Club Statement: Darron Gibson

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27897
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
chunkylover53 said:
As I’ve said a thousand times.

Professional athletes shouldn’t be drinking full stop. That additional 1% helps you win games.

The very best athletes these days look after themselves. They are were they are because of talent AND application.

Defoe is a perfect example of someone who has looked after himself. Kane was tubby when out on loan as a kid, he now looks after himself (hires his own chef) and is one of the best in the world. Ronaldo, whilst being a narcissist, spends god knows how long in the gym

Alcohol doesn’t fit in top level sport in 2018
Click to expand...

But being able to drink lurds and lurds makes you more of a 'man' doesn't it ?:oops::rolleyes:.
 


Looks like in some cases you can suspend without pay but, from my experience, it's not common. Technically you aren't saying they're guilty of any wrongdoing while you're investigating so most companies would continue to pay you while they go through their internal processes. Once they've spoken to you and satisfied themselves that you've been a twat then you can generally expect your pay to stop permanently. Continuing to pay during the process demonstrates that they haven't jumped to conclusions and have given you a fair chance to put your case forward. Still think we'll sack him soon, before his contract is up
 
TopCat said:
What does "acting reasonably" look like? Typical ambiguous nonsense from gov.uk
Click to expand...

It means at a tribunal the employer may have to demonstrate they were acting reasonably or the employee is likely to be awarded damages.Do you expect the gov.uk site to give you a totally definitive sentence that covers every possible outcome?
 
Sheldon_Cooper said:
It means at a tribunal the employer may have to demonstrate they were acting reasonably or the employee is likely to be awarded damages.Do you expect the gov.uk site to give you a totally definitive sentence that covers every possible outcome?
Click to expand...
It's an expansive term. They should either define it, or not use it
 
TopCat said:
It's an expansive term. They should either define it, or not use it
Click to expand...

How do they define what is reasonable to cover every possible outcome? The arbiters of what is reasonable are not the government but the employment tribunals. Just the same as reasonable force from the police cannot be 'defined' as you suggest, it is up to the courts to decide. A slap in the face may exceed reasonable force if they have stopped a pensioner for littering but killing a person about to shoot someone will most likely be deemed to be reasonable.
 
Ive never known anyone be suspended without pay to be honest.
I was suspended on full pay for 6 weeks whilst working for northumbrian water.
Was fooking great. Then another 2 weeks on full pay for my disciplinary.
Good times.
 
Sumdumgi said:
They are employees on fixed term contracts and their earnings are paid through the PAYE system.
Click to expand...
Ah, OK. I didn't know that, but I bow to what appears to be your superior knowledge. I'm surprised that they are Schedule E tax payers but there you go. It seems that - if what you say is true - they haven't received the best legal advice either. It's always bemused me as to why footballers have used agents as opposed to solicitors. Roy Keane (no fool, in my opinion) always used the services of Michael Kennedy, far better value than an agent
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top