The Randy Lerner thread

[jacketspuds]

I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO

He successfully argued 'constructive dismissal' therefore the agreed terms in which he operated were changed forcing him out - clearly that was an expensive change , but any more expensive than keeping him? Probably as we can see how far we have dropped since when he would have wanted to 'push on'

We don't know how MON argued the constructive dismissal case, but it seems quite likely it was either due to a change in employment conditions (maybe the removal of some of his control such as players contract negotiations), or if Faulkner and MON had history, then it's also possible he argued that in promoting Faulkner to CEO Randy had made it impossible for him to continue.

It doesn't necessarily make Faulkner responsible.

what is faulkners job and can you tell me what he is responsible for?

Faulkner as CEO is charged with delivering on the KPI's set by th shareholders (Randy). My point has been that as those KPI's aren't published, none of us know what his responsibilities are, and he.nce we can't judge his performance.

I would imagine the only KPI will be to stop losing money. So PF will use whatever means necessary to do this. Sadly, as he clearly has limited knowledge of soccerball he cannot see that style of play, tactics and realistic ambition (along with communication) seriously impacts the clubs ability to achieve this target.

The football is crap=We finish lower in the league=Fans stay away=More money is needed to bridge the deficit between profit and loss=Best players are once again sold in the summer. (Rinse & Repeat)

[Richard]

I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO

Hmm...last time I checked the details of the tribunal were confidential so you don't and I don't know how it was settled. By that I mean MON might have got 12 months salary he may have got very little.

As a veteran of many employment tribunals I can categorically say that nothing is as simple as it seems in these situations.

I couldn't care less how much he got. The issue is you do not normally award payment against a party unless that party is in the wrong / performed a contract breach

[TrentVilla]

I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO

Hmm...last time I checked the details of the tribunal were confidential so you don't and I don't know how it was settled. By that I mean MON might have got 12 months salary he may have got very little.

As a veteran of many employment tribunals I can categorically say that nothing is as simple as it seems in these situations.

As a veteran of many myself I can categorically say that they are pretty simple, the side that lose are deemed to be in the wrong. For whatever reason the club lost and were therefore in the eyes of the tribunal in the wrong.

We might not know the exact details but that is the long and short of it and can't be disputed.

[Harry]

I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO

Hmm...last time I checked the details of the tribunal were confidential so you don't and I don't know how it was settled. By that I mean MON might have got 12 months salary he may have got very little.

As a veteran of many employment tribunals I can categorically say that nothing is as simple as it seems in these situations.

I couldn't care less how much he got. The issue is you do not normally award payment against a party unless that party is in the wrong / performed a contract breach

Perhaps you would like to share the link to the article that shows he was paid anything. As far as I can see MON released a statement saying that the case had been 'settled amicably' which could mean anything.

[Richard]

Well considering it went to arbitration anyway because they failed to reach agreement over whether he should be paid for leaving or not ( here ) and then it was settled to his satisfaction, that strongly suggests he was then paid.

[Harry]

I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO

Hmm...last time I checked the details of the tribunal were confidential so you don't and I don't know how it was settled. By that I mean MON might have got 12 months salary he may have got very little.

As a veteran of many employment tribunals I can categorically say that nothing is as simple as it seems in these situations.

As a veteran of many myself I can categorically say that they are pretty simple, the side that lose are deemed to be in the wrong. For whatever reason the club lost and were therefore in the eyes of the tribunal in the wrong.

We might not know the exact details but that is the long and short of it and can't be disputed.

And that's the point. As I said above in response to Richard I do not recall anything in the media that says he received any money. The words that MON used were 'settled amicably'. Clearly all this is covered by a confidentiality agreement which why we don't know the exact details but seemingly many fans have just interpreted it as meaning a huge pay out to MON.

[Richard]

Do you think Mon would have said it was amicably settled if the tribunal had found that he should receive nothing from the club, when in fact that was the reason it went there in the first place?

The fact that we do not know exactly how much was paid to him does not mean that nothing was paid to him. The fact that something was padi to him, to his satisfaction, suggests that the club was at fault and considering it was he who "resigned" that is rather strange

[1968]

Any more rumours floating around ref the Quatar buyout?

