SA Footy

If Lokan doesn't lift the bays could Chiggy also take on the Senior Coach's role and at the same time save the club some money by doing 2 jobs?

Panther Pack wrote:If Lokan doesn't lift the bays could Chiggy also take on the Senior Coach's role and at the same time save the club some money by doing 2 jobs?

So predictable PP, 51 years is a long time in't it?

dedja wrote:

Squawk wrote:

heater31 wrote:Clearly they had to wait until the verdict was handed down. Innocent until proven guilty. Would have been a bigger debacle if they arsed him last season when they discovered the allegations then to have a not guilty.

Actually, under employment law it is possible to sack someone on the balance of probabilities, and therefore the club could have dismissed him once the 30 charges were laid on the basis that evidence existed to lay charges and that this brought the employer's reputation in to disrepute.

The thing that surprised me the most was that if they weren't going to sack him when he was charged, the club should have suspended him as soon as he was charged.

All conjecture unless we can all review his employment contract. I think you are trying to reference unfair dismissal laws, which are murky and difficult to interpret and adjudicate at the best of times, and would also potentially involve significant legal expenses.

I'm very comfortable with the way the issue was handled.

Surely they would have sought legal advice? I would expect myself would do a similar thing in the position of the board. Support the employee until the verdict is handed down. Then throw them under the bus if found guilty. Not guilty resume as per normal.

Panther Pack wrote:If Lokan doesn't lift the bays could Chiggy also take on the Senior Coach's role and at the same time save the club some money by doing 2 jobs?

Not unlike your club appointing their CEO??

Yes they did Heater, but getting legal advice and having legal representation for the duration of a protracted dispute are completely different matters

dedja wrote:

Panther Pack wrote:If Lokan doesn't lift the bays could Chiggy also take on the Senior Coach's role and at the same time save the club some money by doing 2 jobs?

So predictable PP, 51 years is a long time in't it?

Ha ha great response I actually got a good laugh.

Wasn't around in 64 but trust me when we had Fuller I was begging for Kerley to return

Panther Pack wrote:

dedja wrote:

Panther Pack wrote:If Lokan doesn't lift the bays could Chiggy also take on the Senior Coach's role and at the same time save the club some money by doing 2 jobs?

So predictable PP, 51 years is a long time in't it?

Ha ha great response I actually got a good laugh.

Wasn't around in 64 but trust me when we had Fuller I was begging for Kerley to return

We've been begging for Kerley to return too...

dedja wrote:

Squawk wrote:

heater31 wrote:Clearly they had to wait until the verdict was handed down. Innocent until proven guilty. Would have been a bigger debacle if they arsed him last season when they discovered the allegations then to have a not guilty.

Actually, under employment law it is possible to sack someone on the balance of probabilities, and therefore the club could have dismissed him once the 30 charges were laid on the basis that evidence existed to lay charges and that this brought the employer's reputation in to disrepute.

The thing that surprised me the most was that if they weren't going to sack him when he was charged, the club should have suspended him as soon as he was charged.

All conjecture unless we can all review his employment contract. I think you are trying to reference unfair dismissal laws, which are murky and difficult to interpret and adjudicate at the best of times, and would also potentially involve significant legal expenses.

I'm very comfortable with the way the issue was handled.

An employment contract cannot contract out of the law. You don't need to see it (or anyone's) - it is a well established legal principle. If he then launched an unfair dismissal case, he would have to demonstrate that the circumstances did not meet the balance of probabilities test AND the circumstances did not bring his employer into disrepute.

It does appear as though the Bays have tried to get out of this as cleanly and cheaply as possible. If they had suspended him without pay when the charges were laid, it would have been even cheaper for them.

You're quite entitled to that opinion, no problem with that at all, but hindsight always has 20/20 vision.

Perhaps you could advise Essendon who appear to have been struggling with some coach issues of their own for a while.

Pseudo wrote:

Panther Pack wrote:

dedja wrote:

Panther Pack wrote:If Lokan doesn't lift the bays could Chiggy also take on the Senior Coach's role and at the same time save the club some money by doing 2 jobs?

So predictable PP, 51 years is a long time in't it?

