Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK

[Lord Bracknell]

LB is misdirecting. Be careful that you take what LB says as if some kind of gospel truth. Gus was at fault.

Too right. LB is definitely being naughty here, and Zego has swallowed his BS hook, line and sinker.

Did I apportion blame? No, I didn't. I wasn't offering BS to anyone.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

LB is misdirecting. Be careful that you take what LB says as if some kind of gospel truth. Gus was at fault.

LB implied that was the case when going on about the breakdown of the relationship made it inevitable GP would leave.

I've never said Gus wasn't at fault.

 

[Stat Brother]

Did I apportion blame? No, I didn't. I wasn't offering BS to anyone.

I've never said Gus wasn't at fault.

But do you mind if I wildly misquote you, in order to prove my point?

 

[Return of the Rev]

Very interesting stuff. Derek Chapman is indeed one of the unsung heroes at the Albion.

With the lack of atmosphere at the amex i should think all heroes will be unsung.

 

[drew]

I think you'll find that what was meant that GP would leave because of the relationship at a mutually agreed time - probably the end of the season. That isn't being sacked - that's leaving. The club stepped in before that and sacked him - for a completely different reason. Nowhere did LB say the two were connected.

I appreciate what you are saying but LBs comment clearly implied that the the breakdown of the relationship was the catalyst for him leaving whether that was going to be by mutual agreement or, as it turned out, a sacking. But just to make it clear, I agree he wasn't sacked purely because the relationship broke down.

How was the contract cancelled? The club claimed that GP breached the contract by way of gross misconduct and sacked him - that doesn't cancel the obligations of GP nor the rights BHAFC held under the terms of the contract in place - if it did then there would be no point in having a contract in the first place.

They sacked him and in doing so terminated the contract. That is completely different to when two parties negotiate their way out of a contract.

 

[Titanic]

With the lack of atmosphere at the amex i should think all heroes will be unsung.

FINALLY - this thread has a post worth reading!

 

[Beach Hut]

I have not accused you of having an axe to grind. I have no idea what your views of DK are. I would put you under the Tootin' blanket. If you think he has an "air of bitterness" - how could I disagree - I can see how fair minded posters may look and take that view. I just do not. The posters who had their axes ready were the likes of Enrest and Beach Hut.

It may be like the Doobie Brothers said - what I believe I see - but I do not see bitterness.

No axe to grind just bored of the bloke and also the defending of him when clearly he is not quite what everyone has perceived and also as a club we have all moved on.

I will state this again I doubt 50% of current STH know who he is

 

[Creaky]

They sacked him and in doing so terminated the contract. That is completely different to when two parties negotiate their way out of a contract.

They sacked GP because he breached the contract by way of gross misconduct - most contracts of employment have such a clause and don't mean that in such cases other obligations and duties an employee has agreed to are then terminated. As I said, if they did then there would be little point in the contract - an employee could in effect leave at any time without penalty.

 

[Acker79]

They sacked GP because he breached the contract by way of gross misconduct - most contracts of employment have such a clause and don't mean that in such cases other obligations and duties an employee has agreed to are then terminated. As I said, if they did then there would be little point in the contract - an employee could in effect leave at any time without penalty.

Erm. Either you're not doing a good job of explaining what you are trying to say, or you have a really weird understanding of employment and contracts. You seem to be suggesting that after you sack someone, they still have to fulfil the obligations of their job and their now former employers can still expect compensation for someone they have sacked.

Most contracts have something in them that say you can be sacked for gross misconduct.

If you are sacked for gross misconduct that ends your employment. Any obligations or duties of an employee set out in the contract are no longer your responsibility. Whatever that contract stipulated you had to do is now irrelevant. You don't sack someone for gross misconduct then expect them to come in carry out a stock check. Nor are you entitled to compensation when they get a new job and sign a contract with someone else.

That is the way contracts and employment works.

If someone could walk away without penalty, why didn't Gus do that when it was clear the club weren't going to end things in a way he agreed with? because you can't just walk away. There are processess, discussions and if necessary, penalties.

 

[drew]

Erm. Either you're not doing a good job of explaining what you are trying to say, or you have a really weird understanding of employment and contracts. You seem to be suggesting that after you sack someone, they still have to fulfil the obligations of their job and their now former employers can still expect compensation for someone they have sacked.

Most contracts have something in them that say you can be sacked for gross misconduct.

If you are sacked for gross misconduct that ends your employment. Any obligations or duties of an employee set out in the contract are no longer your responsibility. Whatever that contract stipulated you had to do is now irrelevant. You don't sack someone for gross misconduct then expect them to come in carry out a stock check. Nor are you entitled to compensation when they get a new job and sign a contract with someone else.

That is the way contracts and employment works.

If someone could walk away without penalty, why didn't Gus do that when it was clear the club weren't going to end things in a way he agreed with? because you can't just walk away. There are processess, discussions and if necessary, penalties.

Thank you.

 

[symyjym]

Erm. Either you're not doing a good job of explaining what you are trying to say, or you have a really weird understanding of employment and contracts. You seem to be suggesting that after you sack someone, they still have to fulfil the obligations of their job and their now former employers can still expect compensation for someone they have sacked.

Most contracts have something in them that say you can be sacked for gross misconduct.

If you are sacked for gross misconduct that ends your employment. Any obligations or duties of an employee set out in the contract are no longer your responsibility. Whatever that contract stipulated you had to do is now irrelevant. You don't sack someone for gross misconduct then expect them to come in carry out a stock check. Nor are you entitled to compensation when they get a new job and sign a contract with someone else.

