| Pulis v Palace legal judgement 14:18 - Nov 28 with 3680 views | Northernr |
Here if you want some lunchtime reading. Skip to seven, gets interesting around 14
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2016/2999.html
Pulis was due a £2m bonus for keeping them up, payable as long as he was still employed by August 31 the following season. Early in August he asked for that to be brought forward so he could buy some land for one of his kids (not true) and then when palace agreed he resigned the day after. Pulis argued that a heated players meeting had taken place in between his request and resignation which made him realise he couldn't continue, in actual fact meeting took place the day before his request. Dodgy as fck that bloke. |  | | |  |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 14:31 - Nov 28 with 3649 views | Watford_Ranger |
Not naming names but there's some good stuff in The Secret Footballer who, given it's the worst kept secret who he is, you can see which managers he played for. |  | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:01 - Nov 28 with 3586 views | TacticalR |
Why didn't he just wait until after the end of August? |  |
| |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:07 - Nov 28 with 3576 views | Northernr |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:01 - Nov 28 by TacticalR |
Why didn't he just wait until after the end of August? |
Just been talking about that with simmo.
Maybe that meeting made it pretty clear there was a players revolt and he thought they'd start the season so badly he'd get the sack before then. | | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:15 - Nov 28 with 3550 views | Hunterhoop |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:07 - Nov 28 by Northernr |
Just been talking about that with simmo.
Maybe that meeting made it pretty clear there was a players revolt and he thought they'd start the season so badly he'd get the sack before then. |
Exactly...if you knew the sh*t was about to hit the fan, or thought there was some risk your employer may consider getting rid of you....and that they could save £2m if they did so before a certain date, you'd try to bring forward the date you were due to get a £2m bonus.
What I don't understand is why Palace agreed to do it! Him asking should have rang alarm bells. And if they did want rid, why on earth agree.
Likelihood is that Palace had no intention of sacking him, but Pulis wanted out asap, either because he had another job or money making opportunity lined up OR because he knew sh*t was about to hit the fan, which the Palace board weren't yet aware of. He then sells them a cock and bull story to persuade them.
In that instance, no surprise Palace wanted to take him to court!
Pulis, MacKay, Warnock, Pardew, Alladyce, Redknapp....they are all part of the old guard of managers who, whilst good managers (exception of Mackay) at times during their careers, were ultimately out to get the best for them....and they found ways to do so, often which trod a fine line on the legality front....allegedly. |  | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:22 - Nov 28 with 3527 views | Northernr |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:15 - Nov 28 by Hunterhoop |
Exactly...if you knew the sh*t was about to hit the fan, or thought there was some risk your employer may consider getting rid of you....and that they could save £2m if they did so before a certain date, you'd try to bring forward the date you were due to get a £2m bonus.
What I don't understand is why Palace agreed to do it! Him asking should have rang alarm bells. And if they did want rid, why on earth agree.
Likelihood is that Palace had no intention of sacking him, but Pulis wanted out asap, either because he had another job or money making opportunity lined up OR because he knew sh*t was about to hit the fan, which the Palace board weren't yet aware of. He then sells them a cock and bull story to persuade them.
In that instance, no surprise Palace wanted to take him to court!
Pulis, MacKay, Warnock, Pardew, Alladyce, Redknapp....they are all part of the old guard of managers who, whilst good managers (exception of Mackay) at times during their careers, were ultimately out to get the best for them....and they found ways to do so, often which trod a fine line on the legality front....allegedly. |
Can;'t be the other job thing because West Brom had just appointed Irvine and Pulis didn't go in there until January.
I think it had hit the fan, he thought they'd lose their first few games big and he might get the sack.
