|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 20:38:10 GMT
It's possible that having saved the lost cause that was Crystal Palace thereby handing them shedloads of £millions for the following season and topping it up with the cream of publicity by earning the Premier league manager of the year title he might feel entitled to be a little stubborn in this particular matter. I can be stubborn - but if I had broken a contract and refused an offer to settle out of court, knowing that a loss could cost me an extra £1.5 million, I think I would be allowing my stubbornness to be matched by the other weakness I have - stupidity. I think that we all have been baffled by this odd situation where TP forfeits millions for the sake of a few days. Also him not agreeing to an "out of court" settlement. Two words explain it. Pride and stubborness. Both words apply to TP. Maybe arrogance is applicable? Did TP think that once the bonus was safely tucked away in his bank account, the fuckers wouldn't pursue him for it back?
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 18, 2016 23:39:45 GMT
I still think that the whole affair makes Palace, and Parrish in particular, look petty and small time.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 23:49:14 GMT
I still think that the whole affair makes Palace, and Parrish in particular, look petty and small time. Rather than mugs if they had let him get away with it?
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on Mar 18, 2016 23:58:46 GMT
That is one hell of a big bill to pay!
|
|
|
Post by BuzzB on Mar 19, 2016 0:21:55 GMT
I still think that the whole affair makes Palace, and Parrish in particular, look petty and small time. The court verdict says different. Pulis (on the face of what we "know") has tried to pull one and failed.
|
|
|
Post by potterpaul on Mar 19, 2016 3:34:12 GMT
I still think that the whole affair makes Palace, and Parrish in particular, look petty and small time. Not at all, TP as done the wrong thing according to the arbitration. They had every right to pursue this avenue to redeem their losses.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 9:23:11 GMT
I still think that the whole affair makes Palace, and Parrish in particular, look petty and small time. I don't think it has. It's a club who have enforced a contract. How many times we've had players and managers wanting to dictate things and commented that "No single person is bigger than the club" - and this is no different at all.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Mar 19, 2016 9:39:52 GMT
How much money was he paid per year as a Manager there?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 9:57:37 GMT
Well I did say Sparky, however comparing Lou's offsprings bank top ups to TP's offspring bank top ups still makes the comparisons look one sided. Not as if they were a Lampard or a Redknapp on the field, maybe it's a Gaelic type thing the jocks and Taffs do? mike - 1 pro season, 30 Appearances 3 goals, Paul - 1 pro season, 3 Appearances, last seen Managing Dominoes Pizza in Hanley Little Ant - 4 pro seasons, 2 sub appearances, went to Southampton as a trade for us spending £1m on Andrew Davies then to Orlando where former Stoke contacts, Phil R and Inchy were involved L'il Ant went to Aldershot for a season after he left us, 1 year contract, 7 appearances! Only one was as a starter So he went from 'being' a 'Premiership Footballer' to not being good enough for Aldershot. Wow. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_PulisLittle Ant should never have been given a squad place, he should have gone directly to pest control duties, far less controversial. (two winky faces to underline my tongue is in cheek) MARKO ARNAUTOVIC might be a bad boy on the pitch, but he goes weak at the knees when it comes to spiders. The Stoke City star tarnished his tough guy reputation after calling club officials in a panic when he and his girlfriend discovered the arachnid in his bath. Player liaison officer Curtis Hughes, son of first-team boss Mark, received the late night call as a panicked Arnautovic asked for Rentokill to come over to remove his eight-legged nemesis.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Mar 19, 2016 11:45:16 GMT
I still think that the whole affair makes Palace, and Parrish in particular, look petty and small time. So if you believed an individual owed you a significant sum of money, you'd just let it slide then?
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Mar 19, 2016 11:51:02 GMT
He did an absolutely fantastic job at Crystal Palace I don't think even the chairman can argue that. He did- they played some quite attractive football with the players he inherited.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 19, 2016 12:02:07 GMT
Rather than quote everyone who quoted me, I'll just put a cover-all reply here.
