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.

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.

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

Was it the Hull players who signed some kind of agreement covering their expected behaviour or was it another club?

Seem to remember someone doing it.

Agree with you there Nobeer, some here are effectively saying you can dismiss on the basis of a charge alone which is complete and utter rubbish.
If a person is not guilty of a charge then where would the disrepute or brand damage be if the person is innocent of said charge.
Obviously a guilty verdict could put a person in the realms of gross misconduct etc.
Dismissing on the basis of a charge alone without a resultant would see an employee win a tribunal even if that charge were to be upheld further down the line.

I have to say what an absolute load of tosh this thread is with a lot of people discussing things they know nothing about.
All we need are the torches and pitchforks.
This is being blown so out of proportion I think people are losing sight of the facts.
What he has done supposedly, is stupid. It's not worth sacking imo but I suppose it suits a lot of peoples' agendas this way.
And before the obvious posts, no I'm not Gareth, a relative or friend just someone who is keeping a level head and more interested in the club as a whole and what best suits them.