That is the way contracts and employment works.

If someone could walk away without penalty, why didn't Gus do that when it was clear the club weren't going to end things in a way he agreed with? because you can't just walk away. There are processess, discussions and if necessary, penalties.

Sorry for joining in, but the option Gus had when he knew there was no way back, was to offer his resignation whilst he was suspended, which is different from just a straight resignation.

Then it would have been down to the employer to accept or deny it and compensation wouldn't be due from either party as this process would have ended with mutual consent.

 

[Creaky]

Erm. Either you're not doing a good job of explaining what you are trying to say, or you have a really weird understanding of employment and contracts. You seem to be suggesting that after you sack someone, they still have to fulfil the obligations of their job and their now former employers can still expect compensation for someone they have sacked.

Most contracts have something in them that say you can be sacked for gross misconduct.

If you are sacked for gross misconduct that ends your employment. Any obligations or duties of an employee set out in the contract are no longer your responsibility. Whatever that contract stipulated you had to do is now irrelevant. You don't sack someone for gross misconduct then expect them to come in carry out a stock check. Nor are you entitled to compensation when they get a new job and sign a contract with someone else.

That is the way contracts and employment works.

If someone could walk away without penalty, why didn't Gus do that when it was clear the club weren't going to end things in a way he agreed with? because you can't just walk away. There are processess, discussions and if necessary, penalties.

Let me put a scenario forward - manager A has a contract that stipulates if he wishes to leave and work for another club then that club will have to pay them a fee to release the manger from his contract.

A job is offered to the manager but he is told that this is conditional on no fee being payable to his current employer.

Manager A does something 'bad' and his current club sacks him. Do you think the club has a claim under the contract against his new club?

An old example that possibly doesn't apply now due to changes in employment law also illustrates the principle. A contract of employment contains a clause that states the employee may not work for a competitor within 6 months of leaving - the employee is sacked for gross misconduct but that did not entitle them to walk straight into a job with a competitor.

 

[Acker79]

Sorry for joining in, but the option Gus had when he knew there was no way back, was to offer his resignation whilst he was suspended, which is different from just a straight resignation.

Then it would have been down to the employer to accept or deny it and compensation wouldn't be due from either party as this process would have ended with mutual consent.

You say it was different because he was suspended, but then present the options as the employer either accepting or refusing it, which is exactly what the options are if he offers his resignation at any point. The difference would only be in the negotiations for compensation - if there's no disciplinary hearing it's about the contract and the relationship between employer and employee, with the disciplinary hearing the leverage in compensation is with the employer. But this is moot. My point was that he couldn't just walk away from the job.

As you say, he could offer his resignation, and there would be discussion, who owes what, whether the contract gives a pre-agreed compensation agreement that supersedes the hearing (if the resignation is accepted), or if there were circumstances under which Gus could walk away without recompense, etc. or if he just walked, Bloom would be able to take legal action.

My point was that there being no employment obligations after firing someone for gross misconduct doesn't mean you can just walk away from a contract at any point, or else Gus could have. People have accused him of wanting to walk away in March. If he could have just walked away without penalty at any point, why didn't he do it then? Because you can't just walk away without penalty. (At least with football management)

 

[El Presidente]

walk away .

Great song!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

A contract of employment contains a clause that states the employee may not work for a competitor within 6 months of leaving - the employee is sacked for gross misconduct but that did not entitle them to walk straight into a job with a competitor.

Nearly all contracts contain that clause and it's totally and utterly unenforceable. People should ignore it.

 

[B.W.]

Well, you're not offering an explanation of his climbdown - you've drawn your own conclusions and made an assumption. Except you seem to be presenting your assumption as bona-fide FACT, and then claiming credit for telling us all something which you don't actually know to be true.

Whats the point ?

Gus was always on very shaky legal ground. My assumption is based on knowledge of the facts surrounding his gross misconduct. The counter-suggestions are pure conjecture based on nothing.

 

[B.W.]

Snide dig? Yes it most certainly was

Am I being over sensitive? Quite possibly yes, but frankly I've put up with so many Ill founded and innaccurate comments from you and a few others that I now am taking the view that I will challenge back and if you cant defend your comment then others can draw their own conclusion of you.

Am I ashamed of my time working on the return home and the new stadium? No, but I do have some regrets both personally and professionally. I think itmay have nagatively impacted me in both time and visibility terms and may have closed some opportunties to me.

But its the last point that really did annoy me. You accused me of hankering after a knight return ans defending him then make exactly the same point I made elsewhere on this thread that the extracts in isolation do make him sound bitter.

However when reading the whole book I might add, they don't.

So you clearly hadn't read what i had said but still felt the need to have a snide dig at me.

OK, so the snide dig is?

 

[B.W.]

I'm sure Gus felt he had enough on his plate at Sunderland without pursuing a long-distance claim against Albion. And I agree that Sunderland would want him giving his full attention to keeping them up.

And what evidence is there that Sunderland insisted Gus drop his case or he wouldn't get the job? Interestingly, he dropped the case some time after getting the Sunderland job.

 

[B.W.]

Did I apportion blame? No, I didn't. I wasn't offering BS to anyone.

But interestingly one poster jumped straight on your post and took it to mean what you apparently didn't intend it to mean. Another seems to think you implied it was the root cause of Gus' departure. Whilst I saw it as misdirecting.

 

[B.W.]

I've never said Gus wasn't at fault.

But you implied PB was, in some way, responsible for GP's actions...