| Crawley are scum 19:59 - Oct 27 with 4822 views | durham_exile |
Matty Etherington is not allowed to manage the team tomorrow because they claim he would be on breach of his contract that apparently runs to May 2024.
Therefore Scott Marshall takes charge at Accrington.
What a bloody farce.
Up the U's [Post edited 27 Oct 2023 21:07]
|  |
| |  |
| Crawley are scum on 17:57 - Oct 30 with 970 views | bwildered |
| Crawley are scum on 17:49 - Oct 30 by SparkfilmsTV |
Crawley have just released a statement on their club website about the Etherington saga.
They don't sound unreasonable.
Sounds like Robbie got a bit agitated. |
In a statement, Crawley said: 'We want to apologize to the Colchester United fans who were caught in the middle of an unfortunate situation.
'Matthew Etherington resigned as Crawley Town manager last December and had the following clause in his contract: "The Manager shall not be permitted to bring his Agreement to an end early under this clause to take up employment at or be otherwise engaged by another football club playing in the same or a lower league as the Club is playing in at that time. No buyout will be permitted in such circumstances." |  |
| |
| Crawley are scum on 18:51 - Oct 30 with 944 views | wessex_exile |
| Crawley are scum on 17:49 - Oct 30 by SparkfilmsTV |
Crawley have just released a statement on their club website about the Etherington saga.
They don't sound unreasonable.
Sounds like Robbie got a bit agitated. |
We must be reading different statements then, because they sound wholly unreasonable to me? Appointed Matty on a promise that they immediately broke, got a big sulk on because he said on that basis the gig wasn't for him, agreed a severance arrangement, and now want to spoil any chance he has of becoming a successful manager elsewhere. He's not employed by Crawley Town and isn't being paid by Crawley Town, so why can't he seek employment anywhere else he chooses?
The bit "we were not aware that Matthew had been in breach since June 28, 2023, when he was appointed the U-21 coach of Colchester, until Wednesday of this past week" is laughable, and probably a complete lie. They knew well enough, just didn't care until he moved into the frame as a possible replacement for Ben Garner as manager of a team competing against Crawley Town.
F'cking no-marks - I can see why Matty got the hell out.
edit: and to add, they're refusing to consider a buy-out, but get this, happy to waive that clause if he's our U-21 manager. You can't enforce a contractual clause whilst waiving it in the same breath. [Post edited 30 Oct 2023 19:02]
|  |
| |
| Crawley are scum on 19:17 - Oct 30 with 934 views | Witham |
Isn't that restraint of trade ? In addition I am sure there is legislation against "unfair clauses" being imposed. |  | | |
| Crawley are scum on 19:22 - Oct 30 with 934 views | noah4x4 |
It appears that Etherington has been in breach of contract ever since he first came to Colchester, but Crawley remain willing for him to remain as U21 manager, but not as First Team Head. They acknowledge Robbie Cowling could not have known.
I imagine Etherington was paid a wedge of cash to accept these extreme severance terms. He would also almost certainly have received legal advice as regards the consequences. It puts him out of the running until March 2024, forcing Cowling to seek an external more experienced appointment. Won’t most fans welcome that, notwithstanding the recent two wins? The players owe it to the fans that they commit as much as they did on Saturday whoever takes charge. |  | | |
| Crawley are scum on 19:50 - Oct 30 with 925 views | Witham |
Isn't that restraint of trade ? In addition I am sure there is legislation against "unfair clauses" being imposed. | | | |
| Crawley are scum on 20:24 - Oct 30 with 905 views | noah4x4 |
| Crawley are scum on 19:50 - Oct 30 by Witham |
Isn't that restraint of trade ? In addition I am sure there is legislation against "unfair clauses" being imposed. |
Nope, not if the candidate has been paid suitable monetary compensation to accept it.
For example, I was paid the full balance of my two year contract after we mutually parted after merely six months, conditional that I didn’t work for any competitor in that period. Leadbelly mentions a similar experience. This is very common in senior management to protect the companies commercial secrets and intellectual property.
