Exiled Wiganer

I hope Paisley gets a game. He looks a great talent. Wane is harsh on Woods, but I think that is because he sees a genuine thinking half back of high quality. Should be a good game, and I think we will be fine, as last week showed we have got Wane's departure out of the system. Cas' missing players look just as key as ours, so, while the international call ups clearly leave us depleted, they could well have done the same to Cas if they had everyone fit. I hope our fans bring plenty of change for the bucket collection at half time.

As Cas see Wigan as all high n mighty they may well see this grubby cash grab as something any socialist would applaud?

As it happens that wasn't directed to your fellow codder (is that the correct term?).

Everyone is welcome on this thread.

Judging by the vote a major shock, but there is little between these 2 sides. FC had too many key men missing. I thought it might take another week or so for us to process the shock of Wane leaving but looks like we are back on it now. We did at least sell Joel to HKR, so we have done FC one favour this week.

It is actually a worrying stance to take. Did anyone sue Carney, or Barba, or Chase? Is this the sort of thing that is likely to help a troubled person? We are constantly told how we need to consider player welfare - Cas sacked him and now sue him, which as far as I know is a first for a league club. This isn’t someone doing a Solomona it is someone who went off the rails. It is entirely motivated by a wish to get cash from Wigan, and with complete disregard to the potential toll it could take on Hardaker. I am glad that Wigan went down a different route with Hock, and hope that Hardaker gets good advice and strong support.

Don’t we just need to remind ourselves what worked in Australia? That style seemed pretty effective. We have had a break to adjust to Wane’s departure and I see no reason why we won’t go as well as we were before then. In which case these are 2 really good and well matched sides...

Of course they are not idiotic, though it is hard to judge multiple dimensions with one eye closed. There is a moral point - in what circumstances is it proportionate to sue somebody whom you have chosen to sack. This is not like Solomona, who walked away, this was someone they dismissed. A troubled young man whom they dismissed, and who they are now suing in anticipation of his wigan pay packet. You may be entirely comfortable with that, certainly your club is comfortable with that, but it is well within the realms of normal to raise an eyebrow.

Of course they do, but that is true to form.

Mutu’s case seems to have been under FIFA rules. I could only find the appeal, rather than the original decision at first glance, annoyingly. Those rules may say something about transfer fees explicitly. As authority for an English law employment contract though it isn’t obviously a direct read across. When I last looked at contract law, the courts would look at the contract’s wording and make sense of the deal that the 2 parties made. I can see that the transfer fee must be a factor in Cas’ annoyance, and so they may run an argument that they deserve more than under the contract. And they may well win, I suppose - I don’t know what the contract says. It took a long time to reach that position in Mutu’s case, and so I doubt it is as simple as issuing an invoice to him for him to pay within 28 days. And seems to have done nothing but cause him personal misery, which might be part of Cas’ motivation here.

I am still struggling to see the cause of action here - if you want to make a claim against someone in addition to sacking them, would it not make sense to make that express in the contract? If the contract says - if you do X we will sack you, then that of course deals with the particular circumstances here, but I am assuming that is not so. Seeking damages for having to get a replacement seems a stretch... There is also an element of caveat emptor, in his case.

We need to avoid giving away the first 11 penalties this year...

Assuming for now that Hardaker cannot argue that the contract itself adequately sets out the punishment for his actions, as he had already ensured Cas would qualify for the Grand Final, what was their loss exactly. They get to stop paying him and he loses the right to be paid. I suppose it could be linked to any transfer fee, but it still looks like double jeopardy with an uncertain quantum of loss to me.

Is this really clear cut though? In that case every employer could sue anyone they sack for gross misconduct couldn’t they. So, they get both to get someone off their books without having to give notice or wait for the contract to end, and get paid for it. The contract does have behaviour clauses, but they also provide a sanction - dismissal - which clearly has a demonstrably adverse affect on the person not getting paid and a benefit to the club not having to pay them. Given Cas’ level of dislike for Wigan, this does not surprise me in the slightest, but I am struggling to see the logic.

Maybe their new coach wanted to know whom he could select, and so they were asked.