Risso Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Tellin Joe N+Bennett he was So Lambert is so disinvolved that he doesn't even know that his two closest staff members are acting inappropriately vis-à-vis the players under his watch and it took the reserve-team coach to step in? I think trent's stated multiple times that PL tried to get them removed but the board didn't allow it We're going round in circles. The first question is: since this was his hand-picked coaching team he had worked with for over 8 years, how come he couldn't get them to coach the team in the way he wanted - what does that say about his own effectiveness as a manager? The second one is, once things got to the extreme position of wanting to sack them, why the board were apparently reluctant to do so having had the facts put before them? In my view, nobody is coming out of this shambles with much credit so far, although fair play to Lambert for finally persuading the board if that's what happened. To be fair, even the worst managers (in any industry) can survive when results are just about as expected. When results take a nosedive, then what might have been overlooked suddenly can't be. If staff then stick the knife in to the offenders, they're toast. If we'd won some of the last four games I bet they'd still be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 So Lambert is so disinvolved that he doesn't even know that his two closest staff members are acting inappropriately vis-à-vis the players under his watch and it took the reserve-team coach to step in? I think trent's stated multiple times that PL tried to get them removed but the board didn't allow it If their was an actual basis to sack them, as we are led to believe, then there is no reason to believe the board would insist on keeping them. And they haven't, they've suspended them. They kept them after the fan incident, and presumably because telling a fan to "**** off" probably wouldn't hold up in court as a just reason to sack the coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Risso Posted April 16, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted April 16, 2014 "Our manager has been faced with some unexpected issues that could have very easily set the Club back," he said. Phew, thank god nothing has set the club back eh, that could have been serious! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Well Lerner would be the expect on issues that set the club back. He's created 99% of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Well Lerner would be the expert on issues that set the club back. He's created 99% of them. Indeed. We just need Nicola Keye and a random hotdog seller to replace Lerner and Faulkner, and it won't have been a bad week for getting rid of negative influences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) They weren't responsible for this were they they ? Who knows. I've seen this posted a few times and i still am not able to read it even when i zoom in. Anyone a better copy? I wouldn't bother it's obviously fake anyway. Why do people think that's a leak, or fake? The opposition gets the team the same time as the ref about, what, an hour before kick-off? Why is it so unlikely that they had a blurb written up about every player in the squad, and once the Villa team was announced they printed that document off with the starting XI for their players so they could do a bit of quick preparation in the run up to the game starting? Edited April 16, 2014 by P3te Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 So Lambert is so disinvolved that he doesn't even know that his two closest staff members are acting inappropriately vis-à-vis the players under his watch and it took the reserve-team coach to step in? I think trent's stated multiple times that PL tried to get them removed but the board didn't allow it If their was an actual basis to sack them, as we are led to believe, then there is no reason to believe the board would insist on keeping them. And they haven't, they've suspended them. They kept them after the fan incident, and presumably because telling a fan to "**** off" probably wouldn't hold up in court as a just reason to sack the coach. They will have contracts of employment which will lay out clearly disciplinary procedures to be followed which may lead to dismissal. Failure to follow these procedures would be leaving the company wide open to tribunal processes and they use these procedures to determine whether the company has acted fairly. It is quite usual for the dismissal of staff to be a long drawn out process and that's what's happening here. Lambert probably wanted them gone sooner but the board probably advised that there are procedures to follow and nothing can be done until this process has happened. This is modern life and being an employer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 So Lambert is so disinvolved that he doesn't even know that his two closest staff members are acting inappropriately vis-à-vis the players under his watch and it took the reserve-team coach to step in? I think trent's stated multiple times that PL tried to get them removed but the board didn't allow it If their was an actual basis to sack them, as we are led to believe, then there is no reason to believe the board would insist on keeping them. And they haven't, they've suspended them. They kept them after the fan incident, and presumably because telling a fan to "**** off" probably wouldn't hold up in court as a just reason to sack the coach. Come on, suspensions are often a prelude to a sacking. I think it is quite clear that Culverhouse's and Karsa's Villa careers are over now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Swearing, whilst at work and at a paying customer, can be considered gross misconduct and grounds for instant dismissal. There was a professional rugby coach who got removed from his post for swearing at staff of the club (or journos). That happened about seven years ago, but I'm not aware of the law changing much since. I'm happy to be corrected though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 So Lambert is so disinvolved that he doesn't even know that his two closest staff members are acting inappropriately vis-à-vis the players under his watch and it took the reserve-team coach to step in? I think trent's stated multiple times that PL tried to get them removed but the board didn't allow it If their was an actual basis to sack them, as we are led to believe, then there is no reason to believe the board would insist on keeping them. And they haven't, they've suspended them. They kept them after the fan incident, and presumably because telling a fan to "**** off" probably wouldn't hold up in court as a just reason to sack the coach. Come on, suspensions are often a prelude to a sacking. I think it is quite clear that Culverhouse's and Karsa's Villa careers are over now. I've not said otherwise? You said the board have insisted on keeping them, which it appears they haven't (at least when they've had just cause) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 So Lambert is so disinvolved that he doesn't even know that his two closest staff members are acting inappropriately vis-à-vis the players under his watch and it took the reserve-team coach to step in? I think trent's stated multiple times that PL tried to get them removed but the board didn't allow it If their was an actual basis to sack them, as we are led to believe, then there is no reason to believe the board would insist on keeping them. And they haven't, they've suspended them. They kept them after the fan incident, and presumably because telling a fan to "**** off" probably wouldn't hold up in court as a just reason to sack the coach. Come on, suspensions are often a prelude to a sacking. I think it is quite clear that Culverhouse's and Karsa's