SMC groundsmen gone

[Walter Sobchak]

The Allams should have said in a private meeting:

"This is your new contract. We know you've been allowed to work for Hull FC for over a decade but we don't like it."

There you have it. A 2 minute conversation could have solved everything.

 

[John Ex Aberdeen now E.R.]

The simple fact is the groundsmen were not defrauding anyone. One of them had worked for Hull FC for over a decade whilst working for Hull City. Being allowed to do so was part of his contract of employment until he signed the new contract, and whether permission to work for Hull FC ended then isn't entirely clear from the press reports.

Did the new contract cover the existing arrangements? Was that an explicit term of the new contract? Was the new contract explained to the groundsmen when it was presented to them for signature? Was anything said about working for Hull FC? Was he told to stop it?

By choosing to lie about working for Hull FC on that day made them appear guilty of wrong doing in the eyes of the Tribunal. However a more truthful approach may, and I say may, have resulted in a different result.

I do find it rather strange that SMC treat someone that clearly did a good job for Hull FC their customer, like they have. Surely you would speak to your customer, Hull FC, and say we are not happy our grounds man working for you whilst he should be working for us, and work something out.

 

[howdentiger]

The Allams should have said in a private meeting:

"This is your new contract. We know you've been allowed to work for Hull FC for over a decade but we don't like it."

There you have it. A 2 minute conversation could have solved everything.

Your rite it would have, but if we are saying that then it's only rite to also say the groundsmen could have ask the question "was it still ok"

 

[Walter Sobchak]

Your rite it would have, but if we are saying that then it's only rite to also say the groundsmen could have ask the question "was it still ok"

Why would one assume something wasn't ok if they'd been doing it for 10 years? It's an employers job to tell their staff what is and isn't allowed.

 

[The Omega Man]

Your rite it would have, but if we are saying that then it's only rite to also say the groundsmen could have ask the question "was it still ok"

I am sorry to say this, but you lost me by not knowing right from wrong.

 

[Edelman]

The Allams are great aren't they.!!

 

[Trumpton Tiger.]

Who ever the boss is/was/could be, a totally independent judge has found that what they where doing was fair to sack them for. They didn't come to that conclusion to Side with the allams to wind ppl on here up. They came to that conclusion because it was the correct conclusion in their eyes!

The allams are ****s. Always will be ****s and where found quilty of sacking them with the wrong procedure but ****s or no ****s they where within their rite to sack them, as found by an independent tribunal!

They were not 'found guilty' of sacking them with the wrong procedure at all. It was a legal procedure to allow the SMC to present some new evidence to the case at a late stage. To allow that a concession had to be made

I've been caught doing wrong many times, fella. But as I said, my employers know I'm good for them and they know that's a good thing. They have basic business sense you see.

Are you preparing football pitches or selling double glazing ? The club were reported to the Premier League about the poor state of the pitch. An independent report on the pitch was called for and done and then acted on.

 

[howdentiger]

Why would one assume something wasn't ok if they'd been doing it for 10 years? It's an employers job to tell their staff what is and isn't allowed.

When dealing with and working with the allams why would you assume anything?

 

[howdentiger]

I am sorry to say this, but you lost me by not knowing right from wrong.

Awww I'm really upset by that as your input is always so highly valued by me

 

[Walter Sobchak]

When dealing with and working with the allams why would you assume anything?

You seem to be defending the allams with the argument that 'the allams are ****s'. It's a strange tactic.

 

[howdentiger]

You seem to be defending the allams with the argument that 'the allams are ****s'. It's a strange tactic.

I'm not defending anyone, just stating this could have been avoided on both sides very easily

 

[Fez]

I really can't believe some of the reasoning on here. The tribunal investigated everything and that in itself cost alot of money. These are two streetwise guys, one of whom enjoyed manager protected guvvying for years (who knows what fiddles his manager had going). We all know it happens but we all know it should not. The fact he decided to lie to the tribunal really does make you wonder what bullshit he has spun prior to this. It's all been remarkably sad and pathetic, but the outcome was never really in doubt. They are lucky they are not being hit for costs.

 

[John Ex Aberdeen now E.R.]

I really can't believe some of the reasoning on here. The tribunal investigated everything and that in itself cost alot of money. These are two streetwise guys, one of whom enjoyed manager protected guvvying for years (who knows what fiddles his manager had going). We all know it happens but we all know it should not. The fact he decided to lie to the tribunal really does make you wonder what bullshit he has spun prior to this. It's all been remarkably sad and pathetic, but the outcome was never really in doubt. They are lucky they are not being hit for costs.

The main point most people who have been saying these guys were harshly treated, are not saying the outcome is unjust. What I have been saying is that it should never had come to this situation, any decent, reasonable employer would have sat down with their employee and resolved this issue. But no, the Allams had to do it in their normal arrogant manner, we are richer and more powerful than you, and we want to show it.

 

[Asterix]

Why do I have an image of an Allam contract of employment, dwarfing a stacked pile of War And Peace?

"Please read Section 7, para 19, f, iii It could be in your best interest"

I do admire the eternal optimists suggesting the masters of PR and Communicating should have had a quiet word.

 

[Fez]

The main point most people who have been saying these guys were harshly treated, are not saying the outcome is unjust. What I have been saying is that it should never had come to this situation, any decent, reasonable employer would have sat down with their employee and resolved this issue. But no, the Allams had to do it in their normal arrogant manner, we are richer and more powerful than you, and we want to show it.

I have previously agreed it was probably heavy handed, but I don't have all of the facts and he has tarnished his own credibility. It may have been better for him had he been in a union, but I think it would only of meant a dismissal using the correct procedure and the saving of crowd funded and taxpayers monies.

 

[John Ex Aberdeen now E.R.]

I have previously agreed it was probably heavy handed, but I don't have all of the facts and he has tarnished his own credibility. It may have been better for him had he been in a union, but I think it would only of meant a dismissal using the correct procedure and the saving of crowd funded and taxpayers monies.

I agree they should have been in a Union to fight their corner. On the cost side, equally the Allams/SMC could have resolved the issue before going to this tribunal, but they chose not to, thereby wasting crowned funding and tax payers money.

 

[dennisboothstash]

It’s not impossible, but claims for costs at Tribunal are exceptions not the rule
It’s extremely unlikely

 

[Edelman]

I'm not defending anyone, just stating this could have been avoided on both sides very easily

I think you are.
You look at things through a bosses eyes meaning you look down on people.
A bit like the Allams

 

[Amin Arrears]

The Allams are great aren't they.!!

Yes.

 

[Edelman]

Yes.

At least they'e helping the local economy.
I spend my cash in town instead.