[cite]Posted By: son of selhurst[/cite]You will also be shocked to learn that managers are often paid bonuses for hitting revenue targets on out going transfer fees....particularly when the club is skint and is wondering how they will continue to operate through the summer months without any gate income. Again this is more typical in league 1,2 and the conference.
[quote][cite]Posted By: son of selhurst[/cite]You will also be shocked to learn that managers are often paid bonuses for hitting revenue targets on out going transfer fees....particularly when the club is skint and is wondering how they will continue to operate through the summer months without any gate income. Again this is more typical in league 1,2 and the conference.[/quote]
Good point SOS, probably why it is evident in a Palace managers contract and not at South London's finest :o)
Dowie said his relationship with Jordan was very good, although he agreed with Mr Davies that, when two strong characters clashed, sparks could fly. But he denied the suggestion that his reason for negotiating his way out of the £1 million clause in his employment contract was to make himself more attractive to another club. He said he had many "vitriolic'' conversations with Jordan during his time with Palace, and was "used to it''.
But their final telephone conversation, which led to his leaving, was "much worse''.
If you factor in the 16th May point, then there doesn't seem to be a lot.
I have to say that it does seem to me that it's highly unlikely that his call to Charlton would have been about an unrelated issue. If his job at Palace was over all bar the press announcement, why would he have wanted to ring Charlton other than to say that he had concluded his business at Palace, that there will be a press conference in two days and that if they had not yet made their decision to appoint somebody, he would be interested.
Jordan will have to show on balance that it is improbable that Dowie would have suddenly "seen the light on the road to Bolton" and decided, subsequent to their original agreement, to contact Charlton either on 20th or 22nd with a change of heart. As I understand it, to succeed with fraudulent misrepresentation, you need to show that at the time they reached agreement there was a deliberate intention to deceive. Given what we now know, and unless more incriminating evidence is produced, it's largely going to go down to who the Judge believes but the onus is on Jordan to show the balance falls his way.
What implications are there for our club? Well, assuming that Dowie rang us, and any contact between us and Dowie happened after 16th May, I would have thought we are in the clear as to tapping up.
[cite]Posted By: No.1 in South London[/cite]We have not been taken to court - It's Dowie v Chrystal Palace
I wasn't suggesting that we have. I was refering to the implications of evidence of tapping up which might lay us open to an FA charge and damage our credibility as a club who doesn't indulge in that sort of thing.
Apologies Bing, just misread what you were saying, although I don't think Charlton are under any spotlight here. Maybe if Orangeman wins, that may change, so your concerns may be valid then.
Former Crystal Palace manager Iain Dowie told a court there was nothing in the agreement he had with the club that prevented him moving to Charlton. Giving evidence at the High Court Mr Dowie said the "compromise agreement" under which he left the club meant he gave up his claim to "a potentially large sum of money" by foregoing bonuses on player transfer profits and any claim for compensation over the ending of his contract. He also told the court his reputation had been severely damaged by Palace chairman Simon Jordan repeatedly calling him a liar in the media. Mr Dowie is being sued by Crystal Palace who say he made "fraudulent misrepresentations" when he left the side last summer and joined rivals Charlton Athletic. The 42-year-old had a clause in his contract which stated if he left to join another club his new bosses would pay Palace £1million in compensation. Palace chairman Simon Jordan said he waived the clause as a gesture of good will because Mr Dowie said he wanted to move closer to his family in Bolton. Within days of leaving Palace he was appointed as Charlton manager, but left after just 12 matches in charge. He is now at Coventry City. But Mr Dowie insists he never said he would be "moving back up north" nor was there any limitation in his contract on him working for any other club in the future, including Charlton. Mr Dowie said the "new regime" he introduced after taking charge at Palace had reversed the decline in player performances and team morale, culminating in the club's promotion to the Premiership for the 2004/2005 season. Palace was only relegated on the last day of the season - after losing to Charlton - and, in the 2005/06 season the club almost made it back into the Premiership after qualifying for the play-off semi-finals, before losing out to Watford. Mr Dowie said the club had benefited financially since his arrival, including an extra £25million in TV revenues and about £7million in "parachute" payments from the Premiership. And he said he had improved player performance, making them more valuable. Mr Dowie said he was contacted by Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, on May 17 last year but he did not believe it was until May 22 - after he had signed the compromise agreement to leave Palace - that they had "contact regarding the Charlton Athletic job". Mr Dowie told the court: "I believe that I have acted properly and honestly at all times. I entered a compromise agreement and waived very significant salary, bonuses and benefits under my contract in return for Crystal Palace waiving a compensation clause payable if I joined another club. "There were no restrictions in that compromise agreement on where I could work and I found a new job at Charlton Athletic. I did not make any representations to Simon Jordan, false or otherwise, that I would only work in the north of England, or that that was the only reason why I was leaving Crystal Palace.
