Page 6 of 6
Re: Anelka
Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:33 pm
by Prufrock
Rules might have changed but used to be you couldn't sign as a free agent unless you'd been free when the last window shut.
Re: Anelka
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:09 am
by LeverEnd
bobo the clown wrote:ChrisC wrote:If they are taking the sacked stance then they would have to pay up his contract would they not? If he quits they don't pay him a penny?
Nope .... contract details notwithstanding. If they did then they would have 'accepted' his resignation.
They are saying it's Gross Misconduct. Dismissal FOLLOWING PROCEDURE is a legitimate finding. Notice would not then be forthcoming.
However, the legally dubious thing is that they have announced this via the meeja and not via proper process. That would entail things like a letter inviting him for investigation, then a meeting to discuss his actions, if found unacceptable a meeting for deciding what action to take (dismissal) and then writing to confirm their decision and offering him the right to appeal etc., etc.
Just sacking him by telling him they have is automatically unfair and yes, he could claim unfair dismissal, which he most certainly would win. At his weekly rate the extra time and the ultimate compensation would be worth a massive amount to mere mortals like us.
I read somewhere that he was given the opportunity to make amends in some way but refused, does that mean they are in a better position? If he thinks the trouble he caused isn't worth an apology he's even more of a cnut than I suspected and I hope he never plays again. I suppose it depends if the amends suggested by West Brom were reasonable or not.
Re: Anelka
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:35 am
by Hoboh
LeverEnd wrote:bobo the clown wrote:ChrisC wrote:If they are taking the sacked stance then they would have to pay up his contract would they not? If he quits they don't pay him a penny?
Nope .... contract details notwithstanding. If they did then they would have 'accepted' his resignation.
They are saying it's Gross Misconduct. Dismissal FOLLOWING PROCEDURE is a legitimate finding. Notice would not then be forthcoming.
However, the legally dubious thing is that they have announced this via the meeja and not via proper process. That would entail things like a letter inviting him for investigation, then a meeting to discuss his actions, if found unacceptable a meeting for deciding what action to take (dismissal) and then writing to confirm their decision and offering him the right to appeal etc., etc.
Just sacking him by telling him they have is automatically unfair and yes, he could claim unfair dismissal, which he most certainly would win. At his weekly rate the extra time and the ultimate compensation would be worth a massive amount to mere mortals like us.
I read somewhere that he was given the opportunity to make amends in some way but refused, does that mean they are in a better position? If he thinks the trouble he caused isn't worth an apology he's even more of a cnut than I suspected and I hope he never plays again. I suppose it depends if the amends suggested by West Brom were reasonable or not.
Look if Anelka felt he had done no wrong then why should he make amends?
Why is he a cnut if this is the case?
If it were me and you had ago without knowing now't I'd be happy to tell you in no uncertain terms where to get off!
Re: Anelka
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:39 am
by bobo the clown
LeverEnd wrote:bobo the clown wrote:ChrisC wrote:If they are taking the sacked stance then they would have to pay up his contract would they not? If he quits they don't pay him a penny?
Nope .... contract details notwithstanding. If they did then they would have 'accepted' his resignation.
They are saying it's Gross Misconduct. Dismissal FOLLOWING PROCEDURE is a legitimate finding. Notice would not then be forthcoming.
However, the legally dubious thing is that they have announced this via the meeja and not via proper process. That would entail things like a letter inviting him for investigation, then a meeting to discuss his actions, if found unacceptable a meeting for deciding what action to take (dismissal) and then writing to confirm their decision and offering him the right to appeal etc., etc.
Just sacking him by telling him they have is automatically unfair and yes, he could claim unfair dismissal, which he most certainly would win. At his weekly rate the extra time and the ultimate compensation would be worth a massive amount to mere mortals like us.
I read somewhere that he was given the opportunity to make amends in some way but refused, does that mean they are in a better position? If he thinks the trouble he caused isn't worth an apology he's even more of a cnut than I suspected and I hope he never plays again. I suppose it depends if the amends suggested by West Brom were reasonable or not.
No, not really, thoygh it may mitigate against the scale of the financial outcome.
What I obviously don't know is whether a proper process has been followed but quietly & behind closed doors and unreported. I somehow doubt it, a little off this has been done quietly.
If so, fair enough. If not then they have acted improperly. There is simply no proper way to just turn rpund to someone and sack them without procedure. No matter what the employee has done. An employer CAN do it ... and it can be very satisfying ... but they have to be aware it will cost them.
Re: Anelka
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:13 pm
by LeverEnd
Hoboh wrote:[
Look if Anelka felt he had done no wrong then why should he make amends?
