LMA Statement

[drew]

And the rep, Richard Bevan, is not just any old LMA rep, he is the CEO of the League Managers Association!

Begs the question is he the only rep available or is it convenient to use him knowing he is unavailable?

 

[Dick Head]

the thing I really do not understand is that some of the charges will be the same for all three, so why has the suspension on Tanno been lifted and not the others.
otherwise all the charges against all three are different witch sort of says to me they (the club) have been gunning for all three but can't pin anything on Tanno, maybe because he has done nothing
as I said the whole thing is a ****ing mess
I now would not trust a thing coming from any of them
this really is a sad state of affairs

These must be charges which have no basis which would mean they have been dropped for all three of them. Maybe it's been found that none of them did the poo. *speculate speculate*

 

[withdeanwombat]

LMA like any union is wholey on the side of their member. they will paint everything the club does in a negative light.

Yes, bloody unions. Poyet's as bad as those refuse collectors isn't he ?

Where's Margaret Thatcher when you need her?

And when do the fixtures come out.

 

[spring hall convert]

This is a fairly typical way for an employer to act IMO, I'm just suprised they'd try and do it with some one like Poyet who is obviously going to have decent advisors. It looks like they've tried to railroad him into attending a meeting that he isn't prepared for before agreeing to postpone it to a later date at the last minute.

Realisitically, if he received 500 pages on 13 June, he's had the bare minimum of 2 working days to assess & react to the evidence. Bearing in mind the time it has taken to prepare the evidence, I would have thought they might have given him more time to review it. In my opinion it suggests that Brighton have basically already made their mind up and want him out ASAP, I suspect they are fairly confident in the strength of their evidence.

I wouldn't be suprised if they hear it in absentia if he is not there for the rearranged meeting.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

For what it's worth I've sat on a number of disciplinary boards and dismissal hearings at my workplace; 2000 employees.. so quite large. We would never give an employee less than 7 days to read allegations and we are usually talking about much less than 500 pages worth. The 500 pages would be likely to contain interview transcripts etc and need to be gone through word by word. We would make reasonable efforts to find a date which their selected representative could attend, soon becoming less flexible if it was clear that they were intentionally delaying. OK so the LMA will be presenting one perspective on this but some of these apparent facts do not provide re-assurance that the club is handling this as professionally as we would expect. I genuinely hope my fears are unfounded.

 

[drew]

This is a fairly typical way for an employer to act IMO, I'm just suprised they'd try and do it with some one like Poyet who is obviously going to have decent advisors. It looks like they've tried to railroad him into attending a meeting that he isn't prepared for before agreeing to postpone it to a later date at the last minute.

Realisitically, if he received 500 pages on 13 June, he's had the bare minimum of 2 working days to assess & react to the evidence. Bearing in mind the time it has taken to prepare the evidence, I would have thought they might have given him more time to review it. In my opinion it suggests that Brighton have basically already made their mind up and want him out ASAP, I suspect they are fairly confident in the strength of their evidence.

I wouldn't be suprised if they hear it in absentia if he is not there for the rearranged meeting.

The appendices will almost certainly include his contract which is probably the largest part an of course Poyet would already be in possession of this. Also, it is highly unlikely that Poyet has done nothing in the last 5 weeks with regard to liaising with his legal advisers. One would presume they would be fully aware of the content of his contract and would have discussed with him events that have happened that may be the subject of the breach. They are hardly going to sit on their backsides and merely wait for the club to present something.

 

[somerset]

I genuinely hope my fears are unfounded.

They are.......do you really think that the club, its highly paid and experienced executives, and the very business aware chairman would actually enter into, and continue to process a half cocked, half baked evidence pack?......

 

[fosters headband]

For what it's worth I've sat on a number of disciplinary boards and dismissal hearings at my workplace; 2000 employees.. so quite large. We would never give an employee less than 7 days to read allegations and we are usually talking about much less than 500 pages worth. The 500 pages would be likely to contain interview transcripts etc and need to be gone through word by word. We would make reasonable efforts to find a date which their selected representative could attend, soon becoming less flexible if it was clear that they were intentionally delaying. OK so the LMA will be presenting one perspective on this but some of these apparent facts do not provide re-assurance that the club is handling this as professionally as we would expect. I genuinely hope my fears are unfounded.

