Wignall

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ June 25 2004,16:51)]By the way, I thought that the club told us that they had parted with Wignall on "mutually acceptable terms in accordance with his contract"...? I distinctly remember talk at the time of a release clause being triggered... or am I imagining that...?

Matt

I remember something about that.

It would be interesting to see how one could present a reasonable case as to prove what is a good and bad signing in court.

 

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ June 25 2004,15:58)]It would be interesting to see how one could present a reasonable case as to prove what is a good and bad signing in court.

I would like to present the following items:

Exhibit A: Carl Emberson

Exhibit B: Drewe Broughton

Exhibit C: Michael Husbands

Exhibit D: Che Wilson


Where do I pick up my cheque?

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ June 25 2004,15:58)]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ June 25 2004,16:51)]By the way, I thought that the club told us that they had parted with Wignall on "mutually acceptable terms in accordance with his contract"...?  I distinctly remember talk at the time of a release clause being triggered... or am I imagining that...?

Matt

I remember something about that.

It would be interesting to see how one could present a reasonable case as to prove what is a good and bad signing in court.

Indeed, that would be a good one. There'd have to be a term of the contract (or you'd have to imply one) to show that Wignall was required to exercise his managerial talents with a certain level skill and care, and that in signing those players he fell below that level.

Fullerton would be the easiest. You would merely need to point to the average number of games he had played over the previous 5 years, and then compare that to the average. You would then allege that he was in breach of his duty of skill and care by signing someone who on any reasonable interpretation of those stats was likely only to be available for 30% of his time at the club (Fullarton's approximate strike rate...?).

How you prove that someone was merely "sh*t", on the other hand, is far more subjective...

Glad it's not me trying to argue it, even if it is quite interesting from a legal point of view...

Matt

 

[stid]

Not wishing be left out:-

Dw i'n casau Wignall. Mae o'n dwpsyn.

 

[benfleetblue]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ June 25 2004,16:01)]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ June 25 2004,15:58)]It would be interesting to see how one could present a reasonable case as to prove what is a good and bad signing in court.

I would like to present the following items:

Exhibit A: Carl Emberson

Exhibit B: Drewe Broughton

Exhibit C: Michael Husbands

Exhibit D: Che Wilson


Where do I pick up my cheque?

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ June 25 2004,16:01)]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ June 25 2004,15:58)]It would be interesting to see how one could present a reasonable case as to prove what is a good and bad signing in court.

I would like to present the following items:

Exhibit B: Drewe Broughton

to**er.

In any case, his defence would be that Webby almost signed Drewe earlier.

 

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ June 25 2004,16:28)]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ June 25 2004,16:01)]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ June 25 2004,15:58)]It would be interesting to see how one could present a reasonable case as to prove what is a good and bad signing in court.

I would like to present the following items:

Exhibit B: Drewe Broughton

to**er.

In any case, his defence would be that Webby almost signed Drewe earlier.

Why do you asume they're are examples of bad signings? I did, of course. mean that they were all good signings.

to**er? Your point is?

 

[canada shrimper]

seeing as everyone is using their own language i'll enter this.
Wignall is a jackass.

 

[Barmy Army]

Must suck to be Husbands right now. Not only are you cr*p, but your cr*pness is evidence in a court case, and you're still at the club who call you cr*p!

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ June 25 2004,16:37)]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ June 25 2004,16:28)]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ June 25 2004,16:01)]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ June 25 2004,15:58)]It would be interesting to see how one could present a reasonable case as to prove what is a good and bad signing in court.

I would like to present the following items:

Exhibit B: Drewe Broughton

to**er.

In any case, his defence would be that Webby almost signed Drewe earlier.

Why do you asume they're are examples of bad signings? I did, of course. mean that they were all good signings.

to**er? Your point is?

oh.

 

[Guest]

Wignall could argue, though, that the signings of Gower, Warren and Constantine may slightly refute the claim against him.

 

[W4 Shrimper]

Wignall es un hijo de puta. Me cago en la leche de su puta madre.

 

[shrimper roman]

Wignall, te li daremo tutti quei soldi(25000) uno per uno sui denti e spero che te' li magni tutti a medicine!
pezzo de' merda

 

[Southendsleeper]

Nearly relegates us and now wants compensation.

The cheek of it...

 

[* ORM *]

I'm sure the club thought they were signing Steve Whitton.

Perhaps they could claim impersonation ?

 

[Guest]

hate to say I told you so, but i told you, if you look back
at the post I made several months ago, this situation was
always looming. RM failed to comply with legal requirements
in response to Wignalls contractual agreement, and therefore
when Wignall failed to receive any reply from the club, he
has taken legal action to recover the amount due.

It will make us the laughing stock again if this goes to court
and I think the media would seize on this if RM trys to sue
Wignall for the signings that he made.

Whether we like it or not Wignall is entitled to his money,
and lets just pay up and shut up, rather than engage in
lenghty legal action with more debt racked up

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ June 25 2004,17:05)]Indeed, that would be a good one. There'd have to be a term of the contract (or you'd have to imply one) to show that Wignall was required to exercise his managerial talents with a certain level skill and care, and that in signing those players he fell below that level.

Fullerton would be the easiest. You would merely need to point to the average number of games he had played over the previous 5 years, and then compare that to the average. You would then allege that he was in breach of his duty of skill and care by signing someone who on any reasonable interpretation of those stats was likely only to be available for 30% of his time at the club (Fullarton's approximate strike rate...?).

I suppose the club would have a good claim if, in the contract, it stipulated a certain position, or total amount of points won, by a given date and Wignall failed the make it.

But what chances on the club covering their arses in such a manner?

As for the Fullerton example, Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, but the club could only really have a claim here if Wignall provided deceptive information contrary to the true fact that would indicate Fiona was a naff signing, prone to injury etc. (ie. he effectively sold them something based on false information).

If, however, the club willingly signed a contract either without checking all the facts, or checking the facts and approving them, they can't hold Wignall legally responsible for what happened.

Maybe!

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Guest @ June 25 2004,23:32)]Whether we like it or not Wignall is entitled to his money,
and lets just pay up and shut up, rather than engage in
lenghty legal action with more debt racked up

Indeed ...

WS

 

[Beefy]

Of course we should just pay up. It seems to me that this counter-claim is being done just to force Wignall to withdraw his claim rather than go through the expense of defending himself. Theres no way that the club can seriously sue him for signing bad players.

 

[Guest]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ June 25 2004,16:05)]Fullerton would be the easiest.  You would merely need to point to the average number of games he had played over the previous 5 years, and then compare that to the average.  You would then allege that he was in breach of his duty of skill and care by signing someone who on any reasonable interpretation of those stats was likely only to be available for 30% of his time at the club (Fullarton's approximate strike rate...?).

Not if Fullarton passed his medical.