Jump to content

Paul Lambert


limpid

Recommended Posts

 

 

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.

 

 

Yes you can.

 

The process favours the employer - you sack them - then hope they don't have the funds to take you to a tribunal.

 

Employment Law - when youre in the firing line is really very flimsly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been brought to a head by non footballing employees complaining to the clubs HR department. Football may have a culture of industrial language and intimidation but the normal workforce will have different contracts and rights regarding how they are treated and behave in the workplace. If the BH2 are deemed to have bullied, swore at or intimidated a non footballing member of staff that's gross misconduct and a dismiss able offence after a hearing of the evidence.

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.

 

 

Yes you can.

 

The process favours the employer - you sack them - then hope they don't have the funds to take you to a tribunal.

 

Employment Law - when youre in the firing line is really very flimsly

 

 

Lets skip the you can you can't thing. We aren't talking about a kid in Mcdonalds or a guy driving a forklift here. These people have more than enough money to take the club to court if they wished and also have the LMA or similar to back them.

 

I very much doubt it's a case of Ian you're shit go away.

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.

 

 

Yes you can.

 

The process favours the employer - you sack them - then hope they don't have the funds to take you to a tribunal.

 

Employment Law - when youre in the firing line is really very flimsly

 

 

Lets skip the you can you can't thing. We aren't talking about a kid in Mcdonalds or a guy driving a forklift here. These people have more than enough money to take the club to court if they wished and also have the LMA or similar to back them.

 

I very much doubt it's a case of Ian you're shit go away.

 

 

Agreed.

 

You can sack them - but may face conseuences down the line. What going on here is if Villa are confident enough to not pay up there contracts. In reality a compensation agreement [Legal process]  will kick in - which will be at figure just enough so its not worth them taking AVFC to court...

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.

 

 

Yes you can.

 

The process favours the employer - you sack them - then hope they don't have the funds to take you to a tribunal.

 

Employment Law - when youre in the firing line is really very flimsly

 

 

Lets skip the you can you can't thing. We aren't talking about a kid in Mcdonalds or a guy driving a forklift here. These people have more than enough money to take the club to court if they wished and also have the LMA or similar to back them.

 

I very much doubt it's a case of Ian you're shit go away.

 

 

Agreed.

 

You can sack them - but may face conseuences down the line. What going on here is if Villa are confident enough to not pay up there contracts. In reality a compensation agreement [Legal process]  will kick in - which will be at figure just enough so its not worth them taking AVFC to court...

 

 

I guess right now we could say that by going ahead with the suspension that AVFC have enough evidence to have them bang to rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes you can.

 

The process favours the employer - you sack them - then hope they don't have the funds to take you to a tribunal.

 

Employment Law - when youre in the firing line is really very flimsly

 

 

The reverse is true in my experience.  It doesn't cost much to take somebody to a tribunal, and even if the employee has done something extremely serious, if the company haven't followed procedure to the letter then more often than not they'll lose.  I expect though, that as in most cases, a compromise will be reached with Culverhouse and Karsa.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Lambert really did need Culverhouse to help him out with tactics, where does that leave us now? Does Lambert even have the ability to come up with a match plan all by himself? 

Well as the match plan usually was: Guzan - hoof - chase - repeat, I don't think even just putting 11 players on the field and hope for the best would be worse.

As long as Lambert can count to 11 we'll be at least status quo

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

To be honest those descriptions there ,  any fan could,  and probably did,  write them

 

except Con. we would have known if it was from him ;)

The players would all be rated on a scale of Juan Mata to Barry Bannan with a scale of

 

Barry Bannan - you are the best footballer ever

Jay Rodriguez - great footballer with his tackle goals but not as good as Bannan

Juan Mata - not a great footballer as he isn't as effective as Rodriguez or Bannan

 

fixed for you ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Lambert really did need Culverhouse to help him out with tactics, where does that leave us now? Does Lambert even have the ability to come up with a match plan all by himself? 

 

If Lambert stays [beyond this season] he's going to be working with people he hasn't worked with  before as his first team coaches. Its an unknown quantity as a management team.

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.

 

 

Yes you can.

 

The process favours the employer - you sack them - then hope they don't have the funds to take you to a tribunal.

 

Employment Law - when youre in the firing line is really very flimsly

 

 

Lets skip the you can you can't thing. We aren't talking about a kid in Mcdonalds or a guy driving a forklift here. These people have more than enough money to take the club to court if they wished and also have the LMA or similar to back them.

 

I very much doubt it's a case of Ian you're shit go away.

 

 

Agreed.

 

You can sack them - but may face conseuences down the line. What going on here is if Villa are confident enough to not pay up there contracts. In reality a compensation agreement [Legal process]  will kick in - which will be at figure just enough so its not worth them taking AVFC to court...

 

 

I guess right now we could say that by going ahead with the suspension that AVFC have enough evidence to have them bang to rights?

 

 

or negiotiate a pay off ?

 

They ain't ever coming back are they ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So if Lambert really did need Culverhouse to help him out with tactics, where does that leave us now? Does Lambert even have the ability to come up with a match plan all by himself? 

 

If Lambert stays [beyond this season] he's going to be working with people he hasn't worked with  before as his first team coaches. Its an unknown quantity as a management team.

 

 

A bit like like Ferguson with Archie Knox, then Brian Kidd, then Steve McLaren, then Jimmy Ryan, then Carlos Quieroz, then Walter Smith and then Mike Phelan?

Edited by NurembergVillan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some are underestimating the disruption these pair could of caused, particularly culverhouse.

Why?

 

I find it difficult to believe that they could have caused much disruption at all? Because if they were, why has it taken til now for someone to sort it out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what exactly were Culverhouse and Karsa doing?

 

Expecting players to be able to pass to each other, defenders to concentrate for more than 30 seconds without going to sleep, plus lots of other despicable acts I expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â