Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
I don't think either side in this situation would have settled for mediation and leaving with a handshake and a smile! Which is also why I think it took outside counsel to broker a deal. I image the two sides were quite emotionally attached to pursuing their case and it was only when someone else laid out the realities of the issue that they managed to find out how much it would take (both in terms of money and silence) to drop the case.
DRF,
Agree with you on Ricks situation. I was just highlighting that there is now a different approach, which helps small business to get move on staff, other than through sacking or redundancy, this to me appears a more humane way of doing the dirty deed, and I believe if undertaken with mediation could result in both parties getting the result they want at the least expense for the employer and the maximum gain for the employee as the solicitors won't be involved.
My experience is if QC's are involved we would be looking at 5k per day minimum.
But then why hire a top notch and very expensive counsel and then leave the settlement to the very last minutes. And not with one person but three.
Employers may stretch the case out as long as they can in the hope that the employee will back down under the mental and financial stress. Bully boy tactics.
...Found it quite insulting and shocking that they thought I'd breach confidentiality actually. To do my job you have to have trust. I hoped though it was just fear of the 'interweb' with a non-techy savvy HR person...
Anyway, to Airman: I hope the settlement is what you wanted and wish you all the best in putting this behind you and finding a new job.
Can't help thinking that AB would much rather have kept his job and not have had to go through all this squit - especially having to drag the club he loves through the tribunal process.
Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
Sounds like a good company, well run. Would like to see a similar attitude at CAFC.
Thanks, we try hard, but as it gets bigger the problems begin to creep in. We feel anything over 15 or 16 staff is where the battle lines start to be drawn and the them and us mentality sets in, think we been lucky with our recruitment and we have got up to 24 staff including directors, but one bad egg starts the rot, once started its neigh on impossible to stop, although we are trying hard.
Re CAFC, you need the right mentality to run an organisation like them, from day 1 in my opinion, you are either going to be confrontational or what some what deem as submissive. The one thing which changes the submissive policy you follow again in my opinion would be a catastrophic loss of trust in personnel, this can rear its ugly head in many different guises, it might be an email sent with the inappropriate attachment, an overhead (often mis overheard) phone call, sudden exit of staff to one of your competitor, dodgy expensives, etc.
I have got no knowledge of what occurred with our club management, but what I do know, is that the heart has been ripped out and that is the fault of the management system, if was owned Charlton then you have 2 choices, sell, or change the club mentality and this might mean getting rid of all the long standing staff and starting again. I stress I know nothing about what's happening at Charlton and I am just looking at it from the outside as someone who owns and operate a business of a similar size, thankfully not a football club.
Interesting choice of words to describe the different management styles. I think I would opt for 'autocratic' versus 'empowering'. The old Murray-Varney regime was very good at taking on previously inexperienced people and basically saying, 'we love your enthusiasm, we will train you in the professional skills, and the rest is up to you as to what you can achieve with us.' and it worked brilliantly for about 10 years . I have heard TJ described as 'an old style mill owner". However I am not sure whether he is personally the initiator of all the sackings. He may have just said "cut the overheads" and left it to others to decide how.
I've said it many times and will continue to do so. A football club is a 'people business'. The human output is everything. That makes it very different to a mill, or a property company. Makes it a lot like an advertising agency, actually. Full of highly paid, volatile characters, with a strong tribal team ethic as they go out to daily battle with loads of competitors. Well with all due respect to Michael Slater, a commercial lawyer lacks experience of this kind of people management. I've seen it loads of times out here, that lawyers have been put in such commercial roles and make a complete hash of it. They are naturally confrontational, when there are other, more effective solutions, as you and others have pointed out. In the interest of balance I would say that I can imagine Michael Slater might be very effective in negotiating contracts with players and slippery agents, and that can deliver significant value to a football club. There a whole lot of attributes need to run a football club and they may not easily be found in one person. It's a team game, off the pitch as well as on it.
I defeated a QC in court when I was an illiterate car cleaner (I'm now a retired illiterate car cleaner) Hiring someone to weave fancy words around your lies doesn't always work. I believe that RE is in possession of Pandora's box, but because of his love for the club they didn't think he would open it...and at the eleventh hour they paid him not to.
Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
I don't think either side in this situation would have settled for mediation and leaving with a handshake and a smile! Which is also why I think it took outside counsel to broker a deal. I image the two sides were quite emotionally attached to pursuing their case and it was only when someone else laid out the realities of the issue that they managed to find out how much it would take (both in terms of money and silence) to drop the case.
DRF,
Agree with you on Ricks situation. I was just highlighting that there is now a different approach, which helps small business to get move on staff, other than through sacking or redundancy, this to me appears a more humane way of doing the dirty deed, and I believe if undertaken with mediation could result in both parties getting the result they want at the least expense for the employer and the maximum gain for the employee as the solicitors won't be involved.
My experience is if QC's are involved we would be looking at 5k per day minimum.
Richard.
How many days would you estimate in total for this? Presumably he doesn't just read the notes on the way in? Total cost to the club of legal fees for this adventure?
"Interesting choice of words to describe the different management styles. I think I would opt for 'autocratic' versus 'empowering'. The old Murray-Varney regime was very good at taking on previously inexperienced people and basically saying, 'we love your enthusiasm, we will train you in the professional skills, and the rest is up to you as to what you can achieve with us.' and it worked brilliantly for about 10 years . I have heard TJ described as 'an old style mill owner". However I am not sure whether he is personally the initiator of all the sackings. He may have just said "cut the overheads" and left it to others to decide how. "
TBH I think that's a rather romanticised view of the CAFC world back then. Lets not forget Rick was a journalist and was qualified for the job he had. Unless you worked for the club I don't think you really know that they were brilliant providers of training and valued all their staff. Let us not forget they made people redundant and lost money.
I was pleased for both Rick and the club to hear that this had settled - litigation is a stressful ( if sometimes, necessary ) process and it is generally deleterious to one's financial and general health.
I very much doubt that CAFC would have Employment Practices Liability insurance. The premiums are very high and might be even higher in the case of the club after some of the the high profile disputes we have had in recent years ( eg Dowie ). In any event, I imagine that CAFC would want to retain control of the conduct of the defence and settlement of any claim, rather than passing this to Insurers.
These sort of settlements often contain a provision to the effect that the terms are confidential and that neither party will offer any further comment to third parties, other than to say that the dispute has been resolved. We shall see but I expect a line will have been drawn under this matter.
Whilst the evidence and submissions would have been interesting, the Tribunal would have been reluctant to listen to anything which they regarded as extraneous material and which did not go directly to the reasonableness or otherwise of the dismissal. They are also generally unwilling to try and second-guess employers on matters of commercial judgment and business efficacy, although there is sometimes a grey area where these are germane to the issue of reasonableness. We simply don't know what the key points were in this case but I suspect that lots of things that we are really interested in (like the owners' motives and plans for the club ) would not have been of interest to the Tribunal.
Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
I don't think either side in this situation would have settled for mediation and leaving with a handshake and a smile! Which is also why I think it took outside counsel to broker a deal. I image the two sides were quite emotionally attached to pursuing their case and it was only when someone else laid out the realities of the issue that they managed to find out how much it would take (both in terms of money and silence) to drop the case.
DRF,
Agree with you on Ricks situation. I was just highlighting that there is now a different approach, which helps small business to get move on staff, other than through sacking or redundancy, this to me appears a more humane way of doing the dirty deed, and I believe if undertaken with mediation could result in both parties getting the result they want at the least expense for the employer and the maximum gain for the employee as the solicitors won't be involved.
My experience is if QC's are involved we would be looking at 5k per day minimum.
Richard.
How many days would you estimate in total for this? Presumably he doesn't just read the notes on the way in? Total cost to the club of legal fees for this adventure?
How longs a piece of string ? I suspect from my experience the instructing solicitor would need a chambers session with the QC which could last half a day and possibly another day for preparation,that is before the day itself.
On top of this would be the solicitor's own costs in preparing the bundle of documents,if Rick was representing himself in my experience Charlton's legal team will have been expected to coordinate this aspect.
I said a QC would be 5k a day minimum,this would be at the bottom of the range ,I have known better QC's who can command at least quadrupole that.
I also found in ET's that their presence was often counter productive and they would antagonise the panel ,two of whom are lay people and not lawyers.To maintain balance each panel consists of a HR professional and a Union rep as well as the Employment Judge.On one occasion I managed to persuade the side panel members to out vote the Employment Judge.
