Suarez News (#ONTOPIC)

  • 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!

When will Suarez leave?

  • Pre-contract, gone 1st day

  • Gone in July

  • Gone in August

  • Gone on transfer deadline day

Results are only viewable after voting.
David Schofield said:
Sisu

https://www.gov.uk/employment-contracts-and-conditions/contract-terms

Having been on the wrong end of a tribunal decision, I can tell you it is that simple.
Click to expand...


In a situation where it is not witnessed and one party denies the others version it is not as cut and dry as you would suggest. Anyone knows in all meetings between you and employer you need someone to accompany you into that meeting with your boss and the boss as well.

I've been in that situation more than once, if you go into a meeting alone with your boss, anything verbal is subject to denial and or interpretation.
 
Tobes said:
Sorry but it does.

I agree to sell you my house & tell you that the carpets & curtains are included when you view it. We agree a price & you start the buying process. A sale agreement is drawn up & as part of that it says that carpets & curtains are included but I can come back at any point I fancy & take them back.

Your solicitor misses the detail of the clause & you move in, a year later I turn up & demand the curtains back, legally - as per the written contract - I'd have every right, but would you have ever agreed to that at the time we did the deal? Not a chance, so therefore was the contract misleading & not representative of the verbal agreement reached? Most definitely..........

It's nowhere near as 'black & white' as you're looking to portray it.
Click to expand...

Or it would be like an employee saying to his boss "If this company doesn't meet it's quota, I'm leaving for a company that might". The employee already has a contract with the company, he is just informing the higher-ups that if they don't haul their ass up, he is leaving. That is not contractual.
 
Sisu said:
In a situation where it is not witnessed and one party denies the others version it is not as cut and dry as you would suggest. Anyone knows in all meetings between you and employer you need someone to accompany you into that meeting with your boss and the boss as well.

I've been in that situation more than once, if you go into a meeting alone with your boss, anything verbal is subject to denial and or interpretation.
Click to expand...

Your describing an every day court of law <laugh>

One word against the other is difficult but it wouldn't just get dismissed. IT is a case of proving your or disproving the other persons point. Ie, it could drag on for weeks.
 
Clarke Carlisle has said a move to arsenal will be a redeeming feature for Suarez where he can face his demons everyday in training. Arsenal being the blackest team in the prem will be good for Suarez and his racist rehab.
 
aswordmadeofhash said:
Clarke Carlisle has said a move to arsenal will be a redeeming feature for Suarez where he can face his demons everyday in training. Arsenal being the blackest team in the prem will be good for Suarez and his racist rehab.
Click to expand...

But do they have a biting clinic...?
 
Tyrannosuarez Rex said:
Or it would be like an employee saying to his boss "If this company doesn't meet it's quota, I'm leaving for a company that might". The employee already has a contract with the company, he is just informing the higher-ups that if they don't haul their ass up, he is leaving. That is not contractual.
Click to expand...

No, the difference is, that the conversations re: the clause happened before he agreed to sign a new contract. He then signed the contract with the expectation that it mirrored what was verbally agreed.
 
luvgonzo said:
Krome on the Aresnal board pointed out out that they could lose their qualifier. We are not that lucky it would be hilarious.
Click to expand...

That would be hilarious, but have you seen the unseeded teams they woudl be up against? It's a stroll in the park, especially over 2 legs. The only possible tasty match-up could be if they are paired against PSV.
 
Tobes said:
No, the difference is, that the conversations re: the clause happened before he agreed to sign a new contract. He then signed the contract with the expectation that it mirrored what was verbally agreed.
Click to expand...

Well then he's a bigger moron than he thought. You don't sign a contract with "expectation", you read it, decide for YOURSELF whether it is mirrors what you agreed, and then sign it - an action that demonstrates you're agreement to what has been written. Jesus, why be an argumentative toad for the sake of it?
 
Tobes said:
No, the difference is, that the conversations re: the clause happened before he agreed to sign a new contract. He then signed the contract with the expectation that it mirrored what was verbally agreed.
Click to expand...

If it was an oral agreement aand he was signing a contract, why was this stipulation not in written form? The contract was right ****ing there!
 
sounds like modric to me... levy made him stay until the right deal came in.

its all supposition though.... he's proved to be unreliable so if arsenal still want him they are in for it... biting, cheating, racism, next ban = 20 games or something, refusing to travel and the list goes on... yet we want our 50mil.
 
Suarez to sue for breach of contract....???

Legal action

If you can't sort the problem out with your employer, you can decide to take legal action. Think carefully before taking any legal action against your employer. Ask yourself what you want to achieve and how much it will cost. Remember that you'll only get compensation (called 'damages') if you can prove real financial loss, if for example, your employer doesn't pay your wages. There's no compensation for distress or hurt feelings.

You should also remember that taking legal action might prompt your employer to take out a counter claim against you if they feel they have one


Suarez beware !!!
 
Sir_Red said:
That would be hilarious, but have you seen the unseeded teams they woudl be up against? It's a stroll in the park, especially over 2 legs. The only possible tasty match-up could be if they are paired against PSV.
Click to expand...

Sociedad could be tricky
 
Sir_Red said:
Well then he's a bigger moron than he thought. You don't sign a contract with "expectation", you read it, decide for YOURSELF whether it is mirrors what you agreed, and then sign it - an action that demonstrates you're agreement to what has been written. Jesus, why be an argumentative toad for the sake of it?
Click to expand...

Firstly, I enjoy a spat, but I'm not being obtuse here, you're calling this wrong, as it's not as black & white as you appear to think it is & I've explained in detail why that's the case.

In cases like this, the player would rarely read the contract, his agent & legal team should, but they've obviously missed the wording issue over the 'release' clause. So whilst, yes, ultimately he shouldn't have signed it if he didn't agree with the contents, the salient point is that he's saying it doesn't mirror the verbal agreement he had & it has used semantics to make the release clause worthless. In short - blatant deceit.
 
For the love of God, can a team outside of the premier league just put a bid in for this ****er.

Think we should palm him off to Napoli on a loan if we cannot get shot of him to Madrid

On no acountshould we sell him to Arsenal or another Premiership team
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back