wrong club,your re the one with the clowns

I know that technically its a grey area and actually the employer can do as they choose as long as they approach it correctly/appropriately. (its a hell of a strong arguement to talk about damage to a brand even if the person hasnt been found guilty etc, even by being charged)

The way to spot the dodgy cartridge was the fact it had a HP sticker on it from a ketchup bottle...

Obviously it depends upon exactly what Raynor's contract says but I should have thought the club would be on very dodgy ground if it were to try to terminate it on the grounds of damage to reputation/brand and/or bringing the club into disrepute in respect of allegations which Raynor apparently denies and remains unconvicted of. If Raynor were later to be acquitted or the charges were dropped he would have a substantial claim against the club which would also have damaged its own brand (if any further damage were possible!) by its own actions. A judge would expect an employer to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings and I can't see any prudent employer doing otherwise.

Thats where the grey area is. It doesnt actually have to be written into his contract about damage to the brand and bringing the club into disrepute. It can actually go unwritten because all professional sports people should be aware of the detrimental impact made by this kind of thing. Guilty or not he has been charged. That in itself can be classed as bringing the game into disrepute. Guilty or not he has damaged our brand. What happens if he is fund not guilty is a whole different kettle of fish.

I know, thats why i said it to get a bite!



I dont think they will suspend him. Another option weve not touched on would simply to offer him a compromise agreement and pay him off. May be in both parties interest to take it.

Doesnt have to impact on his job here, his job is in the public domain so bring in the brand impact weve been speaking about.

Could it not be seen as "gross misconduct" (what this consists of should be set out somewhere)?

Hutch was sacked for that, so no reason why A N Other couldn't be. Can't imagine that there isn't a standard set of conditions in players' contracts.

I suppose he could be found entirely innocent and go on to score 30 tries for us next season? (okay sideways tries, I know)

Indeed.

Its highly likely it would be dismissal for gross misconduct on the grounds of bringing the club into disrepute. For clarity the grounds can be set in the contracts of employment but dont have to be.

For example, my employment contact states that i will be subject to the internal disciplinary process if deemed to have acted inappropriately in my role. Inappropriate is subjective and depends on the situation. Gross misconduct will lead to immediate dismissal. Gross Misconduct is subjective and again depends on the situation and the offence.

All very vague but useful when wanting to dismiss without reason!!

maybe its not his only indiscretion