Bullard's Hull Contract Terminated
Thursday, 18th Aug 2011 12:58

Hull City have announced the termination of former Town loanee Jimmy Bullard’s contract in the wake of his suspension for an alleged indiscretion which took place during the Tigers’ pre-season trip to Slovenia. The 32-year-old, the Blues’ Player of the Year during a hugely successful loan spell last season, has not played for the club he joined from Fulham for £5 million in 2009 this season.

Hull chief executive Mark Maguire said in a statement that Bullard’s £45,000-a-week contract, which had two years left to run and made up 21% of the Tigers’ wage bill, is to be terminated: “I can confirm that the club has given notice to terminate the contract of Jimmy Bullard.

“Mr Bullard has a right of appeal and it would be inappropriate to make any further comment at this time that might prejudice this process.

“The club will continue to focus on the development and performance of the squad going forward and is concentrated on efforts to deliver a positive season on and off the pitch for the Tigers.

“We respect that there will be significant interest in this matter but will continue to act with professionalism and at all times in the best interests of the club.”

It's understood the termination means Bullard will receive nothing of what remains on his contract, the move effectively constituting his sacking by the Tigers.

While the Blues were interested in signing the midfielder earlier in the summer, boss Paul Jewell has said on a number of occasions that the deal would be beyond Town's finances, although whether this would still be the case now that Bullard's situation has changed remains to be seen.

However, QPR are also understood to be strongly interested in signing the former Peterborough and Wigan man and would appear to be the favourites for his signature, unless the takeover which was announced earlier today has led to them look elsewhere for midfield additions.

Photo: Action Images

Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.

Page:
1
2
3
4

Garv added 14:46 - Aug 18 Pull your finger out Marcus!
0

UsualSuspect added 14:48 - Aug 18 AmberAndBlack Yeah righto.... Not suggesting he hasn't been 'a very naughty boy' but your club would have looked for any reason possible to have got rid.
0

ncharles added 14:53 - Aug 18 My thinking is IF we don't want to completely blow the wages structure, if we don't have to pay a transfer fee to Hull and if we want to win his contract against other clubs... If someone had said Bullard is available to us on a £2m transfer and we were signing him for on a two year deal what would be the reaction then?
0

UsualSuspect added 14:56 - Aug 18 ncharles My reaction would be swerve it, all things considered.
0

Toepunt added 15:12 - Aug 18

I'm no lawyer but can't think that an arbitrator would ignore the fact that Hull have wanted shot of JB (and his pay packet) for some time. I would also assume that if another player (in Hull's past or present) had committed similar offences and not been sacked then they might struggle to justify the punishment in JB's case. It would be interesting to know what it is that he has done that constitutes 'Gross Misconduct' (and what Hull cite as sackable offences).
This all seems a bit too convenient for Hull, but if JB has opened the door to dismissal then I guess he has only himself to blame and perhaps it's time for him to move on.

Whatever happens, if we do make an offer for JB I'm sure the terms will suit ITFC and that PJ can get the best from him. I can't see us making the same mistake as Hull.

toforoge added 15:16 - Aug 18 QPR taken over by mr airasia so who knows whats going to happen re bullard ,maybe they will be looking for better now.One aspect not mentioned is the diffrence bullard may make to the gate, woulfd he add 1000? he is very popular /player of season creative etc. 1000 extra would be worth about 15k wages meaning 25k wages easily affordable.
0

ozzydog added 15:17 - Aug 18 Amber and Black You don`t really believe that do you,cos no one else does and nor will and tribunal
0

MickMillsTash added 15:19 - Aug 18

We ignore the Hull fans comments at our peril - he should come on a pay as you play rolling contract with a lowish basic and good appearance money- I really cannot see many other clubs offering him an excellent deal.
Pearson is clearly a disciiplinarian so Bullard would never fit in, Jewell is looking like a clown, Bullard a joker so an ideal match to fleece Marcus Evans of some of his cash.

AmberAndBlack added 15:30 - Aug 18

Here's the truth. We want rid of Jimmy Bullard. The last regime game him a ridiculous contract and he is more than happy to sit on it. What has happened here is that JB's natural behaviour has resulted in him gifting us plausible cause to terminate his contract, something we have wanted for a long while because there are many things the owners can think of spending £5m ayear on. Thanks Jimmy.

THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE LEGAL QUESTION OF WHATEVER IT IS HAS CONSTITUTED HIS GROSS MISCONDUCT.

If your behaviour is classed as gross misconduct, that is what it is. It doesn't depend on whether you want rid of that person because he costs you so much. That has no bearing. The only way JB can disprove this is if he can produce evidence of other past players at HCFC, under the current ownership, behaving in a similar way and not being sacked. That he cannot prove as there simply haven't been any.

jert16 added 15:34 - Aug 18 go away amber and black
0

Barhamblue added 15:52 - Aug 18 Its just his agent talking things up! Who in there right mind is going to pay alot of wages for a 32 year old with dodgey knees. Prem clubs, with all respect to Jimmy want and need more than that. I would not be surprised if he ends up with us or West Ham.
0

HolbrookBlue added 15:53 - Aug 18

It was clear earlier in the year that Hull wanted to get Bullard off their payroll. It was also apparent that Bullard wanted a way to leave Hull whilst not losing too much of his contract. Hull seem to have found a reason, hence the current situation.

