Advertise Here
You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:29 pm View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 713
Team Supported: Darlington
Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Am I missing something here? Why was MG allowed to be DFC manager for the last 5 years and a director at the MGFA? Isn't that a conflict of interests? Why would moving to York make any difference? Sorry if I've missed anything obvious.
It's more that Atkinson and Gregan were employees of his. Obviously it's not an issue if they're all at the same club.

But at different clubs, it risked undermining the competition. Gray could have used that relationship to his own advantage, hence why it was against rules.
Atkinson is listed as a director though.

By leaving DFC, surely Gray created the conflict. Atkinson didn't change his circumstances. He continued to be employed by DFC. Gray's circumstances changed. So surely he either has to forfeit managing a club that employs one of his employees, or he sacks that employee?

What would be your take on it if Atkinson had remained as our assistant manager to someone else?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

So you think Atkinson would have been happy to be removed from his better paid position prior to Gray moving to York, so he could then jointly manage us? I don't think so. He has chosen not to do so himself.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7498
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
I suppose the difference is Gray potentially not conflicted by Atkinson in the same way. As far as I am aware MG is the boss and Atkinson is employed by him. It's is unlikely that Gray could be 'influenced' by an employee in the same way Atkinson can be 'influenced' by his boss.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3393
Team Supported: Darlington
HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Am I missing something here? Why was MG allowed to be DFC manager for the last 5 years and a director at the MGFA? Isn't that a conflict of interests? Why would moving to York make any difference? Sorry if I've missed anything obvious.
It's more that Atkinson and Gregan were employees of his. Obviously it's not an issue if they're all at the same club.

But at different clubs, it risked undermining the competition. Gray could have used that relationship to his own advantage, hence why it was against rules.
Atkinson is listed as a director though.

By leaving DFC, surely Gray created the conflict. Atkinson didn't change his circumstances. He continued to be employed by DFC. Gray's circumstances changed. So surely he either has to forfeit managing a club that employs one of his employees, or he sacks that employee?

What would be your take on it if Atkinson had remained as our assistant manager to someone else?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

So you think Atkinson would have been happy to be removed from his better paid position prior to Gray moving to York, so he could then jointly manage us? I don't think so. He has chosen not to do so himself.
Exactly. There was nothing stopping Atkinson resigning as a MGFA director if he wanted to remain manager at Darlington. I'd imagine Atkinson himself knew this was an option.

He didn't so has decided his future lies with MG. This is now the precedent meaning Atky can only coach at a club where MG is the manager.

What are you saying Spyman? The league should forcibly remove MG from his position at York for having a part-time business? I'm no fan of MG but that's ridiculous. Nor can the league start demanding MG sack his own employees. That's also ridiculous- the National League governs the division, not how MG runs his business.

Atkinson was his employee meaning there was a risk the competition could be undermined.

You can also argue we created the conflict because we allowed ourselves to become so intertwined with MGFA. Realistically, on Sunday we should have put this to Atky - us or MGFA, before announcing him as co-manager.

I'm surprised it's taken 5 years for us to consider whether there would be any conflict of interest regarding our relationship with MGFA.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Last edited by Darlogramps on Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 10833
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Am I missing something here? Why was MG allowed to be DFC manager for the last 5 years and a director at the MGFA? Isn't that a conflict of interests? Why would moving to York make any difference? Sorry if I've missed anything obvious.
It's more that Atkinson and Gregan were employees of his. Obviously it's not an issue if they're all at the same club.

But at different clubs, it risked undermining the competition. Gray could have used that relationship to his own advantage, hence why it was against rules.
Atkinson is listed as a director though.

By leaving DFC, surely Gray created the conflict. Atkinson didn't change his circumstances. He continued to be employed by DFC. Gray's circumstances changed. So surely he either has to forfeit managing a club that employs one of his employees, or he sacks that employee?

