LMA Statement

[Blue Valkyrie]

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.

I know this is a joke, but worth reminding that we are not allowed to speculate about the actual charge list on here.

Maybe they are more serious

I doubt they will ever be publicised, except perhaps if it all goes to court.

 

[ROSM]

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.

I agree entirely. I too work in a hr business and have been involved on both sides (acting for the company as well as advising friends and colleagues against companies). As I have been saying all along, the leaks and statements from the club havnt helped. When I read the club statement yesterday, my heart sank. Because even if accurate, it was unnecessary. Then we get the lma statement (which is only likely to have been issued because they were so pissed off with the club) which, if it is to be believed, means the club have taken the very action that you and I know is bonkers. That being commencing a hearing, knowing the subject isn't coming and denying him a reasonable alternative in line with their own procedures.

 

[Miffy]

You spin me right round baby right round ...

I'm surprised at how many people on here have allowed themselves to be manipulated by a very carefully, & cleverly, worded release from the LMA.

Contrary to some reports they don't actually say there is a breach of employment rights & can claim all innocence in stating what they expect. I note there is no actual claim that the Club have not met this expectation? Clearly the LMA can't possibly be responsible for the conclusions drawn by other people based on such a general statement of their view of employment law and I'm sure they never intended such a thing - shame on anyone who suspects otherwise.

The same with dates mentioned. The "particularised" information was submitted 13 March with the greater details received "recently" - would anyone care to quantify recently? At the weekend I mentioned in a conversation that i saw a friend recently ... it was 3 weeks ago which shows how subjective the term can be.

So was the "particularised" response one paragraph or 16 chapters of a book? Was it the answer to a single question provided within 24 hours by the club or 600 queries that were deliberately delayed by the club in order to leave Gus and his team no time to properly prepare for the meeting? Were the appendices and initial report delivered 2 weeks earlier or 2 days? Interesting that only some details are clarified whereas others aren't. And again you can't possibly think the LMA knew that putting a date of 13 March in the sentence prior to mentioning the 500 page report would lead people to link the two and assume the "particularised" document was a similar length with the appendices delivered at a similar time? They have not said that and it would clearly be unreasonable for anyone to hold them responsible for people jumping to unintended conclusions.

The whole statement is littered with similar. The LMA repeatedlly advised the club ... on how many ocassions and when? If I told you the same thing 10 times in one conversation this morning I can correctly state that I've advised you repeatedly. Gus only returned from annual leave the day before has been taken by many as meaning he only just flew back the previous day when it doesn't actually say that at all. Is it reasonable to take the view that this is a work related matter so he shouldn't be expected to look at it while on leave? for me personally taking that line does not scream of someone who's looking to mend bridges any time soon, but thats just my opinion ... others are available.

Even the Comments about the Board going ahead yesterday leave all manner of questions hanging in the air. It's completely plausible that the action taken by the Board has a totally reasonable explanation, maybe members of the Board were unable to attend the alternative dates themselves so their part of the process had to start yesterday? Who knows based on the release as quoted and the way it has been presented makes it impossible for the Club to reply to accusations that haven't actually been made without getting drawn into such tactics. It's even possible the Board were unconcerned by the lack of representative as they wanted to have a more informal meeting with Gus in order to keep the situation amicable (a long shot I know but possible)! It's effectively a press release version of Neil Warnock not actually accusing us of racism but I'm sure, you know .... (Or words to that effect)

Spin is being very heavily applied by both sides and it needs recognising for what it is. The Club were daft to allow themselves to be outspun yesterday but they are unlikely to win the PR fight anyway and to some degree appear to be aware of this. The only thing that is clear from yesterday is that battle lines have been very firmly drawn and irrespective of the rights and wrongs there is only likely to be one outcome. The only question for me now is which side gets left with the bill

 

[Miffy]

I agree entirely. I too work in a hr business and have been involved on both sides (acting for the company as well as advising friends and colleagues against companies). As I have been saying all along, the leaks and statements from the club havnt helped. When I read the club statement yesterday, my heart sank. Because even if accurate, it was unnecessary. Then we get the lma statement (which is only likely to have been issued because they were so pissed off with the club) which, if it is to be believed, means the club have taken the very action that you and I know is bonkers. That being commencing a hearing, knowing the subject isn't coming and denying him a reasonable alternative in line with their own procedures.

Genuine question, do you think the LMA statement was a quick reaction only? I read the situation differently. The club have been under great pressure from supporters for information and after the situation being discussed on tv the night before it would have been very hard for them to say nothing at all until after Thursday. My suspicion is that the LMA may have had a statement ready knowing this. Is it even possible that the Club had been advised in advanced of the LMA's statement so got their retaliation in first so to speak? Not based on anything just a possibility.

I do agree that the club's statement did not need to be so inflammatory though and definitely could have been handled better - the level of the LMA's response may not have been so strong with a less confrontational statement. As I said above round 1 to Gus and the LMA. Ding ding ... Seconds out round 2

 

[Barrel of Fun]

[tweet]347004894772879361[/tweet]

#bhafc have now issued a counter-statement to LMA's defence of GP. They say it was "neither fair nor accurate".

