I think we have flogged this subject nearly to death, and frankly I have enjoyed the debate. However the last thing I would say on the matter, is that there is no doubt the grounds man should not have lied about the facts. So to come out with no compensation, it on the face of it their own making. For that point of view I have very little sympathy. However I will say again this should never have come to this point. The SMC/Allam's either purposely or stupidly sacked them, and admitted that they were wrong to do this. If the correct procedure has taken place, and from what I know about these matters, a written warning should have been given to the guy, and that would have been the end of the matter, as I assume he would have only done it in his own time, or taken leave if there happened to be a time when the 2 job clashed. The fact that the SMC wrongly sacked them, brought about this wrongful dismissal case, because they felt aggrieved.
You say you don't know how it played out but you use your post to make a point about it. The timeline, public comment and legal summation are there for us all to digest. In some respects I genuinely feel sorry for these guys; they did the old fashioned guvvying thing in a modern world with arsehole employers, but they did it and they tried to blather their way out of it. They were sacked - maybe harsh, but technically justified. Move on. Then comes the bummer. The intelligent ones who wanted to use this in their campaign against the Allams. They advised them badly, they created the publicity, they amassed the public funds- no way were these two lads up to that. It was stupid and ill considered. The Allams have shafted these guys and their secretive advisors. So who are they? Was it the Trust? Who thought, this was a good idea to use these lads and crowd funded money to fight a lie? This was not about these lads and their jobs, this was a very cynical use of a situation to try and belittle the Allams. What a **** up that turned out to be. I think some relatively intelligent and persuasive folk should hang their heads in shame - but they won't.
We have the Prospect Centre and Princes Quay. We also have Northpoint and even Kingswood. Do they have 2 world famous RL teams in Antwerp? I've been in Antwerp Station and there's a sickening stench of waffles. I'm sorry it's Paragon for me all day long.
Didn't this all start because one of the groundsmen gave away one extra free ticket one game so Ehab poured over everything in an attempt to find one tiny little technicality to sack him?
Well now this is a new one I never thought I'd see the day when there would be argument over Railway stations.
Oooh ooh. A chance to overuse an old joke. A train spotter died when he fell in front of a train during an argument over which was the best station. His widow said he would have been chuffed to bits.
John The technical issue was that at the appeal hearing Ehab introduced an element that the two had not been notified would be introduced. Note Appeal. Posters who have not bothered to read the judgement may not fully understand why posters who have are so vexed at the two men. John it’s a shameful judgement and anyone who supported these two, should be very upset.
As far as I know, just one time, he went and did his job for Hull FC instead of sat twiddling his thumbs with nowt to do on SMC time. I don't think it's as bad and outrageous as some people are making out.
We were discussing going to Antwerp by train. I thought I would show what awaited when you arrive there. To me it is more impressive than Paragon (and the great majority of stations in this country) an still will be even after Paragon is upgraded with a Subway and a Starbucks.
Indeed, there's a bit of history rewriting going on here. The reasons given for Harrison's sacking were the poor quality of the pitch and the giving of tickets to volunteer divoters, Cook working for FC on his watch was very much a footnote. The SMC conceded unfair dismissal, which allowed them to ignore the reasons given previously and switch the entire defence into the issue of Cook working for FC on his watch, as Cook was obviously the weak link (he was no doubt terrible during his disciplinary and they knew he'd been equally terrible giving evidence at the tribunal). I still have a great deal of sympathy for Harrison, I think he was stitched up. Less so for Cook, obviously, as he came out with a load of bollocks about what he did and didn't do.
No but it's convenient isn't it. There's a tiny little thread to latch onto so Chazz, Happy, etc get excited and attempt to make it into a massive thing where they're a disgrace and they've conned the public out of their money. Christ, it's not like they made it all up is it. One of them got pulled apart in the dock which is a fairly common thing to happen with an average bloke being grilled by a barrister, particularly when the case he's spent months preparing for turned out to be a different one to the one that was actually heard, with only a couple of days' notice. The awful crime they've supposedly committed which would definitely have been gross misconduct is that they continued a totally amicable arrangement which had always been in place without triple-checking that their new contract didn't forbid it. They were unfairly dismissed and rightly aggrieved. The desperation to turn this into a thing where the Allams have done nothing wrong and been unjustly dragged through the mud by the nasty local media is pathetic, and as has always been the case, the obvious desire from certain posters on here to actually want to turn it into that is genuinely concerning. After all that's happened to this club and this community at the hands of the Allams, there are still people who obviously want to see the best in them. It's just weird. Like how can a City fan look at all this and be annoyed that most people don't like the architechts of it all?
Posters on here supported the Groundsmen and the ONLY point of reference since the tribunal is the judgement. The facts are laid out in the judgement. The word “dishonest” being used in a judgement against a claimant is damning. OLM misleads with his story about the change in reason as this is explained in the judgement and is the reason that the two where wrongfully dismisses. It’s all laid out and explained. You two can bleat all you want but the fact is that by your own posts these two had the best barrister available, in fact OLM gloated over them getting the barrister the SMC wanted. They had very experienced council at the Tribunal and most of the evidence that was contradicted was in the written form. The two sides will have had plenty of time to prepare for this and the amount of references to CCTV in the judgement is an indication of a large bundle. Both sides have access to all of the evidence on an equal basis. You two want to turn this into the usual them and us. As for sides, I am not gloating over this case, it saddens me.
It is more likely the catalyst for the sackings came from being shown up on national television over the state of the pitch.
We do have some nice stations. There' s one lovely little one near St Ives. It' a little village called Erth .Very quaint
No, one side only had access to the other side's evidence when they submitted it just a couple of days before the trial.
