SMC groundsmen gone

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I never wanted Adam Pearson to come back and still don't. I like some of the things that the Allams have done and tried to do but not everything. I was opposed to Duffen and well Bartlett was simply beyond words.

I have never hated any owner and probably never will.

The fact is that Hull City has a history of supporters turning on its owners.

Heaven forbid that supporters buy the club, we could end up with a real messy thread or two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trumpton Tiger. and Happy Tiger
HCAFC (Airlie Tiger) said:
Its not impossible but its extremely unlikely.

Firstly the vast majority of people in the stadium couldn't give a ****, however lets say a tiny minority do, of this handful of people how many care enough to shout abuse at someone who had nothing to do with the sacking? You could probably count them on one hand. Now consider where the groundsman work and how far it is from the stands. Its all just a bit implausible and as its come from the mouth of a compulsive liar its even more dubious.
Click to expand...
I agree
I just had a feeling that something, no matter how small, had probably happened so simply dismissing it as a complete impossibility was a bit naive that's all
If OLM is correct then it probably refers to something online which makes more sense in hindsight
One mans light hearted piss taking is easy to publicise as another mans abuse
 
PLT said:
I can't believe that anyone would have an axe to grind with the new groundsmen, but more importantly, you'd have to really go out of your way for them to even be aware you're saying something to them. You'd have to go down to the bottom of the stand and basically shout at them. You'd have to be a right nutter. Even allowing for all of that, it'd be unlikely to go unnoticed by stewards or police.
Click to expand...
I can't believe anyone has an axe to grind either
I just thought it wasn't impossible that someone might have said something to them, even in pissed jest (which from experience people often don't properly understand the nuances of!) and it appears they did albeit online
 
dennisboothstash said:
I can't believe anyone has an axe to grind either
I just thought it wasn't impossible that someone might have said something to them, even in pissed jest (which from experience people often don't properly understand the nuances of!) and it appears they did albeit online
Click to expand...
I doubt it's in pissed jest on line. Be nice if we could see the tweets and clear it up.
 
Does anyone really believe he used to set the kit out the night before a game?? Really? Interesting he is saying all the senior managers knew he never did any work for Fc on a match day. How would they be able to know this.
And surely as a part time kit man he would be wanted after a game to sort the kit out.


As described above the Second Claimant had worked for Hull FC at The Boulevard since
1991. In 1997 one of the part time kit men left the Club. The Second Claimant was
asked if he would like to take on the role for an extra £40 each time he did the work. It
involved him setting out Hull FC’s kit in the changing room the night before a game. He
had never done anything on a match day for Hull FC in the twenty years he had been
performing this role and this was well known not only to Karen Clark but to every single
senior manager or director of Hull FC and the Respondent throughout that time.
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Does anyone really believe he used to set the kit out the night before a game?? Really? Interesting he is saying all the senior managers knew he never did any work for Fc on a match day. How would they be able to know this.
And surely as a part time kit man he would be wanted after a game to sort the kit out.


As described above the Second Claimant had worked for Hull FC at The Boulevard since
1991. In 1997 one of the part time kit men left the Club. The Second Claimant was
asked if he would like to take on the role for an extra £40 each time he did the work. It
involved him setting out Hull FC’s kit in the changing room the night before a game. He
had never done anything on a match day for Hull FC in the twenty years he had been
performing this role and this was well known not only to Karen Clark but to every single
senior manager or director of Hull FC and the Respondent throughout that time.
Click to expand...

FC like their kit well hung apparently.
 
originallambrettaman said:
Just in the name of accuracy, PLT doesn't moderate of this board and hasn't done for a long time, the supermods just keep forgetting to remove his title.

You're on very dodgy ground accusing anyone on this thread of bias.
Click to expand...

I'm biased. The Allams are uber ****s, they have gone to great efforts to earn that opinion of them and nothing they do will change that. My biased and honest opinion. <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT
I think this whole kitman fiasco has been over- analysed, mainly for the purpose of personal squabbling.

It seems to me that a long-term verbal arrangement (always a problem waiting to happen) has, over time, evolved and become an arrangement of convenience and added-benefit. There was an employee and a manager involved and at least one of them is poor of judgement.

The fact there were no records kept could simply emphasise their joint impression of innocence, but it could also indicate sharp practice. The whole thing just seems daft in an organisation not famed for good employee relations. It should have been no more than a pause for thought on procedures.

The divot teams are a really major issue...

...or not. Maybe just further embarrassment to the management team.
I could finish by saying 'you couldn't make it up', but I've been reading posts on here for a while now <whistle>
 
Fez said:
I think this whole kitman fiasco has been over- analysed, mainly for the purpose of personal squabbling.

