rugbyunion
Latest News:

Quinssa WebsiteQuins News from News NowQuins Official Site


Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Scaramouche (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 09:50
[www.dailymail.co.uk]



If at first you don't succeed, Try, Try and Try again.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Roaming Quin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 09:55
Why in sport do coaches need paying off. In other industries if a person is sacked they dont get the rest of the eats salary!

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Dave L (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 09:58
Im sceptical of any figures quoted in the mail regarding rugby. This is based on sound knowledge from someone in the game who would know. While the financial situation wont be brilliant - paying off people never is, the figures are most likely very inflated.

On a side note, this recent interest of the Mail in rugby is suspicious. Just as English rugby in general is having a bit of a crisis in confidence, with two of its biggest clubs having some potential issues, in piles the Mail at the faintest hint of scandal. Not like they have a track record of stirring bad situations.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Scaramouche (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 10:02
Any news is good news..?



If at first you don't succeed, Try, Try and Try again.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
QuinAlan (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 10:11
Thats a lot of money to reward abject failure!

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Rocker (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 11:03
I hope not. If you don't do your job and get sacked for poor performance you don't normally get paid off!

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
jonf (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 11:01
It will depend on what is in their contracts. They were only given extensions at Christmas si I expect they have several years on them. A very poor decision, let us see if that causes other heads to roll.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 11:08
Will also depend on any clauses in their contracts. Fail to qualify for Europe, come next to bottom etc. Can all have an affect on how much they get.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Safri-quin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 11:14
Large pinch of salt required I think

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
DOK (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 11:17
And the good news...possibly know the new coach before the end of the season! smiling smiley

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
DazzaS (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 11:29
Reason for the money is it is not gross misconduct but performance related dismissal . In normal jobs they normally pay off to end of the month but in sports your paid off for rest of their set contract.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Dave L (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 11:42
Quote:
Safri-quin
Large pinch of salt required I think

Very large. No chance Kingston will be on 375k a year which this article would suggest.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 12:55
Whether the 2.5m figure is right or not it was colossal mismanagement to give the new contracts at the time we did.

There was no justification for it and no time pressure to do so.

By making that call we're now in a position where we have to pay off coaches or lumber the new DOR with coaches not of their choosing.

Both of those outcomes will cause us issues next season so whoever made that call should be kept away from any decision making for a while.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 13:43
Quote:
Roaming Quin
Why in sport do coaches need paying off. In other industries if a person is sacked they dont get the rest of the eats salary!

they're effectively contractors - sacking those tends to cost.

Totally agree this a problem of Quins' own making, there was zero justification for extending the contracts when they did.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 13:48
Quote:
QuinAlan
Thats a lot of money to reward abject failure!

And add in the 7m on players...

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
blucherquin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 15:20
Quote:
Roaming Quin
Why in sport do coaches need paying off. In other industries if a person is sacked they dont get the rest of the eats salary!

You cant just sack anyone from any job in the uk, unless theyve breached the conditions of their contract.

If you get made reduandant you get redundancy pay - but they cant employ someone to do the same job because the role is made redundant.

If you want someone just to go away - you have to pay them money. Most companies just pay you the same as you could get from a court after claiming unfair dismissal.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
29 April, 2018 16:43
If this article is correct then Ellis should be sacked. However it seems at best a half plausible theory that the Mail have pieced together with no facts or evidence.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Samquin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 17:08
The management of the club is a shambles. There was no need to extend the contracts. I still think Ellis has alot to answer for.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Mobbs (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 17:41
Pulis, Allardyce, Hughes, Pardew, Moyes.....its a long list of pay-offs for failure in football, Rugby is simply heading in the same direction !

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 18:45
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Whether the 2.5m figure is right or not it was colossal mismanagement to give the new contracts at the time we did.
There was no justification for it and no time pressure to do so.

By making that call we're now in a position where we have to pay off coaches or lumber the new DOR with coaches not of their choosing.

Both of those outcomes will cause us issues next season so whoever made that call should be kept away from any decision making for a while.

I don't think we are allowed to criticise Ellis.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 18:52
Rather than the standing ovation for 17 years' service, perhaps the crowd should suggest that jk takes his money and ****s off...and takes Ellis with him.