Palace were obviously legally within their right to pursue it, which is why they won. It's right there in the contract and from what it sounds like, they were never going to lose once it got to court. I'm not arguing the legal details.
It's more a question of whether they should have pursued it, which is more a matter of opinion. They hired the man to do an almost impossible job with a team that looked absolutely sunk, putting a big bonus into his contract for if he kept them up. He did that job, and in doing so won Palace hundreds of millions of pounds in Premier League money, as well as putting together a Premier League quality squad. Taking the person who won the club all of that money to court over a relative drop in the ocean just seems to be crass and, as I said before, petty.
Also, the Simon Jordan clone in charge of the club seems like a right prat.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 19, 2016 12:42:07 GMT
A CPFC fan pointed out to me that Palace haven't won in the Prem since the case became a talking point.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 19, 2016 13:41:00 GMT
I still think that the whole affair makes Palace, and Parrish in particular, look petty and small time. Really? They were left in the shit 2 days before kick off and had to resort to Warnock, who they had to sack after a few months. It's not ladsandads is it? It's professional sport and business and people should act accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Mar 19, 2016 14:58:10 GMT
Rather than quote everyone who quoted me, I'll just put a cover-all reply here. Palace were obviously legally within their right to pursue it, which is why they won. It's right there in the contract and from what it sounds like, they were never going to lose once it got to court. I'm not arguing the legal details. It's more a question of whether they should have pursued it, which is more a matter of opinion. They hired the man to do an almost impossible job with a team that looked absolutely sunk, putting a big bonus into his contract for if he kept them up. He did that job, and in doing so won Palace hundreds of millions of pounds in Premier League money, as well as putting together a Premier League quality squad. Taking the person who won the club all of that money to court over a relative drop in the ocean just seems to be crass and, as I said before, petty. Also, the Simon Jordan clone in charge of the club seems like a right prat. the whole thing makes Pulis look stupid and Parish look like a smarmy mard arse
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 15:17:02 GMT
It's fairly easy for us to make the judgement that legally, Pulis wasn't entitled to the money, because from the bits we know, there was a contract that was broken. But when making judgements about the personalities and why they did what they did, you have to remember that there would have been many things that went on between the two parties outside of the written contract, which may have led to the situation that arose.
It's easy to say that Pulis was deceitful by taking the money early then buggering off. How do we know that there wasn't a conversation where Pulis was led to think that Palace were so grateful for what he'd done that they thought he'd earned the bonus no matter what happened after?
It's easy to say that Palace are being twats given what Pulis achieved. But how do we know that they'd not had the chance to get another top manager in, but been denied this by being assured by Pulis that there was no way he was leaving?
It's too easy to judge their actions by what we know of the contractual situation. In reality, it's most likely the personal interactions between Pulis and Parish, which we know nothing of, that have led everything to this point.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 19, 2016 16:12:15 GMT
He did an absolutely fantastic job at Crystal Palace I don't think even the chairman can argue that. He did- they played some quite attractive football with the players he inherited. This is the team that wasn't playing well before he arrived I take it? Pulis adding Ince, Dann, Hennessey, Ledley and Puncheon probably didn't do any harm. Not forgetting that the guy that took over this successful team from the Premier league manager of the year hardly excelled.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 19, 2016 16:59:14 GMT
It's fairly easy for us to make the judgement that legally, Pulis wasn't entitled to the money, because from the bits we know, there was a contract that was broken. But when making judgements about the personalities and why they did what they did, you have to remember that there would have been many things that went on between the two parties outside of the written contract, which may have led to the situation that arose. It's easy to say that Pulis was deceitful by taking the money early then buggering off. How do we know that there wasn't a conversation where Pulis was led to think that Palace were so grateful for what he'd done that they thought he'd earned the bonus no matter what happened after? It's easy to say that Palace are being twats given what Pulis achieved. But how do we know that they'd not had the chance to get another top manager in, but been denied this by being assured by Pulis that there was no way he was leaving? It's too easy to judge their actions by what we know of the contractual situation. In reality, it's most likely the personal interactions between Pulis and Parish, which we know nothing of, that have led everything to this point. You may or may not be correct, but contract law is very simple though it's as per the contract and that's what the tribunal would have decided on not on the actions or personalities of the people involved.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 19, 2016 17:02:03 GMT
He did- they played some quite attractive football with the players he inherited. This is the team that wasn't playing well before he arrived I take it? Pulis adding Ince, Dann, Hennessey, Ledley and Puncheon probably didn't do any harm. Not forgetting that the guy that took over this successful team from the Premier league manager of the year hardly excelled. Puncheon deal was already in place before Pulis took over and Ince hardly featured. Regardless of this Pardew pissed a top 10 finish with the team Pulis walked out on.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 19, 2016 17:06:56 GMT
This is the team that wasn't playing well before he arrived I take it? Pulis adding Ince, Dann, Hennessey, Ledley and Puncheon probably didn't do any harm. Not forgetting that the guy that took over this successful team from the Premier league manager of the year hardly excelled. Puncheon deal was already in place before Pulis took over and Ince hardly featured. Regardless of this Pardew pissed a top 10 finish with the team Pulis walked out on. Pulis was something like 7th in the form table over the period he was there. It was probably due to this and the great escape that the people who know something about football voted him Premier league manager of the year.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 19, 2016 17:12:41 GMT
Rather than quote everyone who quoted me, I'll just put a cover-all reply here. Palace were obviously legally within their right to pursue it, which is why they won. It's right there in the contract and from what it sounds like, they were never going to lose once it got to court. I'm not arguing the legal details. It's more a question of whether they should have pursued it, which is more a matter of opinion. They hired the man to do an almost impossible job with a team that looked absolutely sunk, putting a big bonus into his contract for if he kept them up. He did that job, and in doing so won Palace hundreds of millions of pounds in Premier League money, as well as putting together a Premier League quality squad. Taking the person who won the club all of that money to court over a relative drop in the ocean just seems to be crass and, as I said before, petty. Also, the Simon Jordan clone in charge of the club seems like a right prat. so you think that Pulis leaving them in the shit 2 days before the start of the season is just fine and dandy then? did a great job there no doubt but most at the time thought he was being a shit by dropping them in the crap that close before the start of a new season even before these issues became public. the only person looking like a prat here is Pulis, no-one else whatsoever. genuine question, do you think any other company in any other industry would let someone get away with a severe breach of contract and that "Drop in the ocean" or is it only when it's involving football that you think that those who are legally in the right are apparently "crass and..petty" and that those who try to pull a fast one should be allowed to get away with it? do a good job and you can feel free to dishonour your contract is it nowadays?
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Mar 19, 2016 17:22:16 GMT
Rather than quote everyone who quoted me, I'll just put a cover-all reply here. Palace were obviously legally within their right to pursue it, which is why they won. It's right there in the contract and from what it sounds like, they were never going to lose once it got to court. I'm not arguing the legal details. It's more a question of whether they should have pursued it, which is more a matter of opinion. They hired the man to do an almost impossible job with a team that looked absolutely sunk, putting a big bonus into his contract for if he kept them up. He did that job, and in doing so won Palace hundreds of millions of pounds in Premier League money, as well as putting together a Premier League quality squad. Taking the person who won the club all of that money to court over a relative drop in the ocean just seems to be crass and, as I said before, petty. Also, the Simon Jordan clone in charge of the club seems like a right prat. The only one who looks like a prat in all this is '40 point Tone'.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 19, 2016 17:23:34 GMT
Puncheon deal was already in place before Pulis took over and Ince hardly featured. Regardless of this Pardew pissed a top 10 finish with the team Pulis walked out on. Pulis was something like 7th in the form table over the period he was there. It was probably due to this and the great escape that the people who know something about football voted him Premier league manager of the year. And yet West Brom was the best job he could get afterwards probably tells you something about the people who run football clubs and what they know. As I said before he was probably due his bonus, the timing and way he left tells you what he thought of his chances of repeating this feat which Pardew easily surpassed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 17:36:35 GMT
