Has Unsworth Got It?

[dsr]

Nope not struggling.

If I was a rising person in a profession that sacks people at the drop of a hat. I would not sign a contract that holds me into 12 months to them.

Looks like I am obviously wrong but his advisers need sacking. IMHO

If theoretically Mr. Smith has a 12 month contract, or for that matter 12 months remaining on a longer contract, that pays him £2.5m per year, then if his employer chooses to sack him, they will have to pay him that year's salary - £2.5m. If he had a five year contract at £2.5m per year, then the employer would have to pay him 5 years' salary, £12.5m. That is in theory - in practice, they'd probably agree a smaller sum to be paid as a lump sum now; if the full sum were to be paid, Mr. Smith would still get his money but wouldn't be able to take another job in the same line of business while his first employer was still paying his wage. (That's gardening leave.)

As for the other way round, there's no way Mr. Smith's employer can make him work for them. Contract of personal service (including employment contracts) are unenforceable. So Mr. Smith can walk out tomorrow and they can't make him come back; though they could of course stop paying him, and again, he couldn't take a new job in the same line of business for the remaining period of his contract. Again, financial terms can be agreed where Mr. Smith's new employer (or less likely, Mr Smith himself) agrees to pay a sum to the old employer for his release.

That's it in outline, though specific terms in the contract might bring in different rules over the top of these very general ones. Eg. Sean Dyche's alleged £2.5m release clause. But in summary, if they're going to sack Mr. Smith, then Mr. Smith wants the longest contract he can possibly get. If Mr. Smith intends to leave for another job, he wants a short contract.

[dsr]

I may be wrong but I’m pretty sure the club wishing to employ Dyche whilst under contract would have to pay the £2.5m compensation to release him from his contract. Not sure why Dyche’s salary would have any bearing on that figure.

It's just a rule of thumb. There's no specific reason why the cost to an employee to break a contract should be about the same level as his pay; but it's a valid starting point for negotiation. If the club put in a release clause very much higher than the basic salary, eg. a £2.5m release clause for someone on £50,000 a year, it would risk being thrown out by a court, if challenged, on the grounds of being an unfair contract term - employees are quite limited in what rights they can sign away. There are certain statutory rights (eg. paid holidays) that an employee cannot sign a binding contract to waive, however much he wants to. Release clauses have to be proportionate.

But I don't know anything about Dyche's contract, nor have I any idea whether the £2.5m is accurate.

[Ightenclaret]

I sincerely hope Unsworth has got it for selfish reasons of course.
There's too much uncertainty at Everton - they haven't even decided whether they want someone long term or just until the end of the season.
If its true, then BFS will double his price and wait patiently for the call in January.

[ClaretTony]

So why pay him 2.5 mill to buy him out of his contract if we sack him when it is a 12 month contract? Stands to reason we pay him a years wages?

The clause has nothing to do with what we pay him should we sack him, it is what we can demand for another club if he chooses to move on. I don't know whether that is £2.5 million or not, that's just a figure that's been speculated in the press but it is nothing to do with what we would be required to pay him should we terminate his employment.

[IanMcL]

Let's hope we never find out!

[mybloodisclaret]

I may be wrong but I’m pretty sure the club wishing to employ Dyche whilst under contract would have to pay the £2.5m compensation to release him from his contract. Not sure why Dyche’s salary would have any bearing on that figure.

Because if he is on a rolling contract, and BFC terminated his contract we would have to pay him for 12 months. I thought that the comp at 2.5 million would represent 12 months of earnings? I may be wrong.

[ClaretTony]

Because if he is on a rolling contract, and BFC terminated his contract we would have to pay him for 12 months. I thought that the comp at 2.5 million would represent 12 months of earnings? I may be wrong.

The £2.5 million (and that figure is just a speculative one) is what was agreed we could claim should he move to another club.

[Rileybobs]

Because if he is on a rolling contract, and BFC terminated his contract we would have to pay him for 12 months. I thought that the comp at 2.5 million would represent 12 months of earnings? I may be wrong.

That scenario would be Dyche’s ‘redundancy’ package - in the same way that your employer would be required to pay you for the duration of your notice period if they were to terminate your contract.

If Dyche is to terminate his contract he won’t be able to work for a competitor for 12 months, unless his new employer compensates Burnley £2.5m, if reported correctly.

[Spijed]

So he's basically on 50k per week then?

[Lancasterclaret]

what the hell are Everton playing at here?

They have to appoint someone soon.

[Rileybobs]

So he's basically on 50k per week then?

How have you arrived at that figure?

[ClaretTony]

So he's basically on 50k per week then?

The compensation package is what another club would have to pay us for his services. It does not necessarily relate to his salary and therefore does not suggest his salary will be any particular amount. And the £2.5m quoted was, from recollection, a figure speculated in a tabloid.