Ironically, when Ellis does get sacked for costing the club 4m with two moronic decisions, he'll probably pick up a windfall too.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Mayor West (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 19:22
I asked someone in the corporate world why people get paid their contract money even if they are sacked and they said that is standard policy. The two parties have contracted a salary for a period of time full stop. Misconduct is the only way you won't get paid off. I said that you could be a constant poor performer and get sacked after one year of your three and make a good living not working much but they said you would only get away with that twice and then nobody would touch you. Unless your a football manager of course.
It's also common policy for you not to work the final six months of your contract. Gardening leave. So if you don't renew your contract before your final six months everybody knows your off which is why the extensions were signed. There may be conditions attached to the extensions so it's not necessarily the case that big pay offs are made. It will become apparent in the company accounts when they are filed.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 19:29
Also, JK wasn't sacked. He's leaving by mutual agreement I believe.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Dave L (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 20:06
Also I dont think anyone is saying Ellis cant be criticised, just that he isnt responsible directly for all the nonsense on the pitch.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Camquin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 20:20
It all depends on exactly what is written into the contract.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
TW Quin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 20:28
Quote:
Dave L
Also I dont think anyone is saying Ellis cant be criticised, just that he isnt responsible directly for all the nonsense on the pitch.

But a CEO is accountable surely for the whole operation if a company is failing miserably with results or sales on the shop floor the CEO generally walks. David Ellis has introduced change which is failing it seems on many fronts and not just being 10 or 11th in the table! Seems a perfectly reasonable bloke but we seem on a course set for the rocks - very worrying!

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Mayor West (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 20:37
I'm sure I read recently that the performance of a company is barely affected by who the CEO is.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 21:08
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Also, JK wasn't sacked. He's leaving by mutual agreement I believe.

Do you honestly think JK is walking away from a contract renewed 3 months ago without getting a significant payoff?

They can call it what they want, but he's effectively been sacked.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 21:37
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Also, JK wasn't sacked. He's leaving by mutual agreement I believe.

Do you honestly think JK is walking away from a contract renewed 3 months ago without getting a significant payoff?

They can call it what they want, but he's effectively been sacked.

I don't know the terms of the contract, or the negotiated settlement. Do you? If so, please enlighten us all. Besides, getting a significant payoff doesn't mean he's been sacked. It means that a payoff has been agreed. Compensation for early cessation of contract, most likely.

What it "is", and what it "effectively" is in your view, are not necessarily one and the same. The official line is that he's leaving (not left yet) by mutual agreement. He hasn't been sacked.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 21:50
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Also, JK wasn't sacked. He's leaving by mutual agreement I believe.

Do you honestly think JK is walking away from a contract renewed 3 months ago without getting a significant payoff?

They can call it what they want, but he's effectively been sacked.

I don't know the terms of the contract, or the negotiated settlement. Do you? If so, please enlighten us all. Besides, getting a significant payoff doesn't mean he's been sacked. It means that a payoff has been agreed. Compensation for early cessation of contract, most likely.

What it "is", and what it "effectively" is in your view, are not necessarily one and the same. The official line is that he's leaving (not left yet) by mutual agreement. He hasn't been sacked.

If he's getting a payoff that means he hasn't resigned.

'Mutual consent' always means someone has been asked to leave and paid off for doing so.

Unless you honestly think that JK approached them with a settlement suggestion. Which I don't think has happened in the history of employment ever.

To think that JK hasn't been sacked is incredibly naive.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 21:59
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Also, JK wasn't sacked. He's leaving by mutual agreement I believe.

Do you honestly think JK is walking away from a contract renewed 3 months ago without getting a significant payoff?

They can call it what they want, but he's effectively been sacked.

I don't know the terms of the contract, or the negotiated settlement. Do you? If so, please enlighten us all. Besides, getting a significant payoff doesn't mean he's been sacked. It means that a payoff has been agreed. Compensation for early cessation of contract, most likely.

What it "is", and what it "effectively" is in your view, are not necessarily one and the same. The official line is that he's leaving (not left yet) by mutual agreement. He hasn't been sacked.

If he's getting a payoff that means he hasn't resigned.

'Mutual consent' always means someone has been asked to leave and paid off for doing so.

Unless you honestly think that JK approached them with a settlement suggestion. Which I don't think has happened in the history of employment ever.

To think that JK hasn't been sacked is incredibly naive.

Well, since you apparently have knowledge of the entire history of employment, perhaps you could explain how often a person is sacked but remains in place for several weeks?

The media have talked about a payoff, not the club or JK. Nobody is saying he resigned - I'll repeat, he's leaving by mutual consent. Any "payoff" is not uncommon when a contract ends early, it's usually referred to as compensation. But you'd know that. as an employment historian.

"Mutual consent" means that both parties agree to the same thing; I don't think it's been confirmed who suggested it. Perhaps you could extract yourself from your employment history studies to point out where it's been stated that JK was "asked to leave"?

In my experience, which is obviously much less than yours, it's possible for either party to suggest ending the contract. But you don't think it's ever happened.

