Official Statement regarding Gus Poyet on Website NOW *merged*

[Northstander]

Not if I thought the only aim of the whole process was to sack me!

100% this, if I knew they wanted me out and I was on holiday knowing I on full pay until proven guilty...they can wait for me !!

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Whatever Poyet has or has not done, he is 100% well within rights to request adjournment to his hearing in this situation. The club only concluded their investigation at the end of last week and have subsequently written to him explaining their findings and the context of the disciplinary charges against him. Poyet has supposedly only returned from holiday yesterday (when he promptly headed up to Salford) and if the LMA's statement is to be believed, the findings run to nearly 500 pages. Poyet and his representatives clearly dispute the findings and so need some time to sit down and read through them and to possibly prepare a response ahead of the meeting.

As understandable as it is that Brighton wanted business concluded ASAP and what seems, one way or another, an inevitable outcome, expecting Poyet and his representative to attend a hearing one working day after the report has been completed and while the accused has been on holiday and the representative has been out of the office is optimistic to say the least. In any disciplinary proceeding, the person who has been suspended is always told in writing that they are allowed to bring a representative to support them (usually, as in this case, a steward from their trade union) and if that representative is not available on the date set, it is perfectly acceptable to request an adjournment so long as the intended rep can attend on another date within one week.

Given that Poyet will be answering in what is not his native tongue, it will be all the more important that he has representation when his hearing takes place otherwise it is unlikely that a fair hearing will take place. His representative I think was the CEO of the League Managers' Association and so they will be well used to cases of this nature and by the sound of it, he is available to attend on Thursday, so the hearing can then take place and once that happens, Brighton will be able to make their decision on any wrongdoing later that day or by the end of the following day.

Those 500 pages could be summed up on the back of a fag packet --- never use one sentence if you can use twenty one that says the same thing!
It's all business speak and its all complete bollox----in my humble opinion

 

[B.W.]

They aren't formally at negotiation yet. He was suspended.

they provided details of the charges on 13th (last Thursday, the day it was leaked that he would attend a hearing on Friday which he clearly was never going to, which also led to leaks that he had refused to attend),

they provided 500pages of detail and arranged a disciplinary panel hearing for Monday 17th (so less than 2 working days)

The club were informed Gus wouldnt be attending and also that his lma rep wasn't available until 20th. However the club chose to go ahead and commence despite his reasonable absence. and then claimed they dispute a matter of procedure that now appears to be adherence to their own handbook.

It is only after the disciplinary and assuming an unfavourable decision, a step to legal action that mediation starts and your post becomes relevant.

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

 

[joeinbrighton]

The club was also well within its right to call a meeting on the employee's first day back at work. If they had waited and called it for Thursday the date could have been put back another five days

They were within their rights to call it, yes. But they should not have expected that it would be accepted unless they somehow imagined Poyet would attend without representation, which would then have weakened Poyet's ability to fully answer the charges.

 

[B.W.]

Ok this is the deal. Poyet and Barber DO NOT get on. Poyet after the suspension has decided to gun for Barber. After all if he is gone, why not bring him down with him by going ALL the way to refute these charges ? The club have found nothing of substance under employment law to nail him. Poyet and his legal team know this. Poyet get's on ok with Bloom but his sniping at the budget over the season has worn Bloom down, Bloom has had enough of his hystrionics so he wants shot. Poyet wants out but with a pay off and his " reputation " in tact. The 3 of them are working a way out to make this happen. That is the stalemate we are at and like it or not I think I am right on this one.

Again, do you know this?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Those 500 pages could be summed up on the back of a fag packet --- never use one sentence if you can use twenty one that says the same thing!
It's all business speak and its all complete bollox----in my humble opinion

And quantity is no indication of either quality or accuracy !

 

[joeinbrighton]

Those 500 pages could be summed up on the back of a fag packet --- never use one sentence if you can use twenty one that says the same thing!
It's all business speak and its all complete bollox----in my humble opinion

Well, it depends on what exactly it is that the investigation which has been going on for the best part of a month has uncovered. One suspects that a report that runs to that length includes quite a number of witness statements and covers quite a period of time. It wouldn't just be about one post-match interview when emotions were running high, that's for sure.

 

[Rookie]

The club was also well within its right to call a meeting on the employee's first day back at work. If they had waited and called it for Thursday the date could have been put back another five days

Of course they were but when they knew (according to the LMA) that he was not going to attend because of the stated reasons why did they have to release such a statement. Why not say the meeting was rearranged for specified reasons?

 

[Gordon Smith's Paperboy]

They were within their rights to call it, yes. But they should not have expected that it would be accepted unless they somehow imagined Poyet would attend without representation, which would then have weakened Poyet's ability to fully answer the charges.

You're right, but Poyet's representation is not the club's problem

 

[bristolseagull]

I doubt this will go to an ET - this will be taken all the way as a contractual dispute.

Oh I agree, in which case this wont get to trial for another 12 months, minimum.

In the meantime? Gardening leave?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

If anyone imagines that an "acrimonious" dispute can be resolved quickly, read this statement on the LMA website about Jim Magilton's dispute with Ipswich Town:-

22 Mar 2011
LMA STATEMENT ISSUED ON BEHALF OF JIM MAGILTON

Former international footballer Jim Magilton has today won his High Court employment case against Ipswich Town FC

Mr Magilton, aged 41, was dismissed as Manager of the club in April 2009 with the Club in 9th position in the Championship.

