Eric Black, the next to be named by the Telegraph

[saintlyhero]

Strong statement from the club that says nothing! He remains an employee. Of course he does. Whether he will be tending his garden on Sunday is open to conjecture.

We like to moan when the media gives us no serious coverage when things are going well, so when something like this happens they don't give much of a **** and I suspect a bigger name will be revealed in the next couple of days.
This doesn't seem like a story that is likely to snowball for Eric

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

So far there is nothing linking Eric Black to a bribe and everything he says (in this video at least) could be part of a general discussion about how other people could be crooked. If this is all the Telegraph have, it isn't enough. If they have more, why not start with that.

 

[SAINTDON13]

Has anyone considered that his contribution may have contributed to our recent results?

 

[Libby]

Right, I've been umming & ahhing about posting this and I'm probably going to get loads of **** for it but here goes...

I think the club have acted poorly on this so far.

I know we don't know the full story yet and innocent until proven guilty etc. but in my opinion there's enough there to place him on gardening leave or suspend him on full pay while we investigate.

If Eric is indeed innocent then I'm sure he'd understand that the clubs reputation and image must come before ANY employee.

I just think it looks a bit silly that Ralph etc. always talk about how ethical we are compared to others in football ywt don't seem to be acting on an employee accused of corruption.

Just my take on it anyway... and interested to hear what others think

*ducks for cover!*

 

[tomw24]

Right, I've been umming & ahhing about posting this and I'm probably going to get loads of **** for it but here goes...

I think the club have acted poorly on this so far.

I know we don't know the full story yet and innocent until proven guilty etc. but in my opinion there's enough there to place him on gardening leave or suspend him on full pay while we investigate.

If Eric is indeed innocent then I'm sure he'd understand that the clubs reputation and image must come before ANY employee.

I just think it looks a bit silly that Ralph etc. always talk about how ethical we are compared to others in football ywt don't seem to be acting on an employee accused of corruption.

Just my take on it anyway... and interested to hear what others think

*ducks for cover!*

How long have the team been back from Israel though?

 

[......loading......]

Right, I've been umming & ahhing about posting this and I'm probably going to get loads of **** for it but here goes...

I think the club have acted poorly on this so far.

I know we don't know the full story yet and innocent until proven guilty etc. but in my opinion there's enough there to place him on gardening leave or suspend him on full pay while we investigate.

If Eric is indeed innocent then I'm sure he'd understand that the clubs reputation and image must come before ANY employee.

I just think it looks a bit silly that Ralph etc. always talk about how ethical we are compared to others in football ywt don't seem to be acting on an employee accused of corruption.

Just my take on it anyway... and interested to hear what others think

*ducks for cover!*

I guess they don't trust the newspaper as they have been denied a full transcript. It is easy to give seleced highlights which make things look worse than they are.

 

[Libby]

How long have the team been back from Israel though?

Long enough to make a decision.

 

[tomw24]

Long enough to make a decision.

In that case I agree with you. He certainly can't be on the bench on Sunday.

 

[Libby]

I guess they don't trust the newspaper as they have been denied a full transcript. It is easy to give seleced highlights which make things look worse than they are.

Easy to say that but the newspaper wouldn't outright lie and leave themselves open to a libel lawsuit.

He might not have done anything illegal or against FA rules exactly but there's certainly enough there to suggest he's been highly unethical. Which we're always saying in public we are against (and even try to claim moral highground over other clubs/persons!)

 

[Libby]

In that case I agree with you. He certainly can't be on the bench on Sunday.

Agreed if they announce it in the morning then fair enough. But even if in Israel Les/Ralph/Kat still could (and surely were) be in contact.

Maybe the Israel trip has played a part in the hesitant response but like you say there's no way he can be in the dugout on Sunday n if he is then it's highly hypocritical and questions need to be asked imo.

 

[......loading......]

Easy to say that but the newspaper wouldn't outright lie and leave themselves open to a libel lawsuit.

He might not have done anything illegal or against FA rules exactly but there's certainly enough there to suggest he's been highly unethical. Which we're always saying in public we are against (and even try to claim moral highground over other clubs/persons!)

It is pretty hard to sue someone for saying: this guy said this. Even if you did miss out this other thing he said.

Hey, I think he's guilty and he's out, but I understamd the club's frustration at being denied the information they need to make a qualified decision. The press want football cleaned up, but won't hand over the facts to allow it? Of course not, as tomorrow they want to run an SFC are hypocrites story....

 

[ImpSaint]

Right, I've been umming & ahhing about posting this and I'm probably going to get loads of **** for it but here goes...

I think the club have acted poorly on this so far.

I know we don't know the full story yet and innocent until proven guilty etc. but in my opinion there's enough there to place him on gardening leave or suspend him on full pay while we investigate.

If Eric is indeed innocent then I'm sure he'd understand that the clubs reputation and image must come before ANY employee.

