Paul Lambert

[briny_ear]

Oh dear, I see the barrack room employment lawyers have come out to play.

 

It seems pretty clear that, if there has been prolonged bullying of players and support staff, then the manager should have been trying to deal with it and it is legitimate to ask why it was allowed to go on for so long, particularly if the argument now is that it affected results. There is nothing in employment law that stops a manager managing and halting practices that are detrimental to a business or its staff.

 

As someone mentioned above, the main problem is we don't know the full facts. We probably never will, and at the moment we are just being leaked titbits from one angle.

Edited April 15, 2014 by briny_ear

[Big_John_10]

It seems pretty clear that, if there has been prolonged bullying of players and support staff, then the manager should have been trying to deal with it and it is legitimate to ask why it was allowed to go on for so long, particularly if the argument now is that it affected results.

No, like most things with Lambert it seems another thing needs to be added to the list of things that can't be questioned.

[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...

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.

 

 

The bit about the Mirror having it spot on.  When have the Mirror ever had anything spot on?  It's only one step up the ladder from the Daily Star.

[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.

The bit about the Mirror having it spot on. When have the Mirror ever had anything spot on? It's only one step up the ladder from the Daily Star.

Hence my question mark and asking Bobzy if he believed the mirror were spot on and Trent was wrong. I don't respect the mirror one bit. Take a breath before trying to jump on my post. I've never been disrespectful to you in a post so I'm not sure why you've decided to respond to me this way tonight. Edited April 15, 2014 by Big_John_10

[tomaspg]

This really doesnt lift any pressure of lambert for me, if the bullying, missmanagement and poor training is true how could he let it go on? Or if he didnt know about it the question is why? Its his team surely he should be ontop of all of this?

It really just makes him look worse. Fair enough that hes doing something about it, but its too little too late. We are in the premier league ffs, imo it is the best league in the world and something like this happens? Where is the high standard and professionalism that should be expected from any manager at this level?

This is something i could imagine hearing from a league 5 team. Makes us look **** pathetic, another embarrasing event to add to this years list of cock ups.

[Dale]

 

 

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....?

 

Wrongful dismissal can be claimed under 24 months.

 

Unfair under 24 months if it is because of:

 

Pregnancy, whistle blowing, health and safety action, association with a trade union, trustee of pension scheme, trying to enforce an entitlement under law.

 

Although this is now massively   

[NurembergVillan]

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

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear that, if there has been prolonged bullying of players and support staff, then the manager should have been trying to deal with it and it is legitimate to ask why it was allowed to go on for so long, particularly if the argument now is that it affected results.

No, like most things with Lambert it seems another thing needs to be added to the list of things that can't be questioned.

 

 

When you're basing your questions on assumptions it becomes difficult to justify them.

 

EDIT : I'll respond to your last post too.  I apologise if this is coming across as disrespectful.  I also appreciate that you're correct in stating that you haven't been disrespectful to me.  The tone of my posts is likely borne out of frustration.

 

I sometimes "Like" your posts when you are making valid points, but feel that here it comes across as though you're just looking to see what shit will stick to support your current standpoint around the manager.  I don't believe you need to do that when you've amassed (or had amassed for you!) plenty of sticks with which to beat him already.

That's all there is to it.

 

EDIT 2:  Actually, there's a tad more to it.  I'm trying to find a reason to be positive out of this.  Some reason for hope for the remaining five games that we will stay up.  Some reason to go to the match on Saturday.  What happens beyond May is a different matter, but right now I want to stop feeling like crap about supporting my team and actually feel like something has happened which might have helped us to survive in the top flight for another year.

 

Is that such a bad thing?

Edited April 15, 2014 by NurembergVillan

[Brumstopdogs]

Is this another record for Lambert at Villa with two (of his) first team coaches suspended on the same day?

 

Could be another proud one up there with the 8-0 mauling by Chelsea, getting beaten by lower league opposition and getting beaten home and away by Fulham, Stoke and Crystal Palace.

 

At least he has us playing entertaining, passing, attacking football...

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

Just to throw in my two cents on all of this;

 

After the Palace game, my patience with Lambert had begun to wear thin (not the first time, I said as much before the Norwich game too, but the next 2 games gave it back a bit) and to some extent, it still is, but this whole thing is to say the least, intriguing, and I come out of it with maybe a bit more patience for PL.

 

I've not seen much of all this today, I've skimmed through much of the thread, so I could have missed some tidbits here and there. To be honest, my main reading of this situation comes from Trent's post.

 

Obviously it's a bit far fetched to say they are the cause of all our problems, we have many currently, but you only need one (or in this case two) bad apple to spoil the bunch. I think it could go a long way to explaining why players seem to have a general uncaring attitude of late if any of the coaching staff are bad influences or are generally disliked. If Culverhouse's training is as bad as suggested, maybe a reason we've had many injuries of late (going too full tilt) and why we look clueless on a matchday.

 

If the players have been upset recently, with just Culverhouse/Karsa and not PL, and the training has been poor, then I begin to have more sympathy for Lambert, he's dealing with a pretty shit situation to begin with, and any player unrest would just add to that.

 

Why not just have Lambert coach instead? Maybe he isn't a great coach? Managers aren't meant to be, there's a reason why great coaches don't always make good managers, because they have other duties that aren't limited to coaching, and I imagine it works in reverse too.

