Palmer is staying

[WBA123]

You seem to want to pick for the sake of picking.

Where did I say that they don’t all have their price?

I very clearly stated that £3m was not the right price for Palmer in my opinion and in this thread I said that I thought it was the mass outcry of derision from our fans that had seen this sale called off!

I also stated that a bigger fee would see him walk!

I fail to see how you could find anything ambiguous or against your own views regarding player value in what I stated?

No picking here, you said if a bigger fee comes in he'll walk. I kind of said, if its to our advantage that's what should happen.

I suppose, I think some of our fans (not you, don't get defensive!) would never sell a player of ours if they were performing well on the pitch. But I think that's cost us in the past, we could have got far higher fees for Jonny Evans and Berahino off the top of my head for example.

We need to be smart with who we sell and for what price. We can't just say players are not for sale, regardless. We need to get top dollar for our assets, and we need to buy at bottom dollar. Its how to work the market and why teams like Brighton and Brentford have been so successful - and we haven't.

[On Balance]

Constructive dismissal isn’t really a thing for footballers. It’s well known in the implied contract that a footballer can be in and out of the team and train with reserves if not wanted. Mbappe has just had that threat from PSG.

It could be the case if someone raises bullying or discrimination and it’s not addressed for example. But not because the club don’t want them. That’s why you don’t see it in football as it’s just part and parcel of the game.

I think you’re missing the point Baggiematt. I’m saying that footballers can, if they choose and if they have a real case, use employment legislation. The link I have provided in my previous post is interesting and explains why it is an option but also provides reasons why it may not be happening in football.

It would be unethical for any footballer to make an application for unfair dismissal based solely on the fact they are dropped. Their case would fail and would likely be ‘struck out’ by application, as there would be no real chance of success.

[mickd1961]

No picking here, you said if a bigger fee comes in he'll walk. I kind of said, if its to our advantage that's what should happen.

I suppose, I think some of our fans (not you, don't get defensive!) would never sell a player of ours if they were performing well on the pitch. But I think that's cost us in the past, we could have got far higher fees for Jonny Evans and Berahino off the top of my head for example.

We need to be smart with who we sell and for what price. We can't just say players are not for sale, regardless. We need to get top dollar for our assets, and we need to buy at bottom dollar. It’s how to work the market and why teams like Brighton and Brentford have been so successful - and we haven't.

Agree with the above but in regards to constructive dismissal which what you have been arguing, I cannot remember a single case of it happening in football.

Freezing a player out is not a constructive dismissal case anyway, as long as you pay their wages you’re simply taking a decision as his employer as to whether you want to use his service, a service you are paying for.

Most players want to play.

So in effect, as long as you’re adhering to the terms of a player’s contract and you’re paying him on time it’s up to you whether you play him or freeze him out…….no contract is being broken by freezing someone out albeit I think it’s a petty way for any manager or club to act.

When Bosman took his club to court it was more a case of “Restriction Of Trade” because his contract had expired but they refused to let him leave without a transfer fee.

It became more of a “Human Rights” issue.

I agree that every player has a price, it’s just that Palmers price of £3m as being quoted in the media seemed to be ludicrously low and bad business on our part.

A fee of double that plus add ons and sell on clauses would be more appropriate.

[On Balance]

Agree with the above but in regards to constructive dismissal which what you have been arguing, I cannot remember a single case of it happening in football.

Freezing a player out is not a constructive dismissal case anyway, as long as you pay their wages you’re simply taking a decision as his employer as to whether you want to use his service, a service you are paying for.

Most players want to play.

So in effect, as long as you’re adhering to the terms of a player’s contract and you’re paying him on time it’s up to you whether you play him or freeze him out…….no contract is being broken by freezing someone out albeit I think it’s a petty way for any manager or club to act.

When Bosman took his club to court it was more a case of “Restriction Of Trade” because his contract had expired but they refused to let him leave without a transfer fee.

It became more of a “Human Rights” issue.

I agree that every player has a price, it’s just that Palmers price of £3m as being quoted in the media seemed to be ludicrously low and bad business on our part.

A fee of double that plus add ons and sell on clauses would be more appropriate.

Para 2 of the above is incorrect.

If any employer makes life difficult for an employee, just because they don’t want them, it may amount to constructive dismissal.

Any employer would know this and would, given the correct legal advice, be mindful of this fact.

West Bromwich Albion would be most unlikely to put themselves in the position whereby, they may find themselves facing a tribunal for unfair dismissal.

My initial post (copied above) mentioned that a player ‘May have a case for constructive dismissal.’ That is my point and the important word in that sentence is May.

Below is a section of the article in the Athletic. It clearly states Ozil may have a case but was unlikely to choose that route and explains why.

To say that a player could not take this route, as Mick is suggesting is incorrect.

The text from the Athletic re: Ozil and Arsenal…….