To simply bandy around the word "sacked" is sensationalist and derogatory. Incredibly so. JK may well have offered to terminate his own contract early, as he realises he's underperformed and is doing the right thing. He's an honourable chap, I believe. As for a payoff, I don't think it's even been conformed that he will be getting any kind of settlement. But feel free to point me in the direction of facts that show otherwise.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 22:11
Genuinely QK, and I believe you run a business or at least you have experience of managing people, has anyone ever come to you and said "I'd like to leave my job and I think you should give me some money to do so."

Any settlement always comes as a result of the employer wanting the employee to leave.

My only experience is as a negotiator of settlement agreements, and they never come from the employee starting that process.

As I said...to suggest 'mutual consent' means anything other than being asked to leave/sacked is naive.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
DOK (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 22:13
Ellis certainly has a few questions to answer about the contract renewals, about why JK was appointed in the first place after a "world wide search" and about what is happening now to ensure they don't screw it up like last time.

So I hope you're all coming to the "Meet David Ellis" night to ask him some of these.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 22:22
Quote:
DOK
Ellis certainly has a few questions to answer about the contract renewals, about why JK was appointed in the first place after a "world wide search" and about what is happening now to ensure they don't screw it up like last time.
So I hope you're all coming to the "Meet David Ellis" night to ask him some of these.

If we can't make it because we don't live anywhere near Twickenham are we still allowed to express our opinions on here?

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
DOK (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 22:22
You can always express your opinions on here, but don't expect them to go any further than that.

From the QUINSSA email "If however you have a question for David but are unable to attend, email the question to the address above and your name and question will be put to David on the night. " The email address in question being geoff@quinssa.org.uk

That might be more useful than just letting off steam here, depends what you want I guess.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
QuickerQuin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 22:23
Quote:
Mayor West
I asked someone in the corporate world why people get paid their contract money even if they are sacked and they said that is standard policy. The two parties have contracted a salary for a period of time full stop. Misconduct is the only way you won't get paid off. I said that you could be a constant poor performer and get sacked after one year of your three and make a good living not working much but they said you would only get away with that twice and then nobody would touch you. Unless your a football manager of course.
It's also common policy for you not to work the final six months of your contract. Gardening leave. So if you don't renew your contract before your final six months everybody knows your off which is why the extensions were signed. There may be conditions attached to the extensions so it's not necessarily the case that big pay offs are made. It will become apparent in the company accounts when they are filed.

[www.espressoenglish.net]

Always happy to help.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 22:34
Quote:
DOK
You can always express your opinions on here, but don't expect them to go any further than that.
From the QUINSSA email "If however you have a question for David but are unable to attend, email the question to the address above and your name and question will be put to David on the night. " The email address in question being geoff@quinssa.org.uk

That might be more useful than just letting off steam here, depends what you want I guess.

Done that already.

Although almost certainly just questions that everyone else has asked already.

The insinuation that only those that take active action can have an opinion isn't very helpful.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Cookie (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 22:50
Will surely be the first question on Tuesday evening (I'll be there to make sure).Whatever the amount of compensation, it was an absurd decision to renew contracts in January and absolutely needs an explanation.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
blucherquin (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 23:05
Ive heard someone nonsense in my time....

By mutual consent means sacked. Always has.

Any other interpretation is wrong.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
DOK (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 23:19
So if I do the maths, Kingston and Mapletoft had 2 year contracts. If paying off JK is 750,000 then he's on 375,00 a year.
If getting rid of the other 6 is 1.75m, if we assume they all have 2 year contracts that's 145,833 per coach. Presumably Mapletoft gets a bigger share than Easter or NEV, but that's the average.

But the basic answer is we can't afford not to get rid of these coaches! Yes, at the top level JK is responsible for them, but unless he was demanding they could all do something that the coaches could not deliver, I can't see how it all falls on him.

If he said to Nick Easter "I want these people to be able to play a rush defence and an umbrella defence", then it's up to NE to deliver that or stand up to him and say "these players can only deliver the paper bag defence!".

If he says to Colin Osbourne "I want these people to pass under pressure, to offload out the tackle" then it's up to CO to ensure they can do that or else tell him they're a bunch of fumble fingered idiots who couldn't pass wind in the right direction.

If from NEV he wants players who can fix their man before passing the ball on and past him, then NEV either delivers that or he admits he can't get through to them that simply passing the ball without fixing anyone results in the last man trying to get through a solid wall of defenders with no support.

I've listened to everyone who has said throughout the season that JK is ultimately responsible for the rugby side of things and must pay the ultimate price when it doesn't work. I reluctantly agree, he is the scapegoat for the others. However, to let them off and leave them in place would be the worst thing you could do to the club and the incoming DOR. If he chooses to keep them, fine! Like JK, he's going to be judged by how well they get his message over to the players.

