It's G-Day!

[TSB]

But who is Hawk the Seagull?

He's @Hawk the Seagull on here

 

[JJ McClure]

Right, I'm going for a shit. I'm going to leave my phone on my desk and hope that by that time I get back there will have been a press release and it'll all be sorted.

Why would someone do a press release about you taking a shit?

 

[rool]

This is how I imagine it happening

[video]http://movieclips.com/xhv5-for-a-few-dollars-more-movie-the-musical-pocket-watch/[/video]

 

[Pinkie Brown]

The clubs legal team discuss the appendices of the first 100 pages of evidence.




Will Barber be handing Gus a role of (economy) bin liners to clear his office?



Or will it be a



of some kind?

 

[Scoffers]

I wonder what page number they are on of the 500 pages?

 

[brakespear]

He turned a good reputation in to a bad one, he got to big for his boots and wanted to get the club to bank roll his ego at the expense of fair play. The football was not as good as the hype, boring passing across the back and to slowly. I am glad to see the back of him, bring on Karl Robinson, proper attacking football.

 

[fosters headband]

When Russell salde became our manager, he had been fired by Yeovil for fiddling his expenses (he hadn't been suspended but was dismissed on the spot after a quick investigation).

I think he won the appeal (after becoming our manager).

With this in mind and you with your HR cap on ROSM.
I would like to ask you a procedure question.
If an employee refuses to comply with an agreed task on their contract and a task that is custom and practice in the position held and in fact this task the employee has carried out in previous years.
Would you sack him immediately or start the disciplinary route. Bearing in mind if you go against procedure, as in the Slade case, it can be very expensive for the company, Yes or No?
What route would you advise your company

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I wonder what page number they are on of the 500 pages?

Surely enough of a way through for Gus to have turned to his representative and say "ees complicated eh?"

 

[el punal]

If it ever came out that he didnt try to win the match then...... But as was said, if he was trying to throw it, putting Ashley Barnes on and making him have those two chances in a minute saved was a master stroke.

You wonder now, just how much the club hoped (either then or with hindsight now) that Gus had gone to reading?

Sorry . . . how on earth would he be able NOT to win a match? Tell the players not to have a shot on goal? Ensure that we give away a couple of penalties? Pass the ball to opposing players in dangerous areas? All a bit far fetched to say the least.

On the other hand, what would the view be if we had won the game?

My opinion is that the players were not up for the game - now whether that is lack of motivation by the manager or the nerves affected by the occasion, who knows. We lost that's it and I can't see anything sinister in either the result or the manner of the defeat.

 

[Flounce]

Sorry . . . how on earth would he be able NOT to win a match? QUOTE]

An imaginary scenario

Gus tells the players, just before the match, that he may or may not be here next season, if he is and the Albion go up he suggests that most of the team probably won't be kicking another ball for the club as they will be replaced by better players?

How motivated would you be? Not suggesting it happened btw.

 

[glasfryn]

Sorry . . . how on earth would he be able NOT to win a match? Tell the players not to have a shot on goal? Ensure that we give away a couple of penalties? Pass the ball to opposing players in dangerous areas? All a bit far fetched to say the least.

On the other hand, what would the view be if we had won the game?

My opinion is that the players were not up for the game - now whether that is lack of motivation by the manager or the nerves affected by the occasion, who knows. We lost that's it and I can't see anything sinister in either the result or the manner of the defeat.

I don't know myself and 10 others managed it quite easily ....on a regular basis

Sorry . . . how on earth would he be able NOT to win a match? QUOTE]

An imaginary scenario

Gus tells the players, just before the match, that he may or may not be here next season, if he is and the Albion go up he suggests that most of the team probably won't be kicking another ball for the club as they will be replaced by better players?

How motivated would you be? Not suggesting it happened btw.

don't honestly think do you

 

[Hove Seagull]

Why would someone do a press release about you taking a shit?

I think he means that he has run out of toilet paper

 

[Flounce]

don't honestly think do you

Of course I don't, it's just a thought. Although if you knew/thought you were being binned by your company regardless might you not be tempted to throw a spanner in the works on your last day??

Anyway the response was a suggestion to the question " how would you not win a match"

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

With this in mind and you with your HR cap on ROSM.
I would like to ask you a procedure question.
If an employee refuses to comply with an agreed task on their contract and a task that is custom and practice in the position held and in fact this task the employee has carried out in previous years.
Would you sack him immediately or start the disciplinary route. Bearing in mind if you go against procedure, as in the Slade case, it can be very expensive for the company, Yes or No?
What route would you advise your company

my guess is it depends on how serious the nature of the offence is. can you go straight for dismissal or does there have to be verbal/written warnings first?

without speculating but say for example the manager decided which players he wanted and didn't want but refused to do the actually ask of communicating with the players were not required, could that come under not dealing with the retained list in so far as he made a list but didn't do the final part of the job?