Originally the process was designed for Union Officials to present their case against HR experts but in the 10 years when I regularly presented claims increasingly expensive lawyers were used when a company had short circuited procedures because they somehow (mistakenly) believed that this would help them win their case.
As a Union rep even our lawyers would often say to me if the prospect was around the 50 % mark that I could present more effectively at a tribunal than they could as long as I could stand up to the sledging and intimidation that the legal profession often engage in.The EJ's loved brevity,which in my experience barristers seemed incapable of.
My advice to someone in this position would be get legal advice from a solicitor and maybe get them to assist you in assessing the paperwork,but actually at the hearing they offer little value and a good Union rep is a better advocate or failing that as long as you understand due process self representation is the best way forward.
My knowledge and experience of Rick is that he would have been well able to present his case.
I was pleased for both Rick and the club to hear that this had settled - litigation is a stressful ( if sometimes, necessary ) process and it is generally deleterious to one's financial and general health.
I very much doubt that CAFC would have Employment Practices Liability insurance. The premiums are very high and might be even higher in the case of the club after some of the the high profile disputes we have had in recent years ( eg Dowie ). In any event, I imagine that CAFC would want to retain control of the conduct of the defence and settlement of any claim, rather than passing this to Insurers.
These sort of settlements often contain a provision to the effect that the terms are confidential and that neither party will offer any further comment to third parties, other than to say that the dispute has been resolved. We shall see but I expect a line will have been drawn under this matter.
Whilst the evidence and submissions would have been interesting, the Tribunal would have been reluctant to listen to anything which they regarded as extraneous material and which did not go directly to the reasonableness or otherwise of the dismissal. They are also generally unwilling to try and second-guess employers on matters of commercial judgment and business efficacy, although there is sometimes a grey area where these are germane to the issue of reasonableness. We simply don't know what the key points were in this case but I suspect that lots of things that we are really interested in (like the owners' motives and plans for the club ) would not have been of interest to the Tribunal.
Very good points. Out of interest, what would happen if one of the parties were later to breach that provision of confidentiality? Would it be for the other party to take action? If so, where? In the civil courts, or back at the Tribunal? What are the possible sanctions or penalties?
If there was a breach, the other party could seek an injunction in the civil courts to restrain any further breach and damages ( although the latter might be hard to quantify ). All very messy and expensive and to be avoided.
If there was a breach, the other party could seek an injunction in the civil courts to restrain any further breach and damages ( although the latter might be hard to quantify ). All very messy and expensive and to be avoided.
Thanks for the info. I'd imagine they would be almost impossible to quantify - for instance, if what was written isn't libellous, how is it judged? Are there any examples you can quote?
Dont think the club come out of this looking very good at all.Employers on the whole dismiss many people especially in low paid jobs for various reasons knowing even if it goes to tribunual and the employee wins they rarely pay out much and the employee very rarely gets their job back. Cheap at the price i think.
I'm sure there will be some case law on it. If, for example, a company was prejudiced in relation to a particular contract or transaction, it might be able to substantiate a claim for damages for loss of chance on a discounted percentage basis.
In broad terms, I think a Judge would do his best to put a figure on any commercial/reputational damage that the claimant was able to identify or reasonably infer. On the basis that confidentiality was part of a settlement ( and presumably reflected in the sum paid ), it would, as a matter of common sense, probably not be too hard to infer some damage from a breach. The court would just do its best on the material before it.
The main issue, however, would be the very heavy legal costs of an injunction.
All of this is, I am sure, happily hypothetical in this case ( ! ).
I was pleased for both Rick and the club to hear that this had settled - litigation is a stressful ( if sometimes, necessary ) process and it is generally deleterious to one's financial and general health.
I very much doubt that CAFC would have Employment Practices Liability insurance. The premiums are very high and might be even higher in the case of the club after some of the the high profile disputes we have had in recent years ( eg Dowie ). In any event, I imagine that CAFC would want to retain control of the conduct of the defence and settlement of any claim, rather than passing this to Insurers.
These sort of settlements often contain a provision to the effect that the terms are confidential and that neither party will offer any further comment to third parties, other than to say that the dispute has been resolved. We shall see but I expect a line will have been drawn under this matter.
