*Official* English Football Season 2015-16

[GIMH]

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...

The last bit is interesting as I'm sure my contract states I'd be terminated should i have any convictions. Maybe it just says they could terminate, which I suppose fits

 

[grecian]

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.

In the end surely it all depends on the contract he had with Sunderland, footballers earn an huge amount of money and they generally have clauses in them.

 

[sledger]

The last bit is interesting as I'm sure my contract states I'd be terminated should i have any convictions. Maybe it just says they could terminate, which I suppose fits

Yeah, generally speaking (so far as I can tell), a contractual provision that says you would be sacked for any conviction would on the face of things not be lawful. A couple of cases have generally suggested that an employer failing to consider the above criteria re: impact of the conviction on the employee/employer relationship would be grounds for an unfair dismissal action.

That said, on the other hand, so far as most criminal convictions are concerned, it wouldn't be hard for an employer to demonstrate their relationship with the employee was damaged beyond repair anyway. Most common criminal offences generally require an element of dishonesty, recklessness, dangerousness etc... and these are generally characteristics that would undermine someone's ability to do most jobs, I should imagine.

 

[GIMH]

In the end surely it all depends on the contract he had with Sunderland, footballers earn an huge amount of money and they generally have clauses in them.

Well yeah, but like I said before, I was giving my opinion not my interpretation of the law. And I don't think having clauses that allow termination for having been accused of offences by our never overstepping law enforcement agencies would be right. But if there's something in there then whether he would have to is different, I personally would be surprised but like you say, See what the lawyers say

 

[sledger]

In the end surely it all depends on the contract he had with Sunderland, footballers earn an huge amount of money and they generally have clauses in them.

Employers can't just contract themselves out of their legal obligations re: unfair dismissal though.

As above, most employment contracts will contain clauses which specify that criminal convictions may be a ground for dismissal. But generally speaking, that doesn't give them an inalienable right just to pull the trigger without considering the other issues, as hashed out above.

 

[fredfertang]

Unlike Mr Z I'm not an employment lawyer, but I'm sure a pending police investigation is not a reason in itself why an employer can't pursue a disciplinary - it would be an absurdity if a staff member stole from you and you couldn't bin him immediately if you chose to dob him in to the Old Bill - the difficulty with this case would have been that however thorough an investigation Sunderland carried out they could only ever conclude that he'd been accused of something not work related that he denied, and that might make it tricky to fairly dismiss, although the 'some other substantial reason' catch all is, in my very limited experience, very useful to employers in such circumstances

 

[Uppercut]

Honestly think this United season is worse than 13/14, just less spectacular and surprising. And it should've been much better.

Given that Moyes got to the CL quarters and only narrowly lost to Bayern, only the FA Cup can save it.

We've probably performed worse, yeah. Moyes was definitely the worse manager, possibly the worst manager any PL club has ever had, given the difference in results before/after his appointment and how quickly he wiped out our entire coaching infrastructure. LVG hasn't been in the same league of dire- he wasn't given enough power to match Moyes's mismanagement even if he actively tried. Most of our poor performance while he's been in charge has had more to do with those above him. But what he has had to do, he's generally done very badly. Our tactics are probably the worst in the division, maybe second-worst to Villa, he regularly makes some seriously odd selection decisions, and he clearly has almost no motivational qualities. For all the mistakes made by those above him, there's no denying he's been a properly ****e manager.

 

[GIMH]

Think you've said it yourself before, but Moyes to you is Barnes to me isn't he?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

possibly the worst manager any PL club has ever had

lol

 

[Nate]

There were some cracking goals overnight, goodness me.

 

[Uppercut]

Think you've said it yourself before, but Moyes to you is Barnes to me isn't he?

Haha yeah exactly. The media started coming out with a 'nice man out of his depth' story, but when he was at Everton his image was one of an autocratic, stubborn, harsh disciplinarian. He still doesn't admit to having made any mistakes. His line is that he 'didn't have time to succeed or fail' in the role.

I think for Liverpool fans it's Hodgson.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

possibly the worst manager any PL club has ever had,

Les Reed
Terry Connor
Mick McCarthy
Mike Walker

 

[Cabinet96]

Can't believe Welbeck is actually in a match day squad again.

 

[grecian]

Haha yeah exactly. The media started coming out with a 'nice man out of his depth' story, but when he was at Everton his image was one of an autocratic, stubborn, harsh disciplinarian. He still doesn't admit to having made any mistakes. His line is that he 'didn't have time to succeed or fail' in the role.

I think for Liverpool fans it's Hodgson.

For older Liverpoolfans it's probably Souness, a man that decided to dismantle the entire boot-room thing because, yeah that wasn't working.

 

[GIMH]

For older Liverpoolfans it's probably Souness, a man that decided to dismantle the entire boot-room thing because, yeah that wasn't working.

Was thinking this, though I suppose he has his popularity as a player to fall back on (my old man ranks him as the second best he's seen for them)

 

[MW1304]

That's huge. A very footbally foul but a foul nonetheless.

 

[Cabinet96]

Can't be bothered with this.

 

[vcs]

Would like Arsenal to win here but got to love Leicester's fairy tale.

That was some penalty by Vardy. The confidence!

 

[Cabinet96]

Hope Atkinson and Vardy die together.

 

[Compton]

Chat ****, get banged. What were you thinking mouthing off, Giroud?!