Jump to content

New Contracts for Davis & Baird... Now!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Thanks for clearing up that you dont know either.

like i said, the club havent i far as i can find ever said there is an option of any kind. If there is would love to know that.

It's like trying to have an argument with Donald Trump. The link below was posted before your drivel above.

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I'll also add this link: https://www.stmirren.com/news/club/all-news/1022-harry-davis-joins-the-saints

"The defender has put pen to paper to sign a one-year deal with the option of a further year."

Putting that bit in bold is the equivalent of me saying it very slowly and loudly to make sure you understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Both the club and the player do not have to agree for an option to extend.

What an idiotic idea.

It can be weighted towards the player or the club.

I know for a fact that the option to extend for one player a few seasons ago was entirely in his hands.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, barrhead saint said:

The only reason we have a player of his quality, is because of his injury, otherwise he wouldn't be anywhere near our league.

And to think some doubted the managers decision.

Did he not join us in our league before his injury, or was there a previous one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He joined us on loan a year ago, he was on strike at Crewe because his father , the manager had been sacked , he basically came to Scotland to escape the controversy until his contract expired in June. There wasa queue of clubs for him last summer (JRs words) but the injury put them off .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

 

Wrong & wrong gents!

the/any club may well insist on a UEO  (Unilateral Extension Option) but it has proven whenever tested in UK courts to be unenforceable as it seeks to both 'Restrict Freedom of Movement ' ( Bosman1995) and Restrict Freedom of Trade (stopping an individual making a living). The main reason it is uneforceable is because it is unfairly weighted in favour of one party i.e. The club.

even though a UEO may state the salary payable throughout the full term of the contract, shit happens, and the player could be worth a much better salary than when he originally signed due to performances, Merchandising sales etc.

ffs even PCA's arent enforceable in UK law. Just because you can include something on a legal document i.e. A contract, don't necessarily make it legal.

Just not correct. The way clubs word it is X length of contract but the club can terminate it a year early. All this conversation is just different ways of wording the same thing. For example a two year deal that a club has the right to terminate with no penalty after one year if it chooses. You’d be surprised that what can go into contracts.

 As for PCA not been enforceable. Again incorrect. See Brittain transfer between County and St Johnstone few years back. Fee was payable to cancel PCA. Happy for you to provide actual contract law evidence to back up your claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Sorry wrong again, quote me one case in UK law where a UEO has been contested by the employee, but the employer won the case.... just one!

and having spent decades working in employment law, i can assure you if a contract is indeed 'unfair/weighted in favour of one party to the detriment of another' especially if the party suffering the unfairness is the employee, then it can be succesfully contested if proven unfair, or illegal, or both.

i could offer someone (over 21) who is desperate for a job a contract to be a steward at SMFc. And given their desperation they are happy to sign the contract of employment (a legal document) accepting £6.50 an hour. Its still a legal document, both parties signed it, but it falls below the minimum wage, therfor it is illeagal.

again, just because you include something in a contract both parties sign doesn't make it legal and binding.

meanwhile back on planet earth no one has been able to confirm if there even is a UEO on Davis's contract. 

In what way does offering a year extension agreed by a club unfair on the player or compromise employment law? It doesn’t as long as the wage is above minimum requirements. By your logic a player signing a four year contract that had an amazing first year would be getting treated unfairly in the second year of their contract because they’d be worth more of a wage.

One part of legislation against contract extensions will do it. PCA agreements have nothing to do with contract clauses, it’s last six months of their deal that comes into play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stu said:

It's like trying to have an argument with Donald Trump. The link below was posted before your drivel above.

I'll also add this link: https://www.stmirren.com/news/club/all-news/1022-harry-davis-joins-the-saints

"The defender has put pen to paper to sign a one-year deal with the option of a further year."

Putting that bit in bold is the equivalent of me saying it very slowly and loudly to make sure you understand it.

