Pointing out Hull is not the perfect Utopia some think it is is not pulling it to bits.
SMC groundsmen gone
- Thread starter ....
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Pointing out Hull is not the perfect Utopia some think it is is not pulling it to bits.
A silly ****s post if ever there was one.
Read the ****ing thing idiot.
They were offered the opportunity but denied and lied. There was no other option.
GTF
.Not really.
If we sink into league 1 or 2 i wont shed a tear Cas.
More important things in life I think.
A fair few when it looked like there was a chance to pop At the owners and see them get pulled in front of a tribunal, hence this being 60 pages long!
Last edited:
And Dave Burns for giving them air time on his radio show to drum up support for their crowd funding appeal, BBC Look North likewise and the HDM especially Angus Young. And 99% of posters on here who all rose to their defence without even considering there may be two sides to this story.
As there are in most arguments.
Very good point! These 2 guys really have made themselfs looks rather stupid!
As far as I'm concerned anybody that has taken some money out of Ehabs pocket is ok by me.
P s that' not bait btw.
Fair point, as is the fact the Allams have an open invitation to talk publically to David Burns, BBC Radio H*mberside and the HDM. Initially I was of the opinion the SMC (aka the Allams) would settle out of court, I now know why they didn't.
The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Winners: Rollitts and Gosschalks
Losers: Ehab Allam (dismissed workers unfairly), groundsmen (lost their jobs), Hull City (name dragged through the mud)
What a mess.
Crowned with the gloating statement highlighting in bold about dishonesty and lies of the groundsmen.
Such hollow triumphalism as the club has slipped approximately 20 places in the league since this episode started and the veracity and integrity of the statements of the current owners have themselves come to be regarded as dishonest and lies ('gone within 24 hrs', 'sell it for a pound', 'football clubs should be fined if their stadium is not full' and many other soundbites).
Losers: Ehab Allam (dismissed workers unfairly), groundsmen (lost their jobs), Hull City (name dragged through the mud)
What a mess.
Crowned with the gloating statement highlighting in bold about dishonesty and lies of the groundsmen.
Such hollow triumphalism as the club has slipped approximately 20 places in the league since this episode started and the veracity and integrity of the statements of the current owners have themselves come to be regarded as dishonest and lies ('gone within 24 hrs', 'sell it for a pound', 'football clubs should be fined if their stadium is not full' and many other soundbites).
No mention of the embarassment of the trust putting its full support behind these two lying no marks?? Without knowing the full facts?
Angus young has gone down a lot in my estimation. Thought he was a decent journalist, turns out he went for sensationalism and populist.
It was dealt with in house. And then the groundsmen decided to make a very public song and dance about it and take it to tribunal.
"We appreciate that this may be somewhat confusing due to the concession made by the Company that the Company accepted “procedural” unfairness prior to the hearing and therefore we feel it is important to explain this. The Company made this concession in order to reduce the length of the hearing, the number of witnesses and to ensure that the Tribunal concentrated on the substantive reason for our decision to summarily dismiss Mr Harrison and Mr Cook. The result of conceding procedural fairness meant that the Company’s HR Manager and the Company’s Facilities Manager did not have to appear in the Employment Tribunal as witnesses. This was a further reason for the concession as the public way in which Mr Harrison and Mr Cook conducted the litigation caused serious distress to both employees who we believe were misrepresented by Mr Harrison and Mr Cook. The Company therefore took the view to protect its employees from the further distress of having to give oral evidence at a public hearing."
Aye, you only conceded to save time and the feelings of two employees, what compassion Ehab has.
Or was it that you bundled the sacking like an amateur chump and had to concede you'd ****ed that bit up?
"The Company therefore took the view to protect its employees from the further distress of having to give oral evidence at a public hearing" like butter wouldn't ****ing melt.
Aye, you only conceded to save time and the feelings of two employees, what compassion Ehab has.
Or was it that you bundled the sacking like an amateur chump and had to concede you'd ****ed that bit up?
"The Company therefore took the view to protect its employees from the further distress of having to give oral evidence at a public hearing"
like butter wouldn't ****ing melt.
I’m sorry but that is just the whole point and you have missed it."We appreciate that this may be somewhat confusing due to the concession made by the Company that the Company accepted “procedural” unfairness prior to the hearing and therefore we feel it is important to explain this. The Company made this concession in order to reduce the length of the hearing, the number of witnesses and to ensure that the Tribunal concentrated on the substantive reason for our decision to summarily dismiss Mr Harrison and Mr Cook. The result of conceding procedural fairness meant that the Company’s HR Manager and the Company’s Facilities Manager did not have to appear in the Employment Tribunal as witnesses. This was a further reason for the concession as the public way in which Mr Harrison and Mr Cook conducted the litigation caused serious distress to both employees who we believe were misrepresented by Mr Harrison and Mr Cook. The Company therefore took the view to protect its employees from the further distress of having to give oral evidence at a public hearing."
Aye, you only conceded to save time and the feelings of two employees, what compassion Ehab has.
Or was it that you bundled the sacking like an amateur chump and had to concede you'd ****ed that bit up?
"The Company therefore took the view to protect its employees from the further distress of having to give oral evidence at a public hearing"
Well the ****ing butter well and truly melted all over the faces of those who supportered this pair.