Contract breach? Constructive dismissal? Ozil and Arsenal – the legal angle

Does Ozil have a case for constructive dismissal?
Perhaps, but it seems unlikely he would try to go down that path. It is well established, under English law, that a duty of trust and confidence will be implied into all employment contracts. The accepted formulation of the term is as follows:

“Employers will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct themselves in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence or trust between employer and employee” — Woods v WM Car Services Peterborough Limited (1981) ICR 666.
If the employer breaches this term— either via a one-off event or as the culmination of multiple smaller events — the employee can then resign and treat themselves as having been constructively dismissed.

In the world of football, this would then enable the player to claim damages for the remaining term of their contract (assuming there is no break clause) under a wrongful dismissal claim. Furthermore, where they have two or more years’ service, they would, at least in theory, also be entitled to claim a relatively small amount of additional compensation for unfair dismissal.

It’s worth noting that this duty is mutually applicable to both employer and employee. Much of what we are seeing play out publicly — Arteta’s insistence that Ozil’s omission is based purely on sporting merit, Ozil’s unwavering social media support for his team-mates — appears designed to ensure neither party is seen to breach the “trust and confidence”.

Constructive dismissal cases are very rare in sport — but they do happen.**In 2009, a Premier League managers’ arbitration tribunal upheld Kevin Keegan’s claim for constructive dismissal against Newcastle.

However, it’s unlikely to be seen as an attractive option for Ozil.**First of all, it’s a high-risk strategy. “If you assert that*you’ve been constructively dismissed and are ultimately wrong, you’re then the*one who’s*acting*in breach of contract,” explains David Hunt, a partner at legal firm Farrer & Co. “Secondly, there*can be a substantial delay in the player gaining much-needed clarity. For example, it can take time to seek a determination via the relevant arbitration process,*meaning the*player*is*left in limbo*with them not knowing if they are yet free to join another club.”

Furthermore, if a player was to sign for a new club while such a process was ongoing, it would influence the*value of their*claim. “They have to*give credit for any new sums earned by*way of mitigation,” says*Hunt.**“If a player’s claim that they had been constructively dismissed is upheld,*they would have a claim for damages against their former club*for lost earnings in relation to the remaining term of their contract. However, they would have to offset against that claim*any new salary*earned from new employment.”

The other factor to note in relation to the claim of constructive dismissal itself is that the employers will have a defence if they can show there was “reasonable and proper” cause for the actions being complained about.

[mickd1961]

Para 2 of the above is incorrect.

My initial post mentioned that a player ‘May have a case for constructive dismissal.’ That is my point and the important word in that sentence is May.

Below is a section of the article in the Athletic. It clearly states Ozil may have a case but was unlikely to choose that route and explains why.

To say that a player could not take this route, as Mick is suggesting is incorrect.

The text from the Athletic re: Ozil and Arsenal…….

Contract breach? Constructive dismissal? Ozil and Arsenal – the legal angle

Does Ozil have a case for constructive dismissal?
Perhaps, but it seems unlikely he would try to go down that path. It is well established, under English law, that a duty of trust and confidence will be implied into all employment contracts. The accepted formulation of the term is as follows:

“Employers will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct themselves in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence or trust between employer and employee” — Woods v WM Car Services Peterborough Limited (1981) ICR 666.
If the employer breaches this term— either via a one-off event or as the culmination of multiple smaller events — the employee can then resign and treat themselves as having been constructively dismissed.

In the world of football, this would then enable the player to claim damages for the remaining term of their contract (assuming there is no break clause) under a wrongful dismissal claim. Furthermore, where they have two or more years’ service, they would, at least in theory, also be entitled to claim a relatively small amount of additional compensation for unfair dismissal.

It’s worth noting that this duty is mutually applicable to both employer and employee. Much of what we are seeing play out publicly — Arteta’s insistence that Ozil’s omission is based purely on sporting merit, Ozil’s unwavering social media support for his team-mates — appears designed to ensure neither party is seen to breach the “trust and confidence”.

Constructive dismissal cases are very rare in sport — but they do happen.**In 2009, a Premier League managers’ arbitration tribunal upheld Kevin Keegan’s claim for constructive dismissal against Newcastle.

However, it’s unlikely to be seen as an attractive option for Ozil.**First of all, it’s a high-risk strategy. “If you assert that*you’ve been constructively dismissed and are ultimately wrong, you’re then the*one who’s*acting*in breach of contract,” explains David Hunt, a partner at legal firm Farrer & Co. “Secondly, there*can be a substantial delay in the player gaining much-needed clarity. For example, it can take time to seek a determination via the relevant arbitration process,*meaning the*player*is*left in limbo*with them not knowing if they are yet free to join another club.”

Furthermore, if a player was to sign for a new club while such a process was ongoing, it would influence the*value of their*claim. “They have to*give credit for any new sums earned by*way of mitigation,” says*Hunt.**“If a player’s claim that they had been constructively dismissed is upheld,*they would have a claim for damages against their former club*for lost earnings in relation to the remaining term of their contract. However, they would have to offset against that claim*any new salary*earned from new employment.”

