Ambitious Blackburn

[BWFC_Insane]

So they lost their court case and now have to pay Berg £2.25M compensation for sacking him after 57 days. Super.

I like that their argument against was "Our Managing Director is out of control and had no authority to give Berg such a contract. We can't sack our Managing Director (why???) but he's working without authority".

So all in all, a model for how to run a football club then?

[malcd1]

So they lost their court case and now have to pay Berg £2.25M compensation for sacking him after 57 days. Super.

I like that their argument against was "Our Managing Director is out of control and had no authority to give Berg such a contract. We can't sack our Managing Director (why???) but he's working without authority".

So all in all, a model for how to run a football club then?

The whole debacle is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Venky's are just completely incompetent. Employing idiots that Derek Shaw and Shebby Singh, and then sitting back as they watch a power struggle between these halfwits.

Not only that but going to court to fight Berg and washing their dirty linen in public. Hilarious.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So they lost their court case and now have to pay Berg £2.25M compensation for sacking him after 57 days. Super.

I like that their argument against was "Our Managing Director is out of control and had no authority to give Berg such a contract. We can't sack our Managing Director (why???) but he's working without authority".

So all in all, a model for how to run a football club then?

The whole debacle is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Venky's are just completely incompetent. Employing idiots that Derek Shaw and Shebby Singh, and then sitting back as they watch a power struggle between these halfwits.

Not only that but going to court to fight Berg and washing their dirty linen in public. Hilarious.

Their lawyers are pretty thick as well. Who in their right minds could ever have thought that their defence that the contract was invalid because the Managing Director "was acting without authority" was ever going to stand up in court? except their lawyers!

[Lord Kangana]

Not wishing to jump to anyone's defence here LLS, but I suspect it was predicated on the idea of an individual error (which would be an internal disciplinary action) versus corporate responsibility (punishment of the compnay financially) and was an attempt to lessen the potential payout.

I'm sure the real reason they argued it was, frankly, a lack of any other paddle to stick in shit creek.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Not wishing to jump to anyone's defence here LLS, but I suspect it was predicated on the idea of an individual error (which would be an internal disciplinary action) versus corporate responsibility (punishment of the compnay financially) and was an attempt to lessen the potential payout.

I'm sure the real reason they argued it was, frankly, a lack of any other paddle to stick in shit creek.

You're right in that they were just wanting a severance payment rather than the full three years Berg is entitled to according to his contract. But nobody could think a managing director doesn't have the authority to conclude such a contract, it was madness even to try and argue it. But again you're right in that it shows just how far up shit creek they've managed to navigate.
I predict meltdown next season. I think they may even manage to hurtle past Portsmouth on the elevator ride to doom.

[bobo the clown]

Well, people are able to act beyond their authority .... just that an MD has rather a lot of authority so it's not easy in their case. They would have to show that what they did was way past anything 'normal', which I'm guessing isn't the case and then that they were dealing internally with the matter .... which they appear to deny they are.

As others say, I can't see how they thought they'd possibly win with this case.

So long as it's happening to someone else it really is funny !!

[Prufrock]

Pru in defending lawyers shocker, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the lawyers said you'd better pay up and that lot decided to fight it anyway. Or not. But maybe.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well, people are able to act beyond their authority .... just that an MD has rather a lot of authority so it's not easy in their case. They would have to show that what they did was way past anything 'normal', which I'm guessing isn't the case and then that they were dealing internally with the matter .... which they appear to deny they are.

As others say, I can't see how they thought they'd possibly win with this case.

So long as it's happening to someone else it really is funny !!

This is not arguing (because I don't know nuthin'), but just expansion: In a management course I did many moons ago within the module 'contracts and the law', it was emphasised to us that you should be very very very careful in the dealings you have with other parties because a contract is binding. It was emphasised to us that a contract could be something that you just said, it didn't need to be written down, so long as it was witnessed, but more relevantly it was emphasised that it was not an excuse in law if when entering into a contract you had exceeded your authority to do so, it only needed to be shown by the other party that they had a reasonable expectation that you could carry out the elements of the contract for it to be accepted as binding on both parties even if one of those parties (i.e. the employer of one of the 'contractees') was unaware of the terms of the contract. The bloke who did the course also said that there is no legal definition of who has what managerial authority as agents for a company but in law certain individuals within companies hold responsibility for the actions of themselves and others and that a Managing Director has Actual, Usual and Ostensible Authority just through his title alone.

If all what he told me in that course is true, then it would appear to me that the lawyers knew they were on a hiding to nothing but accepted the wonga anyway. I'd advise Blackburn Rovers to sue their lawyers under the sale of goods and services act 1994 for unsatisfactory lawyering and using an argument in court not fit for purpose.

