Gumpy to sue Mariners

[fruitbat]

Were you one of the fair weather Aloi$i fans that turned on him later for being 'slow"?  

What's with all the newbies or low posters coming on here and accusing some the hardcore marinators as being fairweather fans or even bogans in my case. 

LOL. I havent accused anyone of being a fairweather fan of the MARINORS, but asked whether Bearinator was a fairweather fan of Aloi$i.

Serious question:-is it true that Tottenham hotspur fans are Jewish? (Pom friend just off the boat swears thats the case).

1. It's spelt MarinErs

2. Yes, Tottenham do have a large jewish following, and no, I'm not jewish. It's not wise to stereotype people.

OOps,  I wasnt asking if you were Jewish- just checking on whether this pom was on the level.

 

[Jimmy]

Were you one of the fair weather Aloi$i fans that turned on him later for being 'slow"? 

What's with all the newbies or low posters coming on here and accusing some the hardcore marinators as being fairweather fans or even bogans in my case. 

LOL. I havent accused anyone of being a fairweather fan of the MARINORS, but asked whether Bearinator was a fairweather fan of Aloi$i.

Serious question:-is it true that Tottenham hotspur fans are Jewish? (Pom friend just off the boat swears thats the case).

1. It's spelt MarinErs

2. Yes, Tottenham do have a large jewish following, and no, I'm not jewish. It's not wise to stereotype people.

OOps,  I wasnt asking if you were Jewish- just checking on whether this pom was on the level.

Yerp! He is.
So are Feyernord I think. One of those clubs.
Tottenham have the 1st reported act of Football hooliganism against a Dutch club, Ajax I think, all because of the jewish factor.

 

[brett]

"You can still love a litigious Gumpy and a club that may have erred in its obligations."

voice of reason

If Lawrie has better plans for the $ was on, fair enough, I can respect that. But if it was so carved into the stone of Gumpy's contract that he could opt for an extension if some appearance quota was met, and that quota WAS met, then I can't blame the guy for making a legal move. If it turns out that that is the case...then whether Gumpy follows through or not... it is a bad look for our club when trying to lure players. To be fair to Lawrie and co, it would be one blemish on an otherwise impeccable record in terms of player treatment/loyalty.

 

[FMMH]

As Brett just said, If Gumps played his quota of games then you can't blame him for taking this path. However, if he didn't he should move on.

He clearly agreed to the terms of the contract and knew what he was in for when the season started. If he is claiming that the contract is unfair - well, he should never of signed it and only has himself to blame.

 

[adz]

As Brett just said, If Gumps played his quota of games then you can't blame him for taking this path. However, if he didn't he should move on.

He clearly agreed to the terms of the contract and knew what he was in for when the season started. If he is claiming that the contract is unfair - well, he should never of signed it and only has himself to blame.

I don't think it's that clear cut. If he didn't play the quota of games, but was fit enough and in good enough form then he should be able to ask why he wasn't picked.

Anyway, I guess the Mariners will be a bit more careful when offering this type of contract in future in case circumstances change during the contract period that means they don't want to renew the extra year....

 

[nikko]

I wonder if St Nick Mrjda had a contract like this ;D

 

[Mini In Bay 6]

As Brett just said, If Gumps played his quota of games then you can't blame him for taking this path. However, if he didn't he should move on.

He clearly agreed to the terms of the contract and knew what he was in for when the season started. If he is claiming that the contract is unfair - well, he should never of signed it and only has himself to blame.

I don't think it's that clear cut. If he didn't play the quota of games, but was fit enough and in good enough form then he should be able to ask why he wasn't picked.

Anyway, I guess the Mariners will be a bit more careful when offering this type of contract in future in case circumstances change during the contract period that means they don't want to renew the extra year....

In terms of the contractual issue you only have to look at the Reynoldson affair at Newcastle in the Rugby League last year for proof that yes, even though a player is fit to play, the club (coach, Selectors Panel etc) still has final say who gets picked to play for whatever reasons they deem fit. If your contract says you get another season if you play ten games and you only play nine yet your fit and well all season, then tough you didn't play ten games so "no soup for you".

