lookersstandandy Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 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. I don't expect him accept a rejection of this appeal without fighting it yet further. I fear [at least] the involvement of the PFA and/or The Football League before this can be put to bed. I just hope we don't witness involvement from an employment tribunal, or worse the UK or European courts. The cost of which would spiral way beyond that of his outstanding contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 What went on between him and Dodgy Sodje isn't really the point. If he was sacked through a fair and reasonable process we win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I'm sure there are others are more clued up about the ins and outs of the legality surrounding Montano's case. It seems to me though that whether or not he defends himself with regard to the spot fixing allegations, he might still have a case regarding unfair dismissal. Even if it's later proved he's guilty, could he still argue the right protocols weren't followed and we got rid without a fair trial? However wrong that would be, he's not been found guilty of anything as it stands. You'd have thought he'd have showed some decorum but there's obviously someone telling him he's got a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Without knowing the ins and outs of the club's internal investigation/disciplinary process it's difficult to say with certainty. However, with the information available to us I'd say any appeal against the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings wouldn't be upheld. Assuming the dismissal was for Gross Misconduct ie. bringing the company name into disrepute, there is little doubt that having his name plastered all over the press, replete with video footage, could be construed as such. The outcome of a criminal trial has no impact on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 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. This is key for me, some of the rumours I've heard on here don't sound all that promising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 But there is a difference between the legal and employment cases. The dismissal is because he has brought the club into disrepute by stating that he tried to spot fix. Whether he did it or not is a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Without knowing the ins and outs of the club's internal investigation/disciplinary process it's difficult to say with certainty. However, with the information available to us I'd say any appeal against the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings wouldn't be upheld. Assuming the dismissal was for Gross Misconduct ie. bringing the company name into disrepute, there is little doubt that having his name plastered all over the press, replete with video footage, could be construed as such. The outcome of a criminal trial has no impact on this. Devil's advocate here again. He might argue that actually getting a booking would constitute gross misconduct and bringing into disrepute. He didn't get a booking. He's not bad, just under pressure and misunderstood by the club. As far as Montano's future goes, he'll probably find Barry right outside the prison gates, waving a contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Forget all this. Montano will win cock all. He's out on his ear. Losing his job at Latics is the very least of his worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 He might argue that actually getting a booking would constitute gross misconduct and bringing into disrepute. He might. And he'd be told the mere intent, as per the documented footage, is sufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Devil's advocate here again. He might argue that actually getting a booking would constitute gross misconduct and bringing into disrepute. He didn't get a booking. He's not bad, just under pressure and misunderstood by the club. He did get booked in the next game he started in the first half which he allegedly offered too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 He did get booked in the next game he started in the first half which he allegedly offered too... ...under more severe pressure. He held out for as long as he could. (I'm running out of road here.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I can't see how the PFA/ FL would side with him tbh because not only has he brought the club into disrepute but also the game. Given the nature of the allegation I would have thought that LJ would have had him in the office first thing Monday morning before training (after watching the video footage numerous times on Sunday) and suspended him on full pay pending further investigations ( I believe he wasn't on pay for the few days whilst the investigations were being carried out?), in other words until LJ had spoken with SC and decided the course of action to be taken. After the investigations had taken place CM plus his agent/ solicitor or witness of Montano's choice would be invited in to answer the allegation of 'spot fixing', after that another meeting should have taken place for the disciplinary action to be imposed, in this case- instant dismissal. As far as the video evidence goes he's bang to rights (had a case like this at work last year but involved a photograph), from what I can see the only unfair action by the club was not to keep him on full pay whilst suspended (if that's what they did), the only other thing going for him is his previous disciplinary record, whether he'd been fined before etc. I can't quite work out where his unfair dismissal allegation has popped up from though, unless Montano had thought; well I haven't been proven guilty in a court of law therefore I'm innocent until proven guilty...I doubt his contract will be paid up until this has gone thru the courts, so his version of events as to why he was in that hotel room with Sodje and the reporter will be down to the jury to decide whether or not he's guilty of spot fixing, I wouldn't be surprised if the video footage from the Wolves match was made available to the jury. If he is found guilty then I would have thought the club will refuse to pay his contract up, if he's found not guilty and the club refuse to pay his contract up then I don't think that'll be the last they hear from his legal team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I don't expect him accept a rejection of this appeal without fighting it yet further. I fear [at least] the involvement of the PFA and/or The Football League before this can be put to bed. I just hope we don't witness involvement from an employment tribunal, or worse the UK or European courts. The cost of which would spiral way beyond that of his outstanding contract. If he loses the case why should Latics have to pay the costs ? Also can we be sure the dismissal doesn't relate to something else ? Edited January 7, 2014 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 ...under more severe pressure. He held out for as long as he could. (I'm running out of road here.) I think you're reading too much into it in your earlier posts Mr 24. