STU-SA

[Prufrock]

Interesting. I asked a family friend who was a lawyer whether I could decline a job despite verbally accepting it on the phone if another one came along without signing a contract and he told me yes as it would not be legally binding until pen hit paper. Maybe it's some sort of grey area then?

He was right ... in practice if not in word.

What can they do to you ??

Even if you have signed it, you call them, all embarrassed and wimpish sounding and say "sorry, but ...". They can't forcibly bring you into work. You COULD be forced to attend for your notice ... whereby they do what ? Put you through induction, meet the team, go on a few training courses, get your pass, pc access and pension set up .... only to leave after a week or a month ??

So, they may pout and you'd hope not to have to deal with them again maybe, but you cannot be punitively treated.

^ This is undoubtedly correct. It doesn't mean there is no contract, but in practice it would be ludicrous to act on the breach. When you are talking about a footballer potentially worth millions of pounds, the same practical rules do not apply.

[Prufrock]

Except these are facts.

Is the clown losing his sense of humour?

It briefly did.

It's odd to be asked something ... you answer it ... and then be told you're wrong.

Anyone know any jokes ??

You haven't answered it though! You've said what actually happens in the real world, with employees who aren't bought and sold for millions, but that isn't the case here. For most people, the legal theory isn't that relevant, as practical realities dictate it isn't worth it. In the case of Stu, practical realities would dictate that it was worth it.


Anyway, my point is that if Stu's contract is all agreed in writing, as it could be, but might not be, then there's no need to worry! If it's agreed verbally there's probably no need to worry.

[Prufrock]

Interesting. I asked a family friend who was a lawyer whether I could decline a job despite verbally accepting it on the phone if another one came along without signing a contract and he told me yes as it would not be legally binding until pen hit paper. Maybe it's some sort of grey area then?

He was right ... in practice if not in word.

What can they do to you ??

Even if you have signed it, you call them, all embarrassed and wimpish sounding and say "sorry, but ...". They can't forcibly bring you into work. You COULD be forced to attend for your notice ... whereby they do what ? Put you through induction, meet the team, go on a few training courses, get your pass, pc access and pension set up .... only to leave after a week or a month ??

So, they may pout and you'd hope not to have to deal with them again maybe, but you cannot be punitively treated.

^ This is undoubtedly correct. It doesn't mean there is no contract, but in practice it would be ludicrous to act on the breach. When you are talking about a footballer potentially worth millions of pounds, the same practical rules do not apply.

bobo, prufrock: Ah OK, thanks. I work in research, so law isn't exactly my forté. I imagine it is different with footballers who are worth much more than me!

FTR, it also depends on what you mean by 'verbally accepting'. Your agreement to them saying, at the end of a phone interview, 'we're offering you X position on X amount to start on X date' will be more likely to mean you've *technically* got a contract than a bloke in a pub saying 'fancy working for us?'

In practice you'll be all right. Not that signing anything means the opposite. If you sign a contract to stack shelves with Tesco that says you have to give them two weeks' notice, and you walk out, they aren't going to sue you either.

[BWFC_Insane]

Stu will be here next season.

Dougie says relax, he's got this one.

[Prufrock]

Oh I've already signed and am working for them. And yes it was a verbal offer over the phone after an interview and assessment day, so a contract was being drawn up and I knew at the time I was going to accept as I really hit it off with my line manager and other superior in the interview. It was just one of those things that I thought I'd ask my lawyer mate about since, at the time, I was in the process of going to loads of assessment days and potentially getting lots of offers with higher pay, so I wanted to know where I stood. Hence the initial comment. Anyway we're getting a little off topic here. Thanks for the info

Well yes.*

I hope he has/is/will sign(ed/ing). Got to be worth the one year. Hopefully, as Boris I think suggested, it will be have an auto-renew if he plays X amount of games.



*None of the above should be taken as legal advice. No win no fee. Even if win, no fee. If in any doubt, seek advice from an actual, proper professional. In terms of practical employment stuff, instead of interesting+ but largely academic theory, you want Bobo, he comes recommended, so I hear. If you want the academic theory that isn't half cut recollections, you probably want Crayons. If you want really bored on a Wednesday evening ramblings, I'm your man.

+Not really interesting

[thebish]

Stu will be here next season.

Dougie says relax, he's got this one.

or... (arms spread as wide as possible)

Dougie says - we are this far apart on the deal...

[plymouth wanderer]

Stu will be here next season.

Dougie says relax, he's got this one.

or... (arms spread as wide as possible)

Dougie says - we are this far apart on the deal...

Or

Dougie says - this is how much a waste of space BWFCI is

[bobo the clown]

I hope he has/is/will sign(ed/ing). Got to be worth the one year. Hopefully, as Boris I think suggested, it will be have an auto-renew if he plays X amount of games.


*None of the above should be taken as legal advice. No win no fee. Even if win, no fee. If in any doubt, seek advice from an actual, proper professional. In terms of practical employment stuff, instead of interesting+ but largely academic theory, you want Bobo, he comes recommended, so I hear. If you want the academic theory that isn't half cut recollections, you probably want Crayons. If you want really bored on a Wednesday evening ramblings, I'm your man.

+Not really interesting

Ha. Bravo.

Yes, the legal detail and how it's used in practice can differ.

I also put the rider that my advice counts for nothing unless I've been paid a, frankly, ludicrous amount of money .... not promised it, but actually received ... plus VAT.

Even then I will put a rider that you accept this at your own risk and that the ultimate decision on what you go on to do has to be your decision and yours alone.