If you were the incoming DOR, how would you feel about that? Take the people who were responsible for getting the last DOR fired or would you want the people you trust and worked with in the past? I think last time Harlequins tried the "on the cheap" option. I suspect Harlequins insisted on keeping the existing coaches, I suspect every putative DOR said that was unacceptable but JK, who initially said he didn't want to be DOR, stepped forward for the club.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
DOK (IP Logged)
29 April, 2018 23:20
Quote:
blucherquin
Ive heard someone nonsense in my time....
By mutual consent means sacked. Always has.

Any other interpretation is wrong.

Means - to you and me, of course it means sacked.

In a court of law?

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quaking Quin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 00:48
DOK - you sum it up in your final paragraph.

However, if 'by mutual agreement' means 'sacked' why on earth did the club have a failed DoR hang around until the end of the season.

Presumably, the owner/board had gone through all their options well before telling JK of his departure.

For the sake of the club we can only hope an announcement will come very soon. A summer of indecision/speculation would be disastrous.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
DazzaS (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 01:07
Jk and co initially had 3 year contrsscts and given 2 year extensions in January. This year is sec9nd year of the initial 3 year contract so does that mean they are being paid off f0r next year and following 2 years.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Bolly-Quin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 08:28
Quote:
talkshowhost86
If he's getting a payoff that means he hasn't resigned.

Er, sorry to spoil the party, but I resigned and got a payoff (and it wasnt by mutual consent initially as they didnt want me to leave!).

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
blucherquin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 08:33
Quote:
DOK
Quote:
blucherquin
Ive heard someone nonsense in my time....
By mutual consent means sacked. Always has.

Any other interpretation is wrong.

Means - to you and me, of course it means sacked.

In a court of law?

Nothing. It means a deal has been done that will never see a court and involves a contract being broken and money paid and a hush clause being signed in exchange.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 09:25
Quote:
Bolly-Quin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
If he's getting a payoff that means he hasn't resigned.

Er, sorry to spoil the party, but I resigned and got a payoff (and it wasnt by mutual consent initially as they didnt want me to leave!).

Would be interesting to know the details behind that. If you actually resigned normally then no idea why any company would give you a pay off.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 09:57
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Genuinely QK, and I believe you run a business or at least you have experience of managing people, has anyone ever come to you and said "I'd like to leave my job and I think you should give me some money to do so."

It isn't an everyday thing, but I have known it to happen. For example, someone signs a contract for a fixed term, with fixed goals/targets, on the understanding that both parties have implicit input (possibly by way of resource/support). At some point the employee feels that those targets are unlikely to be met and feels that the blame is not solely theirs, so approaches the employer with the idea that "I don't feel it's fair to continue in the role when I'm being set up to fail, so let's discuss a way forward - one option being that we both agree to end the contract early, but I will need to compensated accordingly".

In answer to your first question, yes I have been involved in such a scenario. The benefits are that the employer releases someone early with a lesser payment than they would have made over a period of time, thereby enabling a faster fix; the employee leaves with less than they would have received over a longer period, but with the opportunity to look elsewhere more quickly, and the luxury of not having to jump at the first job that's offered.

I'm not suggesting this is what happened here, but it's a possibility.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 10:08
Quote:
Mayor West
I asked someone in the corporate world why people get paid their contract money even if they are sacked and they said that is standard policy. The two parties have contracted a salary for a period of time full stop. Misconduct is the only way you won't get paid off. I said that you could be a constant poor performer and get sacked after one year of your three and make a good living not working much but they said you would only get away with that twice and then nobody would touch you. Unless your a football manager of course.
It's also common policy for you not to work the final six months of your contract. Gardening leave. So if you don't renew your contract before your final six months everybody knows your off which is why the extensions were signed. There may be conditions attached to the extensions so it's not necessarily the case that big pay offs are made. It will become apparent in the company accounts when they are filed.

It really won't.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 10:19
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Also, JK wasn't sacked. He's leaving by mutual agreement I believe.

Do you honestly think JK is walking away from a contract renewed 3 months ago without getting a significant payoff?

They can call it what they want, but he's effectively been sacked.

I don't know the terms of the contract, or the negotiated settlement. Do you? If so, please enlighten us all. Besides, getting a significant payoff doesn't mean he's been sacked. It means that a payoff has been agreed. Compensation for early cessation of contract, most likely.

What it "is", and what it "effectively" is in your view, are not necessarily one and the same. The official line is that he's leaving (not left yet) by mutual agreement. He hasn't been sacked.

If he's getting a payoff that means he hasn't resigned.

'Mutual consent' always means someone has been asked to leave and paid off for doing so.

Unless you honestly think that JK approached them with a settlement suggestion. Which I don't think has happened in the history of employment ever.

