It has been revealed. An accepted resignation is mutual consent.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
It has been revealed. An accepted resignation is mutual consent.
And I was so prepared to give you credit for that previous post:
Just keep on banging away at this Sammy. It doesn't make you look childish or anything like that.
I believe he resigned, but I used to be under the impression he was fired, even though the club said "mutual consent" on the OS.
Whats your point?
An accepted resignation is still mutual consent. Or is that different to you now, because I said in another post:
LOL...name one cub who writes on their OS, "we decided to fire the manager"....
No it isn't.
A resignation can be unilateral and the mere acceptance of it does not amount to mutual consent. An agreement to part company, often in exchange for a severance package is mutual consent. The distinction lies in the fact that the employee may otherwise have chosen to remain in the position if a suitable severance was not agreed. For example:-
AVB to Levy - "I quit!"
Levy - "Ok Andre, best of luck"
AVB walks out of door.
- Resignation.
AVB to Levy - "We need to meet."
Levy - "ok Andre".
AVB - "Fact of the matter is Daniel that I am not happy here and I don't think things will improve, but I will honour my contract out of necessity."
Levy - "If you don't think you can take us further I will be prepared to offer you a severance package in exchange for various confidentiality undertakings".
AVB - "Ok, I accept".
- Mutal consent.
At the end of the day we have two conflicting statements. The club says mutual consent. AVB, post media translation, says resignation. So really we are none the wiser, none of us are privy to what actually went on and so nothing has been proved, meaning that these page 5 or 6 pages of bickering must surely set the forum record for most pointless argument.
God, the start of the season can't come soon enough....
Actually most clubs usually say "has left the club with immediate effect" when they sack someone otherwise than my mutual agreement - Chris Hughton's recent sacking was done in that way I believe.
Speak for yourself, I need some more time off.
My point is that as hard as you're spinning this, the counter-factual is equally true.
Levy: This is bollocks, we are shit. I would like you to play Adebayor
AVB: No
Levy: Well its that or fuck off
AVB: Ok I quit
Levy: Result
Mutual consent and resignation accepted
AVB: No
Levy: Well its that or fuck off
AVB: Ok I quit
Levy: Result
Mutual consent and resignation accepted
Im not spinning anything.
I simply believe AVB resigned. If that gets you riled up, thats your problem.
Resignation would mean zero severence I'm assuming, somebody do some Snowdonesque tax finding.
Thread Title: AVB, talk to me.
Posted by member: Levy
Posted by member: Levy
Levy said:This is bollocks, we are shit. I would like you to play Adebayor
AVB said:No
Levy said:Well its that or fuck off
AVB said:Ok I quit
Levy said:Result
I think you will find that an acceptance of resignation is in fact a form of mutual consent.....or has the world stopped being "grey" all of a sudden....?
Next you'll be telling a postman what a parcel is.....
So, because you are a lawyer, you are going to try and say that there is only one single scenario which can amount to "mutual consent".
Are you saying that an accepted resignation is not a form of mutual consent, and that a club could not possibly word it so?
I'll just sit here and wait for a decent lawyer like BoltonSpurs to put you in your place.......yet again
Ahhh, falling back on the personal insults again are we Mr. "I just want to talk about Spurs?"
Whether you like it or not mutual consent does not automatically mean resignation. That is the point being made. You are the one holding onto the single scenario. The fact that the club has said mutual consent introduces an element of doubt since departure by mutual consent does not always involve resignation, forced or otherwise. You are the only one taking the translated newspaper interview as stone cold fact and you are portraying a scenario where mutual consent only ever means accepted resignation. I mean seriously, are you saying, for instance, that a compromise agreement is that same as someone simply tendering their resignation and walking away? That's crap. Mutual consent may be, for example, when an employer tables potential redundancy and the employee agrees to leave with a settlement package. Doesn't mean a resignation has been tendered - and no, I'm not saying AVB was offered redundancy before you hang onto that. Simply offering it as an example of why mutual consent doesn't always involve resignation. In this case an agreement between Levy and AVB could well have come about before AVB ever tendered a resignation.
You are arguing on the basis that mutual consent can only ever mean resignation while everyone else is simply pointing out that there are two potentially conflicting pieces of information, which means we don't actually know what was agreed behind closed doors and an element of doubt is introduced. Well, unless you were privy to whatever was discussed between Levy and AVB and you know the full facts?
I'm really bemused by your obsession with this. You've said you think AVB is a cunt anyway. I'm not sure what the possible fact of resignation adds to your already livid disliking of the man beyond what you have already said the past few pages. What more is it you are trying to prove? Or is it just fighting for the sake of fighting?
He's trying to shame fanboys like me into the light. Apparently, because AVB is now a stone-cold quitter, I'm supposed to torch my AVB body pillow instead of wait for some supplementary stuffing to turn it into a poch pillow.
The point of the whole argument was to call us fanboys out of the woodwork to make us answer for our continued allegiance despite this shock revelation that he wasn't "sacked", but, rather, "resigned", despite the fact that the we fanboys have argued since the termination that "mutual consent" can be taken at face value. (Yes, contra sammy, not the whole world thought AVB had been left to dry by Levy.)
So until every last fanboy is brought to the tribunal to atone for his or her fanboy ways, the crusade will not be stopped. We're vermin. Plastic fans who support the manager instead of the club, Sandro instead of the cockerel, and as long as we're not all starved to death in glue traps, the hunt will continue.
Not unless the clauses stipulate differently. Perhaps by resigning he waives his right to a massive compensation package and only receives a nominal amount, etc. There are numerous options available and I'm pretty certain his lawyers and agent would have covered an event so common in managerial employment. Not to mention their fees are contained in all of that, etc.
I never said it did. On the contrary, I have pointed out that an acceptance of resignation is one form of mutual consent.
To which you replied "No it isnt".
People have been banging the "grey area" drum for 20 pages....yet they are happy to say, definitively, that the words mutual consent means he did not resign...
No, I am not, see above.
Everyone else can argue what they like.
I have said what I BELIEVE happened. If people want to sit on the fence, thats up to them, I dont have to.
I have formed an OPINION of what I think happened, based on the things Ive read since he left the club. I might be wrong, but dont tell me I cant form an opinion because I wasnt in the meeting.
Its all very well for those same people to say "AVB did not lose the players" etc......when was the last time they sat in the dressing room though....
Do you believe in God?