| Laudrup to QPR on 22:20 - Feb 25 with 2049 views | Tokijo |
| Laudrup to QPR on 16:04 - Feb 25 by waynekerr55 |
Um maybe starting by calling the Chairman a liar. I agree that there has been some unprofessional behaviour from the club but those are to be kept behind closed doors - not on social media
“I want to make it clear – I am speaking on behalf of Michael Laudrup,” - so Michael it was something to do with you. Now who is the liar?
“If Huw Jenkins buys the players Michael Laudrup wants, then there is no problem. But if he does not buy those players, I don’t know what can happen. This is the reality." - shock horror manager wants players outside of the budget. He knew the drill so that's pretty poor.
. . .“When Michael signed the new contract with Swansea, Huw Jenkins promised he would make a strong team,” Tutumlu added - and he signed Wilfiried for 12million. Laudstrop broke our transfer record 3 times.
I agree if (and it's a big if) to be sacked by e mail is poor, but to paint this picture that poor little Michael has been hard done by as he's the innocent one then that is naive at best |
Maybe ML was out walking the dog or simply uncontactable, and Board had no choice but to use alternative communication means to get the message through. We may never know.
Parted company was the term that was used. |  | |  |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 23:08 - Feb 25 with 1982 views | Tokijo |
| Laudrup to QPR on 12:35 - Feb 25 by Spratty |
Actually surprised Huw didn't take action against this. |
[Post edited 25 Feb 2014 23:15]
| | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:11 - Feb 25 with 1974 views | jackportis |
So if ML goes to QPR does this mean that Harry Rednap will return to Charles Decoursey and become nookie bear again? |  |
| Jackportis the brand. “A gifted posterâ€, “planet swans have a real talent on their hands in the name of Jackportis†sky sports 2018. . JP fully supports posters of LBG, mx orientation and ethnic minority groups. Update - now fully supporting the pansexual community. |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:37 - Feb 25 with 1934 views | Darran |
Roger. |  |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:38 - Feb 25 with 1933 views | LeonisGod |
| Laudrup to QPR on 22:20 - Feb 25 by Tokijo |
Maybe ML was out walking the dog or simply uncontactable, and Board had no choice but to use alternative communication means to get the message through. We may never know.
Parted company was the term that was used. |
Didn't ML himself say that Huw had phoned him after their last meeting, but that he couldn't make out what he was saying, or the line wasn't clear or some such. Sounds like Huw called him to tell him of their decision, and followed up in writing via email. Seems ok to me if this was the case.
But as others have said, we've moved on. |  | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:44 - Feb 25 with 1928 views | jackportis |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:37 - Feb 25 by Darran |
Roger. |
Of course Roger... obviously a big fan Darran. | |
| Jackportis the brand. “A gifted posterâ€, “planet swans have a real talent on their hands in the name of Jackportis†sky sports 2018. . JP fully supports posters of LBG, mx orientation and ethnic minority groups. Update - now fully supporting the pansexual community. |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:56 - Feb 25 with 1909 views | Uxbridge |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:38 - Feb 25 by LeonisGod |
Didn't ML himself say that Huw had phoned him after their last meeting, but that he couldn't make out what he was saying, or the line wasn't clear or some such. Sounds like Huw called him to tell him of their decision, and followed up in writing via email. Seems ok to me if this was the case.
But as others have said, we've moved on. |
If ML played the old "Sorry Huw, but we're going through a tunnel, you're breakin ..... " card, I take back everything I ever said about ML. That'd be genius. |  |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 01:15 - Feb 26 with 1874 views | jackonicko |
| Laudrup to QPR on 19:50 - Feb 25 by Shaky |
You miss the point I was making that a "fully qualified and practising solicitor" may or may not have something to add to the discussion depending on his/her specialisation.
A partner in corporate law at Allen & Overy would be handy, some divorce lawyer not so much. |
What relevance has a corporate lawyer at A&O got to do with an employment dispute? And a petty, relatively simple one to resolve at that.
I would have thought an M&A big shot such as yourself would know this.... |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Laudrup to QPR on 02:15 - Feb 26 with 1846 views | Davillin |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:15 - Feb 25 by Dr_Winston |
It truly amazes me that people still think (or choose to believe) that agents agitate against clubs without the players/managers they represent knowing anything about it.
