Hughes resigns

[No Fixed Abode]

He's still under contract for another 4 weeks, so can't move anywhere until then.

[Uke]

Hughes signed up for two years

That's not true. He signed up to a contract which he was only obliged to perform for one year.

The term of tne contract Hughes signed was for two years, his intention may not have been though...

He could hav been covering his relocation costs with a rocky Ancelotti just up the road

[blindedbythelights]

Hughes signed up for two years

That's not true. He signed up to a contract which he was only obliged to perform for one year.

The term of tne contract Hughes signed was for two years, his intention may not have been though...

once more


no it wasn't

[Uke]

once more


no it wasn't

Once more, it was two years duration, with a break point after one year, which Hughes chose to take - his decision to walk out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ughes.html

Hughes has a break clause in his two-year deal which can be activated on June 1. He could, in theory, then leave the Premier League club as a free agent on June 30.

[Uke]

once more


no it wasn't

Once more, it was two years duration, with a break point after one year, which Hughes chose to take - his decision to walk out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ughes.html

Hughes has a break clause in his two-year deal which can be activated on June 1. He could, in theory, then leave the Premier League club as a free agent on June 30.

Clearly tapped up and making the correct "I was never approached" noises until the end of the month

[AthleticoSpizz]

hovering over the forthcoming Swansea job?

[blindedbythelights]

once more


no it wasn't

Once more, it was two years duration, with a break point after one year, which Hughes chose to take - his decision to walk out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ughes.html

Hughes has a break clause in his two-year deal which can be activated on June 1. He could, in theory, then leave the Premier League club as a free agent on June 30.

[blindedbythelights]

Well, history, yes. Villa have it, Fulham less-so.

Perceptions can be strange!

Fulham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulham_F.C.#Honours

Villa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Vill ... ub_honours

Looks like most Villa glory days were over a century ago!

and LOL @ this


the difference between the two clubs is obvious

Fulham finished 8th and considered it a successful season

Villa finished 9th and desperately want to achieve more

honestly....

[Uke]

Well, history, yes. Villa have it, Fulham less-so.

Perceptions can be strange!

Fulham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulham_F.C.#Honours

Villa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Vill ... ub_honours

Looks like most Villa glory days were over a century ago!

and LOL @ this


the difference between the two clubs is obvious

Fulham finished 8th and considered it a successful season

Villa finished 9th and desperately want to achieve more

honestly....

And where do Fulham not want to achieve more?

[blindedbythelights]

And where do Fulham not want to achieve more?

lol @ you still trying to argue your nonsense points

[Ian Royal]

I don't think it's Uke making nonsense points.

Hughes had a contract, just because he had the option for it to be cancelled and walk away, does not mean that he was only contracted for one year.

Villa are a bigger club, but they're not in great shape. Hughes was building something good at Fulham and could reasonably have been looking at European competitions, which is the absolute best Villa are likely to be looking at for the near future.

Hughes was there to do a job and he's walked out part way through because he's got a sniff of a higher profile job on more money. He's a mercenary scummer.

[Royal Lady]

Why would Fulham bother putting in a clause that he could walk away after one year if he wanted to? Because he hoped that a bigger profile club would come in for him and if they did, he wanted the opportunity to go there, so he negotiated that clause. Rumour has it he may go to Chelsea with Gus Hiddink. So, calling him a "scummer" is probably as far off the mark (pardon the pun) as you could get. He hasn't stitched them up, they put the clause in the contract, he opted to take that clause after one year.

[Bandini]

I don't think it's Uke making nonsense points.

Hughes had a contract, just because he had the option for it to be cancelled and walk away, does not mean that he was only contracted for one year.

Hughes was only contracted for one year. Saying that Hughes had a 2 year contract doesn't accurately describe the contractual arrangements. If you're contracted to do something, you are obliged to do that thing. Hughes wasn't obliged to stay for more than on year.

The proper way to look at it is that Hughes had an option to stay for either one or two years and if he opted to stay for two years Fulham were obliged to employ him for that time.

Looking at it from the opposite direction, if Fulham had sacked him at Christmas and Hughes had claimed damages for being breach of contract for the full two year period he would have needed to have proved that he would have chosen to stay for two years.

