By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:33 - May 23 by ItchySphincter
It's going to eat you up if you carry on with this nonsense and if you take a breath and look at it objectively you could ask yourself why, if Laudrup has moved on, can't you?
This nonsense - nice control language, lacks a little subtlety but good try
Objectively why did you have to come straight on here and start slagging Laudrup off. The manager who achieved so much for our club. Legend envy? Let it go you will feel much better.
Perhaps if you contemplated the drivers behind your comments you would feel less angst to control others.
-2
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 00:12 - May 24 with 2151 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:58 - May 23 by Lord_Bony
Are you single Lisa?
Do you have any pics you can e mail me>? please.
no I'm not and I believe that there are many, many places on the internet where you can find all sorts of women who will happily share pics with you :)
1
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 00:15 - May 24 with 2139 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:56 - May 23 by londonlisa2001
It is accurate - have been involved with many of these over the years and never ever been to court. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.
Why do you assume that it is the club that requires damage limitation ?
No need to apologise.
Your limited personal experience cannot be extrapolated to be the case across the country. Your statement is an absolute so only requires one case where that is not true to make your statement false. It is false.
The reputation of the club is important in for e.g. player and manager recruitment amongst other things.
Sacking a manager by email hours after having a prearranged meeting to discuss his future in which it is agreed he should continue; is certainly a very poor way to conduct ourselves.
When said manager has achieved so much for the club it makes it worse, especially when we are unable to even express proper gratitude for what he has achieved. That appears classless and petty.
As the majority of pundits seemed of the opinion (as were Phil, I and many others) that we would not go down under either manager the timing of the action (seems ill advised)
When said manager is generally well thought of throughout the footballing community here and admired for what he exceptionally achieved with us it makes many others question our action. Especially when said manager is much admired for his honest approach
When the replacement manager (who is well know for his outspoken criticism of others) makes repeated barbs - such that footballing pundits say it is unacceptable
When the likes of Robbie Savage is saying he thinks we will struggle next year
This general aroma and uncertainty is not helpful in the recruitment and retention of players especially when a large part of our reputation was down to our probity.
-2
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 00:57 - May 24 with 2049 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 00:43 - May 24 by Spratty
No need to apologise.
Your limited personal experience cannot be extrapolated to be the case across the country. Your statement is an absolute so only requires one case where that is not true to make your statement false. It is false.
The reputation of the club is important in for e.g. player and manager recruitment amongst other things.
Sacking a manager by email hours after having a prearranged meeting to discuss his future in which it is agreed he should continue; is certainly a very poor way to conduct ourselves.
When said manager has achieved so much for the club it makes it worse, especially when we are unable to even express proper gratitude for what he has achieved. That appears classless and petty.
As the majority of pundits seemed of the opinion (as were Phil, I and many others) that we would not go down under either manager the timing of the action (seems ill advised)
When said manager is generally well thought of throughout the footballing community here and admired for what he exceptionally achieved with us it makes many others question our action. Especially when said manager is much admired for his honest approach
When the replacement manager (who is well know for his outspoken criticism of others) makes repeated barbs - such that footballing pundits say it is unacceptable
When the likes of Robbie Savage is saying he thinks we will struggle next year
This general aroma and uncertainty is not helpful in the recruitment and retention of players especially when a large part of our reputation was down to our probity.
0
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 01:08 - May 24 with 2038 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 00:43 - May 24 by Spratty
No need to apologise.
Your limited personal experience cannot be extrapolated to be the case across the country. Your statement is an absolute so only requires one case where that is not true to make your statement false. It is false.
The reputation of the club is important in for e.g. player and manager recruitment amongst other things.
Sacking a manager by email hours after having a prearranged meeting to discuss his future in which it is agreed he should continue; is certainly a very poor way to conduct ourselves.
When said manager has achieved so much for the club it makes it worse, especially when we are unable to even express proper gratitude for what he has achieved. That appears classless and petty.
As the majority of pundits seemed of the opinion (as were Phil, I and many others) that we would not go down under either manager the timing of the action (seems ill advised)
When said manager is generally well thought of throughout the footballing community here and admired for what he exceptionally achieved with us it makes many others question our action. Especially when said manager is much admired for his honest approach
When the replacement manager (who is well know for his outspoken criticism of others) makes repeated barbs - such that footballing pundits say it is unacceptable
When the likes of Robbie Savage is saying he thinks we will struggle next year
This general aroma and uncertainty is not helpful in the recruitment and retention of players especially when a large part of our reputation was down to our probity.
My statement said 'hardly ever' so one case would still not make it untrue. These cases hardly ever go to court. That is not false, it is true. Everyone's experience is obviously limited, but over many years I have seen scenarios where the case is utterly cut and dried, and still the lawyers have insisted on a settlement - it is just the way it is.
You have no idea whether Laudrup was sacked by email hours after a meeting. You simply have a report that Laudrup said that in a press call. There are a number of situations where this may be factually correct but a distortion of events. For example, it may be the case that a meeting was held and it was discussed that he would leave, and that was confirmed, as required by law, in writing afterwards. Factually the sacking would be by email (if the letter was emailed to him as is common) but it is not a fair representation of the whole course of events.
I have not noticed Garry Monk making 'repeated barbs' nor that any football pundits have remarked on it. When have pundits remarked that Monk has made unacceptable barbs against Laudrup?
Robbie Savage saying that we will go down next year - well that makes all the difference doesn't it! No player will touch us with a bargepole after that :)
Barcelona have just got rid of their manager, and Man Utd as well - think they'll recruit anyone? The only difference in this case over every other sacking this year or any other year, is that Laudrup chose to hold a press conference in which he said in very non specific terms (because he couldn't comment on questions that were posed) that he was somehow wronged.
Why are you so insistent on believing the worst of the club? Do you believe genuinely that Laudrup was doing the best that he possibly could for the club?
3
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 05:34 - May 24 with 1996 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:49 - May 23 by londonlisa2001
that was a settlement as well so no one knows. It's all press speculation in both cases.
Amazing how quickly it's gone from a confidential settlement to it being accepted that a payment of '£2.7m or thereabouts' is fact.
Why do people want to believe so badly of the club they have supported for years and instead believe a manager that was here for 18 months and has left every club in the past 5 or 6 years under a cloud?
I have no agenda by the way - I liked him, but he's gone.
Well said.
‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:08 - May 23 by londonlisa2001
I agree - a reference to this would have almost certainly be included in his starting position. The point I was making is that amount was not the value of the 'rest of his contract' which you sounded as though you were implying.
By the way - the accounts will not show what the figure is, so it's pointless thinking we'll see then.
Just to clarify I was responding to Darran's question about Laudrup's pay, and chanced upon a quote that also mentioned the early termination clause.
As far as I can see if the settlement acknowledged a payment was due under that early termination clause, it would clearly be a nonsense were he also to receive his salary until the end of the contract.
You get compensated for one or the other, but common sense dictates it can't be both.
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 10:30 - May 24 by Shaky
Just to clarify I was responding to Darran's question about Laudrup's pay, and chanced upon a quote that also mentioned the early termination clause.
As far as I can see if the settlement acknowledged a payment was due under that early termination clause, it would clearly be a nonsense were he also to receive his salary until the end of the contract.
You get compensated for one or the other, but common sense dictates it can't be both.
If theres an early termination clause in there, thats what he gets and nothing else.
As you say, the whole point of clauses like that is due to situations like this.
Paid up in full my arse. Haha.. still, at least his image is relatively intact in Denmark.
"Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper."
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 10:36 - May 24 by PozuelosSideys
If theres an early termination clause in there, thats what he gets and nothing else.
As you say, the whole point of clauses like that is due to situations like this.
Paid up in full my arse. Haha.. still, at least his image is relatively intact in Denmark.
" the whole point of clauses like that is due to situations like this"
I doubt very much that is the case.
The whole point about clauses like this is to compensate the club in the event that somebody comes in to poach the manager, in this case with a small kick-back to have headed in the direction of the departing party.
IF this clause was so poorly drafted as to trigger a payment even in the event that Laudrup was sacked, I'm afraid it is just another example of the Swansea's advisors being not so much the soaring legal eagles as a couple of dead sparrows.
But of course now that the veil of secrecy has been laid down, we shall never know the full facts or indeed who was responsible for this new legal cock-up following hot on the heels of the Ki recall farce. Probably.
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 12:34 - May 24 by Shaky
" the whole point of clauses like that is due to situations like this"
I doubt very much that is the case.
The whole point about clauses like this is to compensate the club in the event that somebody comes in to poach the manager, in this case with a small kick-back to have headed in the direction of the departing party.
IF this clause was so poorly drafted as to trigger a payment even in the event that Laudrup was sacked, I'm afraid it is just another example of the Swansea's advisors being not so much the soaring legal eagles as a couple of dead sparrows.
But of course now that the veil of secrecy has been laid down, we shall never know the full facts or indeed who was responsible for this new legal cock-up following hot on the heels of the Ki recall farce. Probably.
This is hilarious!
You referred to an amount of £3m as being the value of the rest of his contract. I pointed out that it wasn't, the papers were referring to an amount that Laudrup would get as a cut of a £10m payment to the Swans if he was poached, i.e. the amount was an irrelevance in the discussion of Laudrup's total remaining contractual position.
You then starting referring to it as an early termination clause, incorrectly - there is not one single shred of evidence that this was the case although as I pointed out, such things are always referred to in these sorts of negotiations by advisors in working out settlement values.
On this basis, you are now criticising the club for poor drafting of contracts, and a legal cock-up. which will quickly become acknowledged fact amongst those that wish to slag the club for every little thing.
Is this a new route for having a go at the club? Make something up and two pages later start criticising the club for being useless in managing what you have made up in the first place?
2
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:22 - May 24 with 1774 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:17 - May 24 by londonlisa2001
This is hilarious!
You referred to an amount of £3m as being the value of the rest of his contract. I pointed out that it wasn't, the papers were referring to an amount that Laudrup would get as a cut of a £10m payment to the Swans if he was poached, i.e. the amount was an irrelevance in the discussion of Laudrup's total remaining contractual position.
You then starting referring to it as an early termination clause, incorrectly - there is not one single shred of evidence that this was the case although as I pointed out, such things are always referred to in these sorts of negotiations by advisors in working out settlement values.
On this basis, you are now criticising the club for poor drafting of contracts, and a legal cock-up. which will quickly become acknowledged fact amongst those that wish to slag the club for every little thing.
Is this a new route for having a go at the club? Make something up and two pages later start criticising the club for being useless in managing what you have made up in the first place?
"You referred to an amount of £3m as being the value of the rest of his contract"
Not true.
"You then starting referring to it as an early termination clause, incorrectly "
If as reported Laudrup's salary is £700k x 1.5 years outstanding on his contract that doesn't get anywhere near the DKK 32 million (~£3m). It is the only possible provision under which he could have achieved anything resembling the £2.7m.
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:22 - May 24 by Shaky
"You referred to an amount of £3m as being the value of the rest of his contract"
Not true.
"You then starting referring to it as an early termination clause, incorrectly "
If as reported Laudrup's salary is £700k x 1.5 years outstanding on his contract that doesn't get anywhere near the DKK 32 million (~£3m). It is the only possible provision under which he could have achieved anything resembling the £2.7m.
Simple logic.
Don't be so ridiculous.
A manager will get a basic salary - we don't know what that is by the way, so it may or may not be substantially more than £700k.
However, do you not think that there will be bonuses in there? A bonus, for example, for keeping the Swans in the league - people on this forum speculated that figure to be £1m for this year. If so, it would be at least the same for next. Also other benefits - car allowances, pension payments, other performance related bonuses, incentive plans around league performance, Europa League / FA Cup / League Cup etc etc etc.
For any highly paid exec, the basic salary is simply a starting point - there are an awful lot of people that get virtually all their contract value from the performance related add ons.
When someone is sacked, their advisors will start with a figure that includes the assumption that every one of these bonuses is earned and indeed, maxed out. It then becomes a matter of negotiation.
And that is simple logic.
0
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:39 - May 24 with 1744 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:17 - May 24 by londonlisa2001
This is hilarious!
You referred to an amount of £3m as being the value of the rest of his contract. I pointed out that it wasn't, the papers were referring to an amount that Laudrup would get as a cut of a £10m payment to the Swans if he was poached, i.e. the amount was an irrelevance in the discussion of Laudrup's total remaining contractual position.
You then starting referring to it as an early termination clause, incorrectly - there is not one single shred of evidence that this was the case although as I pointed out, such things are always referred to in these sorts of negotiations by advisors in working out settlement values.
