Osborn gone

['Doc' Pace my hero]

I am delighted If it is our prospective new owners that have influenced this decision,if so then we may have people who run the club who know something about football for a change.

 

[Ginger Gnome]

I am delighted If it is our prospective new owners that have influenced this decision,if so then we may have people who run the club who know something about football for a change.

unless they're so broke that they can't even afford Osborn's wages.

 

[derbysufc]

Heading to derby County, he's a spondon lad , I work with his best mate.

 

[blackydog]

This takeover is closer to the finish line than months away my friend

I'm hearing that too, but very second, third, fourth hand.

 

[UddersBlade]

Well if true ….there we have it. The hysteria about us not taking up a 1 year option to his contract is more likely a mutual agreement between us & Ben so he can join the club he supports. Makes perfect sense. I actually think now it has absolutely nothing to do with new owner intervention.

Still does not wholly explain why we have not announced the full Retained List.

 

[TJ blade]

I am delighted If it is our prospective new owners that have influenced this decision,if so then we may have people who run the club who know something about football for a change.

We can't be that lucky mate sorry..

 

[LJBlade]

Mebbes he got a better offer - after we were negotiating him down on the extension?

That’s not how it works.

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

That’s not how it works.

It's exactly how it works. The club having an option to trigger an extension is not binding. News flash, options are optional.

 

[LJBlade]

It's exactly how it works. The club having an option to trigger an extension is not binding. News flash, options are optional.

Options are completely optional, I agree. Negotiating that option after the fact isn’t though.

 

[dexter101]

It's exactly how it works. The club having an option to trigger an extension is not binding. News flash, options are optional.

I always thought the option was binding! As in, if the club want to trigger it, its an extension to the existing contract so the terms are the same for 1 more year. so neither party is negotiating anything and the player has to go along with it, if triggered. I'm not disagreeing with you, just confirming that every day is a school day for me!

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

Options are completely optional, I agree. Negotiating that option after the fact isn’t though.

What fact? Did Ozzy sign and renege? Did the club activate his one year extension and then pay Ozzy off after a change of heart?

Wilder said recently Ozzy was staying for next season. I doubt Ozzy was at fault and got paid off.

 

[LJBlade]

What fact? Did Ozzy sign and renege? Did the club activate his one year extension and then pay Ozzy off after a change of heart?

Wilder said recently Ozzy was staying for next season. I doubt Ozzy was at fault and got paid off.

The details of the optional year will have been negotiated at the start. Hence, those details then can’t be negotiated after the fact.

 

[Sean Thornton]

It's exactly how it works. The club having an option to trigger an extension is not binding. News flash, options are optional.

I believe most football contracts of this type are UEC’s. Which give one party, normally the club, the right to extend. The other party does not have to agree.

Maybe you know better?

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

The details of the optional year will have been negotiated at the start. Hence, those details then can’t be negotiated after the fact.

You know that for a fact?
As said, optional is a choice. Ozzy or the club have every right to reject that choice depending on the current circumstances.

 

[LJBlade]

You know that for a fact?
As said, optional is a choice. Ozzy or the club have every right to reject that choice depending on the current circumstances.

Yes I do.

I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying. I agree that Ozzy or the club have every right to reject the choice. The details of that choice however will have been negotiated right at the start of the deal. The club can’t choose to take up the optional year and then negotiate the details after the fact.

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

Yes I do.

I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying. I agree that Ozzy or the club have every right to reject the choice. The details of that choice however will have been negotiated right at the start of the deal. The club can’t choose to take up the optional year and then negotiate the details after the fact.

Ozzy or the club have every right to reject that choice depending on the current circumstances.

 

[LJBlade]

Ozzy or the club have every right to reject that choice depending on the current circumstances.

I get that. I don’t understand your point.

 

[Sean Thornton]

You know that for a fact?
As said, optional is a choice. Ozzy or the club have every right to reject that choice depending on the current circumstances.

You know how his contract is worded then?

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

I get that. I don’t understand your point.

I don't understand that you don't understand my point. Pretty simple really for a reasonable person.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Ozzy or the club have every right to reject that choice depending on the current circumstances.

Ahem.

“Unilateral extension clauses (UECs) are contractual clauses that give one party to a contract the exclusive right to extend the employment relationship with the other party. Unlike reciprocal clauses - where both parties need to agree to the extension - UECs do not require both parties to consent to activating the clause. In the context of football, we often see UECs in favour of football clubs in employment contracts between players and clubs”



Bit more to contract law than Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I get that. I don’t understand your point.

That’s unlikely to be the case so his point is likely to be incorrect.

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

You know how his contract is worded then?

The club had an option apparently, one they took and then didn't.

Not seen the contract, have you? Even if you have it's pretty obvious it is not binding.

 

[LJBlade]

I don't understand that you don't understand my point. Pretty simple really for a reasonable person.

Look back at the comment I disagreed with.

The extra year is optional, to either the club or Ozzy (depending on the details). One, or both of them, have the option to say no to the extra year. They can’t decide to change the terms of the agreement i.e. the club can’t choose to pay Ozzy 50% less than what he’d been on before. If they want to negotiate a different deal then that is a different deal, and isn’t part of the agreement.

 

[Sean Thornton]

The club had an option apparently, one they took and then didn't.

Not seen the contract, have you? Even if you have it's pretty obvious it is not binding.

Obviously not but l’m actually basing what l’m saying on actual contract law on options which will have been agreed when the main contract was signed. Whereas you are just applying contract 101 saying both need to agree. Despite information on football contracts from a lawyer being posted, which is clearly beyond your ken.

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

Obviously not but l’m actually basing what l’m saying on actual contract law on options which will have been agreed when the main contract was signed. Whereas you are just applying contract 101 saying both need to agree. Despite information on football contracts from a lawyer being posted, which is clearly beyond your ken.

So what happened to Ozzy then? Please explain for the the fans not worthy of your knowledge.

 

[Sean Thornton]

So what happened to Ozzy then? Please explain for the the fans not worthy of your knowledge.

Are you okay?

Not having seen the contract l don’t know. I’m relying on experts, which you seem to be struggling with preferring your own ill educated opinion.

Whatever the situation, your claim that the contract - which one btw? - is not binding, is clearly nonsense.

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

Are you okay?

Not having seen the contract l don’t know. I’m relying on experts, which you seem to be struggling with preferring your own ill educated opinion.

Whatever the situation, your claim that the contract - which one btw? - is not binding, is clearly nonsense.

Experts

You still believe in experts?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Experts

You still believe in experts?

Aah. I’ve seen your tin foil hat posts. You’re effectively quoting contract law yourself but as a non expert. Right.

Do you dress in combat fatigues and identify as a freeman, but with a driving licence and insurance

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

Aah. I’ve seen your tin foil hat posts. You’re effectively quoting contract law yourself but as a non expert. Right.

Do you dress in combat fatigues and identify as a freeman, but with a driving licence and insurance

Nah, none of that, how's the therapy going?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Nah, none of that, how's the therapy going?

Your mum gives a lovely massage, so good thanks Tucker.



No rebuttal Rumpole?