By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Resolutions to legal conflicts -- whether before or after suit is filed -- are always soundly based on what both parties are willing to take as salve for their wounds.
I have known many a lawyer who deeply regretted not accepting a settlement offer -- sometimes a plaintiff who could have had more if he had settled on what was offered, and sometimes a defendant who paid out a shitpot more in a verdict than the offer he rejected from the plaintiff.
It's not a science. It's a crapshoot.
In the States, the best parties at making sound settlements are insurance companies, who have corporate divisions working on them, and various formulae to determine what to offer and where to hold and take it to trial.
We can hope that the club had some help like that in making their decision in this case. But even if they didn't, they'll live with it, and we can sleep soundly for a few nights.
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:51 - May 23 by Shaky
It all depends on how the clause was worded.
If it was a general early termination clause, then he could well have been entitled to a payout under this, and certainly the size of the **reported** settlement would suggest he got a cut.
Anyway, it's all speculation, and I'm off for a nightcap.
I agree - a reference to this would have almost certainly be included in his starting position. The point I was making is that amount was not the value of the 'rest of his contract' which you sounded as though you were implying.
By the way - the accounts will not show what the figure is, so it's pointless thinking we'll see then.
0
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:10 - May 23 with 1975 views
He never went over and applauded the away fans at the end of our away matches. I hope he got as little as possible.
He did however take full responsibility for the Liverpool away result and profusely apologise to the travelling fans, which shows he appreciates the support. He didn't pick out an individual player or publicly abuse him as it appears now is the "Swansea way"
I liked the fact he left the players to take the plaudits on the pitch, it was them that played on it after all.
-3
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:14 - May 23 with 1966 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:10 - May 23 by Spratty
He did however take full responsibility for the Liverpool away result and profusely apologise to the travelling fans, which shows he appreciates the support. He didn't pick out an individual player or publicly abuse him as it appears now is the "Swansea way"
I liked the fact he left the players to take the plaudits on the pitch, it was them that played on it after all.
For your own sake I hope his next job is in a country such as China or Japan where there will be minuscule information regarding Laudrup available. It will do you a world of good.
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:50 - May 23 by Davillin
You wrote, "Arresting someones professional development by denying them employment or the right to seek employment would not be seen as an acceptable condition," but Itchy did not say or imply that, nor did it happen.
It's kinda like putting him on "gardening leave" without the shovel and hoe.
Regarding TomDicHarry's "fair point": Why should the club incur as much in attorney's fees and court costs as it would cost to pay him off? That's an absolute fundamental consideration of the legal process. All too often sad but true.
"You can bet your @rse that if he was paid up the remainder of his contract then he wouldn't be able to walk into another job until that contract would have ended."
But it's not gardening leave - he was sacked
Surely the clubs reputation is more important than legal fees and IF they had a good reason to sack him then they would presumably be awarded costs against his vexatious case.
It's called a settlement for a reason Sprout. I'm still looking forward to hearing all about this smear campaign but oh yeah, I forgot, Laudrup got some wonga so that only leaves you to fight the corner he doesn't give a f*ck about anymore.
‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 22:56 - May 23 by Darran
Don't bother Tone this is the bloke that wanted the club,our club,to lose a court case if a Laudrup had been wronged. Like Uxbridge pointed out at the time no true Swans fan would warn that.
Still waiting for that quote Darran. So far you have only managed to find
I hope fairness prevails - when you asked me who I supported
If you have a problem with that - then that is your problem
Oh and the other quotes on the lies you told about me
-3
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:26 - May 23 with 1938 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:19 - May 23 by Spratty
"You can bet your @rse that if he was paid up the remainder of his contract then he wouldn't be able to walk into another job until that contract would have ended."
But it's not gardening leave - he was sacked
Surely the clubs reputation is more important than legal fees and IF they had a good reason to sack him then they would presumably be awarded costs against his vexatious case.
These types of cases hardly ever go to court, irrespective of the circumstances. Companies (including football clubs) are always advised by lawyers to settle, however strong a case they may have - it's simply not worth going through the process.
Settling never indicates fault one way or another - it is just a simple solution.
I am not convinced by the way that the club's reputation has been particularly damaged? It's yesterday's news and all clubs sack managers all the time (and certainly more frequently than we do). The whole issue with the email etc that you refer to, is just one person's description of events - not sure why this is now a statement of fact?
4
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:26 - May 23 with 1935 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:23 - May 23 by ItchySphincter
It's called a settlement for a reason Sprout. I'm still looking forward to hearing all about this smear campaign but oh yeah, I forgot, Laudrup got some wonga so that only leaves you to fight the corner he doesn't give a f*ck about anymore.
Unsurprisingly you miss the point.
Most of those that posted before me still seem to give a f*ck including yourself.
-3
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:33 - May 23 with 1912 views
It's going to eat you up if you carry on with this nonsense and if you take a breath and look at it objectively you could ask yourself why, if Laudrup has moved on, can't you?
‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:26 - May 23 by londonlisa2001
These types of cases hardly ever go to court, irrespective of the circumstances. Companies (including football clubs) are always advised by lawyers to settle, however strong a case they may have - it's simply not worth going through the process.
Settling never indicates fault one way or another - it is just a simple solution.
I am not convinced by the way that the club's reputation has been particularly damaged? It's yesterday's news and all clubs sack managers all the time (and certainly more frequently than we do). The whole issue with the email etc that you refer to, is just one person's description of events - not sure why this is now a statement of fact?
"Companies (including football clubs) are always advised by lawyers to settle, however strong a case they may have - it's simply not worth going through the process." Not accurate.
I would not be surprised if for e.g. the club have involved PR consultancy for damage limitation intervention.
Because Huw issued a statement after sacking him saying he was the most genuine and honest person you could meet. Good enough for me.
Is Huw saying he is a liar now?
-3
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:43 - May 23 with 1866 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:40 - May 23 by WarwickHunt
Like Malky?
Probably no breach of contract or destruction of the "ethos" of the club then...call it a hunch.
Hardly "vindicated" if we've paid him (assuming £2.7m is there or thereabouts) roughly 35k a week for the 18 months of the remaining contract.
that was a settlement as well so no one knows. It's all press speculation in both cases.
Amazing how quickly it's gone from a confidential settlement to it being accepted that a payment of '£2.7m or thereabouts' is fact.
Why do people want to believe so badly of the club they have supported for years and instead believe a manager that was here for 18 months and has left every club in the past 5 or 6 years under a cloud?
I have no agenda by the way - I liked him, but he's gone.
3
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:51 - May 23 with 1835 views
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:49 - May 23 by londonlisa2001
that was a settlement as well so no one knows. It's all press speculation in both cases.
Amazing how quickly it's gone from a confidential settlement to it being accepted that a payment of '£2.7m or thereabouts' is fact.
Why do people want to believe so badly of the club they have supported for years and instead believe a manager that was here for 18 months and has left every club in the past 5 or 6 years under a cloud?
I have no agenda by the way - I liked him, but he's gone.
Great post Lis it's quite bizarre isn't it?
This post has been edited by an administrator
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Settlement reached with Laudrup on 23:42 - May 23 by Spratty
"Companies (including football clubs) are always advised by lawyers to settle, however strong a case they may have - it's simply not worth going through the process." Not accurate.
I would not be surprised if for e.g. the club have involved PR consultancy for damage limitation intervention.
Because Huw issued a statement after sacking him saying he was the most genuine and honest person you could meet. Good enough for me.
Is Huw saying he is a liar now?
It is accurate - have been involved with many of these over the years and never ever been to court. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.
Why do you assume that it is the club that requires damage limitation ?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
