What players will Poch bring with him

Originally Posted by TheFatGoth

Magnificent bastard

https://www.skysports.com/football/n...ter-united-job

I’m not one for declaring things as “ON” generally speaking, but he’s got no interest in shutting that down at all and the Press Officer’s reaction makes me thing this one is ON like Donkey King

Originally Posted by Curtis

There is absolutely no reason for Levy to let him go. We can sit here and speculate about how much money we could throw at it but the fact is, Spurs are so heavily invested in the entire Poch thing that the idea of moving into their new stadium without him and the club in a state of uncertain transition, is unthinkable for Levy. It would look like a disastrous back-step for their club. Unless Poch throws some breathtaking tantrums, starts to shit the bed left and right and set fire to everything around him, I can't see Levy accepting anything for at least another season. I hope I'm wrong but I think getting him could be a lot harder than people are making it out to be.

I'd be surprised if his long-term contract did not include at least a gentleman's agreement about job offers from United, PSG or Real.

Originally Posted by Curtis

There is absolutely no reason for Levy to let him go. We can sit here and speculate about how much money we could throw at it but the fact is, Spurs are so heavily invested in the entire Poch thing that the idea of moving into their new stadium without him and the club in a state of uncertain transition, is unthinkable for Levy. It would look like a disastrous back-step for their club. Unless Poch throws some breathtaking tantrums, starts to shit the bed left and right and set fire to everything around him, I can't see Levy accepting anything for at least another season. I hope I'm wrong but I think getting him could be a lot harder than people are making it out to be.

He can't stop him. He's not a player and Tottenham hold no registration.

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

He can't stop him. He's not a player and Tottenham hold no registration.

Case closed

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

He can't stop him. He's not a player and Tottenham hold no registration.

Not really. He’s exclusively bound and if there’s no break clause it’s a breach and whilst a court would not uphold a wide injunction preventing him managing anywhere (Warren v Mendy) a narrower one not to manage in the Premier League or a rival club might well be reasonable.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

I'd be surprised if his long-term contract did not include at least a gentleman's agreement about job offers from United, PSG or Real.

That’s a non sequitur. If it’s the contract it’s not a gentleman’s agreement.

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

He can't stop him. He's not a player and Tottenham hold no registration.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

Not really. He’s exclusively bound and if there’s no break clause it’s a breach and whilst a court would not uphold a wide injunction preventing him managing anywhere (Warren v Mendy) a narrower one not to manage in the Premier League or a rival club might well be reasonable.



That’s a non sequitur. If it’s the contract it’s not a gentleman’s agreement.

Ohhhh... grinchy being challenged on law shit eh?

Originally Posted by Curtis

There is absolutely no reason for Levy to let him go. We can sit here and speculate about how much money we could throw at it but the fact is, Spurs are so heavily invested in the entire Poch thing that the idea of moving into their new stadium without him and the club in a state of uncertain transition, is unthinkable for Levy. It would look like a disastrous back-step for their club. Unless Poch throws some breathtaking tantrums, starts to shit the bed left and right and set fire to everything around him, I can't see Levy accepting anything for at least another season. I hope I'm wrong but I think getting him could be a lot harder than people are making it out to be.

This. I dont think he will leave plus any interest from united puts him in a stronger position to bargain with his own board with regards his contract and transfer kitty. He is in a win win situation and will probably see how experienced managers like LVG and Jose struggle to turn the ship around.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

Not really. He’s exclusively bound and if there’s no break clause it’s a breach and whilst a court would not uphold a wide injunction preventing him managing anywhere (Warren v Mendy) a narrower one not to manage in the Premier League or a rival club might well be reasonable.



That’s a non sequitur. If it’s the contract it’s not a gentleman’s agreement.

Yes it's a breach of contract for which compensation would be due. That's it. Even if a court imposed a period of garden leave it would only be short. Levy would take the money.

mere protection from competition is never enough to justify an injunction

Originally Posted by redhegemony

That’s a non sequitur. If it’s the contract it’s not a gentleman’s agreement.