To think that JK hasn't been sacked is incredibly naive.

Be gentle with Quinky, he's thrashing around looking for something to clutch onto after his judgment of JK turned out to be so spectacularly wrong.

He's wrong on this as well of course, but will use his usual tactics - "we can't possibly judge JK until we know the table position at the end of the season" - "JK might be paying Quins to leave for all we know, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE CONTRACTS!"

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 10:35
But there is some truth. We have not seen the contracts and do not know what they contain. People stating it will cost us a fortune to let them go, maybe, maybe not. If there are clauses that stipulate qualification for Champions cup, a reduced payment for each place we slip down. Financial penalties for the poor outcome of the season

We might not ever find out.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
thomh (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 11:10
Quote:
blucherquin
Quote:
DOK
Quote:
blucherquin
I�ve heard someone nonsense in my time....
�By mutual consent� means sacked. Always has.

Any other interpretation is wrong.

Means - to you and me, of course it means sacked.

In a court of law?

Nothing. It means a deal has been done that will never see a court and involves a contract being broken and money paid and a hush clause being signed in exchange.

What would a court of law ever have to do with it, DOK?

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 12:11
Quote:
RodneyRegis
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Also, JK wasn't sacked. He's leaving by mutual agreement I believe.

Do you honestly think JK is walking away from a contract renewed 3 months ago without getting a significant payoff?

They can call it what they want, but he's effectively been sacked.

I don't know the terms of the contract, or the negotiated settlement. Do you? If so, please enlighten us all. Besides, getting a significant payoff doesn't mean he's been sacked. It means that a payoff has been agreed. Compensation for early cessation of contract, most likely.

What it "is", and what it "effectively" is in your view, are not necessarily one and the same. The official line is that he's leaving (not left yet) by mutual agreement. He hasn't been sacked.

If he's getting a payoff that means he hasn't resigned.

'Mutual consent' always means someone has been asked to leave and paid off for doing so.

Unless you honestly think that JK approached them with a settlement suggestion. Which I don't think has happened in the history of employment ever.

To think that JK hasn't been sacked is incredibly naive.

Be gentle with Quinky, he's thrashing around looking for something to clutch onto after his judgment of JK turned out to be so spectacularly wrong.

He's wrong on this as well of course, but will use his usual tactics - "we can't possibly judge JK until we know the table position at the end of the season" - "JK might be paying Quins to leave for all we know, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE CONTRACTS!"

Feel free to prove me wrong. I won't hold my breath.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 12:17
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Genuinely QK, and I believe you run a business or at least you have experience of managing people, has anyone ever come to you and said "I'd like to leave my job and I think you should give me some money to do so."

Another point to bear in mind TSW, is that most contracts have a notice period applicable to both sides. If someone resigns, the employer may not want them to stick around for the full duration of the notice. That usually leads to the negotiation of a sum to entice the employee to leave earlier - it could be the full sum due, or it could be reduced depending on the circumstances. Some companies prefer the whole "garden leave" thing, whereas the employee may want to get on with job-searching much more quickly and hence will agree a lesser payoff; the opposite usually applies to sales people who are asked to go early and will often expect to be paid the full amount that would be due over the course of their notice.

I think one factor that should be considered is what JK does next. If he wants to stay in coaching then he'd have wanted to look for a role straight away. If he's retiring then he'll clearly want a nice settlement. In fact, this might even be an early retirement, as he's not a young man.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Yareet (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 15:09
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Genuinely QK, and I believe you run a business or at least you have experience of managing people, has anyone ever come to you and said "I'd like to leave my job and I think you should give me some money to do so."

Any settlement always comes as a result of the employer wanting the employee to leave.

My only experience is as a negotiator of settlement agreements, and they never come from the employee starting that process.

As I said...to suggest 'mutual consent' means anything other than being asked to leave/sacked is naive.

I have.

Changes meant that my role no longer existed and my employers wanted me to stay in a different role. I tried the new role but we quickly realised that it was wrong. I agreed a payout and my new role was not made redundant.

Why was I treated well? Because I was a long-serving member of staff who had built up a lot of goodwill within the company.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 15:44
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
RodneyRegis

Be gentle with Quinky, he's thrashing around looking for something to clutch onto after his judgment of JK turned out to be so spectacularly wrong.

He's wrong on this as well of course, but will use his usual tactics - "we can't possibly judge JK until we know the table position at the end of the season" - "JK might be paying Quins to leave for all we know, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE CONTRACTS!"

Feel free to prove me wrong. I won't hold my breath.

Classic Quinks.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 16:46
Quote:
Yareet
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Genuinely QK, and I believe you run a business or at least you have experience of managing people, has anyone ever come to you and said "I'd like to leave my job and I think you should give me some money to do so."