Mr Magilton tried to resolve matters, relating to his departure amicably and sensibly with the club, but the club failed to agree to pay him the sums clearly due under the terms of his contract.

The League Managers Association with its solicitors RJW, therefore filed court papers for recovery of the sums due.

It came as a shock to Mr Magilton, and all concerned, that the club’s response to the proceedings was to then try and find grounds to justify not paying him.

The claim was due to be heard in court this week, but in a last minute climbdown, the club has unreservedly withdrawn the defence and agreed to pay Mr Magilton the sums due to him and all of his legal costs.

Paul Daniels of RJW solicitors, acting on behalf of Jim Magilton, commented:

“The club made various allegations against Mr Magilton, which we advised were completely without substance and that he had an unanswerable case.

High Court proceedings were regrettably progressed, and despite reasonable offers to compromise the matter, the club still continued to raise yet more issues that were not relevant to the case.

We are disappointed that the club took so long to sort this matter out but we are delighted that our client has won his case and been completely vindicated".


Jim Magilton commented:

"It was disappointing and upsetting that a club I had served so loyally for so many years, as a player, club captain, and then manager, chose to try and deny me the compensation agreed in my contract, when we sadly parted company in 2009.

I tried to obtain a sensible settlement, and even made an offer for less than the sum now agreed, but they still would not agree to my proposals.

Instead, they continued to raise more unfounded issues, which they either then abandoned or have now withdrawn.

It has been a long, tiring and unnecessary dispute, but I am delighted that I have, with the support of the League Managers Association and its outstanding legal team, RJW solicitors and Paul Gilroy QC, entirely cleared my name and put the record straight.

I still have fond feelings for Ipswich Town, a club where I made many friends and I wish the club all the best for the future.”

http://www.leaguemanagers.com/news/viewfromthetop-6782.html


It took TWO YEARS to resolve this one.

 

[greenfordgull]

In all walks of life there is considerable protection for full time contracted employees who are past their probationary period. Following a full diciplinary proceedure is designed to protect their interests not just the employers. Generally these rights are not fully exercised as the as many people are not willing to risk the cost of employment solicitors with an uncertain outcome. Consequently it is often only challenged by those wealthy enough to pay or those that are unionised, and therefore will have access to free advice (it is not actually harder legally sack a teacher for example, but it is heavily unionised so it will often be challenged and contested). I would imagine a benefit of being a member of the LMA is advice (though not necersarily legally qualified) in these situations.

Mediation as others have said follows a hearing which then is followed by a tribunal. The LMA has a huge vested interest in contesting this vigorously. They are there to protect their members interest which includes protecting their contractual rights and getting the best possible deal for them in the event of a parting of the ways. It would be very injurous to their reputation (with their members at least...) if they were not working hard for Gus.

This is no different to any other walk of life, If there is a strong case to against an employee then they can removed from their post after due process. If there is not there will still often be a parting of the ways but a compromise agreement will be reached regarding references and money.

Ultimately a quick resolution will probably be costly. Though I think I am correct in saying that once an employee has been dismissed they can be replaced irrespective of a tribunal decision...

 

[B.W.]

No, I wouldn't, as I'm on leave, which is a right. Also, as a football manager, there's a pretty defined time of the year you have to take as leave, isn't there?

Put it like this. Gus is fighting not only for his current job, but also his future career, with his reputation sliding towards the toilet. He has the support of (expensive) legal representation and the LMA. He prioritises his holiday and a late-night TV appearance. Really!? You believe that!?

 

[Rookie]

You're right, but Poyet's representation is not the club's problem

It is when they were informed he was unable to attend.

 

[Gordon Smith's Paperboy]

Of course they were but when they knew (according to the LMA) that he was not going to attend because of the stated reasons why did they have to release such a statement. Why not say the meeting was rearranged for specified reasons?

Because they don't have to arrange it for the convenience of Gus's representation

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Again, do you know this?

Of course I don't " know " this but I reckon I am pretty much on the money.

 

[joeinbrighton]

You're right, but Poyet's representation is not the club's problem

It may not be. However, had the hearing gone ahead without Poyet as a result of his rep not being available, Brighton could have been on the wrong end of a very hefty fine after employment tribunal proceedings. If Brighton wanted a swift outcome to proceedings, they should have wrapped up their investigation sooner.

 

[Rookie]

Put it like this. Gus is fighting not only for his current job, but also his future career, with his reputation sliding towards the toilet. He has the support of (expensive) legal representation and the LMA. He prioritises his holiday and a late-night TV appearance. Really!? You believe that!?

Or he let the club come up with their report and has left his representatives to do what they are paid to do?

 

[les dynam]

This bit :

"However, Gus Poyet elected not to attend for disputed legal reasons."

Very carefully worded to imply Gus was at fault. How have the club managed to get "disputed legal reasons" from his LMA representative not being available today and for which he has a legal right to have at the meeting. As someone else has posted - the club aren't even following their own procedures.

Thanks for highlighting this. Starting to really really dislike the ways things seem to be done at the Albion at the moment. Trying to the fans against Gus is a sad and sorry little game they're playing.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Well not really, unfair dismissal damages are capped...

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/unfair-dismissals

I was basically commenting about wrongful dismissal, rather than unfair dismissal.

Damages might be capped, but legal costs aren't.