There is no buy out clause, but Etherington won’t pay them back unless guaranteed the Head Coach job by Cowling, who won’t want to offer it based upon merely the Grimsby result. So it’s deadlock and another candidate must be sought. | | | |
| Crawley are scum on 22:11 - Oct 30 with 874 views | wessex_exile |
| Crawley are scum on 20:24 - Oct 30 by noah4x4 |
Nope, not if the candidate has been paid suitable monetary compensation to accept it.
For example, I was paid the full balance of my two year contract after we mutually parted after merely six months, conditional that I didn’t work for any competitor in that period. Leadbelly mentions a similar experience. This is very common in senior management to protect the companies commercial secrets and intellectual property.
There is no buy out clause, but Etherington won’t pay them back unless guaranteed the Head Coach job by Cowling, who won’t want to offer it based upon merely the Grimsby result. So it’s deadlock and another candidate must be sought. |
My point being, Crawley Town appear to want to retrospectively apply a clarification to their clause that determines they will waive it for certain roles, but not others. None of that is stipulated in their original clause, as they themselves have made public. So how can they agree to waive a clause and at the same time impose it?
I totally get negotiated settlements, which is what we have here, and I've been involved in many over the years (for others, not me), and putting staff on gardening leave during their notice period whilst we still paid them.
But, in your personal circumstance, was your previous employer(s) ever happy to waive that restriction if you took up a role for a competitor that they didn't perceive as a commercial/ business threat to themselves? That's what Crawley are trying to assert here - they have an unwritten authority that allows them the discretion to either enforce or waive that clause at their will when they choose. And, when they choose to enforce it (at the same time as waive it), cut off any option to negotiate a buy-out.
Don't you think, from a contract law perspective, that kind of sounds illegal? | |
| |
| Crawley are scum on 08:23 - Oct 31 with 830 views | burnsieespana |
What a mess.
Meantime we still seek a Head Coach. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Crawley are scum on 18:34 - Oct 31 with 771 views | burnsieespana |
Matty has been reinstated after Colchester receive legal advice. | | | |
| Crawley are scum on 18:39 - Oct 31 with 770 views | thrillseeker |
| Crawley are scum on 18:34 - Oct 31 by burnsieespana |
Matty has been reinstated after Colchester receive legal advice. |
Fully expect him to be appointed as full time replacement for Garner - I do hope I am wrong though | | | |
| Crawley are scum on 20:00 - Oct 31 with 746 views | durham_exile |
Sanity has prevailed.
At least we don't have a fourth head coach in a fortnight.
ME is back for the FA Cup.
Up the U's | |
| |
| Crawley are scum on 22:26 - Oct 31 with 714 views | wessex_exile |
| Crawley are scum on 20:00 - Oct 31 by durham_exile |
Sanity has prevailed.
At least we don't have a fourth head coach in a fortnight.
ME is back for the FA Cup.
Up the U's |
A handful of messages on the Crawley Town forum, here's some of them:
"The clown saga continues they’ve made Wagmi look like right prats here. They’ve received legal advice and are certain they’re not in breach of contract!"
"Although the message on Colchester's site was polite, between the lines it's, 'put up or shut up'. If Crawley's owners wish to do anything about this, it could involve a protracted tribunal and/or court case. From here, that doesn't seem viable, though I say that with very incomplete information."
"Who knows what Statler and Waldorf will do now.....It's been lovely this season with them staying in the background, keeping quiet. Hope they don't spoil it now." | |
| |
| Crawley are scum on 22:54 - Oct 31 with 708 views | noah4x4 |
Been thinking about this. ….
1. Colchester United have zero legal obligations to Crawley. We can recruit whoever we like. We have broken no EFL rules and are not in breach of employment law. This is entirely a civil matter between Crawley and their former employee.