Villa careers are over now. I've not said otherwise? You said the board have insisted on keeping them, which it appears they haven't (at least when they've had just cause) No, I said there is *no* reason to believe the board would've refused Lambert's previous requests to remove them if they had committed a sackable offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) I'm resigned to him staying. Whether all these shenanigans can be considered a genuine reason, or just a poor excuse, for our shit football is not worthy of further debate. He's got at least half season/season left in him so time to back him again, I guess. Edited April 16, 2014 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 So Lambert is so disinvolved that he doesn't even know that his two closest staff members are acting inappropriately vis-à-vis the players under his watch and it took the reserve-team coach to step in? I think trent's stated multiple times that PL tried to get them removed but the board didn't allow it If their was an actual basis to sack them, as we are led to believe, then there is no reason to believe the board would insist on keeping them. And they haven't, they've suspended them. They kept them after the fan incident, and presumably because telling a fan to "**** off" probably wouldn't hold up in court as a just reason to sack the coach. Come on, suspensions are often a prelude to a sacking. I think it is quite clear that Culverhouse's and Karsa's Villa careers are over now. I've not said otherwise? You said the board have insisted on keeping them, which it appears they haven't (at least when they've had just cause) No, I said there is *no* reason to believe the board would've refused Lambert's previous requests to remove them if they had committed a sackable offense. Sorry, I think I've misread what you said. What I was trying to say was; They "insisted" on keeping them after the fan incident, as I don't believe they would have had a good enough case to get away without court. When they've had good enough reason, they've suspended them, and seemingly will boot them out too. The costs of getting rid when PL originally wanted rid were probably too high, whereas now, when they've probably got them more bang to rights, the costs are likely much lower. Hence, a reason to not get rid earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHowell Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I suspect the club as at the point of sale. There are lots of rumours about an announcement on May 3rd. To avoid relegation you might have considered sacking Lambert and team and bringing Sid in which would have got everyone buzzing and maybe secured a few more points. But, if Lerner is selling, he's probably happy to let the new owners deal with the compensation of a sacked management team. This way we get a bit of the Sid bounce, there are at least grounds to suspend the two and, well, we'll let time take care of Lambert .. .. I might be wrong though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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... There is going to be an internal investigation which may need to a discplinary which may lead to them being dismissed. If the club follows due process and have good reason to dismiss they would not win a tribunal. For the record it costs £250 to lodge tribunal papers these days and following a pre hearing review, if you are allowed to proceed to tribunal just under £1,000 to take it there.. Legals cost on top of course but that would be around £2,000 to pull all the papers togther plus £6,000 for a two day hearing so say £10k all in and if you won you may get a costs award against the club. They can comfortably afford to go all the way but this will be settled well before that by way of a compromise agreement which will be confidential. Just my thoughts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I suspect the club as at the point of sale. There are lots of rumours about an announcement on May 3rd. To avoid relegation you might have considered sacking Lambert and team and bringing Sid in which would have got everyone buzzing and maybe secured a few more points. But, if Lerner is selling, he's probably happy to let the new owners deal with the compensation of a sacked management team. This way we get a bit of the Sid bounce, there are at least grounds to suspend the two and, well, we'll let time take care of Lambert .. .. I might be wrong though! If Culverhouse and Karsa are proven guilty then there is no compensation to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Sorry, I think I've misread what you said. What I was trying to say was; They "insisted" on keeping them after the fan incident, as I don't believe they would have had a good enough case to get away without court. When they've had good enough reason, they've suspended them, and seemingly will boot them out too. The costs of getting rid when PL originally wanted rid were probably too high, whereas now, when they've probably got them more bang to rights, the costs are likely much lower. Hence, a reason to not get rid earlier. Fair enough. I still struggle to see how his most trusted staff members who he clearly has worked so well with throughout his managerial career that he felt the need to have them wherever he has been both suddenly act out of line at the same time. I could understand more if it had just been Culverhouse as was originally suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Sorry, I think I've misread what you said. What I was trying to say was; They "insisted" on keeping them after the fan incident, as I don't believe they would have had a good enough case to get away without court. When they've had good enough reason, they've suspended them, and seemingly will boot them out too. The costs of getting rid when PL originally wanted rid were probably too high, whereas now, when they've probably got them more bang to rights, the costs are likely much lower. Hence, a reason to not get rid earlier. Fair enough. I still struggle to see how his most trusted staff members who he clearly has worked so well with throughout his managerial career that he felt the need to have them wherever he has been both suddenly act out of line at the same time. I could understand more if it had just been Culverhouse as was originally suggested. When your successful as they were at Colchester and Norwich, I guess it's easier to get along and work together. But in a situation where we've been struggling for a long time, stresses go to a different level. Maybe IC and GK had all the players on side at Norwich, they heeded every word because they were a success, maybe our players thinking hang on we don't have any faith in you whatsoever, I think there has been a clash of personalities. I think we will never know the exact detail of what actually has gone on, but enough has gone on for the manager to agree to letting his backroom team go at this stage of the season. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanky Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 All seems very strange. It does not surprise me that, if reports are to be believed, Culverhouse and Karsa were running training very badly. You can tell that by watching us play on a Saturday. My question would be what Lambert's role is in all this and why he hasn't picked up on this sooner? If he has voiced his concerns then who was the person who didn't act upon this? Faulkner? Have Karsa and Culverhouse been running the team for the last six months and not Lambert? Loads of questions that we probably won't get the answers to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 You can tell that by watching us play on a Saturday I'd say that's more to do with formations, players picked and the way we approach a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts