So the latest to try to extort more money out of GFC is Justin Edinburgh. He is taking legal action for his 'unfair' dismissal -- What a bloody cheek. Mr. Scally, quite rightly is defending the claim - and has deemed it as 'ridiculous' ---- and -- I agree with him. Edinburgh hasn't got a leg to stand on ! Mr.Scally has said that Edinburgh got sacked because he wasn't very good at his job...... ( and maybe for being so stupid as to not be able to see that ! ) Edinburgh made monumental mistakes with his recruitment this time last year --- they are well catalogued. He made monumental mistakes with his tactics. He monumentally failed to organise the players -to get them to put in any real effort. Even to an idiot it was obvious that Edinburgh 'wasn't very good at his job'...........and he showed his complete lack of good manners by refusing to shake hands with Pennock at Northampton on the last day of the season. I'm not going to swear - otherwise I would add two more words in the direction of Mr. Edinburgh (( think of going forth and multiplying ))....... he greedily carries on trying to take more money out of the club - when, anyone else with a drop of decency, would have resigned after Brackley.
Hmmm, interesting....alwaysright, i agree with you....i know, i know, you can sense a BUT coming.... I wonder how this will stand up in a tribunal under employment law? The case for the defence....'he wasn't very good at his job' I really hope Mr Chairman goes in with something much better than that, because otherwise this is going to be very costly. I'm sure employment law and tribunals do not distinguish between football and any other job, so unless PS admin team can provided written warnings and solid evidence of performance discussions, i think we could see a costly bill coming our way. After all 'he wasn't very good at his job' - could be attributed to so many factors and it does not help much in a recent evening meeting that is was said public and openly about dressing room unrest, now if Mr Edinburgh can prove someone impeded him at doing his job properly then we best get the poop scoop ready once again, let's not forget McCammon got us on a technicality! Unfair dismissal, much as i'd like to disagree, i just got this horrible gut feeling the technicalities of it could up hold in Edinburgh's favour, depends on how good our HR Team is from lessons learned.... Please tell me we have an HR Team....
It don't arf pee you off don't it. Pretty much in any other profession, you get told you are crap and if you don't buck up then you get the elbow. In football however, because there is a contract for a set period of time, unless there is a clause that says something specific about targets or loyalty (there's a joke word in football) then you cannot get sacked regardless of how bad you are at the job. If you do get sacked then the person is entitled to be paid the remainder of the contract in cash. That applies to manager or player. If on the other hand either of those wish to bugger off somewhere else then the contract virtually goes out of the window.
brb I did think that ' procedures' may be an issue. We do need to learn from the McCammon fiasco. It seems that we live in a world where we have to retain an employee until they have have been given numerous verbal and written warnings about their performance - until everyone is " pee'd off" - and the business in danger - and if you dare try to hurry the procedure, the useless employee gets a smart arsed lawyer.............. AND, having pee'd off the Club, the McCamedburgs of this world then **** on you at employment tribunals - and just for good measure, they expect you to wipe their arse ( after you have had to kiss it )..........The McCamedburgs of this world should be ashamed with themselves --- but I suppose they are too stupid to realise that their behaviour is just greed.......... 'golden' handshakes are the only sort that matter to them. I would apologise for my coarse language - but I couldn't find words of 29 letters that could best describe my feelings.
I would feel that in this case there are two separate justifications, firstly his inability to carry out the job in a satisfactory manner, and secondly his attempt to undermine the core business with his public comments. His suggestion that fan expectations were unrealistic (they don't know what they're talking about), the players were over achieving (not good enough), Little Gillingham (we are a small club who can't improve), these comments where designed to thoroughly destroy the confidence of the players and fans, whilst increasing his own reputation as achieving against all odds. Not only that....he is a twat.
But see this is the problem...it dosen't matter about his inability to do the job, if he can prove that he was impeded in some way of doing his job properly, or insufficient protocol followed up on this. Interesting point the second one, undermining the core of the business with his public comments....very interesting...SCALLY!....go get him my son...grumpygit, did i ever tell you that you are a genius disclaimer; except on Hereford days.
I have to hold my hands up. I publicly supported Edinburgh for a lot longer than many others but after what I've since heard about his training methods, attitude and of course the lack of handshake to AP I can admit that I was wrong. It's clear that this court claim (also brought by David Kerslake) just shows the arrogance of the man who clearly doesn't have much respect for his former employers whatsoever. I was very disappointed that it didn't work out and that Scally sacked him at the time, but now I can admit that I'm actually relieved and agree he made the right decision so well done Mr Chairman
Scally gave Edinburgh an employment contract which provided secure employment for a fixed term. At the end of the term both sides can walk away but if one side breaches the contract prematurely then he has to compensate the other. So if the Chairman does not like the way the manager is doing the job, he has to pay up the lost earnings. Its simple. The contract will probably specify circumstances where compensation will not be paid eg in cases of gross misconduct. The interesting thing in this case is that Scally seems to be arguing that because Edinburgh got another job, his new earnings should be offset against the compensation for the breach of contract. Fair argument it seems. But if Scally is saying he gave Edinburgh a good reference in bad faith (just to reduce the compensation) then things get interesting both at the Employment Tribunal and at Northampton Town who might think they have been misled. Could be some work for the lawyers here on several fronts and another bloody nose for GFC, all at the time the Club is taking the caterers to Court and claiming to be an innocent party. Whatever we think of Edinburgh, he has to be treated correctly according to law. Employment law applies to GFC as well as every other employer in the country.
We [all] can have passionate personal opinions about the [lack of] morals possessed by Mr.Edinburgh - but, on the issue of HR protocol, I do worry if any lessons have been learned from the McCammon case - BECAUSE - if not, then I wonder if any due diligence has been overlooked in the matter concerning Centreplate. I appreciate that Centreplate has made a 'limited' concession - and it is 'only' the size of compensation that is being contested ---- surely if they have conceded up to almost a £Million, they would expect to 'lose' the High Court case --- or do they know something that we didn't do right, and thereby their liability is remitted ! We operate a fairly large business - employing many people and engaging many different contractors. Surely it makes economic sense to employ somebody in the HR department that can ensure that all loose ends are properly tied - it seems these days that Mr.Scally is spending most of his time at the High Court - defending suggestions of 'alleged' incompetence.
bristol407 Given that Mr.Scally gave a reference for Edinburgh before his appointment at Northampton -- If (when) it goes wrong for JE, can we expect Northampton FC to take litigation against GFC for recommending him ? --- when I say 'him', I refer to grumpygit's description
Thank you bristol407, absolutely agree, football or not, employment law still has to be followed, even if a manager is a complete failure. Some say it's a results business, well if they can find that definition in employment law, good luck to them. I was being serious though about grumpygit's second idea, if we can prove a manager publically slated the club then that could be an avenue, much the same as it is a potential dismissal if your employer has a social media rule in contracts.
Sadly you're not allowed to give a bad reference lol...in case Scally gets sued for that too....but a good one is fine
Just to clarify, in employment law your previous employer's liability ends when you get a new job. You could claim for loss of earnings for the period you had no job or if your new contract is worth substantially less than your previous one. Neither of these is likely to be particularly relevant in Edinburgh's case. I think his claim is about bonuses he thinks he is owed.
Bonuses......???? For what? Dismantling a promising team Undermining the team in the public's eye by claiming they are punching above their weight Having no Plan B, C or D once the Plan A had been rumbled in the first 5 minutes........ Having not much of a clue full stop..........
Good points highlighted. Wonder what he thinks he is owed, must be something substantial for the chairman to allow this to be dragged through a tribunal.
