Warburton, Weir & McParland Statement

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Reformation Bear said:

I see.    Seems to me it would have been better all round - for everyone - if King, the Board and the MD had simply brought the 3 in for discussion and suggested to them that in the light of performances, rumours of their looking for other roles, the conversation with their agent etc that they sit down and negotiate mutually acceptable terms of parting of the ways on a no-blame basis.      

Shooting a 'they've resigned' line from the hip so to speak looks to be ill-judged.   Why pass up the opportunity for a non-controversial, forgotton tomorrow, no-blame mutually acceptable termination of their contracts in favour of a dog-fight over did they resign or didn't they with all of the costs of that - not just compensation but the time, effort and stress on all concerned?   Not to mention the reputation damage to themselves and the Club.

The more I hear and read, the more I find it hard to believe the Board has handled this well

They had agreed mutually-acceptable terms. The statement on Friday would never have happened had they not tried to move the goalposts and stay in their posts until the summer. IMO, the argument comes down to two things:

What evidence is there that they resigned? Did MW's agent offer the trio would resign if comp waived?

If they DID resign, what evidence is there that it was withdrawn? Did MW's reps believe that trying to re-negotiate terms was a withdrawal?

[Valance1690 3,942]

1 minute ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

@gogzy

Can't report as I'm on mobile, but Lance1697? Come on to fuck.

Fancy explaining what i've said or what's wrong with the username which has pissed you off?

[piperpete 3,186]

It will all come down to how the Agent worded his offer of them chucking It and who  was there

[The Godfather 72,445]

1 minute ago, Lance1697 said:

Fancy explaining what i've said or what's wrong with the username which has pissed you off?

AN anagram of a night in Lisbon. 

Plus no cunt would admit to being called fuckin Lance.

[Big Al 55 9,299]

Obvious it was coming, obvious what they were going to say, obvious they cant say much due to legal advice.

Lets hope the club have some sort of evidence to the contrary. Either way we're better of shot of them thats what we should concentrate on that.

[Brian Fantana 28,894]

1 hour ago, Frank Harrison said:

'this type of behaviour' 'more money pissed down the drain' There's absolutely no proof that the board have done anything wrong here ffs

Honestly some people go out their way to look for reasons to have a go at them

Forest aren't going to come out and admit to tapping him up are they?

It's clear they fucked up by releasing a statement prior to telling warburton he was sacked which is fucking terrible behaviour.

who needs to go out their way to have issue with the bpard, they bring it on themselves with their moonbeams of £27 million, a 5 year plan to get back to the top and inability to generate investment. If i was head of a company relaint on outside income then you better believe that i'd be out on my arse if al i could muster was to out my hand in my pocket ot feed the leckie meter every few months.

Forest don't need to admit anything, if Warburton asked the board if they would have issues with him listening to offers then a simple yes/no does it. Instead it seems they said "we accept your resignation" IMO.

sad thing is, any payout to warburton for all this comes from us fans via revenue at matches as the board don't have money for it.

 

[Senex 20]

From an employment lawyer posting on "another Rangers messageboard".

Quote

Originally Posted by mermaidblues

Correct. Definitely won't be the Employment Tribunal.

I'm an employment lawyer, so I've been watching the last few days' developments with a professional interest, as well as from a fan's perspective. At risk of boring people to death, it might be worth giving my perspective on the law of resignation.

Firstly, resignation is usually a unilateral act, i.e., a resignation does not have to be accepted by an employer. When you tell your employer 'I resign', then that's it - usually (and I emphasise the word 'usuallly') the employer can't say 'I don't accept'.

However, this case is different. Here, it seems tolerably clear that on the Monday, the trio via their agent made conditional offers of resignation, i.e., 'we will resign if you agree to waive compensation from our next club'. Therefore, the trio were not submitting unqualified resignations and the club had some sort of offer to consider.

In principle, if the club unconditionally accepted the offer made on behalf of the trio, then that acceptance would be capable of completing an agreement. However, there are several grey areas around this, which I think will form the meat of any legal arguments, in the unlikely event that this goes to court. Some of the key questions might be:

* Did the agent have sufficient authority to conclude a binding agreement on behalf of the trio?
* Did their employment contracts require notice of termination from either party to be in writing?
* Was the offer made by the agent on behalf of the trio sufficiently precise and detailed to be capable of receiving unqualified acceptance, without any further formalities?

So, when the statement put out today says "at no stage did we resign from our positions", I strongly suspect that is strictly true. Conditional offers of resignation were made, and I expect they will say that no proper acceptance of these offers was ever forthcoming. Or alternatively, they might say that they withdrew their offers of resignation before the offers had been properly accepted - that seems to be to be quite a convincing argument on the evidence currently available.

