Reasons for the Confidentiality Clause

[davieG]

This seems to be creating animosity, mistrust, damaging tittle tattle than letting us know the truth. Either that or the truth is too awful to know

There would seem to be four scenarios to this agreement.

• It’s a standard clause in all LCFC mutual parting contracts.
  

This could be the only reason for it’s existence but unlikely based on the events, MM's statement of ‘a breakdown in the relationship' plus the timing of the departure - I can’t see this being the reason.

• It was of mutual benefit to MM & MA as they’ve both been complete arses and neither wanted to look foolish.
  

This could be true although judging from their inability to get on and their respective hardnosed egotistical characters it’s hard to see either one of them admitting they had done anything out of line that they would not want the public to know -There is a sleight possibility of this being the case - I can’t see them agreeing to it.

• Martin Allen asked for the clause to be included.
  

Again a possibility but I can see no gain for MM, in fact if this was all down to Allen’s management style at the club, as some have suggested then it would be totally against MM best interests. To me this is a total non-starter.

• Milan Mandaric insisted on it.
  

Again a possibility, if MM has interfered in the football management beyond a reasonable level and been the main cause of the ‘falling out’ then it would certainly be in his best interests to put a gag on MA, because MA is well capable of telling a story - This is the favourite for me.

Of course it’s only my perception but I’d like to think an objective one as, although I’m disappointed Allen’s gone I’m more concerned with MMs ability to find a replacement and I’m totally pessimistic on that score.

[demon_dog]

This seems to be creating animosity, mistrust, damaging tittle tattle than letting us know the truth. Either that or the truth is too awful to know

There would seem to be four scenarios to this agreement.

• It’s a standard clause in all LCFC mutual parting contracts.
  

This could be the only reason for it’s existence but unlikely based on the events, MM's statement of ‘a breakdown in the relationship' plus the timing of the departure - I can’t see this being the reason.

• It was of mutual benefit to MM & MA as they’ve both been complete arses and neither wanted to look foolish.
  

This could be true although judging from their inability to get on and their respective hardnosed egotistical characters it’s hard to see either one of them admitting they had done anything out of line that they would not want the public to know -There is a sleight possibility of this being the case - I can’t see them agreeing to it.

• Martin Allen asked for the clause to be included.
  

Again a possibility but I can see no gain for MM, in fact if this was all down to Allen’s management style at the club, as some have suggested then it would be totally against MM best interests. To me this is a total non-starter.

• Milan Mandaric insisted on it.
  

Again a possibility, if MM has interfered in the football management beyond a reasonable level and been the main cause of the ‘falling out’ then it would certainly be in his best interests to put a gag on MA, because MA is well capable of telling a story - This is the favourite for me.

Of course it’s only my perception but I’d like to think an objective one as, although I’m disappointed Allen’s gone I’m more concerned with MMs ability to find a replacement and I’m totally pessimistic on that score.

Think you will find that nearly all football clubs now include this as a standard clause in any contract.

This then protects both the club and manager in the event of any dispute.

[Ultra]

I think the clause was to enable both sides to move on.

But now that a tabloid is being sued for its reporting of the issue, that may prove difficult.

[chesterfox]

I think the clause was to enable both sides to move on.

But now that a tabloid is being sued for its reporting of the issue, that may prove difficult.

Take care of what you say about MM - his sensitivity does not seem to ezxtend v.far - this way of doing business is the only defamatory thing to our club.

[Geo V]

I plan on hiring MA to do my garden and have no fear, he`ll spill the beans. The plan is to trap him with free beer and then go for the kill and find out what actually did happen. It wont be long before M Allen Landscapers starts trading again. Has anyone got a number for him?

[bigboy]

This seems to be creating animosity, mistrust, damaging tittle tattle than letting us know the truth. Either that or the truth is too awful to know

There would seem to be four scenarios to this agreement.

• It’s a standard clause in all LCFC mutual parting contracts.
  

This could be the only reason for it’s existence but unlikely based on the events, MM's statement of ‘a breakdown in the relationship' plus the timing of the departure - I can’t see this being the reason.

• It was of mutual benefit to MM & MA as they’ve both been complete arses and neither wanted to look foolish.
  

