Official Statement regarding Gus Poyet on Website NOW *merged*

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

I am not in the " know " but you would be surpised how spot on my comment was.

See, you cant resist.
Your comment WAS or IS.
I've heard ducks fart before

 

[Gordon Smith's Paperboy]

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.

If Gus is suspended would the club recognise his right to take annual leave during the suspension? If they don't legal have to, they could dispute that his being away was a reason for him not attending today. I'm not saying this is the case, just asking really.

 

[bristolseagull]

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

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

But he hasn't been dismissed, so there's no claim for wrongful- yet. If he claims constructive dismissal he's claim would be framed in unfair dismissal, the damages of which are capped at £80k odd, yes costs are an issue, but they (both sides) are unlikely to be more than £100k.

 

[el punal]

A very sad day indeed. I was hoping that this would be a "clear the air" meeting with both sides committed to taking the club further with a mutual willingness and direction.

Obviously wishful thinking on my part. It seems now, even without knowing the circumstances of the suspension, that Gus has made his position with the club untenable.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Dismissal is the ultimate outcome of the most serious breaches of employment contract. It will be interesting to find out what the gap is between the Club's interpretation and that of the LMA. As posted above, it's more about the quality of the club's evidence than the 500 page quantity.

 

[Bladders]

I would be amazed if a man as professional as Paul Barber, with his track record and history hasn't delivered a 100% water tight case.

it's not the first time Barber has attracted this type of negative media attention in his career.

Be interesting to know what this history actually is.

 

[B.W.]

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.

OK, but they key point for me is when in the process can we appoint a new manager. Frankly, I am not too worried about Poyet's future any more.

 

[Northstander]

OK, but they key point for me is when in the process can we appoint a new manager. Frankly, I am not too worried about Poyet's future any more.

Not at this stage, as per previous posts...I would suggest Poyet is suspended on full pay without any prejudice pending investigation. Poyet is officially BHA manager at this stage

 

[Bra]

Human nature I know but watch how opinion changes with each statement released, first by the club and then by the lma. Both sides are going to put the best case possible and yet opinions move from anti to pro gus. I would imagine the club feel they have a case and their actions with regards dates etc is correct as do the lma, we will not know move until after it is concluded. It is just very sad that it has come to this and come have an impact on the field for quite a while and it is not great than as fans we are on one side or another

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

If Gus is suspended would the club recognise his right to take annual leave during the suspension? If they don't legal have to, they could dispute that his being away was a reason for him not attending today. I'm not saying this is the case, just asking really.

If Gus is suspended then Gus has the right to take his holiday during that time. At the same time, Im pretty sure that the club would be asking for legal trouble if they then turned round and gave Gus only a few days notice to get back from his holiday and get his rep up to speed. What really smacks of a stitch up is a 500 page document being given just before the proposed meeting. If the club knew of a real breach of contract and had evidence to prove it then they should not need to do ANY of this.

I'm not saying it IS a stitch-up but it really does not look good and Gus's legal team are going to be laughing their heads after today. Based on the LMAs statement (which they obviously felt they HAD to make), the club statement was a MAJOR faux pas, methinks.

 

[B.W.]

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...

A-ha. So, Gus could, in theory, be replaced by Friday? Is that right?

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

OK, but they key point for me is when in the process can we appoint a new manager. Frankly, I am not too worried about Poyet's future any more.

Nor am I , pay him up and f*** him off. The club is more important than he ever will be.
Get the new manager in and lets get back to being a footbal club.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

See, you cant resist.
Your comment WAS or IS.
I've heard ducks fart before

We all have our opinions. Let's embrace opinions without petty insults if that is earthly possible on this site.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

OK, but they key point for me is when in the process can we appoint a new manager. Frankly, I am not too worried about Poyet's future any more.

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.

 

[B.W.]

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

OK, fair enough, but I don't agree.

 

[el punal]

I can't fathom how someone has the choice of not attending their own disciplinary hearing, but then I'm no expert on employment law.

I too find this strange. Gus must have been aware of this meeting, and how important it is, for some time. His resultant "no show", on the face of it, has shown him up in a poor light.

Unless of course the legal eagles have stepped in and advised him to take this option. So very, very messy.

 

[Graymac]

since people keep referring to the game of poker between Bloom & Gus,
thought of a few meanings of the hands
FOLDING: Those stupid bits of card in the Palace game
SITTING OUT: What Gus is doing at the moment
A HIGH: A fan that has too much weed & believes Gus will stay
A PAIR : A pie & pint at half time
2 PAIRS: Barber & Bloom V Gus & Charlie
3 OF A KIND: Lack of money, poogate & clackers the 3 reasons we didn’t beat Palace according to Gus.
A STRAIGHT: Were Gus will be going Straight on the dole
A FLUSH : something someone forgot to use in the Palace changing room
A FULL HOUSE: something we won’t see next season if this mess isn’t sorted soon

 

[Bladders]

Did Tano have one of these meetings?

 

[B.W.]

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

Right. So the 'Gus holiday' excuse given by the LMA is frivolous then.

 

[kevtherev]

Absolutely, but given recent comments and today's LMA statement presumably he has a counterclaim of sorts

I'm sure he has, loads of them. He has always got an excuse for everything. Unfortunately for him I think, the law according to Poyet won't wash, compared to the law according to the facts. This is what i'm betting on anyway.