What would be your take on it if Atkinson had remained as our assistant manager to someone else?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

So you think Atkinson would have been happy to be removed from his better paid position prior to Gray moving to York, so he could then jointly manage us? I don't think so. He has chosen not to do so himself.
Exactly. There was nothing stopping Atkinson resigning as a MGFA director if he wanted to remain manager at Darlington. I'd imagine Atkinson himself knew this was an option.

He didn't so has decided his future lies with MG. This is now the precedent meaning Atky can only coach at a club where MG is the manager.

What are you saying? The league should forcibly remove MG from his position at York for having a part-time business? I'm no fan of MG but that's ridiculous. Atkinson was his employee meaning there was a risk the competition could be undermined.

You can also argue we created the conflict because we allowed ourselves to become so intertwined with MGFA. Realistically, on Sunday we should have put this to Atky - us or MGFA, before announcing him as co-manager.

I'm surprised it's taken 5 years for us to consider whether there would be any conflict of interest regarding our relationship with MGFA.
Of course I agree, just playing devil's advocate really. I think there's a far murkier situation which like you say, should have been cleared up much earlier and probably would've put both Gray and our dealings under the microscope.

Anyway, chance to move on and now start to operate like a 'normal' club with a 'normal' infrastructure.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4558
Team Supported: Darlington
I think plenty of us thought about the conflict of interest and how entwined with MGFA we were, just easier to ignore it really, so most did.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1034
Team Supported: Darlington
Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Am I missing something here? Why was MG allowed to be DFC manager for the last 5 years and a director at the MGFA? Isn't that a conflict of interests? Why would moving to York make any difference? Sorry if I've missed anything obvious.
It's more that Atkinson and Gregan were employees of his. Obviously it's not an issue if they're all at the same club.

But at different clubs, it risked undermining the competition. Gray could have used that relationship to his own advantage, hence why it was against rules.
Atkinson is listed as a director though.

By leaving DFC, surely Gray created the conflict. Atkinson didn't change his circumstances. He continued to be employed by DFC. Gray's circumstances changed. So surely he either has to forfeit managing a club that employs one of his employees, or he sacks that employee?

What would be your take on it if Atkinson had remained as our assistant manager to someone else?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk



Upon what basis could MG sack Atkinson from MGFA? It seems to me that any dismissal would be unlawful.

Atkinson has not done anything to terminate his employment with MGFA. Any problem has been caused by the change in role of MG outside the MGFA.

As far as MGFA is concerned, Atkinson has not done anything different to what he was previously employed to do and as such there could be no lawful basis to sack him.

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 930
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:
Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Am I missing something here? Why was MG allowed to be DFC manager for the last 5 years and a director at the MGFA? Isn't that a conflict of interests? Why would moving to York make any difference? Sorry if I've missed anything obvious.
It's more that Atkinson and Gregan were employees of his. Obviously it's not an issue if they're all at the same club.

But at different clubs, it risked undermining the competition. Gray could have used that relationship to his own advantage, hence why it was against rules.
Atkinson is listed as a director though.

By leaving DFC, surely Gray created the conflict. Atkinson didn't change his circumstances. He continued to be employed by DFC. Gray's circumstances changed. So surely he either has to forfeit managing a club that employs one of his employees, or he sacks that employee?

What would be your take on it if Atkinson had remained as our assistant manager to someone else?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk



Upon what basis could MG sack Atkinson from MGFA? It seems to me that any dismissal would be unlawful.

Atkinson has not done anything to terminate his employment with MGFA. Any problem has been caused by the change in role of MG outside the MGFA.

As far as MGFA is concerned, Atkinson has not done anything different to what he was previously employed to do and as such there could be no lawful basis to sack him.


thanks for the pedantry - the poster should have better expressed his point by saying "leave the employment of MGFA". Those without a legal background tend to use the word "sacked" to cover a multitude of sins. But you knew that..........................

(BTW feeling quite gumpy today)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1034
Team Supported: Darlington
MKDarlo wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Am I missing something here? Why was MG allowed to be DFC manager for the last 5 years and a director at the MGFA? Isn't that a conflict of interests? Why would moving to York make any difference? Sorry if I've missed anything obvious.
It's more that Atkinson and Gregan were employees of his. Obviously it's not an issue if they're all at the same club.