I would suggest that Rugby League also being the outrageously litigious sport that it is, if there was even a whiff of it getting challenged in court then it would have. But it didn't go to court and Newcastle copped a lot of bad press for not being very nice, but not for doing anything illegal.

 

[dibo]

I don't think it's that clear cut. If he didn't play the quota of games, but was fit enough and in good enough form then he should be able to ask why he wasn't picked.

In terms of the contractual issue you only have to look at the Reynoldson affair at Newcastle in the Rugby League last year for proof that yes, even though a player is fit to play, the club (coach, Selectors Panel etc) still has final say who gets picked to play for whatever reasons they deem fit. If your contract says you get another season if you play ten games and you only play nine yet your fit and well all season, then tough you didn't play ten games so "no soup for you".

managerial prerogative is important here. if the manager doesn't want to play you, then that's his decision to make. attempting to second-guess the motives is a mug's game.

 

[brett]

I don't think it's that clear cut. If he didn't play the quota of games, but was fit enough and in good enough form then he should be able to ask why he wasn't picked.

In terms of the contractual issue you only have to look at the Reynoldson affair at Newcastle in the Rugby League last year for proof that yes, even though a player is fit to play, the club (coach, Selectors Panel etc) still has final say who gets picked to play for whatever reasons they deem fit. If your contract says you get another season if you play ten games and you only play nine yet your fit and well all season, then tough you didn't play ten games so "no soup for you".

managerial prerogative is important here. if the manager doesn't want to play you, then that's his decision to make. attempting to second-guess the motives is a mug's game.

Yep. If Gumps' angle is that he was only prevented from playing his quota for smelly reasons, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. LM may well have not played him for contractual reasons, but that is his entitlement.

We just don't know though. There could be some contention as to whether finals matches count towards the quota, or some other ambiguity in the contract.

 

[Pete]

When you move further south you'll have a chance!

Naaaah, even if he shared a unit with Bearinator and became one of the BSE, he'd still be bagged out as a bogan. But in a friendly kinda way.

 

[Pete]

Like a lot of things involving lawyers, it will come down to arguments over words I suspect.
Words in clauses, the intention of the each party when the contract was offered and accepted, and definitions.

If Gumps is going through the PFA, it may be that the PFA wants to test the validity of these sort of incentives in a player's contract and if they lose, then obviously they can advise their members that such an incentive in a contract appears risky. Or, they may be able to get directions from a judge as to how best have such an incentive applied in future contracts.

And, if the PFA & Gumps win, it will give a heads up to the clubs to be more careful when an agent starts talking about incentive clauses.

 

[Paolo]

Yerp! He is.
So are Feyernord I think. One of those clubs.
Tottenham have the 1st reported act of Football hooliganism against a Dutch club, Ajax I think, all because of the jewish factor

It was Feyenoord. Tottenham lost the final in the mid 70s to them and started a riot as a result.

Ajax is another club similar to tottenham. They too have a reputation of having a large jewish following and as result of the antisemitic provocation of opposition fans have adopted it as a badge of honour by displaying the star of david and chanting "joden"(jews in dutch). Tottenham have counteracted it by calling themselves "yids" and "yid army" which means "jews" which lessons the impact of the opposition fans taunting.

Actually tottenham are playing in a pre-season comp which will feature Feyenoord, so it should be a very tastey fixture ;D

 

[soccersensei]

:

This may change the "well liked by fans" bit!

Or fans will hate the club for doing this to "their Andre"

general consensus...no
i mean i like many appreciate his service to us-but club is most important thing
that said if the club is doin the dirty on him I will tsk...but in the end turn a blind eye (as long as it is a one-off)
I only know of one mariners supporter that is not going to follow the club anymore...a 14 year old frriend of mine (not on these forums) who says he will follow whichever club Gumprecht plays for (which is a bit eccentric IMO)

So in 2-3 years when Gumprecht hangs up his boots he follows who then? The kids that Gumprecht trains?