-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* English Football Season 2015-16
- Thread starter Furball
- Start date
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Given the money spent this is miles worse.
Look at that United bench today. Yes they have some injuries but that bench is a joke.
Niall
International Coach
I love the defense LVG fans use though when they point to injuries because as you know in 2016 nobody gets injured these days
They had a nice finish to the season last year, but in truth they only got top 4 due to Liverpool been absolutely toilet and Spurs showing no consistency whatsoever.
They had the chance to cut LVG ages ago, but decided to stick with him and it has proven to be a huge error as no chance of top 4 whatsoever now.
I take this back, saved me from what would have been a rather miserable afternoon.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Particularly when his team stuffs up my coupon.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
I wonder if Sunderland have a case to sue Johnson for the wages they've paid him since March.
Was accused in March, Johnson denied all charges and Sunderland stood by him and continued to pay him for 11 months, only to sack him once he pleads guilty. Given that what he's done is a sackable offence, he's essentially earned his pay in that period fraudulently.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I've no idea on what the law is, but my opinions:
1. The country works on the basis of innocent until proven guilty and employers absolutely must not be exempted from that. The fact he has wound up guilty is neither here nor there. Until such time as he is found guilty then imo an employer should not be allowed to terminate a contract. Suspend him, sure, but that should be on full pay.
2. I don't see how him being guilty negatively impacts on what he has done in the intervening period. He still earned his wages as much as any other member of the squad in that time.
Yes Johnson knew all along that he was guilty but where do we draw the line? What if they sack him, he pleads not guilty and somehow gets found not guilty? What then?
1. The country works on the basis of innocent until proven guilty and employers absolutely must not be exempted from that. The fact he has wound up guilty is neither here nor there. Until such time as he is found guilty then imo an employer should not be allowed to terminate a contract. Suspend him, sure, but that should be on full pay.
2. I don't see how him being guilty negatively impacts on what he has done in the intervening period. He still earned his wages as much as any other member of the squad in that time.
Yes Johnson knew all along that he was guilty but where do we draw the line? What if they sack him, he pleads not guilty and somehow gets found not guilty? What then?
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
it's not that he's just been found guilty though is it? He's pleaded guilty to some of the charges that were put to him in March. So it could be said he's earned his money since on false pretensions.
Where's Fertang when you need him, mind you he will probably think it was all okay if he was to be consistent with his posts in off-topic.
Where's Fertang when you need him, mind you he will probably think it was all okay if he was to be consistent with his posts in off-topic.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Edit: @ GIMH
Yeah, the general rule is that a pending criminal conviction is not normally a valid reason for any disciplinary action at all, let alone dismissal.
If Sunderland felt the allegations were serious enough they would have been entitled to suspend him (on full pay), but him maintaining a stance of not-guilty doesn't really come into things at all so far as the law is concerned.
Furthermore, someone actually being convicted of something won't be enough to warrant a de facto disciplinary/sacking either. Consideration needs to be given in respect of the effects the conviction has on an employee's suitability to do their job, and the effect it has on the relationship with their employer/customers etc...
Yeah, the general rule is that a pending criminal conviction is not normally a valid reason for any disciplinary action at all, let alone dismissal.
If Sunderland felt the allegations were serious enough they would have been entitled to suspend him (on full pay), but him maintaining a stance of not-guilty doesn't really come into things at all so far as the law is concerned.
Furthermore, someone actually being convicted of something won't be enough to warrant a de facto disciplinary/sacking either. Consideration needs to be given in respect of the effects the conviction has on an employee's suitability to do their job, and the effect it has on the relationship with their employer/customers etc...
Last edited:
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
So what, should you have to decide your plea as soon as you're charged or your employer can sack you?
Look, I'm not defending Johnson. Obviously. And from what we've heard this far it certainly seems he's absolutely banged to rights. But let's not pretend that everyone who pleads guilty does so because they are, in fact, guilty. There are all sorts of reasons why you would do it, and all sorts of pressure the fuzz put you under to do so before you are even charged.
I just don't think there's any argument for this. He turned up and played for them. Whether they would or wouldn't have sacked him is neither here nor there. He did his job and until the other day wasn't convicted of his offences.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Yeah, agree.