While I think from a footballing perspective it is right that the manager and his team have gone - they were never going to get us to where we need to be - I don't find the board's statement terribly convincing from a legal perspective on the scant information available.

If I was forced to speculate at present, I would say that the club might have a bit of a job convincing a court that an enforceable agreement to terminate the trio's employment had been concluded before the offers to resign were effectively withdrawn by the agent. For that reason, my best guess is that the club will end up settling with the trio.

It's possible that the agent didn't withdraw the conditional offers to resign in an effective way, and if that was the case, the club's position might be stronger. However, I struggle to see how it's in anyone's interests for this one to be played out in court.

Take from that what you will.

[To Be A Ranger 4,032]

15 minutes ago, Senex said:

If the board have fucked this in any way those involved need to go.

The notion that people employed by a company whose bread-and-butter is ostensibly contract renewal and negotiation - something we do on an almost constant basis - could play fast and loose with this sort of thing and not have everything signed, dated and handed over in triplicate before they do anything or open their mouths about it, would absolutely be cause for whoever was involved being dragged out into the street.

Bit dramatic there. The board abviously think they have something that tilts the facts in their favour. If it turns out to be otherwise they should explain. But I think you should put away the pitchforks.

I'm more interested in them appointing a good manager than this stuff anyway.

[simplythebest 11,453]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

It's clear they fucked up by releasing a statement prior to telling warburton he was sacked which is fucking terrible behaviour.

who needs to go out their way to have issue with the bpard, they bring it on themselves with their moonbeams of £27 million, a 5 year plan to get back to the top and inability to generate investment. If i was head of a company relaint on outside income then you better believe that i'd be out on my arse if al i could muster was to out my hand in my pocket ot feed the leckie meter every few months.

Forest don't need to admit anything, if Warburton asked the board if they would have issues with him listening to offers then a simple yes/no does it. Instead it seems they said "we accept your resignation" IMO.

sad thing is, any payout to warburton for all this comes from us fans via revenue at matches as the board don't have money for it.

 

We're as well at least waiting to see how it plays out no?

[Valance1690 3,942]

Just now, The Godfather said:

AN anagram of a night in Lisbon. 

Plus no cunt would admit to being called fuckin Lance.

LOL! If somebody finds an anagram of a night in Lisbon from that then fuck me there's some right paranoid bastards in the world....

Not my real name believe it or not....again it was something used years ago online and i've stuck with it....

Never thought i'd have to explain the fucking thing though 

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

Thats because the statement said that they weren't going in to detail on legal advice except to say they hadn't resigned. All your points are detail.

They have made a more professional job of the statement than the board did. 

The question remains, if they 'resigned' on Monday why were they still taking training. Just facts and no speculation.

DK even said he had been 'informally' approached by an unnamed club. What are the chances it was Forest and the board have leapt to a conclusion that they must have contacted Forest?

Too much of this doesn't seem right. E-mails confirming the 'resignations'? All rather strange from the board.

Assuming they resigned on monday on the basis of waived comp. The club would need to draw paperwork up waiving either sides right to compensation for breaking the contract early. Since it was an 'amicable' split MW would remain in post until the paperwork was done and the club was prepared to announce his leaving by mutual agreement with some nice pictures and #ThankYouWarbs. The extra week or so also allows Murty a chance to get in and get familiar with the senior squad and spend a little bit of time working with them before taking charge of his first game.

 

My reading of the informal approach was that it was via MW's agent who had intimated they wanted to be allowed to leave to take up whatever job it was.

 

Email confirmation isn't that too hard to grasp tbh if the offer to resign has been made verbally by a third party. The club will likely have communicated their acceptance of the offer with all three (plus the agent) at the same time in writing.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Just now, The Dude said:

Assuming they resigned on monday on the basis of waived comp. The club would need to draw paperwork up waiving either sides right to compensation for breaking the contract early. Since it was an 'amicable' split MW would remain in post until the paperwork was done and the club was prepared to announce his leaving by mutual agreement with some nice pictures and #ThankYouWarbs. The extra week or so also allows Murty a chance to get in and get familiar with the senior squad and spend a little bit of time working with them before taking charge of his first game.

 

My reading of the informal approach was that it was via MW's agent who had intimated they wanted to be allowed to leave to take up whatever job it was.

 

Email confirmation isn't that too hard to grasp tbh if the offer to resign has been made verbally by a third party. The club will likely have communicated their acceptance of the offer with all three (plus the agent) at the same time in writing.

Can a third party, in law, give a verbal resignation?

