Preston

[dickos1]

SM
I’m not being disingenuous, I’m attempting to understand the ruling.
It’s common language that is used “ a club has asked for permission to speak with said manager” and also “a club has refused permission for another club to speak with said manager”.

If a manager is under contract how can it be said that they can’t stop their manager leaving? What’s the difference regarding managers as oppose to players who are often told they can’t leave when under contract.
Therefore I can’t see how there’s a ruling which states a manager must be allowed to leave if he showed a desire to do so, it simply cannot be right

dickos, you're jumping from A to D and leaving out the bits in the middle.

For the umpteenth time, the LMA ruling says if a club approaches another club and asks, officially, to speak to their manager then the club has to inform the manager there has been an approach for him. It then follows that the Manager has a right to speak to that club or not, its his choice.

In the Preston example, it was clear that there had been an approach, but not an official one and not through the club itself. Therefore Preston should report Stoke to the EFL and advise Stoke that they don't have permission to speak to their Manager, which is exactly what they did. Why can't you see that?

That's the difference. A club can refuse another club permission if they haven't gone through the right channels and made an official request.

In our example Hull did approach DRFC officially, albeit slightly after they had mentioned it to the local press, but crucially before they spoke to GM. We had no choice but to inform GM that Hull were interested.
 

I fully understand the point where we must tell the manager of another clubs interest
The point I don’t understand is why we must allow him to speak to the club when he is under contract with us, we don’t have to allow players to leave if they want to.
That’s my only point

[drfchound]

Hound.

That was irrelevant to the substantive comment in that club statement.

In that statement, PNE clearly and unambiguously did not say that they had turned down an approach from Stoke.

That, and the incorrect implication that this demonstrated deception by SM and/or DRFC last year is what this thread has been about.

I know what the thread is about BST and I have no reason to question SM or DRFC.
I simply explained that the club statement link that you posted mentioned a report on a Talksport and asked if you considered Talksport to be “the press”.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's irrelevant Hound. I have no opinion on Talksport in this context because it has absolutely nothing to do with the information I posted.

The PNE statement made reference to Talksport, but whatever it was that Talksport was supposed to have said was entirely superceded by the clear statement the PNE made. I try not to get sidetracked by irrelevances (although I rarely succeed, I'll give you that!)

[silent majority]

SM
I’m not being disingenuous, I’m attempting to understand the ruling.
It’s common language that is used “ a club has asked for permission to speak with said manager” and also “a club has refused permission for another club to speak with said manager”.

If a manager is under contract how can it be said that they can’t stop their manager leaving? What’s the difference regarding managers as oppose to players who are often told they can’t leave when under contract.
Therefore I can’t see how there’s a ruling which states a manager must be allowed to leave if he showed a desire to do so, it simply cannot be right

dickos, you're jumping from A to D and leaving out the bits in the middle.

For the umpteenth time, the LMA ruling says if a club approaches another club and asks, officially, to speak to their manager then the club has to inform the manager there has been an approach for him. It then follows that the Manager has a right to speak to that club or not, its his choice.

In the Preston example, it was clear that there had been an approach, but not an official one and not through the club itself. Therefore Preston should report Stoke to the EFL and advise Stoke that they don't have permission to speak to their Manager, which is exactly what they did. Why can't you see that?

That's the difference. A club can refuse another club permission if they haven't gone through the right channels and made an official request.

In our example Hull did approach DRFC officially, albeit slightly after they had mentioned it to the local press, but crucially before they spoke to GM. We had no choice but to inform GM that Hull were interested.
 

I fully understand the point where we must tell the manager of another clubs interest
The point I don’t understand is why we must allow him to speak to the club when he is under contract with us, we don’t have to allow players to leave if they want to.
That’s my only point

Different unions, different rules.

[bpoolrover]

SM
I’m not being disingenuous, I’m attempting to understand the ruling.
It’s common language that is used “ a club has asked for permission to speak with said manager” and also “a club has refused permission for another club to speak with said manager”.

If a manager is under contract how can it be said that they can’t stop their manager leaving? What’s the difference regarding managers as oppose to players who are often told they can’t leave when under contract.
Therefore I can’t see how there’s a ruling which states a manager must be allowed to leave if he showed a desire to do so, it simply cannot be right

dickos, you're jumping from A to D and leaving out the bits in the middle.