Thanks for highlighting that, so as has been said if we arent promoted, or he feels the love elsewhere he may nit take up his option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s clear that LPM got proved wrong so has shifted his stance from “Harry hasn’t signed a unilateral extension option” to “There is no such thing as a unilateral extension option” to some spurious and unsubstantiated claim that “a unilateral extension option would not stand up in court”

It’s hilarious watching him shapeshift. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

It’s clear that LPM got proved wrong so has shifted his stance from “Harry hasn’t signed a unilateral extension option” to “There is no such thing as a unilateral extension option” to some spurious and unsubstantiated claim that “a unilateral extension option would not stand up in court”

It’s hilarious watching him shapeshift. 

It's all fairly predictable that his relentless agenda to undermine the club and manager have become a "point and laugh" situation.

The unfortunate point is he has some reasonable points but they get lost in his tedious attempts, quite why, to run down the club he, again, tediously reminds us he, and his family , have been "supporting" the club, as if that is some sort of "badge of honour", for "millions of years". :lol:

Quite why he, backed up by some minority, continues this, is beyond most supporters. 

As I said, he does raise some interesting points, but, coming from a regular negative viewpoint, reduces his views to next to nothing.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair they'll definitely be clauses attached to if Davis signs that agreement, more than likely it'd be renegotiated in his favour. Saying that he could probably refuse and see us get some nominal money through some sort of tribunal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

It’s clear that LPM got proved wrong so has shifted his stance from “Harry hasn’t signed a unilateral extension option” to “There is no such thing as a unilateral extension option” to some spurious and unsubstantiated claim that “a unilateral extension option would not stand up in court”

It’s hilarious watching him shapeshift. 

I unlike you and others have been consistent throughout..

i said i couldnt see an official club statement detailing Davis had signed a year contract with a year option. I never once said there definitely wasnt one. Someone was kind enough to highlight the statement i asked if it was out there.

i also said that UEO's are unenforceable in UK law, please if you can show us a case where that isnt fact.

finally regarding Davis's extension option it seems patently clear no one knows if its a mutual, or UEO agreement, save the club and Davis himself....

now please try and keep up, only deal with facts, and stop trying to set saints fans against each other. These are mainly opinions... we all have them, no one dies if they differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, faraway saint said:

It's all fairly predictable that his relentless agenda to undermine the club and manager have become a "point and laugh" situation.

The unfortunate point is he has some reasonable points but they get lost in his tedious attempts, quite why, to run down the club he, again, tediously reminds us he, and his family , have been "supporting" the club, as if that is some sort of "badge of honour", for "millions of years". :lol:

Quite why he, backed up by some minority, continues this, is beyond most supporters. 

As I said, he does raise some interesting points, but, coming from a regular negative viewpoint, reduces his views to next to nothing.  

 

Funny post for years....

I know Elvis, Mandelson and Redknap have made some astonishing come backs.... god loves a trier..! Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I unlike you and others have been consistent throughout..

i said i couldnt see an official club statement detailing Davis had signed a year contract with a year option. I never once said there definitely wasnt one. Someone was kind enough to highlight the statement i asked if it was out there.

i also said that UEO's are unenforceable in UK law, please if you can show us a case where that isnt fact.

finally regarding Davis's extension option it seems patently clear no one knows if its a mutual, or UEO agreement, save the club and Davis himself....

now please try and keep up, only deal with facts, and stop trying to set saints fans against each other. These are mainly opinions... we all have them, no one dies if they differ.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. Please show us one example or item of legislation that proves they're unenforceable?

As I previously stated contracts are complex and wording is flexible.  Contracts can be worded as a stated length with get out clauses at certain stages. For example a two year contract that a club retains the right to terminate after a one year period with no penalty. It's purely another way of saying a one year contract with a second year option controlled by the club. I can guarantee such contracts are enforceable under UK law. 

