Jump to content

Adblock Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

The Whole Bain Situation


offshoredee

Recommended Posts

Adblock Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
5 minutes ago, HK Blues said:

I have stated since Day 1 that I wasn't convinced about McCann - I'm warming but still unconvinced. That said, I am fully behind McCann in the Bain situation.  So I'm at least one swimming against the tide.  

The bit in bold is where I am. THe 2nd bit is (to coin an earlier phrase :P ) a bold statement - you (same as everyone else) have absolutely no idea what is going on / has gone on so how you can blindly put your faith in one over the other is beyond me.

I'm not behind either - I just want a fair resolution and the fans informed of the situation when a decision is reached.

What will end up happening is a "terminated contract by mutual consent and the club wish him well" statement and no-one will know what happened - this could be covering any number of faults either with Bain or with the handling of a situation by McCann.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bubster said:

The bit in bold is where I am. THe 2nd bit is (to coin an earlier phrase :P ) a bold statement - you (same as everyone else) have absolutely no idea what is going on / has gone on so how you can blindly put your faith in one over the other is beyond me.

I'm not behind either - I just want a fair resolution and the fans informed of the situation when a decision is reached.

What will end up happening is a "terminated contract by mutual consent and the club wish him well" statement and no-one will know what happened - this could be covering any number of faults either with Bain or with the handling of a situation by McCann.

I'm not a binhoker who requires documented evidence, nor am I a Lawyer who needs evidence beyond reasonable doubt Bubster.  I work on the Employment Law basis which is based on the balance of probability.  In my view, based on everything I have heard and seen suggests that Bain is more likely to be the guilty one than McCann.  Whilst I'm not saying you should agree with me, and if you wish to follow the beyond all reasonable doubt theory then that's your prerogative, you should at least respect someone's right to have an opinion which has some basis behind it without resorting to calling it blind faith and refusing to see how they can hold that view.  Sorry mate, but life isn't always about black and white!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, HK Blues said:

I'm not a binhoker who requires documented evidence, nor am I a Lawyer who needs evidence beyond reasonable doubt Bubster.  I work on the Employment Law basis which is based on the balance of probability.  In my view, based on everything I have heard and seen suggests that Bain is more likely to be the guilty one than McCann.  Whilst I'm not saying you should agree with me, and if you wish to follow the beyond all reasonable doubt theory then that's your prerogative, you should at least respect someone's right to have an opinion which has some basis behind it without resorting to calling it blind faith and refusing to see how they can hold that view.  Sorry mate, but life isn't always about black and white!

I'm not trying to bring employment law into the debate HK. As far as I'm aware no decision has yet been made - balance of probabilities or no - and this seems a long time for an investigation to be dragging on.

I would be interested to see the judicial process being followed here as at the rate this progressed from alleged incident (again date and nature unknown) to being frozen out from the team seems rather quick for a full investigation to have taken place including right of appeal - then again this is a football club and we all know there are different rules in this employment sector (rightly or wrongly)

No-one outwith the club even knows the nature of the disciplinary incident at this stage - we've had a fall out, info leak, attitude issues, performance issues, assault yet you can sit saying on the balance of probabilities you think one party are probably right?

My understanding of balance of probabilities is that before a decision can be made both sides have to be heard and investigated, but no absolute proof needs to be provided - you've heard neither but have leapt to a conclusion on a wing and a prayer.

Edited by Bubster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add - a wee excerpt from some legal guidance online:

The balance of probabilities does NOT mean a best guess or just a belief that something had happened. It requires a reasonable amount of evidence. One person’s word against another, on its own, does not amount to enough evidence.

Whilst the club may have more info (I repeat no-one else knows!) , all you have is unsubstantiated internet rumours from anonymous internet posters - basically you are making massive assumptions.

This isn't court, and your not obliged to answer and I'm really not criticising or demeaning your opinion in any way but I am intrigued to "see your working" so to speak. What have you seen or heard that makes you think Bain is more likely to be the guilty party here?

