Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Keith Mason's Action


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#21 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 06:43 PM

Until the appeal

They should have sacked him for being rubbish

#22 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,696 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 06:44 PM

I'm not a Keith Mason fan, I thinks he's wasted his talent and never grown up. Good for him though, RL clubs have to behave responsibly even when thy have somebody on the books they don't want anymore.

This should count on Huddersfield's cap too.
The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#23 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 06:49 PM

Why should it count on Huddersfields cap?

Unless he's going to be in the Giants squad.

#24 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,696 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 06:50 PM

Why should it count on Huddersfields cap?

Unless he's going to be in the Giants squad.


Think about it.
The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#25 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,112 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:27 AM

So if Huddersfield are paying the full cap this season, they should be deducted points for breaking the salary cap?

#26 South Wakefield Sharks

South Wakefield Sharks
  • Coach
  • 2,202 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 05:59 AM

No wonder Huddersfield have struggled to become one of the top clubs with decision making like this. Giving Mason a 4 year contract!!! Paying him £95k a year!!!! Sacking him for very spurious reasons!!!!

 

Gee, some smart management there!



#27 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,684 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:21 AM

Why should it count on Huddersfields cap?

Unless he's going to be in the Giants squad.


If it doesn't count then what's to stop a certain club just sacking a player who isn't cutting it, to get them off the cap knowing full well they just need to pay him off at the tribunal.

#28 Spidey

Spidey
  • Coach
  • 452 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:31 AM

No wonder the game is broke paying 95k for an average prop.

...and yes should count on cap. Sets a dangerous precident otherwise

#29 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,939 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:02 AM

It will count on the cap, but spread across the length of his original playing contract.

The figure may yet be higher than reported as it is going to be "at least" £167,000 - the judge will now consider the original value of Mason's contract and offset what he can reasonably expect to earn elsewhere within that same timescale and award an amount which brings his earnings back into line with the original contract. Plus there may be compensatory awards on top of the loss of earnings.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#30 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,145 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:08 AM

if it counts to the salary cap, then maybe it salary. if its salary,then logically, Mason will have to pat tax and NI.  if he doesn't , then maybe its not salary, so not part of the cap. Anyway, there is sure to be an appeal.



#31 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,939 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:24 AM

 

if it counts to the salary cap, then maybe it salary. if its salary,then logically, Mason will have to pat tax and NI.  if he doesn't , then maybe its not salary, so not part of the cap. Anyway, there is sure to be an appeal.



I'm almost certain that there will not be an appeal against the decision. Unlike other areas of law, Employment Tribunal decisions can only be appealed on very narrow points of law criteria - i.e. you have to demonstrate that the judge applied the law incorrectly and specifically identify how they did so. Less than 1% of Employment Tribunal appeals are successful.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#32 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,868 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:55 AM

It will count on the cap, but spread across the length of his original playing contract.

The figure may yet be higher than reported as it is going to be "at least" £167,000 - the judge will now consider the original value of Mason's contract and offset what he can reasonably expect to earn elsewhere within that same timescale and award an amount which brings his earnings back into line with the original contract. Plus there may be compensatory awards on top of the loss of earnings.

I'd have thought it would be lower.  Isn't it normally for the loss of earnings part that the tribunal panel look at what they'd award minus what they're earning now within the contract period, this is to reflect that they're still earning and he's not really losing the entire contract value in real terms, undue enrichment is the term I believe.  If I'm unfairly sacked from a £100k job but get another straight away for £90k then I'm normally awarded £10k per year for the relevant period claimed.

 

Then they look at compensation, if there's malice or even clear arrogance in the dismissal then compensation can stretch but not beyond £60k or so, even without malice there'll probably be a smaller payout of some kind.

 

I'm used to seeing employment tribunals be stingy, even in open and shut cases, essentially telling people to get on with it and get a job with under a year's payout.  The case must have been pretty devastating for him to be given the full whack without credit being applied for his current earnings.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#33 Southstander13

Southstander13
  • Coach
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:57 AM

Good point, a good D&O polocy would have this covered.

 

Not necessarily as D&O policies wouldnt respond to this.

 

They would need EPL cover (Employment Practices Liability) which would provide the cover they would need for a claim such as this.  