Tribunals in these matters can sometimes take a long time, remember Alan Curbishley. Therefore Bullard will not be able to work until the tribunal verdict, after all he could be reinstated.

Ipswich should forget about him until the outcome of the tribunal. The longer it goes on the less appealing he will become as his match fitness diminishes.

Paul Jewell has more important issues to sort out at present.

runningout added 15:58 - Aug 18 Prem teams have a big edge on signings.. doubt he will be coming our way...He must have seriously upset somebody.
0

Blue_Fred added 16:36 - Aug 18

seriously?? 1 minute you all complain on here that, rather than looking for hungry lower league players as we should be (Cresswell proves this!) we are only linked with signing premiership castoffs who are over the hill, have questionable fitness levels and are only avaialble for us because noone else wants them.
Then suddenly a 32 year old with dodgy knees is apparently available and you're racing to insist the breaking of the clubs' bank to sign him.

move on people, He's not the Messiah.......He's a VERY NAUGHTY BOY!!!!!

Toepunt added 16:39 - Aug 18 @AmberAndBlack Since we don't know the reason Hull are citing, how can it be said that there simply havn't been any other players behaving in a similar way? Hull may have decided that a fairly trivial event constitutes gross misconduct as a means to an end. Fact is, we simply don't know.
0

alfromcol added 16:42 - Aug 18

I don't think there is any reason in law that states that Bullard can't move to another job before the eventual result of any appeal to a Tribunal is known. The only difference is the compensation paid, if any, will take account of any wages received from the new job.

As a result there is no reason why Bullard can't move to and play for a new club in the very near future.

Correct me if I am wrong.

UsualSuspect added 16:44 - Aug 18 Blue_Fred Like it, but I got there before you:-)
0

wrightyblue added 16:46 - Aug 18 Sign him up now what ever his wage demands! We need him! All u that think we dnt u haven't a clue!
0

UsualSuspect added 16:50 - Aug 18 wrightyblue Wasn't that HCFC mistake in the first place? I suggest it's you that's lacking in judgement. (polite version)
0

London_Tiger added 16:58 - Aug 18

The RUMOURS about Jimmy's actions are quite widespread in the Hull City community, and no doubt there is some truth in them, though no-one is quite sure how much. If City have gone through the proper disciplinary process with Bullard, and he's failed to get the message, the events in Slovenia could have been the final straw. I even understand he refused to carry out the charity commitments that he was required to on behalf of the club.

But for someone to say he's no trouble maker, when suggestions to the contrary have come from supporters of two of his previous clubs, is bizarre. Ok, the previous chairman was a muppet over the contract, and you can't blame Bullard for it, but for that amount anyone would expect the player to act properly and blamelessly; apparently it appears that Bullard didn't.

Let that be a lesson to everyone.

AmberAndBlack added 17:16 - Aug 18

Toepunt

With the amount of money involved the owners have now been discussing matters with solicitors for 4 weeks. I doubt they have done that for fun and that they have plausible cause to take this action.

There are loads of rumours around as to what happened in Slovenia, but the truth is nobody but the management and those involved know the truth of what happened.

jonju11 added 17:18 - Aug 18

It's a no brainer. If we want quality & leadership then we must try & strike deal for Bullard.
One can only guess that he is being constructively dismissed.......what cowards.....would Man U sack Rooney for an indiscretion(s)... not on your life!! Feeble excuses for a "major buy" that went wrong. I hope he appeals.

In the meantimr PJ how about using Ainsley @ RB & push Edwrads back into his normal role where he can be more effective than is seen at present with Martin on the other wing & watch the goals go in from Chopra & JET.

If we are still interested in a RB how about Zuidervoon (WBA) who did well on his brief loan last year?

Peterboro 1 ITFC 3

AmberAndBlack added 17:22 - Aug 18 alfromcol We still hold his registration with the football league. He has been given one months notice of the termination therefore if we want we can keep his registration beyond the close of the window. That way he cannot play for anyone else before the opening of the next window.
0

Crazee added 18:29 - Aug 18

Personally I go along with the views of friend Amber and Blue_Fred. JB is not the player to be signing - I think Northampton and Southampton games have proven that PJ needs to be looking at some of the up and coming young stars in the lower divisions who are hungry for success and the chance to prove themselves. Granted, we could also do with a couple of experienced, quality players to help us along - and they should now be coming in the form of proven Premier loans who are looking to make at point at their home clubs.

Jimmy Bullard fits neither bill and although we must not forget the amount of good he did us least season, it is now time to move on, and forget about signing him on. Personally I never did view him as a "hero" although neither did he do anything wrong in his time with us.

So thanks Jimmy for what you did last season, but now no thanks and please jog on.