Official Statement regarding Gus Poyet on Website NOW *merged*

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

Or a club trying to move things along as quickly as possible whilst ensuring the investigation is full and fair.

No. Cheshire cat has got it right above. If the LMA are to believed, they've contravened their own regulations and are in breach of employment law.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

As of interest , why ?

He won't be able to see that if you are on ignore, so I wouldn't expect a quick reply.

 

[Gordon Smith's Paperboy]

And when was the original hearing? I would have wanted at least a week.... at the very least, once he was back in the country.

What the employee wants doesn't matter in these circumstances, though, what matters is that the time frame given in the club's manual - after all, it was his choice to leave the country. By the way, I'd want a week as well, but, then I wouldn't have gone on holiday!!

 

[B.W.]

Gus is legally entitled to take a selected rep with him and the club as his employer have to make reasonable adjustments to have the meeting when that rep is available. There's no disputing that legal right.

There's absolutely no reason for Gus, the LMA or his lawyers to dispute that legal requirement. Yet the club statement implies it was his side that "disputed legal reasons".

On the other hand maybe the club dispute that legal right and that's what their statement meant. If that's the case then the club are inept.

I'd go for option one which in my eyes means they lied by releasing a press statement who's purpose was to smear Gus by making us believe he just didn't turn up due to some legal argument. If they wanted to look credible and professional all they had to do was say the meeting had been postponed.

Gus may, or may not, have done something wrong but the club are making themselves look like clowns and liars and it's not the first time Barber has attracted this type of negative media attention in his career.

Seriously, you need to calm down. The LMA and club have released a statement. The club's statement is brief, but does not include a lie, sorry 'mis-truth'. The LMA statement is more detailed, making claims of a strong case without, apparently, having read and digested the club's report. Far be it from me to suggest that the LMA are therefore providing us with a 'mis-truth'!

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

The statement from the LMA is bog standard what they would do for any manager, that pays their contributions to them. They are the managers union, what did you expect them to say. It's just standard, nothing more.

Kev, Im sorry its not. The LMA very very rarely come out with statements like this. You will often hear them mentioned but they hardly ever make announcements.... be logical Kev, if this statement is incorrect, the club can accuse the LMA of slander.

If you're right provide the evidence. Otherwise you just show more evidence of your blindness.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

But you said you have all the facts to hand....do you?

I said with the all facts we have so far. Anyway I don't think I have said anything out of line, other than a debate and expressing opinions but it seems to be like this now. It seems you cannot dare to express an opinion aymore. Very odd but hey, ho lets have a forum where we all agree and can congratulate each other that we are all right.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

He won't be able to see that if you are on ignore, so I wouldn't expect a quick reply.

Good point ! Can't see why it was warranted but there you go.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I'm sure that the LMA statement was prepared with sound legal advice.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

What the employee wants doesn't matter in these circumstances, though, what matters is that the time frame given in the club's manual - after all, it was his choice to leave the country. By the way, I'd want a week as well, but, then I wouldn't have gone on holiday!!

And what is the time frame in the manual? I bet you its not four days, or even five.

 

[Bladders]

I'm sure that the LMA statement was prepared with sound legal advice.

I'm sure all statements from both sides have been.

 

[B.W.]

It stinks to high heaven !!!!!!!!!!!

No it doesn't. The club and Gus are in dispute and both parties using every angle they can to make themselves look better, and their 'opponent' worse. Welcome to the real world. Personally, I support the club, but you carry on supporting Gus & Hove Albion if you like.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

I said with the all facts we have so far. Anyway I don't think I have said anything out of line, other than a debate and expressing opinions but it seems to be like this now. It seems you cannot dare to express an opinion aymore. Very odd but hey, ho lets have a forum where we all agree and can congratulate each other that we are all right.

But that is the crux of it, none of us have any facts to hand, everything anybody that posts on here is pure speculation and rumour.
Of course we can express opinions, but please stop making out you are in the know.

 

[el punal]

Gus is clearly holding out to the point where they just have to sack him so he can get the money he IS owed contractually. Barber clearly didn't like the culture of Gus and Charlie but has nothing concrete whatsoever on them.

How do you know that about Charlie? I'm not trying to be confrontational but do know something that has not been revealed or is it just an opinion?

If it's proved that Gus has breached his contract then I'm not sure that he would be entitled to compensation.

 

[Giraffe]

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.

Finally the other side are allowed to speak.

The club, and Bloom, very much led by Barber have ****ed this up.

 

[Soulman]

I'm getting more confused by the day.
This thread is all about Gus, when Charlie and Tanno were also suspended. Obviously Tanno has had his suspension lifted.
Could it not be that Gus and perhaps Charlie were speaking to, and perhaps on the verge of joining another club. Perhaps (unlike Reading) they were not given permission and TB had realised (especially after the Reading talks) that he wanted Gus out, and he could use evidence to prove that both Gus and Charlie had broken their contracts.
If it was just Gus suspended then perhaps the "not enough funds for transfer" etc could have been the issue, but then why would that involve suspending Charlie as well.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The statement from the LMA is bog standard what they would do for any manager, that pays their contributions to them. They are the managers union, what did you expect them to say. It's just standard, nothing more.

Not remotely standard. In fact exceptional. You seem to be forgetting that once this mess is sorted out we will need a new manager. Any prospective candidate reading the LMA statement will be running a mile.

 

[B.W.]

They can sack Gus and bring in someone at any time. Thats not the issue for the club, methinks. What they are worried about is how much its going to cost them. If badly handled this could cost the club millions.

Yes, that much I understand.

My (genuine) question is... say the club tell Gus that they have gathered evidence (by full investigation), considered the evidence carefully, and have decided to dismiss him, at his hearing on Thursday, can they then appoint a new manager on Friday, without further adding to their bill to get rid of him?

 

[Monkey Man]

Finally the other side are allowed to speak.

The club, and Bloom, very much led by Barber have ****ed this up.

Not sure how you can base such an opinion on a trade union statement. They're doing their job. Nothing more.

I once found myself embroiled in a dispute involving one of my team and the correspondence his union produced was the most inaccurate, one-sided piece of bullshit you'll ever read.

Yet their member walked away from the mess he'd created with a decent pay-off and not a stain on his character ... except among the few of us who knew the truth.

In my experience these issues are fiendishly difficult to handle, the employee generally holds more aces than the employer, and it's all too easy to look at the wreckage and conclude that the employer ballsed up. I don't believe that the club is handling this badly, purely on the basis that I have not seen all the facts. I doubt I've seen even 10% of them.

 

[ROSM]

Have you read the club's handbook then? Genuine question.

No. But the Lma have, and unless they are outright lying, then I believe them I'm what it says. Especially as I have been responsible from the business side for producing a revised handbool for the UK arm of a major multinational company as well as defending said handbooks in disputes (and also picking holes in other company handbooks when assisting people with their issues). This clause is very standard, indeed if anything 5 days is at the lower end if usual.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

Yes, that much I understand.

My (genuine) question is... say the club tell Gus that they have gathered evidence (by full investigation), considered the evidence carefully, and have decided to dismiss him, at his hearing on Thursday, can they then appoint a new manager on Friday, without further adding to their bill to get rid of him?

There are honestly too many imponderables there. If FOR EXAMPLE, they provide video evidence of Gus quite clearly doing something that is in breach of contract, there are no mitigating circumstances and there is no provision then yes they could get away scot free and possibly appoint a manager the same day. This is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. Even in this case Gus could appeal and allow the club could appoint a new manager there may be serious financial comeback further down the line.