The other factor to note in relation to the claim of constructive dismissal itself is that the employers will have a defence if they can show there was “reasonable and proper” cause for the actions being complained about.

So did Ozil take that route?

No.

Has any player?

No….not that I’m aware of.

Keegan’s case is entirely different, he was in a management role.

Might a player take this route?

For sure they could.

Will they?

By the looks of history, no they won’t.

Will little green aliens invade earth in the next million years?

Possibly……but probably the same % chance as a player going for constructive dismissal.


Is there actually a single case of a player having taken this route?

[WBA123]

Agree with the above but in regards to constructive dismissal which what you have been arguing, I cannot remember a single case of it happening in football.

Freezing a player out is not a constructive dismissal case anyway, as long as you pay their wages you’re simply taking a decision as his employer as to whether you want to use his service, a service you are paying for.

Most players want to play.

So in effect, as long as you’re adhering to the terms of a player’s contract and you’re paying him on time it’s up to you whether you play him or freeze him out…….no contract is being broken by freezing someone out albeit I think it’s a petty way for any manager or club to act.

When Bosman took his club to court it was more a case of “Restriction Of Trade” because his contract had expired but they refused to let him leave without a transfer fee.

It became more of a “Human Rights” issue.

I agree that every player has a price, it’s just that Palmers price of £3m as being quoted in the media seemed to be ludicrously low and bad business on our part.

A fee of double that plus add ons and sell on clauses would be more appropriate.

I haven't said anything about constructive dismissal Mick, think wires have been crossed somewhere.

At least we agree on the other thing

[On Balance]

So did Ozil take that route?

No.

Has any player?

No….not that I’m aware of.

Keegan’s case is entirely different, he was in a management role.

Might a player take this route?

For sure they could.

Will they?

By the looks of history, no they won’t.

Will little green aliens invade earth in the next million years?

Possibly……but probably the same % chance as a player going for constructive dismissal.


Is there actually a single case of a player having taken this route?

So did Ozil take that route?

No.

Has any player?

No….not that I’m aware of.

Keegan’s case is entirely different, he was in a management role.

Might a player take this route?

For sure they could.

Will they?

By the looks of history, no they won’t.

Will little green aliens invade earth in the next million years?

Possibly……but probably the same % chance as a player going for constructive dismissal.


Is there actually a single case of a player having taken this route?

Where have I said anything other than ‘MAY’. The point is COUlD. You tell people they nit pick. It’s a bit like pot and kettle. You clearly have not read my post, you clearly have not read the passage I provided for you to read or you would see the point. Ikll try to be clearer. The definition of the word May. ‘MAY’ the word “may” is an expression of possibility, a permissive choice to act or not, and ordinarily implies some degree of discretion. This contrasts with the word “shall,” which is generally used to indicate a mandatory provision.

Your argument is that it would not be constructive dismissal. I say it can be. That is the point. It’s not the point that it has never been done. There may not have been a case to date, you say the legislation does not cover footballers. I say it is. I can’t make it any clearer for you.

The point is it could. You refer to history. History explains the past, it does not foresee the future.

Don’t be to closed minded to everything and be so defensive to anything that differs to your own personal beliefs, particularly when your experience in a given area be limited.

RTFL, as we say when people continue to misunderstand the obvious.

[mickd1961]

Where have I said anything other than ‘MAY’. The point is COUlD. You tell people they nit pick. It’s a bit like pot and kettle. You clearly have not read my post, you clearly have not read the passage I provided for you to read or you would see the point. Ikll try to be clearer. The definition of the word May. ‘MAY’ the word “may” is an expression of possibility, a permissive choice to act or not, and ordinarily implies some degree of discretion. This contrasts with the word “shall,” which is generally used to indicate a mandatory provision.

Your argument is that it would not be constructive dismissal. I say it can be. That is the point. It’s not the point that it has never been done. There may not have been a case to date, you say the legislation does not cover footballers. I say it is. I can’t make it any clearer for you.

The point is it could. You refer to history. History explains the past, it does not foresee the future.

Don’t be to closed minded to everything and be so defensive to anything that differs to your own personal beliefs, particularly when your experience in a given area be limited.

RTFL, as we say when people continue to misunderstand the obvious.

Name one player who’s done a club for constructive dismissal?

[mickd1961]

I haven't said anything about constructive dismissal Mick, think wires have been crossed somewhere.

At least we agree on the other thing

Sorry 123, my post wasn’t aimed at you.

Apologies.

[On Balance]

Name one player who’s done a club for constructive dismissal?

That is not point Mick.

You said that constructive dismissal would not apply. I said it could.

I used the word ‘May.’

You are now changing the argument to suit your point, moving the goalposts, so to speak, when you know you were incorrect with your initial statements.

You are staring to make yourself look silly again. Stop digging.

You have admitted that it may lead to a constructive dismissal case in your previous post, because the legislation exists. You admit it exists now where previously you said it did not.

I never said it had been used, only that it was accessible.