Official Statement regarding Gus Poyet on Website NOW *merged*

[Bladders]

Irrelevent, the 500 page document still needs to be read, digested and replied to. Even without that, 4 days is not sufficient time to reply to the original document. I've been a Union rep and there's no way I would have accepted a mere 4 days when a member's job was on the line.

...........again, which they had delivered to them before the 13th. The LMA say delivered 'recently' that could be 2 weeks ago for all we know.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

It's not a 500 page report, the appendices that are referenced in the report are of that number.
I would expect a dozen pages or so commencing with a page of 'management summary' & much of appendix will not require word by word analysis. For example, the first appendix could be the clubs term & conditions of employment of, say, 100 pages long. This has been available & noted by all parties for months and simply included as a matter of completeness. This will have been examined previously so it is misleading to state that '500' pages require re-reading, they don't

That is speculation. We don't know. You maybe right but the only comment about this document is what the LMA says.

 

[dougdeep]

I think the club are missing a trick here. If they held this meeting in the centre circle at the Amex they could charge us to go and watch. I'd go and buy a beer and a pie.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

...........again, which they had delivered to them before the 13th. The LMA say delivered 'recently' that could be 2 weeks ago for all we know.

i have no doubt that if it had been the other way round and Poyet's legal team had asked for a date first then the clubs legal team would have found an excuse to postpone/change the date just to try and get a bit of one-upmanship

 

[BigGully]

We only have theclubs thinly veiled inference that this is the case. We then have the lma statement with thinly veiled inference that the club us not following its own procedures and is being unreasonable. I know which one a court or tribunal would look more unfavourably on.

Why, if as you say both parties have offered little information, do you think the court would be likely to support the LMA and not the club ?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

...........again, which they had delivered to them before the 13th. The LMA say delivered 'recently' that could be 2 weeks ago for all we know.

I doubt it very much as .... "the charges were not particularised until 13th June" - how could they deliver a supporting document BEFORE doing this

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

It's not a 500 page report, the appendices that are referenced in the report are of that number.
I would expect a dozen pages or so commencing with a page of 'management summary' & much of appendix will not require word by word analysis. For example, the first appendix could be the clubs term & conditions of employment of, say, 100 pages long. This has been available & noted by all parties for months and simply included as a matter of completeness. This will have been examined previously so it is misleading to state that '500' pages require re-reading, they don't

Actually they probably would have to re-read it to make sure nothing had changed, been updated, slipped in from previous version(s). I don't know how these legal documents work exactly but i review documents regularly and the number of changes that get made by each person that reads them is sometimes extraordinary and often irrelevant changes however the change of the odd word here and there can compeltely change the context of a statement in a legal document and making the assumption these charges are pretty serious (i hope thats allowed as the club wouldn't be going through this for something minor) then you want to make sure your legal team knows the document inside out

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Why, if as you say both parties have offered little information, do you think the court would be likely to support the LMA and not the club ?

Because the club fired first and the LMA responded. The club should have either released a holding statement that didn't suggest Gus had done ( or not done in this case ) something or nothing at all.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I think the club are missing a trick here. If they held this meeting in the centre circle at the Amex they could charge us to go and watch. I'd go and buy a beer and a pie.

and then have a can't cook, won't cook style vote from the fans?

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I doubt it very much as .... "the charges were not particularised until 13th June" - how could they deliver a supporting document BEFORE doing this

again i don't know how it works but Poyet's team must have known about the charges weeks ago as you can't keep someone suspended without a reason however he wouldn't have known the full extent. I don't really know what they mean by "the charges were not particularised until 13th June" but i'm assuming that its the final document with their entire case against Gus but i'm sure there would have been previous documents giving him some info

 

[Bladders]

I doubt it very much as .... "the charges were not particularised until 13th June" - how could they deliver a supporting document BEFORE doing this

It says so in the LMA statement, they had the initial report which was made up of alot of appendices recently. This would have also contained the charges against Poyet.

Being particluraised means that they now have the specifics of each charge.

So hypothetically (and desperately trying not to speculate so will just make a silly charge up) if one of Poyets breaches was say' not making a cup of tea for Vicente' they now have the specifics / details of that charge.

They would have known about this charge before the 13th though in the original report.

 

[BigGully]

Because the club fired first and the LMA responded. The club should have either released a holding statement that didn't suggest Gus had done ( or not done in this case ) something or nothing at all.

But your assuming they had no reason to do it in the first place, they obviously feel they did.

So again why would a court support the LMA rather than the club, when we do not know what has happened ?

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

It says so in the LMA statement, they had the initial report which was made up of alot of appendices recently. This would have also contained the charges against Poyet.

Being particluraised means that they now have the specifics of each charge.

So hypothetically (and desperately trying not to speculate so will just make a silly charge up) if one of Poyets breaches was say' not making a cup of tea for Vicente' they now have the specifics / details of that charge.

They would have known about this charge before the 13th though in the original report.

now that is ludicrous, Vicente wouldn't be drinking tea he's not British. Its more likely that Gus had his own special Uruguayan coffee and he would only let Vicente have Nescafe (and not even gold blend)

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I think the club are missing a trick here. If they held this meeting in the centre circle at the Amex they could charge us to go and watch. I'd go and buy a beer and a pie.

I think this could be a two-pie problem. Or even more.

 

[Bladders]

now that is ludicrous, Vicente wouldn't be drinking tea he's not British. Its more likely that Gus had his own special Uruguayan coffee and he would only let Vicente have Nescafe (and not even gold blend)

I think you might be onto something

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

...........again, which they had delivered to them before the 13th. The LMA say delivered 'recently' that could be 2 weeks ago for all we know.

I think theres no doubt that they would have known the charge before and may even have most of the documents but no lawyer in the land will start preparing a defence until they have ALL the information. The fact remains that not ALL the information was available until very recently.

This is all academic however. If the rep cant attend the meeting cant go ahead. Simples.

 

[ROSM]

Why, if as you say both parties have offered little information, do you think the court would be likely to support the LMA and not the club ?

The point I was making is that if we assume both statements are factually correct then we have one side saying a request was unreasonable and that someone was dragging out the process while the other aide is saying the club aren't complying with their own procedures. In a tribunal or court, it is a significant issue not to follow process, whilst being bumtious and dragging stuff out is an inconvenience and nothing else.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Can't be bothered to wade through 37 pages of this so apologies if fixture, but it's interesting that Gus's LMA rep will be Richard Bevan, the Chief Executive. He likes a scrap - this could be entertaining.

 

[BigGully]

The point I was making is that if we assume both statements are factually correct then we have one side saying a request was unreasonable and that someone was dragging out the process while the other aide is saying the club aren't complying with their own procedures. In a tribunal or court, it is a significant issue not to follow process, whilst being bumtious and dragging stuff out is an inconvenience and nothing else.

Ah ok,

Would procedure or not following it supersede the actual facts then, or does not following procedure render the facts irrelevant ?

Of course we must suspect that if the club has prompted the action then their HR department/Legal team has followed the correct procedure, if not then there might be a problem for the club.

 

[itszamora]

Can't be bothered to wade through 37 pages of this so apologies if fixture, but it's interesting that Gus's LMA rep will be Richard Bevan, the Chief Executive. He likes a scrap - this could be entertaining.

It suggests to me that the LMA are taking it very seriously and are not at all happy about it as well.