pellegrini

[twosips]

"If it happens, Manchester City will have a team that plays very good football"

A Pellegrini quote. He's not lacking in self-confidence is he? Clearly angling for the job too.

[twosips]

More here

https://twitter.com/ChristianMcr

[The Foggy Blue]

This is painful

[Saul Goodman]

SSN:

Manuel Pellegrini has revealed he has a verbal agreement with Manchester City to take over from Roberto Mancini as manager.

The Malaga manager has been tabbed as Mancini's replacement since the Italian was fired just before the end of the Premier League season.

Pellegrini guided Malaga to their highest ever league finish last season as they ended the campaign in fourth to qualify for their debut in the Champions League.

They went on to reach the last-eight of the competition and were only seconds away from beating eventual losing finalists Borussia Dortmund to reach the semi-finals.

"I have a verbal agreement with them and I hope it is carried out," he said in an interview with the Andalusian television station Canal Sur on Wednesday.

"As of today, I don't have a signed contract.

"It is true that Manchester City have shown a lot of interest that I become their coach and I have had conversations with them.

"Until things have been signed, you cannot say everything is completely done."

[avoidconfusion]

Maybe I am a Cynic but I can see this all go horribly wrong... why is there only a verbal agreement and no signed contract? It doesn't sound to me like the reason for that is Pellegrini, it sounds to me like the Club is delaying this for some reason.... what the fuck is going on?

[Beefymcfc]

Maybe I am a Cynic but I can see this all go horribly wrong... why is there only a verbal agreement and no signed contract? It doesn't sound to me like the reason for that is Pellegrini, it sounds to me like the Club is delaying this for some reason.... what the fuck is going on?

End of season, nothing more.

[Original Dub]

Maybe I am a Cynic but I can see this all go horribly wrong... why is there only a verbal agreement and no signed contract? It doesn't sound to me like the reason for that is Pellegrini, it sounds to me like the Club is delaying this for some reason.... what the fuck is going on?

Christ mate, relax.

He can't sign until he plays his last game ffs!

[sidSmith]

Maybe I am a Cynic but I can see this all go horribly wrong... why is there only a verbal agreement and no signed contract? It doesn't sound to me like the reason for that is Pellegrini, it sounds to me like the Club is delaying this for some reason.... what the fuck is going on?

Maureen on the cards, perhaps? Is Pellegrini talking about this his way of forcing the issue? All seems very odd!

[Risby]

Maybe I am a Cynic but I can see this all go horribly wrong... why is there only a verbal agreement and no signed contract? It doesn't sound to me like the reason for that is Pellegrini, it sounds to me like the Club is delaying this for some reason.... what the fuck is going on?

I think it is down to being respectful to Malaga. He's not finished there yet and I suppose he doesn't want to cause unrest in the camp if he shows he has moved on to pastures new.

It will all be sorted soon - I hope!

[Im_Spartacus]

Maybe I am a Cynic but I can see this all go horribly wrong... why is there only a verbal agreement and no signed contract? It doesn't sound to me like the reason for that is Pellegrini, it sounds to me like the Club is delaying this for some reason.... what the fuck is going on?

I think it is down to being respectful to Malaga. He's not finished there yet and I suppose he doesn't want to cause unrest in the camp if he shows he has moved on to pastures new.

It will all be sorted soon - I hope!

Well you would have thought he'd have kept his trap shut full stop if that was the case.

I'm inclined to think he is 99% certain for the job, but there is clearly some issue. There is no legal reason at all that contracts can't be signed for a date in the future, particularly as Malaga have already agreed to release him.

Something's afoot, but hopefully its only a technicality rather than us doing a fucking dance with Mourinho

[Alex Sapphire]

Maybe I am a Cynic but I can see this all go horribly wrong... why is there only a verbal agreement and no signed contract? It doesn't sound to me like the reason for that is Pellegrini, it sounds to me like the Club is delaying this for some reason.... what the fuck is going on?

I think it is down to being respectful to Malaga. He's not finished there yet and I suppose he doesn't want to cause unrest in the camp if he shows he has moved on to pastures new.

It will all be sorted soon - I hope!

Well you would have thought he'd have kept his trap shut full stop if that was the case.

I'm inclined to think he is 99% certain for the job, but there is clearly some issue. There is no legal reason at all that contracts can't be signed for a date in the future, particularly as Malaga have already agreed to release him.

Something's afoot, but hopefully its only a technicality rather than us doing a fucking dance with Mourinho

he's bound by his contract until it ends. malaga's agreement to release him is the thing that's future dated.
It is illegal to interfere with a contract between two parties, so we have actually overstepped the mark if we have a verbal agreement, so yes he should have kept schtum

[Lee_R]

Maybe I am a Cynic but I can see this all go horribly wrong... why is there only a verbal agreement and no signed contract? It doesn't sound to me like the reason for that is Pellegrini, it sounds to me like the Club is delaying this for some reason.... what the fuck is going on?

I think it is down to being respectful to Malaga. He's not finished there yet and I suppose he doesn't want to cause unrest in the camp if he shows he has moved on to pastures new.

It will all be sorted soon - I hope!

Well you would have thought he'd have kept his trap shut full stop if that was the case.

I'm inclined to think he is 99% certain for the job, but there is clearly some issue. There is no legal reason at all that contracts can't be signed for a date in the future, particularly as Malaga have already agreed to release him.