 

Some D&O policies now throw in an element of EPL cover, usually a percentage of the D&O limit itself, but this isnt yet standard across all insurers and should really be something that is taken out specifically rather than hoping that its thrown in as an extension to a D&O policy.



#34 SE4Wire

SE4Wire
  • Coach
  • 659 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:12 AM

Not necessarily as D&O policies wouldnt respond to this.

They would need EPL cover (Employment Practices Liability) which would provide the cover they would need for a claim such as this.

Some D&O policies now throw in an element of EPL cover, usually a percentage of the D&O limit itself, but this isnt yet standard across all insurers and should really be something that is taken out specifically rather than hoping that its thrown in as an extension to a D&O policy.


I'm sure everyone else finds this really interesting...

Was aware of that, done a bit of D&O and EPL broking in the past.

Point was it is a fairly common insurance that would cover this, albeit one that is generally undervalued and surprisingly frequently not bought. Hope they didn't decide against it in a cost cutting exercise.

#35 Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior
  • Coach
  • 5,142 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:20 AM

the door is open now for every player released mid contract to seek financial recompense from his club. he got fixed up with a club that takes other clubs rejects (ben davies, jamie ellis) so he should be happy.
"Why is Napoleon crying ?" said one sailor to the other, "poor ###### thinks he's being exiled to st helens" came the reply.



https://scontent-a-l...276002364_n.jpg

#36 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,868 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:25 AM

Moved from the wrong thread where I probably confused people by posting it:

 

At least the poor lawyers have been compensated for their efforts, £35k awarded as costs against Huddersfield.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#37 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,939 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:12 AM

 

I'd have thought it would be lower.  Isn't it normally for the loss of earnings part that the tribunal panel look at what they'd award minus what they're earning now within the contract period, this is to reflect that they're still earning and he's not really losing the entire contract value in real terms, undue enrichment is the term I believe.  If I'm unfairly sacked from a £100k job but get another straight away for £90k then I'm normally awarded £10k per year for the relevant period claimed.
 
Then they look at compensation, if there's malice or even clear arrogance in the dismissal then compensation can stretch but not beyond £60k or so, even without malice there'll probably be a smaller payout of some kind.


Mason had 37 months left to run on a contract worth £95k per year, which works out at £293k potential earnings. Since then he has been employed by Castleford on a contract worth ~£42k per year. It is only a 1 year deal, but assuming he earned the same for the next 2 years then his earnings would be £126k for the period of his original Huddersfield contract. Therefore, £293k less £126k equals the £167k quoted figure.

But that is just the loss of earnings part. The judge then has the option of awarding additional amounts for the actual unfair dismissal and extra compensation if he believes the claimant was victimised or discriminated against.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#38 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,868 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:14 AM

 

Mason had 37 months left to run on a contract worth £95k per year, which works out at £293k potential earnings. Since then he has been employed by Castleford on a contract worth ~£42k per year. It is only a 1 year deal, but assuming he earned the same for the next 2 years then his earnings would be £126k for the period of his original Huddersfield contract. Therefore, £293k less £126k equals the £167k quoted figure.

But that is just the loss of earnings part. The judge then has the option of awarding additional amounts for the actual unfair dismissal and extra compensation if he believes the claimant was victimised or discriminated against.

Ah OK, I didn't know he was on that low a salary at Cas.  It's not exactly a lot for someone in a position as physically demanding as prop and with a fairly short career.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#39 South Wakefield Sharks

South Wakefield Sharks
  • Coach
  • 2,202 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:20 PM

Ah OK, I didn't know he was on that low a salary at Cas.  It's not exactly a lot for someone in a position as physically demanding as prop and with a fairly short career.

 

£42k is still way over the top for Keith Mason. If I had to have him in my team, I'd be reluctant to pay anything in excess of the statutory minimum wage!



#40 Just Browny

Just Browny
  • Coach
  • 11,755 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:19 PM

Ah OK, I didn't know he was on that low a salary at Cas.  It's not exactly a lot for someone in a position as physically demanding as prop and with a fairly short career.


Have you ever seen Mason play? He usually gives three penalties away in the first twenty minutes, tries to pick on someone half his size, gets belted by someone twice his size and then skulks off with a face like a smacked ######.

42k is plenty.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users