Search results

But then unless you suspect that the club hasnt followed procedure, my original point was why would a court be more likely to support the LMA based on the vague claims and counter claims of each side.

Ah ok, Would procedure or not following it supersede the actual facts then, or does not following procedure render the facts irrelevant ? Of course we must suspect that if the club has prompted the action then their HR department/Legal team has followed the correct procedure, if not then there...

But your assuming they had no reason to do it in the first place, they obviously feel they did. So again why would a court support the LMA rather than the club, when we do not know what has happened ?

Why, if as you say both parties have offered little information, do you think the court would be likely to support the LMA and not the club ?