This could be true although judging from their inability to get on and their respective hardnosed egotistical characters it’s hard to see either one of them admitting they had done anything out of line that they would not want the public to know -There is a sleight possibility of this being the case - I can’t see them agreeing to it.

• Martin Allen asked for the clause to be included.
  

Again a possibility but I can see no gain for MM, in fact if this was all down to Allen’s management style at the club, as some have suggested then it would be totally against MM best interests. To me this is a total non-starter.

• Milan Mandaric insisted on it.
  

Again a possibility, if MM has interfered in the football management beyond a reasonable level and been the main cause of the ‘falling out’ then it would certainly be in his best interests to put a gag on MA, because MA is well capable of telling a story - This is the favourite for me.

Of course it’s only my perception but I’d like to think an objective one as, although I’m disappointed Allen’s gone I’m more concerned with MMs ability to find a replacement and I’m totally pessimistic on that score.

Whats it got to do with us. This is a private club now since MM took over. What go's on is nothing to do with us, even if we think it dose. We are only supporters not the business men!!! So sorry we must wind our necks in.

[Blue Bob]

Something has cracked off, possibly Saturday. MM clearly unhappy and wanted him gone. MA would have said he has a three year contract so there will have to be some sort of financial settlement to help the parting of the two parties.

MA may have wanted to protect his future career by this not coming out so he would have been happy to have had the clause added.

It is highly unlikely that we will ever find out. So we have to trust the man like he says and hope he doesnt need 20 managers to get to where he wants to be!! Otherwise we have years of this sh*t!!!!

[Webbo]

Obviously both sides see things from their own point of view, both will think the other is at fault. Agreements like this protect both sides . If Allen tells his side of the story it could embarrass MM and turn the fans against him. Similary if Manderic were to slag off Allen's management style it could affect his future employment prospects.

[davieG]

Whats it got to do with us. This is a private club now since MM took over. What go's on is nothing to do with us, even if we think it dose. We are only supporters not the business men!!! So sorry we must wind our necks in.

On that basis we should close the forum down and never ever again utter a word about LCFC.

Without the fans there would be no LCFC as is the case with every business and it's customers so it's got everything to do with us even if we can't, as individuals affect what's happening.

Good businesses listen to their customers so I'll continue to discuss the goings on whether you like it or not.

[He's not bald]

Obviously both sides see things from their own point of view, both will think the other is at fault. Agreements like this protect both sides . If Allen tells his side of the story it could embarrass MM and turn the fans against him. Similary if Manderic were to slag off Allen's management style it could affect his future employment prospects.

Could'nt give a toss as long as we don't end up with Megson..I know whoever it is it will only be till about Wolves at home but that's still too many games with him in charge!

[davieG]

Obviously both sides see things from their own point of view, both will think the other is at fault. Agreements like this protect both sides . If Allen tells his side of the story it could embarrass MM and turn the fans against him. Similary if Manderic were to slag off Allen's management style it could affect his future employment prospects.

Unless of course the silence proves more destructive than an open and honest statement of what went wrong, after all we're already into the club suing a newspaper as a result of second guessing the situation, I hardly call that protecting the club.

[Webbo]

Unless of course the silence proves more destructive than an open and honest statement of what went wrong, after all we're already into the club suing a newspaper as a result of second guessing the situation, I hardly call that protecting the club.

2 line apology on page 43 in next Thursday's edition and everything will be forgotten.

[davieG]

2 line apology on page 43 in next Thursday's edition and everything will be forgotten.

The damage to the club is already done though!

[l444ry]

..

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Look when Martin Allen retirers, following his career in which he has managed Hibernian to 5 succesive European Cup titles and leads England to World Cup glory he will write about the little happenings with Milan in his book titled 'How Mad Dog won the world cup with plants!' and we will all know why - at which time we proberly won't care.

Either that, or Allen gets bored, and sells an exclusive to a sunday paper.

One way or the other - the truth is out there!

[Foxters_Fella]

Being a Liverpool supporter but having an affiliation to Leicester as my girlfriend supports them...I find this whole situation rather interesting........

Normally a parting via mutual consent in footballing terms suggests that the manager is leaving with a reduced pay-off or possibly without being compensated financially at all. Therefore on one hand it looks like Martin Allen has sacrificed a pay-off for a 'cover-up' severance agreement.

