Tony Pulis faces total bill of £6million after being slammed by judge for ‘untruths’ in court battle with Crystal Palace
Further costs of £2million will be added on to the £3.776m for the initial bonus and damages
TONY PULIS faces an incredible bill of nearly £6MILLION after being branded a liar in court.
Pulis was appealing against an independent tribunal finding earlier this year that ordered him to pay back a £2m bonus he received after saving Palace from relegation in 2014.
The former Selhurst Park chief, 58, must pay the Eagles a total of £3.776m — £2.276m for the bonus plus damages of £1.5m.
But SunSport can reveal further costs of £2m will bring the total to almost £6m.
Pulis was due the £2m bonus if he kept Palace up while remaining manager until August 31, 2014.
But he asked for the cash early — and then quit two days later on August 14, on the eve of the new season.
related stories
High Court judge Sir Michael Burton said the arbitration tribunal was told Pulis’ reason for asking for the bonus early was due to an imminent purchase of land for his children and he “urgently needed the money”.
Yet Palace co-owner Steve Parish was able to prove beyond doubt the Welshman was not telling the truth.
The tribunal concluded it was satisfied Pulis intended to give the club the “false impression” he had a pressing need for the money for the land purchase — and that “he knew or was reckless to the fact that the impression he was giving to the club was a false one”.
Sir Michael added: “The Tribunal found the Claimant had deliberately sought to deceive with his claims about needing the bonus early in order to buy land for his children.”
In their report earlier this year the arbitrators slammed Pulis.
They said: “By any standards his conduct (prior to and during the litigation) has been shown to be disgraceful.”
They rejected Pulis’ case as “untrue” and said they were “not satisfied that he was candid with the Tribunal as to his real reason for seeking to leave” Palace.
The arbitrators added: “It is much more likely he intended to seek more lucrative employment with another club and that is the real reason he sought early payment, rather than an urgent need for the money for a non-existent land transaction.”