Something's afoot, but hopefully its only a technicality rather than us doing a fucking dance with Mourinho

he's bound by his contract until it ends. malaga's agreement to release him is the thing that's future dated.
It is illegal to interfere with a contract between two parties, so we have actually overstepped the mark if we have a verbal agreement, so yes he should have kept schtum

Seems he has more class than our hirers and firers already.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Going off at a completely boring tangent, I always thought (from the sizeable number of reports written about him coming to City) that Pellegrini was 59 years old.

However, in the last couple of days, in several articles written in the Daily Mirror, his age is now being stated by them as 62.

Has Old Father Time being playing tricks on everyone, or do the upstanding journalists in that newspaper know something that no-one else knows ??

[Im_Spartacus]

Maybe I am a Cynic but I can see this all go horribly wrong... why is there only a verbal agreement and no signed contract? It doesn't sound to me like the reason for that is Pellegrini, it sounds to me like the Club is delaying this for some reason.... what the fuck is going on?

I think it is down to being respectful to Malaga. He's not finished there yet and I suppose he doesn't want to cause unrest in the camp if he shows he has moved on to pastures new.

It will all be sorted soon - I hope!

Well you would have thought he'd have kept his trap shut full stop if that was the case.

I'm inclined to think he is 99% certain for the job, but there is clearly some issue. There is no legal reason at all that contracts can't be signed for a date in the future, particularly as Malaga have already agreed to release him.

Something's afoot, but hopefully its only a technicality rather than us doing a fucking dance with Mourinho

he's bound by his contract until it ends. malaga's agreement to release him is the thing that's future dated.
It is illegal to interfere with a contract between two parties, so we have actually overstepped the mark if we have a verbal agreement, so yes he should have kept schtum

Huh?

You aren't interfering with anything if your new agreement begins when the old agreement ends. Standard practice is that a new employee signs a contract dated with their expected start date before they leave the old job - or for that matter even without a start date if there are loose ends to tie up.

[Herb]

he's bound by his contract until it ends. malaga's agreement to release him is the thing that's future dated.
It is illegal to interfere with a contract between two parties, so we have actually overstepped the mark if we have a verbal agreement, so yes he should have kept schtum

Where did you study law then? Are you suggesting that it's illegal to seek another job while already employed or that it's illegal to seek to employ somebody already employed by someone else? I'm sorry but I've got to contest that view because it's a total misconception and a ridiculous slur on the integrity of our owners who will, I believe, conduct their affairs with due diligence ensuring the very best of legal advice.

Please understand that we have not interfered with a contract between two parties because it's not illegal to vie for trade so we have not overstepped the mark if we have a verbal agreement.
If we had signed up to a written agreement that interfered with an existing agreement (a contract that comes into effect before his existing contract ends) then Pellegrini himself may have been in breach of his contract (as there's likely a clause to the effect that he can't enter into contract with another party while bound by his existing contract) but not us as we are not party to his agreement and, regardless, that isn't the case.

I also hold the view that we could be signed up to a written memorandum of understanding / letter of intent that takes us into contract subject to his existing contract being terminated - that would be a written agreement alongside his current but equally not illegal as it's 'effect' would be consecutive not concurrent. That could happen but rarely does because case law suggests that an agreement to agree is probably no easier to enforce than a verbal agreement and ergo not worth the paper its written on.

[Im_Spartacus]

he's bound by his contract until it ends. malaga's agreement to release him is the thing that's future dated.
It is illegal to interfere with a contract between two parties, so we have actually overstepped the mark if we have a verbal agreement, so yes he should have kept schtum

Where did you study law then? Are you suggesting that it's illegal to seek another job while already employed or that it's illegal to seek to employ somebody already employed by someone else? I'm sorry but I've got to contest that view because it's a total misconception and a ridiculous slur on the integrity of our owners who will, I believe, conduct their affairs with due diligence ensuring the very best of legal advice.

Please understand that we have not interfered with a contract between two parties because it's not illegal to vie for trade so we have not overstepped the mark if we have a verbal agreement.
If we had signed up to a written agreement that interfered with an existing agreement (a contract that comes into effect before his existing contract ends) then Pellegrini himself may have been in breach of his contract (as there's likely a clause to the effect that he can't enter into contract with another party while bound by his existing contract) but not us as we are not party to his agreement and, regardless, that isn't the case.

I also hold the view that we could be signed up to a written memorandum of understanding / letter of intent that takes us into contract subject to his existing contract being terminated - that would be a written agreement alongside his current but equally not illegal as it's 'effect' would be consecutive not concurrent. That could happen but rarely does because case law suggests that an agreement to agree is probably no easier to enforce than a verbal agreement and ergo not worth the paper its written on.

Explained far better than I could be arsed doing, well in you boring cunt ;0)

[Sideshow Bob]

no easier to enforce than a verbal agreement and ergo not worth the paper its written on.

i think you meant to say oral. verbal can mean oral or written. oh, and many oral contracts are enforceable...

[carl_feedthegoat]

no easier to enforce than a verbal agreement and ergo not worth the paper its written on.

i think you meant to say oral. verbal can mean oral or written. oh, and many oral contracts are enforceable...

Without witnesses Oral contracts are worthless.

[john68]

no easier to enforce than a verbal agreement and ergo not worth the paper its written on.

i think you meant to say oral. verbal can mean oral or written. oh, and many oral contracts are enforceable...

Without witnesses Oral contracts are worthless.

Without witnesses oral contacts can be quite fun Mate.

[Sideshow Bob]

no easier to enforce than a verbal agreement and ergo not worth the paper its written on.

i think you meant to say oral. verbal can mean oral or written. oh, and many oral contracts are enforceable...

Without witnesses Oral contracts are worthless.

false.