2024/25 Sean Dyche - Sacked

Status
Not open for further replies.
The transaction is not settled in June. It will likely be settled in the next few weeks.

If there is a material change in the liabilities owed, that will be factored into the closing.

Or don’t believe me, I truly don’t care. I’m just sharing my experience
No offence to you mate

But I'm not sure you understand what Gardening leave means in British employment.

It doesn't cost the company/club anything more than paying a contract up.


Finding and paying for a replacement?
That's another discussion.
 

The transaction is not settled in June. It will likely be settled in the next few weeks.

If there is a material change in the liabilities owed, that will be factored into the closing.

Or don’t believe me, I truly don’t care. I’m just sharing my experience
None of us know what valuation was agreed back like 2 months ago when this was announced.
 
No offence to you mate

But I'm not sure you understand what Gardening leave means in British employment.

It doesn't cost the company/club anything more than paying a contract up.


Finding and paying for a replacement?
That's another discussion.
It has nothing to do with labor law.

If you were buying a company for 500, and the current owner adds 3 (or 10 or whatever) in liabilities owed (which is what wages on a contract are, regardless of what country you are in) you would want to be compensated for that. Now TFG have to pay Dyche.

How you would be compensated for that is a reduction in the money owed to the selling party.

You’re conflating when the money is paid against when it is put on the books as a liability.
 

It has nothing to do with labor law.

If you were buying a company for 500, and the current owner adds 3 (or 10 or whatever) in liabilities owed (which is what wages on a contract are, regardless of what country you are in) you would want to be compensated for that. Now TFG have to pay Dyche.

How you would be compensated for that is a reduction in the money owed to the selling party.

You’re conflating when the money is paid against when it is put on the books as a liability.
Saturday night eh fellas
 
The new owner's will have already done their homework and I figure they will have a replacement on the back burner.

There is a cost to everything , they will be well aware of this.

The other option is can they really afford to keep Dyche on and possible ( most certain imo ) relegation.

Good owner will have the next manager identified the day after appointing their new one mate, that process should continue I’m the intervening time line, hopefully TFG have done just that.

Ultimately Dyche has failed his audition so it’s a matter of when he leaves not if. Ideally for all stakeholders the end of the season works. But ultimately if there is a real risk TFG may change it - don’t think it will happen before.

There is a cost to everything but that doesn’t tell the whole story - for example Everton last year had two points deductions for breach of PSR, losses of 19 and 16 mill, led to a further loss in the last financial year of 14 mill in prize money, before you factor in the cost of associated reputational damage commercial sponsorship etc. Ultimately, that point deduction could have relegated us, that a cost of £120 mill in the balance sheet.

So ultimately the small margins are very important as one cost can tip us over our threshold and trigger a cluster of other losses.

It’s why I’d be astounded If Dyche goes for anything other then we get to where Lampard got.

In terms of expectations, I was told the club have a budgeted for 15th down to 17th that’s the clubs expectation, Dyche knows this - we’re 15th today.

Just don’t see structure, incentive, the will or the expectation to change it amongst stake holders if I’m honest.

Thus it’s far more productive hoping we do something with our attacking options in Jan.
 

It has nothing to do with labor law.

If you were buying a company for 500, and the current owner adds 3 (or 10 or whatever) in liabilities owed (which is what wages on a contract are, regardless of what country you are in) you would want to be compensated for that. Now TFG have to pay Dyche.

How you would be compensated for that is a reduction in the money owed to the selling party.

You’re conflating when the money is paid against when it is put on the books as a liability.
Utter nonsense.

Any sacking would represent a short term financial obligation, and as with any other unplanned costs would be factored into the assessment of the sale. It’s a potential liability.

Managerial changes are common approach in football, especially in the premier league, all things like this would have been thoroughly assessed and during any due diligence

The valuation of the club has been set based on player assets, fixed assets including a brand new stadium and potential growth.

Yet you think a £5m payout is going to cause major arguments and impact cash flow that much.

Ok mate
 
It has nothing to do with labor law.

If you were buying a company for 500, and the current owner adds 3 (or 10 or whatever) in liabilities owed (which is what wages on a contract are, regardless of what country you are in) you would want to be compensated for that. Now TFG have to pay Dyche.

How you would be compensated for that is a reduction in the money owed to the selling party.

You’re conflating when the money is paid against when it is put on the books as a liability.
The only liability Dyche is , is only the football pitch.
His wages are already factored into the balance sheet.

Sack him and it's then a different ball game .My works are notorious for putting people on gardening leave , there is a reason for this.

I'm not sure you understand how this works.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top