Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Lord Pityme

New Contracts for Davis & Baird... Now!

Recommended Posts


50 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Agree with the apprarance option, but you are wrong about McGinn who signed an 18 month contract....

https://www.stmirren.com/news/club/all-news/543-stephen-mcginn-returns-to-the-saints

And again wrong on there being a pure 'Club' option on his contract, Bosman killed that 23 years ago

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes 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.

No matter how many times you spout this nonsense it will NOT be true.

The Bosman ruling meant that players could move to a new club at the end of their contract without their old club receiving a fee. Players can now agree a pre-contract with another club for a free transfer if the players' contract with their existing club has six months or less remaining. The extension is not unilateral because it was agreed by both parties. If their is a clause in the contract stating how the extension should be triggered, ie., by registered letter then it must do so or the contract is null and void. Most contracts benefit one party more than the other. It's the name of the game. Harry's contract seems to have been given partly on the basis that he allows for the insertion of this clause. If he unilaterally  decide he didn't want this he wouldn't have signed the contract.

A PCA is an agreement. Not a contract therefore it canot be enforceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

No matter how many times you spout this nonsense it will NOT be true.

The Bosman ruling meant that players could move to a new club at the end of their contract without their old club receiving a fee. Players can now agree a pre-contract with another club for a free transfer if the players' contract with their existing club has six months or less remaining. The extension is not unilateral because it was agreed by both parties. If their is a clause in the contract stating how the extension should be triggered, ie., by registered letter then it must do so or the contract is null and void. Most contracts benefit one party more than the other. It's the name of the game. Harry's contract seems to have been given partly on the basis that he allows for the insertion of this clause. If he unilaterally  decide he didn't want this he wouldn't have signed the contract.

A PCA is an agreement. Not a contract therefore it canot be enforceable.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
We should have him or Baird according to some.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 .

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.,

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×