Dundee United 2018/2019

[mishtergrolsch]

1 minute ago, lionel wickson said:

Wouldn't that give the employee grounds for a constructive dismissal claim if the employer insisted on imposing this?

Doubt it. Keatings has a contract with United and has done since the start of last season. It runs till the end of this season. It dosent have a "25 mile" rule in it by the sounds of it.

All he has to do is fulfill his side of the agreement made in his existing contract. If United want to change it then they have to offer him a new contract with a 25 mile rule clause added. He can turn it down and is entitled to if he dosent agree with it and see out his current contract which looks like whats going to happen. Its not breaching his terms of employment imo. Keatings isnt doing anything wrong.

I dont really like the rule personally and it hasnt hindered us in the past with the likes of Gauld who lived in Stonehaven i think? Levien and Houston lived out with the 25 mile rule and they did ok. Does Laszlo not live in Edinburgh too?Just a gimmik from said donkey of a manager and the fud of a chairman.

Will cause far more problems with recruitment than it will solve imho. Could you imagine if we did this after Keatings was our best player and had scored 35 goals last season and wouldnt relocate? The club would look even more stupid by forcing him out. 

[Dindeleux]

Next batch.

Goal is to be within a point or 2 of Ross County by the time we play them.

Will today be the start of a wee run? Let’s see. Fucking hope so.

Even if they lose every game between now and then?

[arab_joe]

On 8/14/2018 at 21:06, mishtergrolsch said:

Im pretty sure you cant change details of a contract of employment unless both parties agree to it and a new contract is signed. And unions can get involved etc. In this case Keatings wouldnt have to worry about the 25 mile rule as the law would be in his favour i imagine.

New players would have this in a contract of employment and would have to agree to the 25 mile rule as part of the contract when signing - or sign for someone else.

I'm no employment lawyer (and obviously haven't read his employment contract) but would be shocked if we would be allowed to unilaterally impose a rule like that.  Especially given the absurdity of the rule, i.e. the fact that players of every other East coast team continue to live in Glasgow, and there is (as far as I am aware) no objective evidence that even suggests that house location somehow improves his ability to do his job.   Add to that the fact that he seems to have had mental health issues that may be helped by him living near his family.

8 hours ago, mishtergrolsch said:

I dont really like the rule personally and it hasnt hindered us in the past with the likes of Gauld who lived in Stonehaven i think? Levien and Houston lived out with the 25 mile rule and they did ok. Does Laszlo not live in Edinburgh too?Just a gimmik from said donkey of a manager and the fud of a chairman.

Will cause far more problems with recruitment than it will solve imho.

The rule is absolutely ridiculous.  How would dictating where someone can live improve a player/our team?  If there are issues with the team's morale, cohesion etc. then I agree that it has to be  addressed, but making some arbitrary rule about house locations being within 25 miles of the stadium is laughable and is only likely to force players out.

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/csaba-laszlo-reveals-dundee-united-12755934

This suggests that Laszlo did not like dropping players off from the bus... which could easily be sorted in other ways, i.e. insisting that all players go to one central location for the bus to depart.  This is, I believe, what most other clubs do (one of the Open Goal interviewees (I forget who) commented that it was annoying that they had to meet at the Westerwood even though the bus would drive right past his house) and would surely be easier than making players uproot their families to move to Dundee.   We should be making the club as attractive as possible for potential players.

[Pull My Strings]

4 hours ago, arab_joe said:

 

The rule is absolutely ridiculous.  How would dictating where someone can live improve a player/our team?  If there are issues with the team's morale, cohesion etc. then I agree that it has to be  addressed, but making some arbitrary rule about house locations being within 25 miles of the stadium is laughable and is only likely to force players out.

There's obviously a balance to be struck and it's probably unnecessary and counter productive to be too prescriptive about where someone lives. That being said, there's a clear and obvious benefit to a professional athlete minimising travel time. 25 miles is a decent commute to and from work every day.  30 miles probably is too. I commute 30 miles each way and it's bearable. 50 miles/60 miles/ however far it was that Bell was commuting is clearly not going to beneficial though to your fitness. I don't think that's controversial.

