Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Mozzer on Aug 22, 2023 13:58:35 GMT
You think clubs can't dispense with someone's services if they have no legal grounds to? For real? I can provide you with a list of people who precisely that happens to practically every week in football...and they haven't even done anything that warranted criminal investigation. Simon Rusk...there's a start. Jim Gannon. Another. You're specifically talking there about Managerial sackings, in which case I expect both Gannon and Rusk were paid up their contracts, or at least settled to terms that were agreed when the contract was signed. United could pay up Greenwood's contract, which they may do, but that's different from sacking him on the grounds of what he's done. I'm sure if they had sufficient evidence they would just terminate his contract and save themselves X Mil in wages. Doesn't seem they have grounds for that, so they either: 1) pay up his contract at considerable expense, 2) loan him out somewhere with a view to potentially recouping some money back on him in the future Yep. There's talk about them getting a fee for him. They won't be able to do that if they've paid him off. Serves their purposes in more than one regard.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Aug 22, 2023 14:24:29 GMT
You think clubs can't dispense with someone's services if they have no legal grounds to? For real? I can provide you with a list of people who precisely that happens to practically every week in football...and they haven't even done anything that warranted criminal investigation. Simon Rusk...there's a start. Jim Gannon. Another. You're specifically talking there about Managerial sackings, in which case I expect both Gannon and Rusk were paid up their contracts, or at least settled to terms that were agreed when the contract was signed. United could pay up Greenwood's contract, which they may do, but that's different from sacking him on the grounds of what he's done. I'm sure if they had sufficient evidence they would just terminate his contract and save themselves X Mil in wages. Doesn't seem they have grounds for that, so they either: 1) pay up his contract at considerable expense, 2) loan him out somewhere with a view to potentially recouping some money back on him in the future Didn't West Brom sack Anelka for making a gesture after scoring a goal? Anelka said he was ignorant of the significance of the gesture he'd made but they sacked him anyway, at least that's my recollection of it.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 22, 2023 14:54:12 GMT
Yep. There's talk about them getting a fee for him. They won't be able to do that if they've paid him off. Serves their purposes in more than one regard. Also seems to be an element with United of (rightly or wrongly) wanting to (or at least be seen to be wanting to) doing right by the player. Logic being that while he's still registered at United he's got more chance of finding another club (as United are sort of standing behind him). The perception at least from being paid off vs terminated wouldn't be that much different in the public's perception, so possibly reluctant to pay him off until he's fixed up with another club.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 22, 2023 15:06:13 GMT
You think clubs can't dispense with someone's services if they have no legal grounds to? For real? I can provide you with a list of people who precisely that happens to practically every week in football...and they haven't even done anything that warranted criminal investigation. Simon Rusk...there's a start. Jim Gannon. Another. You're specifically talking there about Managerial sackings, in which case I expect both Gannon and Rusk were paid up their contracts, or at least settled to terms that were agreed when the contract was signed. United could pay up Greenwood's contract, which they may do, but that's different from sacking him on the grounds of what he's done. I'm sure if they had sufficient evidence they would just terminate his contract and save themselves X Mil in wages. Doesn't seem they have grounds for that, so they either: 1) pay up his contract at considerable expense, 2) loan him out somewhere with a view to potentially recouping some money back on him in the future It's still the sack mate. Gannon and Rusk were still sacked. A member of staff who's services are dispensed with in the legal manner in which the company can. There's different types and ways of getting the sack, but it's still the sack. If I get caught out using racist terms in an email to a client I'll get sacked, without recompense. If I'm shit but do nothing legally wrong then I'll get sacked with recompense (ie. made redundant usually). Either way I'm not gunna be earning a healthy living for the remainder of my days at that company where I work before I drift off into relative financial security in retirement, nor attending Christmas parties. They can't sack Greenwood because he's done nothing legally wrong. But is he a footballer? Does he want to play for Man United? Is he ever going to? No. He's going to be dispensed with in the best way, financially, that Man U can. That's the sack. Just like Managers when they drift off with two years salaries have been "sacked". What makes you think managerial sackings are any different than player sackings? Don't be daft. It's just convention that players reach the end of their contracts in the obscurity of the reserves if the club are not able to get them sold if they're shit (or dispensed with on mutually agreed free-transfer terms). They're not, individually, as pivotal as managers. That's the only reason. Mason might well be squiraled away into the Old Trafford ether as is Man United's prerogative. But he's still never playing for them again.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Mozzer on Aug 22, 2023 15:13:50 GMT
We're into semantics here, but you're not sacked if someone is paying you. They are employing you. If they choose not to ask you to do what they're paying you for, that's their business but you're not sacked. Sidelined, in the case of footballers, but not sacked.
