Mons tribunal hearing?

[Concrete John]

In both those examples quoted, both managers were on record as saying they didn't want x or y player sold -and then they were from under them.

I don't recall MON ever saying Milner wouldn't be sold, in fact it was him who first talked about the player wanting away and how not much can be done when that happens.

Maybe it was that he didn't want Ireland?

Either wau I agree it'll be a settlement of £?m and we won't actually hear anything of interest coming out of it. 

[Ger Regan]

Maybe it was that he didn't want Ireland?

Either wau I agree it'll be a settlement of £?m and we won't actually hear anything of interest coming out of it. 

I wouldn't be happy if he gets a penny, I'd be absolutely livid if he get gets a figure requiring an m at the end of it. Surely it can't be constructive dismissal, considering the evidence relating to the percentage of wages to turnover? And apologies, this is probably going over old ground again.

[Chris Smith]

Can someone explain the reason for this tribunal? He was on a rolling contract, and resigned. Seems pretty clearcut that he shouldn't get a single penny.

Surely that's for the tribunal to decide.

[Concrete John]

As I understand it constructive dismissal is about the working environment being made impossible for someone when they have no option but to leave.  Like wanting taking a manager you want out and making him clean the toilets.  All I can think of along those lines is the often mentioned 'moving of goalposts' from the start of the summer.   

[Ger Regan]

Surely that's for the tribunal to decide.

Well, yes (although how many times have tribunals / courts come to verdicts that others have found unfathomable?). But if his case is based solely on the fact that he was told to get rid of players before bringing others in, and bearing in mind the wage to turnover ratio, then I don't see how he's got a leg to stand on. In my opinion (better?).

[Greg N'Ash]

As I understand it constructive dismissal is about the working environment being made impossible for someone when they have no option but to leave.  Like wanting taking a manager you want out and making him clean the toilets.  All I can think of along those lines is the often mentioned 'moving of goalposts' from the start of the summer.   

thats why i think he's going after the General. He could probably make a case that some of his briefings on here undermined him

[Concrete John]

I can't remember the general saying anything controversial about MON until after he had left?

[Ger Regan]

I can't remember the general saying anything controversial about MON until after he had left?

You're probably not as allegedly thin-skinned and litigious as our former manager though. Allegedly (for any lawyers lurking).

[andyh]

We were discussing this on Saturday
If he walked, other than constructive dismissal, why would he possibly feel the need to take the club to tribunal ?
What are the chances that actually the club suspended him ?

[Greg N'Ash]

he said a few things that were picked up on on here during MON's reign. I can't be bothered to trawl through years of posts on the prices of the pies to find 'em, but a delicate little flower like MON could possibly have took offence

[Ger Regan]

This is purely conjecture, but considering his actions at other clubs I don't think it's wild fantasy. I have a feeling that he saw the appointment of Faulkner, and the restrictions on transfer dealings put in place over the summer, as reason enough to consider it constructive dismissal.

[Greg N'Ash]

well i don't believe its the transfer money angle. Its not as though MON wasn't allowed to spend a fortune in both transfer fee's and wages. I reckon RL could argue that continued spending could have threatened the future of the club given the losses and that a reasonable manager would understand that.

[Chris Smith]

Surely that's for the tribunal to decide.

Well, yes (although how many times have tribunals / courts come to verdicts that others have found unfathomable?). But if his case is based solely on the fact that he was told to get rid of players before bringing others in, and bearing in mind the wage to turnover ratio, then I don't see how he's got a leg to stand on. In my opinion (better?).

The reasons that others find them unfathomable are usually down to them not having the full facts or not understanding the law.

In this instance it is a specific LMA hearing not a general Employment Tribunal, convened to arbitrate because the two sides have not been able to agree on the terms of the severance. It seems to me only right and proper that such a mechanism exists to offer protection to employees in profession where bosses are often very quick to dismiss.

I think the problem is that emotional involvement is causing us to view at something more sinister.

[austin]

emotional involvement is about right.

it felt like being dumped by the missus and not being told why.

give me MON over Houllier anyday of the week. At least he seemed like he believed in the Villa.

[Ger Regan]

The reasons that others find them unfathomable are usually down to them not having the full facts or not understanding the law.

In this instance it is a specific LMA hearing not a general Employment Tribunal, convened to arbitrate because the two sides have not been able to agree on the terms of the severance. It seems to me only right and proper that such a mechanism exists to offer protection to employees in profession where bosses are often very quick to dismiss.

I think the problem is that emotional involvement is causing us to view at something more sinister.

Actually, now that I think about it, isn't that another issue? If it's a LMA hearing, surely their impartiality is as questionable as mine, or am I missing something (which is highly probable)? It would be like the PFA holding a tribunal on a player being sacked / fined heavily by a club. Their M.O. is to look after the interests of managers, not to judge who is in the right / wrong.