Jordan last week denied blowing most of his massive personal fortune on the South London side and said the club was not desperate for cash - so that could not be the reason he was trying to win compensation from Mr Dowie. He also dismissed claims by barrister,Michael McParland, for Mr Dowie, that he had spent most of the money he received from the sale of the Pocket Phone Shop on Palace. "If you are asking me 'Have you spent three fifths, four fifths, one half of your money?' the answer is 'No'," said Mr Jordan. "I was prepared to waive £1-million on the basis of good will and human interest, I was lied to and duped and I don't take very kindly to it," he said. "On the advice of my lawyers I brought the claim." Mr Jordan agreed it was unfortunate that he had said he had acted in a "Machiavellian way" in obtaining the freehold of Palace's home ground, Selhurst Park, from former chairman Ron Noades. Conceding he had "contradicted" himself, Mr Jordan said the way he acted in relation to the purchase of the freehold made "commercial business sense" and comparisons between it and the case against Mr Dowie could not be made.
very suprised that some of the things Jordan said immediately after the press conference haven't been used to discredit him. sure i remember him saying on SSN the next time he saw dowie he wanted him to be in a body bag, or something along those lines.
Mr Dowie said he was contacted by Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, on May 17 last year but he did not believe it was until May 22 - after he had signed the compromise agreement to leave Palace - that they had "contact regarding the Charlton Athletic job"
[cite]Posted By: WasCharleyOne[/cite]Mr Dowie said he was contacted by Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, on May 17 last year but he did not believe it was until May 22 - after he had signed the compromise agreement to leave Palace - that they had "contact regarding the Charlton Athletic job"
Could this have implications against us now?
For tapping up?? I suppose it could if Palace win this case, which is looking a little more likely than I initially thought. I'd like to hear Dowies explanation as to what Murray contacted him about on the 17th of May. As they say the case continues......
didn't Dowie say yesterday that he had contact with charlton before, but it wasn't regarding the managers job ? In which case, i presume that is the phone call with Murray on the 17th...
[cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]didn't Dowie say yesterday that he had contact with charlton before, but it wasn't regarding the managers job ? In which case, i presume that is the phone call with Murray on the 17th...
He did, but as this case is about trying to provide a balance of probability that Dowie knowingly mislead Palace in to releasing him without a financial settlement. It does seem very strange that Charlton would have been in touch with Dowie on the 17th of May and it had nothing to do with the managers job. Perhaps Murray was just seeing if Dowie thought Jordan might sell him a player! ;-)
FORMER Crystal Palace manager Iain Dowie has admitted making factual errors at a press conference shortly after leaving the Eagles, as he began giving evidence at the High Court.
Mr Dowie is being sued by the club and their chairman Simon Jordan for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentations" when he left the club last summer and joined bitter rivals Charlton Athletic.
Mr Dowie, 42, had a clause in his contract saying if he left to join another club, his new bosses would pay Palace £1million compensation.
Mr Jordan says that, as a gesture of goodwill, he agreed to waive that clause when Mr Dowie left, to allow him to move nearer to his wife and family in Bolton.
Within days, Mr Dowie had joined Charlton - though he left after just 12 matches in charge. He is now at Coventry City.
At a May 30, 2006, press conference to announce his appointment as Charlton boss, Mr Dowie said that the "first conversation" he had with the Addicks about becoming manager was two days after he had left Palace on May 22.
