STU-SA

[CrazyHorse]

All this dragging of heels and then just a one fooking year deal too? What's the point in that?
Sounds to me that Stuey would like us to pay for his continued rehabilitation while he sticks himself firmly in the shop window.

Get rid, he'll never be the player he was again anyway.

[ChrisC]

All this dragging of heels and then just a one fooking year deal too? What's the point in that?
Sounds to me that Stuey would like us to pay for his continued rehabilitation while he sticks himself firmly in the shop window.

Get rid, he'll never be the player he was again anyway.

Maybe Stu has dragged his feet because he wants a longer deal and we would only offer him 1 year?

Sensible from the club anyway. Would think there is an extension in there if he makes X amount of appearances.

[Lord Kangana]

All this dragging of heels and then just a one fooking year deal too? What's the point in that?
Sounds to me that Stuey would like us to pay for his continued rehabilitation while he sticks himself firmly in the shop window.

Get rid, he'll never be the player he was again anyway.

Bit harsh there Crazy.

I can climb onboard with the sentiment, and I would be very disappointed with the man if he does as you say, but I'd like to feel that he thinks he's got a future here. And that he knows he's playing for it. Hence the 1 year deal. I await circumstance pissing in my naive face.

[CrazyHorse]

Praps harsh maybe yeah. But we've carried him long enough and I just cant see someone who has been out for two years coming back as anything but a disappointment. If our lot had any confidence to the contrary they'd offer him a five year deal.

Plus, he's not secretly signed like some think yet for sure. I mean if he had the Oracle would've told us so wouldn't he?

[CAPSLOCK]

Praps harsh maybe yeah. But we've carried him long enough and I just cant see someone who has been out for two years coming back as anything but a disappointment. If our lot had any confidence to the contrary they'd offer him a five year deal.

Plus, he's not secretly signed like some think yet for sure. I mean if he had the Oracle would've told us so wouldn't he?

You don't know that they didn't

[CrazyHorse]

Correct.
Except if they did and then his agents negotiated it down to a year instead it proves my point spectacularly.

[CAPSLOCK]

Indeed

But your point was that we didn't think him worth a longer deal and that he wouldn't sign a longer deal so why would we offer him one, so I'm not really sure what your point is

I reckon you're nott, either

[CrazyHorse]

My point is that Stuey would like us to pay for his continued rehabilitation while he sticks himself firmly in the shop window. Did I not say this once already?

[CAPSLOCK]

You also said the club don't think he's ever going to be fit enough...........

So his putting himself in the shop window is a mistake on his part

[jaffka]

My point is that Stuey would like us to pay for his continued rehabilitation while he sticks himself firmly in the shop window. Did I not say this once already?

You did but his piles must be playing up as he is back on with his bullshit bravado bull in a china shop routine.

[CAPSLOCK]

My point is that Stuey would like us to pay for his continued rehabilitation while he sticks himself firmly in the shop window. Did I not say this once already?

You did but his piles must be playing up as he is back on with his bullshit bravado bull in a china shop routine.

I know its bad form posting photos of posters, but I'll make an exception for this one of you

[jaffka]

My point is that Stuey would like us to pay for his continued rehabilitation while he sticks himself firmly in the shop window. Did I not say this once already?

You did but his piles must be playing up as he is back on with his bullshit bravado bull in a china shop routine.

I know its bad form posting photos of posters, but I'll make an exception for this one of you

do you really want to play this game?

[Enoch]

Dear Mr Freedman,

Please be advised that the moment my flight back from the good old USofA lands at Heathrow, I will be hot footing it straight into WHSmith where my advisers inform me they stock an extensive range of writing implements. Meanwhile, I am busy assessing what's on offer from a raft of marketing material I have received, so as to be sure that I'm making the correct choice.

Please give my regards to all in Bolton.

Yours

Stuart.

Well that seems to have settled any doubt.

[Prufrock]

Iles says "his representatives have now sent documents that will be signed off in person at the end of next month".

Good news, but it's NOT signed. Until it's signed he can go anywhere else.

I've seen some prevarication in my time (Jussi comes to mind) and I do tend to believe it will happen, but promising that you will sign something is different to signing it. Christ, can the guy not write ?

You're the employment expert, so maybe I've missed something, but, as I understand it, if he's been offered terms and agreed to them, it's done. There may be a problem proving it, but if he's sent these documents and there's an agreement, it's done, no?

[thebish]

Iles says "his representatives have now sent documents that will be signed off in person at the end of next month".

Good news, but it's NOT signed. Until it's signed he can go anywhere else.

I've seen some prevarication in my time (Jussi comes to mind) and I do tend to believe it will happen, but promising that you will sign something is different to signing it. Christ, can the guy not write ?

You're the employment expert, so maybe I've missed something, but, as I understand it, if he's been offered terms and agreed to them, it's done. There may be a problem proving it, but if he's sent these documents and there's an agreement, it's done, no?

surely until it is signed - then it is just a piece of paper with ideas on it... no?

[Enoch]

I'm old enough to remember when a troth plighted was binding, but I've never known it apply to a contract of employment.

Not that I know owt mind.

[bobo the clown]

Iles says "his representatives have now sent documents that will be signed off in person at the end of next month".

Good news, but it's NOT signed. Until it's signed he can go anywhere else.

I've seen some prevarication in my time (Jussi comes to mind) and I do tend to believe it will happen, but promising that you will sign something is different to signing it. Christ, can the guy not write ?

You're the employment expert, so maybe I've missed something, but, as I understand it, if he's been offered terms and agreed to them, it's done. There may be a problem proving it, but if he's sent these documents and there's an agreement, it's done, no?

No.


I've not seen the detailed elements of the contract, or the 'letter of intent' of course, so it IS feasible that the words cover it .... but in that case, sign the contract.

The reason contracts exist is because they tie parties to certain conditions. Saying "I'm going to sign it" and the other party saying "good-oh" is positive and honest people will proceed as planned.

If meanwhile, however, Real Madrid come in & offer him 4x his pay and a go in the Bernabau (or Bury and Gigg Lane) he can still have us called up and told "look, it's like this ...".

Equally, let's say he gets another bad injury, we could still say "well, look ... really sorry and all that, but ...".

I feel it'll all sort out, but it's weird that they don't just sign it. Imagine if this was a house you were buying and someone behaved like this. Or if you agreed to buy a car and said "look, I'll sign the papers next month, but can I just go on holiday in it meanwhile ?" you'd feel they were playing a game.

That is in my mind & will be until he's used a pen and scratched his name on the contract.

[thebish]

I'm old enough to remember when a troth plighted was binding, but I've never known it apply to a contract of employment.

Not that I know owt mind.

ahhh - the old wedding service vows... "...and thereto I plight thee my troth."

[Prufrock]

Unless there is something specific in cases of this sort that I am unaware of, no. A verbal contract is no less binding than any other. If the content of these 'papers' is a contract offer, and he's accepted it, then it's done, regardless of signature. I'd be surprised if league rules didn't require a signed contract, and it's always better for clarity and proof to have it signed. Point being that if it is 'agreed' then the signing is a formality and there's no need to worry.

[thebish]

Unless there is something specific in cases of this sort that I am unaware of, no. A verbal contract is no less binding than any other. If the content of these 'papers' is a contract offer, and he's accepted it, then it's done, regardless of signature. I'd be surprised if league rules didn't require a signed contract, and it's always better for clarity and proof to have it signed. Point being that if it is 'agreed' then the signing is a formality and there's no need to worry.

presumably the signing is to prove there was agreement - otherwise (presumably) you'd need witnesses?