Whilst the evidence and submissions would have been interesting, the Tribunal would have been reluctant to listen to anything which they regarded as extraneous material and which did not go directly to the reasonableness or otherwise of the dismissal. They are also generally unwilling to try and second-guess employers on matters of commercial judgment and business efficacy, although there is sometimes a grey area where these are germane to the issue of reasonableness. We simply don't know what the key points were in this case but I suspect that lots of things that we are really interested in (like the owners' motives and plans for the club ) would not have been of interest to the Tribunal.
Blucher - In your experience of cases similar to this, what do the terms consist of? Obviously they include a financial settlement, but would there be a ban on publicly discussing the circumstances of the employee's dismissal? And a ban on discussing the circumstances of former colleagues' dismissals? And a ban on discussing the employers in general? How far does it go?
TBH I think that's a rather romanticised view of the CAFC world back then. Lets not forget Rick was a journalist and was qualified for the job he had. Unless you worked for the club I don't think you really know that they were brilliant providers of training and valued all their staff. Let us not forget they made people redundant and lost money.
The "job he had" grew over time to be a marketing role, for which journalists are definitely not qualified. Nor does 'training' necessarily mean sending people off on loads of courses. It alos means having a boss who spots your potential, is prepared to give of his own time to help you realise that, because the result is good for the whole company.
You have pointed out ad nauseam that in later years things went wrong, which was why I was careful to refer to ten years. Let us say from 1994, by which time various ex fans were working for the club. Ten years is still a long time in a football club. I suppose even you wouldn't dispute that the period 1994-2004 were a period of unprecedented development and all round feel-good factor for CAFC?
In your experience of cases similar to this, what do the terms consist of? Obviously they include a financial settlement, but would there be a ban on publicly discussing the circumstances of the employee's dismissal? And a ban on discussing the circumstances of former colleagues' dismissals? And a ban on discussing the employers in general? How far does it go?
The Club would be well aware that Rick publishes the VoTV but in life you get what you negotiate, if the gagging order is that wide that it prevents him from divulging the reasons why others have been dismissed then I hope he negotiated something considerably extra on top of settling his own case.
TBH I think that's a rather romanticised view of the CAFC world back then. Lets not forget Rick was a journalist and was qualified for the job he had. Unless you worked for the club I don't think you really know that they were brilliant providers of training and valued all their staff. Let us not forget they made people redundant and lost money.
The "job he had" grew over time to be a marketing role, for which journalists are definitely not qualified. Nor does 'training' necessarily mean sending people off on loads of courses. It alos means having a boss who spots your potential, is prepared to give of his own time to help you realise that, because the result is good for the whole company.
You have pointed out ad nauseam that in later years things went wrong, which was why I was careful to refer to ten years. Let us say from 1994, by which time various ex fans were working for the club. Ten years is still a long time in a football club. I suppose even you wouldn't dispute that the period 1994-2004 were a period of unprecedented development and all round feel-good factor for CAFC?
I think DRF is much closer to the truth re training. From a personal perspective I was involved in the marketing aspect from at least 1994, while still on the Mercury, and arguably before we went back to The Valley. Obviously I did gain relevant experience while working at the club.
I'm not going to say too much about yesterday, except thanks for the good wishes and support. I'm not going to answer any questions, I'm afraid. But I have read what's been said with interest and for better or worse you can rest assured that I will continue to write about the club.
Charlton will have EPLI cover. If for example RE got a £50k settlement & Charlton had a £10k excess, then the insurance company will have picked up the remaining £40k. The settlement would have been sanctioned by the insurance company, not Charlton. The expensive QC's tab would also likely to have been picked up by the insurer depending on whether Charltons' excess was cost inclusive or in addition to the excess. Therefore, the cost to the club itself would have been limited to the amount of the excess which I guestimate to be between £10k & £25k. Those of you expecting to read some scandal in the next VOTV. Forget it, unless RE is prepared to pay every penny of his settlement back. The settlement would be confidential with no admission of liability by the club.
Charlton will have EPLI cover. If for example RE got a £50k settlement & Charlton had a £10k excess, then the insurance company will have picked up the remaining £40k. The settlement would have been sanctioned by the insurance company, not Charlton. The expensive QC's tab would also likely to have been picked up by the insurer depending on whether Charltons' excess was cost inclusive or in addition to the excess. Therefore, the cost to the club itself would have been limited to the amount of the excess which I guestimate to be between £10k & £25k. Those of you expecting to read some scandal in the next VOTV. Forget it, unless RE is prepared to pay every penny of his settlement back. The settlement would be confidential with no admission of liability by the club.
