robboman Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 For gross miss conduct... surely not got a leg to stand on?! http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/news/article/20140106-montano-appeal-statement-1279474.aspx#PhzpkmrwzmjIUlHQ.99
robboman Posted January 6, 2014 Author Posted January 6, 2014 Montano* Mis-conduct* (Ive had a beer or 7!)
Stevie_J Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 For gross miss conduct... surely not got a leg to stand on?! http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/news/article/20140106-montano-appeal-statement-1279474.aspx#PhzpkmrwzmjIUlHQ.99 I would assume he was sacked on the basis of bringing the club into disrepute, not something he can really deny (not validly, anyway) after that video. I also think it will be difficult for him to argue that this did not amount to gross misconduct. I don't fancy his chances. And, frankly, he can get to :censored:.
Crusoe Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 As I said before, I reckon he has to appeal. Not appealing would be in many people's eyes an admission of guilt on the allegations, which would destroy his career and potentially make it more difficult for him to dispute any charges the FA brings against him. He may well not have a leg to stand on but still has to go through with the charade. Let's just hope it's over with quickly so we can get on with the season.
peanuts Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Let's just hope it's over with quickly so we can get on with the season. this
jimsleftfoot Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 At this point I would imagine the club feels he has committed gross misconduct before the alleged fraud has been taken into account: 1. Bringing the club into disrepute 2. None performance of work
Crusoe Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Non-performance would be extremely hard to prove. It'll be the disrepute angle.
jimsleftfoot Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Non-performance would be extremely hard to prove. It'll be the disrepute angle. Is it a case of proving it so to speak? There isn't a judge at this stage, just that they have acted reasonably.
Crusoe Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Yes, but you'd still have to prove it to someone (tribunal? not sure at this stage), and I don't see how you could demonstrate that he hasn't performed any more than any other player in the team.
Latics_est_86 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Off to maccy's you go Montano, ill have a big mac and large fries please
BP1960 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 At this point I would imagine the club feels he has committed gross misconduct before the alleged fraud has been taken into account: 1. Bringing the club into disrepute 2. None performance of work I've worked with a lot of non performers in my time, they usually got promoted.
thetramfixer Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I wasn't sure you could suspend a person WITHOUT pay? Maybe that's a mistake and he's going for lost wages as a final act of petulance!
rudemedic Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I wasn't sure you could suspend a person WITHOUT pay? Maybe that's a mistake and he's going for lost wages as a final act of petulance! The club are OK on that one, it is a perfectly legitimate act
Postman Matt Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 The club are OK on that one, it is a perfectly legitimate act In my experience of this normally when people are suspended without pay they tend to find themselves back in employment after the reasons why have been investigated, when people are suspended with pay they normally tend to find themselves out of a job at the end of the investigatation. In Montano's case OAFC quite rightly reserved the right to not pay him whilst suspended as the evidence IMO is irrebutably strong. I agree he has to appeal to save face regardless of whether he has a case or not and being unemployed i'd imagine he has legal aid and will no doubt be getting free council regardless of what profession he has been in.
jsslatic Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I agree he has to appeal to save face regardless of whether he has a case or not and being unemployed i'd imagine he has legal aid and will no doubt be getting free council regardless of what profession he has been in. Legal Aid is now only available in employment cases for Equality Act claims or in connection with trafficking claims. In any event his income and likely assets would more than likely have him over the threshold for eligibility. My understanding too is that this is an internal appeal but I'll stand to be corrected on that. I don't know whether Legal Aid would have been available for that even before the reforms in April 2013.
mikeroyboy Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Whether Montano has a leg to stand on or not, it is not unusual for an employee to chase a lost cause. They have little to lose. A ploy I have come across is for the employee to take it to the wire, literally days before the tribunal. His brief then makes a settlement offer to the club. The club could then weigh this up against the cost of defending the case at the tribunal together with the chances of losing and make a counter offer to their overall advantage.
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Devil's advocate. 1. Contractual and statutory procedures weren't followed. (Witness the almost unbelievable High Court victory of Sharon Shoesmith.) 2. The video doesn't show the whole story. (This could also be his defence before the judge.) He was blackmailed into it by that Sodje one. The fact that he failed to achieve the objective of getting a booking actually counts in his favour. He was doing his best to preserve the integrity of the club under extreme pressure from criminals. Bringing the club into disrepute is a handy catch-all mind you. If you bare your arse and the town hall steps you could be bringing the club into disrepute. Dog-gate could have resulted in everyone involved getting fired for that reason.
jsslatic Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 2. The video doesn't show the whole story. (This could also be his defence before the judge.) He was blackmailed into it by that Sodje one. The fact that he failed to achieve the objective of getting a booking actually counts in his favour. He was doing his best to preserve the integrity of the club under extreme pressure from criminals. Unfortunately there'll be a few hundred witnesses that his performance at Molineux was not preserving the integrity of the club
Latics_est_86 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Devil's advocate. 1. Contractual and statutory procedures weren't followed. (Witness the almost unbelievable High Court victory of Sharon Shoesmith.) 2. The video doesn't show the whole story. (This could also be his defence before the judge.) He was blackmailed into it by that Sodje one. The fact that he failed to achieve the objective of getting a booking actually counts in his favour. He was doing his best to preserve the integrity of the club under extreme pressure from criminals. Bringing the club into disrepute is a handy catch-all mind you. If you bare your arse and the town hall steps you could be bringing the club into disrepute. Dog-gate could have resulted in everyone involved getting fired for that reason. Blackmailed or not, if he loved the game this wouldnt of happend! and im sorry but they are good mates so I cant really see him blackmailing his mate! Plus any football club will want to stay well clear of match fixing its damaging enough on a player never mind a club! Regardless of what has happend or gone on you cant deny the film footage, its there for all to see..................! Edited January 7, 2014 by Latics_est_86
losesome Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 So what happens IF he wins his case !!!!!!!!!!!
pinevillawill Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 So what happens IF he wins his case !!!!!!!!!!! Start him next game and see what reception he gets.
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 So what happens IF he wins his case !!!!!!!!!!! We pay up his contract. Like someone else has said, it's internal at the moment. The trouble might start if there's a tribunal and all that farago.
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Blackmailed or not, if he loved the game this wouldnt of happend! and im sorry but they are good mates so I cant really see him blackmailing his mate! Plus any football club will want to stay well clear of match fixing its damaging enough on a player never mind a club! Regardless of what has happend or gone on you cant deny the film footage, its there for all to see..................! Devil's advocate again. He could argue that he was targeted by Sodje for the simple reason that he, Montano, loves the game so much. (Evil Sodje, in this scenario, thinks, "I can pull this off only with the help of a bright-eyed lad of whom no one could ever believe bad things.) As for mates...no such thing as mates when you're mounting a cut-throat defence. And the film footage is not conclusive if he can present alternative evidence of blackmail or some other kind of coercion, such as "Sodje said he'd kill my kids if I don't go rogue." The film footage might not amount to much anyway if no money ever changed hands. If I were him, I'd keep banging the I-didn't-get-a-booking-after-all drum. He could say he never intended to get a booking--that the video merely shows him placating the baddies while he thinks about how to get them off his back. Don't get me wrong by the way. I hate him just as much as the next man. I just don't reckon the legal / employment case is as watertight as you might think at first sight.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now