Keith Wyness

[Jareth]

7 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

I hope whoever is in the wrong loses.

Agreed. But it's a bit tight to go after Ho, a 29 year old social media guy / exec assistant to the owner - when you're already going for a £6mill law suit against the club, regardless of what you've done or not. Smacks of severe bitterness.

[NurembergVillan]

11 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Agreed. But it's a bit tight to go after Ho, a 29 year old social media guy / exec assistant to the owner - when you're already going for a £6mill law suit against the club, regardless of what you've done or not. Smacks of severe bitterness.

Depends what's gone on.  If he believes Ho to be a central figure in any wrongdoing then that'll be why he's implicated.

Right now we can't truly know what has gone on, but the whole thing absolutely stinks.

[villa4europe]

29 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Agreed. But it's a bit tight to go after Ho, a 29 year old social media guy / exec assistant to the owner - when you're already going for a £6mill law suit against the club, regardless of what you've done or not. Smacks of severe bitterness.

smacks of him just needing one of the pay days to come in, he's hedged his bets, sue everyone for a silly amount of money, settle out of court for a lot less but still enough to be able to retire, sounds like a chancer

its something that happens at least once a year in my division at work and we have 5 divisions that i would guess are all the same, one bad project means that you fall out with a subcontractor, 2 weeks later they plonk a folder on your desk chasing money on every project you've ever done with them, if they get 1 project that legitimately kicks some money out because someone didnt do the paperwork properly or someone has since left the business so the records are shit or even just some piss off money then its worth doing, the bridges are well and truly burnt but that was the case anyway

if villa offered him £1 to go away then he's in a better position than he is right now

[sheepyvillian]

 For me it's a blessing in disguise. If and when we appoint a new manager, at least he won't be having no input in the decision. 

[TheStagMan]

3 hours ago, briny_ear said:

So the case presented here against him so far seems to be that he is fat and a parasite.

All factual so far....

[TheStagMan]

2 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

I hope whoever is in the wrong loses.

And that is the only factual thing that we can say at the moment. The events could be read either way:

 

1. Xia is a bastard, He has no clue what he is doing, poor Keith was only doing his best for the club and trying to mitigate the poor decisions of the owner. Nasty Tony sacked him for it. poor Keith has no choice but to sue him to teach him a lesson.
2. Wyness is a shyster who went behind Tony's back to engineer a disaster for the club so his mates could buy it on the cheap and he gets a big payday. Tony realised, scuppered those plans and sacked him. Angry Keith now wants his dosh another way.

 

At the moment, we don't really know what has gone wrong. Xia has copped a lot of flack. Wyness not so much. Xia by default has to shoulder the blame as he is the owner and ultimately he employed Wyness. If Wyness is a bad-un that has shafted us (and Xia) then it is Xia's responsibility for not watching him closely enough, however there is a difference between being naive and being a fraud. 

Personally I am not going to attack Tony though. Yet.

I will wait and see what the next few months bring. There is a lot of noise around and very little in the way of facts, and what facts we do have can be interpreted in different ways (see above). The media are helping fan the hysteria in order to sell papers/click bait/ad revenue (look at any of those articles - they are absolutely plastered with ads).

We have either had a coup attempt or we have a shyster owner who is going to destroy us. Either way we have serious problems at our beloved club, the noise that is going around does not help them get fixed though.

 

 

[sne]

1 minute ago, TheStagMan said:

And that is the only factual thing that we can say at the moment. The events could be read either way:

 

1. Xia is a bastard, He has no clue what he is doing, 
2. Wyness is a shyster who went behind Tony's back to engineer a disaster for the club so his mates could buy it on the cheap and he gets a big payday.

 

 

 

Could be a bit of both I reckon 

[Jareth]

4 minutes ago, sne said:

Could be a bit of both I reckon 

50/50

[Vive_La_Villa]

Wyness was always a disaster waiting to happen.  It was clear as day. 

Tony hid it a lot better.

[Vive_La_Villa]

On 25/01/2018 at 19:34, Vive_La_Villa said:

I already stated many times it's not the reason I dislike him. The reason is his face. 