2. It is Etherington that is in breach of contract. So Crawley would have to seek any legal injunction against him, and not Colchester United. The likely outcome (IMHO) is that they would not be able to stop him working and might only succeed with a claim for monetary compensation from him. Colchester United has zero liability.
3. Realistically (IMHO) they could only seek damages amounting to the monetary value of the residual amount of his contract, of which there is now only a few months to run.
4. Here Crawley have possibly made a silly mistake by not objecting to his tenure as U21 manager and confirming that he can freely continue in that role. Hence only his period as interim/full head coach is relevant.
5. He might only be interim head coach for six weeks before another is appointed.
6. Should Crawley succeed, it is now likely to be a fairly modest sum held against Etherington, and the legal expenses could be disproportionate to the sum claimed. Robbie Cowling has probably agreed to indemnify Etherington if he does have to refund any monies.
In summary, I think Crawley have limited their prospects of receiving worthwhile compensation by their acceptance of his right to work at U21 level. If Etherington is a success, it’s worth paying off the residual contract. If Etherington isn’t appointed, the liability might only be for a few weeks.
Crawleys bluff has been called. Their move…… | | | |
| Crawley are scum on 00:07 - Nov 1 with 697 views | wessex_exile |
| Crawley are scum on 22:54 - Oct 31 by noah4x4 |
Been thinking about this. ….
1. Colchester United have zero legal obligations to Crawley. We can recruit whoever we like. We have broken no EFL rules and are not in breach of employment law. This is entirely a civil matter between Crawley and their former employee.
2. It is Etherington that is in breach of contract. So Crawley would have to seek any legal injunction against him, and not Colchester United. The likely outcome (IMHO) is that they would not be able to stop him working and might only succeed with a claim for monetary compensation from him. Colchester United has zero liability.
3. Realistically (IMHO) they could only seek damages amounting to the monetary value of the residual amount of his contract, of which there is now only a few months to run.
4. Here Crawley have possibly made a silly mistake by not objecting to his tenure as U21 manager and confirming that he can freely continue in that role. Hence only his period as interim/full head coach is relevant.
5. He might only be interim head coach for six weeks before another is appointed.
6. Should Crawley succeed, it is now likely to be a fairly modest sum held against Etherington, and the legal expenses could be disproportionate to the sum claimed. Robbie Cowling has probably agreed to indemnify Etherington if he does have to refund any monies.
In summary, I think Crawley have limited their prospects of receiving worthwhile compensation by their acceptance of his right to work at U21 level. If Etherington is a success, it’s worth paying off the residual contract. If Etherington isn’t appointed, the liability might only be for a few weeks.
Crawleys bluff has been called. Their move…… |
I'm not certain there is even a breach of contract here tbh. The Crawley statement cited "The Manager shall not be permitted to bring his Agreement to an end early under this clause to take up employment at or be otherwise engaged by another football club playing in the same or a lower league as the Club is playing in at that time. No buyout will be permitted in such circumstances".
They don't clarify, but it appears they are quoting from his original contract of employment (i.e. "Matthew Etherington resigned as Crawley Town manager last December and had the following clause in his contract"). That reads as a clause from his original contract of employment. Matty didn't take up employment at or be otherwise engaged by another football club at all. He spent 6-7 months unemployed before joining the U's.
I think you're right, with Robbie's statement Crawley Town have reached their "FAFO" moment (google it) - will it be ego or commonsense that guides their hand in the next move?
Personally, I don't care. If they want to spunk away their own cash on a frivolous lawsuit they won't win, go for it Creepy Crawlies - couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of no-marks. | |
| |
| Crawley are scum on 08:54 - Nov 1 with 662 views | bwildered |
ME a football genius ?
No NOT me , but ME .
The chairman seems to have gone out on a limb to get a reinstatement of an interim ! Must be appointed full time now, with a one win, one game record, ( let’s ignore the U21 record to date ).
Next step a Ai appointment if ME does not live up to the Chairman’s expectation. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.