LMA Statement

[ROSM]

. I hope when the full story is out the club come out of it with more credit than it looks at the moment.

So do I.

I was no more 'in' with the old structure than I am with the current group. The irony in all this is that the club leaks more now than it ever did - probably due to its size and probably due to a strategy of allowing more information to ooze out.

 

[Acker79]

It means they want the specifics,i.e the main points. They would have had the long winded version before the 13th.

That's a contradiction.

If it wants the specifics, it wants minute detail.
If it wants the main points, it wants the overview.

Particularised means specifics. It wants exact details, it wants what is being claimed, by who, when they complained, what exact words they used, when the event they are complaining about occurred, exactly what happened, etc.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

So do I.

I was no more 'in' with the old structure than I am with the current group. The irony in all this is that the club leaks more now than it ever did - probably due to its size and probably due to a strategy of allowing more facts to ooze out.

I have no idea whether you have/had an "in" - it matters not a jot to me my old friend.

Leaks or spin I suppose is the question.

It does strike me that the charges best be credible.

 

[Bladders]

That's a contradiction.

If it wants the specifics, it wants minute detail.
If it wants the main points, it wants the overview.

Particularised means specifics. It wants exact details, it wants what is being claimed, by who, when they complained, what exact words they used, when the event they are complaining about occurred, exactly what happened, etc.

Yes I worded it slightly wrong.

They want the specifics of the charges. This is not to be confused with the 500 page document that the LMA said in their statement is made up of lengthy appendices anyway and they have been sitting on before the 13th.

In other words they and Gus would have already known what the charges were and 4 days to read the specifics is ample in the clubs eye's.



EDIT: ....or what you wrote in the other thread about just starting the meeting to have it on record is probably the most plausible reason anyway.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Much like the crap that's blowing around our streets this evening: this is situation has increasingly turned into one bloody horrible mess.

Marvelous.

 

[Bladders]

Much like the crap that's blowing around our streets this evening: this is situation has increasingly turned into one bloody horrible mess.

Marvelous.

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

 

[Richy_Seagull]

What a complete and utter ****ing shambles.

 

[B.W.]

Indicate specifically, according to google.

In other words Gus did not have "a scoobies wot he dun"

Thankfully now its been particularised the LMA have been able since the 14th to come to a firm conclusion as to the innocence of Gus. For some reason they do not seem to find the fact that they have had time to understand and digest the charges, ironic, given they state the same lack of time as a reason why Gus has not prepared a defence.

Yes, I noticed that too.

 

[Husty]

[yt]gollGYob57M[/yt]

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

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

To think that had he put away that chance in the second half - all of this might have been very different ..............

We do not even discuss the players these days.

 

[B.W.]

He can't really prepare his case until he knows exactly what he's been accused of, which by the sounds of it he has only just found out.

Particularised suggests he knew before the 13th, but got the 'specifics' (more detail) on that date. Watch out for LMA as well as BHA spin.

 

[B.W.]

5 weeks on and still not closer to finding a genuine breach of contract, then demanding he be in a day or so after sending a 500 page document. Retarded.

How do you know the club haven't found a breach or several breaches? You don't.
I suspect the timing was the earliest date the club could legally set, knowing Gus and his reps would force a delay. So, overall, the club have done the right thing in trying to move things along.

 

[B.W.]

So do I.

I was no more 'in' with the old structure than I am with the current group. The irony in all this is that the club leaks more now than it ever did - probably due to its size and probably due to a strategy of allowing more information to ooze out.

That is plainly UNTRUE.

 

[ROSM]

That is plainly UNTRUE.

So the drip of info last week on thurs that a meeting would take place on Friday, and then the brieifing given to a journalist or two on Friday that Gus hasn't attended was cock up rather than conspiracy?

So how do we explain that the club issue a statement today saying Gus failed to attend due to disputed legal process issues that later turns out to be the club having been repeatedly told he wasn't attending today due to his representative being unavailable until Thursday at the earliest?

