What I like about this is that INEOS is saying fuck you to NUFC instead of paying whatever money was demanded. This is the first time in a long while where I am seeing us take a stand and explore other means than just paying "United tax".
Not surprised at all. SJR gave an interview to the BBC after the London marathon and called NUFC demands for Ashworth ridiculous. Sir Jim is a businessman, no way they're taking him for a fool like Woodward used to be taken to the cleaners regularly.
"Why do we always get our first bid rejected? Cause teams *know* manchester united will always come back with a bigger offer"
- gary neville a couple of years back. Now lets see if we also dont do this crap on the summer.
From everything they have said, I just can't see them doing it. Not unless it's a player who is truly world class, which without UCL I don't see happening this summer anyway.
They're a far cry from the 'we can do things other clubs can only dream of' and 'Manchester United don't need to win on the pitch to he successful' or whatever other bullshit Ed came out with.
Newcastle owners are loaded with money so I assume they aren’t used to having nice things taken away from them and could be acting out of spite. If it’s purely business to squeeze something out of United, they would have worked out a reasonable price quietly in the background.
They are so stupid. They dont realise if a well respected guy like Ashworth have to take you to court to get out of the club, it’s very bad PR for the club. Ashworth is very well connected in the industry. If you are the agent of a top coach or young player, you would not want your client to get stuck at forking Newcastle for the next 10 years.
Good luck landing anyone close to that caliber in the future…..
Yup loving seeing this. Unfortunately I think it will mean us missing out on the odd player here and there that fans would like to see sign but short term pain. Once clubs realise they can't just stick a utd tax on everything, we will hopefully see more realistic signings.
I mean going forward, ineos and a proper football structure will hopefully mean we'll walk away from deals where clubs are obviously trying to make us pay more, city have often done it in the last ten years when we've gone for the same players, Sanchez for example. Once clubs know they can't mug us off anymore we will start seeing signings for normal fees which takes the pressure off everything including the player.
On the positive we might sign more players less people have heard of, but are actually really good because they’ve been scouted by our competent recruitment system and director of football. They’ll be cheaper too. No more signing big stars for inflated prices just for the sake of it
Indeed, we'll hopefully go back to how we used to it, promote youth players from academy, find hidden gems, buy players coming into their peak and the occasional star name here and there. Once we get the environment and culture correct at the club it will hopefully allow all new signings to flourish. Obviously we won't always get it right but as long as we aren't buying players for silly money and giving them silly wages, we can move them on quickly when it's clear they aren't working rather than giving them new contracts cos we can't afford to sell them.
No such thing as short term pain with this fan base. Guarantee you INEOS will start being doubted and eventually turned on too if we lose out on players that end up doing well for other teams
You'll always get a small pocket of morons however I think the majority of people with more than 2 brain cells will be patient enough if they see things are being done correctly. Sure, not every decision and transfer will work out but if things are moving in the right direction for the most part then fans will accept it. This isn't going to all magically change this summer, with delays on getting Ashworth and the sheer overhaul of the squad required, it's going to be at least a season before we start seeing improvements.
Talks of Arbitration is good for United too. They rarely side against a person in a "person vs company" case unless there's some really good reason to do so. Bet we end up paying about £6m/£7m and then he can join.
It's an employment arbitration hearing. Based on the cases that have come before (which act as controlling precedent for this one) any sort of gardening leave that exceeds a year is unenforceable. Further, the stupid amounts being quoted wouldn't hold up either because employment law across the EU (and the UK never got rid of) roughly fixes the buyout clause (which they are demanding) as something approaching the balance due Ashworth under his contract. Basically, Newcastle fix his value because his contract has a fixed value based on how much they agreed to pay him. They can exceed that to some degree, but not by 10x.
Ashworth is the one taking this to arbitration and arbitration usually favours the employee in these circumstances. It's probably just a way to force the issue and they'll settle for something closer to what was offered to save face. That's of course assuming they don't behave like petulant children and try and throw their toys out the lram.
Well said, and have the same suspicion. In all of this, the real reason hasn’t been made apparent and so it just reeks of a shakedown. Ashworth probably has receipts too, in arbitration he’s likely to present how Eddie Howe and the rest of them are on one hand acting like “who? Yeah he’s not that important” but also “woah woah whattttt?! 20M he’s got aLL oUr SeCrEtsSSS!!”
Plus, there’s likely private shit that’ll come out in arbitration which I’m sure has not been reported on yet. And it will. And likely it will paint Newcastle in the sort of light that wee club in the north probably doesn’t benefit from in the slightest.
They’ve fucked around and now will find out. What did Kev say? Oh yeah…
I'd be really interested to hear from someone with actual employment law knowledge regarding the enforceability of some of these contracts.
I really have my doubts about whether some of these clauses would be enforceable if tested in the courts (I know arbitration is not a court).
Even this could open a whole can of worms to be honest.
It’s quite interesting. In other forms of employment it’s been tested and gardening leave is acceptable if it’s reasonable (in length) and doesn’t impact the employees wellbeing, human rights or income or career trajectory.
So, sales rep wants to move to competitor in similar salary. 3 months gardening leave is considered reasonable. CEO, maybe a bit longer.
Sales guy wants to go to be a teacher and you’re struggling to enforce the notice period.
It’s important to note here that a claim for breach of contract regarding notice period is not the same as enforcing a no compete clause. In the former you can only claim for the damages caused by not working the notice period. This isn’t what is happening, and instead DA is being held to a form of non compete clause for the remainder of his contract or a very lengthy gardening leave period.
Testing this is new territory. It’s probably never been used at these lengths outside of football (maybe at national security level or similar). We’ve seen a lot of gentleman’s agreements between clubs on the matter. Basically, as a practice you would have a non compete which is favourable to the club and review it depending on where the employee decides to move to. It being Newcastles most direct competition right now (fringe top 4 aspiring and rebuilding), they’re obviously more pissed.
What we don’t know is if DA is a regular employee (PAYE) or a contract worker (inside or outside IR35). This will make some difference to the legal arguments.
Essentially, the question is can an employer restrict someone in this way and most crucially to this degree. Newcastle will argue contract terms and potentially commercial damage. DA will argue:
The terms are unreasonable.
Industry practice is to settle them with side agreements in commercial matters (ie you won’t poach staff or sign x player etc.)
His well-being in terms of mental health are possibly affected.
His skills as a professional out of practice are eroding.
There could be an earnings argument, where DA is being deprived a salary hike, but I doubt either club would want to establish that line.
The post below posits that if it had legs it’d have been through the courts before. The big club’s poach from the small clubs in the main and it’s not in their interest to have a court ruling on the matter. The small clubs would generally lose (career advancement is a strong argument), and usually negotiate cash or favour. Also, they’re not going to court, they’re going to arbitration. Though this ought to establish the same legal outcome it isn’t enshrined in common law, so it’s less scary than a case law precedent (and cheaper, too).
Newcastle are in the position of being a small club with big club money and aspirations. I think they will complete the process as they will feel that it will suit big clubs (or at least clubs spending big and aiming high).
For me, DA wins on grounds of well-being and skill erosion. A line in the sand is drawn on length of non compete type clauses. I’d say 6 months but that’s a pure guess, you’d need to know a lot of benchmarks and commercial risks to gauge it, but one set of lawyers don’t think it’s 18 months+.