I would expect that Martin Allen has insisted on this stipulation to protect something that might potentially cause him problems with applying for other managerial vacancies.

On the other hand.....Milan Mandaric might have insisted on this clause to stop Martin Allen from 'spilling the beans' on a club that is run from top to bottom by a control freak who will not allow the manager any freedom to do what he thinks is required to take the team to the next level.

It looks like Mandaric has signed most of the new players.....but this doesn't tie in with decision not to bring in Hasselbaink. Surely if Mandaric is pulling the strings in Real Madrid fashion and drafting in who he wants over the managers head.......then he would have brought Hasselbaink in regardless of Martin Allen's view.

It is well documented that Mandaric tried to interfere at Portsmouth during Harry Redknapps first tenure at the club and this lead to a lot of problems.

I think the only way that Mandaric is going to have a happy management team is by either taking control of the day-to-day running of team affairs himself.....or employing a 'yes man' (Steve McLaren type manager) to smile and agree with whatever he wants.

His comment about going through 20 managers if necessary to get to where he wants to be would frighten the life out of me If I was a Leicester supporter as shows quite clearly that Mandaric actually doubts his own judgement on appointing the right manager.....but is happy to go with his gut instinct and hope it proves fruitful!!

If not......draft in another monkey and hope he is the messiah to take Leicester City back to the Premiership....if not....NEXT!!!

Whatever has happened is done...but you would hope that Mandaric might have learnt a few things whilst at Portsmouth and seriously reviewed his approach to running a successful football club......sadly I think he is still learning the hard way and losing the confidence of a sizeable section of the clubs supporters whilst in the process.

[Flexx]

Being a Liverpool supporter but having an affiliation to Leicester as my girlfriend supports them...I find this whole situation rather interesting........

Normally a parting via mutual consent in footballing terms suggests that the manager is leaving with a reduced pay-off or possibly without being compensated financially at all. Therefore on one hand it looks like Martin Allen has sacrificed a pay-off for a 'cover-up' severance agreement.

I would expect that Martin Allen has insisted on this stipulation to protect something that might potentially cause him problems with applying for other managerial vacancies.

On the other hand.....Milan Mandaric might have insisted on this clause to stop Martin Allen from 'spilling the beans' on a club that is run from top to bottom by a control freak who will not allow the manager any freedom to do what he thinks is required to take the team to the next level.

It looks like Mandaric has signed most of the new players.....but this doesn't tie in with decision not to bring in Hasselbaink. Surely if Mandaric is pulling the strings in Real Madrid fashion and drafting in who he wants over the managers head.......then he would have brought Hasselbaink in regardless of Martin Allen's view.

It is well documented that Mandaric tried to interfere at Portsmouth during Harry Redknapps first tenure at the club and this lead to a lot of problems.

I think the only way that Mandaric is going to have a happy management team is by either taking control of the day-to-day running of team affairs himself.....or employing a 'yes man' (Steve McLaren type manager) to smile and agree with whatever he wants.

His comment about going through 20 managers if necessary to get to where he wants to be would frighten the life out of me If I was a Leicester supporter as shows quite clearly that Mandaric actually doubts his own judgement on appointing the right manager.....but is happy to go with his gut instinct and hope it proves fruitful!!

If not......draft in another monkey and hope he is the messiah to take Leicester City back to the Premiership....if not....NEXT!!!

Whatever has happened is done...but you would hope that Mandaric might have learnt a few things whilst at Portsmouth and seriously reviewed his approach to running a successful football club......sadly I think he is still learning the hard way and losing the confidence of a sizeable section of the clubs supporters whilst in the process.

Good post, I'm just wondering what possibly could have happened on Saturday to upset Milan so much?

We beat Watford comfortably 4-1, so something fairly serious must have gone on behind the scenes.

[davieG]

Being a Liverpool supporter but having an affiliation to Leicester as my girlfriend supports them...I find this whole situation rather interesting........

Normally a parting via mutual consent in footballing terms suggests that the manager is leaving with a reduced pay-off or possibly without being compensated financially at all. Therefore on one hand it looks like Martin Allen has sacrificed a pay-off for a 'cover-up' severance agreement.

I would expect that Martin Allen has insisted on this stipulation to protect something that might potentially cause him problems with applying for other managerial vacancies.

