Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Varney, Kavanagh, and Everitt! (Page 13: Note from Rick Everitt)

1679111247

Comments

  • seth plum said:

    OK, but it's the 'slightly critical' bit I don't get, because I can't really remember critical of the club stuff.

    because there have not been any. Saying 'I'll just be glad if we get to the start of the season with the current squad intact' could be something any of us could say. It could be interpreted in various ways but you can't use that as a reason for gross misconduct. It would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

  • He eluded to the fact that the club would do well to see the season out amongst other things.

    Please find where he said that. He did not. If that is how you interpreted what he said then that is down to you.

  • seth plum said:

    OK, but it's the 'slightly critical' bit I don't get, because I can't really remember critical of the club stuff.

    because there have not been any. Saying 'I'll just be glad if we get to the start of the season with the current squad intact' could be something any of us could say. It could be interpreted in various ways but you can't use that as a reason for gross misconduct. It would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

    See, this is where I think differently. The comment was made on a thread about ownership speculation and financial difficulties. A senior member of staff contributing to such speculation could be deemed gross misconduct in my opinion.
  • He eluded to the fact that the club would do well to see the season out amongst other things.

    Please find where he said that. He did not. If that is how you interpreted what he said then that is down to you.



    I thought it was me that said that and not airman might be wrong it was a fair few weeks ago

  • seth plum said:

    OK, but it's the 'slightly critical' bit I don't get, because I can't really remember critical of the club stuff.

    because there have not been any. Saying 'I'll just be glad if we get to the start of the season with the current squad intact' could be something any of us could say. It could be interpreted in various ways but you can't use that as a reason for gross misconduct. It would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

    Whilst any of us could say certain things we are all not in senior positions at the football club and that is what could cause a problem.

  • I wasnt on this forum when Airman made the supposed comments - can anyone point me to them so i can have a read?
  • I don't think he did I believe he was commenting on something that had been said and I think it was me that had posted it
  • I don't think he did I believe he was commenting on something that had been said and I think it was me that had posted it

    Oh, so its your fault ?!
  • Yeah blame the fat kid 8+(
  • I think that since Airman could not be being sacked for writing anything naughty on this forum,* then the club must have declared some other substantial and tangible reason for sacking him.
    I don't think Airman has been sacked for failing to bring support into the ground that's for sure.
    BTW, who is going to do the getting the attendances up job now the sacking has occoured?

    *Post the evidence not the speculation.
  • Sponsored links:


  • seth plum said:

    I think that since Airman could not be being sacked for writing anything naughty on this forum,* then the club must have declared some other substantial and tangible reason for sacking him.
    I don't think Airman has been sacked for failing to bring support into the ground that's for sure.
    BTW, who is going to do the getting the attendances up job now the sacking has occoured?

    *Post the evidence not the speculation.

    You're speculating by saying he's been sacked. Where's the evidence Seth?
  • I wasnt on this forum when Airman made the supposed comments - can anyone point me to them so i can have a read?

    What Airman said - in the thread 'Slater Statement' - which was about an answer Slater gave to the South Londn Press in response to a question about the rumours of financial problems at the club. Slater said:

    ' I've heard about some gossip about the club, but for the last year and a half we have consistently said that we will operate the club on sound commercial principles,and I believe last seasons success vindicates our approach. Last summer Chris signed players to create a team that we believed would be able to compete in the Championship, so although he is looking to bring in a few new players , there is nothing like the urgency of last summer and we will not be rushed into decisions. We are not inactive in the transfer market, but the fact is that in League One we were a big fish in a small pond ,whereas in the Championship there are plenty of other big clubs vying for the players we are trying to sign'

    And Airman commented later in the thread:

    'Airman Brown Member
    July 7
    Personally as of today I would be happy to start and end the season with the current manager, the current squad and finish 21st. However, that isn't living within our means, it will require funding'.

    Which may have been interpreted in various ways by other posters (and our owners?) but would seem a rather flimsy basis for dismissal on the grounds of 'breach of trust' or 'gross misconduct' etc

  • seth plum said:

    OK, but it's the 'slightly critical' bit I don't get, because I can't really remember critical of the club stuff.

    It would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

    An employment tribunal is not a Court of Law though.

  • I believe this is the comment Lifers are talking about:

    Posted 6 July 2012 on Charlton Life site:

    Airman Brown
    6:10PM Member
    Personally as of today I would be happy to start and end the season with the current manager, the current squad and finish 21st. However, that isn't living within our means, it will require funding.
  • Addickted said:

    seth plum said:

    OK, but it's the 'slightly critical' bit I don't get, because I can't really remember critical of the club stuff.

    It would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

    An employment tribunal is not a Court of Law though.

    Very good point.
  • Addickted said:

    seth plum said:

    OK, but it's the 'slightly critical' bit I don't get, because I can't really remember critical of the club stuff.

    It would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

    An employment tribunal is not a Court of Law though.

    Not strictly true, they are legally binding and their decisions must be followed.

    If either party wants to appeal an ET decision it goes to the Appeal Courts, the main difference is that the initial court stage is missed out and it allows employment law experts to sit on the tribunal which a normal court might not have - a judge in a court of first instance won't necessarily have the same expertise.
  • Another point about ET's - they are held under oath and you can get done for perjury if you tell any porkies.
  • ETs are not part of the Legal System though - they are Government independant.
  • Another point about ET's - they are held under oath and you can get done for perjury if you tell any porkies.

    Dont make me laugh. Perjury. Have you ever heard of anyone been done for Perjury ?!