He will make a lot of money even if he is not good at his job. You'll see in time and I'll have to keep telling you I told you so don't cry about it when the time comes. 

I thought he would make his money from stadium expansion not suing the club ffs! 

[AshVilla]

Wyness for me, is somewhere between a cockroach and and that white stuff that accumulates at the corners of your mouth when you're really thirsty.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 minute ago, AshVilla said:

Wyness for me, is somewhere between a cockroach and and that white stuff that accumulates at the corners of your mouth when you're really thirsty.

Alright Cyrus!

[DaveAV1]

1 hour ago, sne said:

Could be a bit of both I reckon 

You’re Recon? I thought Xia was Recon. The plot thickens......

[mikeyp102]

The whole “suing” article seems a fallacy to me.

Firstly as someone else pointed out, I dont think he’s been here long  enough to make an employment claim.

Secondly, if he has been here long enough to make a claim, by the very nature of the beast employment claims are very private, often including privacy clauses. No way would details be released to the press at this stage.

Thirdly, where does the £60m figure come from?

Fourthly, how could lead he take out personal actions against He/Ho and Organ (is that who the second was?)

Finally, wasn’t the original article done by James Nursery?? 

There very well may be an employment claim down the line, but the press won’t know any hung about it.

[briny_ear]

3 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

The whole “suing” article seems a fallacy to me.

Firstly as someone else pointed out, I dont think he’s been here long  enough to make an employment claim.

That’s assuming he was a direct employee of the club. Almost certainly not - would have had some sort of service contract so would be suing for breach of that. In any event he missed the 2 years by just a few days and exceptions can be made in constructive dismissal cases.

Secondly, if he has been here long enough to make a claim, by the very nature of the beast employment claims are very private, often including privacy clauses. No way would details be released to the press at this stage.

Thirdly, where does the £60m figure come from?

Nowhere - where have you got the figure of £60m from? 

0Fourthly, how could lead he take out personal actions against He/Ho and Organ (is that who the second was?)

You can try to take out an action against anyone if you think they have defamed you/caused harm to your ability to earn a living.

Finally, wasn’t the original article done by James Nursery?? 

Why is this relevant? (BTW it’s Nursey)

There very well may be an employment claim down the line, but the press won’t know any hung about it. 

Pretty sure the briefing will have come from KW so the press know that much about it.

 

 

[DCJonah]

Hilarious that those who have complained that people are jumping to conclusions based on nothing about dr t, are the ones convinced wyness is evil and hope he loses his case. 

[briny_ear]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

Hilarious that those who have complained that people are jumping to conclusions based on nothing about dr t, are the ones convinced wyness is evil and hope he loses his case. 

There is maybe a pattern here... 

[DeadlyDirk]

I think this is just KW attacking as a form of defence. He got suspended so removed himself as a director (would have been at his own accord I think) to null any internal investigation into his conduct at the club, part 1 of saving face. Part 2, blame someone else, hence the constructive dismissal action, shifting the focus from him back onto Aston Villa as the naughty party, which will probably open a "behind-the-scenes" dialogue and agreement. That's just my take on it anyway.

[tonyh29]

5 hours ago, Dale said:

Not on employment grounds, unless he is claiming we've discriminated based on a protected characteristic, or have directly breached contract in some way (not employment issue per se). You don't have the right to claim unfair dismissal (constructive or otherwise) until you've been employed for two years... I mean I'm assuming he's an employee as if he's on a service contract (which wouldn't be strictly legal) - other issues arise. It seems unlikely he has a case. 

I got sacked from my job working on the dogems , I’d been in that job  less than 2 years but it didn’t stop me taking them to court for funfair dismissal 

Edited June 11, 2018 by tonyh29

[mikeyp102]

41 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

 

The article said he was suing for constructive dismissal, I wouldn’t class that as a breach of contract. The 60m was a mistype should’ve been £6m, even so seems exaggerated.

Ok Ho is on twitter so he may have said something about Wyness, but Organ? I’ve never seen him say anything in public. 

I’m not supporting Xia in this btw, there appears to be wrongdoings by all parties here. I just don’t think the article about Wyness taking legal action is completely pointless at this stage.