He's got to pay Crystal Palace millions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...sed-fraudulent-behaviour-high-court-judgment/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...sed-fraudulent-behaviour-high-court-judgment/
Tony Pulis shown to be disgraceful
- Thread starter cloggypop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I almost instantly doze off when reading anything about Pulis, so I'm probably misunderstanding this. He was contractually entitled to this 'survival bonus,' wasn't he? They said 'If you keep us up, we'll give you £2m,' and he duly kept them up.
So while he certainly deserves a massive bollocking for asking for it to be paid earlier than agreed, and seemingly lying about why it was needed earlier than agreed, I don't get why that in itself results in him being told to pay it back. He didn't deceive them to earn the bonus, he deceived them to get it paid a bit earlier than planned.
As I say, reading about Pulis is even worse than watching his teams play, so I guess I've missed something. But it all seems a bit contentious. I mean, clubs often say they've got total faith in a manager, give him a vote of confidence and then sack him a few days later, when it becomes apparent that they've been negotiating with his successor for weeks. That's not 'fraudulent' but it's surely dishonest enough to encourage a high degree of cynicism among managers in how they look after themselves.
So while he certainly deserves a massive bollocking for asking for it to be paid earlier than agreed, and seemingly lying about why it was needed earlier than agreed, I don't get why that in itself results in him being told to pay it back. He didn't deceive them to earn the bonus, he deceived them to get it paid a bit earlier than planned.
As I say, reading about Pulis is even worse than watching his teams play, so I guess I've missed something. But it all seems a bit contentious. I mean, clubs often say they've got total faith in a manager, give him a vote of confidence and then sack him a few days later, when it becomes apparent that they've been negotiating with his successor for weeks. That's not 'fraudulent' but it's surely dishonest enough to encourage a high degree of cynicism among managers in how they look after themselves.
That seems weird. 'If you keep us up we'll give you £2m, provided you're still here on the 31st'? The bonus should be dependent on avoiding relegation, surely? I don't understand why a manager would agree to the time frame when anything can happen after a season ends. The club seem a bit shambolic here. Would they still have been obliged to pay it if they sacked him before that date?
- Status