Jump to content

Paul Lambert


limpid
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm hoping getting Karsa and Culverhouse out may help the squad, if they created as "poisonous" atmosphere as the press are saying it could be the lift the players need. 

 

Get them out first and see what happens! 

Whatever happens Lambert has to stay until the seasons over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the noises coming out of Bodymoor Heath overnight are making me more sympathtic to Lambert, if true.

 

IF Lambert is behind the decision to suspend/sack these 2; and if Lambert has been unhappy for a while and has wanted them out for a while, employment law may have tied his hands somewhat....

 

You cannot suspend or sack people simply because you aren't happy with them. Similarly, you cannot sacy them because you think they aren't doing a good enough job. You have to gather evidence, consult with them, set them improvement targets, etc. This takes time and would have to be asessed over set periods, and if you don't get this right, you leave yourself open to compensation claims far beyond what their contracts would allow. We could be taking serious money here.

You also cannot take duties off them without due process, or you end up in the same situation.

If you think someone isn't doing a good enough job, you would need to provide them with suitable assistance and/or training. Getting beaten by Palace and Fulham wouldn't be sufficient grounds in law, because you can't sack someone because someone else can do their job better.

 

All the above protects us in our daily jobs, and applies equally to any employment - so would to Culverhouse and Karsa.

As I said at the start, IF this scenario is broadly right, Lambert would have some sympathy from me. BUT, at the end of the day, he is the manger and his job (surely must be) to take overall responsibility, and he should have been dealing with this long before it became so toxic.

Perhaps because these 2 have been with him for so long, he was too naive and had a blind spot to them. No excuse though, but not a sackable offence on him either I'm afraid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All most all of it is pretty accurate - pretty damning on Lowton actually but Ahmadi - struggles to press??

 

That is probably his biggest assett and he does that as well as anyone in the league going by the stats and my eyes.

 

I struggle to see how a trained scout would come to that conclusion

Edited by villaglint
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



If Culverhouse and Karsa were sent to destroy us maybe they have been leaking information aswell as generally been disruptive.

 

If this is all true then I imagine Lambert feels rather appalled by people he thought he could trust and this gives us an explanation as to why we have been poor this season.

 

Here's hoping this galvanises everyone at the club and we get a much needed and very deserved three points this weekend.

 

UTV

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still fail to see why Culverhouse and Karsa would both jeopardise an eight year working relationship at the same time. Culverhouse by himself maybe but I don't buy that Karsa would've as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the noises coming out of Bodymoor Heath overnight are making me more sympathtic to Lambert, if true.

 

IF Lambert is behind the decision to suspend/sack these 2; and if Lambert has been unhappy for a while and has wanted them out for a while, employment law may have tied his hands somewhat....

 

You cannot suspend or sack people simply because you aren't happy with them. Similarly, you cannot sacy them because you think they aren't doing a good enough job. You have to gather evidence, consult with them, set them improvement targets, etc. This takes time and would have to be asessed over set periods, and if you don't get this right, you leave yourself open to compensation claims far beyond what their contracts would allow. We could be taking serious money here.

You also cannot take duties off them without due process, or you end up in the same situation.

If you think someone isn't doing a good enough job, you would need to provide them with suitable assistance and/or training. Getting beaten by Palace and Fulham wouldn't be sufficient grounds in law, because you can't sack someone because someone else can do their job better.

 

All the above protects us in our daily jobs, and applies equally to any employment - so would to Culverhouse and Karsa.

As I said at the start, IF this scenario is broadly right, Lambert would have some sympathy from me. BUT, at the end of the day, he is the manger and his job (surely must be) to take overall responsibility, and he should have been dealing with this long before it became so toxic.

Perhaps because these 2 have been with him for so long, he was too naive and had a blind spot to them. No excuse though, but not a sackable offence on him either I'm afraid!

 

Not true.

 

 

You can sack people for any reason. you may have fight your case in court - but thats how it works. All the processes are to limit your chances of being taken to court - but they aren't mandatory.

 

This sounds like we wanted to sack them - but hadn't quite got the balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I still fail to see why Culverhouse and Karsa would both jeopardise an eight year working relationship at the same time. Culverhouse by himself maybe but I don't buy that Karsa would've as well.

 

It happens - people change and business can be a big factor in that. Maybe Villa was a step too far for them. Plus I'd imagine Lamberts divorce / split would be a difficult scenario around Karsa. A number of factors have probably contributed to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Some of the noises coming out of Bodymoor Heath overnight are making me more sympathtic to Lambert, if true.

 

IF Lambert is behind the decision to suspend/sack these 2; and if Lambert has been unhappy for a while and has wanted them out for a while, employment law may have tied his hands somewhat....

 

You cannot suspend or sack people simply because you aren't happy with them. Similarly, you cannot sacy them because you think they aren't doing a good enough job. You have to gather evidence, consult with them, set them improvement targets, etc. This takes time and would have to be asessed over set periods, and if you don't get this right, you leave yourself open to compensation claims far beyond what their contracts would allow. We could be taking serious money here.

You also cannot take duties off them without due process, or you end up in the same situation.

If you think someone isn't doing a good enough job, you would need to provide them with suitable assistance and/or training. Getting beaten by Palace and Fulham wouldn't be sufficient grounds in law, because you can't sack someone because someone else can do their job better.

 

All the above protects us in our daily jobs, and applies equally to any employment - so would to Culverhouse and Karsa.

As I said at the start, IF this scenario is broadly right, Lambert would have some sympathy from me. BUT, at the end of the day, he is the manger and his job (surely must be) to take overall responsibility, and he should have been dealing with this long before it became so toxic.

Perhaps because these 2 have been with him for so long, he was too naive and had a blind spot to them. No excuse though, but not a sackable offence on him either I'm afraid!

 

Not true.

 

 

You can sack people for any reason. you may have fight your case in court - but thats how it works. All the processes are to limit your chances of being taken to court - but they aren't mandatory.

 

This sounds like we wanted to sack them - but hadn't quite got the balls.

 

 

It really isn't. In this day and age you cannot sack anyone just like that. Fact.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â