Official Statement regarding Gus Poyet on Website NOW *merged*

[martyn20]

Why do we always have to do everything the hard way

 

[B.W.]

After reading what the League Managers' Association have said, I hope some of you realise you have been taken in by Kev the Rev and the clubs spin!!

Or you're being taken in by LMA spin.

 

[Soulman]

"Having a pop" overstates it. If the club expect him to get to the premier league, he has to have a budget to compete, there's only so far you can go getting cheaper players, and poorer players who you improve a bit. If the club have high expectations for him to achieve (that is,premier league football, two years after league one football), they can't look solely at themselves, they have to look at the division they're in, I.e. so what if it's the biggest budget in brighton's history, it needs to be big enough to match the other teams pushing for promotion (until we have an academy regularly producing quality players)

I understood that it was a 5 year project. A contract for 5 years. With 100m put into a new stadium and 30m going into a new academy, i daresay that there is not too much in the coffers for transfer funds. I thought all were aware of this when the 5 year project was put into place. Hawking yourself to other clubs was not the way forward.

 

[B.W.]

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.

Straw clutching, your forte.

 

[GreersElbow]

The statement from the LMA somewhat blows your expert opinion to bits !

Where does it blow my "expert opinion" to bits? Not entirely sure, but it appears you have a problem with me due to your patronising content. What I said was fundamentally correct, read the link.

The LMA has said the negotiation will take place later this week - I stated that negotiation has to take place before an employment tribunal takes place.

 

[hitony]

What evidence do you have that he was wrongly suspended?

Nice to see you back and contributing

 

[Westdene Seagull]

In my opinion, the club should be ramping up the pressure. The club has more to lose than Gus, Gus will be employed sooner or later by another club. By the club cannot sustain this amount of time trying to solve this situation. I don't really know what else the club could add to the statement, perhaps mention of tea and biscuits and an attendance list.

Or maybe the fact they had been told the LMA couldn't attend today rather than the mis-truth Barber has put out ?

 

[fork me]

far too many poker puns on this thread

I agree, this is a serious topic, posts should be straight. Any more posts containing poker puns should be flushed down the river.

You'd have tp be blind not to see this.

I for one, will be keeping my cards close to my chest, raising my game and not folding under the pressure.

 

[Hillian1]

Nice to see you back and contributing

Is it?

 

[martyn20]

Nice to see you back and contributing

Hey ho, sadly that reply was in the wrong thread

 

[B.W.]

Whatever is going on Poyet is holding the cards and we need Bloom to announce soon he has a Royal Flush. The silence from the club suggests they know they are backtracking and Poyet is doing a job on them. No one comes out smelling of Roses in any of this and it has been a monumental f*ck up imo. I hope agenda's did not cloud people's minds when all this started 5 long weeks ago.

More assumption and innuendo with no grounding.

 

[fork me]

If he doesn't have a reasonable excuse for not being present, the club can carry out the hearing in his absence. Just prolonging things. Difficult to be angered by any party without knowledge of what is going on.

If the statement from his association is what is says it is, then he had a good reason to postpone it.

 

[martyn20]

Is it?

Thanks for the welcome back

 

[GreersElbow]

Or maybe the fact they had been told the LMA couldn't attend today rather than the mis-truth Barber has put out ?

Oh Jesus Christ. You are hilarious.

Also, would you confirm where the LMA statement blows up my "expert opinion". As it just confirms what I said has to take place before an employment tribunal.

I stated that negotiation has to take place before employment tribunal - LMA confirmed that's taking place this week, so where's the error?

Please confirm it for me, so it justifies your patronising comments.

 

[Dandyman]

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.

Actually sounds a bit more standard - employees can request a postponement of a meeting due to non-availability of a representative with the proviso of the meeting being remade within 5 working days.

 

[OSRGull]

More news on the way?

 

[Gordon Smith's Paperboy]

If the statement from his association is what is says it is, then he had a good reason to postpone it.

How come he had time to work for the BBC over the weekend but not to give to the disciplinary? Can't see the club being impressed with that

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Where does it blow my "expert opinion" to bits? Not entirely sure, but it appears you have a problem with me due to your patronising content. What I said was fundamentally correct, read the link.

The LMA has said the negotiation will take place later this week - I stated that negotiation has to take place before an employment tribunal takes place.

It's the implication in your posts that Gus purposely, and for no valid reason, avoided today's meeting and that it's simple to get legal representation from your union at the drop of a hat. Your statement in a previous post around "just sack him" shows your agenda and it's not based on what are slowly appearing to be the facts.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

More assumption and innuendo with no grounding.

Are you keeping up with developements ? It seems not.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

I don't think you can be wrongly suspended - If you were accused of something it has to be investigated, if after investigation you felt you were wrongly accused or if you were sacked after the investigation then you might need another investigation into whether you were wrongly accused but suspensions/gardening leave is all part of the course.