Joss Labadie

[Fonda]

Presumably there are implications of a failed appeal? Otherwise every single decision would be judged twice (because every decision would be challenged for the reasons given in this thread). Basically the club has to consider the likelihood of a changed decision. If they believe there is a good chance, obviously they have to give it a go. If there is little chance anyway, they have to consider the consequences of a failed attempt.

[Neal]

If he did bite then he should be sacked, sorry no excuse for that even if its one of our players. Can't believe someone thinks Harding is as good as Labardie.

I don't know if he did bite or not but I don't think the FA have a vendetta against us and not sure why chesterfield would accuse someone of this either. Having heard the evidence from the FA myself but in the end they are trying to stamp out violent acts like this and I support it. If this happened against us this forum would have a very busy thread calling them all sorts

[ferrarilover]

J5, every time you post, you embarrass yourself. I don't care, but you might and, since I'm a better man than you could ever hope to be, I thought I'd let you know

To clear up a couple of questions. His ban won't begin until the written reasons are presented, which I'm assured will be 5 days or so from now.
Punishments are generally only increased if an appeal is 'frivolous'. This certainly isn't a case where a continued denial would be considered as such.

I think Rob asked if the Tweet sent was as quoted by Sky. It was.

As to the idea of the standard being the balance of probabilities, I'm not sure it's even that strenuous. Were we in the County Court with Banks claiming damages from Ladders, based on what we've all seen, I can't be too sure at all that a Judge would find in favour of the claimant. Upsettingly, I think we're back to the standard of 'no smoke without fire'...

Matt.

[rooster]

Wait for the written verdict, and see what the evidence is that they have used to find him guilty. But there is no video evidence and the match officials didn't see it live, so what can there be? This would be thrown out of a courtroom in a second, but the FA judge to 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt' so can do what they wish.

We should appeal, and then he will play the next few games at least. He has a maximum of 11 games left as a Torquay player. Appeal, then if necessary take it to the Court of Arbitration for sport, and if he can play a few more games then we have lost nothing.

If he has done it, and ends up with the ban then he's let himself and the Club down badly.

This is not a criminal case so therefore it is judged like most civil courts and disciplinary boards. In civil matters the standard of proof is generally "on the balance of probabilities" or "a preponderance of the evidence", meaning that if it is more likely than not that the fact alleged is true then the standard has been met.

[jonnyfive]

It is actually embarrassing now you mention it ferrari, that I lower myself to pointing out your repeated examples of foolishness. I promise to try harder to scroll past your misguided and pompous attempts at showing off.

And as for being any sort of man; haven't you and mummy got autographs to collect somewhere?

Sack Labitie!

[ferrarilover]

Please do. Of course, if you didn't make posts which show your complete inability to understand and follow even simple concepts by arguing with me, you wouldn't actually post anything at all. I can name 50 members on here who would be delighted if that were to happen. Go on, give us all the early Christmas present we're all so desperate to receive.

Matt.

[PlainmoorRoar]

It is actually embarrassing now you mention it ferrari, that I lower myself to pointing out your repeated examples of foolishness. I promise to try harder to scroll past your misguided and pompous attempts at showing off.

And as for being any sort of man; haven't you and mummy got autographs to collect somewhere?

Sack Labitie!

no.

don't remember Suarez getting sacked? or even Pardew for headbutting someone?

calm down.

[DevonYellow]

The suggestion to sack Labadie isn't completely ridiculous.

To play devils advocate his contract is up at the end of the season and it is unlikely he will sign for us in the conference. It is even more unlikely that we could afford him. So why should we pay a players wages until the end of the season who, in all likelihood, will never play for us again?

Liverpool were hardly going to sack their most important player and valuable asset.

[Scott Brehaut]

Please do. Of course, if you didn't make posts which show your complete inability to understand and follow even simple concepts by arguing with me, you wouldn't actually post anything at all. I can name 50 members on here who would be delighted if that were to happen. Go on, give us all the early Christmas present we're all so desperate to receive.

Matt.

I can think of several hundred who would be delighted if you both stopped arguing and just posted about the topic in hand

[CP Gull]

no.

don't remember Suarez getting sacked? or even Pardew for headbutting someone?

calm down.

Totally different situations, which do not bear comparison.

Although I hate to say it as I am a big fan of Labadie the player and I am gutted at the prospect that he will probably not be available to us beyond this weekend, I actually think that sacking him must be under consideration by the Board as an option.

