Hull want £1 million compensation

I think the Brian Little situation had significant differences, Joby. As best I can remember it, Villa did not approach us. And I'm certain that Little didn't walk out. He told the club that he was burnt out and needed a period out of football to get his head together, and Leicester *agreed* to a compassionate termination of his contract. So he left with our blessing.

About three days later, Villa announced Little as their new manager – he had made the fastest recovery from stress burnout in history.

Though I believe Little still insists it was all unplanned, it certainly had the *appearance* of being an outrageous manoeuvre to avoid Villa going through normal approach, approval and compensation procedures, and we decided that we couldn't just let it go – quite rightly IMO.

Right so, have I got the following correct. The options in this saga are thus:

1. We pay Hull the £1 million + they want

2. We stick tight and Hull accept the £700k that is written into his contract and that we are willing to pay

3. Pearson resigns, becomes LCFC manager but leaves himself open to a lawsuit for breach of contract

4. Pearson becomes manager and the compensation goes to a tribunal - which is probably worse for Hull.

Firstly, what part of his contract will Pearson have breached. Surely he will offer his resignation and Hull have a choice whether to accept it. Obviously they will but I don't see how that is breach of contract?

And also, can Hull stop Pearson taking the job even if he resigns like Fulham did with Hughes when they feared he was going to Villa by putting in a 28 day notice period before he can take another job?

Confused

Scrap that first question . I was thinking too in-depth about the matter and overlooked the fact that the part of the contract Pearson is breaking is breaking the contract itself

"And also, can Hull stop Pearson taking the job even if he resigns like Fulham did with Hughes when they feared he was going to Villa by putting in a 28 day notice period before he can take another job?"

Not sure if there is any clause in relation to 28 days. But if Pearson is forced to resign, Hull are going to seek compensation due to breach of contract, so why not just sign with a new club within the 28 days, as this will fall under 'breach of contract' as well.

Still not going to amount to over £1m or I imagine even close to the 700k compensation clause in his contract.

Just looked up the following;

"Finally, at the time of termination, if there is any exchange of letters between the employer and the employee, it would appear that the employer will need to expressly state that the garden leave provisions will be relied upon. Otherwise, as in the case of Hutchings -v- Coinseed Limited 1998, an exchange of letters may have the effect of varying and even overruling the terms of an express garden leave clause with the result, in that particular case, that Ms Hutchings was able to take up work and indeed be paid for working for a competitor whilst also able to recover a notice payment from her existing employers!

Conclusion

To rely on such clauses employers need to ensure that they have appropriately drafted clauses in their contracts of employment and that they exercise their right to place employees on garden leave carefully. Failing this, employees need not assume that, by merely being placed on garden leave, they are prevented from doing anything and should seek legal advice as to their rights and obligations during this garden leave period."

Therefore, if my understanding is correct, unless there is a specific part of Pearson's contract stating that his employers can 'deny him work' while also denying the right to seek work with others, then they can't place him on gardening leave.

I'm not sure how helpful this information is, as I don't think I will find a copy of his contract on the internet.

But...I think it is highly likely that Pearson will resign, Hull will not be able to prevent him and they will also not be able to prevent him from taking up other employment while lawyers slug it out.

Am I right?

Stourbridge - Yes, as I understand it. Although such a clause in Nigel's contract might be why he is so reluctant to resign. However, surely that would have been reported by now if that was in the contract.

As I understand it, the situation is that Pearson has a £700k compensation clause in his contract and we're willing to pay that. But Hull want an extra £500k or so which we aren't happy about and don't want to pay.

If so, both owners are renowned for being stubborn gits and Nigel will probably resign and take the job here. If that happens, then he'll get sued for breach of contract but I assume that will be covered by the club and I doubt it'll be for the £1 million+ that Hull want.

Either that or Nigel is unwilling to resign and so it'll go down to a tribunal. Again, I doubt Hull will get the £1 million that they want. So, I think it's highly doubtful that they'll get the figure that they want and it is just eating into their time to find a new manager.

I can see why Allam would want to stick to principle etc. but surely he's got to be realistic about this and see that it is unlikely he'll get his money and he's wasting everyone's time here. Unless that is his intention?

If there's a clause in Pearson's contract saying it costs £X to buy it out and his employers are offered £X, then surely he is not in breach of contract?

What are the options here?

Either the clubs will agree and Pearson will become our new manager, or;

The clubs don't agree and Pearson resigns and becomes our new manager;

or, Pearson's contract means that whether he resigns or not, his employers can prevent him working for another club. In this case there could be a lengthy delay in him becoming our new manager. Hull would then have to pay Pearson and whoever replaces him.

or, Pearson will be forced to continue to be Hull manager against his will.

Surely Hull don't want either of the last two options? They don't want two £500k salaries to pay for the same job? Surely they also don't want a manager who doesn't want to do the job either?

So why not agree, or why doesn't Pearson resign?

The breach of contract would come if Pearson resigned and then he could be sued by Hull for breach of contract - the breach comes by breaking the contract itself. This means Pearson becomes our manager and Hull get their 'compensation' from the breach of contract. But it'll probably be less than what they want anyway.

If the clubs don't agree, then it'll go to a tribunal, Nigel becomes our manager and again Hull will probably get less than they wanted.

I don't think it's in his contract that he can be placed on gardening leave because surely someone in the media (especially the two locals) will have reported it by now.

I don't think there is any way Pearson will continue now as he's burnt all his bridges with Hull now. Most likely outcome is that it'll go to a tribunal or NP will probably resign. Either will result in a long, drawn out legal process but it does mean we get our manager.

Rumours are the NP will resign tommorow if nothing is sorted.

I hope something happens before Monday because this is eating into his preparation time with the squad.

And more importantly, it's eating into my Call of Duty time as well. (and lesson planning time...meh!)

Greatness: I'm no lawyer, but if there is a clause in NP's contract that he can leave on payment of £700K, and the club is refusing him permission and holding out for £1m(+), then surely *the club is already in breach of contract* and can have no reasonable expectation of NP sticking to his side of the agreement.

Their breach of agreed terms would, surely, place them in danger of not even getting their £700K at arbitration, as the panel would take into account the fact that the club not the manager was the party that broke the contract.

I can't see their lawyers allowing them to be so stupid. My guess is that they are being vexatious at the fringes. For example "OK, we can't stop you taking Pearson for £700K, but there is no such clause in the contracts of the two assistant managers, so we're not releasing *them* unless you pay us another £300K."

If that's the case, I would call Hull's bluff. Their next manager is not going to want two unwilling assistants, so within a couple of weeks Hull will have to kick them out, and therefore be obliged to pay them compensation. Or it will have to sideline them, in which case they can walk out and start a suit for constructive dismissal. Either way round, Hull will be worse off than if they just let them go.