Would you not as management come up with a date for the hearing and invite the employee and his rep/witness to attend, also stating if this was not convenient for any reason, then please inform the management at the earliest so that a new date can be arranged. I thought this was standard procedure to get a date set for both parties. So my question would be, did this take place and Gus and rep just failed to reply?

 

[beorhthelm]

Put me down in the wanting to see employment law enacted correctly camp.

thats fair enough, but i dont see where the idea is coming from that employment law isnt being observed. clearely we are interpreting the terse statement differently. like the point about the short notice for the rep, nothing says that so wheres that come from? theres a slight suggestion that club is sailing close to the edge of their own procedures, but nothing explicit. and im sure they'd have said so if there was a specific claim. given the weight of employment law and how the slightest deviation from process and procedure can land the employer in tribunal, i dont see why the club wouldnt be following the rules as best they can.

(yes, im team club.)

 

[somerset]

Yes, life seemed much simpler when all everyone had to argue about was whether Barnes is shit or not.

Yes agreed, hurry up and complete the process, I am fed up that Barnes has been getting an easy ride of late, I can't wait to comment on his first glaring miss, or petulant on pitch outburst, or lunging tackle getting red carded........bugger this manager distraction.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Would you not as management come up with a date for the hearing and invite the employee and his rep/witness to attend, also stating if this was not convenient for any reason, then please inform the management at the earliest so that a new date can be arranged. I thought this was standard procedure to get a date set for both parties. So my question would be, did this take place and Gus and rep just failed to reply?

Yes you would and it would be up to the employee/rep to inform management. Whether Gus replied or not is a key question.

 

[MattBackHome]

Eff me the club are sounding INCREDIBLY tinpot in their handling of this.

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more.

 

[fosters headband]

Yes you would and it would be up to the employee/rep to inform management. Whether Gus replied or not is a key question.

It is and a lot on here are just accepting that Gus was not given enough time and making the club at fault. My money is still on Bloom and Barber getting things correct and Gus just ignoring them.

 

[ROSM]

It is and a lot on here are just accepting that Gus was not given enough time and making the club at fault. My money is still on Bloom and Barber getting things correct and Gus just ignoring them.

That would mean gus, his lawyers and the lma ignoring the club. I find that highly unlikely. Even the club statement seems to infer that they knew he wasn't coming, they just didn't accept his reasons.

 

[Randsta]

It's like supporting Palace ...well Palace of old

 

[cheshunt seagull]

They are.......do you really think that the club, its highly paid and experienced executives, and the very business aware chairman would actually enter into, and continue to process a half cocked, half baked evidence pack?......

LMA may be being selective with their chronology of events which would completely change things. Can be dangerous to equate highly paid executives with following procedures like this correctly, where arrogance and impatience tend not to be helpful qualities. Where I work, our record of completing these processes successfully, with a number of dismissals but very few tribunals etc, was really high when supposedly plodding general managers and experienced HR types led them. With the arrival of dynamic executives the number of cock-ups, compensation payments, unsuccessful tribunal outcomes rocketed.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

I find it odd that the LMA maintain that they and Gus failed to attend the hearing because they had not had enough time to digest the five-hundred-page document, yet they had read enough of it confidently to claim that Gus has no case to answer.

 

[Acker79]

I find it odd that some people in the pro-club/anti-gus camp are arguing that gus would know what he is accused of without the particularised report so shouldn't need to read it, and others in that same camp are surprised the LMA would believe the allegations are unfounded without reading the full report.


As I wrote in the other thread:
It's not that difficult. The LMA still know what the overall charge is, and they are supporting gus, believing he is innocent. They then receive a 500 page document, detailing everything, times, dates, witness statements, company policy, etc., and they want time to go through it to respond, point by point, rather than just turning up and saying "yeah... No gus, didn't do it. We rest our case". They want to perhaps prepare alibis, find fault with statements, question wording of policies, etc.

It's really not a sign they are lying about not having time to read the report. It is simply a sing they are on gus's side. It's not really any different to any defence lawyer stating that he is confident he will prove his client's innocence just after announcing taking his case.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I find it odd that some people in the pro-club/anti-gus camp are arguing that gus would know what he is accused of without the particularised report so shouldn't need to read it, and others in that same camp are surprised the LMA would believe the allegations are unfounded without reading the full report.

exactly this,

 

[Acker79]

exactly this,

Heh. I preferred your first response.