On the other hand.....Milan Mandaric might have insisted on this clause to stop Martin Allen from 'spilling the beans' on a club that is run from top to bottom by a control freak who will not allow the manager any freedom to do what he thinks is required to take the team to the next level.

It looks like Mandaric has signed most of the new players.....but this doesn't tie in with decision not to bring in Hasselbaink. Surely if Mandaric is pulling the strings in Real Madrid fashion and drafting in who he wants over the managers head.......then he would have brought Hasselbaink in regardless of Martin Allen's view.

It is well documented that Mandaric tried to interfere at Portsmouth during Harry Redknapps first tenure at the club and this lead to a lot of problems.

I think the only way that Mandaric is going to have a happy management team is by either taking control of the day-to-day running of team affairs himself.....or employing a 'yes man' (Steve McLaren type manager) to smile and agree with whatever he wants.

His comment about going through 20 managers if necessary to get to where he wants to be would frighten the life out of me If I was a Leicester supporter as shows quite clearly that Mandaric actually doubts his own judgement on appointing the right manager.....but is happy to go with his gut instinct and hope it proves fruitful!!

If not......draft in another monkey and hope he is the messiah to take Leicester City back to the Premiership....if not....NEXT!!!

Whatever has happened is done...but you would hope that Mandaric might have learnt a few things whilst at Portsmouth and seriously reviewed his approach to running a successful football club......sadly I think he is still learning the hard way and losing the confidence of a sizeable section of the clubs supporters whilst in the process.

Why would MM agree to this when he's looking like the bad guy for sacking Allen, there seems little point unless what Allen did was also bad for the club in which case it must be verging on the illegal or immoral. If this was the case he could sack him and pay no compensation. I just don't see this as the underlying reason.

[Daggers]

Normally a parting via mutual consent in footballing terms suggests that the manager is leaving with a reduced pay-off or possibly without being compensated financially at all. Therefore on one hand it looks like Martin Allen has sacrificed a pay-off for a 'cover-up' severance agreement.

Rhubarb.

Where in the wide, wide world of footy business does 'mutual termination' = reduced or no compensation?

Unless all three sacked employees committed the same breach of contract (and I'm pushed to imagine anything 'legal' here) then it would be reasonable to assume that it is the club that is in breach and therefore liable for the contents of the full contract due to the decision being made to terminate their employment.

A non-disclosure agreement protects both parties by limiting the damaging information that may come out and by stopping money being wasted on legal fees.

[Foxters_Fella]

Good post, I'm just wondering what possibly could have happened on Saturday to upset Milan so much?

We beat Watford comfortably 4-1, so something fairly serious must have gone on behind the scenes.

I agree Crouch............It certainly can't have anything whatsover to do with results!

I believe it is either something to do with the transfer policy (Mandaric buying players of his choosing and Allen coaching them) or something to do with Milan Mandaric trying to get far too involved in the day-to-day running of football affairs.

If it is the latter......I would leave that to the experts if I was Mandaric and let a manager do what he is hired and paid extremely well for.

[Foxters_Fella]

Rhubarb.

Where in the wide, wide world of footy business does 'mutual termination' = reduced or no compensation?

Unless all three sacked employees committed the same breach of contract (and I'm pushed to imagine anything 'legal' here) then it would be reasonable to assume that it is the club that is in breach and therefore liable for the contents of the full contract due to the decision being made to terminate their employment.

A non-disclosure agreement protects both parties by limiting the damaging information that may come out and by stopping money being wasted on legal fees.

Daggers.................I think we can safely rule out a breach of contract by all three members of the managerial team that have left the club as this would set a new precident in football at a professional level and I have never heard of anything like this anywhere in world football.

Mutual termination is an option that is normally exercised when there is no major underlying cause or problem in the working relationship between the parties involved. Basically it is an amicable arrangement that is beneficial to both parties and leeway (a bit of haggling) on behalf of one party is normally required within reason.

Do you actually think that Milan Mandaric is paying up all three contracts in full on the basis of mutual termination when he could have dismissed them for 'gross misconduct or breach of contract' and sacked them all without having to pay anything...assuming that they have all...or at least Martin Allen has done something to warrant that action?

If they are receiving any payment at all....it will not be for the full remainder of their contractual agreement.

