Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Zola to Sue West Ham

West Ham owner David Sullivan has more or less admitted that the sacking of Gianfranco Zola will lead to the club being sued for wrongful dismissal. When asked about Zola's departure Sullivan replied,

"I can’t comment on what will become a legal dispute, it’s now for the lawyers to decide."

Gianfranco Zola is clearly not happy with the treatment he received from the new owners at West Ham.

"I am extremely disappointed to be leaving West Ham. Over recent weeks, I have been the subject of various adverse comments, from within the club," he said.

"Despite what has been a very difficult period for me, I have thoroughly enjoyed my time at West Ham, a great club, with fantastic supporters, and I wish the club every success in the future."


At 10:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not surprised he is not happy. I expected Zola to stay as they could not afford to pay him off, but did not realise quite how classless the pair of David's could be.

Right or wrong, Zola has always been respectful and a great ambassador for the club, at times when such traits have not been reciprocated in the board room. He deserves more.



At 10:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you that the man is a perfect gentleman,but unfortunately he is not the right man to take west ham forward,and very nearly sent us into the abyss. He fell short tactically,in terms of player selection ,and in communicating effectively with players about how to defend properly. It would have been better if his departure were more amicable, but there can be no doubt that he had to go ,for the good of the club and its supporters.

Even with all the problems off the pitch and injuries,the club shud never have been in such danger of being relegated. And Zola and Clarke have to take responsibility for that,with no excuses. The club shud have been able to finish above Wolves,Sunderland,Stoke,Bolton and Wigan. The failure to do so represents Zola and Clarke's failure as managers.

The manner in which it was executed may not have been deserved,but the sacking itself was indisputably deserved

At 12:45 PM, Anonymous Ian the Hammer said...

So zo*a, you say you love the club. You know we've got no money (the fact we finished 17th has stopped us from making any real prem money) but still want to sue us. I'm might try & counter claim that as i work it out you've already taken over 2mil from us & given us fu*k all back. Lovely bloke though. Tosser.

At 9:17 PM, Anonymous Matt G said...

sorry but ina any profession, if you get screwed out of money, you recoup it! if your contract is terminated, and in the contract it states "if ended early X amount wil be paid" then the CLUB should honour it. And he rightly entitled to it.

I agree he not the right man for the job, but you cannot break a contract and expect him to not sue.

If i was in his position, i would sue. anyone would. and dont say you wouldnt as 1.5million is alot of money whoever you are!
if your employer broke your contract and sacked you, unions would be involved, court proceedings, he just doing the same. so give the guy some slack.

If anything, it a pity the board cant honour the agreement..... just like old one come to think of it!!!!!! guess our new owners aint that much better ay! still offering stupid wages (remember the 100k a week story) making stupid decision that cost the club (curbs for icelandics, zola for Sullivan/gold) and add that to they cant keep their mouths shut, we got a great board!!

Roll on the new season!

lets just hope a new manager comes along and does the job for us!

At 10:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well said mate

At 10:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Matt G. Good point. All of us would do the same and seek payment of what is due. They should have come to an agreement with him for a reduced sum paid immediately.

What's odd is that a number of the members of the board still exist from when Zola was appointed. They knew he did not have experience, but took him on anyway. It is not even as if he was a cheap option. To take on someone in this circumstance they must have expected to have him to take years to bed in. Then they get rid as he showed naivety. Clearly this would be the case. Makes no sense.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Add to Google Add to My Yahoo!