Well Bullards time is up (sorry suspension) is up on monday august 1st so hopefull we shall all know some more.
Can anyone on here answer me this. Because the club(company) has changed hands, does this alter the chain of events in repect of the disciplinairy procedure? It is well known that Nicky and Jimmy had an altercation which led to club fines, there may well be other stuff not in the public domain. Do matters such as these count in a totting up, or was a clean slate brought into play because of the change of ownership? We seem to have some people who are well versed in this sort of stuff, any fact based opinions may help some to decide which way the wind is blowing. Failing that, perhaps we would should wait and see.
what's up with olifinjana is he injured? not being involved at all plus he's still a City player.. he wouldn't get in our current midfield anyway..
Koren is likely to be playing as a winger, Oli is a central midfielder... Oli is a similar sort of player to Cairney, (skillful but soft) except his passing isn't a patch on Cairney's, and he is twenty times softer, despite having the body to be strong.
agree! although id play with olifinjana and cairney, its possible to play nice football and win the league, as much as theyre not traditional ball winners, they both play deep and play the ball around pushing forward when necessary, ala a worse michael carrick. i remember when bullard was in the fulham side playing well, they had a team of ball players and got into europe. and bullard doesnt even attempt to tackle!
I think it's a non issue, Oli's on too much money and there's interest in him, so as soon as he's fit I think he'll be gone. I don't think anyone would mind him staying around, I just don't think it's likely.
It would count towards a totting up so long as it was still on his record. Generally when someone is given a warning it has a time period on it before it expires (from limited experiance it's tended to be a year). If it's expired, then although we know about it it can't be used to determine the punishment for this offence. It can be quite a tricky technicality on it though. Assuming Bullard and Barmby were given final warnings after that fight and the final warnings ran out after a year then when Bullard came in for his hearing fo this it would have to be based purely on this incident. As there was no actual violence involved if it had been someone like Chester I would have expected a fine and a final warning to be issued explaining the changes we required him to make to his general conduct. Bullard with a technically clean record would therefore expect the same. If we decided to sack him for gross misconduct he would appeal on that basis. At that point I think we're allowed to use the previous incident as a demonstration that we don't believe he will make the changes required, and that on the previous occassion the employees would have been dismissed but we were comfortable that they would make every effort to improve their behaviour and therefore we can uphold the sacking. It's explaining how you frew that conclusion without using out of date disciplinaries. Obviously if in the last year (or however long the warnings last) he's had warnings about the drinking and has ignored them then they can use those warnings in the original hearing to establish his behaviour and support the decision to sack him. They could also use his general performance/attitude at work. The new ownership could actually work in our favour in terms of the punishment though. Depending on other situations since they took over (ie any other disciplinaries and any information about codes of conduct they've issued) the argument that the Bullard/Barmby situation only produced fines and warnings could stop being a precedent. If it can be shown under the Allams/MM we've taken a tougher stance than under Bartlett/Duffen or Bartlett/Pearson and the change was properly communicated then previous cases would cease to be precedents in terms of the company disciplinary procedure. His time at Ipswich could work against us if we're trying to establish an unprofessional character is his normal condition though. They had him for a few months and were happy with his working performance and attitude and were looking to secure a more permanent deal. If he was that unprofessional they woulldn't have done that so we'd need to establish the causes of that difference.
Unless after the takeover Jimmy's contract terms were varied, or any employee handbook (if there is one) was altered, then I don't think the takeover will have any bearing whatsoever
Get rid. He can have as many agents as he likes. Fook him off out of it, hes a complete and utter waster.
