15 million euros at stake. “A million euros per minute” quipped Maître Matthieu Barandas, lawyer for the Girondins, when the judge set the pleadings for each of the two cases at 15 minutes. “The heaviest financial issue ever judged by the Bordeaux industrial tribunal” recalled Maître Arnaud Constans, representing Vladimir Petkovic and Antonio Manicone.
The hearing of the dispute between the Bordeaux club on one side, its former coach and assistant on the other, took place this Tuesday morning. Dismissed for serious misconduct in February 2022, the two technicians contest, demanding compensation for the entirety of the remaining two and a half years of contract (4.9 million euros in salary and 1.2 million euros in bonuses for Petkovic representing 13.6 million euros with charges for the Girondins, almost a million euros for Manicone) and a million euros in moral damage.
Under the eyes of the leaders of the Girondins Thomas Jacquemier (general director) and Alexandre de Beaufort (legal director) and Antonio Manicone, today assistant in an Iranian club, the lawyers’ speaking hour sometimes resembled a trial of responsibility for the 2021-2022 season ended with relegation to Ligue 2. There was talk of defense at 4 and defense at 5, the quality of the recruitment of sports director Admar Lopes, the introduction of Covid in the locker room after a club evening on December 13, 2021, the treatment of Mehdi Zerkane, Paul Baysse, Otavio and the UNFP (players’ union).
Validity of certificates
On the merits, Maître Constans pleaded a “simple legal question” – the payment of compensation due upon unilateral early termination of a fixed-term contract – and mentioned “the dispute of the frog which wanted to be bigger than the ox. » “The Girondins, in deficit with losses of nearly 100 million over two seasons, found a new shareholder, Gérard Lopez, who decided to do a marketing stunt by hiring the popular coach, Vladimir Petkovic, coming out of a Euro quarter-final with Switzerland. They gave him a magnificent contract but the club did not have the means to match his ambitions. Very quickly, we found ourselves with constant financial constraints, senior players, who cost the most, sidelined. If Vladimir Petkovic and Antonio Manicone were released, it was because they cost too much. They bet that it would save sums of money while waiting for the trial,” he said, stressing that the results had been even worse with successor David Guion, the club going from… 19th place to the 20th and last.
Maître Barandas spoke of a coach who “ransacked” and “endangered” the club by “passively” accompanying the fall in results and putting forward the requirements of a contract of this height by relying on the decision in 2015 by the Lyon Industrial Tribunal (validated on appeal and by the Court of Cassation) to consider the lack of response to an email as a “serious fault” in the dispute between Olympique Lyonnais and its former coach Claude Puel . He pleaded immoral demands from Petkovic in view of the sporting situation at the time of the dismissal and his new position as coach of Algeria since March. Details of the remuneration planned in Bordeaux were presented: a monthly “net in pocket” salary increasing over the three seasons of engagement (133,636.36 euros, 166,566.67 euros then 179,166.67 euros), a maintenance bonus of 100,000 euros, housing allowances.
Thomas Jacquemier, general director of the Girondins (right), alongside the club’s lawyer Matthieu Barandas.
LAURENT THEILLET/SOUTH WEST
The club essentially criticizes Vladimir Petkovic (and his deputy, who would not have helped him) for not having submitted reports to his management, a lack of search for solutions. “He played on the iPad when he was traveling,” said Maître Barandas. Maître Constans retorts that the trainer never received any requests or calls to order and that he attached “130 pages” of training reports and written analyzes to the file. He calls into question the legal validity of the incriminating certificates made by leaders (Gérard Lopez, Admar Lopes, James Stevens; the fourth being written by the former deputy André Monteiro, the only one to have remained) and cites interviews with Gérard Lopez confirming his coach in December 2021 and January 2022.
The Koscielny case
The key point undoubtedly takes place on January 14, 2022. That day, at a press conference, Vladimir Petkovic indicated that “Laurent Koscielny is still the first captain”. Three days earlier, Gérard Lopez informed him of his decision to dismiss the former international. The president made it public on January 12. Maître Barandas sees this as “insubordination” but also the undermining of the obligation “to protect the unity of the locker room” written in his contract. He claims that the former Swiss coach was aware of accusations of racist jokes reported by members of the staff towards Koscielny. To this, his opponent responds that that did not prevent the club from appointing the former defender “club ambassador” on February 1st.
The Girondins’ lawyer, in his written file, also questions the validity of the claims for compensation based on net tax while the contractualized remuneration took into account the impatriation regime. The Council reserved its judgment for November 8. In the meantime, the Girondins will return at least once to the premises: at the beginning of June for the dismissal of Jaroslav Plasil (then assistant coach) in June 2022, before knowing the hearing dates for a pool of historic trainers not renewed in July 2019 and from the conciliation office with Patrice Lair, women’s coach fired in April.
WHAT IMPACT ON THE FINANCIAL SITUATION?
The Girondins will therefore be set for November 8. While the 2024-2025 forecast budget must be sent next week to the DNCG and Gérard Lopez is looking for an investor to finance it, the prospect does not have an immediate impact: the DNCG requires clubs to make provisions in their financial plan the amounts requested during disputes. An unfavorable decision could have a significant impact on cash flow, but both parties will have the possibility of making a suspensive appeal outside of the enforceable order in the Council’s decision.
