PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Rory Bluelow]

Tim Sherwood is the LAST person who I believe would say this without being asked to by Sky. I do not care what anyone says he has always been highly complimentary about us. To change like that is clear to me that he has been guided into saying that.

Spot on mate. They must’ve given him instructions.

 

[bluwes]

Looks like he backs cunts.

There, fixed it for you.

So you’re implying City are cunts…strange

 

[CC1]

I doubt it. Probably their own management/legal had a word in the presenters ear.

Suppose there’s always a first time but it was a strange reaction from Sky & they don’t usually care

 

[Kippaxpete]

So you’re implying City are cunts…strange

Er, no. I think you need to have another look at the accompanying image.

 

[give it to gordon]

he has made a libellous statement on a sky program, its gross misconduct whichever way you slice it, keeping him in employment shows they stand by those views and lets not forget sky apologised he hasnt

Getting sack by Sky is difficult, if spitting in a young girls face isn't gross misconduct what is ?

 

[mancboy]

Getting sack by Sky is difficult, if spitting in a young girls face isn't gross misconduct what is ?

Diff is, he wasnt on sky time when he did that, while i agree that scouse **** should be sacked for any number of things sky could argue that happened in his personal time this was an employee of sky on a sky program

 

[give it to gordon]

Diff is, he wasnt on sky time when he did that, while i agree that scouse **** should be sacked for any number of things sky could argue that happened in his personal time this was an employee of sky on a sky program

True but in most jobs you can still get fired for what you do in your private life.

 

[M18CTID]

Got a WhatsApp off a mate. His mate works at City and told him that there’s a rumour going round the club that there will be an announcement on Friday. Asked him if it was going to be positive or negative but his mate doesn’t know. He’s going to press him for further details.

Personally, I think the timeline is too soon going off what some of the people on here have been saying who have experience of this kind of thing.

Edit: He got back to him and is backtracking on the timeline. Now saying in the next 2 weeks.

 

[CC1]

Got a WhatsApp off a mate. His mate works at City and told him that there’s a rumour going round the club that there will be an announcement on Friday. Asked him if it was going to be positive or negative but his mate doesn’t know. He’s going to press him for further details.

Personally, I think the timeline is too soon going off what some of the people on here have been saying who have experience of this kind of thing.

More likely to be about the APT case maybe? Unless their intention is to announce the results of both cases at same time - which would mean we’ve been completely successful

 

[M18CTID]

Tim Sherwood is the LAST person who I believe would say this without being asked to by Sky. I do not care what anyone says he has always been highly complimentary about us. To change like that is clear to me that he has been guided into saying that.

You’re probably right. Sky definitely set the narrative for the pundits on Soccer Saturday and have probably done in this particular instance too. You only have to look at what they were all saying when KDB was about to sign for us to see evidence of that.

 

[M18CTID]

More likely to be about the APT case maybe? Unless their intention is to announce the results of both cases at same time - which would mean we’ve been completely successful

Actually, that’s a good point. He could be getting his wires crossed and thinking it’s about the 115/129/130

 

[mancboy]

True but in most jobs you can still get fired for what you do in your private life.

Absolutely and he should have been, but you cant sue the company for what an employee does in their private time

 

[KS55]

Wonder what crossed the line specifically for them to apologise to us on air. Not like its a rare occurrence for someone on Sky to talk bollocks about City.

Sky think we have beaten the 115 and may sue those calling us cheats after the verdict is delivered. Just a guess.

 

[KS55]

We don’t make up our own rules we are the rules ; )

City Rules OK.

 

[Kippaxpete]

Diff is, he wasnt on sky time when he did that, while i agree that scouse **** should be sacked for any number of things sky could argue that happened in his personal time this was an employee of sky on a sky program

Sorry fella but that's ridiculous. Are you suggesting that an individual would automatically avoid punitive action by their employer simply because inappropriate behaviour occurred outside of the workplace? As someone who's worked in the employment law field for many years, I can assure you that Sky would have been perfectly within their rights to impose sanctions on the repulsive prick up to and including dismissal had his behaviour been deemed sufficiently offensive. What you have to consider is that all employees are responsible for ensuring that they avoid bringing their employer's reputation into disrepute. Arguably, that's exactly what he did.

 

[KS55]

When I post on this site I am aware that moderation is the watchword. Can Ric be held to be responsible for anything going beyond the pale.

Publishers can be held liable for anything in their output. Ric is our publisher.

 

[mcfcphil]

Publishers can be held are liable for anything in their output.

Fixed

 

[KS55]

Crap footballers don't take the ball out of the air,turn and fire it in to the top corner from 20 yards while under pressure from a defender.

Or control the ball with their left foot, knock it through with their right and set Phil up for goal number three. All in an instant, how crap was that?

 

[mancboy]

Sorry fella but that's ridiculous. Are you suggesting that an individual would automatically avoid punitive action by their employer simply because inappropriate behaviour occurred outside of the workplace? As someone who's worked in the employment law field for many years, I can assure you that Sky would have been perfectly within their rights to impose sanctions on the repulsive prick up to and including dismissal had his behaviour been deemed sufficiently offensive. What you have to consider is that all employees are responsible for ensuring that they avoid bringing their employer's reputation into disrepute. Arguably, that's exactly what he did.

i dont disagree with what you are saying and you are entirely right what i was saying is that if sky didnt want to sack him they could argue that while it didnt happen on sky television then they are not responsible for his conduct outside of his tv work.

 

[KS55]

True but in most jobs you can still get fired for what you do in your private life.

We sacked a certain left back for his alleged private life. Unfortunately he was acquitted and wants £10m off us.