Paul Lambert

[Bunnski]

 

 

What kind of manager (in any workplace environment) knows his assistant is disrupting and bullying his team and stays away from the situation on a regular basis?

I think that's terrible in any workplace environment.

What kind of person jumps to assumptions like that without having been present on any single occasion, or having had eyewitness accounts from anyone who was present?

I think that's terrible, even on an internet messageboard.

I'm going on what's been said like everyone else. Its OK to take positives from it but not to criticise?

 

Maybe once in a while, yeah.  Might do you some good...

[villan_007]

All good reasons but still why not take a more active role in day to day training? Why not relegate culverhouse to the youth team/bombsquad?d If sacking was too difficult there were other ways to deal with it. Instead it looks like we did nothing until this point which has left us in a dodgy position in terms of surviving.

Trent said Lambert has only today decided to be more hands on. If culverhouse has been disruptive for awhile that's a pretty weak decision from our manager.

He works for Lambert, he should be controlling the issue. No fuss moving players away so can't see why nothing was done earlier.

Sometimes you have to give someone enough rope. I've no idea what line of work you're in, but I've certainly seen situations where you'd have to apply similar principles to what has happened here. Employment law in this country is just as knackered as everything else.

Surely moving a coach from the first team squad is similar to moving a player from the first team squad. And like I said why not be there more. Lambert's the boss, if culverhouse is disrupting training and bullying players why isn't Lambert on the training ground every day to ensure it doesn't happen?

Because it isn't a fairytale where everything you think is so easy to do just happens. You talk like you've written a book on football management and are annoyed Lambert hasn't followed your 5 easy steps to dealing with a troublesome coach.

It's obviously a complex issue, they've known each other for years and for whatever reasons its fallen apart. Culver house is accused of bullying, which suggests he isn't going to run along to the bomb squad.

[Big_John_10]

Look, I don't have the answers to all these questions any more than anyone else on here does. I was just trying to provide an alternative angle. I know that's not necessarily welcome round these parts any more, what with some folk being all desperate to see a public flogging or something, so I'm going to go to bed.

So we can't disagree with your alternative angle? I was hardly posting in a funny way to you like you did to me.

[snowychap]

You can't just sack someone for being shit at their job any more can you.  You have give them action plans and written warnings and all that jazz before you can take other steps.

And you think that's employment law being 'knackered'?

Of course you can sack someone for being shit at their job - it would then be up them to take the employer to a tribunal for any problems with the dismissal.

Wow, employers have to follow various rules before they kick someone out on to the tarmac? Perhaps because they've just pissed their boss off (and have thus been accused of being shit at theit job)?

You can sack people quite easily. Get it right and there is no problem; get it wrong and you are held to account. There may still be problems within the various systems but the silly idea that people can't be sacked for being crap and can bring tribunals for the most inane of reasons is, frankly, loony.

Sorry, NV, for the hostility of the reaction.

[Brumstopdogs]

 

 

Employment law in this country is just as knackered as everything else.

Really?

 

 

You can't just sack someone for being shit at their job any more can you.  You have give them action plans and written warnings and all that jazz before you can take other steps.

 

I presume Faulkner has drawn one up for Lambert then!

[Dale]

 

 

Employment law in this country is just as knackered as everything else.

Really?

 

 

You can't just sack someone for being shit at their job any more can you.  You have give them action plans and written warnings and all that jazz before you can take other steps.

 

Yes and no... It is possible for someone to be dismissed on grounds of capability. But you have to be demonstrably fair in the way that this is taken. Would the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' think you approached the situation reasonably (taking the industry aside).

[Big_John_10]

All good reasons but still why not take a more active role in day to day training? Why not relegate culverhouse to the youth team/bombsquad?d If sacking was too difficult there were other ways to deal with it. Instead it looks like we did nothing until this point which has left us in a dodgy position in terms of surviving.

Trent said Lambert has only today decided to be more hands on. If culverhouse has been disruptive for awhile that's a pretty weak decision from our manager.

He works for Lambert, he should be controlling the issue. No fuss moving players away so can't see why nothing was done earlier.

Sometimes you have to give someone enough rope. I've no idea what line of work you're in, but I've certainly seen situations where you'd have to apply similar principles to what has happened here. Employment law in this country is just as knackered as everything else.

Surely moving a coach from the first team squad is similar to moving a player from the first team squad. And like I said why not be there more. Lambert's the boss, if culverhouse is disrupting training and bullying players why isn't Lambert on the training ground every day to ensure it doesn't happen?

Because it isn't a fairytale where everything you think is so easy to do just happens. You talk like you've written a book on football management and are annoyed Lambert hasn't followed your 5 easy steps to dealing with a troublesome coach.

It's obviously a complex issue, they've known each other for years and for whatever reasons its fallen apart. Culver house is accused of bullying, which suggests he isn't going to run along to the bomb squad.

And its also not your idea of a fairytale where the worlds against Lambert and there's nothing he can do.

[suttonpaul]

I know we all like to talk till the cows come home but on this topic we really don't know ANYTHING.

