Goodbye Grays

[mikefleet]

i been saying for months they will go tits up and here you go:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7280939.stm

[Stu M]

Originally Posted By: mikefleet

i been saying for months they will go tits up

But this has nothing to do with them going 'tits up' as such. They can afford that payment, they simply refuse to pay it (and quite rightly).

[Derryman]

I'm not an employment legal expert by any means (having only studied Irish Constitutional law) but Grays may have grounds for an Appeal against SOME of the back pay award.

 

IF this player did indeed lie to them about the nature of the charge(s) against him then FROM THAT POINT ONWARDS he was effectively being employed under false pretences. In other words, he should have been served notice at an earlier stage (much earlier ?).

 

Grays should take advice on this point of law. Personally, I admire the stance they are taking on this. But I don't like to see clubs going down the plug-hole, PRINCIPLES (spelling, BBC!) or not.

[Special K]

Originally Posted By: Stu M

Originally Posted By: mikefleet

i been saying for months they will go tits up

But this has nothing to do with them going 'tits up' as such. They can afford that payment, they simply refuse to pay it (and quite rightly).

I am thinking the same way as you. Why should Grays pay a convicted criminal.

[David Holden]

Because it relates to a period before he was a convicted criminal.

 

 

You know innocent until proven guilty and all that rubbish.

[kmj]

If there are proceedings pending between Grays and the player, then as this will probably turn on what evidence exists of what was said at his "interview" (do players have interviews?) when he joined, the FA should suspend their punishment until this has been resolved. Would Grays have engaged him if he had said "Actually I am on remand awaiting trial for my alleged part in an armed robbery"? Probably not.

[Special K]

Originally Posted By: David Holden

Because it relates to a period before he was a convicted criminal.


You know innocent until proven guilty and all that rubbish.

Ok I stand corrected and admit I may be wrong here.

So out of curiosity when did he first sign for Grays and when did he get convicted?

[David Holden]

Originally Posted By: kmj

Would Grays have engaged him if he had said "Actually I am on remand awaiting trial for my alleged part in an armed robbery"? Probably not.

Agreed but:

Quote:

The FA said because Sestanovich was arrested after he signed for Grays, the club were obliged to honour his contract until he was actually convicted of an offence, under contract law

I doubt that Grays asked if he had committed any crimes for which he was likely to be arrested shortly.

[Riverview Supporter]

If grays can prove that he said he was on motoring convictions and no trial of conviction pending , then I am sure under contract law , he has "frustrated" his contract and it will be anulled.

 

[Derryman]

It's a tricky one and could all come down to what was actually stated in the contract of employment and "understood" to be the case by the employer (who presumably kept some sort of record of the interview concerned).

 

It caught my eye because it reminded me of a case I was involved in during my time in the civil service in Ireland. I was dealing with pensions and at that time if a female civil servant resigned for the purpose of marriage (once upon a time they HAD to resign on marriage!) she received a 'Marriage Gratuity' to the value of a year's salary in lieu of a pension. I was in charge of the section dealing with this provision and other pension matters.

 

Now, this well-known lesbian civil servant was up in court in Dublin for a series of serious drug offences. She was found guilty, told she'd definitely be receiving a custodial sentence (when the judge made up his mind and considered all factors etc.) and was released on bail pending sentence.

 

She hastily resigned from the service, arranged to get "married" in the local registry office to a well-known gay and the news and pics were published in (at the time) underground gay and lesbian magazines about town.

 

Next thing is an application for the civil service marriage gratuity arrives on my desk ! Now the law was that any civil servant convicted of a "felony" (which these drug offences most certainly were classified as) could NOT receive a marriage gratuity or pension. I turned down the application.

 

All hell broke out ! I was told by superiors (who'd been politically lobbied) that a marriage had taken place, your woman had resigned on marriage from the civil service and therefore complied with the letter of the law and accordingly the gratuity was to be paid. I counter-argued that the 'marriage' was a sham, providing evidence, that it was done solely to get money from the state which your woman would not have got otherwise upon conviction of the felonies, and that this was 'false pretences'.

 

I lost that particular battle, and I wonder will Grays similarly lose this one. The right thing isn't always what happens in life.

[David Holden]

Originally Posted By: Riverview Supporter

If grays can prove that he said he was on motoring convictions and no trial of conviction pending , then I am sure under contract law , he has "frustrated" his contract and it will be anulled.

If was arrested after he signed the contract, then his statement would have been true.

[Harry J Allstars]

Originally Posted By: mikefleet

i been saying for months they will go tits up and here you go:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7280939.stm

Grays have been next for years, Mike.

[Riverview Supporter]

Originally Posted By: David Holden

Originally Posted By: Riverview Supporter

If grays can prove that he said he was on motoring convictions and no trial of conviction pending , then I am sure under contract law , he has "frustrated" his contract and it will be anulled.

If was arrested after he signed the contract, then his statement would have been true.

True Dave , but most companies these days have a frustration clause. I know the company I work for has just ditched someone who was caught doing 105 in a 60. Lost his licence. Although his job didnt involve driving , there is a rare requiremenmt that he may have to drive. the company classed this as frustration and our outsourced employer law company advised dismissal. I also have another case where a guy has been arrested and charged and may face a short custodial or community based sentance. It is likely that either of these sentances will again mean he has Frustrated his contract.

Now if Grays had nothing in place in their contracts then they are stuffed. If the guy hadnt commited the offence , signed , committed the offence then got jailed , I guess legally they would be liable for his wage. Wether they played him or not during the period between arrest and sentance was down to them. However it is likely they have a clasue that any charge for a crime must be reported immediatley.

Company law and contract law is a minefield to me.
Very complex. I guess they will get an annonymous donor

[Bitch]

Pass it on

 

[American FLEET FAN No1]

I guess this will end up in the High Courts!

[Harry J Allstars]

Originally Posted By: Riverview Supporter

I guess they will get an annonymous donor

What would be the point of that though? They can afford to pay him but they refuse on principle.

As far as I can see they would be stupid not to pay him as them’s the rules. We can argue about the "right thing to do" as much as we like but the FA have looked at it and decided on the case, perhaps they know something we don't.

If you saw a convicted paedophile walking down the street would you kick the guy to death? It would possibly be the right thing to do in principle but the law wouldn't see it that way.