On this basis, you are now criticising the club for poor drafting of contracts, and a legal cock-up. which will quickly become acknowledged fact amongst those that wish to slag the club for every little thing.
Is this a new route for having a go at the club? Make something up and two pages later start criticising the club for being useless in managing what you have made up in the first place?
No I think you are referring to the logic behind the Laudrup smear campaign there.
The one Huw asked to stop when he said it turned his stomach and that Laudrup was one of the most genuine and honest people you could meet.
Even though you are now trying to plant the idea that ML was lying about being sacked by email hours after a meeting where they shook hands and agreed to continue. This regardless of the fact that Huw admitted in writing he had a rethink. Why is this?
-2
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:42 - May 24 with 1733 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:37 - May 24 by londonlisa2001
Don't be so ridiculous.
A manager will get a basic salary - we don't know what that is by the way, so it may or may not be substantially more than £700k.
However, do you not think that there will be bonuses in there? A bonus, for example, for keeping the Swans in the league - people on this forum speculated that figure to be £1m for this year. If so, it would be at least the same for next. Also other benefits - car allowances, pension payments, other performance related bonuses, incentive plans around league performance, Europa League / FA Cup / League Cup etc etc etc.
For any highly paid exec, the basic salary is simply a starting point - there are an awful lot of people that get virtually all their contract value from the performance related add ons.
When someone is sacked, their advisors will start with a figure that includes the assumption that every one of these bonuses is earned and indeed, maxed out. It then becomes a matter of negotiation.
And that is simple logic.
Laudrup's premiership survival bonus has already been mentioned @ £500k.
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:39 - May 24 by Spratty
No I think you are referring to the logic behind the Laudrup smear campaign there.
The one Huw asked to stop when he said it turned his stomach and that Laudrup was one of the most genuine and honest people you could meet.
Even though you are now trying to plant the idea that ML was lying about being sacked by email hours after a meeting where they shook hands and agreed to continue. This regardless of the fact that Huw admitted in writing he had a rethink. Why is this?
I am not planting any idea - I was giving an example of how someone could say something that was factually correct but it wouldn't give the full picture.
I did not say Laudrup was lying so stop twisting my words - I was pointing out that things are not always entirely what they seem unless you have the full picture, from all points of view and no one has that.
Where are your examples of the media complaining about Monk's constant barbed criticism of Laudrup?
And you didn't answer my question - do you genuinely believe that Laudrup was doing everything he could for the club?
1
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:49 - May 24 with 1719 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:58 - May 23 by Lord_Bony
Are you single Lisa?
Do you have any pics you can e mail me>? please.
Haha, 20 years later, and you're still a pest.
[Post edited 24 May 2014 13:52]
"If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training, you will be a weapon. You will be a minister of death praying for war. But until that day you are pukes. You are the lowest form of life on Earth. You are not even human furcking beings! You are nothing but unorganized, grabastic pieces of amphibian sh1t! Because I am hard, you will not like me. But the more you hate me the more you will learn."
0
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:54 - May 24 with 1709 views
no it hasn't! Monk was rumoured to have a bonus of £500k for keeping us up, not Laudrup.
There was a strong rumour at the time that Brendan's bonus for keeping the Swans in the premier league was c.£1m for example.
What about placing bonuses (the players get a share, why wouldn't the manager, and his lawyers would use 9th last year to make a claim). What about cup bonuses (we were still in the Europa and the FA Cup when he left - any bonuses due in those comps would be claimed as well as a starting point).
I can only imagine that you have never been involved in these types of negotiations - the starting points are often fabulously inflated.
2
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 13:56 - May 24 with 1701 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 19:46 - May 23 by Swanzay
Football is very unique in this circumstance, there isn't many occupations where you can seek settlement of a bundle of dosh for being sacked, why it happens, I dont know? May be its to take into consideration a manager could be out of work for some time, but still I certainly couldn't expect a pay day in my job!
Yeah, but you could take your case to court for unfair dismissal, if they didn't have a good reason to sack you. If you were hitting your performance targets as Laudrup was doing (i.e. 12th in the league when he was dismissed) then the chairman of your company saying he didn't enjoy the way you were working, wouldn't have been much of a defence.
Most managers nowadays don't last even two seasons in the Premier League, so it's not exactly a normal job.
Anyway, best wishes to Michael Laudrup - thanks for some outstanding memories - and definitely time to move on for him and for us.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