If you require proof of the above, I would point you to the fact promotion/ relegation in a footballing league format are not steeped in legislation or regulation. They are rules of a competition not law/ regulatory (of course we have a regulatory body but in theory they could implement a rule that promotes the bottom team and relegates the top, sports regulation is different from other regulation in that if the members agree and they aren't doing anything illegal they can change any rule of the game) If a contract clause can legally be implemented to allow a relegated/ promoted team to trigger a clause in a contract (either extend or terminate) then there is no legal grounds to say the club can not take such action when relegation/ promotion doesn't occur. To say one is lawful and the other is not is simply wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The burden of proof is on the claimant. Please show us one example or item of legislation that proves they're unenforceable?

As I previously stated contracts are complex and wording is flexible.  Contracts can be worded as a stated length with get out clauses at certain stages. For example a two year contract that a club retains the right to terminate after a one year period with no penalty. It's purely another way of saying a one year contract with a second year option controlled by the club. I can guarantee such contracts are enforceable under UK law. 

If you require proof of the above, I would point you to the fact promotion/ relegation in a footballing league format are not steeped in legislation or regulation. They are rules of a competition not law/ regulatory (of course we have a regulatory body but in theory they could implement a rule that promotes the bottom team and relegates the top, sports regulation is different from other regulation in that if the members agree and they aren't doing anything illegal they can change any rule of the game) If a contract clause can legally be implemented to allow a relegated/ promoted team to trigger a clause in a contract (either extend or terminate) then there is no legal grounds to say the club can not take such action when relegation/ promotion doesn't occur. To say one is lawful and the other is not is simply wrong. 

Thats makes so little sense its lol funny.... a two year contract that can be terminated after one..! Ffs whose got one of those..?

again for the umpteenth time you can put whatever you like in a contract.... two years terminate after one (lol), right to kill first born child if not male, UEO for one year...etc.. etc... but it doesnt mean its legally enforceable. Signing a contract doesnt give anyone the right to break, or insist others break the law.

cheers for putting your hands up in being unable to find ONE case of a UEO being enforced in the UK courts. I will help you though, under EU law they can, and have been enforced in the courts. Seems we didnt need Brexit to "get our country back" after all.,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Thats makes so little sense its lol funny.... a two year contract that can be terminated after one..! Ffs whose got one of those..?

again for the umpteenth time you can put whatever you like in a contract.... two years terminate after one (lol), right to kill first born child if not male, UEO for one year...etc.. etc... but it doesnt mean its legally enforceable. Signing a contract doesnt give anyone the right to break, or insist others break the law.

cheers for putting your hands up in being unable to find ONE case of a UEO being enforced in the UK courts. I will help you though, under EU law they can, and have been enforced in the courts. Seems we didnt need Brexit to "get our country back" after all.,

You clearly are missing the point several people are making to you. Contracts are complex entities. The wording on contracts often include get out clauses such as if promotion isn't achieved, relegation results, lack of appearances etc. All of which are rules of a competition not legislation, you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between game rules and legislation in player contracts, not surprising giving some of the nonsense you spew about SMISA payments. If you can show me one example where a sports competition rule will impact contract law then that would be great? 

Putting in a clause to terminate a contract after a set length of time is not breaking any law (if it was then why was it legal for us to terminate DVZ contract if he hadn't made X number of appearances?). If it is please show us? Or please show us one example where a contract extension has been triggered by a club and then been challenged successfully by a court of law? 

Again your claim so the burden of proof is on you. There are several examples where contract extensions have been triggered based on terms of a contract being met (for example avoiding relegation with McGinn) feel free to show us evidence that this is legally enforceable but clubs triggering an extension is not? If it's so clear cut you must be able to pull examples and legislation? 