Any settlement always comes as a result of the employer wanting the employee to leave.

My only experience is as a negotiator of settlement agreements, and they never come from the employee starting that process.

As I said...to suggest 'mutual consent' means anything other than being asked to leave/sacked is naive.

I have.

Changes meant that my role no longer existed and my employers wanted me to stay in a different role. I tried the new role but we quickly realised that it was wrong. I agreed a payout and my new role was not made redundant.

Why was I treated well? Because I was a long-serving member of staff who had built up a lot of goodwill within the company.

That's you agreeing to a settlement because your role was made redundant. Good that it was done amicably (and well done on that because loads of companies are complete evil sods about that sort of thing) but it wasn't a case of you making the first move and resigning.

I think in all of the examples that are being bandied around in an attempt to suggest that JK wasn't sacked, the one problem is that if he had in fact resigned, that's how the club would have reported it. It would be better for the club, and better for JK, so the fact that we went with the phrase 'mutual consent' makes it pretty clear what happened, whether we can see his contract or not.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Yareet (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 17:03
Quote:
talkshowhost86

That's you agreeing to a settlement because your role was made redundant.

Nope. Both roles still existed when I left

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
blucherquin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 17:05
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Yareet
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Genuinely QK, and I believe you run a business or at least you have experience of managing people, has anyone ever come to you and said "I'd like to leave my job and I think you should give me some money to do so."

Any settlement always comes as a result of the employer wanting the employee to leave.

My only experience is as a negotiator of settlement agreements, and they never come from the employee starting that process.

As I said...to suggest 'mutual consent' means anything other than being asked to leave/sacked is naive.

I have.

Changes meant that my role no longer existed and my employers wanted me to stay in a different role. I tried the new role but we quickly realised that it was wrong. I agreed a payout and my new role was not made redundant.

Why was I treated well? Because I was a long-serving member of staff who had built up a lot of goodwill within the company.

That's you agreeing to a settlement because your role was made redundant. Good that it was done amicably (and well done on that because loads of companies are complete evil sods about that sort of thing) but it wasn't a case of you making the first move and resigning.

I think in all of the examples that are being bandied around in an attempt to suggest that JK wasn't sacked, the one problem is that if he had in fact resigned, that's how the club would have reported it. It would be better for the club, and better for JK, so the fact that we went with the phrase 'mutual consent' makes it pretty clear what happened, whether we can see his contract or not.

Exactly.

(Oh and you were made redundant as above - except you never get made reduandant, the role does. Thats why they cant employ someone to do the same role (unless they give you a nice settlement and you agree not to say anything ((which may well have been in the papers you signed)

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 17:56
TSH, it's not clear whether he was sacked, or he resigned, with the difference seeming to be who makes the first move. All that is clear is that it was mutually agreed. Since it's not really a role that can be made redundant, mutual agreement seems a polite way of saying both sides wanted it to happen. In any case, if you persist with the belief that he was sacked, why is he still there?

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 17:57
Quote:
RodneyRegis
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
RodneyRegis

Be gentle with Quinky, he's thrashing around looking for something to clutch onto after his judgment of JK turned out to be so spectacularly wrong.

He's wrong on this as well of course, but will use his usual tactics - "we can't possibly judge JK until we know the table position at the end of the season" - "JK might be paying Quins to leave for all we know, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE CONTRACTS!"

Feel free to prove me wrong. I won't hold my breath.

Classic Quinks.

I hope you never get called up for jury service.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 18:09
Quote:
Quinky Kin
TSH, it's not clear whether he was sacked, or he resigned, with the difference seeming to be who makes the first move. All that is clear is that it was mutually agreed. Since it's not really a role that can be made redundant, mutual agreement seems a polite way of saying both sides wanted it to happen. In any case, if you persist with the belief that he was sacked, why is he still there?

What does him still being there have to do with it?

That argument could equally be applied to ask why is he there if he resigned.

Away from your approach that you can't have an opinion unless you heard the actual negotiations whilst hiding in Ellis' private toilet....do you honestly think JK wasn't sacked after what we've seen in 2018?

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 20:38
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
TSH, it's not clear whether he was sacked, or he resigned, with the difference seeming to be who makes the first move. All that is clear is that it was mutually agreed. Since it's not really a role that can be made redundant, mutual agreement seems a polite way of saying both sides wanted it to happen. In any case, if you persist with the belief that he was sacked, why is he still there?

What does him still being there have to do with it?

That argument could equally be applied to ask why is he there if he resigned.

Away from your approach that you can't have an opinion unless you heard the actual negotiations whilst hiding in Ellis' private toilet....do you honestly think JK wasn't sacked after what we've seen in 2018?