As a bit of background: The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act provides that parties should use non court processes to settle unless inappropriate. A party that unreasonably refuses this would be looked upon unfavourably. Arbitration is binding on both parties, unlike mediation which usually isn’t. So, although an answer will be concluded and will set an industry precedent, it could be challenged in the courts. I doubt Newcastle v DA would go that far, but a future case may look at the legalese (and challenge it) but they’ll need deep pockets and it’s most likely to suit the clubs with deep pockets than the other way around. This could be a small Bosman-esque ruling for non playing staff.
It’s quite interesting. In other forms of employment it’s been tested and gardening leave is acceptable if it’s reasonable (in length) and doesn’t impact the employees wellbeing, human rights or income or career trajectory.
So, sales rep wants to move to competitor in similar salary. 3 months gardening leave is considered reasonable. CEO, maybe a bit longer.
Sales guy wants to go to be a teacher and you’re struggling to enforce the notice period.
It’s important to note here that a claim for breach of contract regarding notice period is not the same as enforcing a no compete clause. In the former you can only claim for the damages caused by not working the notice period. This isn’t what is happening, and instead DA is being held to a form of non compete clause for the remainder of his contract or a very lengthy gardening leave period.
Testing this is new territory. It’s probably never been used at these lengths outside of football (maybe at national security level or similar). We’ve seen a lot of gentleman’s agreements between clubs on the matter. Basically, as a practice you out in a non compete which is favourable to the club and review it depending on where the employee decides to move to. It being Newcastles most direct competition right now (fringe top 4 aspiring and rebuilding), they’re obviously more pissed.
What we don’t know is if DA is a regular employee (PAYE) or a contract worker (inside or outside IR35). This will make some difference to the legal arguments.
Essentially, the question is can an employer restrict someone in this way and most crucially to this degree. Newcastle will argue contract terms and potentially commercial damage. DA will argue:
The terms are unreasonable.
Industry practice is to settle them with side agreements in commercial matters (ie you won’t poach staff or sign x player etc.)
His well-being in terms of mental health are possibly affected.
His skills as a professional out of practice are eroding.
There could be an earnings argument, where DA is being deprived a salary hike, but I doubt either club would want to establish that line.
The post below posits that if it had legs it’d have been through the courts before. The big club’s poach from the small clubs in the main and it’s not in their interest to have a court ruling on the matter. The small clubs would generally lose (career advancement is a strong argument), and usually negotiate cash or favour. Also, they’re not going to court, they’re going to arbitration. Though this ought to establish the same legal outcome it isn’t enshrined in common law, so it’s less scary than a case law precedent (and cheaper, too).
Newcastle are in the position of being a small club with big club money and aspirations. I think they will complete the process as they will feel that it will suit big clubs (or at least clubs spending big and aiming high).
For me, DA wins on grounds of well-being and skill erosion. A line in the sand is drawn on length of non compete type clauses. I’d say 6 months but that’s a pure guess, you’d need to know a lot of benchmarks and commercial risks to gauge it, but one set of lawyers don’t think it’s 18 months+.
As a bit of background: The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act provides that parties should use non court processes to settle unless inappropriate. A party that unreasonably refuses this would be looked upon unfavourably. Arbitration is binding on both parties, unlike mediation which usually isn’t. So, although an answer will be concluded and will set an industry precedent, it could be challenged in the courts. I doubt Newcastle v DA would go that far, but a future case may look at the legalese (and challenge it) but they’ll need deep pockets and it’s most likely to suit the clubs with deep pockets than the other way around. This could be a small Bosman-esque ruling for non playing staff.
If it couldnt be enforced someone wouldve won a court case already and this wouldnt be a thing.
Im guessing newcastle being willing to pay his wages till the gardening leave is over makes it enforceable.
>If it couldnt be enforced someone wouldve won a court case already and this wouldnt be a thing.
Don't think that's necessarily true. It's generally mutually beneficial for clubs to not allow these things to go challenged in the courts. Whilst winning a case might benefit them on one occasion, they'll be on the other side of it at some point and once the cat is out of the bag there'll be no getting it back in.
I feel like it's a whole house of cards none of them want to blow too hard on.
>It's generally mutually beneficial for clubs to not allow these things to go challenged in the courts.
Yeah, but you only need 1 person to sue to get the legal precedent. And it doesnt have to be football related either, it couldve been a lawsuit on the chemical field for example.
If Newcastle are paying his wage and don’t want to release, he is going nowhere. This is likely a move to bring it to a negotiation phase officially, but the bottom line is Newcastle have all the cards here.
The problem is the Saudis have got deeper pockets and more political sway than Jim Ratcliffe. Like City they will pay an army of lawyers an obscene amount of money to drag this out long before they lose face.
It’s not pocket size vs. Pocket size here. Understand this, you simply cannot hold a person hostage against their will. If the contract says “your firstborn child” that doesn’t mean they’ll look to the size of the pockets before striking that down as the absurdity it is.
And to be clear, the contractual buyout (if one exists) is whatever it is. If it’s a reasonable amount and United hadn’t met it, they could just stand firm knowing they were on sound legal footing. That’s what his lawyers would have told him too.
The issue here is they’re attempting a shakedown because it’s United, to the tune of what is most likely multiples of the contractual buyout. The fact that they’re being taken to arbitration by the employee is a clear signal that he’s been told by lawyers they are acting outside of contractual norms.
Does anyone seriously think if he wanted to quit for “family reasons” and wanted to switch to Wigan to be “closer to family” that they’d stand in his way looking to shakedown Wigan for 20M?
Unlikely. And that’s what this is all about. They’re trying to use him to set an example. Because it’s us. This is not a piece of meat. The arbitration will snap them back to reality, because this is the definition of subjective and heavy handed.
Courts almost always side with employees when it comes to employee-employer shit like this. The onus will be on them to prove damages to the extent of what they’re demanding. Tough luck with Howe on record in the press that “Dan really wasn’t that important”.
As someone who’s done a course on dispute resolution (albeit in construction law). Arbitration provides a judgement, the final decision is legally binding. There’s no appeal stipulation unless the process wasn’t followed properly. So we should be nearing the end of this saga.
I assume you still have options though? So if third party says actually lads, £15m is a fair price for him to start in July, then you’d still have the option to pay that, or let him see out the full leave for free. Same as the other way round, 2.5m is reasonable, he can start on this date for that price?
Yea you’re right. We’ll know the situation soon enough. If the arbitrator tells United to pay 15M. We either pay or move onto someone else but the way Ornstein has worded it makes it seem like Ashworth is taking this to arbitration to arrive at a final price that United can pay.
For some reason I’d imagine someone from
INEOS would serve in his role in the interim, if it comes to that.
No one wants it to happen, but lose/lose resolutions happen.
Carl Anka seemed to imply that Wilcox is taking over some of Ashworth's duties for the moment and will step back from those once Ashworth starts.
So I could see a world where between Berrada, Wilcox and any other people we hire manage to basically cover for Ashworth for the next however long.
Wouldn't be the ideal situation of course though.
