jimbob80 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Utter waffle my friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 11, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2012 Similar circumstances but not the same circumstances. You appear to have made an illegal approach, we didn't. That is a pretty sizeable difference and given that point I think McNally and a lot of Norwich fans really should drop the moral indignation and hard done to act. Granted you are entitled to feel bitter, you are entitled to feel angry at Villa for luring away your manager or angry at him for walking away but that is about it. We didn't do what you appeared to do to Colchester, there was no unofficial approach as its widely believed was made by Norwich to Lambert and as such you will be highly unlikely to get a penny from us for Lambert. As for your point about the relative wealth of Norwich at the time of pinching Lambert to Villa at the time of hiring Lambert that is utterly utterly utterly irrelevant. In fact it is more than that it is rather sad and pathetic, to claim you should be able to get away with breaking the rules because you were skint while we should have to pay out because we are more wealthy club. When you go making statements like that you really have zero credibility. Yes Villa have more money than Norwich but why the hell should we give you a few million quid for nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I OBJECT! A contract can be built from any amount of clauses and should one be broken from either of the party's it is a breach of contract and can in some circumstances render the contract null and void. We approached your people for Lambert. Your people said 'no' breaking the clause in Lamberts contract which says he can speak to any premiership team should they wish to speak to him. Lamberts representatives said 'hold up, your breaching contract there, we will speak to Villa ta very much'.... As far as Villa are concerned - Lambert was fair game which appears to be the case, hence he is now our manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smithy07 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Tayls - yes those circumstances being where there is a fundamental breach which goes to the heart of performance of the contract. Trent - we got permission to talk to Lambert. The dispute arose over the level of contribution and when it could not be agreed he quit but we always accepted we had to pay compensation. That said we were technically in the wrong and we rightly ended up paying out. As will you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggy_333 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Trent i know you're trying to get your point across but is this a new tactic of repeating your post until the Norwich fans admit defeat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Tayls - yes those circumstances being where there is a fundamental breach which goes to the heart of performance of the contract. Surely a clause is a clause? No one party can go breaking the agreed clauses within a contract willy nilly? Any breaching of a clause within a contract is a fundamental breach and deeming it null and void? I also wouldnt be surprised if there was a clause to say that no clause can be broken... Id imagine a football manger would ensure his ass is covered by that, which shows as to why he was so confident in moving things forward with Aston Villa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_down_under Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Tayls - yes those circumstances being where there is a fundamental breach which goes to the heart of performance of the contract. Trent - we got permission to talk to Lambert. The dispute arose over the level of contribution and when it could not be agreed he quit but we always accepted we had to pay compensation. That said we were technically in the wrong and we rightly ended up paying out. As will you. "And frankly, who cares?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smithy07 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Tayls - yes those circumstances being where there is a fundamental breach which goes to the heart of performance of the contract. Surely a clause is a clause? No one party can go breaking the agreed clauses within a contract willy nilly? Any breaching of a clause within a contract is a fundamental breach and deeming it null and void? I also wouldnt be surprised if there was a clause to say that no clause can be broken... Id imagine a football manger would ensure his ass is covered by that, which shows as to why he was so confident in moving things forward with Aston Villa. A clause is a clause but not all breaches are fundamental breaches. In the co text of a football manager employed to manage a team there are probably very few breaches by the club that would qualify - possibly only failure to pay his wages! There may be other clauses in the contract which enable termination in HHS event of material breaches but it would bd very rare that these enabled immediate termination without the ability for either party to remedy the breach first. Anyway I'm sure Lambo/villa took legal advice and time will tell if it was correct but (even if the rumoured clause dies exist) i still dont think he was entitled to terminate his contract as claimed. It would not surprise me though if lambert/villa know that and settle this quietly before it sees a court, probably as part of any deal for Culverhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 This whole "debate" is stupid. None of you have ever seen the contract or even know what actually went on in the lead up to the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Tayls - yes those circumstances being where there is a fundamental breach which goes to the heart of performance of the contract. Surely a clause is a clause? No one party can go breaking the agreed clauses within a contract willy nilly? Any breaching of a clause within a contract is a fundamental breach and deeming it null and void? I also wouldnt be surprised if there was a clause to say that no clause can be broken... Id imagine a football manger would ensure his ass is covered by that, which shows as to why he was so confident in moving things forward with Aston Villa. A clause is a clause but not all breaches are fundamental breaches. In the co text of a football manager employed to manage a team there are probably very few breaches by the club that would qualify - possibly only failure to pay his wages! There may be other clauses in the contract which enable termination in HHS event of material breaches but it would bd very rare that these enabled immediate termination without the ability for either party to remedy the breach first. Anyway I'm sure Lambo/villa took legal advice and time will tell if it was correct but (even if the rumoured clause dies exist) i still dont think he was entitled to terminate his contract as claimed. It would not surprise me though if lambert/villa know that and settle this quietly before it sees a court, probably as part of any deal for Culverhouse. Yea, truth is... We don't really know. I'm clutching at straws and I'd imagine you are doing the same - unless of course you know the true facts? (in which case, who are you?!) I'm not a lawyer, but I do work in recruitment so have the minimal amount of contract writing/knowledge which I need to help in some elements of my job but I'm assuming the contracts which I see are poles apart from contracts for a football manager on 800k a year. We shall see what happens... But have a feeling Culverhouse and Karsa will not be joining the Villa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Cor God sake Smithy you sound like you have skim read a page of an under-graduate contract law text book. A clause concerning one parties right to explore alternate employment opportunities in the context of an employment contract will be a condition clause and not a warranty clause. You breached a condition and Lambert acted lawfully and unilaterally terminated the agreement. You owe him damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Trent - are you just trying to boost your post count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Cor God sake Smithy you sound like you have skim read a page of an under-graduate contract law text book. A clause concerning one parties right to explore alternate employment opportunities in the context of an employment contract will be a condition clause and not a warranty clause. You breached a condition and Lambert acted lawfully and unilaterally terminated the agreement. You owe him damages. This is what I believe as well, but Smithys point is centred around knowing that the clause was indeed a condition? I understood it that all clauses are conditions that go to the root of the contract - but not 100% sure on that. (skipping out warranty clauses as they don't help anyone ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I don't think Trent has got his point across yet Can you say it again i don't think i got it the last time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I'm waiting for a mod to come and clean up this abortion of a thread :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 11, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2012 Well that was odd..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onje_villa Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Er can I just point something out? None of us have a **** clue what is written in his contract. Could be three lines on a bit of bog roll for all we know. So let's all chill out shall we and stop pretending we're Rumpole of the **** Bailey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 VillaTalk...page after page of ramblings from the insane. I loves it i does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Haha, Smithy what are you on about Court, If Villa were in the wrong, McNally who doesn't keep his gob shut about anything it seems would have made a statement to the affect of foul play by AVFC, he would of ensure via Lawyers that Lambert to not be appointed by AVFC. This has all brewed up due to the amount Liverpool paid Swansea. As for the big club should pay compensation lark, if we don't need to why should we. I know AVFC supports great Charities such as Acorns however adding Norwich to the list isn't on the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Oh I do hope some knowledgeable person can clear up what sort of clause it is. The suspense is simply killing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts