Diego_Sideburns Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I was apoplectic in the dying stages of the first half when, after a Wolves corner was cleared to the edge of our own penalty area, Montano failed to use what was essentially the freedom of Molineux and hit them on the break. He instead opted to slow down, cut back, and lost the ball. At the time I thought it was symptomatic of the negative way we had set out that evening (none up front, although LJ would have you believe we played three up front), but in hindsight I remain highly suspicious after the nature of the allegations made. I wonder if the CPS looked at video evidence of his first half antics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepingthe Faith Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Although the club certainly gave the impression that they took legal advice throughout. Original statement from CM Solicitors http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/news/article/20131216-statement-1238989.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Indeed. The article relies solely on the view of Montano's lawyer and, slightly more worryingly, the PFA.Yep, it's like our visiting friends who had read up on the Evans case. They are quite entitled to ask the players rep to leave if he doesn't follow procedure (answering questions on his behalf etc). Nothing that happened afterwards (eg Evans) is relevant, it's about the process at that point. And he hasn't done his 2 years unless he tries to squeeze a cocktail and bull discrimination element in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hands on Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Probably a case of seeing who will blink first followed by an out of tribunal settlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshgaz Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 We sacked him before an investigation though? Which puts us in a world of :censored:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 We sacked him before an investigation though? Which puts us in a world of :censored:.They statement says they thoroughly investigated the matters they sacked him on. If those were reasonable things like his verdict or anything else he had going on don't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticio Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 He is also out of time for pursuing a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. The time limit is 3 months from the date of dismissal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I think the club's decision to sack him was right but it doesn't sound as if it was handled at all properly, based on the Independent article. Refusing to follow procedures, refusing to allow the employee to have his legal representative there and asking his union rep to leave part way through is all very reckless.You don't HAVE to allow legal representation at a dismissal hearing; only if that dismissal hearing would prevent the person working in the field again, which isn't e case here. As per Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital. You do have to allow them a representative though, which is usually someone from the employees union. For the club not to allow Montano his lawyer is a bit stupid. Maybe because Montano had actually hired a lawyer with an employment law background and we were relying on the services of our sponsors, who don't have one. So much for them being top lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 We sacked him before an investigation though? Which puts us in a world of :censored:. I understand there may be other unrelated factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 You don't HAVE to allow legal representation at a dismissal hearing; only if that dismissal hearing would prevent the person working in the field again, which isn't e case here. As per Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital. You do have to allow them a representative though, which is usually someone from the employees union. For the club not to allow Montano his lawyer is a bit stupid. Maybe because Montano had actually hired a lawyer with an employment law background and we were relying on the services of our sponsors, who don't have one. So much for them being top lawyers. No, you don't necessarily have to. Employment law is not really my thing but I think I'm right in saying the the employer's not allowing a specific individual attend a disciplinary meeting have to reasonable. Coupling the club's refusal to allow his lawyer to attend with ejecting the PFA rep doesn't sound great though. But, really, we don't have enough information to judge whether the club have compromised themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticio Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Unless Montano commenced a claim in the Employment Tribunal within 3 months of his dismissal it is extremely unlikely he will be able to pursue a claim arising out of his dismissal in the Tribunal for unfair dismissal. The case law is fairly well settled in this area (I am an employment lawyer btw). Therefore arguments about the fairness of the procedure and his right to representation are pretty irrelevant. He can, however, pursue a claim in the County Court for breach of contract. The time limit for such claims is 6 years. This claim would be limited to unpaid wages and the remainder of his contract term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceStationLatic Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure I read about him taking legal action not long after he was sacked. It probably didn't get much coverage because everyone at the time just laughed....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Surely, if we took legal advice, it's our solicitor's PI insurer that needs to worry about all this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagger Lee Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Surely, if we took legal advice, it's our solicitor's PI insurer that needs to worry about all this? Only if we followed the advice to the letter Would 'forcibly remove the union rep' be part of that advice? ..... I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Unless Montano commenced a claim in the Employment Tribunal within 3 months of his dismissal it is extremely unlikely he will be able to pursue a claim arising out of his dismissal in the Tribunal for unfair dismissal. The case law is fairly well settled in this area (I am an employment lawyer btw). Therefore arguments about the fairness of the procedure and his right to representation are pretty irrelevant. He can, however, pursue a claim in the County Court for breach of contract. The time limit for such claims is 6 years. This claim would be limited to unpaid wages and the remainder of his contract term.So who died and made you the expert? Oh sorry. As you were. Edited January 17, 2015 by leeslover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I always felt we were a bit hasty on this, despite the fact that I totally agree with the end result having watched that tape. Could we not have suspended him without pay for the course of the trial instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Apparent article in the independant (starting to dislike that paper), apparently we could be in to loose £100k with loss wages and all, if he is successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Just heard him on the radio saying he believes Latics have double standards having just tried to sign Ched Evans, that he was only accused and now cleared. Also that he believes on the day Oldham announced the charges against him the club arranged his arrest. Wait for the next move? Edited January 27, 2015 by Lags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamoafc Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 He has a point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nohairdontcare Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Why won't anyone ask him the obvious question: "Can you explain what you were caught on camera saying?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 He has a point... About the double standards? No. He doesn't. He was supposedly sacked for a multitude offences. One of which was being caught on camera admitting to fraud and to screwing us over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIZZO83 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 He has a point... How does he have a point.....he was caught on camera trying to get booked which could of resulted in a sending off and ultimately could have effected our result. I hope he never gets a club in Britain again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Why won't anyone ask him the obvious question: "Can you explain what you were caught on camera saying?" Acting under duress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamoafc Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 How does he have a point.....he was caught on camera trying to get booked which could of resulted in a sending off and ultimately could have effected our result. I hope he never gets a club in Britain again! I'd rather have a 'fraudster' even though he's been found not guilty... Than a convicted rapist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'd rather have a 'fraudster' even though he's been found not guilty... Than a convicted rapist... Nicely misrepresented there. Amongst other things (according to club) Montano has been caught on camera admitting to fraud, in betrayal of the trust given to him by his teammates, the staff and the supporters of the club. Ched Evans has been questionably found guilty in the opinion of the court of having sex with a woman after she had crossed the "was she too drunk to consent or not" threshold. He has also served time for his alleged crime. Who would I want at my club? Certainly not Montano. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.