But at different clubs, it risked undermining the competition. Gray could have used that relationship to his own advantage, hence why it was against rules.
Atkinson is listed as a director though.

By leaving DFC, surely Gray created the conflict. Atkinson didn't change his circumstances. He continued to be employed by DFC. Gray's circumstances changed. So surely he either has to forfeit managing a club that employs one of his employees, or he sacks that employee?

What would be your take on it if Atkinson had remained as our assistant manager to someone else?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk



Upon what basis could MG sack Atkinson from MGFA? It seems to me that any dismissal would be unlawful.

Atkinson has not done anything to terminate his employment with MGFA. Any problem has been caused by the change in role of MG outside the MGFA.

As far as MGFA is concerned, Atkinson has not done anything different to what he was previously employed to do and as such there could be no lawful basis to sack him.


thanks for the pedantry - the poster should have better expressed his point by saying "leave the employment of MGFA". Those without a legal background tend to use the word "sacked" to cover a multitude of sins. But you knew that..........................

(BTW feeling quite gumpy today)



Call it what you want, MG had absolutely no legal grounds to end the employment of Atkinson


Think you are being the pedant - I was using the term sacking in the wider sense as you suggest. You cannot terminate the employment of someone without reason ( especially after they have served the necessary 2 year period to bring employment tribunal claims)

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 930
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:
Call it what you want, MG had absolutely no legal grounds to end the employment of Atkinson


Think you are being the pedant - I was using the term sacking in the wider sense as you suggest. You cannot terminate the employment of someone without reason ( especially after they have served the necessary 2 year period to bring employment tribunal claims)



There are lots of ways an employment relationship can be brought to an end. The poster, clearly, used the wrong term. It isnt worth such pedantry. However, never miss an opportunity to express your legal knowledge and try to make people feel inferior eh ;-)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1034
Team Supported: Darlington
MKDarlo wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Call it what you want, MG had absolutely no legal grounds to end the employment of Atkinson


Think you are being the pedant - I was using the term sacking in the wider sense as you suggest. You cannot terminate the employment of someone without reason ( especially after they have served the necessary 2 year period to bring employment tribunal claims)



There are lots of ways an employment relationship can be brought to an end. The poster, clearly, used the wrong term. It isnt worth such pedantry. However, never miss an opportunity to express your legal knowledge and try to make people feel inferior eh ;-)



So what basis is there to end the employment then?


There is nothing pedantic about pointing out that there is no legal basis to end his employment.

Atkinson has done nothing wrong. Atkinson has not changed anything. It is MG who has changed his position. Atkinson cannot be sacked because of something MG has done

Atkinson could not be made redundant as his post at the MGFA has not ended

The only way to terminate his employment, would be on notice and for a director of a company, that notice period is likely to be 3 or 6 months ( assuming there is such a provision in the contract).

Sorry if you don't like someone actually talking about something factual.

It may be helpful to look up what pedantry is! There is only one person being a pedant on here (and it isn't me).

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7498
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:
As far as MGFA is concerned, Atkinson has not done anything different to what he was previously employed to do and as such there could be no lawful basis to sack him.


Except taking on a role which had known conflicts of interest with his role?

Surely in most companies that is grounds for disciplinary if not dismissal.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1034
Team Supported: Darlington
lo36789 wrote:
spen666 wrote:
As far as MGFA is concerned, Atkinson has not done anything different to what he was previously employed to do and as such there could be no lawful basis to sack him.


Except taking on a role which had known conflicts of interest with his role?

Surely in most companies that is grounds for disciplinary if not dismissal.



The role at Darlington was a conflict for Darlington, but not for MGFA. Atkinson was already employed at Darlington before MG left Darlington.

The change in situation was that MG went to York. As he was concerned in management of York, this made the role of Atkinson as a director of MGFA in conflict with FA rules, not with his duties to MGFA.