TBH I think that's a rather romanticised view of the CAFC world back then. Lets not forget Rick was a journalist and was qualified for the job he had. Unless you worked for the club I don't think you really know that they were brilliant providers of training and valued all their staff. Let us not forget they made people redundant and lost money.
The "job he had" grew over time to be a marketing role, for which journalists are definitely not qualified. Nor does 'training' necessarily mean sending people off on loads of courses. It alos means having a boss who spots your potential, is prepared to give of his own time to help you realise that, because the result is good for the whole company.
You have pointed out ad nauseam that in later years things went wrong, which was why I was careful to refer to ten years. Let us say from 1994, by which time various ex fans were working for the club. Ten years is still a long time in a football club. I suppose even you wouldn't dispute that the period 1994-2004 were a period of unprecedented development and all round feel-good factor for CAFC?
I think DRF is much closer to the truth re training. From a personal perspective I was involved in the marketing aspect from at least 1994, while still on the Mercury, and arguably before we went back to The Valley. Obviously I did gain relevant experience while working at the club.
I'm not going to say too much about yesterday, except thanks for the good wishes and support. I'm not going to answer any questions, I'm afraid. But I have read what's been said with interest and for better or worse you can rest assured that I will continue to write about the club.
It'll be for the better, Airman, and I'm grateful for it. Congratulations for yesterday.
TBH I think that's a rather romanticised view of the CAFC world back then. Lets not forget Rick was a journalist and was qualified for the job he had. Unless you worked for the club I don't think you really know that they were brilliant providers of training and valued all their staff. Let us not forget they made people redundant and lost money.
The "job he had" grew over time to be a marketing role, for which journalists are definitely not qualified. Nor does 'training' necessarily mean sending people off on loads of courses. It alos means having a boss who spots your potential, is prepared to give of his own time to help you realise that, because the result is good for the whole company.
You have pointed out ad nauseam that in later years things went wrong, which was why I was careful to refer to ten years. Let us say from 1994, by which time various ex fans were working for the club. Ten years is still a long time in a football club. I suppose even you wouldn't dispute that the period 1994-2004 were a period of unprecedented development and all round feel-good factor for CAFC?
I think DRF is much closer to the truth re training. From a personal perspective I was involved in the marketing aspect from at least 1994, while still on the Mercury, and arguably before we went back to The Valley. Obviously I did gain relevant experience while working at the club.
I'm not going to say too much about yesterday, except thanks for the good wishes and support. I'm not going to answer any questions, I'm afraid. But I have read what's been said with interest and for better or worse you can rest assured that I will continue to write about the club.
That is funny, I could have sworn that in 1994 you still thought marketing was the devil's work, conducted by dilettantes driving black Beamers . One of us is re-writing history :-)
Never mind. The main thing is that hopefully you are satisfied with the outcome of yesterday
TBH I think that's a rather romanticised view of the CAFC world back then. Lets not forget Rick was a journalist and was qualified for the job he had. Unless you worked for the club I don't think you really know that they were brilliant providers of training and valued all their staff. Let us not forget they made people redundant and lost money.
The "job he had" grew over time to be a marketing role, for which journalists are definitely not qualified. Nor does 'training' necessarily mean sending people off on loads of courses. It alos means having a boss who spots your potential, is prepared to give of his own time to help you realise that, because the result is good for the whole company.
You have pointed out ad nauseam that in later years things went wrong, which was why I was careful to refer to ten years. Let us say from 1994, by which time various ex fans were working for the club. Ten years is still a long time in a football club. I suppose even you wouldn't dispute that the period 1994-2004 were a period of unprecedented development and all round feel-good factor for CAFC?
I think DRF is much closer to the truth re training. From a personal perspective I was involved in the marketing aspect from at least 1994, while still on the Mercury, and arguably before we went back to The Valley. Obviously I did gain relevant experience while working at the club.
I'm not going to say too much about yesterday, except thanks for the good wishes and support. I'm not going to answer any questions, I'm afraid. But I have read what's been said with interest and for better or worse you can rest assured that I will continue to write about the club.
That is funny, I could have sworn that in 1994 you still thought marketing was the devil's work, conducted by dilettantes driving black Beamers . One of us is re-writing history :-)
Never mind. The main thing is that hopefully you are satisfied with the outcome of yesterday
You're confusing marketing with advertising, old boy.
