Latest Rumour..Regarding Magilton

[ScottJones]

Heard last night that he wants a "mutual consent" thing - but specifically as Pete says he wants some kind of "JM did not nut a player, and no-one at QPR ever said he did" style statement..

[Loneranger80]

so it didnt happen?

just a reason to get rid?

[Bluehoop]

end of the day, other teams won't let him manage if this sticks and by being cleared makes his job prospects better.

Maybe a deal where we say he is a real nice guy and it's all a storm in a tea cup - but it's best we part company - in lieu of ANY cash pay out??

[Olly]

Very kind. Reputation intact, wedge in pocket. Everyone's happy, :waaaht: How much money have we paid out in the last three years to managers whose contracts we have terminated? It just goes on and on. :cry:

flav's no fool, that's what we pay our extra ST money for

[Bernie's Barnet]

Club would be very wise IMO to tell him to "F Off", sack him for gross misconduct, pay nothing in compensation and let him try to sue whoever he wants to get compo/reputation restored.

With their reputation for getting through managers, the last thing the Board should do is relinquish the moral high ground on this issue, as I think they've actually behaved quite properly and correctly.

Even if he didn't headbutt a player, and remember the club have never said he did, he'd find it very difficult to disprove a charge of assault, particularly when there are many players who have appeared to support Buzz's position in this.

His reputation is probably more important to him than the compensation, because the allegations against make him unemployable in football, so what he is frightened of is loss of future earnings.

[davman]

JM knows his job is untenable if the board won't back him, so of course he wants to ensure that he goes with a pay out.

Why is this surprising to anyone?

If the club sack him for a head butt, then they're going to have to make a 100% watertight case to prove that he did it otherwise they will get trashed through the courts (similar to the way that our Paulo will be trashing them in court for unfair dismissal).

They know that they can't do that, so settlement it is (again). So that's where all this *investment* is being spent...

[Bernie's Barnet]

JM knows his job is untenable if the board won't back him, so of course he wants to ensure that he goes with a pay out.

Why is this surprising to anyone?

If the club sack him for a head butt, then they're going to have to make a 100% watertight case to prove that he did it otherwise they will get trashed through the courts (similar to the way that our Paulo will be trashing them in court for unfair dismissal).

They know that they can't do that, so settlement it is (again). So that's where all this *investment* is being spent...

Where have the club ever said he headbutted anyone? If they sack him for gross misconduct, then there are any number of less serious assaults that would justify their actions. Including putting an employee up against the wall and threatening them, and including pushing your forehead into theirs. There isn't a court in the world that won't endorse the club's decision in that case.

[qblockpete]

The way this is going might be a couple of days yet, before appointment can be made. No budging from either party is the latest rumour

[Goddard]

The way this is going might be a couple of days yet, before appointment can be made. No budging from either party is the latest rumour

[davman]

Where have the club ever said he headbutted anyone? If they sack him for gross misconduct, then there are any number of less serious assaults that would justify their actions. Including putting an employee up against the wall and threatening them, and including pushing your forehead into theirs. There isn't a court in the world that won't endorse the club's decision in that case.

Only if it can be PROVEN, Bernie.

Which was what I said originally...:bad_egg:

[Rebel R's]

Joke of a situation,i would just let him back and lets results decide his fate,and they would!,would prefer that to appointing YET another donkey in Paul Hart

[Sam-QPR]

now forgive me but surely the "results" of the internal investigation first.

if they have those then they can procede. if they find he did it then he can't demand anything but if they find he didn't then there is a major problem

[ollyhoops]

Let me guide you all to the truth here.

The board want to get rid of him due to a recent run of poor results... the buzsaky incident is a good excuse to get rid of him, however, as mentioned they cannot sack him on that basis as it didn't really happen (due to lack of evidence), so the only option left for the club is 'mutual termination best for both parties'.... however Jim wants his name cleared so another statement is needed to say that they are not terminating his contract because of the buzsaky incident, but for other reasons (unknown)'
Gosh this sounds terrible, no wonder they are taking so long, they probably don't know what to say

[Fez]

Buz will be off in Jan IMO!

If his name is being cleared then he did nothing wrong, and if he did nothing wrong why is he being sacked?

[Stanley]

Whats happening about the internal inquiry? And is the outcome for public consumption?

what's happening with Buz, is he staying?

for the time being YES

Meaning?