RobOAFC Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) While I agree with your assessment that they used it as a way to bin him off for poor form, a discipliniary process can take weeks. They probably waited for the FA report. Then gave notice of an internal hearing (minimum seven days?). Then a few days to make a decision. Then an appeals process. Wouldn't he have been placed on gardening leave/suspended like we did with Tuohy and Montano? Edited January 24, 2017 by RobOAFC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Wouldn't he have been placed on gardening leave/suspended like we did with Tuohy and Montano? You'd expect so. I have no doubt that results on the pitch were the real issue. The point I was trying to articulate is that the process can still take time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 So Notts County bastions of upholding respect and justice for all. Oldham Athletic lowest of the low for employing the disrespectful thug. :censored: off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 New owner in the middle of it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 http://www.nottscountyfc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/notts-county-alan-hardy-john-sheridan-3535438.aspx Notts County Statement. Sounds like Shez wouldn't have got a pay off. Hahaha. Like nobody can see that statement for the bollocks it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Wouldn't he have been placed on gardening leave/suspended like we did with Tuohy and Montano? In fairness, we do things properly round here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Was he under the timescale to claim unfair dismissal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Yes. It's two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 In fairness, we do things properly round here. What colour fleece are you wearing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Yes. It's two years.I reckon they sacked him because he's Irish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 "Unfair dismissal?" " load of garbage? "Statement of bollocks"?....... Well if he was not dismissed for gross misconduct there is a blank cheque waiting for him in the nearest libel court........St John, so cruelly wronged, need not work again given this humiliation heaped on him in such a public way. The sky is the limit for his pay out Then again of course it may not be unfair garbage or bollocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 "Unfair dismissal?" " load of garbage? "Statement of bollocks"?....... Well if he was not dismissed for gross misconduct there is a blank cheque waiting for him in the nearest libel court........St John, so cruelly wronged, need not work again given this humiliation heaped on him in such a public way. The sky is the limit for his pay out Then again of course it may not be unfair garbage or bollocks If he'd won nine in a row they have kept him regardless. He handed them an excuse to fire him without compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 "Unfair dismissal?" " load of garbage? "Statement of bollocks"?....... Well if he was not dismissed for gross misconduct there is a blank cheque waiting for him in the nearest libel court........St John, so cruelly wronged, need not work again given this humiliation heaped on him in such a public way. The sky is the limit for his pay out Then again of course it may not be unfair garbage or bollocks Here he is again. Do you think they would have sacked him for this incident if they had won the last 9 games or do you think they used it as an excuse to avoid a payout? I look forward to you completely avoiding andwering that question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Here he is again. Do you think they would have sacked him for this incident if they had won the last 9 games or do you think they used it as an excuse to avoid a payout? I look forward to you completely avoiding andwering that question. If it was not justified and justifiable he can sue in these circumstances for libel and defamation for a sum which would very likely run to 6 figures. So if they were using it as an excuse to avoid a pay out they are very stupid. So the answer to your question is no . They are undoubtedly not using it as an excuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 If it was not justified and justifiable he can sue in these circumstances for libel and defamation for a sum which would very likely run to 6 figures. So if they were using it as an excuse to avoid a pay out they are very stupid. So the answer to your question is no . They are undoubtedly not using it as an excuse They are absolutely using it as a means not to pay him compensation. Sheridan's sacking was on the cards regardless, but he handed them the opportunity to do it without a pay out. It's justifiable, yes; if you do something like that, you leave yourself open. However, there is absolutely no way they'd have done if they were sat top of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 If he'd won nine in a row they have kept him regardless. He handed them an excuse to fire him without compensation. Excuse? I think it has to be a sustainable reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 If it was not justified and justifiable he can sue in these circumstances for libel and defamation for a sum which would very likely run to 6 figures. So if they were using it as an excuse to avoid a pay out they are very stupid. So the answer to your question is no . They are undoubtedly not using it as an excuse Has anyone said it's not justifiable? Or are people saying it looks very much like an excuse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 They are absolutely using it as a means not to pay him compensation. Sheridan's sacking was on the cards regardless, but he handed them the opportunity to do it without a pay out. It's justifiable, yes; if you do something like that, you leave yourself open. However, there is absolutely no way they'd have done if they were sat top of the league. But they were justified in dismissing him for Gross Misconduct....and that really has been the point of this debate. His behaviour was and has now been shown to be indefensible and a dismissible offence......far from light hearted banter and laughter with a referree some posters want to protray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Has anyone said it's not justifiable? Or are people saying it looks very much like an excuse? Yes to the former and yes to the latter . So what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Excuse? I think it has to be a sustainable reason. Stop being a cock. He handed them a sustainable reason that they wouldn't have used if they'd been doing well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Stop being a cock. He handed them a sustainable reason that they wouldn't have used if they'd been doing well. Seconded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Stop being a cock. He handed them a sustainable reason that they wouldn't have used if they'd been doing well. Sorry O4U but whether charges are pressed is irrelevant to the core issue of whether Sheridan's actions were reprehensible and indefensible. However as you know dismissing somebody for Gross misconduct and putting that in the public domain is a pretty serous course of action and would not be done lightly Attempts on this board to mitigate, minimise or deny the serious nature of our manager's actions are, I feel , misguided and parochial and I feel deserving of challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Sorry O4U but whether charges are pressed is irrelevant to the core issue of whether Sheridan's actions were reprehensible and indefensible. However as you know dismissing somebody for Gross misconduct and putting that in the public domain is a pretty serous course of action and would not be done lightly Attempts on this board to mitigate, minimise or deny the serious nature of our manager's actions are, I feel , misguided and parochial and I feel deserving of challenge. True. But didn't you laugh even a little bit when you read it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Guru Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Sorry O4U but whether charges are pressed is irrelevant to the core issue of whether Sheridan's actions were reprehensible and indefensible. However as you know dismissing somebody for Gross misconduct and putting that in the public domain is a pretty serous course of action and would not be done lightly Attempts on this board to mitigate, minimise or deny the serious nature of our manager's actions are, I feel , misguided and parochial and I feel deserving of challenge. What a jobsworth...pull yourself away from the textbook and get some perspective Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjk2008 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Sorry O4U but whether charges are pressed is irrelevant to the core issue of whether Sheridan's actions were reprehensible and indefensible. However as you know dismissing somebody for Gross misconduct and putting that in the public domain is a pretty serous course of action and would not be done lightly Attempts on this board to mitigate, minimise or deny the serious nature of our manager's actions are, I feel , misguided and parochial and I feel deserving of challenge. Oh give it a rest. Whilst you're harping on about this, Shez's kids are still waiting for their Christmas presents. How do you think they feel? 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.