People have short memories, we would not have known anything about this if it wasn't for Pulis's all consuming greed.

The original decision was done under Rule K Arbitration. The whole process performed in secret. However he kept arguing and his lies have been laid bare for all to see.

[Link]

He owes us close to £5,000,000 or put another way, the best part of Sakho's wages for a year.

Those comparing Pulis and Pardew, it is highly unlikely that we would have had Pardew if Pulis had not tried to turn us over.

The judge denied him right of appeal unless he could bring forward new evidence that strengthens his case. He was given 90 days to do this. From what I know his lawyers have not only failed to bring forward any new evidence but they have also advise Pulis any attempts to appeal (even with new evidence) would ruin him if he lost again.

If I was Pulis, I'd be putting all my assets in family members names (a bit like Max Clifford)
I think the total costs of just over £5M, include his own legal costs (and CPFC's), so the club will be getting just over £3M

It seems the gagging clause of his contract is the only part he seems willing to keep to.
After all those player dealings with his preferred agents, bonus payments, etc Pulis has comes across a club that isn't willing to be dicked around.

Funniest thing was Parish disputing the date of the players meeting. "Mr Parish was able to provide evidence he had a hairdressers appointment that day, so the meeting couldn't have been then, so ex-Palace players called by Pulis must have 'mis-remembered' the date"

I disengage, I turn the page.

A considerable sum of half his bonus is tax. That was paid by CPFC immediately after Pulis got his bonus.

It's about £1 mil or £1.5 mil. CPFC agreed in court to help him get that back off HMRC which he then pays to CPFC.

COYP

Not really as the pundits praise his skill as a football club manager and not his ethics and I'm quite sure that many of them are hardly whiter than white themselves as far as ethics and morality are concerned.

Thanks to Tonykaos for the link to the judgement. I have now got all the answers I wanted when I started this thread.

The contract required that to get his bonus Pulis had to keep us up, and stay in the job until the 31st August, at which point he would get the £2m (minus tax and NI, that comes to about £950k in his pocket).

He asked for the money early (on the 8th Aug) so he could buy some land for his family, and said he was happy to stay at Palace. Pulis got the money on the 12th and resigned on the 13th. There never was any land deal, and he never intended to stay.

When Palace paid Pulis, he got about £950k, the taxman was given about £1.2m directly by Palace, so Pulis never saw the whole £2m.

The Premier League Arbitrators found in Palaces favour both key areas of dispute (i.e that he broke his contract and lied). The Courts agree with the Arbitrators, and Pulis can't challenge that.

Pulis is liable to pay back the £950k he pocketed, PLUS he has to pay Palace the £1.2m that they paid to the taxman for him, EVEN THOUGH Pulis never got that money! The reason for this is that Palace can't be certain HMRC will refund them in these circumstances. Ouch!

Pulis will have to pay his own teams legal fees of course, and since it was held that he left Palace to join another club he has to pay damages to Palace of agreed amount of £1.5 million, which I guess was the buyout clause in his contract.

In total, Pulis was ordered to pay Palace a sum of £3,776,000 in damages, then find the money for the lawyers fees.

Wow!

What now seems clear as well is that had he just sat still and said nothing he could have collected the money and left Palace two weeks later, although it may be that any club he joined would have had to pay Palace 1.5m for him at that time.

Unbelievable. All that mucking about so that he could get £950k a few weeks early, and now he's in the hole for £3.77m plus all the fees.

HOWEVER....

I wonder whether WBA will pay the £1.5m 'buyout' clause for him? I suppose that depends on whether WBA agreed to that when he took the job there. I have seen other posts on here suggesting that WBA specifically waited until the relevant date where they didn't have to pay Palace if they employed Pulis, but it may have been something Pulis was able to get them to do when he signed on anyway. We'll probably never know.

I also guess that if Pulis had to refund Palace the whole £2m, including the amount Palace gave to HMRC in tax, Pulis would be within his rights to try and claim that back from HMRC, or at least to ask Palace to do so and then give him his £1.2m back. It seems illogical that tax is still payable now that there has been no bonus payment made. So perhaps he'll get that £1.2m back. It reads as if Palace made an offer of that type during the hearing.

So if he gets the £1.2m from HMRC (via CPFC or otherwise) and if WBA agreed to pay the £1.5m, he's still got to pay £1m to Palace, but seeing as that's effectively a refund of the money Palace gave him, he may not be out of pocket very much at all, he would simply have missed out on the money he earned by keeping us up. In fact, if WBA gave him a big signing on fee, or higher basic wages than CPFC, he may even be in the black on the whole thing, though of course we simply don't know those details. It would explain why he seems so calm though.

So, though we know Pulis owes Palace at least £3.77m, we don't know how much of a blow this actually is to him, and probably never will.

What is for sure is that Palace are not out of pocket.

Again, thanks to TonyKaos for the link.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (10 Mar 2017 6.05pm)