Do they honestly think that Neil Taylor knew nothing about Jamie Moralee deciding to hint about him wanting a move if he doesn't play more games? Or that Tutumlu made public statements about our dealings with Laudrup without clearing it with him first?
Tutumlu was Laudrup's shield. The proxy he used to be critical in public whilst avoiding having to do the dirty work himself. |
Agreed.
It's called "plausible deniability" over here. I don't know if it's in current usage over there. |  |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 02:16 - Feb 26 with 1844 views | Davillin |
| Laudrup to QPR on 19:35 - Feb 25 by Starsky |
Who the feck is Sue Jenkins? |
Surely's sister. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 03:10 - Feb 26 with 1822 views | Davillin |
[note: I made the foolish mistake of not starting to read this thread until a few moments ago. My head is spinning from the jailhouse lawyer legal opinions in this thread (with a number of outstanding exceptions).]
1. There are almost zero facts so far made public upon which either a slander/libel or a wrongful termination suit can be successfully based. What there is, however, could become important. More below.
2. In every civil case, the burden of proof always lies with the plaintiff, but in certain cases it can then shift to the defendant if the plaintiff convinces that judge that he met his initial burden.
Burden of proof in a libel/slander case. First, slander is spoken and libel is written, otherwise the burden of proof is the same. In these cases, the burden starts with the plaintiff and then can shift to the defendant..
The plaintiff always has the first burden of proof - in libel/slander, that something the defendant said/wrote was both made publicly, was false, and caused him substantial harm in the eyes of the public, and what that harm was, including money damages. [For example, if, in private, I whisper in your ear that you smell bad, and that made you feel hurt, no slander.] Some kinds of slander/libel don't require money damages, but that's something else.
The plaintiff does not have to prove that what the defendant said/wrote was false - just claim that it was. If the plaintiff proves harm, then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the statement/writing was true. The plaintiff can then attempt to rebut that.
I don't see anything yet that would support a claim that plaintiff was wronged, nor how, nor anything yet that any false statement was made by anyone at the club about Laudrup. I would be surprised if nothing came out on either side, but whether that would be proof or not cannot be predicted, as we don't know what that might be.
No attorney worth his salt would allow a case to go forward if he knew that his client's case had no facts that could be proven and be of evidentiary value. At best, that's a metaphorical blow to the attorney's head accompanied by the words "settle the case NOW!"
Jenkins' tweet about what a lovely fellow Laudrup is would probably come in on Jenkins' side. How much evidentiary value would be in it, I don't know.
2. In a wrongful termination case, the burden is, as always, with the plaintiff. We do not know enough of the facts to suggest what the evidence is, let alone how it would turn out.
For the most part, the contract would determine the grounds for termination and hence the grounds for wrongful termination, and the plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant violated those grounds. I don't know enough about British statutory law to know exactly what the statues say about wrongful termination, but I'm certain that they say something, and that that would also determine whether there are grounds for a case in wrongful termination.
Contrary to some posts, "breach of contract" can be easy to prove, depending on the facts, but in the absence of supporting facts, not easy, of course. In addition, there is common law on breach of contract that can also make it easy in certain situations. An employee disobeying a lawful order from a superior is one of them.
["Common law" is law that is not found in statutes, but in the previous opinion of judges. Common law is just as binding as statutory law.
p.s. Did you know that American common law is based on British common law, which is the only law of a foreign nation which can have precedential value in an American court?]
Anything else we might say about this case would be speculation.
p.s. My immediate reaction to Laudrup's statement about a bad telephone connection causing him to not hear well, made me chuckle. I would have asked the other party to repeat himself until I did hear and understand it. You would have, too.
My second immediate reaction was to wonder what possible value there was in saying that, except to make it appear that he was sacked by email. And even then, so what? He wouldn't be the first or last to be sacked by email. [Post edited 26 Feb 2014 3:16]
| |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 03:26 - Feb 26 with 1814 views | Davillin |
I add that if I represented the club or anyone who might be involved in a suit [party or witness], I would have told him right up front to not make any statements of any kind about the case - even in private except to me. Very incriminating evidence can be obtained by what is called "discovery," in which one party may ask for documents related to the case, or even get them through "other channels." No explanations. No opinions. No information about the case.
I know that sometimes clients go blabbing to the media, but not mine. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 09:18 - Feb 26 with 1711 views | Shaky |
| Laudrup to QPR on 01:15 - Feb 26 by jackonicko |
What relevance has a corporate lawyer at A&O got to do with an employment dispute? And a petty, relatively simple one to resolve at that.