[Senex 20]

Quote

Bit dramatic there. The board abviously think they have something that tilts the facts in their favour. If it turns out to be otherwise they should explain. But I think you should put away the pitchforks.

I'm more interested in them appointing a good manager than this stuff anyway.

The fact that the board released a statement is actually in their favour as surely - surely to fuck - they wouldn't do anything as definitive as that without consulting whomever we have on legal retainer that deals with our contract negotiations. Surely they wouldn't do anything as rash as that without being in the clear legally.

What I'm saying is that should shit hit the fan over this, people absolutely need to be sacked as it's so completely and utterly fundamental that making an arse of it should be out of the question.

[jimgers 565]

Least he thanked us all for our unwavering support, which  is nice. or Irony deficiency on my part

[Brian Fantana 28,894]

1 minute ago, simplythebest said:

We're as well at least waiting to see how it plays out no?

wouldn't surprise me if King finds out how much he could be liable for (Sorry, the club will be liable for) and asks Warburton back.

Absolutely nothing would surprise me given whats wnet on with our club the last few years.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, RFC Eagle said:

Can a third party, in law, give a verbal resignation?

They can make a conditional offer on behalf of someone (with their authorisation). The assumption would be that as his agent he would have the approval to make that offer.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Just now, The Dude said:

They can make a conditional offer on behalf of someone (with their authorisation). The assumption would be that as his agent he would have the approval to make that offer.

So the answer is no? Any conditional offer would have to be confirmed by the 3, no assumption should be made without confirmation.

Could be an extremely costly error. I have to say, given the track record of both parties, I'd have to side with Warburton and Weir. 

There is too much that doesn't add up that suggests the board have made a mess of this. The handling of it has been atrocious, thats even if the result is best for the club.

[dougie76 15,359]

1 hour ago, Frank Harrison said:

sshhhh that doesn't fit the anti board agenda

Aye l'll admit it l don't trust King one bit. When the board came out and backed the supporters after the cup final then turned round and stabbed us in the back that's when they lost me, bunch of lying cunts so please forgive me for not trusting a word they say?

 

[The Dude 20,026]

 

1 minute ago, RFC Eagle said:

So the answer is no? Any conditional offer would have to be confirmed by the 3, no assumption should be made without confirmation.

Could be an extremely costly error. I have to say, given the track record of both parties, I'd have to side with Warburton and Weir. 

There is too much that doesn't add up that suggests the board have made a mess of this. The handling of it has been atrocious, thats even if the result is best for the club.

I should have been clearer, the assumption was on my behalf, not the clubs.

Having a look at the rules regards agent and there has to be a contract of representation in place between players/staff and their agents.

[dougie76 15,359]

1 hour ago, plumbGER said:

You will learn from it Mark.

No he won't.

[plumbGER 24,518]

Ponce1967 

[gj923 1,457]

20 minutes ago, Lance1697 said:

LOL! If somebody finds an anagram of a night in Lisbon from that then fuck me there's some right paranoid bastards in the world....

Not my real name believe it or not....again it was something used years ago online and i've stuck with it....

Never thought i'd have to explain the fucking thing though 

Your initials are RH you like Pokemon but you are also a bear so will let the pokemon thing go

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 

I should have been clearer, the assumption was on my behalf, not the clubs.

Having a look at the rules regards agent and there has to be a contract of representation in place between players/staff and their agents.

The club should, surely, seek written confirmation (best practice in law). It looks as though the assumption you've made could be the one the club has made. 

I guess it will all be resolved out of court to save embarrasment on one side. Sadly I don't think we will ever get the whole story.

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

The club should, surely, seek written confirmation (best practice in law). It looks as though the assumption you've made could be the one the club has made. 

I guess it will all be resolved out of court to save embarrasment on one side. Sadly I don't think we will ever get the whole story.

And having looked at the SFA rules on agents they will have had written confirmation of who the agent is and as defined in the rules, the "scope of the services provided by the intermediary under the representation contract"

[Big Al 55 9,299]

29 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It's clear they fucked up by releasing a statement prior to telling warburton he was sacked which is fucking terrible behaviour.

who needs to go out their way to have issue with the bpard, they bring it on themselves with their moonbeams of £27 million, a 5 year plan to get back to the top and inability to generate investment. If i was head of a company relaint on outside income then you better believe that i'd be out on my arse if al i could muster was to out my hand in my pocket ot feed the leckie meter every few months.

Forest don't need to admit anything, if Warburton asked the board if they would have issues with him listening to offers then a simple yes/no does it. Instead it seems they said "we accept your resignation" IMO.

sad thing is, any payout to warburton for all this comes from us fans via revenue at matches as the board don't have money for it.

 

I suspect they thought MW knew he had resigned.