Thought the same thing myself.
Printable View
[quote=Dalymountrower;1167124]John 83 states
"Perhaps you meant to say that an employee's right to have his say on an incident before being sacked is sacrosanct. I'd not argue it, beyond to say that I think it's a technicality here for which he'll get minor redress in court." ]
As someone who works in the Labour Law area I can assure all that the employee's right to defence is not sacrosanct (cases involving violence, serious misconduct etc can and do result in instant dismissal). It is however considered best practice to allow the employee a chance to defend his/her actions. Where the right to defence is bypassed the onus would be on the employer to prove why it was deemed necessary to do so. There is plenty of case law from the EAT and/or Labour Court to back up this analysis.
Were he to take a case under Contract Law (ie breach of contract by Dundalk) the club would, again, have to justify the decision to unilaterally terminate the contract.either way it seems to me that Dundalk will have a case to prove.
Oh so its ok for kids to see all the scumbag dundalk fans causing hassel after the matches home and away,lets be honest he showed a bit of his jocks end of ,its a money saving job by dundalk
I find it funny (in a quirky sense) and ironic, that this line continues to be peddled (and maybe even believed by some).
While I think it improbable that there is any validity in this theory (see earlier post below, which has remained conspicously unchallenged), it is ironic that many supportors of clubs that urgently need to reduce their wage bills sieze on this as an evil.
Of course it would be wrong if this was a motivation in this case - but all the evidence points in a different direction
Did he whip his slogan-emblazoned sporty y-fronts down to reveal the crack of his arse? Was he flashing said arsehole at opposition fans? Was he sent off for doing so (was he even booked)? Have Burnley had four sendings off in their last four games? Were Burnley promoted to the League of Ireland? If the answer is yes to any of the above, I can see how your post is relative to Dave Rogers' sacking.
So it wasn't the mooning that was the problem then but the fact that he got himself stupidly sent off?
Does that mean every player who gets himself stupidly sent off will now be sacked?
Also I doubt getting stupidly sent off is a legal sacking offense.
You can't have it both ways, you either sacked him because mooning is completely unacceptable(whenever it is) or you didnt.
No, your club did, and you've bee defending that decision.
I can hardly ask you board, given they didnt even speak to the person involved, let alone anyone else.
p.s. Im aware that in dublin and surrounding areas it may be confusing but 'you' is actually also a plural......
There once was a thread on the UCD forum where various of us used the plurals youse, ye, yez and y'all (having noticed a pattern, I was taking the ****) in consecutive posts. Poor Schumi was less than pleased.
Your previous post asks people here to defend Dundalk's theoretically inconsistent behaviour in a theoretical situation. I find this mildly ridiculous.
I know there is a lot going on for you/ye/yous at the moment, and will try to ignore your patronising tone.
You appear to have confused me with another poster when you say that I've been "defending" the clubs decision -
Quote:
For what it is worth, I think that the sacking is harsh and an extreme reaction to the unacceptable levels of indiscipline that have been tolerated up to now. In that sense Dave Rogers is unfortunate, but is the author of his own misfortune.
Apologies, I did have you confused with another poster about defending him
However the original point still stands. Did the club sack him for the mooning(gross misconduct) or for getting sent of in an important game?
The distinction will probably be important in court, especially if the club holds the same attitude that he wouldn't have been sacked had it been another time.
I don't think Dundalk have much chance in this one.
I don't want to get into semantics with you, but what I suggested was that there was quite a different context in Robbie Blake situation versus Dave Rogers.
One, a post-match celebration in the euphoric aftermath of clinching promotion. The other, a gesture towards visiting supportors in the middle of a crucial match, which put his team down to 10 men.
Perhaps you can't grasp the fundamental difference in context, and how the first may only offend good taste or the prudish, while the other resonates with supporters in an entirely different way
Gross Misconduct
.Quote:
Following an emergency meeting of the Dundalk FC Board of Management the club have issued the following statement:
Following an incident during the Dundalk v St Patrick's Athletic match in Oriel Park on Friday night, Dave Rogers has been dismissed, with immediate effect, due to gross misconduct. The club will not tolerate this type of behaviour from any member of our squad.
The club will not be making any further comment on this issue at this time
http://dundalkfc.com/news/090523_statement.asp
This is the only public statement to date. I doubt very much if the clubs position will be that it would have acted differently if it were "another time" Do you?????
But like I already said I do not think that consequences would have been the same if, like Robbie Blake.....(opps we've already been there)