The Aberdeen Tapping - The Plot Thickens

[Finlay]

Aberdeen wanted Brown a month ago, absolutely no surprises they ended up there, further to that I won't be surprised who our new management team are either.

 

A hint that you think McGhee and Leitch are heading back?

 

I REALLY hope not.

[Yabba's Turd]

A hint that you think McGhee and Leitch are heading back?

 

I REALLY hope not.

Never say never, although the paedo chants might mean Mcghee telling Boyle no thanks.

[cooper_no1]

So I'm looking forward to hearing in a bit more detail how these events transpired and how the club view it.

 

My concern is that you might not though,i don't think that they have a great deal more to say after the official statement.

 

 

Look end of the day it doesn't really matter if someone is one a contract or not, with regards to them staying or not. However - after first knocking back Aberdeen you think that Boyle would have acted straight away and offered them a wee contract for the next season.

 

However, he didn't, and as much as it had no bearing on the eventual outcome of Brown and Knox's exit - it would have been nice to gain a few quid from their departure.

[underboyleheating]

In an attempt to get the truth, we could always contact Craig on his social network site. The poor soul only has one friend.

 

[Finlay]

Never say never, although the paedo chants might mean Mcghee telling Boyle no thanks.

 

The only positive thing that came out of that then.

[Guest 'Flow]

as i said on a few occasions before - even though i came across as a nice old gentlman basher, these are exactly the same channels that brown came to our club.

 

I heard that the surprise call from JB was complete bollox. my source says brown was put forward as an option to gannon.

There's so much I can't say on a variety of subjects as you will understand but what I can confirm is that is 150% not the case.

 

I know because I was there when the discussions as to who might be able to help us out in the short term and several names were banded about. I was also standing next to Bill Dickie (and not John Boyle, who was on a family holiday in Australia at the time) when he made the first phone call to Craig.

 

To suggest that Craig was primed for a move to Motherwell before Jim's departure is quite simply not true in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

[hippo]

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.

 

[cooper_no1]

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.

 

 

 

Spot on,however - as an employee of Aberdeen Football Club now; all that Craig Brown has to do is to say that HE phoned ABERDEEN -as suggested in the papers- and that would pretty much put an end to the whole situation.There needs to be some form of proof - obviously if CB had a contract that expired for instance 31/7/2011 then the sudden departure would raise more eyebrows but as it stands without such an implement in place it is no different to a situation where an employee of Primark sees an advert for a job in BHS for 50p more per hour.Was that tapping,or just advertising(define indirect and direct - very broad terminology)...that employee was on a very similar contract to CB at Motherwell so theres one simple issue already. It's a very very difficult situation to prove,technically you are correct and i for one would like to agree but proving it is always the very very difficult part i am afraid.

[hippo]

I don't think it particularly matters who contacted who first. If it was Brown (and remember he absolutely denied this last week), then Aberdeen still induced the breach of contract by discussing the prospect of a job with them. What they should have done is say, ok we want to talk to you Mr Brown, but we need to speak to Motherwell first. Clearly they didn't do that.

[cooper_no1]

It cannot be tapping unless Aberdeen made the first contact.The other argument against is that because Craig Brown resigned, he can more or less say that discussions surrounding the actual job itself were not made until after he terminated his 'contract' by resigning.

 

Before then it could simply be discussion between the person from primark talking to their mate whos the gaffer over at BHS.

 

Yes, i know Craig Brown has hinted toward previous discussion over the job in the days beforehand,however...he's already proved himself to be a liar in other tabloid discussions so therefore that's not got any real standing either.

 

I'm just playing devils advocate obviously but i assure you as much as Motherwell feel they have a case, the broad terminology and lack or precedent on this issue means that proving any wrongdoing by Aberdeen is incredibly difficult if not impossible.

[steelboy]

It cannot be tapping unless Aberdeen made the first contact.The other argument against is that because Craig Brown resigned, he can more or less say that discussions surrounding the actual job itself were not made until after he terminated his 'contract' by resigning.

 

1. it's a breach of spl rules because they discussed a job with him without informing us. how hard is that to understand?

 

2. brown pretty much outline exactly what happened in the media so it'd be hard to lie now.