[bobzy]

Mirror saying they're suspended on grounds of bullying complaints;

 

"Several Villa staff, including physios and kitchen auxiliaries, have officially complained to the club’s Human Resources department this week about Culverhouse and Karsa, who have worked with Lambert at previous clubs Wycombe, Colchester and Norwich.

They have made statements that will be used in a disciplinary process which, if they are found guilty, could see the pair - who each have a year left on their contracts - dismissed without a pay-off"

 

All of this could've been resolved, if only Lambert was present at training more often.

[NurembergVillan]

 

You can't just sack someone for being shit at their job any more can you.  You have give them action plans and written warnings and all that jazz before you can take other steps.

And you think that's employment law being 'knackered'?

Of course you can sack someone for being shit at their job - it would then be up them to take the employer to a tribunal for any problems with the dismissal.

Wow, employers have to follow various rules before they kick someone out on to the tarmac? Perhaps because they've just pissed their boss off (and have thus been accused of being shit at theit job)?

You can sack people quite easily. Get it right and there is no problem; get it wrong and you are held to account. There may still be problems within the various systems but the silly idea that people can't be sacked for being crap and can bring tribunals for the most inane of reasons is, frankly, loony.

Sorry, NV, for the hostility of the reaction.

 

 

It's fine mate.  As a manager of a large group of highly skilled people I understand and respect the complexities of employment law, and why those laws are in place.  Apart from the bit in bold, which I think could provide a separate debate altogether.  One I won't be entering into online...  

 

I'm not sure everyone who is posting about this matter in such a black and white fashion would respond to the subtleties of the law.

[Big_John_10]

All of this could've been resolved, if only Lambert was present at training more often.

So the mirror have it spot on and Trent was wrong?

And if that's the case then its no excuse at all for such poor performances from the first team and is really a nothing story in relation to the playing side of the club.

[villan_007]

Yep it's all about presence. Simple jack.

[StefanAVFC]

[bobzy]

 

All of this could've been resolved, if only Lambert was present at training more often.

So the mirror have it spot on and Trent was wrong?

And if that's the case then its no excuse at all for such poor performances from the first team and is really a nothing story in relation to the playing side of the club.

 

 

 

No, not at all.  As I stated on the last page...

 

 

 

What kind of manager (in any workplace environment) knows his assistant is disrupting and bullying his team and stays away from the situation on a regular basis?

I think that's terrible in any workplace environment.

 

Isn't this all conjecture?  What does Lambert do day-to-day, for example?  We haven't really got much of an idea surrounding the whole situation - it just smacks of mismanagement across the board.

 

[NurembergVillan]

 

 

 

Employment law in this country is just as knackered as everything else.

Really?

 

 

You can't just sack someone for being shit at their job any more can you.  You have give them action plans and written warnings and all that jazz before you can take other steps.

 

Yes and no... It is possible for someone to be dismissed on grounds of capability. But you have to be demonstrably fair in the way that this is taken. Would the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' think you approached the situation reasonably (taking the industry aside).

 

 

I'm feeling like I've misrepresented myself here.  What I meant was, you can't just sack someone and say "you're shit at your job".  You have to give them chance to prove that they're not.

 

Maybe this answers Snowy's post to me, in hindsight, too.

[Dale]

Or watching all their movements? workplace grievances are common, even where individuals work closely with their managers most of the time, i doubt Lambert being there would alter their behaviour that significantly.

[NurembergVillan]

 

All of this could've been resolved, if only Lambert was present at training more often.

So the mirror have it spot on and Trent was wrong?

And if that's the case then its no excuse at all for such poor performances from the first team and is really a nothing story in relation to the playing side of the club.

 

 

Is that bit for real?  **** me...

[Big_John_10]

Of course. I'm basing my questions regarding this on the assumption that he was disrupting training on purpose.

[smetrov]

 

You can't just sack someone for being shit at their job any more can you.  You have give them action plans and written warnings and all that jazz before you can take other steps.

And you think that's employment law being 'knackered'?

Of course you can sack someone for being shit at their job - it would then be up them to take the employer to a tribunal for any problems with the dismissal.

Wow, employers have to follow various rules before they kick someone out on to the tarmac? Perhaps because they've just pissed their boss off (and have thus been accused of being shit at theit job)?

You can sack people quite easily. Get it right and there is no problem; get it wrong and you are held to account. There may still be problems within the various systems but the silly idea that people can't be sacked for being crap and can bring tribunals for the most inane of reasons is, frankly, loony.

Sorry, NV, for the hostility of the reaction.

 

100% this.

 

The procedures organisations go through are to protect themselves against being sued. You can sack someone at the drop of a hat - but it may cost you.

 

In anycase isn't there legislation that you can't claim unfair dismissal unless you have been in employment 24 months....?

[Big_John_10]

All of this could've been resolved, if only Lambert was present at training more often.

So the mirror have it spot on and Trent was wrong?

And if that's the case then its no excuse at all for such poor performances from the first team and is really a nothing story in relation to the playing side of the club.

Is that bit for real? **** me...

What a question? The sarcastic comment regarding Lambert being on the training ground solving the issues is only valid if what the mirror say is true.