Antonio Conte Taking Chelsea to Court

[Dave]

Antonio Conte has refused to meet with Chelsea and is insisting on taking them to court for the rest of his salary, Sky Sports News understands.

The Italian, who recently turned down the Real Madrid job, feels he should be paid what he is contractually owed out of respect, following his sacking earlier this year.

Conte's lawyers have been working on two separate cases for weeks; one for an employment tribunal and the other for the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Chelsea have been trying to set up face-to-face talks with Conte in search of an out-of-court solution, but he has refused to attend those meetings.

[Honey Honey]

He was fishing for the sack and you just knew he wouldn't go of his own accord because he wanted that money.

The contracts should be written up so that if you don't hit certain deliverables and targets you can be sacked without pay. It's only those whose incomes aren't enough to let them live their lives without work that need rights on this. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

19 hours ago, Harvsky said:

He was fishing for the sack and you just knew he wouldn't go of his own accord because he wanted that money.

The contracts should be written up so that if you don't hit certain deliverables and targets you can be sacked without pay. It's only those whose incomes aren't enough to let them live their lives without work that need rights on this. 

I feel like getting your post-sack payday is one of the big draws at managing at Chelsea tbh.

I don’t blame him one bit, I’d be suing Chelse here too and if the club was calling to try to settle... I’d ignore that as well.

[Cicero]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I feel like getting your post-sack payday is one of the big draws at managing at Chelsea tbh.

I don’t blame him one bit, I’d be suing Chelse here too and if the club was calling to try to settle... I’d ignore that as well.

I'd back him too if he hadn't literally stopped trying from January - March of last year. 

[Inverted]

A contract is a contract, and if clubs don't want to pay then they should introduce clauses to that effect. That way managers have fair notice in advance of what amount of money they can expect to receive, and can take it or leave it. 

[SirBalon]

Head coaches and clubs usually come to a civil agreement on moneys owed and paid on a contract. Usually 50% or just bellow depending on the situation. But it seems Conte really worked hard on his departure publicly as we all know and the club made a stance.

Similar has happened at Real Madrid just recently with Julen Lopetegui and curiously the man connected to replace him was Antonio Conte... Lopetegui demanded his three years where the club only wanted to pay him for the remaining 6 months on this current year and thus their acidic and rancid public announcement of Lopetegui's dismissal.

The club haven't got a leg to stand on if he is willing to take it to court although an out of court settlement is usually the habitual conclusion to it all, but Chelsea will pay more than whatever was offered and Conte isn't obviously satisfied with.

[Cicero]

29 minutes ago, Inverted said:

A contract is a contract, and if clubs don't want to pay then they should introduce clauses to that effect. That way managers have fair notice in advance of what amount of money they can expect to receive, and can take it or leave it. 

Except Conte, on several occasions, violated terms on his contract. Context is everything. 

[Inverted]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

Except Conte, on several occasions, violated terms on his contract. Context is everything. 

Without looking at the terms it's hard to know if he has. What are his contractual duties? Unless his duties extend beyond training the team and overseeing match preparation, then I'm not sure what exactly he could be accused of breaching, since he kept doing his job up to the point at which he was sacked.

[Cicero]

6 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Without looking at the terms it's hard to know if he has. What are his contractual duties? Unless his duties extend beyond training the team and overseeing match preparation, then I'm not sure what exactly he could be accused of breaching, since he kept doing his job up to the point at which he was sacked.

We got rid of both Scolari and AVB and gave them a full payout. Conte is a title winning manager, so he must of done something. Looking a bit deeper, ignoring the Costa incident, this goes all the way back to the summer of 2017. 

He's on grounds of breaching his contract. The club want to speak with Conte in person, which he is refusing to do, because they want to come to an appropriate settlement given Conte is guilty of multiple things.

Summer of 2017, he was absent (rumored to be talking with AC Milan) for a period when he was supposed to be fulfilling his obligations. His delay  inevitably cost us the Tolisso transfer, in which we then had to settle for Bakayoko. He's publicly, on a handful of occasions, criticised our board and questioned the ambition of our board. This had been going on for months. 