Don't make the mistake of thinking you're the only one that deals with legislative and regulatory matters and has an extensive knowledge of employee law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Thats makes so little sense its lol funny.... a two year contract that can be terminated after one..! Ffs whose got one of those..?

again for the umpteenth time you can put whatever you like in a contract.... two years terminate after one (lol), right to kill first born child if not male, UEO for one year...etc.. etc... but it doesnt mean its legally enforceable. Signing a contract doesnt give anyone the right to break, or insist others break the law.

cheers for putting your hands up in being unable to find ONE case of a UEO being enforced in the UK courts. I will help you though, under EU law they can, and have been enforced in the courts. Seems we didnt need Brexit to "get our country back" after all.,

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/12/juan-mata-hails-manchester-united-best-confidence-mentality-maraoune-fellaini 

If only someone would tell the biggest football club in the world this contract extension isn't legal... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/12/juan-mata-hails-manchester-united-best-confidence-mentality-maraoune-fellaini 

If only someone would tell the biggest football club in the world this contract extension isn't legal... :lol:

Thats lovely, but again, again, again.... it doesn't tell you if it was a UEO or mutual agreement to extend fir another year, and given the feckin wages Fellini is on, even if it was a UEO by the club, he'd be bonkers to challenge it.

again, again, again... you still cannot cite one example of a UEO being enforced in a UK court.... reason being thete isnt ONE..!

Man Utd, Southend Utd, Ayr Utd..... can put whatever they damn well pleasy in a contract, me and you can draw up our vey own contract and sign it.... but if the content isnt legally enforceable it aint worth the paper its written on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, kevo_smfc said:

I had heard that there was some agreement if we were relegated last season he would leave.

Yip quite probably, that would be a "mutually" (this is this detail Basil and other dont get) agreed option that protected both parties.. i.e. Davis isnt tied ti league one football, the club arent tied to paying him over the odds to play in league one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

You clearly are missing the point several people are making to you. Contracts are complex entities. The wording on contracts often include get out clauses such as if promotion isn't achieved, relegation results, lack of appearances etc. All of which are rules of a competition not legislation, you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between game rules and legislation in player contracts, not surprising giving some of the nonsense you spew about SMISA payments. If you can show me one example where a sports competition rule will impact contract law then that would be great? 

Putting in a clause to terminate a contract after a set length of time is not breaking any law (if it was then why was it legal for us to terminate DVZ contract if he hadn't made X number of appearances?). If it is please show us? Or please show us one example where a contract extension has been triggered by a club and then been challenged successfully by a court of law? 

Again your claim so the burden of proof is on you. There are several examples where contract extensions have been triggered based on terms of a contract being met (for example avoiding relegation with McGinn) feel free to show us evidence that this is legally enforceable but clubs triggering an extension is not? If it's so clear cut you must be able to pull examples and legislation? 

Don't make the mistake of thinking you're the only one that deals with legislative and regulatory matters and has an extensive knowledge of employee law. 

Lets save a rainforest here... the clauses you are highlighting will have been mutually agreed clauses. 

I am sure there are still players with UEO clauses in their contract playing in the UK, but if they have/want to go to court to challenge them they will win. As its a restriction of trade, and freedom of movement.

there are no examples of cases going to court to cite, as the clubs who tried to enforce UEO against aplayers wishs all ended up having to agree a compromise as their lawyers would have advised them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Thats lovely, but again, again, again.... it doesn't tell you if it was a UEO or mutual agreement to extend fir another year, and given the feckin wages Fellini is on, even if it was a UEO by the club, he'd be bonkers to challenge it.

again, again, again... you still cannot cite one example of a UEO being enforced in a UK court.... reason being thete isnt ONE..!

Man Utd, Southend Utd, Ayr Utd..... can put whatever they damn well pleasy in a contract, me and you can draw up our vey own contract and sign it.... but if the content isnt legally enforceable it aint worth the paper its written on.

That makes zero sense. How does it protect Man U by extending his contract then if it’s just a mutual thing? Ac Milan could still come in and get him for free and challenge it through the courts if they’re not enforceable as you keep saying. I’d say I’ve given you a very clear example where it undoubtedly says ‘Manchester United have taken the option’ no mention at all about it being mutual. You haven’t provided one shred of evidence to your claim. Onto you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...