I would have thought an M&A big shot such as yourself would know this.... |
Aww. I think it is sweet and and actually quite moving that you take such an interest in my affairs that you sit up until 1:15 to pen your little note.
However, I'm sorry to say you are once again a little confused as to my areas of expertise. With respect to legal matters it is more in drafting and negotiating Share Purchase Agreements, Asset Sale and Purchase Agreements, and that sort of thing as opposed to handling employment disputes for individuals.
xx |  |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 09:47 - Feb 26 with 1664 views | perchrockjack |
Is a jerk circle something akin to a daisy chain | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 09:55 - Feb 26 with 1660 views | Darran |
| Laudrup to QPR on 09:18 - Feb 26 by Shaky |
Aww. I think it is sweet and and actually quite moving that you take such an interest in my affairs that you sit up until 1:15 to pen your little note.
However, I'm sorry to say you are once again a little confused as to my areas of expertise. With respect to legal matters it is more in drafting and negotiating Share Purchase Agreements, Asset Sale and Purchase Agreements, and that sort of thing as opposed to handling employment disputes for individuals.
xx |
How do you know it was 1:15am GMT where he lives?
Assumptions assumptions. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 10:12 - Feb 26 with 1637 views | Shaky |
B...b....b...bb.....but he told me he lived in Putney. You're not saying he was telling me porkies about that, are you. . .
BTW, the board's ignore filter seems to be intermittently malfunctioning; I was erroneously receiving a Perchy service earlier. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 10:16 - Feb 26 with 1633 views | Darran |
| Laudrup to QPR on 10:12 - Feb 26 by Shaky |
B...b....b...bb.....but he told me he lived in Putney. You're not saying he was telling me porkies about that, are you. . .
BTW, the board's ignore filter seems to be intermittently malfunctioning; I was erroneously receiving a Perchy service earlier. |
Just because he told you he lives in Putney doesn't mean he does.
Oh and I'm not interested in the ignore feature I don't believe in it.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 10:21 - Feb 26 with 1616 views | Shaky |
| Laudrup to QPR on 10:16 - Feb 26 by Darran |
Just because he told you he lives in Putney doesn't mean he does.
Oh and I'm not interested in the ignore feature I don't believe in it.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
As a general matter I agree with you completely regarding ignore.
However, your atypically incisive comment yesterday regarding the possibility of another 5 years of the current Perchy line on repeat, starkly bought into focus the potential horrors.
I'll maybe take another peek in a few weeks. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 10:26 - Feb 26 with 1604 views | Darran |
| Laudrup to QPR on 10:21 - Feb 26 by Shaky |
As a general matter I agree with you completely regarding ignore.
However, your atypically incisive comment yesterday regarding the possibility of another 5 years of the current Perchy line on repeat, starkly bought into focus the potential horrors.
I'll maybe take another peek in a few weeks. |
Fair point. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 11:45 - Feb 26 with 1549 views | jackonicko |
| Laudrup to QPR on 10:12 - Feb 26 by Shaky |
B...b....b...bb.....but he told me he lived in Putney. You're not saying he was telling me porkies about that, are you. . .
BTW, the board's ignore filter seems to be intermittently malfunctioning; I was erroneously receiving a Perchy service earlier. |
I don't think I did tell you that. But good stalking because I do.
I was sitting in the lounge at Newark Liberty airport when I typed that. Just back in putney before flying to Rome tonight.
Aeroplanes are *amazing* | | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 11:55 - Feb 26 with 1528 views | Darran |
| Laudrup to QPR on 11:45 - Feb 26 by jackonicko |
I don't think I did tell you that. But good stalking because I do.
I was sitting in the lounge at Newark Liberty airport when I typed that. Just back in putney before flying to Rome tonight.
Aeroplanes are *amazing* |
 | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 18:56 - Feb 26 with 1427 views | Spratty |
| Laudrup to QPR on 20:58 - Feb 25 by waynekerr55 |
Logic flaw????? - Bayram is his agent. That's right, a paid employee of his.
In response Mr Laudrup responded that it was nothing to do with him.
He also made reference that Bayram is his agent at Hilton T4.
Spratty your normally quite balanced (despite what others think) but to infer what you just said is pretty blinkered IMO.