In this case it appears Man U have elected for a sort of halfway house between constructively dismissing him and sticking him in the reserves. It likely suits all parties, given the situation. But you can't be 'sacked' and still be retained by an employer, which is what is happening to Greenwood.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 22, 2023 15:15:05 GMT
It's still the sack mate. They can't sack Greenwood because he's done nothing legally wrong. Make your mind up BM....
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 22, 2023 15:27:48 GMT
We're into semantics here, but you're not sacked if someone is paying you. They are employing you. If they choose not to ask you to do what they're paying you for, that's their business but you're not sacked. Sidelined, in the case of footballers, but not sacked. In this case it appears Man U have elected for a sort of halfway house between constructively dismissing him and sticking him in the reserves. It likely suits all parties, given the situation. But you can't be 'sacked' and still be retained by an employer, which is what is happening to Greenwood. They're in the process of getting rid aren't they? Just fathoming how best to make it happen. That's what I read on the beeb earlier. I agree entirely, you can't be sacked if you haven't been dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 22, 2023 15:28:41 GMT
It's still the sack mate. They can't sack Greenwood because he's done nothing legally wrong. Make your mind up BM.... Sack without recompense I ought to have said. Good catch.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 22, 2023 15:33:56 GMT
Make your mind up BM.... Sack without recompense I ought to have said. Good catch. Thanks !! The subtlety of the nature of the "parting of ways" is significant though in terms of Greenwood's potential legal options against United?? If they pay up his contract, presumably no grounds for unfair dismissal - a different scenario to if they sack him without recompense? (same in the real word - a massive difference in your future employment chances depending on the term of your exit)
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Mozzer on Aug 22, 2023 15:36:11 GMT
I can only go off what I hear, but probably trying to get a fee. They're getting rid, but probably by a sale. Football operates in a different way to most of our places of work, doesn't it? We just get binned off. You might get your contract paid off or not, as you say, but no-one says 'We want rid of you, but hang around doing eff-all until someone gives us 40 million for you.'
Greenwood is clearly an extreme example but players get sold for being surplus to requirements all the time, it's just that it's on the pitch where they've outlived their usefulness. That's not a sacking, in my book, but clearly the club is 'moving you on'!
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 22, 2023 15:41:11 GMT
Sack without recompense I ought to have said. Good catch. Thanks !! The subtlety of the nature of the "parting of ways" is significant though in terms of Greenwood's potential legal options against United?? If they pay up his contract, presumably no grounds for unfair dismissal - a different scenario to if they sack him without recompense? (same in the real word - a massive difference in your future employment chances depending on the term of your exit) Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 22, 2023 17:36:39 GMT
He should f*ck off to Saudi where he’ll fit right in Why will he fit in in Saudi? Have they condoned rapists? Not sure I quite get the link Dave?
|
|
|
Post by Ngard on Aug 22, 2023 18:26:33 GMT
He should f*ck off to Saudi where he’ll fit right in Why will he fit in in Saudi? Have they condoned rapists? Not sure I quite get the link Dave? If he was in Saudi Arabia there would be no grounds in law to claim what he did was rape. Happy to help, gibbo.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 22, 2023 18:28:37 GMT
Why will he fit in in Saudi? Have they condoned rapists? Not sure I quite get the link Dave? If he was in Saudi Arabia there would be no grounds in law to claim what he did was rape. Happy to help, gibbo. No grounds in the UK either - what's your point?
|
|
|
Post by Ngard on Aug 22, 2023 18:29:20 GMT
If he was in Saudi Arabia there would be no grounds in law to claim what he did was rape. Happy to help, gibbo. No grounds in the UK either - what's your point? What do you mean no grounds? He was charged of it. He couldn’t be charged at all in Saudi because they do not recognise marital rape/rape in a relationship.
|
|