It seems to me that a long-term verbal arrangement (always a problem waiting to happen) has, over time, evolved and become an arrangement of convenience and added-benefit. There was an employee and a manager involved and at least one of them is poor of judgement.

The fact there were no records kept could simply emphasise their joint impression of innocence, but it could also indicate sharp practice. The whole thing just seems daft in an organisation not famed for good employee relations. It should have been no more than a pause for thought on procedures.

The divot teams are a really major issue...

...or not. Maybe just further embarrassment to the management team.
I could finish by saying 'you couldn't make it up', but I've been reading posts on here for a while now <whistle>
Click to expand...

Gentlemen's agreements only work when dealing with gentlemen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT and HCAFC (Airlie Tiger)
From what I see this case is that Ehab, for whatever reason, trying to find a reason to get rid of these guys. Seems to me this guy has been doing this kit job for a long time, so why now are they jumping on it, for the reason I mention above.

Most employers would have said to him, look I know you have done this for a long time, but we want you to stop as we feel this could be effecting your job with us.

But as I said, they were just looking to find a reason to sack them, which frankly is a underhand and despicable way to act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHH, Chilton's Hundreds, look_back_in_amber and 4 others
Fez said:
I think this whole kitman fiasco has been over- analysed, mainly for the purpose of personal squabbling.

It seems to me that a long-term verbal arrangement (always a problem waiting to happen) has, over time, evolved and become an arrangement of convenience and added-benefit. There was an employee and a manager involved and at least one of them is poor of judgement.

The fact there were no records kept could simply emphasise their joint impression of innocence, but it could also indicate sharp practice. The whole thing just seems daft in an organisation not famed for good employee relations. It should have been no more than a pause for thought on procedures.

The divot teams are a really major issue...

...or not. Maybe just further embarrassment to the management team.
I could finish by saying 'you couldn't make it up', but I've been reading posts on here for a while now <whistle>
Click to expand...

The gentlemen's agreement ended when the groundsman signed a new contract of employment last year He agreed he needed the written consent of the SMC to work for Hull FC and should have applied for it in writing.

The Tribunal will look at his contract of employment, whether he had obtained the consent of the SMC and was it a serious breach of contract warranting dismissal. From the SMC's defence the signs are not looking good for him unfortunately. Especially if he was working for the SMC and Hull FC at the same time.

The lessons to be drawn from this are, read and keep a copy of your contract of employment and join a trade union.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MingofHarlem
Obadiah said:
The gentlemen's agreement ended when the groundsman signed a new contract of employment last year He agreed he needed the written consent of the SMC to work for Hull FC and should have applied for it in writing.

The Tribunal will look at his contract of employment, whether he had obtained the consent of the SMC and was it a serious breach of contract warranting dismissal. From the SMC's defence the signs are not looking good for him unfortunately. Especially if he was working for the SMC and Hull FC at the same time.

The lessons to be drawn from this are, read and keep a copy of your contract of employment and join a trade union.
Click to expand...

Or don't work for a ****.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SW3 Chelsea Tiger, LeftSaidFred, Chilton's Hundreds and 1 other person
John Ex Aberdeen now E.R. said:
From what I see this case is that Ehab, for whatever reason, trying to find a reason to get rid of these guys. Seems to me this guy has been doing this kit job for a long time, so why now are they jumping on it, for the reason I mention above.

Most employers would have said to him, look I know you have done this for a long time, but we want you to stop as we feel this could be effecting your job with us.

But as I said, they were just looking to find a reason to sack them, which frankly is a underhand and despicable way to act.
Click to expand...

Bang on.
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
i never said it was. I meant Ap wouldn't want to be dragged into this. Don't you think it likely they will be calling on some FC staff to say what the groundsman did?
Do you think AP wants to be involved in that. Will he be finding out for himself what this bloke did as a kit man and why they needed him.
Do you think, knowing the Allams, they might look at suing FC for the time he was working for them and not doing his job as a groundsman.
If I was AP I'd be finding out what and when he was working. If the kit men lie to him do you think he might look at sacking them.
Click to expand...

He wasn't working for them it was voluntary. AP has done nothing wrong, has nothing to be worried about and won't get involved in this at all, the fact you've mentioned suing him is actually laughable.
 
John Ex Aberdeen now E.R. said:
From what I see this case is that Ehab, for whatever reason, trying to find a reason to get rid of these guys. Seems to me this guy has been doing this kit job for a long time, so why now are they jumping on it, for the reason I mention above.

Most employers would have said to him, look I know you have done this for a long time, but we want you to stop as we feel this could be effecting your job with us.

But as I said, they were just looking to find a reason to sack them, which frankly is a underhand and despicable way to act.
Click to expand...
Could the report on the state of the pitch the PL asked for have anything to do with it I wonder ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back