He did a gesture he knew was controversial and had nothing to do with football, this caused his club no end of trouble when they were in a relegation fight.
Why is he a cnut if this is the case?
Because he should realise that this is the case and apologise to the club which initially backed him. Forget the racism, he had no right bringing that controversy to football. Forget the racist accusation for now, even if it was inadvertent, he should apologise for an error of judgement. If he can't do that then he's a cnut.If it were me and you had ago without knowing now't I'd be happy to tell you in no uncertain terms where to get off!
Fair enough, and if I were your employer I'd hand you a P45!
Re: Anelka
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:07 pm
by Hoboh
LeverEnd wrote:Hoboh wrote:[
Look if Anelka felt he had done no wrong then why should he make amends?
He did a gesture he knew was controversial and had nothing to do with football, this caused his club no end of trouble when they were in a relegation fight.
Again yet another big assumption on your case, I'd suggest someone made something of this virtually unknown gesture maybe because of Anelka's colour? or the fact he is famous or whatever, get my drift
Why is he a cnut if this is the case?
Because he should realise that this is the case and apologise to the club which initially backed him. Forget the racism, he had no right bringing that controversy to football. Forget the racist accusation for now, even if it was inadvertent, he should apologise for an error of judgement. If he can't do that then he's a cnut.
The controversy as far as I can see was brought to the sanctamonious righteous game by some whinging knob who for whatever reason decided to haul a famous footballer over the coals for something he may or may not of understood the relevence of
If it were me and you had ago without knowing now't I'd be happy to tell you in no uncertain terms where to get off!
Fair enough, and if I were your employer I'd hand you a P45!
Not before my notice would have been stuck where the sunshine don't shine sunshine You think WBA have behaved properly? they shit theirselves when a sponsor threatend to pull, cash no feckin morals involved there!
Re: Anelka
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:19 am
by LeverEnd
A big assumption. So you don't think he knew that this close friend of his been done several times for anti-Semitism or whatever it was? Yes there were busybodies sticking their oars in to get themselves on TV or in the paper, feigning great offence etc. Insincere dicks most of them I expect.
My first reaction was that it was a fuss over nothing. Then I looked into it and informed myself and changed my view. He's caused a load of trouble since going there and contributed very little on the pitch.
'some whinging nob'? I think there was a bit more too it than that. Plenty of people objected.
West Brom held fire, backed him initially and let it be investigated. How did they back down to the sponsors? I thought they ignored them. He was then found guilty, and didn't appeal. They were within their rights to discipline him, he refused to accept that so they sacked him. Can't see the lack of morals in that.
Oh, and his colour? Laughable suggestion.
Re: Anelka
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:03 am
by Hoboh
Good post mate and well reasoned don't agree entirely like I believe WBA for instance acted with other motives but still good post
Re: Anelka
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:06 pm
by LeverEnd
Hoboh wrote:Good post mate and well reasoned don't agree entirely like I believe WBA for instance acted with other motives but still good post
They may well have but I don't think they did much wrong. Would hardly be a shock if a football club acted without morals these days I suppose.
Anyway where will he pop up next or is he finished?
Re: Anelka
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:37 pm
by Lost Leopard Spot
Re: Anelka
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:48 pm
by bobo the clown
On that statement, if anyone wanted to, you could drive a coach & horses through their actions.
You can't terminate a contract, even a time limited one, by simply writing to the employee and telling them you have. If they are relying on his bad behaviours to justify that they would need to present him with that case and allow him the opportunity of challenging their interpretation. If you don't the termination will be invalid ... even if you have every right to interpret his actions that way.
The strongest card they have is that he has only worked for them for 8 months. So they CAN terminate very easily, but that depends on the details of the contract & notice period. I'd be surprised if a pro footballer is on a 2 week notice period in normal circumstances (especially as these things are two way). Even then, however, you still need to take more steps than simply writing to him.
All this is moot, as Anelka wanted to exit anyway. It's highly likely they would be able to dismiss him for his actions and, given his short contract it'd be very easy, but you can't just write to someone and tell them they are out.
Re: Anelka
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:17 pm
by Hoboh
DEAR MR ******
YOUR FIRED!
Re: Anelka
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:22 pm
by bobo the clown
↑↑↑↑ Yep, that works.
... & little scope for an appeal.
Re: Anelka
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:46 pm
by H. Pedersen
If this is how his career ends, I find it sad. He did so much to rehabilitate his reputation with Bolton . . . now it's lower than ever.
Re: Anelka
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:56 pm
by LeverEnd
Maybe his 'comedian' mate will give him a job. I imagine him to be about as funny as Henry, McIntyre and Djalili