JeffDunne wrote:gazrat wrote:Now we're in court, why aren't the club and Archie defending our right to not pay the $100K? Why aren't we presenting the so-called "evidence" that was damaging enough to warrant a president & CEO embarrassing the club in the press and further inflaming the situation?
good question doc
Andrew, can you shed any light on this?
Have we 1) disputed paying it & 2) mentioned what RB & AF were accusing GT of?
The situation is this, to the best of my understanding
The club/board according to AF, were prepared to offer $100,000 to Thomas subject to certain conditions.
The first draft of these conditions was quickly put together as initially the club were going to inform Thomas that his services were no longer required on the Thursday 14th September, but were advised that it would get out to the media if they delayed any further and so subsequently contacted Thomas and told him to meet with the board at Butterss house on Tuesday/12th September.
The first original draft of the conditions were agreed to in principle at the meeting on the 12th,
the club told Thomas that it would have the complete full final draft available to sign off in 7 days.
Thomas left the country for a holiday with his family on the 19th September, leaving the issue unresolved as the final draft had not been signed off on.
I am a bit unclear as to what happened next,
It would seem that the final draft was never actually signed off on, so therefore the offer was off the table,
This is all to the best of my understanding.
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.