Avoid the obvious - oh because he's under disciplinary investigation - it certainly wouldn't be the first claim raised wrongfully in the history of football clubs / employment law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wattie Rojas said:

All of this thread is just conjecture.

The ones who didn’t want nm as manager take sb side. 

The ones who don’t like sb take nm side. 

Two sides to every story. 

The only thing that matters is results and they’ve improved since Parrish came in.

Personally I thought sb deserved to be dropped because he wasn’t commanding his box well enough. 

 

Regardless of what happened and who is in the wrong Wattie has nailed it for me :thumbsup:  No matter who's side you're on this is all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AMAPC said:

Regardless of what happened and who is in the wrong Wattie has nailed it for me :thumbsup:  No matter who's side you're on this is all that matters.

It's not all that matters though is it.

We have got lucky with Parrish having a decent start - are you telling me that if the team had dipped after Parrish came in then everyones opinion on this employment dispute would be different?

Parrish has nothing to do with this particular situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wattie Rojas said:

All of this thread is just conjecture.

The ones who didn’t want nm as manager take sb side. 

The ones who don’t like sb take nm side. 

Two sides to every story. 

The only thing that matters is results and they’ve improved since Parrish came in.

Personally I thought sb deserved to be dropped because he wasn’t commanding his box well enough. 

 

I wasn't overly keen on McCann's appointment and still have my doubts but it doesn't mean I'll necessarily take Scott Bain's 'side'.

I agree it was time to drop Bain but maybe if the manager had acted earlier we'd still have our best keeper available?

Faults have to be attributable to both sides but without knowledge of the facts it is indeed just conjecture and let's be honest, for some on here at least, a bit of fun or an opportunity to say 'I told you so'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll ask a question to every person on this board - the only story I've seen in the press is that there was a "dressing room bust up" between McCann and Bain.

This is probably over simple and very hypothetical.

Put yourself in this position. You've gone into work, you have an easy day of production ahead where you are widely expected to receive a positive result and a bonus. The manager has rearranged some of the workers positions and changed some of the work instructions and as the day progresses it goes from bad to worse and the target is missed.

Everyone is called into a meeting where the manager starts chewing people out ovr the collective and potentially individual perforrmances, and some of the team start arguing amongst themselves as well. You suggest to the manager that perhaps his changes or set up were part or indeed the root cause of the problem, however in the heat of the moment having just been chewed out in front of your teammates you are shouting. He disagrees vociferously and a macho argument ensues with neither party backing down. You go home for the day.

You report back to work on Monday morning and are told you have been fined 2 weeks wages for your actions on the Saturday.

Is this a fair resolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Prince Buster said:

I wasn't overly keen on McCann's appointment and still have my doubts but it doesn't mean I'll necessarily take Scott Bain's 'side'.

I agree it was time to drop Bain but maybe if the manager had acted earlier we'd still have our best keeper available?

Faults have to be attributable to both sides but without knowledge of the facts it is indeed just conjecture and let's be honest, for some on here at least, a bit of fun or an opportunity to say 'I told you so'.

I'm looking forward to this if it turns out Bain is "in the wrong" and people start personally digging me out for being a "Bain lover" and "not supporting our manager."


The reality is I'm probably the most neutral on here, but even when playing Devils Advocate on here people need to cast you as one or the other - absolutely no grey areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bubster said:

I'm looking forward to this if it turns out Bain is "in the wrong" and people start personally digging me out for being a "Bain lover" and "not supporting our manager."


The reality is I'm probably the most neutral on here, but even when playing Devils Advocate on here people need to cast you as one or the other - absolutely no grey areas.

There are posters on here that will do just that, or try to at least, but I'm pretty sure you'll fight your corner well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bubster said:

I'm looking forward to this if it turns out Bain is "in the wrong" and people start personally digging me out for being a "Bain lover" and "not supporting our manager."


The reality is I'm probably the most neutral on here, but even when playing Devils Advocate on here people need to cast you as one or the other - absolutely no grey areas.

IMO sometimes it's difficult to know when a poster is "playing Devil's Advocate on here".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adblock Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...