Or indeed that the disputed legal process was his request to have the meeting take place within 5 working days of the date originally set which is neither a matter to dispute (its in the handbook)

Or that the meeting was only adjourned after further representations from the lma. The club say they started the meeting this morning whilst the lma say it was adjourned this afternoon. One suspects after some very tersely worded legal correspondence was shared.

If what has happened is even close to what you've suggested (they started the meeting so they could adjourn it and force a Friday attendance and no further delay) then the club could have issues. It was neither necessary nor proportionate to do that (he would need to attend Friday or accept it as a valid meeting in any case) and so could be seen as not following acceptable process and in effect could be seen as leading to unfair dismissal even if there are reasons that are reasonable to cause dismissal. For example why wait til this afternoon to adjourn if it was purely to set the clock ticking? Potentially because they were trying to hold it in absentia without aligning to their own internal process that allows a delay of up to 5 working days from the proposed date.

As it is they will meet on Thursday which is the first date his rep is available. Hardly taking it to the wire of Friday.

The lma don't often issue such heavily worded statements - they are usually an enabling union. In their own words they have been taken to do this by statements made by the club. That's more than just today's one - albeit it in itself was selective and less than the whole facts nd in my view, an attempt to paint poyet in a less than favourable light.

I recognise you've had an inside brief on this. Please be aware that if any member of staff has briefed against Gus on this then he is likely to be on thin ice should a compromise agreement be filed.

 

[beorhthelm]

So how do we explain that the club issue a statement today saying Gus failed to attend due to disputed legal process issues that later turns out to be the club having been repeatedly told he wasn't attending today due to his representative being unavailable until Thursday at the earliest?

we exaplin this by the positions being two sides of the same coin. club and LMA arent telling us different events, only giving a different angle based on their perspective. legal representives not being available when notified in advance is a tad funny, remember that its the final draft of documentation was fixed on the 13th. we'll put you down for team Gus though, OK.

 

[ROSM]

we exaplin this by the positions being two sides of the same coin. club and LMA arent telling us different events, only giving a different angle based on their perspective. legal representives not being available when notified in advance is a tad funny, remember that its the final draft of documentation was fixed on the 13th. we'll put you down for team Gus though, OK.

Its not unusual for a professional body rep to be unavailable at short notice. Its actually quite usual especially during the core holiday period for his industry.

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

 

[Albion Dan]

we'll put you down for team Gus though, OK.

Im noticing alot of the old "in the club" clique are leaning that way....

 

[Creaky]

Its not unusual for a professional body rep to be unavailable at short notice. Its actually quite usual especially during the core holiday period for his industry.

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

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

 

[ROSM]

Im noticing alot of the old "in the club" clique are leaning that way....

You can paint me whatever way you like if it suits reinforcing your view. But read the comments of some journalists who post on nsc - none of whom are part or any imagined clique.

Bottom line is the club has a hr manager (not barber) who may be following one line. The club also has a comms team and other leaking employees who are doing their best to undermine the work of the hr team it would seem.

In grown up circles, the lma and club would have issued a joint short statement yesterday to say something like

'the club have completed their investigation and passed the information over to Mr poyet. Due to the unavailability of his representatives for the meeting scheduled to take place today and also to allow Mr poyet to undertake his own detailed review, the club have agreed to reschedule the meeting for Thursday 21st. There wil be no opportunity for a further reschedule.

The club and the lma will not be making any further comment until after the process has been concluded'

 

[drew]

There is likely to be posturing on both sides. There may well have been a meeting planned for Friday and I doubt the club would have set that knowing Poyet was due to be out of the country or, maybe they did in trying to force Poyet back for a meeting. Remember, a holiday to Poyet is not like the rest of us having a two week break in Malaga! He went away and maybe never told the club when he was coming back.

There seems to be a train of thought that Poyet has been seeking and getting legal advice but the club are just stumbling along without any. We are not talking the average employment contract here, the salary, prospective compensation etc run into millions.

The LMA, let's not forget, are a union representing managers. They will stand by their member unless any breach is beyond dispute.