SMC groundsmen gone
- Thread starter ....
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Ehab comes across as a clueless berk in that submission, regardless of what evidence the SMC file.
The club refused to meet with ACAS by the way.
Supporting the team not the regime.
They shouldn't delude themselves. Supporting a bunch of high paid people who can't wait to **** off elsewhere. Even the local lad is on his way.
If you give your money to Ehab you're a ****.
Even if you dismiss the account of events up to the hearings as hearsay - the fact that the groundsmen didn't have copies of their updated contracts, nor copies of the disciplinary hearings or the appeal shows that the employer was not following proper procedure. And if the employer is clearly not following proper procedure in one area, it lends weight and credibility to the employee complaints (like the lack of procedure for "time in lieu" and support for divoting after the rugby).
Still, no-one tells them how to run their company, not even to the extent of complying with UK employment law.
No.
My neutrality is 100%.
Take the blinkers off, you might see something that surprises you.
Having read every word of the report it has reinforced a few things in my mind:-
A. Ehab Allam is a total dickwad.
B. The evidence in the report is absolutely damning with regard to the SMC, and in particular to the incompetent Hickson, Clark and Ehab Allam.
C. The two grounds men are well within their rights to sue for wrongful dismissal and should easily succeed.
D. Ehab Allam is more interested in petty vindictiveness rather than concentrating on maintaining, what was last season, the clubs Premier League status, which in turn has cost the business untold millions of pounds, in this regard, if daddy wasn't the owner, he should, by any scale of measurement, be sacked for gross misconduct and serious dereliction of duty.
E. I could run through right to the letter Z however I really can't be arsed in spending time pointing out already well documented negative statements regarding the Allam's, and in particular the negatives of the old mans spawn.
F. Ehab Allam is quite clearly a total dickwad an almighty ****it, and in no way, shape or form capable of managing any multi-million pound business, not now, not ever!
I always do take a neutral view on things.
I know I don't need to where the Allams are concerned because of their blatant disregard for everyone but themselves.
And I know people that have had to deal with their nasty disrespectful attitude.
I've read the full 25 pages. No doubt the club has their side of the story which will be aired in public at some point.
One thing that does stand out though from the 2 groundsmen's statement is the complete lack of structure at the club. Should an acting Chairman (for that's what he is) really be getting involved in disciplinary hearings ? Is that normal for a company that has a multi-million pound turnover?
It highlights the lack of delegation at the club and the lack of trust that the Allams seem to have in everybody outside the family.
One thing that does stand out though from the 2 groundsmen's statement is the complete lack of structure at the club. Should an acting Chairman (for that's what he is) really be getting involved in disciplinary hearings ? Is that normal for a company that has a multi-million pound turnover?
It highlights the lack of delegation at the club and the lack of trust that the Allams seem to have in everybody outside the family.
Last edited:
It has just struck me that one of the named individuals in that submission is probably a close relative of someone that posts regularly in this board. Grounds for locking the thread maybe?
To that end, could a mod please remove my post where it quoted by three subsequent posters on page 27?
To that end, could a mod please remove my post where it quoted by three subsequent posters on page 27?
I like Happy, and I totally respect his attempted neutrality, especially in the face of the damning evidence that has been provided by the Allam's over the last few years.
No. This thread is of great interest to everyone on this board, and as long as it doesn't jeopardise the claimants case then it really should stay open.
I don't know anything about this case, but I've said on here several times that I've been astonished with the lack of delegation at the Club in my dealings with them
The level of decision which has had to be passed to Ehab to make is incredible