Yup good lads for making themselfs look well and truly stupid and wasting people's hard earned money that they took knowing full well they had lied..... Good lads
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
-
Yup good lads for making themselfs look well and truly stupid and wasting people's hard earned money that they took knowing full well they had lied..... Good lads
Nah, you won't convince me that the only reason they conceded the first part was to save time. They conceded because they knew they hadn't handled the sackings appropriately.
What point have I missed?
What's it to you? The way the club handles everything is appalling, literally everything. The fact the allams leave you only a 'tad miffed' speaks volumes.
I wasn't even talking about their sacking, nor making a judgement on what was right or wrong, so how could I have missed the point numbnuts?
My whole point was Ehab is talking complete bollocks when he says the only reason he conceded the first part was to spare his staff stress. That is obviously complete arse.
You have no idea. This episode should not even be a footnote to the list of wrongdoings to lay on the Allams. I do hope your hard earned was not deposited in the crowd funding appeal. Financial loss can cloud ones judgement.
Nice evasion of my point. Come back when you can answer my questions or jog on.
No matter what you think of the Allams and I hat them ... these guys knowingly lied to raise money of very kind hearted people I'm sorry but that's just wrong and they should be called out for it
I never said they shouldn't be called out for it. I'm not sure what point you're arguing against but it's nothing to do with what I said.
My mistake, sorry. They were sacked for doing something in company time. Though it could be argued, attending employment tribunals forms part of the duties of senior managers, the thought Ehab would be paying them to sit for two days in a tribunal waiting room, on pay, probably brought about a cold sweat.
I've got no doubt that a) what they were doing was a sackable offence and b) they have lied about it. That can't be argued against.
The only points im making is: a) The allams could have handled this with a conversation and saved all this trouble and b) they royally ****ed up the sacking procedure and then c) are now claiming they only admitted they cocked it up to look after their staff i.e. 'we didn't really cock it up' which is laughable.
"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.
They only conceded at the very last moment, but obviously it was just to protect the interests of their dearly valued workforce. Who they didn't mind putting through the stress of a tribunal until they'd waited as long as possible in the hope that the groundsmen wouldn't find the money required to fight the case. Only when they realised that the groundsmen had been able to afford top representation, despite not making nearly enough from the crowdfunding, did they make that decision. Coincidence though of course. It was to protect their employees from stress.
Where are the full facts? Ehab's statement? Sure.
It wasn't a waste of money if it scared Ehab into accepting what he'd done rather than trying to fight it. Make no mistake, he'll have been very reluctant to do that and if he thought he could win he'd have tried.
I've never heard anybody say Hull is a utopia , here or anywhere else , although when people actually visit many are surprised in a positive way
Nobody comes out of this sorry affair with any credit but the Allams, as supposed pillars of the business and wider community, have behaved with breathtaking arrogance and heavy-handedness. More shame on them.
Sorry. Add 'Local Media' to the list of winners.
They've got plenty of mileage from this story.