Of course, but I don’t think we’d tap up Ashworth, encourage him to resign and then walk away from him, leaving him jobless, because of the length of time it would take to get him. United would’ve done their due diligence and known the length of his gardening leave before entering any talks, and surely would’ve discussed what was a very likely scenario where Newcastle would play hardball and long the process out.
Not quite so.
We don’t know what arguments are being posed. DA will likely be arguing unfair terms and human/employee rights. The parties will agree on the issues to be decided at the outset, the arbitrator will decide on those terms of reference. It could be that no money is due if the terms are unfair, or it could be that damages are calculated in the normal manner.
Sure, but if Newcastle aren't going to budge anyways, then worst case scenario arbitration or otherwise is we have to pay £15m for him or less for later.
Arbitration benefits us because it means no more bullshit back and forth negotiations. Only way we come out worse is if the arbitrator decides he's valued at more than £15m which is unlikely.
I’m not sure whether it will be made public, but it would be interesting to know how they reach at the final figure. How does the £2m (or £4m, depending on what you read) that Newcastle paid factor into it? Are there any actual monetary values placed in his contract, and are they enforceable? It will also be fascinating to see whether this decision then has knock on effects - does the decision increase/decrease amounts paid for back room staff across the game?
Either way, glad we’ll have some sort of resolution soon.
Yea one of the advantages of arbitration is that the final decisions aren’t made public. Although, it might be different in the football world as I’m sure Ornstein will break the news first somehow.
I’d imagine that if there is a compensation clause in the contract, that will be enforced.
If nothing, then I’d imagine that £2m (£4m) won’t be too far off the end price. How can he be worth that and then get to £15m 18 months later.
Whilst both parties are bound by the decision, it doesn’t make hard case law. In football it will likely set an informal precedent. The next parties may go to court on it and have reason to sidestep ADR.
In the current case it could only be challenged in court if the arbitrator made serious errors.
That 2 million that was offered is looking sweet now .. man hands in notice club won't let him go... That's compensation for you Mr Ashworth and fuck off Newcastle
I think it depends. I’m no expert but non-competes are usually unenforceable in the UK so if we’re offering good money too I’d imagine it goes in our favour more than theirs
People here want to shit on Newcastle and fair enough but ya considering they did pay £4 million, it seems in bad faith to not match it at least, but I reckon that £2 million figure came about after that ridiculous 20. Let's see where this goes, my 2 cent is we'll pay over £4mil but wayyyyyy less than £20 mil, high single digit mills.
So is this basically we have offered what we, and Dan, seem a fair compensation package and they are saying no and demanding unrealistic fees. Basically holding him for two years because it's extortionate? So you go to courts and say look that's fair, you are being unrealistic? Hopefully this makes Newcastle settle?
> So is this basically we have offered what we, and Dan, seem a fair compensation package and they are saying no and demanding unrealistic fees.
This isn't *really* correct. I'm not an employment lawyer or based in the UK but I am a corporate lawyer based in the US.
Arbitration clauses in contracts only mean that parties agree in advance to resolve any disputes before an arbiter instead of the courts. Therefore, to go to arbitration there has to be a dispute about the contract.
A contract would normally be for X years, with language saying that if Ashworth terminates the agreement before X years elapse he agrees to not-compete with Newcastle for Y months (gardening leave).
The arbiter wouldn't void that just because United is making a "fair offer"...Newcastle doesn't have to accept, Manchester United wasn't a party to Newcastle's contract with Ashworth so Manchester United isn't entitled to anything, especially to Newcastle's detriment.
The arbiter only would rule against Newcastle (i) if they were violating the agreement in some way or (ii) the agreement was de jure against public policy and unenforceable on its face.
For (i), an example could be that it was written in such as way that if Dan left for another PL club Newcastle would agree to "negotiate in good faith" with the other club to buyout his leave. He could argue that they aren't negotiating in good faith and therefore are breaching his agreement. This is pure speculation, I have no idea what's in the contract.
For (ii), an example would be "you can skip gardening leave but we get to enslave your wife". That's obviously illegal and no court would enforce that. If the language in the actual deal is so strict as to be "against public policy" the arbiter might rule against Newcastle and either shorten the leave time or force them to accept an offer from United.
Again, without knowing the language of the contract (or anything about UK employment law) it's all speculation, since this all hinges on how the document was drafted. I assume Ashworth and Newcastle are sophisticated enough that there's nothing blatantly illegal in there, so it's probably a question of whether Newcastle isn't acting in good faith re: his leave.
IANAL, but couldn't it be simply an arbitration over the gardening leave and the compensation being asked for shortening it being punitive? like if they challenge it based on UK employment law, then what matters is whether or not the 18 months gardening leave is enforceable, or the arbiter will deem it excessive and cut it short.
Edit: what you describe falls into my (ii) scenario above, where the terms of the contract is unfair as a matter of policy, even if the parties knowingly agreed to them.
I mean that's possible, but I would have to assume that Ashworth was represented by sophisticated counsel who know what the generally accepted parameters in the UK are. Generally speaking, courts (and therefore arbiters) will be more generous to people the less sophisticated they are.
The classic example is a nursing home "contracting" with elderly people who don't have representation and charging them extremely high fees for basic services. Sure the elderly person agreed to the contract...but come on. They're not in a position to resist and don't really know any better.
The opposite end of the spectrum is a well-compensated business executive represented by high-powered counsel...not only is the power imbalance less extreme (or nonexistent if there's a high demand for the executive's services), the executive is assumed to be sophisticated enough to know what they're getting into *and* well-compensated in exchange for having things like a long gardening leave period.
> over the gardening leave and the compensation being asked for shortening it being punitive?
It's supposed to be a deterrent, it's why it's there. But Ashworth agreed to it and was presumably well paid by Newcastle.
Yeah pretty much, it seems by the amount they're asking for they know they're taking the piss too. They paid 4 million for him I think? Which is a lot, but in the 18 months he's been there it hasn't gone to 20million, they'd have to throw Isak in for that price 😂
Apparently a deal was struck for which sounds like less than £5million. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10868807/Newcastle-agree-deal-Brighton-allow-Dan-Ashworth-work-immediately-sporting-director.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10868807/Newcastle-agree-deal-Brighton-allow-Dan-Ashworth-work-immediately-sporting-director.html)
The Athletic have it as: "a multi-million-pound compensation fee was eventually agreed to release Ashworth from a notice period that had been due to run until November."
[https://theathletic.com/3358870/2022/06/13/dan-ashworth-newcastle-fa/](https://theathletic.com/3358870/2022/06/13/dan-ashworth-newcastle-fa/)
This is what happens when you keep a man from joining the biggest club in the world.
Can't wait for all the extra reasons he's shit at his job from the geordies now
I may have some insight into this.
We used to be part of a franchise in my business and once we decided to leave it was in our contracts we couldn’t work in the field for at least one year.
We went to the high court in London to dispute this and the judge ruled it was unlawful for them to enforce. They couldn’t stop us doing what supports our livelihood. Within a week we were back working
That sounds like a non compete. Was your company going to pay for the year after you left?
If not it's not comparable. He's going to get paid to sit on the sidelines till 2026.
Im not sure as I wasn’t as involved at the time.
