Pretty poor way to treat anyone, in my opinion, let alone someone who has given 16 years service to the club.
I'm confused, what about sacking the 3 coaches was poor? In normal work it is of course unfair (and illegal) to just sack someone for poor performance without prior warning/training etc. But it is common practice to terminate contracts (and pay them out btw!) in football. Have I missed something?
I guess it is a comment on the claim that they were told over video call with no explanation and no senior members there. But I’d expect most of that to be standard practice to be honest and this is being overblown
Nah nothing wrong with them being sacked but there's a way to do these things surely? And that isn't by video, with no explanation offered, and with the person making the decision not bothering to turn up. Not in my world any way. That's just plain cowardly imo.
We’re they sacked though? I thought a couple of them had contract ending in June and wasnt renewed. Could be wrong…
I guess also im used to this type of approach with my line of work. Ive been compromised out a could of times for various reasons, and getting paid off handsomely certainly made me give not as **** about it. I guess you get used to it, which is why im not so fussed about this.
I imagine people are sacked by HR all the time. It is one of the things HR does in many companies And I refuse to believe they weren't told the reason. Or if they weren't it would have been - we are buying out the remainder of your contract. It isn't like they have indefinite contract like salaried employees elsewhere. And if they did buy out the remainder of their contract then I expect that 1. It doesn't actually count as "sacking" and 2. A reason isn't needed From someone on Saintsweb: "Why would the owners be on the call?! How many businesses have the owners of a business in a meeting when staff are leaving. HR were there and a senior manager. Talk about trying to make a story from nothing."
Agree re the owners and I didn't mention them. Just because you don't have to do things in a certain way it doesn't mean that you shouldn't. I mean, this was ultimately Ralph's decision, or at least he was on board with it to save his job. So him not bothering to face up to the people he was working with day in day out says a lot about his character and the type of person he is (and not in a good way) imo. It's a matter of principles and treating people in a decent manner. Especially someone who has been such a long servant and showed loyalty during an extremely tough period. I also find doing it remotely poor and would hate to have that done to me. That's the modern world we've created with social media though I suppose.
Being sacked doesn’t mean you’re not treated with decency, it means you have not done the job to the standard required. Just because he is a club legend and nice guy, doesn’t mean he has a right to a position on the club payroll.
Only thing is we don’t know a thing about what happened really. Maybe the protocol that’s followed in this situation has to just be HR and a senior manager in the meeting. Maybe Ralph has spoken to them all separately. We don’t know, so I don’t think it’s fair to question his character based on it.
Saying that this was ultimately Ralph’s decision is a pretty big and probably incorrect claim. Unless your point is he could have threatened to resign if he really wanted them to stay. To me assessing that as his ultimate decision is rather harsh in it’s own right. I had seen their contracts were coming to an end. In which case, once again, it isn’t really a sacking. We haven’t sacked Fraser Forster. That said - I don’t actually know how much longer is left on their contracts It is making a story out of very little And as to talking about a club legend … aren’t there people fuming at Walcott’s “jobs for the boys” contract? Not necessarily you but there are several. To me it is perplexing that we hired him in the first place when we had a goalkeeper coach. We should have either got rid of that one or never hired him
Also - it is an assumption to assume that Ralph is even technically their boss. That would have been how it used to work but management structures at football clubs has changed over the years.
Yeah this is a fair point and hopefully he has spoken to them directly himself. Happily retract my comments on him if he turns out he has. I would say though that 90% of posts on this forum are speculation based on limited information so I'm not gonna apologise for it.
I'm not suggesting he was the sole decision maker (I wasn't using ultimately in a literal sense) but I'd be staggered if he didn't have a huge say in it, do clubs regularly sack an entire backroom staff without consulting the manager? Unlikely I'd wager. You're surely not suggesting that Theo is a club legend in any way similar to Kelv? Or even at all?! And I am one of those people btw. I also think it was baffling making him assistant manager too for what it's worth (the first coaching role as a foot in was understandable in my view).
I can see how my last paragraph is rather poorly worded. I was meant to be pointing out how both cases are “jobs for the boys”. Regardless of Kelvin’s status it is still jobs for the boys. I didn’t mean to imply Theo was but basically missed the middle of a sentence Given it the format of the message (typed online with no tone that speech would offer) I don’t think it is unreasonable that I did indeed assume you meant “ultimately responsible” in the exact literal sense that those words convey. But since you didn’t - fair enough. I don’t disagree that he had a say.