[Denis_B]

Harry, we all know we don't know but are working on the balance of probability not beyond resaonable doubt, the same burden of proof in the Civil Courts, as i am sure you must know.

So on the balance of proabilities I believe he had a substantial payout as AVFC LOST the claim that MON brought against them to pay him up his one year rolling contract.

It would be fair to assume that he was on plenty so I would interpret he came away with a 'huge payout' and his legal fees paid for.

[Harry]

Do you think Mon would have said it was amicably settled if the tribunal had found that he should receive nothing from the club, when in fact that was the reason it went there in the first place?

The fact that we do not know exactly how much was paid to him does not mean that nothing was paid to him. The fact that something was padi to him, to his satisfaction, suggests that the club was at fault and considering it was he who "resigned" that is rather strange

Completely agree with that statement. My point was and is that posters are assuming some large settlement was made with MON when there is absolutely no evidence that happened. You say 'something was paid to him, to his satisfaction', perhaps you can provide a link to support that assertion?

I agree that 'settled amicably' could mean anything including a large payment to him, alternatively it could mean no money changed hands. This is all clearly covered by a confidentiality agreement so whatever we say is speculation.

My point put simply is none of know how it was 'settled amicably' and yet posters seem to be making sweeping assumptions based on no knowledge.

........Hang on though I was forgetting this is Villa Talk

[Richard]

and as I said previously I couldn't care less what the value of payout he received from the club was. The more important thing to me was that the club was found to be in the wrong when a manager resigned.

ERGO, club at fault not MON

[Harry]

Harry, we all know we don't know but are working on the balance of probability not beyond resaonable doubt, the same burden of proof in the Civil Courts, as i am sure you must know.

So on the balance of proabilities I believe he had a substantial payout as AVFC LOST the claim that MON brought against them to pay him up his one year rolling contract.

It would be fair to assume that he was on plenty so I would interpret he came away with a 'huge payout' and his legal fees paid for.

Denis as I said in my response to Richard my point is none of us know. At no point have I said he did not get a payout, all I have said is there is no evidence to support the assumption that many posters have made that he got a substantial payout.

I think we also may be running the gauntlet of the Mods on this one as I think we have strayed well off the topic of "Where's Randy"

[Denis_B]

I think we also may be running the gauntlet of the Mods on this one as I think we have strayed well off the topic of "Where's Randy"

Who?

[meregreen]

and as I said previously I couldn't care less what the value of payout he received from the club was. The more important thing to me was that the club was found to be in the wrong when a manager resigned.

ERGO, club at fault not MON

What payout?

What statement finds fault with the club?

Settled "amicably" could mean anything. For all we know it could simply mean all parties decided to let the whole thing drop and say nothing to inflame the situation. We simply don't know.

Quite frankly I think as fans we have far more serious concerns about our club than this.

He quit, end of story.

[Harry]

and as I said previously I couldn't care less what the value of payout he received from the club was. The more important thing to me was that the club was found to be in the wrong when a manager resigned.

ERGO, club at fault not MON

A bit of supporting evidence to that statement would be helpful for all us readers.

An in depth analysis of what was said in the tribunal perhaps? Copies of various statements made? The QC Chairing the Tribunal's judgement? Sorry I forgot none of these are public documents.

I'm not saying that the club won the case all I'm saying, yet again, is we do not know.

[Denis_B]

Harry, we all know we don't know but are working on the balance of probability not beyond resaonable doubt

Just incase you missed this Harry I think you will agree this is one thing we agree on, but we can all draw out own conclusions

[blandy]

AVFC LOST the claim that MON brought against them to pay him up his one year rolling contract.

Not true at all Denis.

....they are pretty simple, the side that lose are deemed to be in the wrong. For whatever reason the club lost and were therefore in the eyes of the tribunal in the wrong.

We might not know the exact details but that is the long and short of it and can't be disputed.

Not true. The Club did not lose The tribunal did not rule that MO'N was right or the club wrong. The tribunal made no ruling whatsoever. (Unlike in the only other cases it has dealt with - Keegan and Curbishley).