[tweet]347005123517616128[/tweet]

#bhafc also say they reserve the right to "consider further action" in respect of the LMA statement last night.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Anyone else seen Andy Naylors latest tweets? the club have issued a statement challenging the LMA's last night, and even reserve the right to take legal action against the LMA!

 

[Acker79]

I'm surprised at how many people on here have allowed themselves to be manipulated by a very carefully, & cleverly, worded release from the LMA.

...

Spin is being very heavily applied by both sides and it needs recognising for what it is. The Club were daft to allow themselves to be outspun yesterday but they are unlikely to win the PR fight anyway and to some degree appear to be aware of this. The only thing that is clear from yesterday is that battle lines have been very firmly drawn and irrespective of the rights and wrongs there is only likely to be one outcome. The only question for me now is which side gets left with the bill

It seems to me that for the past four weeks every comment from the club putting their side across, has been taken at face value, and taken as fact. Now that someone has stepped up and put a statement out there from gus's side, people everywhere talk of spin, and taking comments with a pinch of salt, trying to find holes in any comments.

Even though you acknowledge the club are trying to spin things, with the club it's "spin", with the LMA it's "manipulation".

This isn't meant as an attack on you, it's just a pattern I've noticed. Fans seem to absolutely believe the club can do no wrong.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

[tweet]347004894772879361[/tweet]



[tweet]347005123517616128[/tweet]

Yes, those ones.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

http://www.seagulls.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-lma-871572.aspx

Link to the New Club Statement.

Seems its officially now the club vs Gus and the LMA

 

[ROSM]

Genuine question, do you think the LMA statement was a quick reaction only? I read the situation differently. The club have been under great pressure from supporters for information and after the situation being discussed on tv the night before it would have been very hard for them to say nothing at all until after Thursday. My suspicion is that the LMA may have had a statement ready knowing this. Is it even possible that the Club had been advised in advanced of the LMA's statement so got their retaliation in first so to speak? Not based on anything just a possibility.

I do agree that the club's statement did not need to be so inflammatory though and definitely could have been handled better. As I said above round 1 to Gus and the LMA. Ding ding ... Seconds out round 2

I know that the lma rarely quote on cases. I have no way of knowing if they are any more or any less accurate than the clubs version of events. I doubt it was that planned and it took a couple of hours to react from the clubs statement. The length and detail was consistent in something put together in 2 hours

But as I see now the club have chosen to hit back again, clearly the blows will keep coming. I feel uneasy about our club threatening action against people, it smacks of the dark days (granted that's probably a very unfair link to make given the relative trustorthiness of who we have now compared to then)

 

[Miffy]

It seems to me that for the past four weeks every comment from the club putting their side across, has been taken at face value, and taken as fact. Now that someone has stepped up and put a statement out there from gus's side, people everywhere talk of spin, and taking comments with a pinch of salt, trying to find holes in any comments.

Even though you acknowledge the club are trying to spin things, with the club it's "spin", with the LMA it's "manipulation".

This isn't meant as an attack on you, it's just a pattern I've noticed. Fans seem to absolutely believe the club can do no wrong.

Umm no what I said is there is heavy spin on both sides. I don't think the club's statement was any less manipulative in the conclusions likely to be drawn than the LMA's I just don't think they did such a good job of it. I'm actually impressed with the LMA's as reading some of the posts it achieved exactly what I suspect it intended to and was incredibly effective. It's a good business negotiation tactic - they played it very well and the Club were very naive in backing themselves into the position they did. The LMA did exactly what they should do for their member - unfortunately it does mean that reconciliation is highly unlikely but its possible that they were instructed that it was either not desired by Gus or concluded it was not likely from the club, who knows. And no attack taken - I'm quite happy to recognise a good discussion with opposing views. It's why it took me so long to join on here hahahaha

I know that the lma rarely quote on cases. I have no way of knowing if they are any more or any less accurate than the clubs version of events. I doubt it was that planned and it took a couple of hours to react from the clubs statement. The length and detail was consistent in something put together in 2 hours

But as I see now the club have chosen to hit back again, clearly the blows will keep coming. I feel uneasy about our club threatening action against people, it smacks of the dark days (granted that's probably a very unfair link to make given the relative trustorthiness of who we have now compared to then)

That makes more sense - I hadn't realised there was that kind of gap as I picked up both at around the same time which is why I was curious.

And to think a few posts up I commented that the club can't defend themselves without getting drawn in ... What do I know? Lol

I can understand why they feel the need to but think its a very bad move. They will definitely lose the PR battle and a dignified silence would have been the better way to go in my view. The stupid thing is that in my experience both legal sides already know what settlement will be acepted and all if this is just manoeuvring on both sides to reach that point. Why they can't just get to the end game without all the damage in between has always been beyond me. Although that is based mainly on divorce cases to be fair - Jose thinks its a reasonable analogy so I'm going to run with it