[bobo the clown]

Well, people are able to act beyond their authority .... just that an MD has rather a lot of authority so it's not easy in their case. They would have to show that what they did was way past anything 'normal', which I'm guessing isn't the case and then that they were dealing internally with the matter .... which they appear to deny they are.

As others say, I can't see how they thought they'd possibly win with this case.

So long as it's happening to someone else it really is funny !!

This is not arguing (because I don't know nuthin'), but just expansion: In a management course I did many moons ago within the module 'contracts and the law', it was emphasised to us that you should be very very very careful in the dealings you have with other parties because a contract is binding. It was emphasised to us that a contract could be something that you just said, it didn't need to be written down, so long as it was witnessed, but more relevantly it was emphasised that it was not an excuse in law if when entering into a contract you had exceeded your authority to do so, it only needed to be shown by the other party that they had a reasonable expectation that you could carry out the elements of the contract for it to be accepted as binding on both parties even if one of those parties (i.e. the employer of one of the 'contractees') was unaware of the terms of the contract. The bloke who did the course also said that there is no legal definition of who has what managerial authority as agents for a company but in law certain individuals within companies hold responsibility for the actions of themselves and others and that a Managing Director has Actual, Usual and Ostensible Authority just through his title alone.

If all what he told me in that course is true, then it would appear to me that the lawyers knew they were on a hiding to nothing but accepted the wonga anyway. I'd advise Blackburn Rovers to sue their lawyers under the sale of goods and services act 1994 for unsatisfactory lawyering and using an argument in court not fit for purpose.

Generally, but not entirely correct.

For example a supervisor could offer you some terms & you believe he had the authority to do so .... however he simply did not have & he had exceeded his authority. The Company could retract those points, you'd be pissed off & would have the option to accept the new (proper) terms or resign & sue for constructive dismissal &/or breach of contract .... but would lose. You could of course stay on and sue for breach ..... good luck with that though !!

However, the specific case with Blackburn is different anyway .... these contracts are not 'normal' as you & I would see them. In normal employment the Company could exit you, without reason, and have no real employment liability due to your short tenure in the post (assuming no discrimination).

The Berg case is all to do with payment of notice ... it appears they gave him a term contract, of 3 years, yet put no notice terms in. So when terminated they had to pay up. It is, it seems, not THAT uncommon in football, though the one-year rolling contract (& hence one year notice) seems to be more common nowadays.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Ah. Cheers for that.

[bobo the clown]

Ah. Cheers for that.

Oh, & I'd guess the lawyers warned them of the likelihood of losing but the costs, in the realms of a £2.75m liability, were worth the effort.

Even if they'd got Berg to compromise it may have been worth it.

It seems Mr Berg was not willing to compromise one jot, which also says quite a lot about him, given the situation. Not that he was obliged to, nor would you blame anyone for wanting to stick it to the Venky lot.

In honesty, had they kept John Williams at the helm they'd never have got in this mess.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

But now they have lost, their lawyering bill must be pretty massive, as I would expect Berg will get costs awarded. Plus as a direct result of some of the things said pre-trial I can see legal shenanigans between Venkys and Shaw, which will also probably cost a pretty penny: there seems to be some libellous statements flying about.

[jaffka]

Gary Bowyer appointed as the managed on a 12 month rolling contract or 10 games and you are fired contract.

[Always hopeful]

Gary Bowyer appointed as the managed on a 12 month rolling contract or 10 games and you are fired contract.

Who?

[NP44]

Boy they are in knee deep, can't attract anybody, who would want to do that job, the previous caretaker manager.

[ChrisC]

Sherwood was their number one target at Spurs but wouldn't pay the compo.

[Worthy4England]

Wonder what odds you can get on him not lasting all the way through the transfer window...

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Just had a look at the BRFCS website. They're all behind him. 'Best we could have got' 'One of ours' etc.

Poor buggers.

[bobo the clown]

Would Bolton have got behind Jimmy Phillips if he'd got the gig ? Probably ... and we really would have loved him to succeed. However, it would be more hope than expectation.

He wasn't even their real choice and this weeks delay was about the people in India and those in the UK disagreeing.

Anyway, he's on a 12month rolling contract, so he gets 12m pay when they sack him. Bless.

[a1]

Would Bolton have got behind Jimmy Phillips if he'd got the gig ? Probably ... and we really would have loved him to succeed. However, it would be more hope than expectation.

*something about owen coyle*

at least with jimmy philips, he's not a dick.

tbh, once megson got shoved off i hoped for philips over coyle if they were gonna go the "appease the bedsheet knobheads" liverpool-esque route.