West Brom boss Tony Pulis ordered to repay Crystal Palace almost £4MILLION after ‘deceiving tribunal’
Pulis got a £2million survival bonus paid a few weeks week early by claiming he needed it to buy land for his family - and then quit
Sponsored by
TONY PULIS lied about wanting his £2m Crystal Palace bonus paid early so he could buy land for his family – before walking out on them 48 hours before the start of the 2014-15 season – according to an independent tribunal.
Pulis has been ordered to pay the Eagles £3,776,000 in damages after he was adjudged to have misrepresented the facts on two crucial issues; one being the supposed land deal and the other the date of a heated player meeting that he claimed forced him to leave the club.
Pulis was due £2m if he kept Palace up at the end of 2013/2014 season and if he was still there on on 31 August 2014. However, in early August 2014, he requested the payment early and, after it was paid on August 12, he quit on the 13th.
Keep up-to-date with all the latest transfer news and gossip ahead of the January window with SunSport’s daily LIVE blog.
Pulis claimed that he was committed to Palace until the time when his bonus was paid and only then changed his mind because of the heated player meeting (HPM), which he said coincidentally took place on the very same day as the payment of the bonus: 12 August.
Palace claimed by contrast, that the HPM took place on 8 August and so could not explain Pulis having suddenly changed his mind on 12 August.
The panel said: "The Panel's firm conclusion is that the Heated Players' Meeting occurred on 8 August.
"Mr Pulis has remained adamant throughout the proceedings that it occurred on 12 August in the face of the objective evidence which suggests otherwise.
“The Panel has anxiously considered whether it is simply dealing with an honest difference in recollection.
"Regrettably the Panel has concluded that Mr Pulis has not been willing to concede that the HPM did not occur on 12 August because he realised that he had otherwise no explanation for his sudden desire to leave the club on 13 August, having told the chairman only five days previously that he was happy and committed to the club in the context of a discussion where he solicited early repayment of his bonus.
“Since the Panel has concluded that the HPM occurred on 8 August, Mr Pulis' explanation for his sudden desire to leave the Club cannot be true. There must therefore be another reason.
"The only thing that had changed was that he had received early payment of his bonus on 12 August.
"The club submits that early payment of the bonus and his decision to leave the club are inextricably linked.
"In the absence of any other explanation from Mr Pulis, this is plainly the most logical inference. Indeed, it is the only inference.
“The Panel has rejected as untrue Mr Pulis' case and evidence that he only decided to leave the club as a result of the HPM on 12 August.
"It is not satisfied that he was candid with the Tribunal as to his real reason for seeking to leave.
"It is much more likely that he intended to seek more lucrative employment with another club and that is the real reason he sought early payment of his bonus, rather than an urgent need for the money for a non-existent land transaction."
Related Stories
“It is clear beyond doubt that the statement that Mr Pulis needed to show £2 million in his account preferably by 13 August to proceed on the purchase of property was completely untrue.
"There was at that date no imminent property transaction for which Mr Pulis had an urgent need of £2 million (net of tax).
“The Panel is also unimpressed with Mr Pulis' evidence concerning the land transaction.
"There was in truth no pressing need for the money at all, since at no time was there a plot of land on the market which Mr Pulis was remotely close to purchasing.
“The Panel is satisfied that Mr Pulis intended to give Mr Parish the false impression that he had a pressing need for the money for use in connection with an imminent land transaction and that he knew or was reckless to the fact that the impression he was giving to the club was a false one.
"His motive in doing so was to secure early payment of £2million."
Arbitrators added: "By any standards his conduct (prior to and during the litigation) has been shown to be disgraceful."