Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

League Managers' Association statement on Gus Poyet Brighton disciplinary hearing



S

Smile

Active member
Aug 19, 2011
214
League Managers' Association statement on Gus Poyet's Brighton disciplinary hearing >>>

The League Managers Association (LMA) has issued the following statement regarding Gus Poyet, manager of Brighton & Hove Albion FC, in response to media speculation and a number of statements made by the Club.
Brighton & Hove Albion FC ordered Gus Poyet to attend a crucial disciplinary hearing today, despite the fact that he only returned from annual leave yesterday and the charges were not particularised until 13th June. Further, the very lengthy appendices to the initial report comprise around 500 pages and these were also only delivered recently. Clearly Gus needs to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to what we believe are unfounded charges against him.

Also, it has repeatedly been made clear to the Club that Gus’s LMA representative, Richard Bevan was not available to accompany him today, but was available to attend on Thursday 20th or Friday 21st June as well. These two dates fall within the five working day period for an employee to offer alternatives to the original date set by the Club as set-out in the Club’s own handbook. We believe that our members are entitled to the same legal protections that other employees enjoy. Football clubs need to observe basic employment rights like any other employer in our view. Just to be clear, however, we are confident that Gus will demonstrate there is no case to answer in this matter.
Notwithstanding these important points, the Club decided to go-ahead with the hearing in the absence of both Gus and Richard Bevan. Late this afternoon the Club agreed to adjourn and reconvene the disciplinary hearing to Thursday 20th June 2013. The LMA is pleased that the Club has agreed to an arrangement whereby Gus and his chosen representative will be able to attend.
The LMA will not be making any further statement at this stage.

Do you still think Poyet is the nasty man the club is portraying?
 




S

S'hampton Seagull

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2003
6,809
Southampton
The club are going to have to sack him if they want to get rid. Getting closer to the start of the season and no end in sight, how depressing
 


SIMMO SAYS

SIMMO SAYS

Well-known member
Jul 31, 2012
11,715
Incommunicado
deanbon said:
League Managers' Association statement on Gus Poyet's Brighton disciplinary hearing >>>

The League Managers Association (LMA) has issued the following statement regarding Gus Poyet, manager of Brighton & Hove Albion FC, in response to media speculation and a number of statements made by the Club.
Brighton & Hove Albion FC ordered Gus Poyet to attend a crucial disciplinary hearing today, despite the fact that he only returned from annual leave yesterday and the charges were not particularised until 13th June. Further, the very lengthy appendices to the initial report comprise around 500 pages and these were also only delivered recently. Clearly Gus needs to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to what we believe are unfounded charges against him.

Also, it has repeatedly been made clear to the Club that Gus’s LMA representative, Richard Bevan was not available to accompany him today, but was available to attend on Thursday 20th or Friday 21st June as well. These two dates fall within the five working day period for an employee to offer alternatives to the original date set by the Club as set-out in the Club’s own handbook. We believe that our members are entitled to the same legal protections that other employees enjoy. Football clubs need to observe basic employment rights like any other employer in our view. Just to be clear, however, we are confident that Gus will demonstrate there is no case to answer in this matter.
Notwithstanding these important points, the Club decided to go-ahead with the hearing in the absence of both Gus and Richard Bevan. Late this afternoon the Club agreed to adjourn and reconvene the disciplinary hearing to Thursday 20th June 2013. The LMA is pleased that the Club has agreed to an arrangement whereby Gus and his chosen representative will be able to attend.
The LMA will not be making any further statement at this stage.

Do you still think Poyet is the nasty man the club is portraying?
Click to expand...

So if that is true and he hasn't got a case to answer when are we all going to send our season tickets back to punish the club:rolleyes:-----------it's all about the money now----follow the dosh:drama:
 




O

osgood

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2011
1,511
brighton
500 pages ?
thats a mighty tome indeed,
lots of serious misdemeanours ?
much ado about nothing ?
its a funny old game
 






DanielT

DanielT

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2010
2,217
Brighton. On matchdays, I'm in ESU
"Further, the very lengthy appendices to the initial report comprise around 500 pages and these were also only delivered recently. Clearly Gus needs to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to what we believe are unfounded charges against him.

...

Just to be clear, however, we are confident that Gus will demonstrate there is no case to answer in this matter."



Mentioning the 500 pages implies the club is being unreasonable and not giving them enough time to read it and prepare themselves. But they're still confident there is no case?
 