He would be more likely to be working notice if he resigned, no?

If his contract hadn't been extended, I'd be inclined to think he was being "let go". Or rather that he wasn't being offered a new contract. Part of me wants to believe that he's so unhappy with the way the season has unfolded that he's fallen on his sword and suggested that the new contract be ripped up. It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

 
Re: 2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
ArchQuin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 21:38
An honourable end

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 21:47
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
TSH, it's not clear whether he was sacked, or he resigned, with the difference seeming to be who makes the first move. All that is clear is that it was mutually agreed. Since it's not really a role that can be made redundant, mutual agreement seems a polite way of saying both sides wanted it to happen. In any case, if you persist with the belief that he was sacked, why is he still there?

What does him still being there have to do with it?

That argument could equally be applied to ask why is he there if he resigned.

Away from your approach that you can't have an opinion unless you heard the actual negotiations whilst hiding in Ellis' private toilet....do you honestly think JK wasn't sacked after what we've seen in 2018?

He would be more likely to be working notice if he resigned, no?

If his contract hadn't been extended, I'd be inclined to think he was being "let go". Or rather that he wasn't being offered a new contract. Part of me wants to believe that he's so unhappy with the way the season has unfolded that he's fallen on his sword and suggested that the new contract be ripped up. It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

Somewhat avoiding the question.

His contract was extended so it's not a case of him running down the contract.

So do you honestly think he fell on his sword and we then agreed to pay him off?

We all know it's a remote chance. Similarly it's a remote chance that he's resigned so that he can take the All Blacks job.

But QK what do you actually think has happened?

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
DOK (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 21:44
While I'm glad JK and the club parted on friendly(ish) terms, I still think it a huge mistake to have offered a contract extension that then had to be bought out. Unless the club owner is cool with all this money being frittered away, in the end he's the one going to have to dig into the bank account to make up the shortfall.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 22:34
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
TSH, it's not clear whether he was sacked, or he resigned, with the difference seeming to be who makes the first move. All that is clear is that it was mutually agreed. Since it's not really a role that can be made redundant, mutual agreement seems a polite way of saying both sides wanted it to happen. In any case, if you persist with the belief that he was sacked, why is he still there?

What does him still being there have to do with it?

That argument could equally be applied to ask why is he there if he resigned.

Away from your approach that you can't have an opinion unless you heard the actual negotiations whilst hiding in Ellis' private toilet....do you honestly think JK wasn't sacked after what we've seen in 2018?

He would be more likely to be working notice if he resigned, no?

If his contract hadn't been extended, I'd be inclined to think he was being "let go". Or rather that he wasn't being offered a new contract. Part of me wants to believe that he's so unhappy with the way the season has unfolded that he's fallen on his sword and suggested that the new contract be ripped up. It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

Somewhat avoiding the question.

His contract was extended so it's not a case of him running down the contract.

So do you honestly think he fell on his sword and we then agreed to pay him off?

We all know it's a remote chance. Similarly it's a remote chance that he's resigned so that he can take the All Blacks job.

But QK what do you actually think has happened?

Not sure how you think I've avoided any question. But if it helps, I'll say that I believe an agreement was reached between the two parties.

You are sure that JK was sacked. That's fine, we can agree to disagree.

Let me just point out one thing: your opinion is based upon what you are sure of, having interpreted the meaning of what's been said, and using your global knowledge of all employment disputes since time began (apart from, it seems, those experienced by at least three posters on this board). My opinion is based upon what has been stated by the club, and what's in the public domain.

I'd say one of us is a conspiracy theorist. Thank God it's not me.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Yareet (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 22:37
Quote:
blucherquin

Exactly.

(Oh and you were made redundant as above - except you never get made reduandant, the role does. Thats why they cant employ someone to do the same role (unless they give you a nice settlement and you agree not to say anything ((which may well have been in the papers you signed)

I wasnt - the company wanted me to stay. Neither was either role. Both roles still existed (and were carried out by other people) after Id gone.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 22:41
Quote:
Yareet
Quote:
blucherquin

Exactly.

(Oh and you were made redundant as above - except you never get made reduandant, the role does. Thats why they cant employ someone to do the same role (unless they give you a nice settlement and you agree not to say anything ((which may well have been in the papers you signed)

I wasnt - the company wanted me to stay. Neither was either role. Both roles still existed (and were carried out by other people) after Id gone.

Unfortunately TalkShowHost says that such incidents have never happened anywhere in history... (Sm161)

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Brown Bottle (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 22:51
Is this the dullest thread since Dull Quin, Duller Quin and Dullest Quin quoted each other's dull posts until the Internet ran out of storage?