I just think it looks a bit silly that Ralph etc. always talk about how ethical we are compared to others in football ywt don't seem to be acting on an employee accused of corruption.

Just my take on it anyway... and interested to hear what others think

*ducks for cover!*

Even though I think he should be sacked because it doesn't matter "if he was going to do it." HE was presenting it as if he could, giving out names that could be tapped up and presenting himself as someone who would do it.

However I like Ralph's way of doing things and I like how the club prides itself on ethics so I can sort of accept "Is it ethical to even suspend someone when you have asked for evidence and they haven't give it to you."

If something comes up then don't suspend him sack him. If it doesn't then you have to have a board meeting or something in house assessing what this is doing to the club and if needed pay him to go.

It may well be that they would like to pay him to go because their lawyers say they can't sack him and they are wanting more proof so that they can sack him.

Personally if it is legal to do so I would at least have him on gardening leave, just to show we are taking it seriously.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

Employees are entitled to full hearings, so Saints will look into it properly.

 

[Libby]

It is pretty hard to sue someone for saying: this guy said this. Even if you did miss out this other thing he said.

Hey, I think he's guilty and he's out, but I understamd the club's frustration at being denied the information they need to make a qualified decision. The press want football cleaned up, but won't hand over the facts to allow it? Of course not, as tomorrow they want to run an SFC are hypocrites story....

On your 1st paragraph I'm not so sure it is. It's making an accusation against your character which you could affect your reputation and chances of other work etc.

That is libel.

I also understand the clubs frustration about not having full facts and have said as much multiple times.

I just think after all the spouting off in the press we've done in the past it looks pretty poor if we don't act against an employee accuses of unethical/unlawful activity.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

I just don't think the video we've seen absolutely proves he was doing anything unlawful...it could be part of a discussion rather than a suggestion of what to do. Perhaps they were all talking about corruption and he went on to say that X would take money, but sometimes just mentioning a name would get them onside. In fact, he said on the tape that why pay money when you could get something for nothing.

The tape may be just what it looks like, but it is open to interpretation...the Telegraph need to come out with the full transcript. The longer they delay,,,the more it looks like some editing has been going on. Saints owe a duty of care to an employee and have to wait for more evidence.

 

[Libby]

Even though I think he should be sacked because it doesn't matter "if he was going to do it." HE was presenting it as if he could, giving out names that could be tapped up and presenting himself as someone who would do it.

However I like Ralph's way of doing things and I like how the club prides itself on ethics so I can sort of accept "Is it ethical to even suspend someone when you have asked for evidence and they haven't give it to you."

If something comes up then don't suspend him sack him. If it doesn't then you have to have a board meeting or something in house assessing what this is doing to the club and if needed pay him to go.

It may well be that they would like to pay him to go because their lawyers say they can't sack him and they are wanting more proof so that they can sack him.

Personally if it is legal to do so I would at least have him on gardening leave, just to show we are taking it seriously.

Can't bold on my phone so excuse me if this comes across as blunt, it's not intended

Paragraph 2 - as I said a moment ago if he's innocent then he'll understand that the clubs reputation comes before ANY member of staff. I don't think it's unethical to ask him to stay away (while on full pay) while the club investigates.

Paragraph 3 - But something has come up? Like I say he may not have acted illegally or against FA rules but surely there's enough there to suggest he's been highly unethical? Does that not go against what the club stand for?

Paragraph 5 - This is what I'm asking for. I can't see why it wouldn't be legal to do so, though I'm no expert so if anyone knows better to be corrected (also very interested!)

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

The club could always give Black time to sort things out....they don't even need to comment as assistant managers aren't required to be there. We don't need distractions on Sunday.

 

[Libby]

Can I also just add that I appreciate the proper debate on this

I was half expecting to get shot down for not having faith in the board but people have just been putting their points across (even if we don't agree) and we're having a good conversation about it.

Good stuff

 

[Libby]

The club could always give Black time to sort things out....they don't even need to comment as assistant managers aren't required to be there. We don't need distractions on Sunday.

Let me ask a question - not solely directed at you Fran just quoted you as your post mentioned Sunday.

Is there anyone here who is happy to have him in the dugout on Sunday in light of these allegations?

 

[......loading......]

Let me ask a question - not solely directed at you Fran just quoted you as your post mentioned Sunday.

Is there anyone here who is happy to have him in the dugout on Sunday in light of these allegations?

Nope.

I see this from a position in a job where there are people willing to make accusations all the time - and where it only takes one suspension to investigate to ruin your whole career. I appreciate that SFC are walking a fine line: they need to show faith in their employee and they also need to act on all the facts. If I was EB, I would want any suspension on the back of a full set of evidence, not a fairly limited, edited video.

But, like you say, he can't be there Sunday. Hopefully we'll have the facts we want so we can act. If not, we can let him have a sick day!