 

Quite a lot of people saying why not get rid sooner and why keep them for so long if Lambert wanted rid etc., and considering many on this forum are quite vocal in their dislike of Lerner and the way the club's been run the last few years, what to me seems an obvious reason why has been completely ignored:

 

$$$$$

 

Think about it - Culverhouse mouths of to a fan (and Karsa to Faulkner if Trent is correct) -> relationship with Lambert begins to deteriorate -> Lambert wants rid -> board block departures due to high pay offs of contracts -> tensions get even more strained as results begin to turn bleaker -> culminates in (supposed) rows with players, Cowans and Lambert -> Lambert wants rid again -> board have legitimate reason to get rid, so "suspend" the accused -> have internal investigation which finds that there is a just cause to sack IC/GK -> Sack IC/GK with no to minimal pay off.

 

As for why not remove them like the "bomb squad"? Well, it's easier to replace players. We must have 30-40+ players who at any time could be part of the first team and train with them on a regular basis, enough so that booting a player (i.e. Bent) to the youth squad isn't going to leave you short in the playing department. But with the coaching staff, we must have what 6-7? Double possibly? Consider then that most of them will have other, most likely specialised, duties, it's a bit harder to just pluck someone else from the coaching department to replace them. I mean, even the 2 who have come in, one is a current player for god's sake! I imagine that it came to a point that they did eventually have to be bombed out (remember, they've not been sacked, but suspended *cough*Coaching Bomb Squad*cough*). Bringing in Cowans to the first team fold seems to be a first port of call in emergency for us, it happened when MON left (he was KMac's assistant wasn't he?) and when Houllier was absent (GMac's assistant, correct?), but it would, presumably, be at the detriment to the u18/21s coaching, something which is less than desirable.

 

Some of the more baffling decisions made by the board in recent years have shown they aren't too fussed about how badly we do, but they sure as hell care about how much is spent, and will try to fork out as little as possible (even McLeish's sacking was pretty much forced upon them).

 

I dunno, but for me, if the players are truly 100% behind Lambert still, and if IC/GK were as bad as influences as being suggested, I think I'm more willing to give PL time.

[Big_John_10]

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

It seems pretty clear that, if there has been prolonged bullying of players and support staff, then the manager should have been trying to deal with it and it is legitimate to ask why it was allowed to go on for so long, particularly if the argument now is that it affected results.

No, like most things with Lambert it seems another thing needs to be added to the list of things that can't be questioned.

When you're basing your questions on assumptions it becomes difficult to justify them.

Any different to basing praise on assumptions?

[StefanAVFC]

 

 

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

 

It seems pretty clear that, if there has been prolonged bullying of players and support staff, then the manager should have been trying to deal with it and it is legitimate to ask why it was allowed to go on for so long, particularly if the argument now is that it affected results.

No, like most things with Lambert it seems another thing needs to be added to the list of things that can't be questioned.

When you're basing your questions on assumptions it becomes difficult to justify them.

Any different to basing praise on assumptions?

 

 

Well, it's a bit different. Because we KNOW that they've been suspended and we KNOW that Culverhouse swore at fans. (indicating he could be a bit of a wotsit)

Edited April 15, 2014 by StefanAVFC

[samjp26]

Didn't somebody say the other day that there was to be a meeting between 'all' staff at BMH or Villa as a whole, sometime this week?

 

This is in no way me trying to 'defend Lambert' by the way, but what we have to remember is that Lambert does not employ those two. It isn't his job to dismiss them or sack them and he wouldn't be in his rights to do so, which could be why several members of staff have come forward now in attempt to get them out of their roles without a payoff. 

 

Obviously we do not know for sure what has gone on, but it seems pretty serious if the kitchen staff are getting involved.

[stewiek2]

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.

Yep Rob's right. And you can't get rid simply because you think someone's face doesn't fit then advertise their job. They could easily sue over being ousted from a job that they could have but being seen as 'not fitting in.' Hence why manager's get pay offs as it avoids going to court, so when you see a 'mutual agreement' it generally means they've agrees a pay off without the need to go to court so the club can " advertise" their job without the risk of legal action for opening a position that, technically, the previous person was 'capable' of doing.

I know this from an ex-colleague who was suing an employer for getting rid of her then advertising and filling her role. Basically it went against employment law. You have to prove they are unfit to do the job.

Edited April 15, 2014 by stewiek2

[Big_John_10]

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

It seems pretty clear that, if there has been prolonged bullying of players and support staff, then the manager should have been trying to deal with it and it is legitimate to ask why it was allowed to go on for so long, particularly if the argument now is that it affected results.

No, like most things with Lambert it seems another thing needs to be added to the list of things that can't be questioned.

When you're basing your questions on assumptions it becomes difficult to justify them.

Any different to basing praise on assumptions?

Well, it's a bit different. Because we KNOW that they've been suspended and we KNOW that Culverhouse swore at fans. (indicating he could be a bit of a wotsit)

Which neither shows anything worthy of praise for lambert in this case. Its all assumption.

[snowychap]

Apart from the bit in bold, which I think could provide a separate debate altogether.  One I won't be entering into online...  

There's all of off topic. 

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.

Fair enough.

[coda]

Many have mentioned potential pay offs for these two. I doubt they were earning a great deal in Premier League football terms.

[Richard]

The most important thing about today, we need 4 points from our remaining games

[snowychap]

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.

I think you have and I think this does.

[Cliffy Biro]

Many have mentioned potential pay offs for these two. I doubt they were earning a great deal in Premier League football terms.

 

They wont need to be paid off if they are proven to be in the wrong.

[briny_ear]

Obviously we do not know for sure what has gone on, but it seems pretty serious if the kitchen staff are getting involved.

Agreed. If the legendary tea lady is unhappy, the club really is in trouble.