You don't sign a fixed term contract at the beginning though. If your company offers you a 4 year contract and during it decide that they want someone else when you have not done anything wrong then you can take them to court for breach of contract. I used to work for Bacardi-Martini and many of the contracts for the higher jobs there have 6 month's notice (both sides) and also a clause that you can't join a competitor for a year after parting ways. When someone got headhunted to replace an existing manager the guy was paid up in full - 6 months pay and asked to clear his desk. He could however join a competitor immediately because it was the company decision to remove him from his post.
Simples - because SFC is legally obliged to pay up the remainder of his contract. If you get the sack for gross miss conduct that is another matter, but we live in civilised times when companies are unable to just sack individuals at will. Think if I was you I would look for another job?
We'll find out whether they were legally obliged to pay once this goes to a tribunal. You can get the sack for performance issues and it depends on the Companies policy around payment. The Compnay I work for has 2 policies one for conduct (gross misconduct/continued misconduct) and one for capability (under performance) . The latter involved paying the person a months salary in lieu of notice, the first dismissal with no notice.I recently had to sack someone for underperformance after a written warning and final written warning, all he got was one months wages, and he's on just above the minimum wage, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over wealthy Managers. Whether people like Adkins or not, he was sacked for under performance ( In NC opinion) therefore I question whether he should be paid up in full. People are only getting excited about this because he's a nice man, It would be different if it was Ian Branfoot.
If that's the reason Cortese gives to a tribunal then 1 defeat in 12 is rather hard to attack as "under performance" so Nigel will win easily in that case. Perhaps some of us like to see nice (right) things happen to nice men who were removed from their job for no fault of their own? Personally, its the shoddy nature of how he was sacked, then kept hanging on by Cortese and is being forced to use legal means to come to an agreement that shows to me that Cortese talks big about "doing things the right way" but doesn't actually follow those ideals himself. Its not about wealth issues, its about doing things right.
In truth CBK, non of us actually know what is going on....only that he is taking Cortese and therefore Saints to a tribunal. We do not know the actual reasons, we are all guessing. Until that information is made public it would be hard to make a judgement. It does seem a shame though that it has become neccessary to go to a tribunal at all after all he did for this club.
Not sure Nigel could have been said to have underperformed when he was sacked. Would only have been true if he had been given a points target of x after y number of games...doubt that was the case. Nicola was disatisfied...not quite the same thing. However, we have no idea what went on at the end. Was Nigel offered a deal he turned down? Was his counter offer too high? Did they both decide to go to tribunal? Who knows? I do agree though that it is a great shame it has come to this.
Wasn't that Adkins was doing a bad job, it was that Cortese felt that Pochettino would do a better one and that he had to move fast to secure Poch before he accepted another job offer. Time will tell if that was wise or bloody stupid. I just don't get the fact that Saints were still paying Adkins after Poch was appointed. It couldn't have been a payroll error, it was quite deliberate, and the only sensible reason I can come to is that Cortese didn't want Nigel going to another Prem club before the end of the season. He still wanted to exercise control over Nigel, even though he had just told him he wasn't good enough to take the club forward. That's odd, bordering on mad/vicious.
Saying Adkins can't be dismissed for underperformance is fine but it's not necessarily the view a judge would take. Judging by the performance of the team, no, he can't be said to have underperformed. But it's widely known what Cortese's footballing ideas are, and Adkins consistently failed to apply them. That's why he was sacked, and that's a good reason to dismiss somebody, no matter how good their results are. Whether you agree with Cortese's ideas is another matter, but as an employee Adkins was obliged to carry out those ideas.
People should take the emotion out of the debate by forgetting about the individuals involved and looking at the principle. Does a manager that has been sacked deserve his contract paid up in full or not..my view is that he doesn't, some people may take a different view, the legal view will be decided by a tribunal. Whether Nigel is a nice guy, or whether we agree with his sacking has no relevance.
Think it was more a legal obligation until his severance package was sorted out...was certainly a moral thing to do. Also kept him on payroll which meant he was less likely to sound off to the press (though that was unlikely with Nigel). As a club can enforce a contract, it is hardly surprising that they may have to pay it up in full...otherwise, you might as well have a monthly rolling contract.
It will be a great deal more straightforward than the conduct versus performance discussion. Whatever salary was agreed for the duration of the contract will be due. That is simply non-negotiable. However, Nigel's contract will certainly have been littered with bonus clauses. We can only speculate what they were but the debate will definitely be around what portion of those the club should be liable for. A good example would be a £1m bonus for keeping the club up. NC may say that he didn't keep the club up (assuming we stay up of course!) and is therefore due nothing. Nigel would (rightly) argue that the club stayed up as a direct result of his management of 22 of the 38 fixtures and that he should therefore be paid £578k as a pro-rata bonus. Sadly, the tribunal will be about nit-picking over these details.
Again good cospiracy theorising, opinions are very much divided because nobody knows for sure what is going on, can you believe the story that some of the senior players had fallen out with Nigel? I can't but that is the sort of thing that can muddy the waters without a shred of proof.
if you are talking about one of the dummy Chelsea managers, then I have no sympathy at all for them getting sacked with big payoffs. But its a massively different situation with Adkins, its not a black & white ruling, but Saints themselves have made the grey area, even greyer by just not dealing with this situation at the time of Nigel's dismissal.
So you think Chelsea Managers that are dummys shouldn't get a pay off but Adkins should. What if NC thought Adkins a dummy and doesn't deserve a pay off? Why should NC be critised for not "dealing with" the issue, yet you're perfectly happy for Chelsea to do the same. Surely you're either for Managers getting pay offs, or against it. You cant base it on your opinion of the Manager concerned because other Chairman will have different opinions.
Because managers know the deal at Chelsea before they go there and they only attract the types who are looking for a bit of glory and a guaranteed paycheck. I'm not against them getting a payoff, I said I had no sympathy for their situation. At Saints, Adkins was appointed in League 1 and has had nothing but 3 years of success, whilst being on modest pay compared to others and as far as I'm aware at no point ever not complying with the terms of his contract. So, I'm for managers getting a pay off, if thats whats in their contracts. I will have differing levels of sympathy on a case by case basis as I don't live in a black & white world.
Adkins deserves all he can get under the terms of his contract...someone we will remember with gratitude whatever the future holds. Even a fully paid up contract is small fry compared with the price of a half-decent player...what fan would deny him that.
Yeah, I'll third that. One thing. I read somewhere fairly reputable [sorry, no link] that while he is in dispute, in terms of a tribunal, he can't go elsewhere to manage. Is this correct, in his case..? I'm not sure it is.