Apparently we had guys last season who didn't even train with the club a few days a week because of the travel. That's the sort of shit you get with part time and amateur teams. We might be at a low ebb (clearly) but that's no reason to accept sloppy preparation.

Against that there will be players who we miss out on because they're not willing to relocate. Presumably the club feel that's a price worth paying for better preparation and team spirit.

[jagfox]

Are this bunch,  pals of the board or is there anything more to this than a free lunch?

[Pull My Strings]

7 minutes ago, jagfox99 said:

Are this bunch,  pals of the board or is there anything more to this than a free lunch?

Presumably much the same as any other honorary position. They get a bit of schmoozing and the club hope it rubs off on corporate hospitality sales etc.

I mean, who wouldn't want to hang around with Lorraine Kelly. Steady now.

[Granny Danger]

20 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

Presumably much the same as any other honorary position. They get a bit of schmoozing and the club hope it rubs off on corporate hospitality sales etc.

I mean, who wouldn't want to hang around with Lorraine Kelly. Steady now.

This would be no good for me as I have never learnt to schmooz.

I have attended various United related events in the past (not for a few years now) and have found them mindnumbingly boring with loads of drunken, unfunny boors.

 

[Beardy23]

6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

This would be no good for me as I have never learnt to schmooz.

I have attended various United related events in the past (not for a few years now) and have found them mindnumbingly boring with loads of drunken, unfunny boors.

 

Just like here then

[hk blues]

17 hours ago, mishtergrolsch said:

So if you have a legally agreed contract and a new boss wants to change it without your consent he can push through said change?

For less that 12 months? 

Whats the point in a contract in that case?

I can understand them having it in new contracts but an existing agreement wont easily change. Dont think the club would want the players union involved and the publicity circus etc which would no doubt happen.

First of all, yes, any employer can push through anything they wish - that brings risks of litigation of course.  The point of the contract is to protect employees from employers imposing unreasonable terms on employees without their agreement.  The key word is unreasonable.  As I said, the imposition of the 25-mile rule would likely fall into the unreasonable category. So, yes, changes can be unilaterally imposed without agreement and it's up to the employer to show reasonableness and the employee unreasonableness.

 

[hk blues]

16 hours ago, lionel wickson said:

Wouldn't that give the employee grounds for a constructive dismissal claim if the employer insisted on imposing this?

Yes, if the term was considered so unreasonable as to leave the employee with no choice but to leave the company.

[Pull My Strings]

50 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

This would be no good for me as I have never learnt to schmooz.

I have attended various United related events in the past (not for a few years now) and have found them mindnumbingly boring with loads of drunken, unfunny boors.

 

Makes sense.

[Szamo's_Ammo]

55 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

This would be no good for me as I have never learnt to schmooz.

I have attended various United related events in the past (not for a few years now) and have found them mindnumbingly boring with loads of drunken, unfunny boors.

They said you were the life and soul too.

[Dirty Arab 83]

This would be no good for me as I have never learnt to schmooz.
I have attended various United related events in the past (not for a few years now) and have found them mindnumbingly boring with loads of drunken, unfunny boors.
 

[emoji26][emoji26][emoji26] a life spent without so much as a solitary schmooz....... What a waste.

[invergowrie arab]

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

This would be no good for me as I have never learnt to schmooz.

I have attended various United related events in the past (not for a few years now) and have found them mindnumbingly boring with loads of drunken, unfunny boors.

 

So we have met in real life then.

[GFARAB82]

That’s Alloa hopefully through promotion is key this season anyways, we maybe win the double by booking a Hampden trip in May but also won’t be too gutted if it’s out in the 3rd round however 

[The DA]

4 hours ago, Szamo's_Ammo said:

They said you were the life and soul too.

Which gives you some feel for how bad things must have been.

