League Managers' Association statement on Gus Poyet Brighton disciplinary hearing

[Blue Valkyrie]

There is No if or BUT for most of us because we aint got a clue about the detail of what is going on.

The LMA will support their man.

I have no opinion, because I don't know.

Can we just have ONE thread on the issue.

Yes, please can we merge the multiple LMA threads at least?

 

[rcf0712]

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.

Do you still think Poyet is the nasty man the club is portraying?

Never have mate, just want everyone to be friends and get on with it, he's still the best man for job IMHO but it looks like a bridge too far may have been crossed now....

 

[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]

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.

 

[BigGully]

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 before a trial that he is confident he will prove his client's innocence.

The LMA would support Poyet no matter the validity of the charges, its their obligation.

 

[Acker79]

The LMA would support Poyet no matter the validity of the charges, its their obligation.

Exactly. That's my point.

 

[BigGully]

Exactly. That's my point.

Ah I see, sorry.