I can see an out of court settlement, with a confidentiality clause, coming down the track. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
It's difficult to imagine just what Ehab or his dad would have to do to lose the support of those on here who back them. I've never understood this ardent, unerring backing they get from some, or why these posters are so determined to continue backing the Allams. Do they actually believe the stuff they post or is it just a face saving exercise of never being shown to change their mind after calling it wrong back at the beginning? I don't get it. I sort of wonder if they met some of the people who've suffered at the hands of the Allams; the groundsmen who lost their jobs, the disabled kids who lost their venue, the club whose trampolines Ehab tried to sell on eBay, or any of the people who've dealt with them at the FA, our various ex managers and employees who've fallen foul of them, etc etc would they act the same? Just dismiss their claims with this entirely transparent faux-neutrality which everyone can see is really just a determination to back the Allams whatever they do and whoever they hurt. I just don't get it.
As a counter argument I have heard from someone who knows nothing about the Hull City side of things that the Allams are OK with the workers at Allam Marine. Second hand views I know but it would be odd for them to be good bosses making generators and bad ones running a football club.
This might well be true but I'd guess that he's developed and now runs the generator business in a fairly conventional way, like having professionals in key positions, conventional management structure, etc. He seems to do the exact opposite with City and treats it like a hobby, and he's now got what appears to be an incompetent running it.
Not sure this is aimed at me but I believe the stuff I post. An Employment Tribunal is a legal hearing which will look at whether the groundsmen should have been sacked. Reading their claim there are some problems with the procedure, yes, but will they be enough to overturn the sackings? In my opinion it is doubtful without them producing more evidence that Ehab told his staff to conduct a bogus investigation before sacking them. We may suspect that to be the case knowing Ehab but they have to prove it. The claim doesn't provide any details of what I consider to be the main charges against them, how much was spent on the pitch and whether working for Hull FC was a breach of his contract of the employment. For that they need to know what is in the contracts of employment and professional confirmation that the purchases were appropriate given the lab results. The bigger the difference between what the club was spending and what they are spending now, the more important it is that the groundsmen were acting on professional advice. Personally I don't understand why the groundsmen haven't made repeated requests during the disciplinary procedure and afterwards to get a copy of their contracts of employment. If they have it should be in the claim, with dates and copy requests.
I'm sure that's true, but your usually wrong, Wrong on the Airco debacle, wrong on the SMC and even wrong on Ched Evans. Maybe you'll finally get one right, who knows, we'll have to see what the club respond with before anyone can make any sort of reasonable judgement on who's at fault.
Ironically you're using the same argument I've been using for ages about the frankly stupid claims leveled at me, what I've supposedly said, or think. Difference being, those cockwombles won't get one right because they're obsessed with spreading utter bollocks and don't seem interested in the truth at all. All they're interested in is their petty obsession and self interest. Also ironically, they're the biggest bullshitters on here and other media formats too.
I was the only one off this board to attend the second protest outside the Airco Arena against what the Allams did. I don't think I was wrong, I was just on the losing side.
I think some people just like being contrary online. I've seen it in other forums, and ultimately they said they liked "keeping the conversation going" by presenting the "opposite view". Personally I think it's dancing pretty close to the line of being a WUM
I was referring to all the stuff about the council getting the lease back etc, not that you were on the wrong side.
The council didn't have the balls to get the lease back. They took no outside legal advice on what they could do. Any competent solicitor would have told them if they admitted the SMC could turn the arena into a grass covered 5 a-side pitch they'd lose. Which is what happened.
