Official Statement regarding Gus Poyet on Website NOW *merged*

[Westdene Seagull]

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.

Nope, re-read the statement ( again ) and I can't find this - care to show me where they've said this ?

 

[ROSM]

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.

Not exactly fixtures because nobody else with your level of insight has posted it before. The lma do seem to be taking this particularly seriously. Its almost as if they see this as potentially a high profile test case where they want to put a marker down.

 

[strings]

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

It is a fairly unique circumstance for the LMA.

Normally their members get paid off, meaning that they are only dealing with reputational damage. In this case, a member is going through the disciplinary process and may be disciplined as a result, this may (we don't know) include the possibility of being dismissed without compensation.

I'm sure other clubs will be keeping an eye on how this develops.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

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.

I would prefer it resolved without the entertainment. Let's start getting ready for next season.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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.

If a company is proven not to have followed procedure then a ET will almost always rule in favour of the employee. That said this won't anywhere near an ET - this will go to County Court where the rules are different and it will be all about breaking contracts not if the club followed the procedures to the letter.

 

[BigGully]

If a company is proven not to have followed procedure then a ET will almost always rule in favour of the employer. That said this won't anywhere near an ET - this will go to County Court where the rules are different and it will be all about breaking contracts not if the club followed the procedures to the letter.

But then unless you suspect that the club hasnt followed procedure, my original point was why would a court be more likely to support the LMA based on the vague claims and counter claims of each side.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

I would prefer it resolved without the entertainment. Let's start getting ready for next season.

Thats why I am so disgusted. It seems the club has walked into a ****storm of its own making. They know the LMA very well and they know Gus so they shouldve seen this all coming..... I think.

 

[Surf's Up]

The compensation clause is the problem at the heart of this deeply unsatisfactory situation. Without it I'm sure a mutually agreed departure would've happened. As things stand this is a landmark case for the LMA and for football in general. The notion that a manager could be dismissed fairly with no pay-off has clearly set the alarm bells ringing and they will do their damnedest to stop it from happening. Even if it means the demise of our club.

 

[tinycowboy]

If a company is proven not to have followed procedure then a ET will almost always rule in favour of the employer. That said this won't anywhere near an ET - this will go to County Court where the rules are different and it will be all about breaking contracts not if the club followed the procedures to the letter.

Employee?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Employee?

Good spot ! Indeed, in favour of the employee.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The compensation clause is the problem at the heart of this deeply unsatisfactory situation. Without it I'm sure a mutually agreed departure would've happened. As things stand this is a landmark case for the LMA and for football in general. The notion that a manager could be dismissed fairly with no pay-off has clearly set the alarm bells ringing and they will do their damnedest to stop it from happening. Even if it means the demise of our club.

Very much so. This could be a fundamental case fro the LMA and set a precedent unwelcome to them.

By demise of the club, I assume you mean relegation next season? Surely the worst case?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The compensation clause is the problem at the heart of this deeply unsatisfactory situation. Without it I'm sure a mutually agreed departure would've happened. As things stand this is a landmark case for the LMA and for football in general. The notion that a manager could be dismissed fairly with no pay-off has clearly set the alarm bells ringing and they will do their damnedest to stop it from happening. Even if it means the demise of our club.

(To be fair, I agree with your post. The DEMISE bit, is over-dramatic, that's all!)

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

It is a fairly unique circumstance for the LMA.

Normally their members get paid off, meaning that they are only dealing with reputational damage. In this case, a member is going through the disciplinary process and may be disciplined as a result, this may (we don't know) include the possibility of being dismissed without compensation.

I'm sure other clubs will be keeping an eye on how this develops.

You're right. Manager suspensions are very unusual - I think Jim Magilton at QPR was the mosr recent? - so the LMA need to be on top of it in case it proves to be a template for future managerial dismissals.

 

[ROSM]

You're right. Manager suspensions are very unusual - I think Jim Magilton at QPR was the mosr recent? - so the LMA need to be on top of it in case it proves to be a template for future managerial dismissals.

Nicky Barmb as well I think, although that got settled quickly.

Magilton won his case I believe - backed by the lma

 

[OzMike]

Very much so. This could be a fundamental case fro the LMA and set a precedent unwelcome to them.

By demise of the club, I assume you mean relegation next season? Surely the worst case?

After all this has settled, can you really see any chairman wanting to take Gus on, not me I'm afraid.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

After all this has settled, can you really see any chairman wanting to take Gus on, not me I'm afraid

Plenty. He is a top manager.

 

[Acker79]

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

Oh, come on. It's not like the club have done anything like that in the past... What's that? Smart card replacement fees? I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Comedy Steve]

After all this has settled, can you really see any chairman wanting to take Gus on, not me I'm afraid.

2009-10: 13th, League One
2010-11: 1st, League One
2011-12: 10th, Championship
2012-13: 4th, Championship

Yeah, they will.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

After all this has settled, can you really see any chairman wanting to take Gus on, not me I'm afraid.

Yes - particularly if he wins !

 

[Bladders]

Nope, re-read the statement ( again ) and I can't find this - care to show me where they've said this ?

In a strongly worded statement, released on their website, the LMA said: "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.


So as I said, they already had the 500 page initial report. It was the specifics of the charges that they only got on the 13th, though one would presume the initial report would have had the basic breaches/charges listed in it.

Now, no one knows what 'recently' is in this case, a week? two weeks? and month? Who knows.