The only reason I can think for Palace agreeing is he'd done such a phenomenal job the year before - reigning manager of the year remember. | | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:28 - Nov 28 with 3517 views | terryb |
And some people still wanted him as our manager! | | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:46 - Nov 28 with 3462 views | stowmarketrange |
He has to pay Palace £3.7 million.I bet he is round Harry's place now asking for a loan. |  | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:51 - Nov 28 with 3448 views | Toast_R |
It is a bit odd. I mean, even if he had "lost the dressing room" what are the chances of him being sacked before 31 August 2016? Even by today's lack of longevity, that's just mental and even if that was the case, he'd get a payout wouldn't he? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:53 - Nov 28 with 3442 views | tooting_hoop |
Love the bit about Parish proving that he was at the hairdresser's, not the training ground - that would be right! |  |
| Follow me on Twitter @tootinghoop |
| |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 16:02 - Nov 28 with 3421 views | MrSheen |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:01 - Nov 28 by TacticalR |
Why didn't he just wait until after the end of August? |
Wanted to be in position somewhere else before the brown envelope window shut? |  | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 16:23 - Nov 28 with 3362 views | LongsufferingR |
We should offer to pay part of the fine if he signs Sandro in January. |  | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 16:32 - Nov 28 with 3324 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 16:23 - Nov 28 by LongsufferingR |
We should offer to pay part of the fine if he signs Sandro in January. |
Sandro has already cost us plenty. Make him sell programmes. Bet he doesn't last doing that till kick off time. [Post edited 28 Nov 2016 16:34]
|  |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 16:48 - Nov 28 with 3293 views | LongsufferingR |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 16:32 - Nov 28 by ShotKneesHoop |
Sandro has already cost us plenty. Make him sell programmes. Bet he doesn't last doing that till kick off time. [Post edited 28 Nov 2016 16:34]
|
Every time he sold one, he'd be running up and down SAR pointing at his knee. | | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 17:18 - Nov 28 with 3199 views | CroydonCaptJack |
Really pleased to see this result.
I had heard rumours that was what he had done and wondered at the time if it was true or not. Seems justice prevailed. |  | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 18:00 - Nov 28 with 3108 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 17:18 - Nov 28 by CroydonCaptJack |
Really pleased to see this result.
I had heard rumours that was what he had done and wondered at the time if it was true or not. Seems justice prevailed. |
"Seems justice prevailed."
Makes a nice change, when will Phillip Green, Tony Blair, and the rest get theirs? | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 18:14 - Nov 28 with 3090 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 18:00 - Nov 28 by ShotKneesHoop |
"Seems justice prevailed."
Makes a nice change, when will Phillip Green, Tony Blair, and the rest get theirs? |
I should have added 'for once' | | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 19:51 - Nov 28 with 2974 views | MedwayR |
I think someone should get some of the poorly children from Birmingham Children's Hospital to rattle some buckets outside the ground & raise some money for Pulis at the next home game, it would catch people's attention & make a point about the greed within the game, it might even shame a few. |  |
| |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 21:27 - Nov 28 with 2853 views | HordleHoop |
That Palace team was absolutely pony.
He deserved a bonus for keeping them up.
Doesn't excuse the way he went about getting it though |  | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 22:12 - Nov 28 with 2782 views | CamberleyR |
As someone who played for three years and was the assistant manager to Redknapp for two, it's no surprise he's as dodgy as fück. |  |
| |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 16:00 - Nov 29 with 2431 views | SonofNorfolt |
Pulis thought he was getting the Newcastle job. The irony being that Pardew left not too after to take the Palace position. |  | | |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 16:25 - Nov 29 with 2382 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Pulis v Palace legal judgement on 15:07 - Nov 28 by Northernr |
Just been talking about that with simmo.
Maybe that meeting made it pretty clear there was a players revolt and he thought they'd start the season so badly he'd get the sack before then. |
If that were the case, then they'd have had to pay off the remainder of his contract.
However, assuming the dismissal took place before 31 August, then he would also have had a very strong claim that, as he remained committed to Palace and performing his contractual duties until 1 September at least, any dismissal by Palace so close to 31 August amounted to a breach and was, in reality, an attempt to stiff him (legal term that!).
Whereupon a dismissal prior to 31 August and thus, loss of the £2m, would have seen him arrive at the High Court with both the moral and legal arguments on his side.
He hasn't been greedy, for he was entitled to the money as of 31 August. He has however, been very naive and in actual fact, bloody stupid to have not waited, taken the money in the manner he did and, I am not sure who advised him on this, but he was a fool to go to court given the facts of the case.
Nice to see our man Ian Mill QC play another blinder as well. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
