rob's discussion of conditions and warranties is also wrong, in that it is both far too simplistic and, in some regards, legally incorrect. As I have already said, this will be based upon the intention of the parties, but together with the nature of the remedy for breach. Again, even a breach of a condition (a fundamental clause) does not give rise to damages nor does it automatically constitute a repudiatory breach - what he calls 'the contract ends and compensation can be claimed’ the aggrieved party has recourse to many courses of action, including those I have previously mentioned. To quote what Canary Rob present as the 'scenarios' - "Norwich breached a warranty (arguably), Lambert can claim damages (negligible), Lambert breached a condition (definitely), and Norwich can claim damages (substantial)." Once again, totally incorrect. For a start, it is ridiculous to assert what represents a warranty and a condition without actually having recourse to the contract - a warranty linked to a condition assumes the position of a de facto condition - and even more to assert what the nature of remedy is eg the ridiculous assertion Lambert definitely breached a condition, which is actually extremely unlikely. What is more likely is that Norwich would consider his action of serving notice of termination an anticipatory or renunciatory breach ie it is unlikely to perform his obligations, which is completely different from actually not performing his obligations. Lambert's contract like all contracts will have termination clauses which define grounds, structure and effect of termination, which may or may not give rise to damages or other rights, responsibilities etc. I have no idea what Canary Rob's background is but I would guess some kind of non-qualified contracts manager who overseas simply structured commercial agreements. Happy to help him or anyone in any way I can.
It seems you owned Mikey so badly the other night that he has had to call in his friends to fight his battles Rob!
As far as I can see the remedy is simple.Having been in business for thirty five years I have always followed the adage "One man's money is as good as another's".However I would add that on occasions when those I have been dealing with have shown bad faith then I tend to suspend this. My feeling is that if Villa want to buy a player from us e.g.Holt,then they pay a £1million surcharge over all other offers.In other words if he goes to them they pay the highest bid from any other club plus the million.