So no. As much as I love Conte, he isn't in the right and for him to take the moral high ground is hypocritical. 

[The Artful Dodger]

Have you read the contract? If he was so clearly in violation of his contract he wouldn't be taking this to court.

[SirBalon]

8 minutes ago, Cicero said:

We got rid of both Scolari and AVB and gave them a full payout. Conte is a title winning manager, so he must of done something. Looking a bit deeper, ignoring the Costa incident, this goes all the way back to the summer of 2017. 

He's on grounds of breaching his contract. The club want to speak with Conte in person, which he is refusing to do, because they want to come to an appropriate settlement given Conte is guilty of multiple things.

Summer of 2017, he was absent (rumored to be talking with AC Milan) for a period when he was supposed to be fulfilling his obligations. His delay  inevitably cost us the Tolisso transfer, in which we then had to settle for Bakayoko. He's publicly, on a handful of occasions, criticised our board and questioned the ambition of our board. This had been going on for months. 

So no. As much as I love Conte, he isn't in the right and for him to take the moral high ground is hypocritical. 

I have an inkling the Diego Costa incident has a lot to do with this.  It was obvious the club didn't want to get rid of Costa which is why Conte made every individual effort to make his life at the club a misery knowing full well that Costa isn't all there psychologically and would turn...  Costa was a major club asset and one that when not injured produced a major threat to any opponent due to his mental style of playing.  Chelsea weren't even able to put him on the market properly because it was common knowledge that there were all sorts going on there and that he was willing to sit it out to leave.

[Cicero]

8 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Have you read the contract? If he was so clearly in violation of his contract he wouldn't be taking this to court.

Publicly criticising your employer, is a breach of contract at any type of employment. 

[The Artful Dodger]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

Publicly criticising your employer, is a breach of contract at any type of employment. 

Even if that was true, which it isn't, they'd have to prove disciplinary steps were taken against him at the time of said event/events to even have a reasonable chance of winning. They're obviously attempting to settle out of court, which will be what ultimately happens.

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Even if that was true, which it isn't, they'd have to prove disciplinary steps were taken against him at the time of said event/events to even have a reasonable chance of winning. They're obviously attempting to settle out of court, which will be what ultimately happens.

Explain

[The Artful Dodger]

2 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Explain

Public criticism of an employer is allowed in all sorts of fields, criticism is not abuse/libel/slander it is often mere disagreement or expression of opinion. If I were asked about my employer's current strategy regarding certain things I would be critical of it and well within my rights to be so, expressing that opinion in a public field would not be a sackable offence and I'd have a great time taking them to court if they did so. Being dishonest or abusive about your employer is something different.

In the context of Conte, I'm not privy to contract and neither are you. If there is something as ridiculous as a no public criticism clause in there they would have to prove steps were taken at time of any said criticism to even have a leg to stand on.

 

 

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Public criticism of an employer is allowed in all sorts of fields, criticism is not abuse/libel/slander it is often mere disagreement or expression of opinion. If I were asked about my employer's current strategy regarding certain things I would be critical of it and well within my rights to be so, expressing that opinion in a public field would not be a sackable offence and I'd have a great time taking them to court if they did so. Being dishonest or abusive about your employer is something different.

In the context of Conte, I'm not privy to contract and neither are you. If there is something as ridiculous as a no public criticism clause in there they would have to prove steps were taken at time of any said criticism to even have a leg to stand on.

But the club didn't sack Conte for criticising the club. He was sacked because we finished outside the Top 4 and he's expressed that he didn't want to be here. 

Like most contracts, I'm fairly certain one obligation is to not create any altercations that can tarnish the reputation of your employer. Publicly criticising the club's transfer efforts and questioning the club's ambition is a breach of that obligation. This wasn't a one time thing too, he's been slagging off the club for months. 

I'm assuming in this case, the club wants to collect the financial harm Conte had done during his tenure. Thus him not having his full pay out.