Comments
My experience is if QC's are involved we would be looking at 5k per day minimum.
How many days would you estimate in total for this? Presumably he doesn't just read the notes on the way in? Total cost to the club of legal fees for this adventure?
TBH I think that's a rather romanticised view of the CAFC world back then. Lets not forget Rick was a journalist and was qualified for the job he had. Unless you worked for the club I don't think you really know that they were brilliant providers of training and valued all their staff. Let us not forget they made people redundant and lost money.
I very much doubt that CAFC would have Employment Practices Liability insurance. The premiums are very high and might be even higher in the case of the club after some of the the high profile disputes we have had in recent years ( eg Dowie ). In any event, I imagine that CAFC would want to retain control of the conduct of the defence and settlement of any claim, rather than passing this to Insurers.
These sort of settlements often contain a provision to the effect that the terms are confidential and that neither party will offer any further comment to third parties, other than to say that the dispute has been resolved. We shall see but I expect a line will have been drawn under this matter.
Whilst the evidence and submissions would have been interesting, the Tribunal would have been reluctant to listen to anything which they regarded as extraneous material and which did not go directly to the reasonableness or otherwise of the dismissal. They are also generally unwilling to try and second-guess employers on matters of commercial judgment and business efficacy, although there is sometimes a grey area where these are germane to the issue of reasonableness. We simply don't know what the key points were in this case but I suspect that lots of things that we are really interested in (like the owners' motives and plans for the club ) would not have been of interest to the Tribunal.
How longs a piece of string ? I suspect from my experience the instructing solicitor would need a chambers session with the QC which could last half a day and possibly another day for preparation,that is before the day itself.
On top of this would be the solicitor's own costs in preparing the bundle of documents,if Rick was representing himself in my experience Charlton's legal team will have been expected to coordinate this aspect.
I said a QC would be 5k a day minimum,this would be at the bottom of the range ,I have known better QC's who can command at least quadrupole that.
I also found in ET's that their presence was often counter productive and they would antagonise the panel ,two of whom are lay people and not lawyers.To maintain balance each panel consists of a HR professional and a Union rep as well as the Employment Judge.On one occasion I managed to persuade the side panel members to out vote the Employment Judge.
Originally the process was designed for Union Officials to present their case against HR experts but in the 10 years when I regularly presented claims increasingly expensive lawyers were used when a company had short circuited procedures because they somehow (mistakenly) believed that this would help them win their case.
As a Union rep even our lawyers would often say to me if the prospect was around the 50 % mark that I could present more effectively at a tribunal than they could as long as I could stand up to the sledging and intimidation that the legal profession often engage in.The EJ's loved brevity,which in my experience barristers seemed incapable of.
My advice to someone in this position would be get legal advice from a solicitor and maybe get them to assist you in assessing the paperwork,but actually at the hearing they offer little value and a good Union rep is a better advocate or failing that as long as you understand due process self representation is the best way forward.
My knowledge and experience of Rick is that he would have been well able to present his case.
In broad terms, I think a Judge would do his best to put a figure on any commercial/reputational damage that the claimant was able to identify or reasonably infer. On the basis that confidentiality was part of a settlement ( and presumably reflected in the sum paid ), it would, as a matter of common sense, probably not be too hard to infer some damage from a breach. The court would just do its best on the material before it.
The main issue, however, would be the very heavy legal costs of an injunction.
All of this is, I am sure, happily hypothetical in this case ( ! ).
You have pointed out ad nauseam that in later years things went wrong, which was why I was careful to refer to ten years. Let us say from 1994, by which time various ex fans were working for the club. Ten years is still a long time in a football club. I suppose even you wouldn't dispute that the period 1994-2004 were a period of unprecedented development and all round feel-good factor for CAFC?
The Club would be well aware that Rick publishes the VoTV but in life you get what you negotiate, if the gagging order is that wide that it prevents him from divulging the reasons why others have been dismissed then I hope he negotiated something considerably extra on top of settling his own case.
I'm not going to say too much about yesterday, except thanks for the good wishes and support. I'm not going to answer any questions, I'm afraid. But I have read what's been said with interest and for better or worse you can rest assured that I will continue to write about the club.
Don't let the buggers grind you down.
Never mind. The main thing is that hopefully you are satisfied with the outcome of yesterday