Taking the stand, Mr Dowie admitted this "wasn't accurate" as he'd first talked with Charlton hours after announcing he was leaving Palace by mutual consent.
At the press conference he also said that before May 22 there had been "no contact whatsoever" with Charlton.
But yesterday Mr Dowie said that Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, had spoken to him before he left Palace,but insisted that there had been no mention of becoming Charlton manager in that conversation.
John Davies QC, barrister for Palace, said the press conference had been Mr Dowie's "first attempt" to "concoct a false story" about how he left the Eagles.
But Mr Dowie said it was no more than a "mistake", adding: "We all make mistakes."
As the cross-examination continued, Mr Davies asked why Mr Dowie had said in his witness statement that he had been approached by Mr Jordan about the Palace job in December 2003.
What really happened, Mr Davies told Mr Justice Tugendhat, was that Mr Dowie had first contacted Mr Jordan.
"There was a lot going on in my mind,"said Mr Dowie,with regard to the time he made the witness statement. "It was a mistake.I just got that wrong."
However Mr Davies accused him of allowing "supposition and happenstance" to be masqueraded as fact in his witness statement.
"It is designed to make it appear that you were rather more important than you were in December 2003,"said Mr Davies,who added that it was Mr Jordan who was "in the box seat".
Mr Dowie conceded that Mr Jordan was in the stronger position, but denied the other allegations.
The court also heard that Mr Dowie believed he was entitled to five per cent of the transfer fees of star Palace players, Andy Johnson and Wayne Routledge, both of whom had been signed before he arrived.
There was a clause in Mr Dowie's contract entitling him to a cut of transfers on players he had purchased who were then sold on, but he said that, as he had helped "develop" both Johnson and Routledge, they should have been included.
Palace rejected his request for money in relation to those two.
In his written defence statement, Mr Dowie says the compromise agreement was a "clean break" under which Palace dispensed with his services and avoided having to pay him substantial contractual entitlements.
The case against him was "entirely without merit in fact or law and should never have been brought", Mr Dowie says.
Mr Dowie also claims he helped Palace obtain "huge financial benefits for an impecunious club", when he took the Eagles up in May 2004, netting them a windfall of £30-million plus.
Jordan last week denied blowing most of his massive personal fortune on the South London side and said the club was not desperate for cash - so that could not be the reason he was trying to win compensation from Mr Dowie.
He also dismissed claims by barrister,Michael McParland, for Mr Dowie, that he had spent most of the money he received from the sale of the Pocket Phone Shop on Palace.
"If you are asking me 'Have you spent three fifths, four fifths, one half of your money?' the answer is 'No'," said Mr Jordan.
"I was prepared to waive £1-million on the basis of good will and human interest, I was lied to and duped and I don't take very kindly to it," he said.
"On the advice of my lawyers I brought the claim."
Mr Jordan agreed it was unfortunate that he had said he had acted in a "Machiavellian way" in obtaining the freehold of Palace's home ground, Selhurst Park, from former chairman Ron Noades.
Conceding he had "contradicted" himself, Mr Jordan said the way he acted in relation to the purchase of the freehold made "commercial business sense" and comparisons between it and the case against Mr Dowie could not be made.
[cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]didn't Dowie say yesterday that he had contact with charlton before, but it wasn't regarding the managers job ? In which case, i presume that is the phone call with Murray on the 17th...
He did, but as this case is about trying to provide a balance of probability that Dowie knowingly mislead Palace in to releasing him without a financial settlement. It does seem very strange that Charlton would have been in touch with Dowie on the 17th of May and it had nothing to do with the managers job. Perhaps Murray was just seeing if Dowie thought Jordan might sell him a player! ;-)
It does seem a little bit dodgy to me.
However, the thought I have on this is that Jordan would never have given Charlton permission to talk to Dowie, so how could he have lost out on the compensation payment that was part of Dowie's contract because of Dowie's actions?
[quote][cite]Posted By: WasCharleyOne[/cite]Mr Dowie said he was contacted by Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, on May 17 last year but he did not believe it was until May 22 - after he had signed the compromise agreement to leave Palace - that they had "contact regarding the Charlton Athletic job"
Could this have implications against us now?[/quote]
Doubt it as Jordan has already said that their agreement was reached on 16th May -very key date in all of this. Once Dowie knew he was out of a job, why shouldn't he look for employment elsewhere ?
