Sturrock gone by next week

[Chubbs]

At the end of the day the only thing stopping sturrock from going its commitment and love of STFC,
All this talk of a contract? Its a piece of paper, whats the worse that could happen if he leaves before his contract is over? A fine? what with the wages he would get at Leicester, im sure thats not a big deal.

I hope he doesnt go tho.

[singingiiiffy]

the ticket man said he would not be going :shock: . end of topic

[STFC Bart]

If as we are led to believe, he has an 18 month lock in the only way he can go is if the club allow him too.

[Chubbs]

If as we are led to believe, he has an 18 month lock in the only way he can go is if the club allow him too.

Its not a fucking prison, there are ways around these things.

[Power to people]

Adver has a quote from Manderic saying he has not approached Sturrock and he is not being considered

[STFC Bart]

Basically he is legally bound for 18 months, UNLESS the club allow Leicester to speak with him.

We shall see

[pauld]

Basically he is legally bound for 18 months, UNLESS the club allow Leicester to speak with him.

Not entirely true - if, for example, he could demonstrate breach of contract on the club's side, he could walk free and unemcumbered. And no I don't think he's going to Leicester, but beware of putting too much faith in airy statements about binding contracts that no-one's actually seen

[red macca]

Basically he is legally bound for 18 months, UNLESS the club allow Leicester to speak with him.

Not entirely true - if, for example, he could demonstrate breach of contract on the club's side, he could walk free and unemcumbered. And no I don't think he's going to Leicester, but beware of putting too much faith in airy statements about binding contracts that no-one's actually seen

What like bill powers shares/loan

[pauld]

Basically he is legally bound for 18 months, UNLESS the club allow Leicester to speak with him.

Not entirely true - if, for example, he could demonstrate breach of contract on the club's side, he could walk free and unemcumbered. And no I don't think he's going to Leicester, but beware of putting too much faith in airy statements about binding contracts that no-one's actually seen

What like bill powers shares/loan

No not really - at least with Sturrock's contract we're pretty sure there is actually a piece of paper somewhere with a contract written on it  

[Simon Pieman]

Written on a beer mat from the Gluey?

[herthab]

Meh, all this talk of a 'lock-in' is bollocks. It's just means compensation would be more for the side who wants out.

If Sturrock had turned out to be shit, would we be all saying that we have to put up with it for the rest of the season, because of his contract?

As to Barts statement that Sturrock could only leave if the Board allow him to, well duh!

We are no different to any other club, albeit maybe not run as well, money talks.

[Simon Pieman]

I reckon they had a lock in at the Gluey.

[Barry Scott]

Jesus, this is just average run of the mill journalism.

There's currently a load of managers linked with this post. Sturrock is being linked as papers will print any old shit.

I'm the dramatic one, but christ half the people on hear get well over the top.

So it's not important to you that the best manager we've had in years could leave?

Yeah, of course it's important, but lets not start getting ahead of ourselves and getting in a right two and eight over something which is standard throughout a season. - Remember Andy King being linked with Pompey?

We've not been told he's going, we've not been told he wants to go, he's not said he's unhappy and after all we've only read a story about another manager being linked with another post.

Vacancies in football these days are all treated the same way by the press. It's just a template of a story with a fill in the blank (for the managers name) and  successful managers names are pulled out of the hat.

Anyway, i thought you were being positive like me?

I was fishing

Well obviously. Of course. I knew that. It was blatant fishing. I'm not prone to biting or anything...    

[thedarkprince]

Basically he is legally bound for 18 months, UNLESS the club allow Leicester to speak with him.

We shall see

Bart, its been said many times before and I'm sure it'll be said many more times, but you're talking SHITE.  

If you think any judge in this country (or in Europe if it went that far) would enforce the 18-month lock-in clause then you'll be very fucking disappointed!  It'd be laughed out of court - just like you should be from this forum...

[Simon Pieman]

I'd have thought it would be the same for his entire contract - so not allowed to talk to anyone unless the club gave permission or this would be tapping up, would it not?

The lock in thing is a bit of a gimmic, probably entails a greater financial clause or something, who knows?

I think we should lock him in at the Gluey until Leicester get bored of waiting.