Employment Rules Of Conduct

[Flosshilde]

Who's my hero then, Flossie?

That nice Mr Farage, who consorts with racists in the European Parliament.

[teamsaint]

Is that quite accurate? The sacking was, according to that story, for both offences:

"The club is sacking him for his conduct that day and his social media outburst." The FA had already suspended him for 5 matches, fined him £80,000 and ordered him to attend an education course. The club suspended him and, in addition, wanted him to apologise.

So you could say that it wasn't two different offences and two different punishments; more that his refusal to accept the terms of his original punishment - which he publicised in the tweet - resulted in his sacking. No? I don't understand the workings of football disciplinary measures.

#

do you want to hear an interesting little anecdote about these, at a local level? It will demonstrate their absurdity, and totalitarian tendencies.............:)

[Beef Oven!]

That nice Mr Farage, who consorts with racists in the European Parliament.

HeHe, no, I've got better heroes than Niggles!

[french frank]

#

do you want to hear an interesting little anecdote about these, at a local level? It will demonstrate their absurdity, and totalitarian tendencies.............:)

Well, those of us still focused on the topic in the OP might be interested, team

:-)

[Beef Oven!]

Is that quite accurate? The sacking was, according to that story, for both offences:

"The club is sacking him for his conduct that day and his social media outburst." The FA had already suspended him for 5 matches, fined him £80,000 and ordered him to attend an education course. The club suspended him and, in addition, wanted him to apologise.

So you could say that it wasn't two different offences and two different punishments; more that his refusal to accept the terms of his original punishment - which he publicised in the tweet - resulted in his sacking. No? I don't understand the workings of football disciplinary measures.

West Brom disciplined him, and placed conditions on his return from suspension. Nothing unusual about that, except they could have sacked him, given the very serious allegations that had been substantiated against him. It's up to them to decide on a response and finally an Employment Tribunal to decide if their response fell within a reasonable range of responses (whether an application is made remains to be seen).

West Brom seemed to have lost patience with him when he wouldn't agree to the conditions placed on him. They said that they considered his refusal to accept the conditions and his communication on twitter as an act of gross-misconduct.

They are compromising themselves somewhat by now saying that one of the reasons that they are sacking him, is something they had already decided did not warrant dismissal. I understand their thinking, but technically it's messy and risky.

[jean]

so, again, anti-Zionist comments are being called anti-semitic, which they aren't.

They are often a proxy for anti-semitism, though.

[teamsaint]

oh well, relevant or not, here is my little tale.

A mate of mine runs an under 11 team, in a nearby county association. He is the nicest bloke you could wish to meet, and puts a considerable amount of effort running the team, and with a fair degree of success.

Last season, the team reached the semi final of the county cup competition. They won the game, and there was general excitement all round at reaching the final.

Next morning, mate is emailing in the official forms, when he realises to his horror that he has fielded an ineligible player. By that stage, you can't play in a cup game unless you have played in four earlier league or cup games. This particular player had only played three, due to spending half his weekends elsewhere .
Mate decides to do the honest thing, and fills in the forms truthfully, with some mitigating factors. It was a big deal for those kids.
Anyway, the county FA charge him with all the offences, and he asks for a personal hearing. One of the other coaches had access to some heavy duty legal guys, who found lots of holes in the rules, and submit a document to show these holes.

The case comes up, and its a straight disqualification for his team, and the place in the final to the opposition. So, very upset mate has to go and face all the parents and kids (aged 10!!)to tell them that the dream final is not to be, not a very nice situation as you can imagine. Luckily. he is able to explain it well, and the parents are fully supportive, despite the huge disappointment.
The opposition are also upset, because they felt that they hadn't in fact earned the right to the place in the final.
Everybody who was actually involved wanted a replay , the logical fair and sensible solution, without of course the technically ineligible player, but the county FA blazers decided that the law is the law, and that was the end of the matter.
What an awful example to set to very young kids, who do get some great role models inside football, people like my mate for instance.

[Beef Oven!]

oh well, relevant or not, here it is.

A mate of mine runs an under 11 team, in a nearby county association. He is the nicest bloke you could wish to meet, and puts a considerable amount of effort running the team, and with a fair degree of success.

Last season, the team reached the semi final of the county cup competition. They won the game, and there was general excitement all round at reaching the final.

Next morning, mate is emailing in the official forms, when he realises to his horror that he has fielded an ineligible player. By that stage, you can't play in a cup game unless you have played in four earlier league or cup games. This particular player had only played three, due to spending half his weekends elsewhere .
Mate decides to do the honest thing, and fills in the forms truthfully, with some mitigating factors.
Anyway, the county FA charge him with all the offences, and he asks for a personal hearing. One of the other coaches had access to some heavy duty legal guys, who found lots of holes in the rules, and submit a document to show these holes.

The case comes up, and its a straight disqualification for his team, and the place in the final to the opposition. So, very upset mate has to go and face all the parents and kids (aged 10!!)to tell them that the dream final is not to be, not a very nice situation as you can imagine. Luckily. he is able to explain it well, and the parents are fully supportive, despite the huge disappointment.
The opposition are also upset, because they felt that they hadn't in fact earned the right to the place in the final.
Everybody who was actually involved wanted a replay , the logical fair and sensible solution, without of course the technically ineligible player, but the county FA blazers decided that the law is the law, and that was the end of the matter.
What an awful example to set to very young kids, who do get some great role models inside football, people like my mate for instance.

It's always been like that ts. You can't field ringers. Your friend is probably a good bloke, but how do you tell the difference? I know, because as a kid, I was used as a ringer on a few occasions, including using different dates of birth and names (I was only 13/14 so blame the adults!). It's called cheating!

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about measures that clubs should take to kick racism out of football and the vagaries of employment law!!!

[amateur51]

West Brom disciplined him, and placed conditions on his return from suspension. Nothing unusual about that, except they could have sacked him, given the very serious allegations that had been substantiated against him. It's up to them to decide on a response and finally an Employment Tribunal to decide if their response fell within a reasonable range of responses (whether an application is made remains to be seen).

West Brom seemed to have lost patience with him when he wouldn't agree to the conditions placed on him. They said that they considered his refusal to accept the conditions and his communication on twitter as an act of gross-misconduct.

They are compromising themselves somewhat by now saying that one of the reasons that they are sacking him, is something they had already decided did not warrant dismissal. I understand their thinking, but technically it's messy and risky.

It had nothing to do with his being paid £45,000/week for scoring very few goals of course.

He's past his sell-by date. He's become an expensive liabiity and so driven to distraction by his antics they've got shot of him.

End of.

[teamsaint]

Beefy,you are right. The law is the law.
He was lucky to get off without a custodial sentence.

[Beef Oven!]

Beefy,you are right. The law is the law.
He was lucky to get off without a custodial sentence.

Well that's going a bit too far. Has he been on a ringer-awareness training course?

Get back on topic?

[teamsaint]

Well that's going a bit too far. Has he been on a ringer-awareness training course?

Yup, an EU run course to boot.

Mind you he made a fortune on the spread betting, and retired to sandbanks.

[Beef Oven!]

Yup, an EU run course to boot.

Mind you he made a fortune on the spread betting, and retired to sandbanks.

EU funded? Surprised they've got any money left after all those cheeses they've been saving and footing the bill for niche Albanian comb and tracing paper instrumentalist gigs!

[Flosshilde]

Get back on topic?

Something you'd know all about, of course.


Not.

[Beef Oven!]

Something you'd know all about, of course.


Not.

Here goes.

Seems the Americans take it more seriously. Apparently a black referee got suspended for directing the 'n' word at a black player.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-26461125