Screaming J

Screaming J

He'll put a spell on you
Jul 13, 2004
2,367
Exiled from the South Country
I have to say taking that at face value I am NOT very impressed at the clubs actions. That doesn't mean I'm in the 'Gus is innocent camp'. I mean like (almost ( I expect) everyone else on here I just don't bleedin know. This is after all only one side of the story.

BUT

If what is said there is accurate; and having had to suspend people when I was working, I know that you just DON'T get into situations like this if you can help it. To go ahead with a hearing only 2 working days after charges were 'particularised' and when his representatives have already said they couldn't be present seems to me to just be feckin daft. Whether or not this is Barber's fault I have no idea but someone appears to have not a bloody clue about how to manage what - at best - is a very awkward situation - with any degree of sensitivity or common sense at all. It must be steering close to breaking employment law and - I would have thought - the clubs own procedures...if they've got any!
 


M

martin tyler

Well-known member
Jan 25, 2013
5,844
Screaming J said:
I have to say taking that at face value I am NOT very impressed at the clubs actions. That doesn't mean I'm in the 'Gus is innocent camp'. I mean like (almost ( I expect) everyone else on here I just don't bleedin know. This is after all only one side of the story.

BUT
To go ahead with a hearing only 2 working days after charges were 'particularised' and when his representatives have already said they couldn't be present seems to me to just be feckin daft.

Thats 4 days in my book. But he is entitled to have someone there and if is representative was not available then fine. Can not see the great fuss personally. Thursday it is.
Click to expand...
 


S

Seagull over Canaryland

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2011
3,549
Norfolk
None of the LMA's statement appears particularly unusual to me. Firstly an adjournment is not unreasonable. Secondly it is still only within the 5 day deadline so normal.

All this guff about a 500 page document is a bit misleading. Yes it may seem hefty but the LMA's own statement says there are many appendices presumably including The Club's own handbook, which it refers to. The really important stuff in the document will not be the appendices but the specifics of each charge and supporting evidence, which could be substantially less.

Remember the LMA is the managers' union so quite normal for them to be upbeat about their members situation. This is not always borne out in practice.

The LMA's contention that Gus only just returned from leave yesterday is curious considering Gus was on national TV last night presumably at his own choice when perhaps he could have been focusing on other matters. Of course Gus will point out that the Club suspended him and told him not to have any contact is at liberty to arrange other commitments and receive reasonable notice of when he is required to attend the Club. Anyway, Gus might have attended today but it was actually his LMA rep who was not available.

While on the other side The Club is rightly anxious to progress the hearing now that they have the facts particularised. If the Club hadn't come forward promptly with a date you can bet the LMA would complain the Club is dragging its heels and creating undue pressure on their member by allowing the matter drift, blah blah.

This is all just posturing ahead of the hearing. The only thing that is a bit odd is the LMA claiming that the Club went ahead with the hearing anyway. It would be interesting to get the club's perspective but probably best they don't enter into the posturing.
 




Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
65,455
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
Seagull over Canaryland said:
None of the LMA's statement appears particularly unusual to me. Firstly an adjournment is not unreasonable. Secondly it is still only within the 5 day deadline so normal.

All this guff about a 500 page document is a bit misleading. Yes it may seem hefty but the LMA's own statement says there are many appendices presumably including The Club's own handbook, which it refers to. The really important stuff in the document will not be the appendices but the specifics of each charge and supporting evidence, which could be substantially less.

Remember the LMA is the managers' union so quite normal for them to be upbeat about their members situation. This is not always borne out in practice.

The LMA's contention that Gus only just returned from leave yesterday is curious considering Gus was on national TV last night presumably at his own choice when perhaps he could have been focusing on other matters. Of course Gus will point out that the Club suspended him and told him not to have any contact is at liberty to arrange other commitments and receive reasonable notice of when he is required to attend the Club. Anyway, Gus might have attended today but it was actually his LMA rep who was not available.

While on the other side The Club is rightly anxious to progress the hearing now that they have the facts particularised. If the Club hadn't come forward promptly with a date you can bet the LMA would complain the Club is dragging its heels and creating undue pressure on their member by allowing the matter drift, blah blah.

This is all just posturing ahead of the hearing. The only thing that is a bit odd is the LMA claiming that the Club went ahead with the hearing anyway. It would be interesting to get the club's perspective but probably best they don't enter into the posturing.
Click to expand...

