The Chelsea Thread
- Thread starter Ramires
- Start date
- Replies 35K
- Views 3M
Chelski Shogun
Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,353
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
... Or Mourinho could've kept his mouth shut and dealt with it privately.
Yup. They thought that corporate culture they apply to players, can apply to the normal employees as well. Clubs show zero loyality to footballers, tossing them away the moment they're no longer useful, while expecting unconditional devotion in return. And the public accepts it, because the players are multimilioners, so its not like they get bad end of this deal.
But when you try to treat normal employee in the same way...well then you end up with mess like this.
How have I made her the villain? I explicitly mentioned in my OP that what Jose did was wrong. I just find it unfortunate that instead of accepting apology and sizeable settlement from the club, she rather kick them even lower when they are down
Also club is in a tough position. She has to realise that. This isn't tea lady vs Dr Carneiro. It's the manager himself. Club apparently asked her to return to work and promised to give her all her responsibilities back or she could take a settlement and leave. She rejected both and decided to go legal. You are making it sound as if club has condoned what happened to her. It didn't but it knows better than to force Jose to keep her around as well and add to the tensions
That is because of her decision to pursue this in court and reject settlement offer from club as well as the option to return to her job. Before that, I was firmly behind her and supported her as did the majority of public
Wow I specifically stated in my OP that what Jose did was clearly wrong. In no way was Dr Carneiro at fault for that unfortunate situation. If you guys are going to twist my words and make it seem as if I believe club or Jose is innocent then I am not going to continue this discussion
You realise they were not going to offer her back her original role right? And with no apology from Jose and club over actions. She would have come back under a lesser role
So the club chose to back the bully and not the wronged person. That's their fault
But there is not even a shadow of doubt in this case. Pretty much 99% of public already supports here and knows she was just upholding her professional integrity when she stepped on the pitch. She already has a fantastic reputation due to her work at Chelsea. If anything, the incident hurt Jose's image and enhanced hers
Also she already has a job at Charlton lined up according to most reports. So no, it's not like she is doing this to improve her job prospects
They didn't back him Mike. They offered to give her job back to her. If she didn't want it, they even offered a settlement. That's already an acknowledgement that what happened was wrong
Yes they didn't shout it from the roof tops but that's the point. Let's no create an issue when it had already died in the media
Dynamo_ZahnZee
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,041
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 36
So a club should be allowed to abuse and sack their staff with no repercussions as long as their having a bad season. Good to know.
No. No she doesn't. Why would you even think that the clubs position in a league would be in any way more important that her legal employment rights...
The club should not have demoted and sacked her in the first place. Is she just supposed to ignore the way she was treated just because Chelsea said sorry?
They did condone was happened to her. they sided with Jose. They backed the coach who harassed and dismissed her. That is the club saying that she's in the wrong. The staff member who did something wrong kept his job while the staff member who did nothing wrong lost hers... why should she accept a settlement?
Last edited:
No they didn't. Because she would have accepted her full title and apology. Neither of which were forthcoming. Only a lesser role We actually discussed this at the time. She was being made to compromise for being a victim
1. No one sacked her. She stopped turning up for work. They asked her to return. She refused. They offered a settlement. She refused
2. No I never said clubs position is more important. All I said was that this issue was spiraling out of control when it could have been resolved properly behind the scenes
3. They didn't sack her. Neither did they demote her. They offered her job back to her actually
She would have the same responsibilities except she wouldn't be allowed on the bench. Actually I not so sure because Jon Fearn made a return to the bench despite undergoing the same treatment. Pretty sure club apologized behind the scenes Mike otherwise it's a huge PR disaster
Thats the big question. It's possible they didn't in which case she has every right to take this legal. On the other had, keep in mind that Jon Fearn did get his original role back so I can't see why it wouldn't be the same for her
They didn't Apologise behind the scenes. She would have accepted a private one too. It was part of the original statement. And they wouldn't have put her back on the bench, as well as not actually having the same rank. So you've just confirmed she would not have got her original position back
thats exactly why it IS a huge PR disaster. It could have been avoided
And that is why she is suing them. Because she was treated different for standing up for herself. She didn't even need the apology to be public either