| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:16 - May 23 with 1975 views | Shaky |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:14 - May 23 by Darran |
The Danish press are wrong then,very wrong. |
In what respect? |  |
|  |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:17 - May 23 with 1979 views | Darran |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:16 - May 23 by Shaky |
In what respect? |
He didn't have anything like £2.75million. |  |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:20 - May 23 with 1969 views | Shaky |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:16 - May 23 by Shaky |
In what respect? |
To elaborate what the original Danish article I linked to said was that Laudrup had demanded DKK 32 million for some time but had finally settled for DKK 25 million, grating the 20% odd cash discount so he could progress negotiations with a new club. However the pound has also strengthened somewhat since the schism. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:20 - May 23 with 1975 views | Lord_Bony |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:17 - May 23 by Darran |
He didn't have anything like £2.75million. |
Correct it was closer to £2 million according to the news... |  |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:21 - May 23 with 1963 views | Shaky |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:17 - May 23 by Darran |
He didn't have anything like £2.75million. |
And how would you know? | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:24 - May 23 with 1949 views | Uxbridge |
Heh. Like Laudrup was only on 700k. |  |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:25 - May 23 with 1937 views | Darran |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:21 - May 23 by Shaky |
And how would you know? |
Common sense should tell anyone that he didn't have nearly £3million but you crack on. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:29 - May 23 with 1911 views | Swanzay |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:01 - May 23 by Darran |
More dullness. |
Oh Daz, why? Id like to hear your thoughts? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:29 - May 23 with 1905 views | Shaky |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:25 - May 23 by Darran |
Common sense should tell anyone that he didn't have nearly £3million but you crack on. |
You're sure your perception of common sense is anchored in your steadfastly held position that he'll get nowt?
Anyway, maybe all will be revealed when Uxbridge conducts his next round of amateur financial statement analysis. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:31 - May 23 with 1898 views | Darran |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:29 - May 23 by Shaky |
You're sure your perception of common sense is anchored in your steadfastly held position that he'll get nowt?
Anyway, maybe all will be revealed when Uxbridge conducts his next round of amateur financial statement analysis. |
Who said he'd get nowt? | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:33 - May 23 with 1888 views | Shaky |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:31 - May 23 by Darran |
Who said he'd get nowt? |
I was paraphrasing. It's Friday night, don't be so officious, Darran. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:38 - May 23 with 1870 views | Spratty |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 19:56 - May 23 by ItchySphincter |
You can bet your @rse that if he was paid up the remainder of his contract then he wouldn't be able to walk into another job until that contract would have ended. From our point of view we've been vindicated, it's been handled correctly and he's scuttled away with a bunch of cash and no dirty laundry aired in public. If there had been a smear and he was the paragon of virtue some profess then surely he would care about his rep and careless about the money, but clearly that isn't the case. |
That's your @rse gone then. Arresting someones professional development by denying them employment or the right to seek employment would not be seen as an acceptable condition.
If it comforts you to think there is any vindication in our sacking someone by email a few hours after shaking hands agreeing to continue. Or in an orchestrated smear campaign. Or leaks from within the club. I sincerely hope lessons are learned.
Did anyone expect this to go to court. That is just the redress if the club refused to make reasonable settlement. Neither party would want it to go to that it would not be in either parties best interest.
TomDickHarry makes a fair point
"If our club had a good case to sack Laudrup why on earth should we pay him off. Tell him to piss off see you in court." I suppose the answer is self evident. |  | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:39 - May 23 with 1867 views | Darran |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:33 - May 23 by Shaky |
I was paraphrasing. It's Friday night, don't be so officious, Darran. |
 | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:39 - May 23 with 1863 views | Darran |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:38 - May 23 by Spratty |
That's your @rse gone then. Arresting someones professional development by denying them employment or the right to seek employment would not be seen as an acceptable condition.
If it comforts you to think there is any vindication in our sacking someone by email a few hours after shaking hands agreeing to continue. Or in an orchestrated smear campaign. Or leaks from within the club. I sincerely hope lessons are learned.
Did anyone expect this to go to court. That is just the redress if the club refused to make reasonable settlement. Neither party would want it to go to that it would not be in either parties best interest.
TomDickHarry makes a fair point
"If our club had a good case to sack Laudrup why on earth should we pay him off. Tell him to piss off see you in court." I suppose the answer is self evident. |
 | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:41 - May 23 with 1851 views | Spratty |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 18:25 - May 23 by monmouth |
Good. That's the end now, even for the obsessives and w*nkers or, in one, case, the obsessive w*nker.
Do we have any Danes left now apart from the superb Daniel? |
Dear me have you ever thought of expressing your aggression through art? | | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:43 - May 23 with 1839 views | ItchySphincter |
Still got that boner then. |  |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:44 - May 23 with 1826 views | Darran |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:43 - May 23 by ItchySphincter |
Still got that boner then. |
Massive one. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:45 - May 23 with 1815 views | londonlisa2001 |
Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of the £3m you have quoted, the papers at the time suggested that if Laudrup was to be poached by another club, the Swans would receive compensation of £10m of which £3m would go to Laudrup. That is the amount that the articles you have linked are referring to.