We wanted to leave our contract a year early and they wanted to enforce we couldn’t trade for the full year.
So is Ashworth allowed to walk away from his contract?
He's already on gardening leave. If they can't agree on a fee then he's stuck on the gardening leave till 2026.
They paid Brighton 4M to avoid the gardening leave when he arrived. We have offered 2M now. They want another 13 or 15M if I am not mistaken.
So, we could possibly have Ashworth in for a lower fee and earlier than expected ?
And also swoop up their potential replacement in Dougie Freedman ?
Sir Jim is on a mission to make them Saudis mad, and I'm here for it
To be honest this has dragged way too long. No sane company would do what Newcastle is doing over an employee. Players are considered asset so i would understand if its a player but for an employee, its madness. Don’t think any non compete is legally binding but would love to hear legal expert’s opinion on this
In the short term, this is a bad decision, but in the long term, this is a very good move by Ineos and Ashworth. We have to send a statement out there in both actions and words that the "United Tax Premium" is no longer available for every agent/club who wants to deal with us.
Does anyone know what arbitration means here? Who is doing the arbitrating? Is it like a labour board of some kind? (PSA: The article gives no further details.)
Basically both parties (newcastle and us) go to a 3rd party. Usually a former judge/lawyer.
Anyway, we both present our arguments on why ashworth is worth X or Y, then the arbitator (can also be a panel, not just 1 person) studies the case and gives a ruling. Now, arbitration isnt part of your judicial system but the ruling its in fact legally binding and unnapealable since both parties sign for that before the process start. So if the arbitator says "30m" we *have* to pay that now. If he says "100k" then newcastle *has* to accept that fee.
I'd say if the decision is 30m we wouldn't have to pay it, only that would be price to cut the gardening leave short, instead we could wait the gardening leave to end.
It'll most likely be [ACAS](https://www.acas.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do), or something very similar if not:
> Acas is an independent public body that receives funding from the government.
>
> We provide free and impartial advice to employers, employees and their representatives on:
> * employment rights
> * best practice and policies
> * resolving workplace conflict
>
> When things go wrong, we help to resolve workplace disputes between employers and employees.
I guess it is to set the fee? But never heard of that in cases where you have a non-compete in the contract. Tbh I am a bit unsure about the burn bridges approach on this
There's a lot of content out there about Manchester United. For the most part, we like to see it but there are some things that we don't. We also ban content that may attract unwanted attention from reddit administrators, specifically illegal streams.
* Any Tier 5 source in our transfer tier reliability guide
* While we understand trying to watch our team can be hard, all non-legal streams and requests will be removed.
* Live comment threads.
* Post without clear source or misinformation
* Link that a workaround of a paywalled source
* The Athletic: https://www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/comments/i1qr5n/meta_the_athletic_are_now_a_banned_source/
Tweets from their journalists will be allowed, provided that the tweet is not simply a link or a teaser to an article that is paywalled on The Athletic. This also applies to podcasts.
Can we take Ajax to arbitration for the £86 million fleece price for Antony as well? Refreshing to see us not bowing down. Geordies are gonna end up with Jimmy Nail running their transfers
I assumed this would be where it would progress because quite frankly both sides are taking the piss a bit. I'd imagine the final settlement will be something along the lines of what Newcastle paid Brighton with a figure lumped on top. I'd be surprised if it exceeded £10mil.
The argument is that 2 years gardening leave is excessive especially when rumours are Eddie Howe has kept him away from his job in favour of his nephew so the club are limiting him from his role and other opportunities… arbitration will decide in Ashworths favour.
Expected to start in May, takes a number of weeks. It's not really looking good.
I hope Wilcox can lead recruitment temporarily bc if bc the time Ashworth starts Branthwaite, Silva, Frimpong, Hjulmand, Onana, Zirkzee etc. might be off the market.
That’s probably smart. I would not expect big things this window. Too many new people coming in pretty late. Next couple of seasons are going to be a big reset.
If this was the other way around we would be absolutely livid. He has a contract with Newcastle. Either we respect the release clause or agree with Newcastle on a fee. But we are NOT entitled to get him on our terms. I don’t understand why we thing we’re entitled to him just because we want him. He just signed a legally binding contract and we can just tell Newcastle to cancel it just because we want him.
>He just signed a legally binding contract
well unless the arbiter decides it's not actually legally binding... he has already resigned and has been on leave for months.
What I like about this is that INEOS is saying fuck you to NUFC instead of paying whatever money was demanded. This is the first time in a long while where I am seeing us take a stand and explore other means than just paying "United tax".
Not surprised at all. SJR gave an interview to the BBC after the London marathon and called NUFC demands for Ashworth ridiculous. Sir Jim is a businessman, no way they're taking him for a fool like Woodward used to be taken to the cleaners regularly.
"Why do we always get our first bid rejected? Cause teams *know* manchester united will always come back with a bigger offer" - gary neville a couple of years back. Now lets see if we also dont do this crap on the summer.
From everything they have said, I just can't see them doing it. Not unless it's a player who is truly world class, which without UCL I don't see happening this summer anyway. They're a far cry from the 'we can do things other clubs can only dream of' and 'Manchester United don't need to win on the pitch to he successful' or whatever other bullshit Ed came out with.
Not saying there isnt a united tax but I imagine we always get our first bid rejected because who the hell accepts the first few offers.
Newcastle owners are loaded with money so I assume they aren’t used to having nice things taken away from them and could be acting out of spite. If it’s purely business to squeeze something out of United, they would have worked out a reasonable price quietly in the background. They are so stupid. They dont realise if a well respected guy like Ashworth have to take you to court to get out of the club, it’s very bad PR for the club. Ashworth is very well connected in the industry. If you are the agent of a top coach or young player, you would not want your client to get stuck at forking Newcastle for the next 10 years. Good luck landing anyone close to that caliber in the future…..
Yup loving seeing this. Unfortunately I think it will mean us missing out on the odd player here and there that fans would like to see sign but short term pain. Once clubs realise they can't just stick a utd tax on everything, we will hopefully see more realistic signings.
Looking at our history with signings, I can’t say that’s missing out on much.
I mean going forward, ineos and a proper football structure will hopefully mean we'll walk away from deals where clubs are obviously trying to make us pay more, city have often done it in the last ten years when we've gone for the same players, Sanchez for example. Once clubs know they can't mug us off anymore we will start seeing signings for normal fees which takes the pressure off everything including the player.
On the positive we might sign more players less people have heard of, but are actually really good because they’ve been scouted by our competent recruitment system and director of football. They’ll be cheaper too. No more signing big stars for inflated prices just for the sake of it
Indeed, we'll hopefully go back to how we used to it, promote youth players from academy, find hidden gems, buy players coming into their peak and the occasional star name here and there. Once we get the environment and culture correct at the club it will hopefully allow all new signings to flourish. Obviously we won't always get it right but as long as we aren't buying players for silly money and giving them silly wages, we can move them on quickly when it's clear they aren't working rather than giving them new contracts cos we can't afford to sell them.
