Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The fact Alan hardy the new owner of Notts county says he took the decision as they are a family club. He didn't even own the club when shez was sacked. Statements like that are what gets clubs in trouble when it comes to defamation cases.

Assuming he was sacked for gross misconduct relating to that incident there's no defamation of any sort.

 

Two witnesses contributing to the FA report that led to the touch line ban have stated what was said. The FA have published the report. Sheridan has apologised for his actions, which is admitting what happened. His employer considered it gross misconduct. It's a slam dunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming he was sacked for gross misconduct relating to that incident there's no defamation of any sort.

Two witnesses contributing to the FA report that led to the touch line ban have stated what was said. The FA have published the report. Sheridan has apologised for his actions, which is admitting what happened. His employer considered it gross misconduct. It's a slam dunk.

That is exactly the point....there is no defamation cos it happened and was serious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based against 5 matches for Shez, when you dont know what was said, they must have took that into account, so 4 matches would be right then.

Have you been drinking? Wenger was charged with verbally abusing PLUS pushing the 4th Official.

Presumably and I am guessing here, Wenger got 2 matches for each offence.

Verbally abusing probably includes such words as blind/ stupid/ incomptent/ myopic/ short-sighted etc. = 1 match

Repeated offences and/or a foul mouthed rant probably doubles that to 2 matches.

I dont really need the FA to tell me that Wenger swore but I would like to know if he swore 11 times or if his kids/ grandchildren didnt get xmas presents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you been drinking? Wenger was charged with verbally abusing PLUS pushing the 4th Official.

Presumably and I am guessing here, Wenger got 2 matches for each offence.

Verbally abusing probably includes such words as blind/ stupid/ incomptent/ myopic/ short-sighted etc. = 1 match

Repeated offences and/or a foul mouthed rant probably doubles that to 2 matches.

I dont really need the FA to tell me that Wenger swore but I would like to know if he swore 11 times or if his kids/ grandchildren didnt get xmas presents

So what I dont get is how you come to the conclusion that Wenger was harshly treated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what I dont get is how you come to the conclusion that Wenger was harshly treated.

If you look at the charge of 'pushing the 4th official' then in terms of guilt, yes he did but in terms of aggression and force it rated as about 1.5 out of 10.

I just find Wenger absolutely hilarious and as I think it was Danny Murphy pointed out last week it must be so entertaining watching Arsenal every week.

They go from the sublime to the ridiculous and back again then have a break for half time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I think he has a genuine case for unfair dismissal. If they were going to sack him for his swearing they would have done it before the 4th game of his suspension. The match report would have been available a few days after the incident so no reason to delay. The fact he was on a losing run and lost his last game is the clear reason why they sacked him. Notts might be paying up massively for this one. Especially with him on a long term deal there before he returned to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be unfair dismissal, because he wasn't employed for two years, but adamoafc's logic seems to be the reasons that Shez is appealing: http://www.nottinghampost.com/notts-county-owner-alan-hardy-astonished-over-john-sheridan-appeal/story-30202469-detail/story.html

 

"Press Association Sport was unable to get hold of Sheridan through current employers Oldham, but the LMA responded to Hardy's comments on Tuesday afternoon.

A statement read: "It would be inappropriate for either party to comment in any detail on this matter publicly whilst there is potential legal action pending, save as to say, that our member disputes that the sole reason for his dismissal was gross misconduct.

"Mr Sheridan was dismissed on 2 January 2017 following a 4-0 defeat and on the back of six straight defeats. Mr Sheridan's dismissal took place 23 days and five games after the incident at Wycombe and four matches into his five match touchline ban."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he has a genuine case for unfair dismissal. If they were going to sack him for his swearing they would have done it before the 4th game of his suspension. The match report would have been available a few days after the incident so no reason to delay. The fact he was on a losing run and lost his last game is the clear reason why they sacked him. Notts might be paying up massively for this one. Especially with him on a long term deal there before he returned to us.

 

Agreed. He might get a nice pay out from that. Which ironically might be of benefit to us if it means he doesn't feel the need to start looking around for higher paid jobs again in the summer, having saved us from relegation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Agreed. He might get a nice pay out from that. Which ironically might be of benefit to us if it means he doesn't feel the need to start looking around for higher paid jobs again in the summer, having saved us from relegation.

Also SC & Shez could have "negotiated2 a low salary and bonus for keeping us up. so when it comes to compensation, he can argue fairly large drop in salary. Then comes a bonus if he does save us. Simpler vierw though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be unfair dismissal, because he wasn't employed for two years, but adamoafc's logic seems to be the reasons that Shez is appealing: http://www.nottinghampost.com/notts-county-owner-alan-hardy-astonished-over-john-sheridan-appeal/story-30202469-detail/story.html

 

"Press Association Sport was unable to get hold of Sheridan through current employers Oldham, but the LMA responded to Hardy's comments on Tuesday afternoon.

A statement read: "It would be inappropriate for either party to comment in any detail on this matter publicly whilst there is potential legal action pending, save as to say, that our member disputes that the sole reason for his dismissal was gross misconduct.

"Mr Sheridan was dismissed on 2 January 2017 following a 4-0 defeat and on the back of six straight defeats. Mr Sheridan's dismissal took place 23 days and five games after the incident at Wycombe and four matches into his five match touchline ban."

He was on a 3 year contract, does that make any difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was on a 3 year contract, does that make any difference?

No, unfair dismissal is based on length of service, not length of contract.

 

Might be to his detriment too as it puts a limit on compensation due to a short-term contract.

 

Sheridan will have presumably saught legal advice before launching his claim. As Hopkins found out legal costs can be a minefield. It's not unusual for someone who wins legal cases with a payout to be out of pocket due to legal costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...