Ha ha great response I actually got a good laugh.

Wasn't around in 64 but trust me when we had Fuller I was begging for Kerley to return

We've been begging for Kerley to return too...

West say hello ...

dedja wrote:You're quite entitled to that opinion, no problem with that at all, but hindsight always has 20/20 vision.

Perhaps you could advise Essendon who appear to have been struggling with some coach issues of their own for a while.

Actually, I've been saying the same thing (offline) in relation to all of them - Liam Jurrah, Steven Milne, etc etc. So my thoughts are not with hindsight, it's just that I didn't publicly express them at the time.

The thing is that the football world (and sporting world in general) like to do things a bit differently when it comes to legal transgressions. Often with "kid gloves". And the AFLPA is very very happy about that.

On the Hird matter, I agree with you too. In my view, there is one law for everyone. It should be applied to the circumstances of each case. It should not be applied any differently whether it is James Hird or rookie draft pick no 44.

Squawk wrote:

dedja wrote:You're quite entitled to that opinion, no problem with that at all, but hindsight always has 20/20 vision.

Perhaps you could advise Essendon who appear to have been struggling with some coach issues of their own for a while.

Actually, I've been saying the same thing (offline) in relation to all of them - Liam Jurrah, Steven Milne, etc etc. So my thoughts are not with hindsight, it's just that I didn't publicly express them at the time.

The thing is that the football world (and sporting world in general) like to do things a bit differently when it comes to legal transgressions. Often with "kid gloves". And the AFLPA is very very happy about that.

On the Hird matter, I agree with you too. In my view, there is one law for everyone. It should be applied to the circumstances of each case. It should not be applied any differently whether it is James Hird or rookie draft pick no 44.

But when there's money involved, that law for everyone is just a little bit bendy.

Panther Pack wrote:

dedja wrote:

Panther Pack wrote:If Lokan doesn't lift the bays could Chiggy also take on the Senior Coach's role and at the same time save the club some money by doing 2 jobs?

So predictable PP, 51 years is a long time in't it?

Ha ha great response I actually got a good laugh.

Wasn't around in 64 but trust me when we had Fuller I was begging for Kerley to return

Trolling prick!

And I'm always the only idiot to bite.

Dedja/happy endings please explain to us uneducated swill what chiggy did to save GFC in 2014.

Or is this just another bs claim that interestingly no other bays fan has ever made. Or I can see back up.


Myself and topsy can't wait for you to reply

Booney wrote:Yes and no. UK rarely posts about Centrals, hardly ever posts anything positive and usually just runs in, throws a hand grenade and runs for cover.

Kettle, pot and black - see if you can put them in a sentence with some other words - sums you up beautifully!

on the rails wrote:

Booney wrote:Yes and no. UK rarely posts about Centrals, hardly ever posts anything positive and usually just runs in, throws a hand grenade and runs for cover.

Kettle, pot and black - see if you can put them in a sentence with some other words - sums you up beautifully!

I taught him well OTR.

In this thread, guys?

Panther Pack wrote:Just out of curiosity was Graham "Studley" Cornes ever in the running to take over from Stevens?

Bring back Jack Hanley!

Dogwatcher wrote:In this thread, guys?

What, do you have something better to do than watch men argue about stuff on the internet? ;-)

dedja wrote:

Squawk wrote:

heater31 wrote:Clearly they had to wait until the verdict was handed down. Innocent until proven guilty. Would have been a bigger debacle if they arsed him last season when they discovered the allegations then to have a not guilty.

Actually, under employment law it is possible to sack someone on the balance of probabilities, and therefore the club could have dismissed him once the 30 charges were laid on the basis that evidence existed to lay charges and that this brought the employer's reputation in to disrepute.

The thing that surprised me the most was that if they weren't going to sack him when he was charged, the club should have suspended him as soon as he was charged.

All conjecture unless we can all review his employment contract. I think you are trying to reference unfair dismissal laws, which are murky and difficult to interpret and adjudicate at the best of times, and would also potentially involve significant legal expenses.

I'm very comfortable with the way the issue was handled.

Yes all conjecture .