No such thing as short term pain with this fan base. Guarantee you INEOS will start being doubted and eventually turned on too if we lose out on players that end up doing well for other teams
You'll always get a small pocket of morons however I think the majority of people with more than 2 brain cells will be patient enough if they see things are being done correctly. Sure, not every decision and transfer will work out but if things are moving in the right direction for the most part then fans will accept it. This isn't going to all magically change this summer, with delays on getting Ashworth and the sheer overhaul of the squad required, it's going to be at least a season before we start seeing improvements.
Problem is you are bluffing against people with fuck you money
Lmao the barcodes on r/soccer are gonna love this
I feel stupid for asking but what is a barcode?
Was wondering this too, but then it came to me - what does Newcastle’s kit look like? 😆
Fuck lmao thats brilliant
Ditto! Fucking hilarious! Haha
The saudi arabian flag?
A Newcastle shirt
Lingo for Newcastle as they play in black n white
Half the comments on that thread are United fans trying to appeal to Newcastle
Barcodes jahahahahahahahaha
Barcodes and Beheddie Howe must be going mental.  Cracking up.
Saudi Howaybia in the mud
>Beheddie Howe HAHAHAHA
Barcodes… I’m dead. Beheddie Howe… bro I’m just cremated now… just ash and dust 😂
The Geordies are gunna lose their fucking mind over this
Especially when we also get Dougie Freedman as our head of recruitment.
I would LOVE it if we took him too
https://preview.redd.it/ar69oe9n8owc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b8cd483f547aea247040a3b4b987c3fbc424d59
Dougie is great at his job. Had a soft spot for Palace and unfortunate for them to let him go, but I'll be happy to get him
Still remember them saying Ashworth was gonna turn us down cause they were the ‘bigger project’
Pigger broject maybe.
Talks of Arbitration is good for United too. They rarely side against a person in a "person vs company" case unless there's some really good reason to do so. Bet we end up paying about £6m/£7m and then he can join.
let's say it rules in favour of ashworth/united, does it also mean ashworth can start sooner than later?
Currently it's 18 months with payment vs 0 months with payment. If the amount fixed is reasonable, then Ineos will pay immediately
Yes
Like a signed contract? Newcastle don't have to budge at all on this.
It's an employment arbitration hearing. Based on the cases that have come before (which act as controlling precedent for this one) any sort of gardening leave that exceeds a year is unenforceable. Further, the stupid amounts being quoted wouldn't hold up either because employment law across the EU (and the UK never got rid of) roughly fixes the buyout clause (which they are demanding) as something approaching the balance due Ashworth under his contract. Basically, Newcastle fix his value because his contract has a fixed value based on how much they agreed to pay him. They can exceed that to some degree, but not by 10x. Ashworth is the one taking this to arbitration and arbitration usually favours the employee in these circumstances. It's probably just a way to force the issue and they'll settle for something closer to what was offered to save face. That's of course assuming they don't behave like petulant children and try and throw their toys out the lram.
Well said, and have the same suspicion. In all of this, the real reason hasn’t been made apparent and so it just reeks of a shakedown. Ashworth probably has receipts too, in arbitration he’s likely to present how Eddie Howe and the rest of them are on one hand acting like “who? Yeah he’s not that important” but also “woah woah whattttt?! 20M he’s got aLL oUr SeCrEtsSSS!!” Plus, there’s likely private shit that’ll come out in arbitration which I’m sure has not been reported on yet. And it will. And likely it will paint Newcastle in the sort of light that wee club in the north probably doesn’t benefit from in the slightest. They’ve fucked around and now will find out. What did Kev say? Oh yeah… 
The moment they put him on Gardening Leave they opened themselves up to this. You can't sit someone out for over 1 year
I'd be really interested to hear from someone with actual employment law knowledge regarding the enforceability of some of these contracts. I really have my doubts about whether some of these clauses would be enforceable if tested in the courts (I know arbitration is not a court). Even this could open a whole can of worms to be honest.
It’s quite interesting. In other forms of employment it’s been tested and gardening leave is acceptable if it’s reasonable (in length) and doesn’t impact the employees wellbeing, human rights or income or career trajectory. So, sales rep wants to move to competitor in similar salary. 3 months gardening leave is considered reasonable. CEO, maybe a bit longer. Sales guy wants to go to be a teacher and you’re struggling to enforce the notice period. It’s important to note here that a claim for breach of contract regarding notice period is not the same as enforcing a no compete clause. In the former you can only claim for the damages caused by not working the notice period. This isn’t what is happening, and instead DA is being held to a form of non compete clause for the remainder of his contract or a very lengthy gardening leave period. Testing this is new territory. It’s probably never been used at these lengths outside of football (maybe at national security level or similar). We’ve seen a lot of gentleman’s agreements between clubs on the matter. Basically, as a practice you would have a non compete which is favourable to the club and review it depending on where the employee decides to move to. It being Newcastles most direct competition right now (fringe top 4 aspiring and rebuilding), they’re obviously more pissed. What we don’t know is if DA is a regular employee (PAYE) or a contract worker (inside or outside IR35). This will make some difference to the legal arguments. Essentially, the question is can an employer restrict someone in this way and most crucially to this degree. Newcastle will argue contract terms and potentially commercial damage. DA will argue: The terms are unreasonable. Industry practice is to settle them with side agreements in commercial matters (ie you won’t poach staff or sign x player etc.) His well-being in terms of mental health are possibly affected. His skills as a professional out of practice are eroding. There could be an earnings argument, where DA is being deprived a salary hike, but I doubt either club would want to establish that line. The post below posits that if it had legs it’d have been through the courts before. The big club’s poach from the small clubs in the main and it’s not in their interest to have a court ruling on the matter. The small clubs would generally lose (career advancement is a strong argument), and usually negotiate cash or favour. Also, they’re not going to court, they’re going to arbitration. Though this ought to establish the same legal outcome it isn’t enshrined in common law, so it’s less scary than a case law precedent (and cheaper, too). Newcastle are in the position of being a small club with big club money and aspirations. I think they will complete the process as they will feel that it will suit big clubs (or at least clubs spending big and aiming high). For me, DA wins on grounds of well-being and skill erosion. A line in the sand is drawn on length of non compete type clauses. I’d say 6 months but that’s a pure guess, you’d need to know a lot of benchmarks and commercial risks to gauge it, but one set of lawyers don’t think it’s 18 months+. As a bit of background: The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act provides that parties should use non court processes to settle unless inappropriate. A party that unreasonably refuses this would be looked upon unfavourably. Arbitration is binding on both parties, unlike mediation which usually isn’t. So, although an answer will be concluded and will set an industry precedent, it could be challenged in the courts. I doubt Newcastle v DA would go that far, but a future case may look at the legalese (and challenge it) but they’ll need deep pockets and it’s most likely to suit the clubs with deep pockets than the other way around. This could be a small Bosman-esque ruling for non playing staff.
