Media on Tisdale!

[Antony Moxey]

people thought that financially it would be very difficult for City to fire Tisdale with immediate effect if that meant owing Tisdale 2 years' salary.

Yes, because they’re stupid! Of course Tisdale could have been dismissed at any time: he could have had noticed served then worked through his two year notice period, or he could have been asked to leave immediately and continued to receive his salary until the two year notice period was completed.

Agreed both ways are expensive, the latter especially so as not only would we be paying his wages but another manager’s too, but to say he was unsackable and believe it is plain stupid. There is no scenario where we would have to find a two year salary lump sum and pay up immediately.

Even now, our ‘unsackable’ manager hasn’t been sacked, he’s merely had notice served on his contract with a view to negotiating a new contract that’s acceptable to all parties. The stupid naturally think because he hasn’t signed the first piece of paper shoved under his nose that we should immediately withdraw all offers and kick his sorry arse out the door, however this is because the stupid are unaware of the word ‘negotiation’ (to be fair, it is more than two syllables) in the term ‘contract negotiations’.

So yes he may well leave, but if he does it will be because the parties involved couldn’t negotiate terms acceptable to both sides, not because he’s been sacked. Which, as I say, is ironic considering the stupid thought him unsackable.

 

[IndoMike]

Yes, because they’re stupid! Of course Tisdale could have been dismissed at any time: he could have had noticed served then worked through his two year notice period, or he could have been asked to leave immediately and continued to receive his salary until the two year notice period was completed.

Agreed both ways are expensive, the latter especially so as not only would we be paying his wages but another manager’s too, but to say he was unsackable and believe it is plain stupid. There is no scenario where we would have to find a two year salary lump sum and pay up immediately.

Even now, our ‘unsackable’ manager hasn’t been sacked, he’s merely had notice served on his contract with a view to negotiating a new contract that’s acceptable to all parties. The stupid naturally think because he hasn’t signed the first piece of paper shoved under his nose that we should immediately withdraw all offers and kick his sorry arse out the door, however this is because the stupid are unaware of the word ‘negotiation’ (to be fair, it is more than two syllables) in the term ‘contract negotiations’.

So yes he may well leave, but if he does it will be because the parties involved couldn’t negotiate terms acceptable to both sides, not because he’s been sacked. Which, as I say, is ironic considering the stupid thought him unsackable.

When people said he was "unsackable" (I didn't) I don't think they meant he was literally unsackable, but that at the time it would have been really difficult for City to pay him off.
That's my point.
Yes, it annoys me too when there has been a lot of talk, including in the national press, that Tisdale has had his contract "terminated", which without further explanation strongly implies that the club fired Tis. He hasn't been fired, but is in negotiations with the club over a new contract. I agree that after hundreds of posts on this matter you would hope that people get it.

 

[John William]

Part of the problem is that the Club never explained what the Trust's vote meant and the Trust Board were told in terms not to comment as this was a Club matter.

If it had been publicly explained that this was only the start of a renegotiation of the managers contact all this erroneous reporting could have been avoided. I pleaded with colleagues that we should say something along these lines but was overruled. Speculation always follows evasion.

 

[malcolms]

Part of the problem is that the Club never explained what the Trust's vote meant and the Trust Board were told in terms not to comment as this was a Club matter.

If it had been publicly explained that this was only the start of a renegotiation of the managers contact all this erroneous reporting could have been avoided. I pleaded with colleagues that we should say something along these lines but was overruled. Speculation always follows evasion.

A perfect illustration of the overarching issue...In a question of supreme importance, the Trust who fundamentally own the club, were dictated to by employees whose real allegiance is to themselves rather than the concept...

 

[geoffwp]

Yes, because they’re stupid! Of course Tisdale could have been dismissed at any time: he could have had noticed served then worked through his two year notice period, or he could have been asked to leave immediately and continued to receive his salary until the two year notice period was completed.

Agreed both ways are expensive, the latter especially so as not only would we be paying his wages but another manager’s too, but to say he was unsackable and believe it is plain stupid. There is no scenario where we would have to find a two year salary lump sum and pay up immediately.

Even now, our ‘unsackable’ manager hasn’t been sacked, he’s merely had notice served on his contract with a view to negotiating a new contract that’s acceptable to all parties. The stupid naturally think because he hasn’t signed the first piece of paper shoved under his nose that we should immediately withdraw all offers and kick his sorry arse out the door, however this is because the stupid are unaware of the word ‘negotiation’ (to be fair, it is more than two syllables) in the term ‘contract negotiations’.

So yes he may well leave, but if he does it will be because the parties involved couldn’t negotiate terms acceptable to both sides, not because he’s been sacked. Which, as I say, is ironic considering the stupid thought him unsackable.

Great rant there. Read it out loud to a crowd of mates sat with beers outside a pub. A lot of it got snorted.

 

[IndoMike]

Part of the problem is that the Club never explained what the Trust's vote meant and the Trust Board were told in terms not to comment as this was a Club matter.

If it had been publicly explained that this was only the start of a renegotiation of the managers contact all this erroneous reporting could have been avoided. I pleaded with colleagues that we should say something along these lines but was overruled. Speculation always follows evasion.

As a matter of interest, does the Club Board have a legal right to request and enforce that the Trust Board should remain silent on issues such as Tis' situation? Since, as Malcs says, the Trust Board in theory is the owner and Club Board members are the employees, it does seem odd.

 

[richard_portland]

How many make up the trust board? As I understand it four of the trust board make up half of the club board.

Could it be that the club board decided what to tell the trust board to do, and then enforced it by getting the four who were members of both boards to vote it through?

 

[IndoMike]

Great rant there. Read it out loud to a crowd of mates sat with beers outside a pub. A lot of it got snorted.

Are you on the way to Wembley, Geoff?

 

[elginCity]

Yes, 4 of the 8 on the Club Board also sit on the Trust Board, and are not employees of the club, or Trust. Contractual arrangements of employees (ie Tis) are not allowed to be aired publicly, data protection and all that.

When you consider that the serving notice was made on the back of a run of particularly poor results, followed by a public statement from the Trust re club form and dissatisfaction with said results and a need for improvement, then it's easy to see how this perception of 'getting rid' could be arrived at.

 

[richard_portland]

And it's most likely that had we had a couple of mid to lower table finishes then that perception would probably have been more accurate.

It's great that we have been at the top end for two seasons now, but the issue with the roller for me was always that if we had two seasons of struggle or even a relegation then we still faced paying off two years.