You mean you always take a neutral view on things unless it involves the Allams. Which is another way of saying you do not always take a neutral view of things. Or you don't understand what neutral actually means.
I find it incredible that anyone could read that submission and not think that there were serious issues with the running of the organisation, regardless of what counter evidence the club puts forward. Everything about that submission screams unprofessional.
I don't see anything seriously wrong with what the SMC did. They investigated the potential misconduct, they held a disciplinary hearing and then held the appeal. All three meetings were chaired by a different person with what appears to be the appropriate level of responsibility. They presented the evidence, some of which came from admissions by the groundsmen, and sacked them. Legally the crux of the SMC's case will resolve around how much the SMC was paying to Taylor Rigby, whether that was too much, who was responsible for making the orders and whether Darrell Cook should have being working for the SMC on the day of the Hull FC match. These issues may be covered in the contracts of employment but were put to the groundsmen at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal.
We all know he's a tool.... Fortunately or unfortunately the tribunal will only look at whether or not employment law was followed and the correct processes where done, and looking at it in an unbiased way I'd say they where. Have they been harshly treated....yes Have they been unfairly treated..... Possibly Has employment law been broken.... Probably not
Depends also wether or not the sackings were within bounds of reasonableness (not just about following process)
Re the products bought from Taylor Rigby Didn't the groundsmen claim all orders were signed off by more senior management? And if part of the dismissal was because the SMC were paying £20 more per unit then an online price that's also a very weak argument.
How can you make that claim without knowing what's in the defence? If everything in their claim is proven, they'll obviously win, they'll only lose if they prove the details in the claim are inaccurate.
Unlike you i haven't stuck my flag on the good island of Allam then blindly defended them. Everything they do contradicts your unstinting support. And like I say there's people that I know that have been treat like shoe scrapping. If that's how you think people should be treat more fool you.