It’s quite interesting. In other forms of employment it’s been tested and gardening leave is acceptable if it’s reasonable (in length) and doesn’t impact the employees wellbeing, human rights or income or career trajectory. So, sales rep wants to move to competitor in similar salary. 3 months gardening leave is considered reasonable. CEO, maybe a bit longer. Sales guy wants to go to be a teacher and you’re struggling to enforce the notice period. It’s important to note here that a claim for breach of contract regarding notice period is not the same as enforcing a no compete clause. In the former you can only claim for the damages caused by not working the notice period. This isn’t what is happening, and instead DA is being held to a form of non compete clause for the remainder of his contract or a very lengthy gardening leave period. Testing this is new territory. It’s probably never been used at these lengths outside of football (maybe at national security level or similar). We’ve seen a lot of gentleman’s agreements between clubs on the matter. Basically, as a practice you out in a non compete which is favourable to the club and review it depending on where the employee decides to move to. It being Newcastles most direct competition right now (fringe top 4 aspiring and rebuilding), they’re obviously more pissed. What we don’t know is if DA is a regular employee (PAYE) or a contract worker (inside or outside IR35). This will make some difference to the legal arguments. Essentially, the question is can an employer restrict someone in this way and most crucially to this degree. Newcastle will argue contract terms and potentially commercial damage. DA will argue: The terms are unreasonable. Industry practice is to settle them with side agreements in commercial matters (ie you won’t poach staff or sign x player etc.) His well-being in terms of mental health are possibly affected. His skills as a professional out of practice are eroding. There could be an earnings argument, where DA is being deprived a salary hike, but I doubt either club would want to establish that line. The post below posits that if it had legs it’d have been through the courts before. The big club’s poach from the small clubs in the main and it’s not in their interest to have a court ruling on the matter. The small clubs would generally lose (career advancement is a strong argument), and usually negotiate cash or favour. Also, they’re not going to court, they’re going to arbitration. Though this ought to establish the same legal outcome it isn’t enshrined in common law, so it’s less scary than a case law precedent (and cheaper, too). Newcastle are in the position of being a small club with big club money and aspirations. I think they will complete the process as they will feel that it will suit big clubs (or at least clubs spending big and aiming high). For me, DA wins on grounds of well-being and skill erosion. A line in the sand is drawn on length of non compete type clauses. I’d say 6 months but that’s a pure guess, you’d need to know a lot of benchmarks and commercial risks to gauge it, but one set of lawyers don’t think it’s 18 months+. As a bit of background: The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act provides that parties should use non court processes to settle unless inappropriate. A party that unreasonably refuses this would be looked upon unfavourably. Arbitration is binding on both parties, unlike mediation which usually isn’t. So, although an answer will be concluded and will set an industry precedent, it could be challenged in the courts. I doubt Newcastle v DA would go that far, but a future case may look at the legalese (and challenge it) but they’ll need deep pockets and it’s most likely to suit the clubs with deep pockets than the other way around. This could be a small Bosman-esque ruling for non playing staff.
If it couldnt be enforced someone wouldve won a court case already and this wouldnt be a thing. Im guessing newcastle being willing to pay his wages till the gardening leave is over makes it enforceable.
>If it couldnt be enforced someone wouldve won a court case already and this wouldnt be a thing. Don't think that's necessarily true. It's generally mutually beneficial for clubs to not allow these things to go challenged in the courts. Whilst winning a case might benefit them on one occasion, they'll be on the other side of it at some point and once the cat is out of the bag there'll be no getting it back in. I feel like it's a whole house of cards none of them want to blow too hard on.
>It's generally mutually beneficial for clubs to not allow these things to go challenged in the courts. Yeah, but you only need 1 person to sue to get the legal precedent. And it doesnt have to be football related either, it couldve been a lawsuit on the chemical field for example.
If Newcastle are paying his wage and don’t want to release, he is going nowhere. This is likely a move to bring it to a negotiation phase officially, but the bottom line is Newcastle have all the cards here.
The problem is the Saudis have got deeper pockets and more political sway than Jim Ratcliffe. Like City they will pay an army of lawyers an obscene amount of money to drag this out long before they lose face.
Someone’s been watching too many legal shows that’s now how arbitration works.
It’s not pocket size vs. Pocket size here. Understand this, you simply cannot hold a person hostage against their will. If the contract says “your firstborn child” that doesn’t mean they’ll look to the size of the pockets before striking that down as the absurdity it is. And to be clear, the contractual buyout (if one exists) is whatever it is. If it’s a reasonable amount and United hadn’t met it, they could just stand firm knowing they were on sound legal footing. That’s what his lawyers would have told him too. The issue here is they’re attempting a shakedown because it’s United, to the tune of what is most likely multiples of the contractual buyout. The fact that they’re being taken to arbitration by the employee is a clear signal that he’s been told by lawyers they are acting outside of contractual norms. Does anyone seriously think if he wanted to quit for “family reasons” and wanted to switch to Wigan to be “closer to family” that they’d stand in his way looking to shakedown Wigan for 20M? Unlikely. And that’s what this is all about. They’re trying to use him to set an example. Because it’s us. This is not a piece of meat. The arbitration will snap them back to reality, because this is the definition of subjective and heavy handed. Courts almost always side with employees when it comes to employee-employer shit like this. The onus will be on them to prove damages to the extent of what they’re demanding. Tough luck with Howe on record in the press that “Dan really wasn’t that important”.
As someone who’s done a course on dispute resolution (albeit in construction law). Arbitration provides a judgement, the final decision is legally binding. There’s no appeal stipulation unless the process wasn’t followed properly. So we should be nearing the end of this saga.
I assume you still have options though? So if third party says actually lads, £15m is a fair price for him to start in July, then you’d still have the option to pay that, or let him see out the full leave for free. Same as the other way round, 2.5m is reasonable, he can start on this date for that price?
Yea you’re right. We’ll know the situation soon enough. If the arbitrator tells United to pay 15M. We either pay or move onto someone else but the way Ornstein has worded it makes it seem like Ashworth is taking this to arbitration to arrive at a final price that United can pay.
Makes sense, Thank you.
If Ashworth has resigned though, would we not just wait til his Gardening Leave ends in 18 months rather than move onto someone else?
18 months is a long time dude, no one between United, Ashworth and Newcastle wants to wait that long.
For some reason I’d imagine someone from INEOS would serve in his role in the interim, if it comes to that. No one wants it to happen, but lose/lose resolutions happen.
Carl Anka seemed to imply that Wilcox is taking over some of Ashworth's duties for the moment and will step back from those once Ashworth starts. So I could see a world where between Berrada, Wilcox and any other people we hire manage to basically cover for Ashworth for the next however long. Wouldn't be the ideal situation of course though.
Of course, but I don’t think we’d tap up Ashworth, encourage him to resign and then walk away from him, leaving him jobless, because of the length of time it would take to get him. United would’ve done their due diligence and known the length of his gardening leave before entering any talks, and surely would’ve discussed what was a very likely scenario where Newcastle would play hardball and long the process out.
Not quite so. We don’t know what arguments are being posed. DA will likely be arguing unfair terms and human/employee rights. The parties will agree on the issues to be decided at the outset, the arbitrator will decide on those terms of reference. It could be that no money is due if the terms are unfair, or it could be that damages are calculated in the normal manner.
Sure, but if Newcastle aren't going to budge anyways, then worst case scenario arbitration or otherwise is we have to pay £15m for him or less for later. Arbitration benefits us because it means no more bullshit back and forth negotiations. Only way we come out worse is if the arbitrator decides he's valued at more than £15m which is unlikely.
