Views from the Sieve

What's the reasoning behind keeping Burnett? The money issue definitely isn't an issue now after our FA cup "success" so I'd like to put the question across why hasn't the board sacked him, what do they see in him which me and around 3 quarters of our supporters don't see in him, why is he still here?

Its a results business - No other club would accept his win ratio!!!

Money it is soley down to money, they can't afford to sack him it really is that simple.

Diggerthedog wrote:Money it is soley down to money, they can't afford to sack him it really is that simple.

Surely the cup run money would of solved this problem, his redundancy pay can't be too high

His position is not redundant.

He has a fixed term contract of employment with no notice provision. Therefore if you wish to terminate his contract, he can sue for breach of contract for his net salary for the 18 months left of his contract. He does however have a duty to mitigate his loss by getting another job.

The Everton money will not be enough to pay 18 months of his contract because, as I understand it, half goes to the players' bonus scheme. So if you got 20,000 at an average of £10, less say £50k costs, is £150k to be split 45% per club, so £67,500. Less VAT it becomes £56,250. Then half to the players, the club makes £28,125.

The income the club are about to receive from the Everton cup game , now means as a club we are now in a position where we can afford to sack the three stooges and get someone who knows how to manage in

My understanding is we will receive 45% of the gate receipt and it don't take much working out that this is the time to act NOW

Give a short term deal till the end of season to John Still & Terry Harris etc

At least they know how to manage a football club , not like this current mostly crew

Not just Koko though you have Hatchett and Currie best part of £200k.

who on board has said we dont have the money to get rid?

the board need a good look at whoever gave him the new contract aswell

we dont have money to burn thats clear to see but id be shocked if we dont have money to get rid of a player/manager at a professional football club if needed.

defo now we have a few extra quid out of our cup run and im pretty sure player would not be getting half of any money earnt.

There is no reason to keep him other than money. Where do we Magic the money from? He has us by the balls and is not man enough to resign.

But surely you can be sacked if you don't perform whether you are on a contract or not.

I don't understand, can someone explain in simple terms

Chigwellian wrote:But surely you can be sacked if you don't perform whether you are on a contract or not.

I don't understand, can someone explain in simple terms

He has a fixed term contract. If we want to terminate it early then it will cost us to do so, depending on the exact terms of the contract.

I'd expect we could bin him for gross misconduct without cost, but being rubbish isn't gross misconduct.

mickeyblue wrote: now we have a few extra quid out of our cup run and im pretty sure player would not be getting half of any money earnt.

Our bonus scheme always gave them half prize money and tv money, but I'm told now includes gate money from round 3.

Chigwellian wrote:But surely you can be sacked if you don't perform whether you are on a contract or not.

I don't understand, can someone explain in simple terms

Not unless you have a clause allowing you to do so.

A fixed term contract of employment means just that: you agree to employ them for the term.

Unless you put in a clause specifying a performance target you cannot sack then for not performing to your expectation. If you don't put in a notice clause then you cannot terminate the contract early.

We could sack him if he committed gross misconduct, but he hasn't. He's just not getting the required results.

We could sack him today.Pay him and move on.There has been a conscious decision to stick with him.Its bollox we couldn't pay him off.

I actually think he'll be sacked Monday or at least allowed to leave by mutual consent.His position is now untenable as far as im concerned.

He tried and did ok but now its time to go.

Alan wrote:

Chigwellian wrote:But surely you can be sacked if you don't perform whether you are on a contract or not.

I don't understand, can someone explain in simple terms

Not unless you have a clause allowing you to do so.

A fixed term contract of employment means just that: you agree to employ them for the term.

Unless you put in a clause specifying a performance target you cannot sack then for not performing to your expectation. If you don't put in a notice clause then you cannot terminate the contract early.

We could sack him if he committed gross misconduct, but he hasn't. He's just not getting the required results.

Then the business sense of our board is non existent. How can we possibly not put a clause in ffs.

Ridiculous