MGFA could not sack Atkinson for this, but the FA could demand his removal from management role at Darlington

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 3296
Location: Gruzia
Team Supported: The Almighty Darlo
lo36789 wrote:
spen666 wrote:
As far as MGFA is concerned, Atkinson has not done anything different to what he was previously employed to do and as such there could be no lawful basis to sack him.


Except taking on a role which had known conflicts of interest with his role?

Surely in most companies that is grounds for disciplinary if not dismissal.


Would it not have been a conflict of interest if he'd remained as assistant manager in temporary charge of first team affairs?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 4602
Team Supported: Darlington
According to the Echo, Gray and York were faced with the same situation (i.e. a conflict of interest with manager of another club). Would've been interesting to see what would have happened if Atkinson had stood his ground, although of course it makes sense that he was the one to leave seeing as it's Grays academy.

No jobs at York for Gregan and Atkinson according to Craig Stoddart. With mates like Gray, who needs enemies!?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7498
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
Do we know that though if any part of MGs academy now has an interest in progression of players to York City FC then Atkinson will have had a conflict with the MGFA academy...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7498
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
al_quaker wrote:
No jobs at York for Gregan and Atkinson according to Craig Stoddart. With mates like Gray, who needs enemies!?


Which is interesting. I remember at the forum people were suggesting he cut his backroom staff budget to support the reduction in budget overall and his response was along the lines of "I come with my staff"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 930
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:
MKDarlo wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Call it what you want, MG had absolutely no legal grounds to end the employment of Atkinson


Think you are being the pedant - I was using the term sacking in the wider sense as you suggest. You cannot terminate the employment of someone without reason ( especially after they have served the necessary 2 year period to bring employment tribunal claims)



There are lots of ways an employment relationship can be brought to an end. The poster, clearly, used the wrong term. It isnt worth such pedantry. However, never miss an opportunity to express your legal knowledge and try to make people feel inferior eh ;-)



So what basis is there to end the employment then?


There is nothing pedantic about pointing out that there is no legal basis to end his employment.

Atkinson has done nothing wrong. Atkinson has not changed anything. It is MG who has changed his position. Atkinson cannot be sacked because of something MG has done

Atkinson could not be made redundant as his post at the MGFA has not ended

The only way to terminate his employment, would be on notice and for a director of a company, that notice period is likely to be 3 or 6 months ( assuming there is such a provision in the contract).

Sorry if you don't like someone actually talking about something factual.

It may be helpful to look up what pedantry is! There is only one person being a pedant on here (and it isn't me).



You really are a boring dullard. I agree that employment could not be terminated ( in a prejudicial sense) and that there is no case for redundancy. However as you well know they are not the only ways employment ( or even a directorship) can come to an end. That is the point. I think you understand this but simply cant help being a smarty pants.

I will give you an example. I was the director of a small company. We decided as a business that we wanted to go in a different direction and my skills were focused in another direction. I transferred my interest in the company to another director for little consideration and ceased to work for that company. I could quite easily have transferred that interest for no consideration (as there was little value in the company) but the result would have been the same

Guess what? My employment relationship ( for that is what it was to all intents and purposes) with that company came to an end.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1034
Team Supported: Darlington
MKDarlo wrote:
spen666 wrote:
MKDarlo wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Call it what you want, MG had absolutely no legal grounds to end the employment of Atkinson


Think you are being the pedant - I was using the term sacking in the wider sense as you suggest. You cannot terminate the employment of someone without reason ( especially after they have served the necessary 2 year period to bring employment tribunal claims)



There are lots of ways an employment relationship can be brought to an end. The poster, clearly, used the wrong term. It isnt worth such pedantry. However, never miss an opportunity to express your legal knowledge and try to make people feel inferior eh ;-)



So what basis is there to end the employment then?


There is nothing pedantic about pointing out that there is no legal basis to end his employment.