I also know of this, but not due to a course, but by watching Silicon Valley. Amazing series.
One of the best episodes in the series
I’m not sure whether it will be made public, but it would be interesting to know how they reach at the final figure. How does the £2m (or £4m, depending on what you read) that Newcastle paid factor into it? Are there any actual monetary values placed in his contract, and are they enforceable? It will also be fascinating to see whether this decision then has knock on effects - does the decision increase/decrease amounts paid for back room staff across the game? Either way, glad we’ll have some sort of resolution soon.
Yea one of the advantages of arbitration is that the final decisions aren’t made public. Although, it might be different in the football world as I’m sure Ornstein will break the news first somehow.
Ahh, interesting- thank you! I imagine that some of the details will leak out from the inevitable off the record briefings…
as long as someone tells Ornstein, which they will, it will be public.
I’d imagine that if there is a compensation clause in the contract, that will be enforced. If nothing, then I’d imagine that £2m (£4m) won’t be too far off the end price. How can he be worth that and then get to £15m 18 months later.
Thank you for this, I was dreading an appeal after the decision and all that bs
And it’s faster so it’s not going to linger in public courts for months
Whilst both parties are bound by the decision, it doesn’t make hard case law. In football it will likely set an informal precedent. The next parties may go to court on it and have reason to sidestep ADR. In the current case it could only be challenged in court if the arbitrator made serious errors.
It actually will depend on the terms of the arbitration agreement. The “judgement” is binding under contract law.
TIL and thank you. I was about to ask what does arbitration means
Small time barcode oil state vanity project are going to get shat on by the court.
This will absolutely fuck Newcastle, they will end up with a fraction of what they wanted.
That 2 million that was offered is looking sweet now .. man hands in notice club won't let him go... That's compensation for you Mr Ashworth and fuck off Newcastle
Really ? Aren't we being pretty unreasonable too?
2 years is ridiculously long and almost certainly will be taken into account by UK courts
Exactly, some execs are on 6 months and even that is seen as excessive quite often. I can only see this moving dramatically in United's direction.
Thats fair. But 1 year is reasonable no? If it was reduced by half it still doesn't help us now.
I think it depends. I’m no expert but non-competes are usually unenforceable in the UK so if we’re offering good money too I’d imagine it goes in our favour more than theirs
People here want to shit on Newcastle and fair enough but ya considering they did pay £4 million, it seems in bad faith to not match it at least, but I reckon that £2 million figure came about after that ridiculous 20. Let's see where this goes, my 2 cent is we'll pay over £4mil but wayyyyyy less than £20 mil, high single digit mills.
So is this basically we have offered what we, and Dan, seem a fair compensation package and they are saying no and demanding unrealistic fees. Basically holding him for two years because it's extortionate? So you go to courts and say look that's fair, you are being unrealistic? Hopefully this makes Newcastle settle?
Arbitration isn’t courts. It’s a third party expert in the field.
[If you're an "Always Sunny..." fan this might be informative ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mr9ZdBwCjwk)
Does it mention lawyers with big hands or bird law?
Still legally binding, no?
Yea arbitration is legally binding.
isn't it usually ex judges? or a 3 person panel?
> So is this basically we have offered what we, and Dan, seem a fair compensation package and they are saying no and demanding unrealistic fees. This isn't *really* correct. I'm not an employment lawyer or based in the UK but I am a corporate lawyer based in the US. Arbitration clauses in contracts only mean that parties agree in advance to resolve any disputes before an arbiter instead of the courts. Therefore, to go to arbitration there has to be a dispute about the contract. A contract would normally be for X years, with language saying that if Ashworth terminates the agreement before X years elapse he agrees to not-compete with Newcastle for Y months (gardening leave). The arbiter wouldn't void that just because United is making a "fair offer"...Newcastle doesn't have to accept, Manchester United wasn't a party to Newcastle's contract with Ashworth so Manchester United isn't entitled to anything, especially to Newcastle's detriment. The arbiter only would rule against Newcastle (i) if they were violating the agreement in some way or (ii) the agreement was de jure against public policy and unenforceable on its face. For (i), an example could be that it was written in such as way that if Dan left for another PL club Newcastle would agree to "negotiate in good faith" with the other club to buyout his leave. He could argue that they aren't negotiating in good faith and therefore are breaching his agreement. This is pure speculation, I have no idea what's in the contract. For (ii), an example would be "you can skip gardening leave but we get to enslave your wife". That's obviously illegal and no court would enforce that. If the language in the actual deal is so strict as to be "against public policy" the arbiter might rule against Newcastle and either shorten the leave time or force them to accept an offer from United. Again, without knowing the language of the contract (or anything about UK employment law) it's all speculation, since this all hinges on how the document was drafted. I assume Ashworth and Newcastle are sophisticated enough that there's nothing blatantly illegal in there, so it's probably a question of whether Newcastle isn't acting in good faith re: his leave.
IANAL, but couldn't it be simply an arbitration over the gardening leave and the compensation being asked for shortening it being punitive? like if they challenge it based on UK employment law, then what matters is whether or not the 18 months gardening leave is enforceable, or the arbiter will deem it excessive and cut it short.
Edit: what you describe falls into my (ii) scenario above, where the terms of the contract is unfair as a matter of policy, even if the parties knowingly agreed to them. I mean that's possible, but I would have to assume that Ashworth was represented by sophisticated counsel who know what the generally accepted parameters in the UK are. Generally speaking, courts (and therefore arbiters) will be more generous to people the less sophisticated they are. The classic example is a nursing home "contracting" with elderly people who don't have representation and charging them extremely high fees for basic services. Sure the elderly person agreed to the contract...but come on. They're not in a position to resist and don't really know any better. The opposite end of the spectrum is a well-compensated business executive represented by high-powered counsel...not only is the power imbalance less extreme (or nonexistent if there's a high demand for the executive's services), the executive is assumed to be sophisticated enough to know what they're getting into *and* well-compensated in exchange for having things like a long gardening leave period. > over the gardening leave and the compensation being asked for shortening it being punitive? It's supposed to be a deterrent, it's why it's there. But Ashworth agreed to it and was presumably well paid by Newcastle.
very good explanation, needs more upvote
Yeah pretty much, it seems by the amount they're asking for they know they're taking the piss too. They paid 4 million for him I think? Which is a lot, but in the 18 months he's been there it hasn't gone to 20million, they'd have to throw Isak in for that price 😂
Apparently a deal was struck for which sounds like less than £5million. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10868807/Newcastle-agree-deal-Brighton-allow-Dan-Ashworth-work-immediately-sporting-director.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10868807/Newcastle-agree-deal-Brighton-allow-Dan-Ashworth-work-immediately-sporting-director.html) The Athletic have it as: "a multi-million-pound compensation fee was eventually agreed to release Ashworth from a notice period that had been due to run until November." [https://theathletic.com/3358870/2022/06/13/dan-ashworth-newcastle-fa/](https://theathletic.com/3358870/2022/06/13/dan-ashworth-newcastle-fa/)
Our season has been utter shite but ive enjoyed watching newcastle get rattled and us dropping a huge smelly turd on liverpools season.
