Is the ruling actually a judgement on the trigger point for the new contract and that because Jonas was unavailable for a number of games through a 'disability' then the trigger point should have been cut proportionately? Is the judge saying he should have been given a new contract because he did actually play more than that adjusted number of games? That they didn't adjust the trigger point down because of his illness keeping him out of action was in fact discrimination based on his disability? I'm just trying to understand how they have come to siding with Jonas.
I have witnessed first-hand how certain companies will try to 'bin' any employee who shows signs of illness. If that's cancer, depression or anything. Of course, it's morally wrong but when has that ever slowed-down Sports Direct or anything Mike Ashley touches? Newcastle United being dragged through the metaphoric mud, AGAIN, by Ashley and his cronies. Horrific.
Probably due to Ashley & Charnley telling the coaches not to pick him until it was impossible to complete the required number of games. Funny how he was good enough to pick once the contract clause had been passed. Shameful NUFC. ( Wish we had players showing the guts Jonas showed during his time with us )
Jesus, we're a ****ing shambles. It's weird, supporting the bad guys, isn't it. Newcastle have turned into one of the many corporate faces of the Premier League. Unfeeling, disengaged from reality, profitable. I hope we don't infect the Championship with our disgusting, cynical practices.
Reading through the various articles on this I think someone, probably Carver has testified that he was told by Charnley not to consider Guttierez immediately on his return from cancer treatment. This meant that he then couldnt achieve the contract extension and sued for discrimination on the grounds of his disabilty which stopped him achieving the contract extension. Best comment was that some of Carver's testimony was rejected because it was vague. So normal for him.
I don't see what the club did wrong in fairness, you wasn't in a position to be sentimental and lets be fair Jonas was ****, his cancer may have had a role but his lack of ability was the main reason. Had it have been Messi then you would have played him and gave him a contract He was out of contract and you let them run down, nothing wrong with that, you aren't the first club and won't be the last to stop playing a player for he doesn't activate a clause in his contract
This kind of ruling may see clubs reluctant to enter such a clause. It also opens up all kinds of possibilities for under performing or out of favour players.
Or perhaps if Mike just grabs a microphone and belts out... Go on Mike be a Belieber and make things right.