The LMA said Martin O'Neill and Aston Villa have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club in August 2010....The matter was placed before the FA Premier League Managers' Arbitration Tribunal, but was resolved during the course of the hearing...It was an amicable resolution.

We know MO'N said It has taken a long time to deal with this matter, but I am pleased that all issues have now been amicably finalised...I am very proud to have managed Aston Villa and I wish the club all the best for the future...I... thank the LMA and my outstanding legal team...for their support and hard work in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion.

So there you are. The tribunal DID NOT make a ruling one way or the other. There was no "proof or otherwise of "constructive dismissal" or any such allegation.

We know that the two parties, Villa and MO'N came to an agreement, without there being a ruling. We know that MO'N said he was very satisfied. But we don't know what Villa think of it all, and we have no hope of finding out. It seems reasonable to surmise/guess that Villa ended up deciding to offer some financial payment to MO'N to close the issue down. Whether that package was all that MO'N might have been seeking, some sort of "meet you half way" or a token amount, allowing MO'N to feel he had got something, in terms of being able to say "they paid me money, which therefore indicates to people that I had reason to leave and I didn't just walk out in a hissy fit" is unclear.

I think people jumping to assert that he won a case for constructive dismissal are wrong in fact, (he absolutely did not "win").

It is not possible, without knowing what amicable agreement was reached to come to any cast iron conclusions.

You [anyone] may surmise "well the club have said almost now't, so that just shows, that with MO'N expressing his delight, that the Club "lost"". But if the club had come out with a statement saying (for example) It has taken a long time to deal with this matter, but we are pleased that all issues have now been amicably finalised.. Aston Villa wishes Martin all the best for the future. We thank our outstanding legal team for hard work in bringing this case to this very satisfactory conclusion people would have said "They're both claiming to have "won" and they can't both be right, one of them is lying...leading to headlines of "bitter dispute goes on"....or whatever.

The idea that neither side actually "won" - MO'N claiming full entitlement to X amount of wages, and Villa claiming "not a penny" would still have been lost, as it is now, anyway. In other words no good would have come from the Villa saying anything.

We have seen with Villa, I think, under Randy, a repeated desire to move on. He liked MO'N, I don't think he has a grudge, and it's entirely possible he felt that giving something to just be rid of the issue would have been better than having a ruling go either way and there being enduring bitterness, or a reputational hit - He is very keen that Villa be seen as "ethical" whether it be Acorns, or non-poaching, or reaching an amicable arrangement, rather than forcing a legal decision. All Villa has said is “It was an amicable resolution.”. It makes a good subject for messageboards, but facts seem to be being overlooked.

[Risso]

The club and O'Neill settled at roughly half way between what O'Neill wanted (ie a full year of his rolling contract) and what the club though they should pay (ie nowt).

[Denis_B]

OK Blandy, humble on on the way

[TrentVilla]

We have seen with Villa, I think, under Randy, a repeated desire to move on. He liked MO'N, I don't think he has a grudge, and it's entirely possible he felt that giving something to just be rid of the issue would have been better than having a ruling go either way and there being enduring bitterness, or a reputational hit - He is very keen that Villa be seen as "ethical" whether it be Acorns, or non-poaching, or reaching an amicable arrangement, rather than forcing a legal decision. All Villa has said is “It was an amicable resolution.”. It makes a good subject for messageboards, but facts seem to be being overlooked.

Some useful stuff in your post Pete, I genuinely thought the club had lost the tribunal so I appreciate being put right on that, its an important distinction.

I do though find the above extract of your post to be perhaps a little wide of the mark.

If Randy was as worried about these things as you suggest then he could and surely would have reached a settlement figure with O'Neill long before the case reached a tribunal stage. He would not wait for the tribunal to be in session before taking this step.

To be at least this argument has no logic at all. These tribunals are extremely rare, most disputes are settled long before this stage with O'Neill's being one of only 3 to reach this stage in the last few years.

Surely by the stage that O'Neill's reached an element of damage had already been done? Perhaps not as bad as actually losing the tribunal but damage none the less. People only usually settle once at a tribunal because they are likely to lose not because of some moral desire to do the right thing or resolve the issue.

There is ample opportunity to settle these matters long before it reaches the stage this one did.