BB

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 23:17
Quote:
Yareet
Quote:
blucherquin

Exactly.

(Oh and you were made redundant as above - except �you� never get made reduandant, the role does. That�s why they can�t employ someone to do the same role (unless they give you a nice settlement and you agree not to say anything ((which may well have been in the papers you signed)

I wasn�t - the company wanted me to stay. Neither was either role. Both roles still existed (and were carried out by other people) after I�d gone.

You literally said the role was gone in your first post so sorry if we're a bit confused.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 23:22
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
TSH, it's not clear whether he was sacked, or he resigned, with the difference seeming to be who makes the first move. All that is clear is that it was mutually agreed. Since it's not really a role that can be made redundant, mutual agreement seems a polite way of saying both sides wanted it to happen. In any case, if you persist with the belief that he was sacked, why is he still there?

What does him still being there have to do with it?

That argument could equally be applied to ask why is he there if he resigned.

Away from your approach that you can't have an opinion unless you heard the actual negotiations whilst hiding in Ellis' private toilet....do you honestly think JK wasn't sacked after what we've seen in 2018?

He would be more likely to be working notice if he resigned, no?

If his contract hadn't been extended, I'd be inclined to think he was being "let go". Or rather that he wasn't being offered a new contract. Part of me wants to believe that he's so unhappy with the way the season has unfolded that he's fallen on his sword and suggested that the new contract be ripped up. It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

Somewhat avoiding the question.

His contract was extended so it's not a case of him running down the contract.

So do you honestly think he fell on his sword and we then agreed to pay him off?

We all know it's a remote chance. Similarly it's a remote chance that he's resigned so that he can take the All Blacks job.

But QK what do you actually think has happened?

Not sure how you think I've avoided any question. But if it helps, I'll say that I believe an agreement was reached between the two parties.

You are sure that JK was sacked. That's fine, we can agree to disagree.

Let me just point out one thing: your opinion is based upon what you are sure of, having interpreted the meaning of what's been said, and using your global knowledge of all employment disputes since time began (apart from, it seems, those experienced by at least three posters on this board). My opinion is based upon what has been stated by the club, and what's in the public domain.

I'd say one of us is a conspiracy theorist. Thank God it's not me.

Conspiracy theorist? Blimey your denial really is getting quite embarrassing now.

If you think JK wasn't asked to leave do you then think that it's right that Ellis wanted to keep him on?

Do you still think the whole JK period was a success?

Do you still believe Pluto is a planet?

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Bolly-Quin (IP Logged)
30 April, 2018 23:32
http://www.bybecky.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/maxresdefault-1.jpg

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
blucherquin (IP Logged)
01 May, 2018 07:26
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Yareet
Quote:
blucherquin

Exactly.

(Oh and you were made redundant as above - except you never get made reduandant, the role does. Thats why they cant employ someone to do the same role (unless they give you a nice settlement and you agree not to say anything ((which may well have been in the papers you signed)

I wasnt - the company wanted me to stay. Neither was either role. Both roles still existed (and were carried out by other people) after Id gone.

Unfortunately TalkShowHost says that such incidents have never happened anywhere in history... (Sm161)

Wow, well that company has a unique approach to making a profit if it pays workers who want to leave. Congrats.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
Yareet (IP Logged)
01 May, 2018 08:35
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Yareet
Quote:
blucherquin

Exactly.

(Oh and you were made redundant as above - except �you� never get made reduandant, the role does. That�s why they can�t employ someone to do the same role (unless they give you a nice settlement and you agree not to say anything ((which may well have been in the papers you signed)

I wasn�t - the company wanted me to stay. Neither was either role. Both roles still existed (and were carried out by other people) after I�d gone.

You literally said the role was gone in your first post so sorry if we're a bit confused.

I did. Apologies for the confusion.

 
Re: �2.5 Million bill to pay off unwanted coaches
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
01 May, 2018 08:47
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Yareet
Quote:
blucherquin

Exactly.

(Oh and you were made redundant as above - except you never get made reduandant, the role does. Thats why they cant employ someone to do the same role (unless they give you a nice settlement and you agree not to say anything ((which may well have been in the papers you signed)

I wasnt - the company wanted me to stay. Neither was either role. Both roles still existed (and were carried out by other people) after Id gone.

Unfortunately TalkShowHost says that such incidents have never happened anywhere in history... (Sm161)

Unfortunately Yareet has said that his initial explanation was wrong.

But you stay on that bandwagon QK. I'm sure once we wrap up 11th next weekend you'll come up with a zinger of an explanation as to how that shows JK and co have done an excellent job.

Maybe that because 11 has two 1s in it, that means we've finished 1st twice...thus making JK the greatest DOR of all time. There you go you can have that one for free.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?