Bloody hell, pal. Ok the signing of the contract. Pedantic £#%&!er

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Yes it's a breach of contract for which compensation would be due. That's it. Even if a court imposed a period of garden leave it would only be short. Levy would take the money.

1. A court will not grant an order of specific performance requiring Pochetinno to work for Tottenham.

2. A court will not grant an order against United for inducing breach of contract if the effect would be compelling Pochetinno to go back to Spurs.

3. However an injunction against Pochetinno not to work for say a previous top 6 Premier League team might be narrow enough to permit the court to exercise discretion. Unless he is tied to work in England.

4. if you can have a clause permitting a break to work for say Madrid could you have a negative clause preventing work with specific teams?

This is nothing to do with competition but compulsion see Nourse LJ in Warren

This consideration of the authorities has led us to believe that the following general principles are applicable to the grant or refusal of an injunction to enforce performance of the servant's negative obligations in a contract for personal services inseparable from the exercise of some special skill or talent. (We use the expressions “master” and “servant” for ease of reference and not out of any regard for the reality of the relationship in many of these cases.)

In such a case the court ought not to enforce the performance of the negative obligations if their enforcement will effectively compel the servant to perform his positive obligations under the contract. Compulsion is a question to be decided on the facts of each case, with a realistic regard for the probable reaction of an injunction on the psychological and and material, and sometimes the physical, need of the servant to maintain the skill or talent. The longer the term for which an injunction is sought, the more readily will compulsion be inferred.

Compulsion may be inferred where the injunction is sought not against the servant but against a third party if either the third party is the only other available master or if it is likely that the master will seek relief against anyone who attempts to replace him. An injunction will less readily be granted where there are obligations of mutual trust and confidence, more especially where the servant's trust in the master may have been betrayed or his confidence in him has genuinely gone.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

1. A court will not grant an order of specific performance requiring Pochetinno to work for Tottenham.

2. A court will not grant an order against United for inducing breach of contract if the effect would be compelling Pochetinno to go back to Spurs.

3. However an injunction against Pochetinno not to work for say a previous top 6 Premier League team might be narrow enough to permit the court to exercise discretion. Unless he is tied to work in England.

4. if you can have a clause permitting a break to work for say Madrid could you have a negative clause preventing work with specific teams?

This is nothing to do with competition but compulsion see Nourse LJ in Warren

This consideration of the authorities has led us to believe that the following general principles are applicable to the grant or refusal of an injunction to enforce performance of the servant's negative obligations in a contract for personal services inseparable from the exercise of some special skill or talent. (We use the expressions “master” and “servant” for ease of reference and not out of any regard for the reality of the relationship in many of these cases.)

In such a case the court ought not to enforce the performance of the negative obligations if their enforcement will effectively compel the servant to perform his positive obligations under the contract. Compulsion is a question to be decided on the facts of each case, with a realistic regard for the probable reaction of an injunction on the psychological and and material, and sometimes the physical, need of the servant to maintain the skill or talent. The longer the term for which an injunction is sought, the more readily will compulsion be inferred.

Compulsion may be inferred where the injunction is sought not against the servant but against a third party if either the third party is the only other available master or if it is likely that the master will seek relief against anyone who attempts to replace him. An injunction will less readily be granted where there are obligations of mutual trust and confidence, more especially where the servant's trust in the master may have been betrayed or his confidence in him has genuinely gone.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

1. A court will not grant an order of specific performance requiring Pochetinno to work for Tottenham.

2. A court will not grant an order against United for inducing breach of contract if the effect would be compelling Pochetinno to go back to Spurs.

3. However an injunction against Pochetinno not to work for say a previous top 6 Premier League team might be narrow enough to permit the court to exercise discretion. Unless he is tied to work in England.

