Ched Evans released by UTD

[rubydazzler 11]

And as for Utd carrying on employing Evans till now, that is their business, not mine...

As a Blade then, whose support and money helps to keep the club in business, you have no opinion about this sort of thing? I'n surprised by that.

 

Actually, now I think a little more about it, you could almost say that by their lack of action in sacking a convicted rapist, the club actually brought the fans into disrepute. I was embarrassed about it anyway.

[Jim Hardie 527]

Just seen the 10:3O edition of Look Leeds and theyv'e changed the wording to 'released'. Otherwise exactly the same report.

[HeadingNorth 11]

You're having a larf? Like continuing to employ a convicted rapist and all round perve didn't make for eough 'grabbing' headlines for the club already?

 

You don't think he should have been sacked from the moment the verdict was announced and least allow the club to retain a little credibility?

 

It would have been illegal to sack him without first undertaking disciplinary proceedings, which would probably have wasted more money than just letting his contract run out and then getting rid of him.

[Longy67 23]

As a Blade then, whose support and money helps to keep the club in business, you have no opinion about this sort of thing? I'n surprised by that.

 

Actually, now I think a little more about it, you could almost say that by their lack of action in sacking a convicted rapist, the club actually brought the fans into disrepute. I was embarrassed about it anyway.

 

Its not that i don't have an opinion about it, its just that i don't go shouting it from the rooftops, and if i did, what difference would it make...

[rubydazzler 11]

It would have been illegal to sack him without first undertaking disciplinary proceedings, which would probably have wasted more money than just letting his contract run out and then getting rid of him.

Well, I don't work in HR, obviously, so I stand corrected. But in the good old days, being convicted on a rape charge wouldn't have required disclipinary proceedings. The mere fact that you weren't turning up for work because you were incarcerated would have been sufficient. And they certainly wouldn't have paid you for doing nowt. And then there'd have been summary dismissal for gross misconduct and bringing the company into disrepute just to back it all up, if necessary.

 

It just seems so lame, to let his contract run its course because it would be cheaper in the long run than being seen to do the right thing and get rid quickly. Or even to allow the world to assume that in the absence of any comment to that effect?

[potlegs 10]

I had thought that apart from having to tick all the boxes re sacking when it's obviously cheaper to release; that it could be predjudicial to his appeal if United sacked him?

[tony_montana 10]

Well, I don't work in HR, obviously, so I stand corrected. But in the good old days, being convicted on a rape charge wouldn't have required disclipinary proceedings. The mere fact that you weren't turning up for work because you were incarcerated would have been sufficient. And they certainly wouldn't have paid you for doing nowt. And then there'd have been summary dismissal for gross misconduct and bringing the company into disrepute just to back it all up, if necessary.

 

It just seems so lame, to let his contract run its course because it would be cheaper in the long run than being seen to do the right thing and get rid quickly. Or even to allow the world to assume that in the absence of any comment to that effect?

 

like you said you dont know anything so dont comment

[rubydazzler 11]

like you said you dont know anything so dont comment

I know what the rest of the world knows, that he was found guilty of an extremely serious crime, rape, and, in my opinion, the club should have let him go then. If for no other reason than not to be seen to be condoning his wrongdoing, which is worth more than saving a few thousand pounds. Reputation is worth more than money.

 

Unfortunately, this is a public forum, commenting is what we do. So unless you've become a moderator overnight, you have no more jurisdiction here than any one else. If you have anything cogent to add to the discussion, feel free but don't try to gag others.

[Guest sibon]

Mod note:

 

Thread title changed to reflect the fact that Evans was released rather than sacked.

[F. Sidebottom 10]

I can undersatnd the logic of united not sacking Evans if his contract was due to expire, and it was cheaper to let it expire rather than go through lengthy and/or costly employment procedures. I don't think any club would have done it differently if that was the case.

 

But it does beg the question; if Evans wasn't sacked when he was sent down, was he suspended, and was he still being paid?

[dvp82 10]

Would it really have cost SUFC more to go through the procedure of sacking Ched Evans then just letting his contract expire, been convicted of rape and sent to prison seems like a straight forward clear cut case for instant dismissal. Would there really have been a lengthy and costly process of sacking him.

Edited May 30, 2012 by dvp82

[tony_montana 10]

Would it really have cost SUFC more to go through the procedure of sacking Ched Evans then just letting his contract expire, been convicted of rape and sent to prison seems like a straight forward clear cut case for instant dismissal. Would there really have been a lengthy and costly process of sacking him.

 

Yes there would