 

3. it's not the same as bhs and primark. the spl is one company made up of it's member clubs and there are rules governing situations like this.

 

hippo is 100% correct, just repeat what he says and you won't look like a diddy.

[cooper_no1]

1. it's a breach of spl rules because they discussed a job with him without informing us. how hard is that to understand?

 

2. brown pretty much outline exactly what happened in the media so it'd be hard to lie now.

 

3. it's not the same as bhs and primark. the spl is one company made up of it's member clubs and there are rules governing situations like this.

 

hippo is 100% correct, just repeat what he says and you won't look like a diddy.

 

 

Believe me,it's not 100% waterproof like your making out. The SPL IS one company with rules to govern this, but those rules are extremly BROAD and like anything else open to WIDE interpretation.

 

I said Hippo was correct, infact if you read what i said you'll see that i also said i was playing Devils Advocate but also just exposing that the points made can easily be persuaded otherwise.

 

Brown also outlined if i am lead to believe that he was 100% commited to Motherwell and would not be leaving them. Something that has turned out to be a lie and in turn made his credibility questionable. if he lied about that could he not then have lied about what happened between him and Aberdeen???

 

There is always going to be two sides of the story, and so far - you seem only concerned with Motherwells,making you the diddy.....no me. I'm in agreement,just know it's not that simple.

 

I canny believe anyone thinks this is watertight.....because it's certainly not.I might be being a bit cynical here anaw but is the SPL going to make a judgment on this like they usually do,ie making a c**t of it.

H11 Any Club either directly or indirectly inducing or attempting to

induce any manager, coach, trainer or other person involved in

the training or management of the team of another Club or a

club in the SFL or in membership of the SFA to breach a

contract shall be dealt with by the Company as it shall see fit.

 

 

Listen i have total sympathy and would love to see Aberdeen,or infact Craig Brown hammered for this....it was out of order and totally against the spirit or as i would like to understand the laws of the game.

A3.1 In all matters and transactions relating to the League and

Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and

the Company with the utmost good faith

 

 

The one MAJOR question over this is what get's me,the laws and rules are a bit slack in my reconing.How do you govern an approach from one club to another in this situation??..I'm asking seriously,because if all you need is a 'courtasy phonecall' like John boyle said then it's very much one word against another is it no??

 

 

Does anyone know the rules better on that?

 

Look am nae expert,would never claim to be i'm just giving an opinion on the way that i can look at it. Suerly if i can see it that way some form of lawyer with a better interpretation that obviously i do could tear several shades a shite out of it.

 

 

And here is my proof,from the very same document Hippo quoted.

H10 No Club shall either directly or indirectly induce or attempt to

induce any manager, coach, trainer or other person involved in

the training or management of the team of another Club or a

club in the SFL or in membership of the SFA to break a written

contract of employment. Clubs may notify the Company in

writing, of the period of all or any such persons' contracts of

employment.

[fatcalf]

Och wheesht, they're in the wrang and that's it.

[steelboy]

Look am nae expert,would never claim to be i'm just giving an opinion on the way that i can look at it. Suerly if i can see it that way some form of lawyer with a better interpretation that obviously i do could tear several shades a shite out of it.

 

nae bother jonny cochrane.

 

a lawyer would be told they're talking shite as well. at least lawyers get paid a fortune to talk about absolute balls, you just seem to do it for free.

 

 

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.

 

aberdeen have meeting with brown in glasgow on tuesday without asking motherwell. on thursday night he resigns. on firday he becomes aberdeen manager.

 

anyone with a brain can see they induced him to terminate his contract of employment.

[cooper_no1]

Right since you feel the need to be a tool about it, read my modified post.....tell me how a lawyer would then be told to duke.

 

Still talking shite ?.....The word 'WRITTEN' in clearly stated, you need to read a WHOLE document,not just one selective paragraph im afraid.

[underboyleheating]

Och wheesht, they're in the wrang and that's it.

Glad that’s cleared up Fatcalf. We should expect a A.F.C. cheque in the post any day now and a public apology from Craig Brown live on Sky Sports.

[steelboy]

Right since you feel the need to be a tool about it, read my modified post.....tell me how a lawyer would then be told to duke.