[cite]Posted By: PassItToLeaburn[/cite]Bloody hell - it's like a couple of kids arguing in the playground - both of them are or have been lying through their teeth.
"No one is going home until someone tells me who done it"
[cite]Posted By: PassItToLeaburn[/cite]Bloody hell - it's like a couple of kids arguing in the playground - both of them are or have been lying through their teeth.
agreed. In summary:
Dowie wanted out
Jordan wanted Dowie out but didn't want to pay him off
Compromise agreement agreed which suits both parties perfectly
Dowie gets the Charlton job
Jordan goes nuts because he thinks Murray has got one up on him
Comments
Good point SOS, probably why it is evident in a Palace managers contract and not at South London's finest :o)
Tues 9 May 2006 - Palace draw 2nd leg of Play Off game against Watford 0-0
Wed 10 May 2006 - 1hr 26 minute telephone conversation between Jordan and Dowie which degenarated into a "slanging match"
20 May 2006 - According to Jordan, Dowie denied any contact with Charlton (in a phone conversation between the two)
22 May 2006 - Dowie departed from Palace
22 May 2006 - Charlton's first phone call to Dowie
23 May 2006 - according to a diary entry, Dowie's interview with Charlton
24 May 2006 - Dowie left a voicemail message for Jordan saying he'd had an interview with Charlton
26 May 2006 - Confirmed that Dowie going to Charlton
The events publically known of :
Tues 9 May 2006 - Palace draw 2nd leg of Play Off game against Watford 0-0
Wed 10 May 2006 - 1hr 26 minute telephone conversation between Jordan and Dowie which degenarated into a "slanging match"
20 May 2006 - Phone records show Dowie speaking to charlton, 'but not about the managers job'
20 May 2006 - According to Jordan, Dowie denied any contact with Charlton (in a phone conversation between the two)
22 May 2006 - Dowie departed from Palace
22 May 2006 - Charlton's first 'offical' phone call to Dowie about the Managers job
23 May 2006 - according to a diary entry, Dowie's interview with Charlton
24 May 2006 - Dowie left a voicemail message for Jordan saying he'd had an interview with Charlton
26 May 2006 - Confirmed that Dowie going to Charlton
__________________
But he denied the suggestion that his reason for negotiating his way out of the £1 million clause in his employment contract was to make himself more attractive to another club.
He said he had many "vitriolic'' conversations with Jordan during his time with Palace, and was "used to it''.
But their final telephone conversation, which led to his leaving, was "much worse''.
I have to say that it does seem to me that it's highly unlikely that his call to Charlton would have been about an unrelated issue. If his job at Palace was over all bar the press announcement, why would he have wanted to ring Charlton other than to say that he had concluded his business at Palace, that there will be a press conference in two days and that if they had not yet made their decision to appoint somebody, he would be interested.
Jordan will have to show on balance that it is improbable that Dowie would have suddenly "seen the light on the road to Bolton" and decided, subsequent to their original agreement, to contact Charlton either on 20th or 22nd with a change of heart. As I understand it, to succeed with fraudulent misrepresentation, you need to show that at the time they reached agreement there was a deliberate intention to deceive. Given what we now know, and unless more incriminating evidence is produced, it's largely going to go down to who the Judge believes but the onus is on Jordan to show the balance falls his way.
What implications are there for our club? Well, assuming that Dowie rang us, and any contact between us and Dowie happened after 16th May, I would have thought we are in the clear as to tapping up.
I wasn't suggesting that we have. I was refering to the implications of evidence of tapping up which might lay us open to an FA charge and damage our credibility as a club who doesn't indulge in that sort of thing.
Keep going with the updates they're great.
Anyone else going up there?
Giving evidence at the High Court Mr Dowie said the "compromise agreement" under which he left the club meant he gave up his claim to "a potentially large sum of money" by foregoing bonuses on player transfer profits and any claim for compensation over the ending of his contract.