Atkinson has done nothing wrong. Atkinson has not changed anything. It is MG who has changed his position. Atkinson cannot be sacked because of something MG has done

Atkinson could not be made redundant as his post at the MGFA has not ended

The only way to terminate his employment, would be on notice and for a director of a company, that notice period is likely to be 3 or 6 months ( assuming there is such a provision in the contract).

Sorry if you don't like someone actually talking about something factual.

It may be helpful to look up what pedantry is! There is only one person being a pedant on here (and it isn't me).



You really are a boring dullard. I agree that employment could not be terminated ( in a prejudicial sense) and that there is no case for redundancy. However as you well know they are not the only ways employment ( or even a directorship) can come to an end. That is the point. I think you understand this but simply cant help being a smarty pants.




Are you still banging on...why not state what theses ways are you allude to or is it the case you don't know.

We have established there is no basis for MGFA to dismiss Atkinson for his conduct
We have established there is no basis for MGFA to make Atkinson redundant
We have established as a director of MGFA it is likely that he has a 3 or 6 month notice period in his contract which clearly is not acceptable to the FA


So what is the basis for MG to legally terminate Atkinson's employment at MGFA?

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 930
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:
MKDarlo wrote:
spen666 wrote:
MKDarlo wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Call it what you want, MG had absolutely no legal grounds to end the employment of Atkinson


Think you are being the pedant - I was using the term sacking in the wider sense as you suggest. You cannot terminate the employment of someone without reason ( especially after they have served the necessary 2 year period to bring employment tribunal claims)



There are lots of ways an employment relationship can be brought to an end. The poster, clearly, used the wrong term. It isnt worth such pedantry. However, never miss an opportunity to express your legal knowledge and try to make people feel inferior eh ;-)



So what basis is there to end the employment then?


There is nothing pedantic about pointing out that there is no legal basis to end his employment.

Atkinson has done nothing wrong. Atkinson has not changed anything. It is MG who has changed his position. Atkinson cannot be sacked because of something MG has done

Atkinson could not be made redundant as his post at the MGFA has not ended

The only way to terminate his employment, would be on notice and for a director of a company, that notice period is likely to be 3 or 6 months ( assuming there is such a provision in the contract).

Sorry if you don't like someone actually talking about something factual.

It may be helpful to look up what pedantry is! There is only one person being a pedant on here (and it isn't me).



You really are a boring dullard. I agree that employment could not be terminated ( in a prejudicial sense) and that there is no case for redundancy. However as you well know they are not the only ways employment ( or even a directorship) can come to an end. That is the point. I think you understand this but simply cant help being a smarty pants.




Are you still banging on...why not state what theses ways are you allude to or is it the case you don't know.

We have established there is no basis for MGFA to dismiss Atkinson for his conduct
We have established there is no basis for MGFA to make Atkinson redundant
We have established as a director of MGFA it is likely that he has a 3 or 6 month notice period in his contract which clearly is not acceptable to the FA


So what is the basis for MG to legally terminate Atkinson's employment at MGFA?


Goodness me. You seem unable to grasp very simple concepts.

I have at no pointed suggested there were grounds for dismissal, termination or redundancy. My point, which I am sure you understand clearly but chose to ignore, is that they are not he only ways of bringing an employment relationship to an end and that the original use of the word "sacked" was in a non legal sense and was incorrectly applied to this situation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Posts: 1648
Team Supported: Darlington
I wouldn't have offered the manager's job to Gregan. I think it would have been a massive gamble to have someone with no managerial experience in sole charge until the end of the season. I get that he is popular with the players and has been part of our success over the last few years and that there would have at least been some continuity but I think this would have been the wrong move.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1034
Team Supported: Darlington
MKDarlo wrote:

Goodness me. You seem unable to grasp very simple concepts.

I have at no pointed suggested there were grounds for dismissal, termination or redundancy. My point, which I am sure you understand clearly but chose to ignore, is that they are not he only ways of bringing an employment relationship to an end and that the original use of the word "sacked" was in a non legal sense and was incorrectly applied to this situation.