For the umpteenth time, the LMA ruling says if a club approaches another club and asks, officially, to speak to their manager then the club has to inform the manager there has been an approach for him. It then follows that the Manager has a right to speak to that club or not, its his choice.

In the Preston example, it was clear that there had been an approach, but not an official one and not through the club itself. Therefore Preston should report Stoke to the EFL and advise Stoke that they don't have permission to speak to their Manager, which is exactly what they did. Why can't you see that?

That's the difference. A club can refuse another club permission if they haven't gone through the right channels and made an official request.

In our example Hull did approach DRFC officially, albeit slightly after they had mentioned it to the local press, but crucially before they spoke to GM. We had no choice but to inform GM that Hull were interested.
 

I fully understand the point where we must tell the manager of another clubs interest
The point I don’t understand is why we must allow him to speak to the club when he is under contract with us, we don’t have to allow players to leave if they want to.
That’s my only point

how would you stop them thou mate,if you have a contract at work and you find a better job you would hand your notice in and leave, if a manager wants to go there is very little you can do

[baggie192]

Is this not the issue with types of contracts. If a manager is on a fixed term contract, i.e starts today and finishes 4 years on this date, the only person able to terminate it is the club whether by accepting resignation or agreeing to let him go. If you’re on a rolling 12 month contract then it gives both parties flexibility and either one can end the contract. On a fixed term contract the club are well within their rights to say no. On a flexible contract they are not as it’s not just down to them.

Neil has a 3 year contract He was an early bookies favourite for ours after DM got the spanish archer. he parlayed pne's fear of losing him from a rolling to a fixed 3 year term and a shedload of money. Personally I think Championship is his level and the scutters for a squad on paper worth £75m (thats what Coates has spent in the lst three years) cant see him going there anyway career suicide

[dickos1]

SM
I’m not being disingenuous, I’m attempting to understand the ruling.
It’s common language that is used “ a club has asked for permission to speak with said manager” and also “a club has refused permission for another club to speak with said manager”.

If a manager is under contract how can it be said that they can’t stop their manager leaving? What’s the difference regarding managers as oppose to players who are often told they can’t leave when under contract.
Therefore I can’t see how there’s a ruling which states a manager must be allowed to leave if he showed a desire to do so, it simply cannot be right

dickos, you're jumping from A to D and leaving out the bits in the middle.

For the umpteenth time, the LMA ruling says if a club approaches another club and asks, officially, to speak to their manager then the club has to inform the manager there has been an approach for him. It then follows that the Manager has a right to speak to that club or not, its his choice.

In the Preston example, it was clear that there had been an approach, but not an official one and not through the club itself. Therefore Preston should report Stoke to the EFL and advise Stoke that they don't have permission to speak to their Manager, which is exactly what they did. Why can't you see that?

That's the difference. A club can refuse another club permission if they haven't gone through the right channels and made an official request.

In our example Hull did approach DRFC officially, albeit slightly after they had mentioned it to the local press, but crucially before they spoke to GM. We had no choice but to inform GM that Hull were interested.
 

I fully understand the point where we must tell the manager of another clubs interest
The point I don’t understand is why we must allow him to speak to the club when he is under contract with us, we don’t have to allow players to leave if they want to.
That’s my only point

how would you stop them thou mate,if you have a contract at work and you find a better job you would hand your notice in and leave, if a manager wants to go there is very little you can do

I understand that, but if a player was under contract and got offered a better job he couldn’t just resign and leave

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Why would he, in most cases his new employers would pay adequate compensation by way of a transfer fee!!

However, you must have heard the term “Terminated by mutual consent“ Ali Crawford had his contract terminated so he could move to Bolton.

I'm not really sure what you are contesting now dickos.

[dickos1]

Yes mutual consent means you’re both happy!
Wasn’t the case with us was it?
Managers under contract also need a fee paying for them by means of compensation. But players we can determine if we want them to leave but apparently managers we can’t

[silent majority]

Managers don't work under Bosman rules, it goes with the territory.

[Chris Black come back]

Three pages and counting on some crank conspiracy theory that somehow we are not being told the truth about how McCann left.

[dickos1]

The only conspiracy theory is coming from you old chap.
Only person mentioning our board is you old chap.

Clown