He also told the court his reputation had been severely damaged by Palace chairman Simon Jordan repeatedly calling him a liar in the media.
Mr Dowie is being sued by Crystal Palace who say he made "fraudulent misrepresentations" when he left the side last summer and joined rivals Charlton Athletic.
The 42-year-old had a clause in his contract which stated if he left to join another club his new bosses would pay Palace £1million in compensation.
Palace chairman Simon Jordan said he waived the clause as a gesture of good will because Mr Dowie said he wanted to move closer to his family in Bolton.
Within days of leaving Palace he was appointed as Charlton manager, but left after just 12 matches in charge. He is now at Coventry City.
But Mr Dowie insists he never said he would be "moving back up north" nor was there any limitation in his contract on him working for any other club in the future, including Charlton.
Mr Dowie said the "new regime" he introduced after taking charge at Palace had reversed the decline in player performances and team morale, culminating in the club's promotion to the Premiership for the 2004/2005 season.
Palace was only relegated on the last day of the season - after losing to Charlton - and, in the 2005/06 season the club almost made it back into the Premiership after qualifying for the play-off semi-finals, before losing out to Watford.
Mr Dowie said the club had benefited financially since his arrival, including an extra £25million in TV revenues and about £7million in "parachute" payments from the Premiership. And he said he had improved player performance, making them more valuable.
Mr Dowie said he was contacted by Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, on May 17 last year but he did not believe it was until May 22 - after he had signed the compromise agreement to leave Palace - that they had "contact regarding the Charlton Athletic job".
Mr Dowie told the court: "I believe that I have acted properly and honestly at all times. I entered a compromise agreement and waived very significant salary, bonuses and benefits under my contract in return for Crystal Palace waiving a compensation clause payable if I joined another club.
"There were no restrictions in that compromise agreement on where I could work and I found a new job at Charlton Athletic. I did not make any representations to Simon Jordan, false or otherwise, that I would only work in the north of England, or that that was the only reason why I was leaving Crystal Palace.
"He knew this was not the case."
He also dismissed claims by barrister,Michael McParland, for Mr Dowie, that he had spent most of the money he received from the sale of the Pocket Phone Shop on Palace.
"If you are asking me 'Have you spent three fifths, four fifths, one half of your money?' the answer is 'No'," said Mr Jordan.
"I was prepared to waive £1-million on the basis of good will and human interest, I was lied to and duped and I don't take very kindly to it," he said.
"On the advice of my lawyers I brought the claim."
Mr Jordan agreed it was unfortunate that he had said he had acted in a "Machiavellian way" in obtaining the freehold of Palace's home ground, Selhurst Park, from former chairman Ron Noades.
Conceding he had "contradicted" himself, Mr Jordan said the way he acted in relation to the purchase of the freehold made "commercial business sense" and comparisons between it and the case against Mr Dowie could not be made.
Could this have implications against us now?
For tapping up?? I suppose it could if Palace win this case, which is looking a little more likely than I initially thought. I'd like to hear Dowies explanation as to what Murray contacted him about on the 17th of May. As they say the case continues......
He did, but as this case is about trying to provide a balance of probability that Dowie knowingly mislead Palace in to releasing him without a financial settlement. It does seem very strange that Charlton would have been in touch with Dowie on the 17th of May and it had nothing to do with the managers job. Perhaps Murray was just seeing if Dowie thought Jordan might sell him a player! ;-)
May 15 2007
FORMER Crystal Palace manager Iain Dowie has admitted making factual errors at a press conference shortly after leaving the Eagles, as he began giving evidence at the High Court.
Mr Dowie is being sued by the club and their chairman Simon Jordan for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentations" when he left the club last summer and joined bitter rivals Charlton Athletic.
Mr Dowie, 42, had a clause in his contract saying if he left to join another club, his new bosses would pay Palace £1million compensation.
Mr Jordan says that, as a gesture of goodwill, he agreed to waive that clause when Mr Dowie left, to allow him to move nearer to his wife and family in Bolton.
Within days, Mr Dowie had joined Charlton - though he left after just 12 matches in charge. He is now at Coventry City.
