Got as many bad memories as good of BP. The KCOM, on the other hand, holds many more good than bad, despite the bland passionless crap that passes for football in the c21.
I remember them being put up, so to see them being taken down in this brutal way, certainly is a very sad occasion.
The SMC have dropped some of their original claims and their defence looks pretty weak... http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/full-smc-defence-kcom-stadium-485649
OLM, Thanks for posting this. I think that the grounds for dismissing both Claimants can be made out but would venture that the grounds are stronger in respect of the Second Claimant. If the SMC are correct The Second Claimant, and here the First Claimant contradicts the evidence of the Second Claimant, was working as a Hull FC Kit man when contracted under his SMC contract. There is no evidence to suggest that he requested in writing permission from the SMC to undertake additional duties outside of his SMC contract. The First Claimant, on the SMC particulars, failed to adequately supervise both the Second Claimant and the post-match process of repairing the turf. Here, I think the SMC have been naïve in terms of their provisions for repairing and maintaining the turf. However, I suspect (yes I do not have anything other than the SMC particulars to go on) that the First Claimant had a nice little thing running with the "complimentary ticket" arrangement which prior to the SMC reissuing employment contracts worked quite nicely. What were the original claims of the SMC? MoH
It amuses me that the club is all uppity because the groundsmen didn't publish the SMC's evidence. Why the **** would they do that in the SMC's behalf? Sense of entitlement, episode 658.
Minutes, notes and updates; what a wicked web they weave around our cĺub and those acting against it.
Did the new ground staff save money on paint ? To be fair there's not much chance of a penalty at both ends...just paint them on if they're needed! ?
I don't actually know, I haven't compared these details with the original claim, Geoff Bielby just mentioned that some claims had been withdrawn. Edit - State of pitch and the volume of supplies abandoned from their defence.
I overheard a conversation in the pub last The end result is the look Ehab is trying to cultivate, sort of football shabby chic.
The one who's contesting whether he was on SMC time or FC time is obviously on more dodgy ground than the other one, but neither should have been sackable offences, it should have been easy to resolve had Ehab not start toy throwing.
I would say the one working for Hull FC was on the stronger legal ground. He had the agreement of his immediate superior to do it. Shame he lied in his disciplinary interviews, thats if he did actually say he wasn't working.
