Paolo Gone.

[tj2002]

Like most fans I am gutted by this, it was a breath of fresh air and I loved the attention and the success that he brought. But I always felt that we were living on a knife edge and anything that happened no matter how big or trivial (Wray, MBargo, The Boooing, Ritchie) may tip him over the edge. I expected him to last 2 years and he almost did.

In a way I feel almost a sense of relief and that we can now focus on the most important thing which is the long term survivial of the club.

There are better managers out there, less flamboyant maybe, but better. I think I was more gutted when Hoddle left tbh.

Hoddle had just taken us to the promised land and went on to manage Chelsea, Tottenham and England. Di Canio got us up from league 2 in style and brought a lot of profile to the club but at great expense. Not the same ballpark.

As gutting as it feels to be dumped like this, we'll move on and meet someone else, and who knows, they could be the one

[sonicyouth]

As gutting as it feels to be dumped like this, we'll move on and meet someone else, and who knows, they could be the one

Ted, is that you?

[url width=180 height=240]http://www.thedailytouch.com/media/2012/10/TED1.jpg[/url]

[tj2002]

Not sure who that is but no, I am not Ted

[jonny72]

Paolo has already said it was stated in his contract no player was to be sold without his say so. so therefore it us a breech of contract.

Alleged breach of contract, if you take everything Paolo says as being fact. Obviously it would depend on the wording, but I think you'd be hard pressed to prove the claim that selling one player to balance the books and avoid administration constitutes a breach of contract in a court of law. On the other hand you could come up with plenty of things Paolo has done and said that would be disciplinary matters if you wanted them to be.

If he goes in to another job within the next week or two there are questions that should be asked.

[tj2002]

Only slight issue with that is that he's saying that they effectively renegotiated a contract with him last Friday. I assume it was short term one. Why on earth they'd renegotiate a contract with him I'm don't know but I suspect it would have allowed him to leave more easily. It's very strange and we'll eventually get to know more, looking forward to getting back to singing the players names rather than the managers tonight

[4D]

More importantly, is there going to be a big rush for members to change avatars/sigs and usernames?

[Power to people]

Only slight issue with that is that he's saying that they effectively renegotiated a contract with him last Friday. I assume it was short term one. Why on earth they'd renegotiate a contract with him I'm don't know but I suspect it would have allowed him to leave more easily. It's very strange and we'll eventually get to know more, looking forward to getting back to singing the players names rather than the managers tonight

I took it that it was on a lesser wage freeing up more money for new players

[ahounsell]

Alleged breach of contract, if you take everything Paolo says as being fact. Obviously it would depend on the wording, but I think you'd be hard pressed to prove the claim that selling one player to balance the books and avoid administration constitutes a breach of contract in a court of law. On the other hand you could come up with plenty of things Paolo has done and said that would be disciplinary matters if you wanted them to be.

Selling a player is one thing, doing it without the managers knowledge could well be argued to be constructive dismissal in the hands of a decent lawyer.

The point is that regardless of what is / isnt in his contract, the club going after Paolo to try to enforce the fine print of his contract isnt going to benefit anyone other than the lawyers, and Paolo will probably be able to afford more expensive ones than the club if he wants to.

[horlock07]

Paolo would never do that to the club, he loves us too much, what with the £30k to buy us players and the tatto he had done!

[tj2002]

I took it that it was on a lesser wage freeing up more money for new players

He said it meant they had a lesser contractual liability to him, which I took as meaning a shorter term deal. He's clearly been trying to get out of this for a little while i'd say

[tans]

Paolo would never do that to the club, he loves us too much, what with the £30k to buy us players and the tatto he had done!

He didnt get the tattoo done. Another thing bottled

[Simon Pieman]

He said it meant they had a lesser contractual liability to him, which I took as meaning a shorter term deal. He's clearly been trying to get out of this for a little while i'd say

My thoughts to. Probably got advice from Spencer regarding the contract(ual liability). Who knows though?

[jutty274]

Code:

Devera		free
Smith		30k
De Vita		free
Comazzi		free
Lanzano		free
Atiku		free
Risser		free
Cibocchi	free
Connell		150k
Kerrouche	free
Esajas		free
McCormack	free
Clarke		free
Gabilondo	free
Magera		free
Abdulla		loan
Ridehalgh	loan
Jervis		loan
Montano		loan
Murray		loan
Benson		free - exchange for Clarke
Foderingham	undisclosed - originally loan
Rooney L	undisclosed - believed to be 6 figure
Boateng		loan
Cox		30k
Smith		free - Samsung
Tehoue		loan
Holmes		loan
Bostock		loan
McEveley	loan
Collins		140k
Roberts		free
Williams	free
McEveley	free
Miller		free
Navarro		free
Troy A-H	200k
Bostock		loan
Ward		loan - permanently signed
Bessone		free
Coke		loan
Rooney A	loan
Hollands	loan
Martin		loan

thats 44 players in total.

7 signed for transfer fees, 15 on loan, 1 loan to perm, 20 on free transfers.

I make it 2 on loan to perm maybe even 3, Ward, Fodringham & Then McEverley who was on loan then signed as a free agent.

[jonny72]

Selling a player is one thing, doing it without the managers knowledge could well be argued to be constructive dismissal in the hands of a decent lawyer.

The point is that regardless of what is / isnt in his contract, the club going after Paolo to try to enforce the fine print of his contract isnt going to benefit anyone other than the lawyers, and Paolo will probably be able to afford more expensive ones than the club if he wants to.

I'm not disagreeing. Just making the point you could argue the contract breach both ways, but it's pointless unless you know all the facts and that the facts aren't necessarily relevant once lawyers and courts get involved.

[sonicyouth]

I make it 2 on loan to perm maybe even 3, Ward, Fodringham & Then McEverley who was on loan then signed as a free agent.

didn't count Foderingham as i counted him as someone we paid a fee for.

McEveley departed the club and returned, so not loan to perm in the same way as Ward