Corky said:No one gets sacked without warning without and no complaint. Also if you are then you are entitled to compensation. Denying that hughes is right to receive compensation makes the OP look vendictive.
"branding was for slaves and cattle" is a fairly nasty piece of over-dramatic rhetoric. if the heart and soul of this club extend beyond the brand, fair enough, but let's not pretend that having advertising on the shirt forfeits our human rights.Cook should learn tha Manchester City is not a brand. Branding was for slaves and cattle, despite how we get treated at some away matches, we are neither.
pure conspiracy theory. evidence or...... have another drink and keep 'em coming ;)The fact is that Mancini had only just been paid off by Inter two months earlier, and the marketing men just waited for the next loss to appoint him. This is depsite the target of 6th and the 'new secret target' of 70 points still being easily achievable.
skinhead123 said:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6967062.ece?
cooks at it again he must be odds on for the boot
Cook’s latest controversial comments have landed him in hot water with the Liverpool hierarchy, who have refused to comment. Privately, they have not been impressed by Cook’s outburst and are likely to regard it as a smokescreen after the sacking of Mark Hughes and subsequent appointment of Mancini as City manager
Corky said:Bizzbo you are very igronant.
He will be paid out or sue for loss of earnings, if he doesn't agree a payout City willjust have to carry on paying him. Unfair Dismissal would not be used, and if it was he would have them straight away, as no proceedure was followed (for example 3 warnings etc).
Mancini has recently just been paid out which is a fact. He was still getting paid of Inter, so was only just available.
We were in 6th so on target. You can loo at last seasons points and how they were picked up at a higher rate as the season progressed too.
Plus a lot of City fans cringe at the 'brand', and the 'project' for that matter. Words out of touch with football.
bizzbo said:Corky said:Bizzbo you are very igronant.
He will be paid out or sue for loss of earnings, if he doesn't agree a payout City willjust have to carry on paying him. Unfair Dismissal would not be used, and if it was he would have them straight away, as no proceedure was followed (for example 3 warnings etc).
Mancini has recently just been paid out which is a fact. He was still getting paid of Inter, so was only just available.
We were in 6th so on target. You can loo at last seasons points and how they were picked up at a higher rate as the season progressed too.
Plus a lot of City fans cringe at the 'brand', and the 'project' for that matter. Words out of touch with football.
nah, i'm not ignorant. unfair dismissal has been mooted. he's on a contract that bears no resemblance whatsoever to yours or mind. severance clauses will be central to it. 3 warnings for a premiership manager is quite a funny thought tho.
mancini was perhaps only available recently (depending on who you believe), but that doesnt justify your theory that they waited for a bad result.
6th or 70 points. it appears that it wasn't a case of 'which ever is lower'.
and project, yep I hate that one, brand, sort of. to be fair the heirachy never use them any more. so I don't see why you are throwing them at cook .
Corky said:Mooted? No one ever goes for that, he is entitiled to full value, unless there are severance clauses, death, disgrace etc.
However when he signed it, it was spring 2008. There were no top four aspirartions, no high expectations. The contract stayed the same, there may be a relegation clause, but in top 6 with a fixed term contract he will have to be paid up. He can just do what Mancini was doing otherwise.
Didsbury Dave said:3 warnings, fucking hell....! He was a football manager, not a bloody wagon driver.
There was a whole thread yesterday discussing whether Hughes was going to sue for Constructive Dismissal. Jesus wept.