|
Post by venceremos on Jan 20, 2011 14:45:02 GMT 1
Any employer surely has the right to sack an employee if he is failing to maintain the standards of the company. Yes Simpson remit was to keep Stockport in the league but by all accounts in was also to work with the current staff which if you believe Lord Snape he failed to do. Not sure any Chairman of a football club would be forgiven for waiting until relegation was certain when the team had been staring at it all season. Would Roland have been forgiven if he'd failed to accept Peters resignation and the Town had gone back into the Conference. Bit of a departure, you siding with the employers!? Of course Stockport can change manager if they want to but they can't expect to do so at little or no cost. Snape's remarks seem naive in the extreme - you can't sack someone because they don't get on with other employees and not expect to have to pay out on their contract. At best that's your recruitment mistake and you have to expect to pay for it. Good luck to Simpson, I hope he wins his claim.
|
|
|
Post by Optimistic Shrew on Jan 20, 2011 14:46:58 GMT 1
In 08/09 3 teams got points deducted (Rotheham, Darlington and Luton) Luton got 30 points deducted but wouldn't have finished above us but Rotherham and Darlington would have finished above us, putting us in 9th which with the massive budget and the players we had was unacceptable and arguably if it wasn't for the psychologist he got in to alter his rotten away form he adopted we would have done worse. He's a poor manager, his next job will be in the non league which is his level. If you criticise fans and players after the poor, boring, hit and hope performances most notably against Staines, Grimsby and Darlington it's a slippery slope from there.
However I do feel that he may have a case. It may be tough for Stockport to say that they would have got relegated if he was still in charge. But on the over hand Stockport will say that who waits until you're relegated to sack a manager and as a manager it's your job to get on well with all the back room staff as well. Stockport were certainly in the mix for relegation all season with home losses like 4-0 to us and 5-0 to Preston reserves in the carling cup, Hereford and Port Vale.
Good luck Stockport I say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 15:46:55 GMT 1
Optimistic Shrew you cannot judge a manager fairly and say he is poor but do so by only accounting for his failures and ignoring his successes.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 20, 2011 15:52:09 GMT 1
Any employer surely has the right to sack an employee if he is failing to maintain the standards of the company. Yes Simpson remit was to keep Stockport in the league but by all accounts in was also to work with the current staff which if you believe Lord Snape he failed to do. Not sure any Chairman of a football club would be forgiven for waiting until relegation was certain when the team had been staring at it all season. Would Roland have been forgiven if he'd failed to accept Peters resignation and the Town had gone back into the Conference. Bit of a departure, you siding with the employers!? Of course Stockport can change manager if they want to but they can't expect to do so at little or no cost. Snape's remarks seem naive in the extreme - you can't sack someone because they don't get on with other employees and not expect to have to pay out on their contract. At best that's your recruitment mistake and you have to expect to pay for it. Good luck to Simpson, I hope he wins his claim. I think a manager in whatever sphere who loses the support of his team becomes a liability and as such must face the risk of being sacked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 15:52:34 GMT 1
Any employer surely has the right to sack an employee if he is failing to maintain the standards of the company. Yes Simpson remit was to keep Stockport in the league but by all accounts in was also to work with the current staff which if you believe Lord Snape he failed to do. Not sure any Chairman of a football club would be forgiven for waiting until relegation was certain when the team had been staring at it all season. Would Roland have been forgiven if he'd failed to accept Peters resignation and the Town had gone back into the Conference. Hypocrite!!
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 20, 2011 16:44:18 GMT 1
Any employer surely has the right to sack an employee if he is failing to maintain the standards of the company. Yes Simpson remit was to keep Stockport in the league but by all accounts in was also to work with the current staff which if you believe Lord Snape he failed to do. Not sure any Chairman of a football club would be forgiven for waiting until relegation was certain when the team had been staring at it all season. Would Roland have been forgiven if he'd failed to accept Peters resignation and the Town had gone back into the Conference. Hypocrite!! B******** I have never or ever would suggest that any employee is fire proof especially in the first 6 months trial period. What I object to is these ConDems suggesting that the trial period should be extended to 2 years. Big difference from 6 months to 2 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 16:47:21 GMT 1
Nah.......... u were really banging on about fairness of employeers, you sir, are a pillock!!
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 20, 2011 17:06:59 GMT 1
You sir, have demonstrated over recent weeks a total disregard for the truth which you have shown again by trying to distort my views, evidence below. Not sure what that makes you but bearing in mind your support for everything Cameron I guess Tory maybe appropriate
Jan 11 @ 10.46
Maybe the graet capatalist in the sky can explain why someone who has been a good employee for 12 months is likely to become a liability during the next twelve months. Surely it is managements job to understand their staff and deal with the issue.
I always thought that most jobs come with a trial period say 6 months.
There are employees who play the system but equally there are employers who exploit the system, I do not believe that the proposed changes will benefit the good employers the only ones to gain will be the poor employers who want to exploit their workforce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 17:15:44 GMT 1
He's making a good living out of being a failed football manager. I think that’s a tad harsh that Ant. His remit at Stockport was to keep them up and he was on course to do that. Success as a manger can’t be judged purely on titles won, promotions gained... Yes, fair point, as I said at the time of his sacking you do feel it was unfortunate given those aims at the start of the season. Perhaps a more fitting line would be "making a good living out of being sacked as a football manager"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 17:28:10 GMT 1
im suprised we dont see more of this kind of thing. although i was never a fan of simpson at all, he left us in not too poor a position league wise, although we didnt get promotion.
are there generally targets in peoples contracts?
would finishing tenth in the league (for example) be considered grounds for dismisal?
|
|