[leww_rfc]

Mark Hughes' resignation as Fulham manager was not connected to the vacancies at Aston Villa and Chelsea according to his agent Kia Joorabchian.

Isn't that the infamous Tevez saga agent?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13660327.stm

[Uke]

I don't think it's Uke making nonsense points.

Hughes had a contract, just because he had the option for it to be cancelled and walk away, does not mean that he was only contracted for one year.

Hughes was only contracted for one year. Saying that Hughes had a 2 year contract doesn't accurately describe the contractual arrangements. If you're contracted to do something, you are obliged to do that thing. Hughes wasn't obliged to stay for more than on year.

The proper way to look at it is that Hughes had an option to stay for either one or two years and if he opted to stay for two years Fulham were obliged to employ him for that time.

Looking at it from the opposite direction, if Fulham had sacked him at Christmas and Hughes had claimed damages for being breach of contract for the full two year period he would have needed to have proved that he would have chosen to stay for two years.

This^^ He was only contractually obliged to stay for one year of the contract, the terms of which were to be effective for two years.

Hughes' acceptance to stay would have meant remaining on the same T&C's for another year, he decided he was worth more and didn't want to stay on at the same wage particularly as other Prem vacancies were becoming available.

The hand of Joorabchian seems to be all over this though. The quick move to maximise profit seems to be a speciality of his clients.

[The Doctor]

hughes is an arse, there's no getting away from it, but the fulham chairman has no right to moan about this. what the hell was he doing putting the clause in to allow the manager to walk away after one year?? you wouldn't sign a top player and say you can walk after a year if you like. personally i don't like fulham or al fayed, so it's win win, and i don't much like hughes so i really hope this backfires and he ends up clubless as we enter the new season.

[Schards#2]

hughes is an arse, there's no getting away from it, but the fulham chairman has no right to moan about this. what the hell was he doing putting the clause in to allow the manager to walk away after one year?? you wouldn't sign a top player and say you can walk after a year if you like. personally i don't like fulham or al fayed, so it's win win, and i don't much like hughes so i really hope this backfires and he ends up clubless as we enter the new season.

Hard to believe Hughes doesn't have something lined up on a handshake.

Would be amusing if he got shafted though, a month's a long time in football.

[blindedbythelights]

I don't think it's Uke making nonsense points.

Hughes had a contract, just because he had the option for it to be cancelled and walk away, does not mean that he was only contracted for one year.

Hughes was only contracted for one year. Saying that Hughes had a 2 year contract doesn't accurately describe the contractual arrangements. If you're contracted to do something, you are obliged to do that thing. Hughes wasn't obliged to stay for more than on year.

The proper way to look at it is that Hughes had an option to stay for either one or two years and if he opted to stay for two years Fulham were obliged to employ him for that time.

Looking at it from the opposite direction, if Fulham had sacked him at Christmas and Hughes had claimed damages for being breach of contract for the full two year period he would have needed to have proved that he would have chosen to stay for two years.

This^^ He was only contractually obliged to stay for one year of the contract, the terms of which were to be effective for two years.

Hughes' acceptance to stay would have meant remaining on the same T&C's for another year, he decided he was worth more and didn't want to stay on at the same wage particularly as other Prem vacancies were becoming available.

The hand of Joorabchian seems to be all over this though. The quick move to maximise profit seems to be a speciality of his clients.

thank you, 'pology accepted

[Uke]

This^^ He was only contractually obliged to stay for one year of the contract, the terms of which were to be effective for two years.

Hughes' acceptance to stay would have meant remaining on the same T&C's for another year, he decided he was worth more and didn't want to stay on at the same wage particularly as other Prem vacancies were becoming available.

The hand of Joorabchian seems to be all over this though. The quick move to maximise profit seems to be a speciality of his clients.

thank you, 'pology accepted

None was offered though

[Uke]

New manager, Mr Jolly, has a contract for two years with an option to stay for a third

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13678517.stm

I prefer the Coppell/Bobby Robson contract model where the contract rolls on for one year from the current date.