Financial Obligation?

[Guest ROBIN RELIANT]

[Cideriup]

According to SLs own words, me and Brian had a discussion (on the Sunday) at the end of which it was decided it would be in everyones best interests if Brian stepped down.

Sounds to me like he was asked to step down before he got sacked.

This would explain why he's still on the payroll and also save SL from having to sack him and so admit he was wrong to appoint him in the first place.

[mike11]

[Guest ROBIN RELIANT]

Fair enough, but lets talk MONEY - thats whats important now.

Is our money being thrown away to keep a man silent?

Whats there to slience? results speak for themselves!

I don't want this to turn into Tin-onion debate, I just want to know where we stand as a club.

Are we paying another chief? what we need is Indians!

[mike11]

Fair enough, but lets talk MONEY - thats whats important now.

Is our money being thrown away to keep a man silent?

Whats there to slience? results speak for themselves!

I don't want this to turn into  Tin-onion debate, I just want to know where we stand as a club.

Are we paying another chief? what we need is Indians!

←

If you think money is the most important thing right now,then may I suggest you take a look at the league table,our managerial position and the performances on the pitch.

Calling him Tin-onion is a bit childish don,t you think?

[richieb]

You say you don,t want to get embroilled in a hate campaign against the man,yet you call him Tin-onion 3 times in your useless thread.Are you richieb in disguise?

←

No he ain't richieb in disguise.

My threads are well thought out & constructive in there design

But while on the subject - If he did resign I understand we wouldn't have to pay him.

But there are a few who feel sorry for him at the club so I am sure the loyalty thing will kick in.

Unless the new manager sees him as a person who could do a job for us.?

I have said he would do well in the Academy.

Some say a scout - but looking at recent signings - wouldn't hold out much hope there !

[Guest ROBIN RELIANT]

apple-gies, don't wish to cause offence and have lovingly referred to BT as TO for sometime - not a recently thought up jibe.

However, it will cease.

IS HE REALLY STILL ON THE PAY ROLL? If the new manager wants him then so be it and he can be re-employed - I'm just thinkin money now and moving forward.

New manager loomin, fresh start - lets get the finances straight

[Cideriup]

But while on the subject - If he did resign I understand we wouldn't have to pay him.

That's exactly why the statement was worded in the way it was. It was obvious by now (the Sunday) to SL that BT had to go, probably obvious to BT too. The only problem being how to go about it, hence an afternoon of discussions followed by a statement which doesn't actually mention the words resigned or sacked. This then leaves BT still being paid, in return for SL not having to admit he was wrong to appoint him.

[richieb]

Yep, all a bit up in the air.

And I suppose until the new man gets the nod, we will not know if BT features or not?

I wonder if part of the critria of the new manager would be the employment of BT ?

[Cideriup]

I think it would suit everyone if the rumours of a playing contract at Huddersfield (or anywhere else) prove to be true.

[Guest BCFC_JOHNERZ_88]

i think tin-onion should be in the dictonary

[Guest ROBIN RELIANT]

From what you're sayin BT has been sacked, therefore we owe him a loada loot?

[Guest ROBIN RELIANT]

where's this Huddersfield thread come from??

Rumour based on old Bradford Buddy link or an official offer. If its OFFICIAL and he's still on the books, he's our property - lets sell him then!

[Guest Frank]

From what you're sayin BT has been sacked, therefore we owe him a loada loot?

←

I'm guessing but my thoughts are he's probably on gardening leave or whatever they call it.

I guess they are keeping him on until the new man is appointed in case he wants Tinnion kept on in some capacity. If there is to be a restructuring as suggested, then I suppose it's possible the new manager will say "I want Tinnion running the under 17s", "I want Tinnion as a squad player in case of injuries" or whatever.

Perhaps Tinnion is happy to stay on in whatever capacity if the new bloke wants him so is waiting to see how it pans out.

If the new guy doesn't want him at the club as he thinks it will be disruptive then I guess his resignation will be fully accepted and he'll walk away.

Personally I think a clean break might be best for all concerned but I'll trust the new man to make the right decision once he's appointed.

All guesswork, supposition and over use of the word 'new guy' but it doesn't sound implausible to me.

[Cideriup]

From what you're sayin BT has been sacked, therefore we owe him a loada loot?

←

This is one of the reasons why the statement was worded in the way it was. I would imagine that SL & BT came to an 'arrangement'. Probably not paid up in full, but partly. And kept on the payroll until another job came along.

Another quote from SL was, at the moment he was still on the payroll, but BT would be leaving the club completely.

[Guest routabout]

Whether Tinnion resigned or was left no alternative by Steve's choice of words, during their 'chat' isn't really relevant. Whatever happened there, it's what is put on the official paperwork and what is/was also agreed between Steve and Brian that matters.

Allow me to describe some possible scenarios.

Steve insists that Brian steps down

This is tantamount to Tinns being dismissed. Tinns is entitiled to compensation to the full extent. Tinns' CV has that blotch on it, as him being sacked. Not good for either club or man.

Brian decides for himself that he should resign

Tinns, as far as I can tell is not entitled to compensation in this scenario. However, his CV isn't stained quite so badly and he leaves with the questionable honour that he was willing and able to admit that he could not turn the current mess around. Obviously Steve may agree with him, but it's Tinns' decision and his alone, that proves decisive.

Compromise

Steve decides that Brian's position is indeed untenable. To limit damage to Tinns' career, the official line is that Tinns resigned, but to limit the financial damage to the club, a compromise is reached and Tinns gets a more agreeable (to the club) severance package.

All in all, does it really matter? There are rights and there are employment laws, which should stand to protect us all. Regardless of emotions, we still need to keep to procedures. There may be a few reasons why Tinns' has been retained on the payroll. The conspiracy theorists among us, myself included at times, would see the 'keep your mouth shut or wave good-bye to your Rolex', or Steve could be thinking, what if the new man arrives and says, that Tinns fella would be good to have around the place, to help me settle in, or that his passion for the club and past good work with the youngsters could be beneficial in the long run. If Steve had gotten rid of Tinns' in the meantime, then he's going to me awash with egg, isn't he? Of course, there could also be some complex contractual obligation that says that we should be playing this whole affair very carefully and that Tinns' contract should only be voided in very particular circumstances.

Just some food for thought. I'm not claiming that any of the above is the case as I clearly am not in posession of the full facts.