If no payment has been made to any of them......then Mandaric has agreed to keep tight lipped on whatever him (Allen)/they have done wrong and let them leave with their C.V's intact for potential re-employment.

If you take the Ian Dowie situation when he left Crystal Palace by 'mutual consent'....this was based on him telling the Chairman that he wanted to leave so that he could be closer to his family.

Do you think Simon Jordan simply said "Thanks for your time here then Ian.......a cheque is in the post for the remaining 3 years of your contract...enjoy life!"

Of course he wouldn't!!

He would have treated this as Dowie's intention to resign and accepted his resignation in good faith due to the circumstances provided.

It was common knowledge over the last week that MM and MA's relationship was strained....therefore 'mutual consent' is an extremely unusual way of a club and manager parting company when there has been a rift because one of the parties is going to feel unfairly treated in some way or that the other party had behaved unreasonably.

[Daggers]

Once again - you fail to produce one example of evidence to support this. I understood what you said the first time, expanding upon it without providing any concrete examples doesn't lend any veracity to its position.

If MA & friends were told that they could 'go now' with a clean CV, Mandy would be in court faster than a Private Eye owner. Of course they had a large portion of their contract paid off and it's daft to suggest otherwise. The only circumstances under which this would not have happened has been pointed out twice already - if they had committed a direct breach of their terms of employment that would have resulted in its annulment. The actions that would have brought this about would be liable to be legally actionable. This has obviously not happened.

[Webbo]

I thought I read some where that Allen was paid off with 6 months of his contract.

[Foxters_Fella]

Once again - you fail to produce one example of evidence to support this. I understood what you said the first time, expanding upon it without providing any concrete examples doesn't lend any veracity to its position.

If MA & friends were told that they could 'go now' with a clean CV, Mandy would be in court faster than a Private Eye owner. Of course they had a large portion of their contract paid off and it's daft to suggest otherwise. The only circumstances under which this would not have happened has been pointed out twice already - if they had committed a direct breach of their terms of employment that would have resulted in its annulment. The actions that would have brought this about would be liable to be legally actionable. This has obviously not happened.

Ian Dowie leaving Crystal Palace completely supports what I am saying because we all know that Ian Dowie was not paid the remainder of his contract entitlement when he left them for 'family reasons'. The club had no choice but to agree to a mutual consent parting of the ways as it would have been unreasonable for them to expect Dowie to put a football club before his family...that simply just wouldn't happen.

I would hardly suggest that six months severance pay is a 'large portion' and think Martin Allen was probably lucky to get that if he has done something extremely immoral or otherwise similar actions.

This 'mutual consent' parting of the ways is a smokescreen in an attempt to detract media attention and convince supporters that the club is not in turmoil. However.......the signing of a confidentiality clause counteracts that on the simple basis that....If there is nothing to hide....a confidentiality clause would not be required.

Managers, players etc sometimes deliver parting shots when they leave clubs but this doesn't lead to court action in the most part unless something extremely libelous and damaging is being bandied about.

Only a fool or someone extremely naive would think that Martin Allen has been paid off handsomely and told to go on his merry way. People do not agree to leaving by mutual consent or a confidentiality clause if it is not in their best interests to do so.

[Smudge]

I

Only a fool or someone extremely naive would think that Martin Allen has been paid off handsomely and told to go on his merry way. People do not agree to leaving by mutual consent or a confidentiality clause if it is not in their best interests to do so.

and Custard

It would be my theory that a contract was signed at the time of hiring, stipulating amongst other things compensation and term; 3 years in MA's case. There would also have been a separation clause stating what he might be terminated for i.e, criminal activity, moral turpitude etc. No potential employee is going to sign a contract that says "If we don't get along, you can fire me". I would also think that within the severance clause would be this confidentiality agreement. All of which was agreed and signed when everything was smelling sweet and no-one would fire anyone.

So having all that in place and assuming that Martin had done nothing to breach his contract, he and the others would be perfectly entitled to the full benefiits of the contract if Milan just decide he would be rid of him. I assume Milan decided the cost of paying off everyone was worth it rather than carry on putting up with whatever was pissing him off.

Why would I be a fool or naive for thinking otherwise since this goes on all the time. I have asked people to leave and willingly paid their severance; it's a commercial decision and if someone will not tow the line, sometimes that's your only option.