unless of course it costs us more to get rid than keep him and not use him, ie does he have a long term contract with pay off clauses??


on a lighter note, been in garage and dusted of the barby kinley!!

Would have thought his performance as CEO woulld be sufficient grounds to dispense with his services and I would imagine any pay off would be minimal

I would have thought outright sacking could be a costly and time consuming procedure. It appears Jimmy has taken a paycut and a reduced role.

One way of looking at this is that Jimmy knows he's toast but has accepted the situation and it at least gives him time and income to look for other employment. Carter also knows this and its much easier to do. Jimmy will probably leave of his own accord in a few months time, if he can get fixed up elsewhere.

JE is also a shareholder of the club

I forgot about that complication

If you cannot get rid of someone easily for being responsoble for running the business into the ground then the law really is an ass. As for moving on, what would he move on to do, as who in their right mind would give him a job as a CEO of a sports club?

He holds 5% of what are worthless shares, cannot see it being a complication

You would have to be able to reasonably demonstrate that that person's actions, or lack thereof, was sufficient grounds to dismiss them, which is never easy. Disciplinary action on the grounds of capability is always complicated - conduct is much more straightforward, which probably explains why Shudds tried to manufacture a conduct issue to get rid of Mason.

As of two days ago however, a new statutory provision came into force, allowing an employer to have a 'protected conversation' with an employee - this is a way of asking an employee to leave under a settlement agreement, which prevents them from using anything said during that conversation in a subsequent claim for unfair dismissal. It might have some relevance in a situation like this.

I appreciate there has to be some protections for employees but in this instance I would say the evidence speaks for itself. The club is in severe difficulty whilst JE has continured to spend money we clearly didnt have and he has then been very liberal with he truth, surely not the conduct befitting of a CEO role

But he could (reasonably) argue that others were complicit in his decisions, but aren't being as harshly treated; he could also argue that he had a boss, Andrew Glover, who does not appear to be facing similar censure.

It's a one-way ticket to an employment tribunal with the likely outcome being in his favour.

This has always been in force, it's called a "compromise agreement" however what's changed is that it doesn't need signing by both representatives lawyers