[Archived] Ray Matias

[Stuart]

Just been listening to Talksport and resident Liverpool fan Graham Beecroft was talking about the Tranmere management and suggesting they might bring in former manager Ray Mathias to help out John Barnes. He then went on to say that he was on gardening leave from Blackburn Rovers!

Surely we aren't still paying this guy are we? Did he refuse a pay off so he could sit pretty on his Premier League coaching contract?

Can anyone confirm?

[Big Fat Sam]

I doubt we could pay him off in one lump sum so not surprised to read this. Guess Archie will be on the same as well.

[RovertheHill]

I guess if I thought about it I knew as much but that's still really, really anoyed me

[Hughesy]

He's gone - we had to pay them all off. Cost us quite abit of money too!! :!:

[philipl]

Rather smells of no acceptable deal being struck when they were got rid of and so the club got back at him by making it impossible to work without forfeiting some of his payments. At least it gave the club the upside that losses could be cut if he found alternative employment which wouldn't be the case had he taken a lump sum on departure.

It also looks like Ince's assistants got the same length of contract that he did but begs the question whether Rovers benefited from the fact Ince got re-employed at MK Dons this summer. Instructive that Ince did not re-unite with his old muckers at MK.

[Grabbi Graeme]

Barnes is struggling at Tranmere as it is, bringing in Mathias will be the final nail in the coffin for him, Mathias new Tranmere boss by November.

[broadsword]

Sharp as a tack that Matthias.

Bet you he's a chess master.

[FourLaneBlue]

It also looks like Ince's assistants got the same length of contract that he did but begs the question whether Rovers benefited from the fact Ince got re-employed at MK Dons this summer.

Don't see how. We sacked him and so therefore had to pay him up. We cannot put any conditions on that when we have given someone else his job can we?

[philipl]

The principle of employment compensation for loss of office is to cover the former employee's loss of earnings. I'd expect a lump sum was agreed but in the very unlikely case of no agreement then the fact Ince is now in employment would be relievng Rovers of compensating him. If you are Chelsea of course, you stick a clause in that potentially yanks some of the cash back if you get employment locally- remember the Ten Cate problem?

Back to the Old Firm and Burnley and Stoke have spoken out against them taking their places in joining the Premier League. Funny that.

[FourLaneBlue]

The principle of employment compensation for loss of office is to cover the former employee's loss of earnings. I'd expect a lump sum was agreed but in the very unlikely case of no agreement then the fact Ince is now in employment would be relievng Rovers of compensating him.

Well...I think they would have to stick something relating to that into the contract in the first place wouldn't they? Besides...generally employment compensation is for when somebody loses the job because the job no longer exists. Difficult to sack an employee just for being crap at their job...unless Rovers could have sacked Ince for some of the off-field problems that were alleged to have taken place. Best for us not to get back onto that now though. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that.

[only2garners]

Well...I think they would have to stick something relating to that into the contract in the first place wouldn't they? Besides...generally employment compensation is for when somebody loses the job because the job no longer exists. Difficult to sack an employee just for being crap at their job...unless Rovers could have sacked Ince for some of the off-field problems that were alleged to have taken place. Best for us not to get back onto that now though. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that.

Putting on my rather dusty HR hat, most football staff are employed on fixed term contracts, unlike most normal workers who have a permanent position with no end date. Assuming Mathias had a fixed term contract, Rovers options when they wanted to get rid of him (assuming he hadn't done anything to merit dismissal (and being a bit crap wouldn't work in in Industrial Tribunal over such a short length of time)), they would either pay him up for the duration of his contract, reach an agreement with him for something less (highly unlikely he would do that) or put him on garden leave i.e. carry on paying him but tell him to stay at home. The latter has the advantage that you can stop paying him if he gets another job but the disadvantage is that you will be picking up employers costs such as NI whilst you keep paying him. Paying his contract up in full would avoid these but might well be more expensive in the long run. Anyway, whatever was agreed I'm sure we'll never know unless one party tells us - it's sure to be covered in a compromise agreement.