Sheridan
In the realms of a man losing his job, this article about John Sheridan's ultimate demise as Notts County manager, after their game against, is quite funny.
0
In the realms of a man losing his job, this article about John Sheridan's ultimate demise as Notts County manager, after their game against, is quite funny.
Comments
Never had cause to say this before, but I am on Sheridans side here.
My judgment is that Sheridan was sacked because he delivered bad results not because of a rant at the referee.
transparent attempt to me by Notts county to find an excuse they can claim gross misconduct for to avoid a hefty contractural compensation bill. I hope the appeal sees through this.
It may be true that it was an excuse to get rid of him, and that the real reason was performance on the pitch, but I don't have a problem with their decision at all. You can't use that kind of language and, more importantly, those kind of threats in a professional context and not expect consequences.
Sadly I suspect yu will find that similar comments are made regularly. Should it be stamped out yes. Would Sheridan have been sacked if they had won the last five games, no. I suspect he will win his appeal.
If he wins the appeal then the Respect Programme might as well be kicked into touch. Hopefully those that hear his appeal will possess higher morals and more respect for authority than Dev apparently has.
I would have no problems at all if the rules on talking to referees were tightened.
I do seem to have a more developed bullshit detector than one or two here.
Do you honestly believe Sheridan was sacked because of a rant at a referee or because of poor results. If the latter, he is entitled to his contractual compensation.
Sounds a thoroughly vile individual.
@devc It's far from my area of expertise but I'm not convinced your third paragraph is true. If he's committed gross misconduct then he doesn't have a defence, does he? Even if the incident wasn't the real reason that prompted his dismissal.
The tribunal would be expected to look at whether his actions constituted gross misconduct and whether Sheridan would reasonably expect them to be treated as such. Given that managers fairly regularly abuse referees vilely and get sent to the stands and no such action is taken against them, I believe Notts County would have to explain why this case was materially different and why Sheridan should have reasonably known that such actions would be considered gross misconduct under his contract.
Not defending his actions by the way, but if County had been top of the table at the time of his dismissal, Notts County would have funded his appeal against his touchline ban. That to me constitutes hypocrisy.
Of course you're on sheridan's side @devc you take any view on gasroom and automatically disagree with it just to be contrary whether you believe in it or not.
Of course if he was winning he wouldn't have been sacked and that is hypocrisy.
But to behave like that surely does amount to gross misconduct and a sacking for that should stand. If you behaved like that in any other job you'd get the sack and rightly so.
Sheridan is a pretty obnoxious individual.
Managers should not be allowed to abuse referees.
Fact is they are. While sheridAns words were extreme, I suspect they are not materially more offensive than is fairly common.
Assuming that is the case, notts rather opportunistic attempt to evade compensation is unlikely to be considered a fair dismissal. I'd be surprised if he didn't win his case.
Dev, whilst we all know managers regularly abuse officials, doesn't the fact that a FIVE match touchline ban was given demonstrate that this was more serious than most offences? Remember in this case he was threatening physical violence to the officials which may be acceptable to your standards, but is not to the majority of fair minded citizens.
The key to it will be is Sheriden used that type of language previously and was not punished by County.
If he did and they turned a blind eye when all was going well he will has a case.
That's not saying he isn't an odious man or that type of language/behaviour has a place - because it doesn't and shouldn't
Exactly on both counts, Mr Yak
Sheridan deserved to go not just cause of the results becuase of the explosive rant and threat towards the official not becuase he led us to our worse losing streak
If i used that tyoe of language he did in my workplace id be sacked on the spot and police called he threatend the match official if you read what he said
He deserved to go and in all fairness he was lucky to stay as long as he did we were terrible under him thank god were a bit better off now
Well with the idiotic owners we had before god knows what was in his contract
Sheridan won his case - announced today.
I wonder what other types of workplaces would tolerate you this to an official of your industry's governing body:
'You're a f****** c***,' Sheridan said to Donohue, before shouting at Ilderton: 'You're a f****** disgrace, you f****** useless, you've not f****** got anything right today, you should be f****** ashamed, you're f****** shit, my kids aren't going to get any f****** Christmas presents because of f****** you.'
Seems like gross misconduct to me...?
Needed a bit more non PC material in there probably.
They seem to accept swears as just the way it is.
Did he then throw a flare at them? I am sure Wycombe's True fans are looking at each other and saying - I cannot see what he got the sack for...
Point always was as the tribunal appears to have found, it is tolerated in this industry.
it took them five more weeks to decide it wouldn't be at Notts County, and five more winless games.
it was always an excuse to try to avoid paying the contractural amount due. While Sheridan is and was an obnoxious individual, he deserved to win his case IMHO.
All sounds fair enough to me. The sacking was never the issue and the contract should have been paid up. Always find it odd how much money failed managers take out of clubs when they are sacked. Find it even odder how many of them keep getting jobs and doing it all over again.
Is Sanchez the only sacked Wycombe manager who got another job managing in the league?
They get what they are untitled to under their contract - if you have a year remaining on the contract - you are entitled to a years money.
I agree with you how the same failed names keep getting appointed elsewhere is very odd.
Peter Taylor and Gary Waddock surely are on your list. martin O'neill might argue he should be too.
And indeed he whose name should not be spoken. sure he had another go at Crystal Palace.
Is Smillie the only WWFC manager who has not gone on to manage elsewhere in England (apart from Ainsworth obviously)
Can clubs not simply add a clause that managers do not get xxx compensation, or at least agree it?
No manager would be forced to sign it.
Or is that not legal?
Unfortunately it would be way too risky for clubs to do what almost every job does, a rolling ongoing contract rather than a set time scale.
@Malone Clubs can't insert clauses that are illegal regarding wrongful dismissal. They are bound by the same employment legislation as other industries.
You are right that employment law applies to football managers as much as anyone else. Can't think of a reason why clubs and managers could not legally agree a rolling one month contract if both sides wished but wouldn't really want a manager so desperate for work that he was prepared to sign one, nor to so limit my compensation when my successful manager is headhunted by a higher league club.
If they had clearly specified in the contract that abusing officials in such a manner which resulted in it being reported to the FA would be interpreted as gross misconduct. However as the sacking was delayed the club would have probably lost anyway.
Is it wrongful dismissal if the manager is crap and loses loads of games?