As has been stated on the other thread, it is very unusual for the LMA to release any sort of statement at all when representing their clients. It appears the club have messed up with their procedures.
 


kalinski

kalinski

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2004
1,203
Burwash, East Sussex, United Kingdom, United Kingd
Screaming J said:
I have to say taking that at face value I am NOT very impressed at the clubs actions. That doesn't mean I'm in the 'Gus is innocent camp'. I mean like (almost ( I expect) everyone else on here I just don't bleedin know. This is after all only one side of the story.

BUT

If what is said there is accurate; and having had to suspend people when I was working, I know that you just DON'T get into situations like this if you can help it. To go ahead with a hearing only 2 working days after charges were 'particularised' and when his representatives have already said they couldn't be present seems to me to just be feckin daft. Whether or not this is Barber's fault I have no idea but someone appears to have not a bloody clue about how to manage what - at best - is a very awkward situation - with any degree of sensitivity or common sense at all. It must be steering close to breaking employment law and - I would have thought - the clubs own procedures...if they've got any!
Click to expand...

this...very much this. it doesn't bode well if they took three weeks to build the 'file' and then don't give 5 working days for the employee to read it...we are going to have to pay a big compensation to get rid of or Barber is sacrificed...
 


S

Seagull over Canaryland

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2011
3,549
Norfolk
Ok these things can be determined by failing to observe a technicality within the disciplinary investigation procedure. It would be a huge embarrassment if a disciplinary case fails on that rather than on the basis of the evidence.

I still suggest the LMA statement is largely their posturing ahead of the hearing. They are obliged to be upbeat, even in the face of the evidence. Gus placed store by his 'reputation' and the LMA statement appears to a pre-emptive attempt to put pressure on The Club ahead of the hearing and try to protect his reputation.

The Club have agreed to a reasonable request for an adjournment, but only by 3 working days. If the Clubs handbook says 5 days then its already tight, but hardly ground breaking.

Gus's people will have known the charges against him as these will have been put in writing at an earlier stage. The latest report will incorporate the evidence and appendices.

I cannot believe that the Clubs own lawyers will have agreed to a formal investigation, allowed it to continue for 4 weeks and then on the basis of evidence gathered then not have advised if they perceive there is no significant case to answer. They would exposing the Club to potential compensation claims and unnecessary legal costs. So I suspect there is a case to answer and that it should be tested at a disciplinary hearing. If Gus is then cleared after the evidence has been examined, then so be it.
 




B

Baron Pepperpot

Active member
Jul 26, 2012
1,558
Brighton
There is No if or BUT for most of us because we aint got a clue about the detail of what is going on.

The LMA will support their man.

I have no opinion, because I don't know.

Can we just have ONE thread on the issue.
 


sparkie

sparkie

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2003
12,504
Hove
Is it fair to say that the LMA have a massive vested interest in this ( aside from their normal role supporting a member ) ?

Could this situation lead to an unwelcome precedent for clubs to dismiss managers in such a way ? Does FFP make this more attractive, or even necessary in some club's eyes ?

Would the LMA want this to go to court ( clearly they would if they think they have a watertight case )? Or would they really want to not risk losing such a case ?
 


Lord Bracknell

Lord Bracknell

On fire
Jul 5, 2003
39,499
104 Upper Grosvenor Street, Mayfair
sparkie said:
Is it fair to say that the LMA have a massive vested interest in this ( aside from their normal role supporting a member ) ?

Could this situation lead to an unwelcome precedent for clubs to dismiss managers in such a way ? Does FFP make this more attractive, or even necessary in some club's eyes ?

Would the LMA want this to go to court ( clearly they would if they think they have a watertight case )? Or would they really want to not risk losing such a case ?
Click to expand...
They took the Jim Magilton v Ipswich Town case all the way to the High Court and won. It took two years.
 


G

gazingdown

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2011
1,055
deanbon said:
Do you still think Poyet is the nasty man the club is portraying?
Click to expand...

I don't think the club has done anything of the sort.

They have suspended him and have only declared factually that an investigation is ongoing and that a hearing was yesterday but was delayed and will re-continue later this week.

Any "portrayal" is, as far as I can see, ALL down to speculation on sites such as these. In other words, it's so called fans that are doing all the "portrayal".

In fact, the club have done anything but portray Gus in any shape or form, to do so would possibly compromise the club's legal position.
 






drew

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,053
Burgess Hill
Lord Bracknell said:
They took the Jim Magilton v Ipswich Town case all the way to the High Court and won. It took two years.
Click to expand...

That went on for two years and since then he hasn't worked in this country. That might be because he isn't a good manager or it might be that clubs steer clear of him. Currently plying his trade in Australia I believe.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here