Swansea City compensation battle with Southampton continues as claims emerge

[swansnews]

Swansea City compensation battle with Southampton continues as claims emerge

The Swans battle for what they believe they are entitled from Russell Martin's departure to Southampton continued this week with us claiming that the Saints "

jackarmy.net

 

[swansnews]

Law360, London (May 30, 2024, 7:56 PM BST) -- A Welsh football club has sued its former coach in a London court for over £750,000 ($955,000), alleging he breached his contract when he moved to work for a competing team, according to newly public court filings.

Swansea City Association Football Club Ltd. accuses former head coach Russell Martin of breaking his employment contract when he left to become manager of Southampton Football Club, the club of English port city Southampton, according to its High Court claim dated April 3.

Martin was the head coach of Swansea City, also known as The Swans, from Aug. 1, 2021, until the contract was terminated June 28, 2023, the club says.

Southampton, then playing in the Premier League, the highest level of English football, approached Martin during the 2022-2023 season, and Martin accepted an offer to join the club without the agreement of The Swans' chief executive as required under his contract, Swansea City alleges.

Martin also did not seek permission to communicate with Southampton from The Swans' board despite that being a contractual requirement, Swansea City alleges.

Under the contract, Martin could be released in return for a £1.25 million payment, either from him or the team hiring him within seven days. However, if the team was in the Premier League the required payment would be £2 million, the claim says.

Rasmus Ankersen, chief executive of Southampton's owners Sport Republic UK Ltd., called directors of Swansea City to discuss hiring Martin as a manager under the release terms of his contract. Ankersen declined to offer the higher rate for Premier League teams to release Martin, offering the lower rate for teams not in the Premier League, according to the claim.

Southampton, also known as The Saints, had finished in the lowest place in the Premier League that season, and therefore would be relegated to play in the Championship, the second-highest league in English football, in which Swansea City also competes. Southampton has been promoted to the Premier League after finishing in fourth place in the 2023-2024 season.

However, Swansea City alleges that until Southampton transferred its shares in the company that operates the Premier League on June 14, 2023, it remained a Premier League team, and therefore should have paid £2 million to release Martin from his contract.

Swansea City also alleges Martin may have disclosed the contents of his employment contract to Southampton, breaching its confidentiality.

Southampton paid £1.25 million to Swansea City on June 27, and announced Martin would become its new head coach, terminating the contract the following day, the claim says.

Swansea City also alleges Martin had "enticed" five other senior members of its coaching and talent scouting staff to join Southampton in breach of his contract.

Swansea City and its counsel did not respond Thursday to requests for comment.

Southampton and counsel for Martin did not respond Thursday to requests for comment.

Swansea City is represented by John Mehrzad KC and Samuel Rabinowitz of Fountain Court Chambers, instructed by Nii Anteson of Sheridans.

Martin is represented by Level Law Ltd.

The case is Swansea City Association Football Club Ltd. v. Martin, case number KB-2024-001087, in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/commercial-l...head-coach-with-750k-contract-claim-?copied=1

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Does this mean then that we have given up or failed in pursuing Southampton then? If so, that's a far fvk up from the club in the wording of the clause. Could this now be an attempt to save face?

 

[Smurph]

Does this mean then that we have given up or failed in pursuing Southampton then? If so, that's a far fvk up from the club in the wording of the clause. Could this now be an attempt to save face?

From what I can gather, Southampton have paid £1.25 million and we're chasing Martin for the 750K to trigger the £2 million which was a clause in his contract.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

From what I can gather, Southampton have paid £1.25 million and we're chasing Martin for the 750K to trigger the £2 million which was a clause in his contract.

Yes, but initially we were going after Southampton. That seems to have gone quiet.

 

[Smurph]

Yes, but initially we were going after Southampton. That seems to have gone quiet.

Looks like they've eventually paid up. The whole thing is a mess.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Looks like they've eventually paid up. The whole thing is a mess.

Well they paid up the initial amount last summer, but I thought we were going after them for the full amount we wanted for an approach from a premier league club.

 

[Smurph]

Well they paid up the initial amount last summer, but I thought we were going after them for the full amount we wanted for an approach from a premier league club.

Maybe it's easier to chase Martin from a legal perspective than it is Southampton?

 

[Pentyrchjack]

The reality is each party will end up paying its own costs so the only winners are the lawyers

 

[bakajack]

Well they paid up the initial amount last summer, but I thought we were going after them for the full amount we wanted for an approach from a premier league club.

It could well be that we go after both.
Martin for the difference for breach of contract for the reasons above.
Based on the trial it might give Swansea evidence to prove that Southampton also made an approach to Martin before the date mentioned.

In any case its likely to be messy but surely the club wouldn't go for it if they didn't feel they had strong evidence especially after the stadium builder's law suit malarky.

 

[Pentyrchjack]

This is a right shag up. A wiser, more experienced, chief executive would have said to Southampton at the outset: "Look, we all know you poached Russ under the radar (which did us a favour), so rather than get drawn into a public legal battle let's just agree that Swansea City is the first port of call for loaning out your young superstars of the future".


After all we know the success Southampton has in developing young players.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

It could well be that we go after both.
Martin for the difference for breach of contract for the reasons above.
Based on the trial it might give Swansea evidence to prove that Southampton also made an approach to Martin before the date mentioned.

In any case its likely to be messy but surely the club wouldn't go for it if they didn't feel they had strong evidence especially after the stadium builder's law suit malarky.

Yes there was talk previously that we were going after Martin because he'd essentially walked out therefore breaching his contract. I don't know whether that's still something we're pursuing.

Or whether we're going after him for revealing confidential information about his release clause to Southampton.

And also Southampton for an illegal approach?

 

[LeonWasTheDogs]

This is a right shag up. A wiser, more experienced, chief executive would have said to Southampton at the outset: "Look, we all know you poached Russ under the radar (which did us a favour), so rather than get drawn into a public legal battle let's just agree that Swansea City is the first port of call for loaning out your young superstars of the future".


After all we know the success Southampton has in developing young players.

It does seem that we were blindsided again. Much like them falling for Jenkins’ sales pitch in the first place. Naive is a word that springs to mind, but that might not be completely fair as we never see the whole picture.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

It does seem that we were blindsided again. Much like them falling for Jenkins’ sales pitch in the first place. Naive is a word that springs to mind, but that might not be completely fair as we never see the whole picture.

This could all have been avoided by wording in the clause. All it would have taken would be to include the words:

"......and teams in receipt of parachute payments"

And Southampton would have had absolutely no leg to stand on.

 

[jasper_T]

This is a right shag up. A wiser, more experienced, chief executive would have said to Southampton at the outset: "Look, we all know you poached Russ under the radar (which did us a favour), so rather than get drawn into a public legal battle let's just agree that Swansea City is the first port of call for loaning out your young superstars of the future".


After all we know the success Southampton has in developing young players.

Why the fck would you consider developing their players for them suitable payment?