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 ...under more severe pressure. He held out for as long as he could. (I'm running out of road here.) Listen, it's time you just admitted that, sometimes, sustained sexual violence from men in balaclavas IS the :censored:ing way forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I can't see how the PFA/ FL would side with him tbh because not only has he brought the club into disrepute but also the game. Given the nature of the allegation I would have thought that LJ would have had him in the office first thing Monday morning before training (after watching the video footage numerous times on Sunday) and suspended him on full pay pending further investigations ( I believe he wasn't on pay for the few days whilst the investigations were being carried out?), in other words until LJ had spoken with SC and decided the course of action to be taken. After the investigations had taken place CM plus his agent/ solicitor or witness of Montano's choice would be invited in to answer the allegation of 'spot fixing', after that another meeting should have taken place for the disciplinary action to be imposed, in this case- instant dismissal. As far as the video evidence goes he's bang to rights (had a case like this at work last year but involved a photograph), from what I can see the only unfair action by the club was not to keep him on full pay whilst suspended (if that's what they did), the only other thing going for him is his previous disciplinary record, whether he'd been fined before etc. I can't quite work out where his unfair dismissal allegation has popped up from though, unless Montano had thought; well I haven't been proven guilty in a court of law therefore I'm innocent until proven guilty...I doubt his contract will be paid up until this has gone thru the courts, so his version of events as to why he was in that hotel room with Sodje and the reporter will be down to the jury to decide whether or not he's guilty of spot fixing, I wouldn't be surprised if the video footage from the Wolves match was made available to the jury. If he is found guilty then I would have thought the club will refuse to pay his contract up, if he's found not guilty and the club refuse to pay his contract up then I don't think that'll be the last they hear from his legal team. I thought he can't claim unfair dismissal as he hadn't been working for the club for two years and started after April 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I thought he can't claim unfair dismissal as he hadn't been working for the club for two years and started after April 2012. He can't but he can claim that the grounds for dismissal were unfair- the video on its own, if he's found guilty after the jury have seen the evidence then he really is up :censored: creek without the proverbial, however if he's found not guilty then it won't be the last we hear of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 He can't but he can claim that the grounds for dismissal were unfair- the video on its own, if he's found guilty after the jury have seen the evidence then he really is up :censored: creek without the proverbial, however if he's found not guilty then it won't be the last we hear of him. But if he can't claim unfair dismissal then he's surely then left with wrongful dismissal which is a contractual matter. Essentially, have Latics breached his contract? Assuming (and we don't know the facts) they've found him guilty of gross misconduct for going about telling people he's trying to get yellow cards for money, then the issue is surely not whether or not he did it or tried to do it, but simply whether telling people you are spot fixing constitutes gross misconduct. I think he'd have a tough argument against that but I'm sure those more versed in employment law would be able to provide a better analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 If Latics ran a fair process and found it was 51:49 that he brought the club into disrepute they can sack him. He can prove in a criminal court that he did it on order of God for all it matters. I've won at tribunal with less evidence than confessions on Sky Sport every 15 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 He can't but he can claim that the grounds for dismissal were unfair- the video on its own, if he's found guilty after the jury have seen the evidence then he really is up :censored: creek without the proverbial, however if he's found not guilty then it won't be the last we hear of him. The criminal case is presumably for some sort of fraud and needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The employment case is presumably for bringing the employer into disrepute and only needs to be proven on the balance of probability (51:49 as said above). The club action is not dependant on the criminal action in any way at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markspark92 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Wonder if Montano is reading this thread and getting ideas ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The criminal case is presumably for some sort of fraud and needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The employment case is presumably for bringing the employer into disrepute and only needs to be proven on the balance of probability (51:49 as said above). The club action is not dependant on the criminal action in any way at all. It is not even 51:49, Montano has to argue that the decision to sack him is not one a reasonable employer would have made. However, that is only if the process to sack him was properly carried out and if there is no additional circumstances beyond unfair dismissal. If not then it becomes a bit more complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Wonder if Montano is reading this thread and getting ideas I'm available for the right price. What I've put on here is just a taster pack. PM me Christiano, amigo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The criminal case is presumably for some sort of fraud and needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The employment case is presumably for bringing the employer into disrepute and only needs to be proven on the balance of probability (51:49 as said above). The club action is not dependant on the criminal action in any way at all. I know, my mistake...I used an apostrophe instead of a full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The criminal case is presumably for some sort of fraud and needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The employment case is presumably for bringing the employer into disrepute and only needs to be proven on the balance of probability (51:49 as said above). The club action is not dependant on the criminal action in any way at all. That's not actually true, if Montano's appeal is unsuccessful and he takes the club to an Employment Tribunal, then the Employment Tribunal is likely to be delayed until the outcome of the criminal case(s) is known. Furthermore, one of Montano's claims could be that by sacking him, the club prejudiced his criminal case(s). 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.