The FACTS are that Labadie is only contracted until the end of the season. His 10 match ban means that after this weekend he will no longer be available for selection for the remainder of this season ... so no use at all for us in the battle against relegation.

The PROBABILITY is that we will be relegated this season.... It is also a PROBABILITY I would venture to suggest that Labadie himself would not only not want to play at that level i.e. non league but that also we wouldn't be able to afford his likely wage demands anyway.

So, whether an appeal is made and proves to be unsuccessful or we accept the judgement made by the FA if the 10 match ban remains in place then why would a club like TUFC continue to support (financially) a player that we cannot use during the remainder of his contract and is more than likely to be employed elsewhere in the summer.

In pure financial terms, let us assume that he is on say £1000 a week ... a pretty logical assumption (in my mind at least) given that the FA fine is £2000 i.e could well represent 2 weeks wages. So, if this is indeed the case then what commercial sense is there in continuing to pay the wages of a player that can no longer perform his contractual duties up to the duration of the end of his contract and will more than likely seek employment elsewhere in the summer. Let's face it, we could end up paying c £15k on wages on someone whose contract runs (presumably) until the 1st July at which point he may well leave and join a different employer anyway!

Alternatively, the club might be able to use that money to fund a replacement such as, for example, James Harper.... someone who might actually be able to influence things on the pitch, something which clearly Labadie would not be able to do whilst under suspension.

I truly wish that the scenario I have outlined above does not come about as I really rate Labadie as a player and let's face it he, probably more than anyone one other individual, saved us from relegation last season. But the fact remains that this ban does probably give us (TUFC) a legitimate reason for ending his contract early if we are unsuccessful in any appeal, if indeed that even takes place.

So, in summary, I personally do not think that the suggestion of TUFC sacking Labadie is as over dramatic as you seem to suggest. Personally, I think it is (very sadly given the circumstances) a very real possibility.

Edit ... It appears that I concur with Devonyellow in my thoughts on this matter as he has posted something similar above, whilst I was making this post.

[ferrarilover]

Having supported him through the external process, we'd look a bit silly sacking him now. If we're going to go down that road, we'd have to have an internal investigation and come to the reasonable conclusion that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct.

If it turns out that the FA found him guilty on no more evidence than some mouthpiece on Twitter and 8 seconds of video which looks like it was shot from the ISS using a mobile phone from 2006, then, when the case inevitably comes to a proper Employment Tribunal (which, unlike the FA, actually assesses evidence and makes decisions based on facts. Probably has something to do with accountability, a thing grossly lacking in the case of football's governing [shambles] body), the club will be stiffed with a large bill for costs and an award for compensation - as well as much more negative publicity.

If, and it's a big if, there's some actual evidence (if anyone from the FA is reading this, perhaps look up the concept in a dictionary), then we might be able to give Ladders the boot, but on what we've got so far? No chance.

Matt.

[tommyg]

Don't want to jump too far ahead, but if we sack him do you think there will be many interested parties given his reputation and the fact he has to serve a 10-game suspension? He could potentially be unemployed for the next few months - possibly longer - so I wonder if we could take advantage by telling him that we will stick by him and continue to pay his wages - but only if he commits to us by signing a new one-year contract. With a £2,000 fine and the possibility of not being paid for a while, he may be after some kind of security which we could perhaps be in a position to offer. It might mean him playing a year in the Conference but at least he won't be worrying about his finances.

[ferrarilover]

Zebroski is one punch away from prison time. The puppet on a string **** Hughes gets pissed and kills people for fun, he's got contract offers coming out of his arse. Tevez took a 6 month golfing holiday in the middle of a season and continued not only to pick up a quarter of a million pounds a week for the privilege, but was also welcomed back with open arms.
Football doesn't operate by any of the same rules as real life. The real world doesn't apply. I'm amazed the laws of physics are still obeyed. He is a talented player who, in a decent side, is a division too low already. It doesn't matter what we do to him or what ban he has to serve, he'll get signed by someone. As a free agent, it just adds bargaining power to his end. He comes free and, since he's under a ban, he'll waive his signing on fee and settle for £1200/week. Argyle or Burton or Wimbledon will have him and that'll be that. Bloke earns £52,000 pa, he's not Bill Gates, but he's not liable to run out of money any time soon.
The sad thing is that we've awarded the wrong contacts to the wrong people. It's something the better clubs get spot on and clubs like ours (and plenty of others) sometimes get wrong.