At a May 30, 2006, press conference to announce his appointment as Charlton boss, Mr Dowie said that the "first conversation" he had with the Addicks about becoming manager was two days after he had left Palace on May 22.
Taking the stand, Mr Dowie admitted this "wasn't accurate" as he'd first talked with Charlton hours after announcing he was leaving Palace by mutual consent.
At the press conference he also said that before May 22 there had been "no contact whatsoever" with Charlton.
But yesterday Mr Dowie said that Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, had spoken to him before he left Palace,but insisted that there had been no mention of becoming Charlton manager in that conversation.
John Davies QC, barrister for Palace, said the press conference had been Mr Dowie's "first attempt" to "concoct a false story" about how he left the Eagles.
But Mr Dowie said it was no more than a "mistake", adding: "We all make mistakes."
As the cross-examination continued, Mr Davies asked why Mr Dowie had said in his witness statement that he had been approached by Mr Jordan about the Palace job in December 2003.
What really happened, Mr Davies told Mr Justice Tugendhat, was that Mr Dowie had first contacted Mr Jordan.
"There was a lot going on in my mind,"said Mr Dowie,with regard to the time he made the witness statement. "It was a mistake.I just got that wrong."
However Mr Davies accused him of allowing "supposition and happenstance" to be masqueraded as fact in his witness statement.
"It is designed to make it appear that you were rather more important than you were in December 2003,"said Mr Davies,who added that it was Mr Jordan who was "in the box seat".
Mr Dowie conceded that Mr Jordan was in the stronger position, but denied the other allegations.
The court also heard that Mr Dowie believed he was entitled to five per cent of the transfer fees of star Palace players, Andy Johnson and Wayne Routledge, both of whom had been signed before he arrived.
There was a clause in Mr Dowie's contract entitling him to a cut of transfers on players he had purchased who were then sold on, but he said that, as he had helped "develop" both Johnson and Routledge, they should have been included.
Palace rejected his request for money in relation to those two.
In his written defence statement, Mr Dowie says the compromise agreement was a "clean break" under which Palace dispensed with his services and avoided having to pay him substantial contractual entitlements.
The case against him was "entirely without merit in fact or law and should never have been brought", Mr Dowie says.
Mr Dowie also claims he helped Palace obtain "huge financial benefits for an impecunious club", when he took the Eagles up in May 2004, netting them a windfall of £30-million plus.
Jordan last week denied blowing most of his massive personal fortune on the South London side and said the club was not desperate for cash - so that could not be the reason he was trying to win compensation from Mr Dowie.
He also dismissed claims by barrister,Michael McParland, for Mr Dowie, that he had spent most of the money he received from the sale of the Pocket Phone Shop on Palace.
"If you are asking me 'Have you spent three fifths, four fifths, one half of your money?' the answer is 'No'," said Mr Jordan.
"I was prepared to waive £1-million on the basis of good will and human interest, I was lied to and duped and I don't take very kindly to it," he said.
"On the advice of my lawyers I brought the claim."
Mr Jordan agreed it was unfortunate that he had said he had acted in a "Machiavellian way" in obtaining the freehold of Palace's home ground, Selhurst Park, from former chairman Ron Noades.
Conceding he had "contradicted" himself, Mr Jordan said the way he acted in relation to the purchase of the freehold made "commercial business sense" and comparisons between it and the case against Mr Dowie could not be made.
The case continues.
SOURCE - icSouthlondon
It does seem a little bit dodgy to me.
However, the thought I have on this is that Jordan would never have given Charlton permission to talk to Dowie, so how could he have lost out on the compensation payment that was part of Dowie's contract because of Dowie's actions?
Could this have implications against us now?[/quote]
Doubt it as Jordan has already said that their agreement was reached on 16th May -very key date in all of this.
Once Dowie knew he was out of a job, why shouldn't he look for employment elsewhere ?
"No one is going home until someone tells me who done it"
agreed. In summary:
Dowie wanted out
Jordan wanted Dowie out but didn't want to pay him off
Compromise agreement agreed which suits both parties perfectly
Dowie gets the Charlton job
Jordan goes nuts because he thinks Murray has got one up on him
pathetic for all concerned.