 

[ROSM]

With this in mind and you with your HR cap on ROSM.
I would like to ask you a procedure question.
If an employee refuses to comply with an agreed task on their contract and a task that is custom and practice in the position held and in fact this task the employee has carried out in previous years.
Would you sack him immediately or start the disciplinary route. Bearing in mind if you go against procedure, as in the Slade case, it can be very expensive for the company, Yes or No?
What route would you advise your company

In this example - rs won the appeal. Not for unfair dismissal, but that he hadn't fiddled his expenses.

You don't have to suspend someone. In the scenario I gave earlier today, someone can still come to work whilst being investigated. Slade wasn't suspended as Yeovil believed they had enough evidence to dismiss him and carried out the investigation whilst he was still turning up for work. They did follow due procedure but simply gave too much credence to their own investigation and not enough to the employee and made the wrong decision.

With regard to undertaking a specific task (or not as the case may be), the question would relate to:

Whether the task was in the role profile and how fundamental to the role is it
Whether they were undertaking the task or fronting the task
Whether the incident warranted serious disciplinary action or would it be a warning territory issue.

During the investigation you would expect to understand the actions leading up to and beyond the refusal to do the task.

So taking a leap forward and saying that the situation was not handling the retained list for example, then clearly that is a fundamental part of the role. But if the individual feels that they aren't responsible for the decisions or matters have occurred which make the carrying out of the task untenable then these would need to be investigated.

If this happened at amex for example, their policy in all cases is suspend while investigating. It is very possible a couple of our board members who have experience of amex may have made this point to Rose Read the clubs head of hr.
I would likely recommend suspension in this case, as a neutral act, to have them out the way whilst investigating. If there was a dispute with an individual that caused it, I would suspend them as well.

 

[Gwylan]

Why would someone do a press release about you taking a shit?

Perhaps he's doing it in the away team's dressing room

 

[glasfryn]

my thoughts on this
higher management tell Gus you have to get rid of X and Y, Gus says he wants them for next season a row develops and Gus says if you want rid of them then tell them yourself and this could have been the straw and I have no doubt that Tanno and Charlie jumped it to the row.
just my thoughts
no evidence this is what happened

 

[maltaseagull]

With this in mind and you with your HR cap on ROSM.
I would like to ask you a procedure question.
If an employee refuses to comply with an agreed task on their contract and a task that is custom and practice in the position held and in fact this task the employee has carried out in previous years.
Would you sack him immediately or start the disciplinary route. Bearing in mind if you go against procedure, as in the Slade case, it can be very expensive for the company, Yes or No?
What route would you advise your company

I think this comes under gross misconduct and therefore instant dismissal can be applied. Unless things have changed ?

 

[fleet]

In this example - rs won the appeal. Not for unfair dismissal, but that he hadn't fiddled his expenses.

You don't have to suspend someone. In the scenario I gave earlier today, someone can still come to work whilst being investigated. Slade wasn't suspended as Yeovil believed they had enough evidence to dismiss him and carried out the investigation whilst he was still turning up for work. They did follow due procedure but simply gave too much credence to their own investigation and not enough to the employee and made the wrong decision.

With regard to undertaking a specific task (or not as the case may be), the question would relate to:

Whether the task was in the role profile and how fundamental to the role is it
Whether they were undertaking the task or fronting the task
Whether the incident warranted serious disciplinary action or would it be a warning territory issue.

During the investigation you would expect to understand the actions leading up to and beyond the refusal to do the task.

So taking a leap forward and saying that the situation was not handling the retained list for example, then clearly that is a fundamental part of the role. But if the individual feels that they aren't responsible for the decisions or matters have occurred which make the carrying out of the task untenable then these would need to be investigated.

If this happened at amex for example, their policy in all cases is suspend while investigating. It is very possible a couple of our board members who have experience of amex may have made this point to Rose Read the clubs head of hr.
I would likely recommend suspension in this case, as a neutral act, to have them out the way whilst investigating. If there was a dispute with an individual that caused it, I would suspend them as well.

spot on - most unlike NSC!

 

[fleet]

from someone on twitter
Possible statement from club at around 5PM, so someone has said - would fit as all others have been around that time #BHAFC

well it is gone 5 pm (just) - so how "around" 5pm are we talking here?