Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:29 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

That's what I reckon too. I doubt we have grounds to sack him outright.

If they did, they would've by now.

We'll probably give him the choice. We could continue to pay his contract until it finishes, but not involve him, or terminate the contract by mutual agreement, allowing him to join up with bath, or an intermediate club.

Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:30 pm  

I think a warning as you say is the minimum but the employer can, on the basis of assessing that his behaviour has brought him/business into disrepute, make a more robust call and dismiss. Of couse there could be a tribunal but then that gets messy but I thik it would stick given the nature of the business and its relationship to its customers.

Likely a final warning then fester on the bench for me.

Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:36 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

If they did, they would've by now.

Not necessarily - it took about 5/6 days from Millward being suspended before he was sacked, and I'd venture that was pretty fast.

Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:42 pm  

Legman wrote:

I think a warning as you say is the minimum but the employer can, on the basis of assessing that his behaviour has brought him/business into disrepute, make a more robust call and dismiss. Of couse there could be a tribunal but then that gets messy but I thik it would stick given the nature of the business and its relationship to its customers.

Likely a final warning then fester on the bench for me.

Why waste a bench spot if he is not going to play in the first team. He has lost his first team place now so he can be made to play in the lower team and told he needs to earn his spot back if he wants to play for us again in the first team. You can't drop someone whose playing reasonably well to accommodate him.

Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:44 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

Not necessarily - it took about 5/6 days from Millward being suspended before he was sacked, and I'd venture that was pretty fast.

Mmmm, I guess its not been that long, but if they're going to get rid, then there must be a case of gross misconduct, which is normally pretty cut and dry.

Maybe McManus is going to make one of his famous announcements at the game on Friday night?

Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:00 pm  

Agent Mulder wrote:

Why waste a bench spot if he is not going to play in the first team. He has lost his first team place now so he can be made to play in the lower team and told he needs to earn his spot back if he wants to play for us again in the first team. You can't drop someone whose playing reasonably well to accommodate him.

I meant bench in the wider sense - not necessarily sat on it.

Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:20 pm  

Play him Centre or wing or fullback if he actually hasn't done anything wrong.

Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:27 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Play him Centre or wing or fullback if he actually hasn't done anything wrong.

Eastmond's best games for saints have been at Centre so I would stick him there for the rest of the season

Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:48 pm  

............but what about the 'Meli for centre' campaigners, I know we can drop Shenton.

Re: Eastmond suspened by Saints : Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:17 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

How bizarre.

If you think the complete attitude that he has shown towards you Loyal supporters is as I quote "HOW BIZARRE" then that's your problem, when I stated that we do not know all the facts, that related to there were several "rumours" of other incidents, which St Helens RFLC did not confirm or deny until fully investigated, what is wrong with that is beyond me???