    My ex lied under oath about me not paying maintenance for 5 years (which i had),and did they charge her with Perjury ? Dont make me laugh.
  • The point is that they are legally binding and their decisions must be followed. If an employer doesn't follow a decision in a case they have lost and if they don't appeal it then they are in contempt of court.

    The Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council governs tribunals and the way they are run. This council has an Ombudsman who reports to parliament.
  • Sponsored links:


  • seth plum said:

    I think that since Airman could not be being sacked for writing anything naughty on this forum,* then the club must have declared some other substantial and tangible reason for sacking him.
    I don't think Airman has been sacked for failing to bring support into the ground that's for sure.
    BTW, who is going to do the getting the attendances up job now the sacking has occoured?

    *Post the evidence not the speculation.

    You're speculating by saying he's been sacked. Where's the evidence Seth?
    Yeah, I can't go back in time to supply you with the evidence, I just know what is about to happen in the future. Tell you what, I will bet you £100 that it is true...he has been sacked, and we will know for absolute certain come October.
  • Meanwhile, back in the real world ............ employers lose employment tribunals all the time and nothing changes. Bit of compo changes hands and that's that.
  • Bangkok Dave

    Well I'm glad to hear of your strong family roots with Charlton, maybe your Dad and my Dad are neighbours on the brick wall at the Valley.

    But in that case I am puzzled as to why you are one of the small but vocal group on here who have in the last few months thought to belittle every post of those like me who seek to raise concerns about the way the club is currently being run.

    And I'm sorry to say that I find your posts equally condescending when you continually tell us that we should shut up because this is a business. You think nobody here knows that? You think nobody here is in business?? Well I am, and I have more than once tried to engage you on the specific aspects of the club and football generally as a business. So I'll try again. What exactly is this "new structure" they are putting in, how do you believe it will increase revenue for the club? If the previous regime was so useless off the pitch, how come our average gates are above those of Palace and Millwall despite the indignities of the last 5 years on the pitch? What previous success in football do the new owners have that suggests to you that their "new structure", whatever it is, is something proven to work better than the one they are replacing?

    If you are a businessman, then lets have a proper debate here about the business strategy of our club, just as we all have debates about tactics on the pitch. And if you are not yourself a businessman, please be aware that you are going to upset people like myself by telling us that "it's a business, now move along", when some of us have spent the last 20 years endeavouring to understand both Charlton and football generally as a business - in my case with the advantage of a 'day job' which has been working either for or with some of the best businesses in the world, and thus having an idea what a decent business strategy looks like, and an insight into the importance of people in actually implementing a strategy.

    Sorry, that has been a rant, but I am getting really, really exasperated.
  • Think it's time for a brandy PA ; )
  • Another point about ET's - they are held under oath and you can get done for perjury if you tell any porkies.

    Dont make me laugh. Perjury. Have you ever heard of anyone been done for Perjury ?!
    Jerffrey Archer. Tommy Sheridan. Jonanthan Aitken. All of whom went to prison.

  • I really can't understand why we need to know the whys & wherefores of Rick's departure.

    He's left the building, sadly. Enough said.

    I'm sure that the truth will out in time & knowing Rick , we'll see him again before too long ,working in some shape or form for the Club he loves, although not necessarily as a paid employee.

    What I do believe we should acknowledge from this though, is that something nasty "could" be lurking in the woodpile. Something that Peter Varney, Steve Kavanagh and now Rick were not prepared to deal with.

    And what we should be asking is, where & when will this all end ?
  • Bangkok Dave

    Well I'm glad to hear of your strong family roots with Charlton, maybe your Dad and my Dad are neighbours on the brick wall at the Valley.

    But in that case I am puzzled as to why you are one of the small but vocal group on here who have in the last few months thought to belittle every post of those like me who seek to raise concerns about the way the club is currently being run.

    And I'm sorry to say that I find your posts equally condescending when you continually tell us that we should shut up because this is a business. You think nobody here knows that? You think nobody here is in business?? Well I am, and I have more than once tried to engage you on the specific aspects of the club and football generally as a business. So I'll try again. What exactly is this "new structure" they are putting in, how do you believe it will increase revenue for the club? If the previous regime was so useless off the pitch, how come our average gates are above those of Palace and Millwall despite the indignities of the last 5 years on the pitch? What previous success in football do the new owners have that suggests to you that their "new structure", whatever it is, is something proven to work better than the one they are replacing?

    If you are a businessman, then lets have a proper debate here about the business strategy of our club, just as we all have debates about tactics on the pitch. And if you are not yourself a businessman, please be aware that you are going to upset people like myself by telling us that "it's a business, now move along", when some of us have spent the last 20 years endeavouring to understand both Charlton and football generally as a business - in my case with the advantage of a 'day job' which has been working either for or with some of the best businesses in the world, and thus having an idea what a decent business strategy looks like, and an insight into the importance of people in actually implementing a strategy.

    Sorry, that has been a rant, but I am getting really, really exasperated.

    A business that was run so well in previous seasons that we had to go cap in hand to 'this lot' to get us out of the sh*t pit we got ourselves in.

    I agree with a lot of what you say Prague but you seem to have forgotten why the likes of Jimenez are here in the first place.

    I don't like the look of 'em one bit,but they payed their money (allegedly) ...
  • Just the dropping of seven balls for one of us on a Friday night and all this goes away.
  • Think it's time for a brandy PA ; )

    Haven't you heard? The Czechs have imposed prohibition on all alcohol over 20% after 22 people died last week of methyl-alcohol poisoning.
  • Yes, but we know you've got a secret stash!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!