4. if you can have a clause permitting a break to work for say Madrid could you have a negative clause preventing work with specific teams?

This is nothing to do with competition but compulsion see Nourse LJ in Warren

This consideration of the authorities has led us to believe that the following general principles are applicable to the grant or refusal of an injunction to enforce performance of the servant's negative obligations in a contract for personal services inseparable from the exercise of some special skill or talent. (We use the expressions “master” and “servant” for ease of reference and not out of any regard for the reality of the relationship in many of these cases.)

In such a case the court ought not to enforce the performance of the negative obligations if their enforcement will effectively compel the servant to perform his positive obligations under the contract. Compulsion is a question to be decided on the facts of each case, with a realistic regard for the probable reaction of an injunction on the psychological and and material, and sometimes the physical, need of the servant to maintain the skill or talent. The longer the term for which an injunction is sought, the more readily will compulsion be inferred.

Compulsion may be inferred where the injunction is sought not against the servant but against a third party if either the third party is the only other available master or if it is likely that the master will seek relief against anyone who attempts to replace him. An injunction will less readily be granted where there are obligations of mutual trust and confidence, more especially where the servant's trust in the master may have been betrayed or his confidence in him has genuinely gone.

Captain buzzkills in.....

Originally Posted by redhegemony

1. A court will not grant an order of specific performance requiring Pochetinno to work for Tottenham.

2. A court will not grant an order against United for inducing breach of contract if the effect would be compelling Pochetinno to go back to Spurs.

3. However an injunction against Pochetinno not to work for say a previous top 6 Premier League team might be narrow enough to permit the court to exercise discretion. Unless he is tied to work in England.

4. if you can have a clause permitting a break to work for say Madrid could you have a negative clause preventing work with specific teams?

This is nothing to do with competition but compulsion see Nourse LJ in Warren

This consideration of the authorities has led us to believe that the following general principles are applicable to the grant or refusal of an injunction to enforce performance of the servant's negative obligations in a contract for personal services inseparable from the exercise of some special skill or talent. (We use the expressions “master” and “servant” for ease of reference and not out of any regard for the reality of the relationship in many of these cases.)

In such a case the court ought not to enforce the performance of the negative obligations if their enforcement will effectively compel the servant to perform his positive obligations under the contract. Compulsion is a question to be decided on the facts of each case, with a realistic regard for the probable reaction of an injunction on the psychological and and material, and sometimes the physical, need of the servant to maintain the skill or talent. The longer the term for which an injunction is sought, the more readily will compulsion be inferred.

Compulsion may be inferred where the injunction is sought not against the servant but against a third party if either the third party is the only other available master or if it is likely that the master will seek relief against anyone who attempts to replace him. An injunction will less readily be granted where there are obligations of mutual trust and confidence, more especially where the servant's trust in the master may have been betrayed or his confidence in him has genuinely gone.

Please see Crystal Palace FC 2000 Ltd v Stephen Bruce 22 November 2001, Burton J

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Please see Crystal Palace FC 2000 Ltd v Stephen Bruce 22 November 2001, Burton J

That's a High Court interlocutory case on the enforcement of a contractual garden leave clause not restraint of trade and exclusivity and is two party not three party. And he granted the injunction preventing Bruce going to Birmingham until trial.

Not really much use tbh. The only interesting point was a suggestion by counsel that a garden leave clause should be treated on the same grounds as restraint cases but of course it never came to trial.

As it stands, any legal issues I may have will see me seek council from redhegemony..

Originally Posted by dunk

As it stands, any legal issues I may have will see me seek council from redhegemony..

counsel....

Originally Posted by dunk

As it stands, any legal issues I may have will see me seek council from redhegemony..

I'll stick with grinchy because he was in the secret barrister book.....

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

I'll stick with grinchy because he was in the secret barrister book.....

really what page?

Originally Posted by redhegemony

really what page?

Not my place to say pal......

Not really everyone, I just like the gif