LMA Statement

[somerset]

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.

Not forgetting that due process, at least adherence to it, applies to both sides.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Heh. I preferred your first response.

i thought i'd misread your post initially so didn't think my post was quite right and so just deleted and replaced without thinking. trying to do too may things at once, really should be working

 

[father_and_son]

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.

THIS...
The LMA are Gus's Union and as such they, like is legal team, are required to provide him with the best defense they can regardless of whether or not they believe he has a case to answer. If they believe that he has done wrong, they can't walk away and tell him to face the music by himself, they stand next to him and advise him of all the possible ways he can improve his outcome. If the best defense he has is that the club haven't followed proper procedures then they will use that. The club are dotting all the i's and crossing the t's because they want the case judged on the evidence not the process. There is no evidence as yet that the LMA are using anything other than the evidence to defend him.

Both sides have worded their statements exactly as you would expect. The club are suggesting that they are doing everything reasonable despite Gus and the LMA are ensuring the defense of "well, you don't follow proper procedure" remains available by suggesting the club weren't reasonable.


This is exactly the posturing that anyone involved in a contractural dispute would expect. Nothing surprising or unusual at all!

 

[ROSM]

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.

Its fairly simple. I accuse you of shooting my cat. You know you didn't do it. I then say, here's 500 pages which I will use to back up my case. You then ask me to particularise what on those 500 pages supports my claim and then you can break down my arguments 1 by 1 to prove you didn't do it.

All the time you and I suspect your representatives wills know you're innocent and that is without being able to prove it like by line.

 

[Seat Stealer]

Without fully reading 124 posts the following applies: No case to answer. Retains job. If he wants away he pays, if the club wants him away the club pays. Or have I missed something?

 

[father_and_son]

Without fully reading 124 posts the following applies: No case to answer. Retains job. If he wants away he pays, if the club wants him away the club pays. Or have I missed something?

You missed the one critical outcome... The club wants him away but can't afford to pay (because of FFP) and so builds a case for breach of contract, which Gus rigorously defends because he wants the cash.

 

[somerset]

Without fully reading 124 posts the following applies: No case to answer. Retains job. If he wants away he pays, if the club wants him away the club pays. Or have I missed something?

The only certainty here is that whatever the outcome of the hearings and appeals, Gus will not be returning. If he wins his case he will sue for constructive dismissal and get a payoff..... If he loses his case he will be off of course, maybe a small payoff, but not his full contract which I think he is trying for at the moment.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

The only certainty here is that whatever the outcome of the hearings and appeals, Gus will not be returning. If he wins his case he will sue for constructive dismissal and get a payoff..... If he loses his case he will be off of course, maybe a small payoff, but not his full contract which I think he is trying for at the moment.

well wouldn't you if you thought you were in the right?

 

[somerset]

well wouldn't you if you thought you were in the right?

I think I would also bust a gut to get it resolved, instead of spending the best part of a month flying from one exotic location to another, avoiding discussions that could easily have led to an agreement behind closed doors, he stretched out this process, for a reason only known to him and his advisors.

 

[Seat Stealer]

The only certainty here is that whatever the outcome of the hearings and appeals, Gus will not be returning. If he wins his case he will sue for constructive dismissal and get a payoff..... If he loses his case he will be off of course, maybe a small payoff, but not his full contract which I think he is trying for at the moment.

But, if the club are not seeking to dismiss i.e just a ticking off, then Gus would have to stay or pay to leave.

 

[sparkie]

If this goes to court, I assume the alleged breaches of contract become public knowledge?

In the end I reckon this will all be sorted out without court, and with confidentiality agreements in place, so we will never know the details of what this is about.

 

[Seat Stealer]

You missed the one critical outcome... The club wants him away but can't afford to pay (because of FFP) and so builds a case for breach of contract, which Gus rigorously defends because he wants the cash.

but would any payment before the new season started be part of the accounts for FFP?

 

[Marshy]

Theres no denying he didnt deal wiht contract renewals though is there.. ? A fundemental breach of contract I would think....

 

[Acker79]

Theres no denying he didnt deal wiht contract renewals though is there.. ? A fundemental breach of contract I would think....

There hasn't been any official denial of anything, because there hasn't been any official charges. It's all "the argus understands..." Or "my source says...".

It would, I presume, come down to why he didn't, if he actually refused to. I mean, he has said he was anticipating a meeting to discuss budget, if that hadn't happened, is it fair to expect him to work on the retained list if he doesn't know what his budget is?

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I think I would also bust a gut to get it resolved, instead of spending the best part of a month flying from one exotic location to another, avoiding discussions that could easily have led to an agreement behind closed doors, he stretched out this process, for a reason only known to him and his advisors.

Who says the delays are down to him? the club were performing the investigation which they finalised last week. Wasn't one of those destinations a charity football match? That would have been known about ages ago. Did the club request him back earlier? No so how is it all his fault. How do you know there hasn't been constant communications between if not the club and Poyet but the two legal teams? I find it hard to bleieve that the two legal teams haven't been talking frequently

 

[father_and_son]

but would any payment before the new season started be part of the accounts for FFP?

Possibly not in the accounts for next season, but in reality it impacts it. Any money taken out of the bank today needs to come from somewhere and we're "overdrawn" from last season (and the one before and the one before that!) so the only pool of money available is the transfer budget for this season. TB has been very generous, but he's not a Russian billionaire and can/will only pump so much cash in.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Post number 24 of the thread below may well go a long way towards explaining some of the background, and perhaps the LMA stance ( beyond just defending one of it's members )

http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?281169-Manager-waiting/page2


It would be really great if these duplicate discussions could be moved into 1 thread, perhaps.

 

[keaton]

I think I would also bust a gut to get it resolved, instead of spending the best part of a month flying from one exotic location to another, avoiding discussions that could easily have led to an agreement behind closed doors, he stretched out this process, for a reason only known to him and his advisors.

And the law

 

[fosters headband]

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.

Well the procedure as both Cheshunt Seagull and myself have experienced in our companies, is that management write and invite the employee and his reps to a hearing on a time and date. If they cannot attend they then inform the management of this, then a new mutual time and date is set.
Why on earth would they sit there if they had formally been informed that the date set Gus and reps could not attend. Now if the management did this, then they truly are crazy and in my mind in serious trouble.

 

[Leighgull]

500 pages - there must be A LOT of things he's accused of doing wrong!!

1. Parking in the chairmans parking space
2. Looking at the chief executive in a " funny way "
3. Having a shit in the Palace changing rooms
4. Being in possession of Manuel accent


Etc. etc.