So WTF are you going on about

I never used the term sacked in a narrow legal sense as anyone with half a brain cell would see. I took the use of it in the first poost I responded to as the wider reference to termination of employment, not any narrow term

I have repeatedly stated there is no basis to terminate Atkinson's employment at MGFA


You seem to be banging on about something I have not got a clue about.

you appear now to be agreeing there are no grounds for the ending of his employment which is the point I made initially and which you took offence at.

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1034
Team Supported: Darlington
LoidLucan wrote:
I wouldn't have offered the manager's job to Gregan. I think it would have been a massive gamble to have someone with no managerial experience in sole charge until the end of the season. I get that he is popular with the players and has been part of our success over the last few years and that there would have at least been some continuity but I think this would have been the wrong move.



Did MG have managerial experience when appointed?

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 10833
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:
LoidLucan wrote:
I wouldn't have offered the manager's job to Gregan. I think it would have been a massive gamble to have someone with no managerial experience in sole charge until the end of the season. I get that he is popular with the players and has been part of our success over the last few years and that there would have at least been some continuity but I think this would have been the wrong move.



Did MG have managerial experience when appointed?

We're in a very different situation now to the one we were in 5 years ago.

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 1588
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:
MKDarlo wrote:

Goodness me. You seem unable to grasp very simple concepts.

I have at no pointed suggested there were grounds for dismissal, termination or redundancy. My point, which I am sure you understand clearly but chose to ignore, is that they are not he only ways of bringing an employment relationship to an end and that the original use of the word "sacked" was in a non legal sense and was incorrectly applied to this situation.



So WTF are you going on about

I never used the term sacked in a narrow legal sense as anyone with half a brain cell would see. I took the use of it in the first poost I responded to as the wider reference to termination of employment, not any narrow term

I have repeatedly stated there is no basis to terminate Atkinson's employment at MGFA


You seem to be banging on about something I have not got a clue about.

you appear now to be agreeing there are no grounds for the ending of his employment which is the point I made initially and which you took offence at.


a great example how legal folk make such a good living.

must be hard for Spen not to finish each post with "....and that'll be £250 please - plus other charges and disbursements"...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Posts: 1648
Team Supported: Darlington
For Spen of the Bailey.....

As pointed out elsewhere, Gray had had three separate spells as a caretaker manager, two full time roles as an assistant manager in the football league, and several years coaching full time in his academy before we hired him....

Different situation altogether to the Gregan one.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1034
Team Supported: Darlington
LoidLucan wrote:
For Spen of the Bailey.....

As pointed out elsewhere, Gray had had three separate spells as a caretaker manager, two full time roles as an assistant manager in the football league, and several years coaching full time in his academy before we hired him....

Different situation altogether to the Gregan one.



I merely asked if he had managerial experience

I wasn't disputing the posters assertions

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Posts: 50
Team Supported: Darlington
I see we still trained at Eastbourne this week. We need a clean break from MGFA. We do not want any connection with them that could be seen as a potential conflict of interest. This presumably means a new venue for reserve games as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5382
Team Supported: Darlington
Secretspy wrote:
I see we still trained at Eastbourne this week. We need a clean break from MGFA. We do not want any connection with them that could be seen as a potential conflict of interest. This presumably means a new venue for reserve games as well.


Why? Its a council owned facility which MGFA works from. Its doesn't own it. No reason at all to move.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Posts: 406
Team Supported: Darlington
loan_star wrote:
Secretspy wrote:
I see we still trained at Eastbourne this week. We need a clean break from MGFA. We do not want any connection with them that could be seen as a potential conflict of interest. This presumably means a new venue for reserve games as well.


Why? Its a council owned facility which MGFA works from. Its doesn't own it. No reason at all to move.


Also, where would you move to? I'll assume that Blackwell's other pitches aren't really up to having football played upon them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Posts: 951
Team Supported: Darlington
Your worship....doesn't Spennymoor Town have it's own forum? On and on and on and as for your blog, well that's pretty boring too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Darlospike and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group