 

Still talking shite ?.....The word 'WRITTEN' in clearly stated, you need to read a WHOLE document,not just one selective paragraph im afraid.

 

its two different rules. if you break either one of them you're in the wrong, that's surely not that difficult to understand. so aye you're still talking shite.

 

are brown and milne going to go up in front of the sfa and say "yes we met on the tuesday but we never discussed craig becoming aberdeen manager". they'd be laughing stocks and the sfa would hammer them just for the bare faced cheek.

 

i'm sure the bbc website is full of quotes from brown describing exactly what happened, i'll try and find some when i get back in later.

[cooper_no1]

Glad that’s cleared up Fatcalf. We should expect a A.F.C. cheque in the post any day now and a public apology from Craig Brown live on Sky Sports.

 

 

Would be nice, a see he's acting the victim in the paper now though......widney expect that apology anytime soon. Arsehole that he is.

[cooper_no1]

its two different rules. if you break either one of them you're in the wrong, that's surely not that difficult to understand. so aye you're still talking shite.

 

 

Mate don't waste your time i agree completely with what you wrote in the rest of your post you don't need to prove it to me or anything because i agree 100%, i was being theoretical but obviously you are right - they'd look stupid.

 

The bit that i have quoted though. In my interpretation of the two rules, they are in clear conflict with one another. In this case...the constitution does however state the word 'written' so it's got to be decided what one of the laws were actually broken because they are very very similar. The one that i quoted specifically states, "manager" and "coach" in the same rule as, "written contract of employment". This would appear far more specific to the individual case that we are talking about.

 

I fully accept that rule H3 states, "any employee" - a category that would be fully inclusive of anyone on the clubs payroll, but the two rules are rather contrasting. The second rule would appear to specify an alteration to this rule.

 

Personally i see the two rules as incompatible and need to be changed and ironed out by the SFA, but that'w aht i mean about no clear precedent on this case - the decision made would then alter the SFA's constitution in some form no matter how the ruling went.

 

If the two rules give two different verdicts then it's hard to say that what Aberdeen done was wrong - on a strictly constitutional basis.

 

All i am sticking by,is that it is far from watertight and therefore....am no talking shite really am i.

 

Don't worry, i'll take that apology in WRITTING...ya DICK.

[stuwell]

I can't be bothered looking for the quote but I'm sure Brown stated in an article in Febuary that he and Knox were commited to Motherwell for the next 18 months. Although I'm no lawyer but if he also said the same to JB, then in my eyes he had a verbal contract with Motherwell which I understand in Scottish law is the same as a written contract.

 

any legal minded guys out there who could clear this up?

[cooper_no1]

I can't be bothered looking for the quote but I'm sure Brown stated in an article in Febuary that he and Knox were commited to Motherwell for the next 18 months. Although I'm no lawyer but if he also said the same to JB, then in my eyes he had a verbal contract with Motherwell which I understand in Scottish law is the same as a written contract.

 

any legal minded guys out there who could clear this up?

 

That's a good point and something that i was just thinking about with regards to Walter Smith, apparently he doesn't have a written contract but he HAS stated he will be at Rangers until the end of the season. No idea personally how it works but an interesting point as far as Craig Brown goes.

 

Interesting to note the challenge to Scot's Law here by a few people, obviously shows two very distinct cases here.

 

The argument about Aberdeen Tapping is under the SFA constitution - not particularly Scots Law in itself. Whereas the 'contract' between Craig Brown and Motherwell is being based on Scot's Law as opposed to the SFA constitution.

 

Strikes up two different cases.

[Shallow Dave]

 

any legal minded guys out there who could clear this up?

 

Almost responded to the other thread; the one with the 'ironic title' which may disappear elsewhere, so I'll throw this in:

 

 

I seem to recall Sydney Devine having a run-in with the club over something printed in the Evening Times at the time. Who acted as solicitor for the club?- a certain TV commentator called Jock Brown.....

 

Now, I don't know whether Jock is alive or not. He did strike me as being far more odious and supercilious than his brother. But, as they say, "it's the quiet ones you have to look out for".....

 

 

 

 

SD