It's fairly easy for us to make the judgement that legally, Pulis wasn't entitled to the money, because from the bits we know, there was a contract that was broken. But when making judgements about the personalities and why they did what they did, you have to remember that there would have been many things that went on between the two parties outside of the written contract, which may have led to the situation that arose. It's easy to say that Pulis was deceitful by taking the money early then buggering off. How do we know that there wasn't a conversation where Pulis was led to think that Palace were so grateful for what he'd done that they thought he'd earned the bonus no matter what happened after? It's easy to say that Palace are being twats given what Pulis achieved. But how do we know that they'd not had the chance to get another top manager in, but been denied this by being assured by Pulis that there was no way he was leaving? It's too easy to judge their actions by what we know of the contractual situation. In reality, it's most likely the personal interactions between Pulis and Parish, which we know nothing of, that have led everything to this point. You may or may not be correct, but contract law is very simple though it's as per the contract and that's what the tribunal would have decided on not on the actions or personalities of the people involved. You're misunderstanding me mate. I wasn't talking about the decision, as that would be based on legal contracts etc. I was talking about people on here passing judgement on the personal motivation behind Parish and Pulis' actions.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 19, 2016 17:36:59 GMT
Pulis was something like 7th in the form table over the period he was there. It was probably due to this and the great escape that the people who know something about football voted him Premier league manager of the year. And yet West Brom was the best job he could get afterwards probably tells you something about the people who run football clubs and what they know. As I said before he was probably due his bonus, the timing and way he left tells you what he thought of his chances of repeating this feat which Pardew easily surpassed. This is Pardew who's got this in 15th place in the league this season. As I said before if you believe a newspaper this article sums up the reasons for leaving Crystal Palace. Pulis was fortunate to have Coates so to follow him with Parrish must have been a culture shock.
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/crystal-palace/11034484/Tony-Pulis-leaves-Crystal-Palace-after-dispute-over-transfer-funds.html
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 19, 2016 17:40:13 GMT
You may or may not be correct, but contract law is very simple though it's as per the contract and that's what the tribunal would have decided on not on the actions or personalities of the people involved. You're misunderstanding me mate. I wasn't talking about the decision, as that would be based on legal contracts etc. I was talking about people on here passing judgement on the personal motivation behind Parish and Pulis' actions. They both have the same motivation ££££££s
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 19, 2016 17:43:08 GMT
And yet West Brom was the best job he could get afterwards probably tells you something about the people who run football clubs and what they know. As I said before he was probably due his bonus, the timing and way he left tells you what he thought of his chances of repeating this feat which Pardew easily surpassed. This is Pardew who's got this in 15th place in the league this season. As I said before if you believe a newspaper this article sums up the reasons for leaving Crystal Palace. Pulis was fortunate to have Coates so to follow him with Parrish must have been a culture shock.
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/crystal-palace/11034484/Tony-Pulis-leaves-Crystal-Palace-after-dispute-over-transfer-funds.html
I spoke to Palace fans when we played them after Pulis left he wanted journeyman like Walters and Crouch chairman wanted players like Zaha. Pardew managed a top 10 finish, Pulis has never managed this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 17:46:45 GMT
I still think that the whole affair makes Palace, and Parrish in particular, look petty and small time. I don't think it has. It's a club who have enforced a contract. How many times we've had players and managers wanting to dictate things and commented that "No single person is bigger than the club" - and this is no different at all. Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 19, 2016 18:04:25 GMT
I spoke to Palace fans when we played them after Pulis left he wanted journeyman like Walters and Crouch chairman wanted players like Zaha. Pardew managed a top 10 finish, Pulis has never managed this. Journeyman Walters? Good job that Hughes has faith in him besides Pulis, Trappatoni and O'Neil but what do they know? Crouch wasn't offloaded either and let's face it Hughes has done an excellent job here as did Pulis before him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 18:10:45 GMT
I don't think it has. It's a club who have enforced a contract. How many times we've had players and managers wanting to dictate things and commented that "No single person is bigger than the club" - and this is no different at all. Spot on. Cheers
|
|