[Prufrock]

I've been away and thought about this, because, frankly, my life is really boring atm.

In your above story about offering a job and then not being able to offer it, it seems we're talking about frustration. In that case, there is actually a contract. The signing of that contract isn't, I think, relevant. Even if the person in question had signed it, if it genuinely was frustrated, you'd be no more bound than if not. Practically of course, the person isn't going to sue, but I think, technically they could.

To get back to Stu, the question I was trying to ask is if there is any specific requirement for an employment contract to be 'signed', other than for evidential purposes?

As far as my understanding goes, if this talk of 'papers being sent' and 'agreements being made' means that Stu has had a proper contract offer while away with the US squad, and has sent back his agreement to those terms, then it is done and dusted. The only problem I can see would be if say, we'd got a fax (Phil loves a fax) from US HQ accepting the offer, but then Clint Dempsey came out and said Stu hadn't seen it and Deuce had sent it back as a joke. Otherwise it would be done, I think.

Of course all this talk could mean they're still negotiating details and no agreement has been made.

[Enoch]

Anyone know any jokes ??

Mrs Enoch was taking off her make-up last night and said that she needed a facial. I almost came on the spot.

Short notice!

+I found it interesting

[Enoch]

Of course all this talk could mean they're still negotiating details and no agreement has been made.

Aye!

[Enoch]

USA v Guatemala friendly on 5th July.

As he managed only ten minutes in the five games they've played since he joined up with them, I'm not expecting young Stuart to start. Would be nice if he got a decent run out though.

[thebish]

USA v Guatemala friendly on 5th July.

As he managed only ten minutes in the five games they've played since he joined up with them, I'm not expecting young Stuart to start. Would be nice if he got a decent run out though.

if he's not gonna play - it'd be better if he was back with dougie's squad on pre-season training...

[Enoch]

USA v Guatemala friendly on 5th July.

As he managed only ten minutes in the five games they've played since he joined up with them, I'm not expecting young Stuart to start. Would be nice if he got a decent run out though.

if he's not gonna play - it'd be better if he was back with dougie's squad on pre-season training...

My thoughts exactly.

One wonders if the lost pen saga and subsequent contract expiry, had more to do with Mr Holden wishing to do as he pleased, rather than heed Freedman's wishes on the matter.

[BWFC_Insane]

USA v Guatemala friendly on 5th July.

As he managed only ten minutes in the five games they've played since he joined up with them, I'm not expecting young Stuart to start. Would be nice if he got a decent run out though.

if he's not gonna play - it'd be better if he was back with dougie's squad on pre-season training...

My thoughts exactly.

One wonders if the lost pen saga and subsequent contract expiry, had more to do with Mr Holden wishing to do as he pleased, rather than heed Freedman's wishes on the matter.

Just to clear this up, one thing I am in the know about having enquired. Freedman wanted Holden to go and link up with the USA squad and talked to Klinsmann about it and what Stu would need.

It's all part of the recovery plan. He's been training all summer with them.

Contract was all agreed beforehand if not signed and there is no issue at all.

[CrazyHorse]

USA v Guatemala friendly on 5th July.

As he managed only ten minutes in the five games they've played since he joined up with them, I'm not expecting young Stuart to start. Would be nice if he got a decent run out though.

if he's not gonna play - it'd be better if he was back with dougie's squad on pre-season training...

He's not under contract to us so no. Wanker'll be a Stoke player in a few weeks anyway.

[Loyal White]

I guess it depends whether we're still paying him?

As I understand, his previous contract expired at the end of May/June. If he's agreed to the terms and we're still paying him going forward under the terms agreed, signed contract or not, there would be an implied contract which we could hold him to.

(Braces for backlash...)

[CrazyHorse]

If BWFC are in the habit of paying someone tens of thousands of pounds a week when they're not contractually obliged to we've got bigger problems than any of us could've imagined. Never mind the fact that it's probably against the financial fair play rules and certainly would have us investigated for money laundering.

So no.

[thebish]

USA v Guatemala friendly on 5th July.

As he managed only ten minutes in the five games they've played since he joined up with them, I'm not expecting young Stuart to start. Would be nice if he got a decent run out though.

if he's not gonna play - it'd be better if he was back with dougie's squad on pre-season training...

He's not under contract to us so no. Wanker'll be a Stoke player in a few weeks anyway.

good point... but if it is the case that he is not under some contractual obligation to us (BWFCi says he is) - then I'd rather he was back over here locked in a cupboard at Euxton until we find a pen...

[BWFC_Insane]

USA v Guatemala friendly on 5th July.

As he managed only ten minutes in the five games they've played since he joined up with them, I'm not expecting young Stuart to start. Would be nice if he got a decent run out though.

if he's not gonna play - it'd be better if he was back with dougie's squad on pre-season training...

He's not under contract to us so no. Wanker'll be a Stoke player in a few weeks anyway.

good point... but if it is the case that he is not under some contractual obligation to us (BWFCi says he is) - then I'd rather he was back over here locked in a cupboard at Euxton until we find a pen...

I don't get the stress. Holden is not a hot property.

If we didn't offer him a contract he'd be scrapping around to find one somewhere else in the championship, possibly even lower than that. He has to prove his fitness before anything else. Added to that is the mental recovery side.

Chances are he'll need to be managed and played sparingly, possibly for the rest of his career. Certainly for the upcoming season.

If there is any danger at all it's the he decides he wants to stay in the States. He certainly spent a lot of time there on recuperation.