As an aside, Eunan seems to have signed a three year deal with Ballmouth this week. Reckon that's insurance against a move to the PL?

Matt.

[LocalGull]

Having supported him through the external process, we'd look a bit silly sacking him now. If we're going to go down that road, we'd have to have an internal investigation and come to the reasonable conclusion that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct.

If it turns out that the FA found him guilty on no more evidence than some mouthpiece on Twitter and 8 seconds of video which looks like it was shot from the ISS using a mobile phone from 2006, then, when the case inevitably comes to a proper Employment Tribunal (which, unlike the FA, actually assesses evidence and makes decisions based on facts. Probably has something to do with accountability, a thing grossly lacking in the case of football's governing [shambles] body), the club will be stiffed with a large bill for costs and an award for compensation - as well as much more negative publicity.

If, and it's a big if, there's some actual evidence (if anyone from the FA is reading this, perhaps look up the concept in a dictionary), then we might be able to give Ladders the boot, but on what we've got so far? No chance.

Matt.

This is where someone who has a little bit of knowledge about a subject thinks they are an expert...It is very likely we could sack labadie based on the FA ruling along with an internal investigation. He wouldn't even get access to an employment tribunal so talking about that is nonsense. There would be little to no risk in sacking him for the club from a financial point of view. I do hate when people talk like they know everything.

Great player for us but probably the last we will see unfortunately.

[hector]

Totally different situations, which do not bear comparison.

Although I hate to say it as I am a big fan of Labadie the player and I am gutted at the prospect that he will probably not be available to us beyond this weekend, I actually think that sacking him must be under consideration by the Board as an option.

The FACTS are that Labadie is only contracted until the end of the season. His 10 match ban means that after this weekend he will no longer be available for selection for the remainder of this season ... so no use at all for us in the battle against relegation.

The PROBABILITY is that we will be relegated this season.... It is also a PROBABILITY I would venture to suggest that Labadie himself would not only not want to play at that level i.e. non league but that also we wouldn't be able to afford his likely wage demands anyway.

So, whether an appeal is made and proves to be unsuccessful or we accept the judgement made by the FA if the 10 match ban remains in place then why would a club like TUFC continue to support (financially) a player that we cannot use during the remainder of his contract and is more than likely to be employed elsewhere in the summer.

In pure financial terms, let us assume that he is on say £1000 a week ... a pretty logical assumption (in my mind at least) given that the FA fine is £2000 i.e could well represent 2 weeks wages. So, if this is indeed the case then what commercial sense is there in continuing to pay the wages of a player that can no longer perform his contractual duties up to the duration of the end of his contract and will more than likely seek employment elsewhere in the summer. Let's face it, we could end up paying c £15k on wages on someone whose contract runs (presumably) until the 1st July at which point he may well leave and join a different employer anyway!

Alternatively, the club might be able to use that money to fund a replacement such as, for example, James Harper.... someone who might actually be able to influence things on the pitch, something which clearly Labadie would not be able to do whilst under suspension.

I truly wish that the scenario I have outlined above does not come about as I really rate Labadie as a player and let's face it he, probably more than anyone one other individual, saved us from relegation last season. But the fact remains that this ban does probably give us (TUFC) a legitimate reason for ending his contract early if we are unsuccessful in any appeal, if indeed that even takes place.

So, in summary, I personally do not think that the suggestion of TUFC sacking Labadie is as over dramatic as you seem to suggest. Personally, I think it is (very sadly given the circumstances) a very real possibility.

Edit ... It appears that I concur with Devonyellow in my thoughts on this matter as he has posted something similar above, whilst I was making this post.

Exactly how I see it. Whilst I hoped he would not be find guilty and banned, I struggle to see how anyone was perplexed when notification of his ban came through. To me there is evidence and would probably suffice even in a criminal case. I suspect any jury would see the injury, see the video evidence of where Labadie's head is on the injured player and the reaction of the player as he turns away and conclude that Labadie bit him. People are convicted on a lot less (not that an incident like this would probably warrant a trial by jury).

Any employment tribunal, again, they can be a law to themselves, but taking into account the evidence, the fact that the highest authority in the game has imposed this punishment, then I think the club would have a good case to end the employment of a player who is unlikely to play for them again anyway.

Why should we pay the salary of a player who cannot play because of his utter stupidity and will walk when his contract finishes anyway? Unless there is the remote chance that he will play for us next season, then I think the club SHOULD sack him.