This doesn't mean that the total contractual amounts that would have been paid to Laudrup had he served the remainder of his contract would have been £3m - that is a completely different matter.
It would be usual in these scenarios for Laudrup's representatives to have started with a figure that included his salary, any bonuses that may have been earned over the remaining period (including bonuses assuming that the Swans had stayed up for the two seasons, this just ended and next) plus, plus, plus. |  | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:49 - May 23 with 1800 views | WarwickHunt |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:38 - May 23 by Spratty |
That's your @rse gone then. Arresting someones professional development by denying them employment or the right to seek employment would not be seen as an acceptable condition.
If it comforts you to think there is any vindication in our sacking someone by email a few hours after shaking hands agreeing to continue. Or in an orchestrated smear campaign. Or leaks from within the club. I sincerely hope lessons are learned.
Did anyone expect this to go to court. That is just the redress if the club refused to make reasonable settlement. Neither party would want it to go to that it would not be in either parties best interest.
TomDickHarry makes a fair point
"If our club had a good case to sack Laudrup why on earth should we pay him off. Tell him to piss off see you in court." I suppose the answer is self evident. |
Aye - the club have been "vindicated" to the tune of Laudrup trousering between £2-3m.
Some spectacular f*ckwittery on this thread, fair play. |  | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:50 - May 23 with 1779 views | Davillin |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:38 - May 23 by Spratty |
That's your @rse gone then. Arresting someones professional development by denying them employment or the right to seek employment would not be seen as an acceptable condition.
If it comforts you to think there is any vindication in our sacking someone by email a few hours after shaking hands agreeing to continue. Or in an orchestrated smear campaign. Or leaks from within the club. I sincerely hope lessons are learned.
Did anyone expect this to go to court. That is just the redress if the club refused to make reasonable settlement. Neither party would want it to go to that it would not be in either parties best interest.
TomDickHarry makes a fair point
"If our club had a good case to sack Laudrup why on earth should we pay him off. Tell him to piss off see you in court." I suppose the answer is self evident. |
You wrote, "Arresting someones professional development by denying them employment or the right to seek employment would not be seen as an acceptable condition," but Itchy did not say or imply that, nor did it happen.
It's kinda like putting him on "gardening leave" without the shovel and hoe.
Regarding TomDicHarry's "fair point": Why should the club incur as much in attorney's fees and court costs as it would cost to pay him off? That's an absolute fundamental consideration of the legal process. All too often sad but true. |  |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:51 - May 23 with 1764 views | Shaky |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:45 - May 23 by londonlisa2001 |
Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of the £3m you have quoted, the papers at the time suggested that if Laudrup was to be poached by another club, the Swans would receive compensation of £10m of which £3m would go to Laudrup. That is the amount that the articles you have linked are referring to.
This doesn't mean that the total contractual amounts that would have been paid to Laudrup had he served the remainder of his contract would have been £3m - that is a completely different matter.
It would be usual in these scenarios for Laudrup's representatives to have started with a figure that included his salary, any bonuses that may have been earned over the remaining period (including bonuses assuming that the Swans had stayed up for the two seasons, this just ended and next) plus, plus, plus. |
It all depends on how the clause was worded.
If it was a general early termination clause, then he could well have been entitled to a payout under this, and certainly the size of the **reported** settlement would suggest he got a cut.
Anyway, it's all speculation, and I'm off for a nightcap. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:52 - May 23 with 1758 views | ItchySphincter |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:49 - May 23 by WarwickHunt |
Aye - the club have been "vindicated" to the tune of Laudrup trousering between £2-3m.
Some spectacular f*ckwittery on this thread, fair play. |
Situation normal then. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:53 - May 23 with 1755 views | Darran |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:49 - May 23 by WarwickHunt |
Aye - the club have been "vindicated" to the tune of Laudrup trousering between £2-3m.
Some spectacular f*ckwittery on this thread, fair play. |
There's no f*ckwittery Philip unless saying he didn't have his contract paid up in fill is f*ckwittery of course. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:56 - May 23 with 1738 views | WarwickHunt |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:53 - May 23 by Darran |
There's no f*ckwittery Philip unless saying he didn't have his contract paid up in fill is f*ckwittery of course. |
Which part of "vindicated" are you struggling with? | | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:56 - May 23 with 1738 views | Darran |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:50 - May 23 by Davillin |
You wrote, "Arresting someones professional development by denying them employment or the right to seek employment would not be seen as an acceptable condition," but Itchy did not say or imply that, nor did it happen.
It's kinda like putting him on "gardening leave" without the shovel and hoe.
Regarding TomDicHarry's "fair point": Why should the club incur as much in attorney's fees and court costs as it would cost to pay him off? That's an absolute fundamental consideration of the legal process. All too often sad but true. |
Don't bother Tone this is the bloke that wanted the club,our club,to lose a court case if a Laudrup had been wronged.
Like Uxbridge pointed out at the time no true Swans fan would warn that. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
