Kmcalpin Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 http://sport.scotsman.com/sport/Moira-Gord...p?articlepage=1 According to this article, they wanted their contract altered before signing so they could have control over all footballing aspects. Yes, I read this too. From the way it was written I assume that it wasn't the club who gave the information to the SoS. That being the case, I'd like to read the club's take on this article. Given Craig Brown's success as Head of Youth Development (a post which he held jointly and simultaneously with the post of National Coach) should the club have given him control over youth matters? I'm always suspicious of such articles - I prefer to read a balanced account and then I can form my own view, rather than being spoon fed a loaded opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orinoco Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Maybe, given the constant changing of managers, and McGhee ignoring the youths and trying to flog our best youths for peanuts, the board thought it was best to keep it seperate from 1st team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 According to this article, they wanted their contract altered before signing so they could have control over all footballing aspects.It leads to another question - what was the issue with a previous manager and the youth set up? It may be out there but I can't remember anything at the moment. First thought that came to me was the Malpas and Hegarty season. Id I remember rightly there were a handful of youths who were being released who upon the departure of Malpas and Hegarty were immediately given new contracts. I also seem to remember reading or hearing a rumour that a member of the backroom team had to be talked out of packing in his position due to the treatment of the youth team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottW1886 Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 First thought that came to me was the Malpas and Hegarty season. Id I remember rightly there were a handful of youths who were being released who upon the departure of Malpas and Hegarty were immediately given new contracts. I also seem to remember reading or hearing a rumour that a member of the backroom team had to be talked out of packing in his position due to the treatment of the youth team. Definitely Malpas and Hegarty I reckon..... I heard directly from a member of the backroom team himself that he had walked out due to the treatment of the younger players, and as a consequence of him leaving a number of senior players were also unhappy. He was persuaded to return after some changes were implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper_no1 Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 As already said they did have a contract! Their gentleman's agreement was just that, a legally binding contract. Yes,this - in employment terms. This does not however mean any compensation can be seeked when someone leaves one job for another. The point i think most people are getting upset about. End of the day,if you have a specific contract for a set length of time it is harder to break than the traditional form of contract that you are refering to,where-by it can be broken at any time within a notice period or resignation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 I had posted this elsewhere, but I think it is relevant to this thread: This is the SPL Rule on tapping up: Employees Contracts H3 No Club shall directly or indirectly induce or attempt to induce any employee of another Club to terminate a contract of employment with that other Club (whether or not by breach of that contract) or directly or indirectly approach any such employee with a view to offering employment without the consent of that other Club. For the purpose of this Rule H3, "Club" means a member club of the SFA. £10 to whoever can find the word "written" in there. Is there really any argument that Brown and Knox were employees? We paid them, they turned up for work, on his pension forms Brown would put MFC under "employer" and they resigned. You can't resign if you are not employed. Either the press are deliberately misunderstanding this or are genuinely thick. The argument here is not about compensation. It is about tapping up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underboyleheating Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Craig Brown speaks to the Record... "Had I been on a legally binding contract at Motherwell there wasn't one chance in a million I would have tried to get out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAM Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Hear Radio Scotland on way to work this morning and the fat f**k Traynor was on, he couldn't resist a pop at 'Well for never paying the 19 released as part of admin! Anyway he did say that as Jack & Victor had been picking up bonuses linked to the contract, in the eyes of Scottish law they are deemed as having accepted the contract and thus Boyle may have a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.