Well, one thing it [imight[/i tell us - in conjunction with the oft mentioned necessity of having his legal adviser present - is that he's considering a legal challenge to his dismissal. Simply walking away would weaken any case he [imight[/i wish to progress.

No, if there was an inference, that's not it.


You are? Well, that's a relief, because I did wonder.


You thought a man with a lucrative contract might "walk away" from it? Why on earth would anyone with a brain do that? No, it is singularly uninteresting that he has not "walked away". If that told us anything, it would simply be that Noble is not an idiot.

Sorry. By "walk away", I meant turn the new job down. Although that would effectively be walking away from the club, it surely wouldn't affect any legal case he wishes to bring would it? In fact, as the job he had has been given to someone else, I'd have thought accepting a new role in the same organisation would weaken his case, not strengthen it, so why not turn it down?

This is why I find it all a bit mysterious. That and the fact that Nobby was widely reported to have been on a rolling 18 month contract, and so could have been eased out of the coaching role in, what?, four months time? had Marwan indeed decided he was "gash".

I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Iestyn Harris is the epitome of gash at coaching. His record is abysmal. Some people are just meant to be assistants.

It could be said, and who am I to discuss legal tactics, that "promoting" Noble to Director of Rugby or whatever isn't an end to the contract, so if Noble leaves it is a resignation, and thus attracts no compensation. Although I doubt that was in anyone's thinking.

Please inform me what has been uninformed about my comments?

Secondly, if the Dr. wishes to "invest" his money in a rugby league club, that's up to him. I am sure I will make more of a financial return keeping it in the bank, even at current interest rates.

Legally, Noble probably has a contract where his job is 'Head Coach'. By making someone else 'Head Coach' Salford/Mar have essentially 'replaced' Noble.....the offer of a different position/promotion is neither here nor there, because if Noble walks, he could quite easily claim constructive dismissal and demand payment for the remainder of his contract.

It's not quite as straight forward as that though. Since Noble only joined Salford in 2013 he wouldn't be able to take Salford to an employment tribunal as he's not been there for 2 years.
He also, if he wants compensation, has to follow certain procedures as Koukash could put forward that it's merely a company reorganisation, as the position of Director of Rugby has been newly created. Many people have to deal with company reorganisations and changes of role etc without being entitled to walk away with compensation for constructive dismissal.

Noble has to make sure he does things the right way to get his compensation, he can't just walk and sit at home demanding money.

Our oh so wonderful Tory friends in Downing Street have significantly eroded employee rights sadly.

Or they've re-balanced the system so that it's no longer egregiously weighted towards the employee? The 2 year rule and the requirement to lodge a fee for an ET are very positive moves in my view. I think these are Vince Cable initiatives by the way, so not strictly Tory.

In this instance, I imagine that they're thrashing out the terms of a compromise agreement; the delays will be because Noble has the right to take legal advice, at Salford's expense, before he agrees to a mutual parting of ways.

Is he entitled to compensation, though? It can't be a redundancy because the role of Head Coach still exists. I don't [ithink[/i it can be construed as constructive dismissal because he's been offered another role, one which could be seen as some form of promotion.

I wonder if he's biding his time to see if another coaching opportunity presents itself. At an unnamed, struggling Super League club with an inexperienced coach somewhere in West Yorkshire, for example.

Obviously we're all guessing to some degree and I'm no expert on employment law but I would imagine that Noble would be entitled to some compensation but I suppose it would depend on the terms of his "old" contract and the terms of the contract of the new role he's been offered.

I was meaning really that IF he wants some compensation (ie doesn't want the Director of Rugby role) he can't just walk away. He has to at least go through the motions in talking to Salford/trying to resolve the situation etc first.

It wasn't egregiously weighted towards the employee. Just because some employees abused the system didn't mean it was unfair on employers per se. And it certainly didn't need changing to the degree it has been where employees can now be laid off with no redundancy money just because they've not been working there long enough.

The further erosion of employees rights is not a step forward in a society that is being run more and more by businesses & markets and for profit.

I think it was - and the fact that it was meant that it was easily abused.

As for the laying off without redundancy money - which change to employment law has enabled that to happen? I'm not aware of a change that allows an employer to make someone redundant but not pay them anything; if you mean the two year rule that now applies to most dismissals (apart from discrimination or whistleblowing iirc?) then that person wasn't entitled to any money in the first place, besides their final salary payment.

Back to Noble; if he does choose to leave rather than take up the new job, I don't expect this is to do with how much compensation he is entitled to as per the terms of his contract; it's probably to do with how much it will cost the Dr for him to walk away in full and final settlement. In these circumstances, most people have a price - but it's not always straightforward to arrive at it, as both sides will have professional advice to consider.

If he gets bored in the meantime, he could always come to BV to teach the Wakefield players how to tackle.

Surely Noble's contract will contain the various aspects of his employment with Salford and IF the contract is breached by either party then a claim could be made by the other party.
Contracts are written up to protect both sides.

Unless it is written within his contract, that he could be offered a "similar" role within the organisation, hen it is likely that Salford have breached the conditions, but only Dr K and Noble will know this.
Equally, Dr K may well gamble on Mr Noble not wanting to risk serious money to take Dr K to court.

Harris @ Crusaders was stymied. The players were not being paid. You may well be aware of how mercenary RL players behave when no money is seen. Even Tim Sheens and his assistant Mal Meninga would not have been able to coax a win. Cant blame Harris for that.

When with Wales he based his side on Amateurs and not Australians whose Great Grandfather may have been incarcerated in Cardiff Prison before being transported to the Colonies. Cant blame Harris for that.

He has now completed his Wigan tenure and from all accounts contributed hugely to their efforts.

I rest my case for the defence m`lud and will reconsider in 18 months time.

18 weeks if he's lucky........