although we’d lose more than the £5m because we’d still be paying him £2.5m. Would we be allowed to appoint someone else? If so, add another £3m to that total and it could cost us over £10m.
It’s really not in anyone’s interest for this to fall through now. We need him to go just as much as they want him, in my opinion. In fact, I’d say we need him to go more than they need him.
Surely he would be sacked, but that could play right into Everton’s hands. But I am not sure if you can take on another manager with him still at the club? Did we place Dave Jones on gardening leave, before his case?
No, he can’t be sacked…on what grounds? Not signing a contract quickly enough? There’s no grounds to sack him and K Billy clearly suggests gardening leave, which is not the same as a sacking.
You can sack your manager at any point, as far as I know. Only in football though! If you did need a reason, which you don’t, you could use the fact he and his agent have tried to engineer leaving the club.
Its called sacking, but in reality is always a compromise agreement, with said manager getting a pay off his contract. Sacking (summary dismissal) would only really happen for gross misconduct or breach of contract… am suprised that media dont actually report the truth really… (lols), but 'sacking sounds much more dramatic and newsworthy… and to get sacked, Cowman would have to get caught shagging a pig or something at Staplewood…
Yes as I said, we would have to pay his contract if we “sack” him. I am not sure how we would move forward without “sacking” him and replacing. I do not think you can replace him while Ron would be on gardening leave and it would leave things in a bit of a state at the club. So “sacking” would be the only way forward, IF it did all fall through.
If Koeman were to be put on gardening leave - i.e. relieved of his duties whilst remaining on the payroll - there is no reason whatsoever why Saints could not employ a new manager. It would cost us money, of course, but there is certainly no law against this. It would be possible for Koeman to claim restraint of trade, however, as he wouldn’t be able to take another position and we wouldn’t be allowing him to carry out his duties here. But we could do it in the short term with no problems, especially as it’s currently close season.
The only circumstances in which you cannot replace an empoyee directly is if you have made their position redundant. After all, if you’re looking for a replacement then the position can scarcely be redundant. This rule exists to prevent businesses from removing employees without going through due process. We wouldn’t be making Koeman’s position redundant, so this doesn’t arise here.
Gardening leave or not, we can start the process of replacing Koeman, and I’m sure we already have. The Everton thing will no doubt get sorted, plus we don’t want him here even if it doesn’t. If it all falls through we can either place him on gardening leave or terminate his contract - the latter would entail a considerable payout, as it always does when a manager is sacked. Bear in mind that when football managers are sacked employment law doesn’t come into it at all. The manager leaves, a payoff is agreed and that’s that.
So, we can sack Koeman if we wish, we can place him on gardening leave if we wish. I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter happens, though if it does it will only be a short-term thing. I doubt we’ll sack him because of the financial implications.
I think Bodge It has it right there. It looked like Adkins had simply been sacked, but I think the club statement mentioned “relieved of his duties”. Either way, I do recall that he (Adkins) was unable to get another job until the payoff had been sorted, which cerainly suggests that he was still under contract to Saints until that happened. I also remember that Cortese was reckoned to be making things difficult for Nigel, presumably to reduce said payoff.