[MacArab]

6 hours ago, Pull My Strings said:

Presumably much the same as any other honorary position. They get a bit of schmoozing and the club hope it rubs off on corporate hospitality sales etc.

I mean, who wouldn't want to hang around with Lorraine Kelly. Steady now.

[mishtergrolsch]

9 hours ago, hk blues said:

First of all, yes, any employer can push through anything they wish - that brings risks of litigation of course.  The point of the contract is to protect employees from employers imposing unreasonable terms on employees without their agreement.  The key word is unreasonable.  As I said, the imposition of the 25-mile rule would likely fall into the unreasonable category. So, yes, changes can be unilaterally imposed without agreement and it's up to the employer to show reasonableness and the employee unreasonableness.

 

So a contract can be broken by an employer if they like, as long as its reasonable to break the agreement? Even if the employee the contract is there to protect disagrees?

But the employee cant contest this new term as they will be dismissed for being unreasonable?

But the contract is to protect the employee?

<insert famous Mixu quote>

 

Also, whats this new Patreon malarkey about? Seems a bit pointless and more guff from Mike Martin. How about instead of asking these high profile non-investors to appear for a free lunch at Tannadice when they have nothing better to do - you sack Laszlo and appoint a football manager?

Edited August 16, 2018 by mishtergrolsch

[mishtergrolsch]

11 hours ago, Pull My Strings said:

There's obviously a balance to be struck and it's probably unnecessary and counter productive to be too prescriptive about where someone lives. That being said, there's a clear and obvious benefit to a professional athlete minimising travel time. 25 miles is a decent commute to and from work every day.  30 miles probably is too. I commute 30 miles each way and it's bearable. 50 miles/60 miles/ however far it was that Bell was commuting is clearly not going to beneficial though to your fitness. I don't think that's controversial.

Apparently we had guys last season who didn't even train with the club a few days a week because of the travel. That's the sort of shit you get with part time and amateur teams. We might be at a low ebb (clearly) but that's no reason to accept sloppy preparation.

Against that there will be players who we miss out on because they're not willing to relocate. Presumably the club feel that's a price worth paying for better preparation and team spirit.

But that should be up to the manager to say when signing the player "you must report to training every day" and if they cant commit to that then they shouldnt be signed by the manager. Thanks Raymie. 

Weve had players in the past who have lived in Glasgow or Edinburgh and done well for us and been part of a successful team. All this rule does is, as you say, limit the player pool we have to pick from. Which is fucking lunacy imo.

The Cammy Bell thing was him wanting away because he more or less got fed up driving so far. But i still say that anyone with a semi functioning brain would have thought about that before signing for a team so far from home. Or just deal with it till you find a new club. 

[hk blues]

8 hours ago, mishtergrolsch said:

So a contract can be broken by an employer if they like, as long as its reasonable to break the agreement? Even if the employee the contract is there to protect disagrees?

But the employee cant contest this new term as they will be dismissed for being unreasonable?

But the contract is to protect the employee?

<insert famous Mixu quote>

 

Also, whats this new Patreon malarkey about? Seems a bit pointless and more guff from Mike Martin. How about instead of asking these high profile non-investors to appear for a free lunch at Tannadice when they have nothing better to do - you sack Laszlo and appoint a football manager?

Not exactly broken, but varied.  Yes, as long as it's reasonable it's OK - why wouldn't it be OK to vary a contract if the variance is reasonable? It would be a shite state of affairs if we couldn't vary contracts just because they exist. 

I didn't say an employee can't contest new terms, nor did I say they would be dismissed for being "unreasonable' if they did so.  The contract really protects both the parties but probably the employee needs protected more than the employer for numerous reasons.

The point is very simple - the contract sets out the relationship and is biding at the time is is agreed to.  However, reasonable changes can be made later - as I said before, why would anyone reject a reasonable change? That would make them unreasonable and  how can a business succeed with unreasonable employees/employers and why should the law protect unreasonable employees/employers.  The key word is reasonable - that is not up to the employee or employer to decide - the courts will if a dispute arises.