Suppose it's a case of agreeing to disagree on this one  |
Thanks - think Reddy makes my point. Just saying the logic does not follow that that makes ML a liar, just as it cannot be said he was not or even technically was not.
Recall the view of many on the forum at the time (including me) was that Tutu (Tutuloco as he became called) was a loose cannon.
I firmly supported Huw over the disgraceful comments and said ML should publically distance himself from these comments to maintain the relationship of trust and respect that was needed to move forward in a constructive way. I was very disappointed he did not. However if (note I say if) the comments were based on fact / perceived fact (re say not delivering on specific assurances re player recruitment) then I can see that would have been difficult, even though Tutu going public with comments like that was totally unacceptable regardless of the situation. |  | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 19:05 - Feb 26 with 1413 views | Darran |
| Laudrup to QPR on 18:56 - Feb 26 by Spratty |
Thanks - think Reddy makes my point. Just saying the logic does not follow that that makes ML a liar, just as it cannot be said he was not or even technically was not.
Recall the view of many on the forum at the time (including me) was that Tutu (Tutuloco as he became called) was a loose cannon.
I firmly supported Huw over the disgraceful comments and said ML should publically distance himself from these comments to maintain the relationship of trust and respect that was needed to move forward in a constructive way. I was very disappointed he did not. However if (note I say if) the comments were based on fact / perceived fact (re say not delivering on specific assurances re player recruitment) then I can see that would have been difficult, even though Tutu going public with comments like that was totally unacceptable regardless of the situation. |
Honestly you've got it bad Sproutty. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 19:12 - Feb 26 with 1376 views | Spratty |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:38 - Feb 25 by LeonisGod |
Didn't ML himself say that Huw had phoned him after their last meeting, but that he couldn't make out what he was saying, or the line wasn't clear or some such. Sounds like Huw called him to tell him of their decision, and followed up in writing via email. Seems ok to me if this was the case.
But as others have said, we've moved on. |
According to ML he rang Huw to find out why he had been sacked by email for breach of contract within hours of agreeing they should continue together and Huw shaking hands with him and thanking him for the work he was doing for the club. Also to find out what the breaches were.
Huw's own statement suggests he had a rethink so would fit in with a change of mind between the meeting and the email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MLs Comments:
On the Tuesday before training I had the meeting and again it was about changing the staff.
I said we already talked about it and I said it was a big mistake to talk about it at that moment because it was the week before Cardiff, one of the most important games.
What surprised me is that I had the meeting on Tuesday, but already on Monday the things I spoke to the chairman about were in the papers. I leave that with the chairman.
However, we ended up saying we had to stay together. We shook hands and thank you very much for the work you are doing for the club.
Later that afternoon I received a mail saying due to breach of contract, with immediate effect they would terminate — just a few hours after we shook hands.
Of course, I was very confused. I called and I asked what is going on. We talked this morning and shook hands, but they said yeah, but after thinking — it was a little difficult to hear what was said on the phone.
Then I said, what does breaches mean? He couldn’t explain. He didn’t really know.
Read more: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Michael-Laudrup-statement/story-20651948 | | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 19:16 - Feb 26 with 1358 views | Darran |
| Laudrup to QPR on 19:12 - Feb 26 by Spratty |
According to ML he rang Huw to find out why he had been sacked by email for breach of contract within hours of agreeing they should continue together and Huw shaking hands with him and thanking him for the work he was doing for the club. Also to find out what the breaches were.
Huw's own statement suggests he had a rethink so would fit in with a change of mind between the meeting and the email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MLs Comments:
On the Tuesday before training I had the meeting and again it was about changing the staff.
I said we already talked about it and I said it was a big mistake to talk about it at that moment because it was the week before Cardiff, one of the most important games.
What surprised me is that I had the meeting on Tuesday, but already on Monday the things I spoke to the chairman about were in the papers. I leave that with the chairman.
However, we ended up saying we had to stay together. We shook hands and thank you very much for the work you are doing for the club.
Later that afternoon I received a mail saying due to breach of contract, with immediate effect they would terminate — just a few hours after we shook hands.
Of course, I was very confused. I called and I asked what is going on. We talked this morning and shook hands, but they said yeah, but after thinking — it was a little difficult to hear what was said on the phone.
Then I said, what does breaches mean? He couldn’t explain. He didn’t really know.
Read more: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Michael-Laudrup-statement/story-20651948 |
He's gone mun wipe your tears away and move on FFS. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
