Official Statement regarding Gus Poyet on Website NOW *merged*

[kevtherev]

No such thing chap, trust me, I'm a litigator.

Surely if it can be proved he has not carried out his duties, as manager in whatever shape or form.Or broken club rules and procedure. This is a breach of his contract, is it not?

 

[B.W.]

This bit :

"However, Gus Poyet elected not to attend for disputed legal reasons."

Very carefully worded to imply Gus was at fault. How have the club managed to get "disputed legal reasons" from his LMA representative not being available today and for which he has a legal right to have at the meeting. As someone else has posted - the club aren't even following their own procedures.

No. You are spinning. 'Carefully worded' (admirable in the circumstances, and not a bad thing at any time), is NOT the same as 'mis-truth' (you're saying the club lied).

 

[kevo]

I'm just wondering, reading some of the posts on here, whether the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has been suspended along with Gus. Plenty of people seem prepared to judge him without having heard or read a shred of evidence for or against him.

Gus may be proved to have done some terrible things. Or he may not. I don't even know what he is accused of. But some of my fellow Albion fans, who are presumably just as ignorant as I am (maybe even more ignorant), want him out of the club now. Yesterday. Even sooner than that.

Whether he's innocent or guilty, he's entitled to be properly represented before his accusers. I assume everyone posting here would expect the same rights if they were facing accusations of wrongdoing by their employers.

Okay, there's a football season coming up that the club needs to prepare for. But justice is justice, surely?

Totally. It seems reasonable for Gus and his representatives to have the chance to digest all the material before the disciplinary hearing. Anyone on here in a similar situation would believe this to be their right, too.

 

[Bob!]

So, it took 4 weeks to provide the Manager with a list of what he was under investigation for. Which the Club then presented to him whilst he was on leave. Then they expected the Manager to come to a disciplinary hearing on his first day back, despite being advise that his legal representative was not available.

 

[kevtherev]

Didn't Curbshley's on going case with West Ham take years to resolve? Hence why he couldn't apply for other jobs and was out and is still out of management for years.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

Of course I don't " know " this but I reckon I am pretty much on the money.

On what basis...a total guess, no inside knowledge, just a guess

 

[Rookie]

So, it took 4 weeks to provide the Manager with a list of what he was under investigation for. Which the Club then presented to him whilst he was on leave. Then they expected the Manager to come to a disciplinary hearing on his first day back, despite being advise that his legal representative was not available.

Absolutely and some are saying that this is the fault of Gus

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

On what basis...a total guess, no inside knowledge, just a guess

An opinion and that is what a forum is based on.

 

[chucky1973]

Our odds on Relegation next season must be getting shorter by the day.

I might fancy a tenner on it myself

 

[fosters headband]

Or - as is looking more and more likely - he was wrongly suspended.

Do you think then Gus refusing to deal with the retained list not reason for suspension? Gary Dicker on Talk Sport stated he found it strange that Tony Bloom had dealt with it.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

An opinion and that is what a forum is based on.

Fair enough, but don't make out that you are in the know

 

[kevo]

So, it took 4 weeks to provide the Manager with a list of what he was under investigation for. Which the Club then presented to him whilst he was on leave. Then they expected the Manager to come to a disciplinary hearing on his first day back, despite being advise that his legal representative was not available.

The more I hear about this, the more it sounds like a stitch-up job. What better way to prevent someone from defending themselves than not giving them an adequate chance to prepare a defence (and then releasing a statement which lays the blame for lack of progress on their shoulders?)

 

[Gordon Smith's Paperboy]

It may not be. However, had the hearing gone ahead without Poyet as a result of his rep not being available, Brighton could have been on the wrong end of a very hefty fine after employment tribunal proceedings. If Brighton wanted a swift outcome to proceedings, they should have wrapped up their investigation sooner.

You're right the hearing couldn't have gone ahead because his rep wasn't available. The point I was making was that by setting the hearing for today it meant it could only be re-arranged five days later. If they had set the hearing for Thursday then Gus could have delayed it on for five days from then. I'm not saying he would have done but 'could'. I also agree that four weeks is a long time for the club to put their case together - but perhaps their investigations necessitated speaking to other employees who were on holiday

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

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.


That sounds much more like it, than the statement the club has made.

As someone who has a lot of respect for the LMA and being unaware of a single case where the LMA has been found at fault, if this statement is true then I am disgusted by the behaviour of my club. If there is any truth to this statement then it is becoming to look more and more like a witchhunt. I would expect the club to defend itself from these charges or else be seen to be culpable.

If Gus has done something wrong then he should go but if there's truth to these statements then we are not talking about the club any more, we are talking about power struggles.

 

[bristolseagull]

Surely if it can be proved he has not carried out his duties, as manager in whatever shape or form.Or broken club rules and procedure. This is a breach of his contract, is it not?

Absolutely, but given recent comments and today's LMA statement presumably he has a counterclaim of sorts

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Fair enough, but don't make out that you are in the know

I am not in the " know " but you would be surpised how spot on my comment was.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No. You are spinning. 'Carefully worded' (admirable in the circumstances, and not a bad thing at any time), is NOT the same as 'mis-truth' (you're saying the club lied).

Gus is legally entitled to take a selected rep with him and the club as his employer have to make reasonable adjustments to have the meeting when that rep is available. There's no disputing that legal right.

There's absolutely no reason for Gus, the LMA or his lawyers to dispute that legal requirement. Yet the club statement implies it was his side that "disputed legal reasons".

On the other hand maybe the club dispute that legal right and that's what their statement meant. If that's the case then the club are inept.

I'd go for option one which in my eyes means they lied by releasing a press statement who's purpose was to smear Gus by making us believe he just didn't turn up due to some legal argument. If they wanted to look credible and professional all they had to do was say the meeting had been postponed.

Gus may, or may not, have done something wrong but the club are making themselves look like clowns and liars and it's not the first time Barber has attracted this type of negative media attention in his career.

 

[hybrid_x]

albion fans in civil war.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

So, it took 4 weeks to provide the Manager with a list of what he was under investigation for. Which the Club then presented to him whilst he was on leave. Then they expected the Manager to come to a disciplinary hearing on his first day back, despite being advise that his legal representative was not available.

Absolutely and some are saying that this is the fault of Gus

The more I hear about this, the more it sounds like a stitch-up job. What better way to prevent someone from defending themselves than not giving them an adequate chance to prepare a defence (and then releasing a statement which lays the blame for lack of progress on their shoulders?)

It stinks to high heaven !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[B.W.]

Not if I thought the only aim of the whole process was to sack me!

Fair enough, but it would then just be delaying tactics designed to 'hurt' the club.