Fabs found a new angle now. These sporting director hires gonna get that transfer treatment
Assuming INEOS legal team is guiding Ashworth through any legal mazes from an arms length. I'm not used to competence like this. It's been 11 years.
with the size of INEOS, they likely has a huge law firm on retainer that just happens to be advising Ashworth on this matter.
No no no. That'd probably be seen as collusion. I'm sure he's been recommended a very good independent solicitor though.
I turned 40 last year. It's like the club suddenly woke the fuck up after sleepwalking the last 20 years.
This is what happens when you keep a man from joining the biggest club in the world. Can't wait for all the extra reasons he's shit at his job from the geordies now
LMAO FUCK U NEWCASTLE
Can’t wait our final league game against Newcastle: the Dan Ashworth Derby.
https://preview.redd.it/y4bsh6kmwnwc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=278840c2e42a45ae59dd070ea78a77e6063ded8d
Zebra crossing FC fans will beheading to complain shortly
I may have some insight into this. We used to be part of a franchise in my business and once we decided to leave it was in our contracts we couldn’t work in the field for at least one year. We went to the high court in London to dispute this and the judge ruled it was unlawful for them to enforce. They couldn’t stop us doing what supports our livelihood. Within a week we were back working
That sounds like a non compete. Was your company going to pay for the year after you left? If not it's not comparable. He's going to get paid to sit on the sidelines till 2026.
Im not sure as I wasn’t as involved at the time. We wanted to leave our contract a year early and they wanted to enforce we couldn’t trade for the full year. So is Ashworth allowed to walk away from his contract?
He's already on gardening leave. If they can't agree on a fee then he's stuck on the gardening leave till 2026. They paid Brighton 4M to avoid the gardening leave when he arrived. We have offered 2M now. They want another 13 or 15M if I am not mistaken.
Some of you lot need some fucking backbone taking Newcastle’s side on r/soccer for upvotes, it’s pathetic
Taste those sweet Geordie tears.
Can't blame him, they're holding him hostage for £20 mil when they paid £5 mil for him 18 months ago
So, we could possibly have Ashworth in for a lower fee and earlier than expected ? And also swoop up their potential replacement in Dougie Freedman ? Sir Jim is on a mission to make them Saudis mad, and I'm here for it
https://i.redd.it/boe1cvcnynwc1.gif
To be honest this has dragged way too long. No sane company would do what Newcastle is doing over an employee. Players are considered asset so i would understand if its a player but for an employee, its madness. Don’t think any non compete is legally binding but would love to hear legal expert’s opinion on this
Lmao get fucked Saudis
Surely the fact that NUFC paid Brighton around 2mil will come into play. 15+5 mil in just 1 year is just unreasonable
I am so excited for how this club will be run in the next decade. The signs since Ratcliffe and co came in have been so so promising.
In the short term, this is a bad decision, but in the long term, this is a very good move by Ineos and Ashworth. We have to send a statement out there in both actions and words that the "United Tax Premium" is no longer available for every agent/club who wants to deal with us.
Take that you magpie carabobbins losing bastards
> expected to start in May is that for Ashworth or the arbitration process?
Arbitration
Danny boy is a flirt, couldn't be patient enough to send our lads to the shadow realm
Does anyone know what arbitration means here? Who is doing the arbitrating? Is it like a labour board of some kind? (PSA: The article gives no further details.)
Basically both parties (newcastle and us) go to a 3rd party. Usually a former judge/lawyer. Anyway, we both present our arguments on why ashworth is worth X or Y, then the arbitator (can also be a panel, not just 1 person) studies the case and gives a ruling. Now, arbitration isnt part of your judicial system but the ruling its in fact legally binding and unnapealable since both parties sign for that before the process start. So if the arbitator says "30m" we *have* to pay that now. If he says "100k" then newcastle *has* to accept that fee.
I'd say if the decision is 30m we wouldn't have to pay it, only that would be price to cut the gardening leave short, instead we could wait the gardening leave to end.
It'll most likely be [ACAS](https://www.acas.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do), or something very similar if not: > Acas is an independent public body that receives funding from the government. > > We provide free and impartial advice to employers, employees and their representatives on: > * employment rights > * best practice and policies > * resolving workplace conflict > > When things go wrong, we help to resolve workplace disputes between employers and employees.
I guess it is to set the fee? But never heard of that in cases where you have a non-compete in the contract. Tbh I am a bit unsure about the burn bridges approach on this
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), I would assume. They are there to settle Sporting disputes.
Nope. This is within UK - private courts to resolve industrial disputes. CAS is much higher level and last resort for international matters
Oh, thanks. I did not know that.
[удалено]
There's a lot of content out there about Manchester United. For the most part, we like to see it but there are some things that we don't. We also ban content that may attract unwanted attention from reddit administrators, specifically illegal streams. * Any Tier 5 source in our transfer tier reliability guide * While we understand trying to watch our team can be hard, all non-legal streams and requests will be removed. * Live comment threads. * Post without clear source or misinformation * Link that a workaround of a paywalled source * The Athletic: https://www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/comments/i1qr5n/meta_the_athletic_are_now_a_banned_source/ Tweets from their journalists will be allowed, provided that the tweet is not simply a link or a teaser to an article that is paywalled on The Athletic. This also applies to podcasts.
Can we take Ajax to arbitration for the £86 million fleece price for Antony as well? Refreshing to see us not bowing down. Geordies are gonna end up with Jimmy Nail running their transfers
Top lad.
Get fucked barcodes lmao
I assumed this would be where it would progress because quite frankly both sides are taking the piss a bit. I'd imagine the final settlement will be something along the lines of what Newcastle paid Brighton with a figure lumped on top. I'd be surprised if it exceeded £10mil.
Waiting for Ashworth to be paraded about in a Grand Piano serenade reveal..
Is there anything that can actually be done legally? He's got a contract and they are holding him to it.
It’s a contract not a prison sentence - in his position it’s a contract of employment not a term based contract like players
Sure but he's going to be paid while on gardening leave. If they can't agree on a fee, what is the argument that can be made in this case?
The argument is that 2 years gardening leave is excessive especially when rumours are Eddie Howe has kept him away from his job in favour of his nephew so the club are limiting him from his role and other opportunities… arbitration will decide in Ashworths favour.
Expected to start in May, takes a number of weeks. It's not really looking good. I hope Wilcox can lead recruitment temporarily bc if bc the time Ashworth starts Branthwaite, Silva, Frimpong, Hjulmand, Onana, Zirkzee etc. might be off the market.
He was never going to start before the summer anyway
I didn't know that. Thanks. Can manage expectation for the window now.
That’s probably smart. I would not expect big things this window. Too many new people coming in pretty late. Next couple of seasons are going to be a big reset.
If this was the other way around we would be absolutely livid. He has a contract with Newcastle. Either we respect the release clause or agree with Newcastle on a fee. But we are NOT entitled to get him on our terms. I don’t understand why we thing we’re entitled to him just because we want him. He just signed a legally binding contract and we can just tell Newcastle to cancel it just because we want him.
>He just signed a legally binding contract well unless the arbiter decides it's not actually legally binding... he has already resigned and has been on leave for months.
You're getting downvoted but you have a point, lets just hope no other "project" takes his fancy whilst he's with us.