Barrow AFC.net

mally wrote:

John Very Little wrote:No, the board didn't want statements from various people who were next to the incident (and sober) because they differed to what John Mackay said and backed up what Chris said about Bayliss.

So, let the temperance few, sorry, the 'various people' come forward then and make themselves known to the club at the next home match. If its as concrete as like to portray it and the 'various people' are adamant in Chris's favour and wanting rid of Bayliss then I am sure someone at the club will lend you an ear.

I never said they wanted rid of Bayliss, I said they saw the incident. I informed a director of the names of witnesses just to make sure the club were aware there were some other than Chris and John Mackay.

Bayliss repeating his allegation about Chris is unbelieveable, I think he's lost the plot now.

I once represented a guy who had committed an act of gross misconduct.

He lied so much during the investigation/hearing that I actually feel he believed his own lies in the end.

The guy was a nutjob.

Maybe Bayliss is the same?

John Very Little wrote:

mally wrote: So, let the temperance few, sorry, the 'various people' come forward then and make themselves known to the club at the next home match. If its as concrete as like to portray it and the 'various people' are adamant in Chris's favour and wanting rid of Bayliss then I am sure someone at the club will lend you an ear.

I never said they wanted rid of Bayliss, I said they saw the incident. I informed a director of the names of witnesses just to make sure the club were aware there were some other than Chris and John MacKay.

Bayliss repeating his allegation about Chris is unbelieveable, I think he's lost the plot now.

Like I say, you and the witnesses push this issue then, someone will have to listen.

Reg wrote:I once represented a guy who had committed an act of gross misconduct.

He lied so much during the investigation/hearing that I actually feel he believed his own lies in the end.

The guy was a nutjob.

Maybe Bayliss is the same?

Your not from Mack Sennett's funny farm by any chance are you !.

Hi,
Perhaps I have not read all the previous posts on this matter and I'm sure there are many more intelligent people written their replies to this issue but I believe that under employment laws a misdemeanor of this type by Mr. Bayliss would not normally result in the dismissal from a companies/organisations employment, please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will).
Put yourself in situation where you swore at your boss or one of his customers, would get dismissed, yes they may give a final warning but the sack I very much doubt it. There are employment laws, people make mistakes
I know the wolves were baying for blood and some of them who write regular on this site, would be thinking ' Here is our opportunity to get shut of this manager', but we could be taken to court over unfair dismissal. Perhaps I'm wrong and it’s just a thought, now stand back and wait for the abuse from the wolves still waiting for 'their pound of flesh'.

mally wrote:

John Very Little wrote: I never said they wanted rid of Bayliss, I said they saw the incident. I informed a director of the names of witnesses just to make sure the club were aware there were some other than Chris and John MacKay.

Bayliss repeating his allegation about Chris is unbelieveable, I think he's lost the plot now.

Like I say, you and the witnesses push this issue then, someone will have to listen.

What have you got thats wrong in your head that sees anything "proper" about all this? Are you a tad backward? From the point of the 1st incident to the repeat tonight of calling a good man a liar its all been stacked up against DB? Do you see this or do you just want to see what you want?

I don't think you can draw parallels between a 'normal' employment disciplinary situation and Bayliss' case. This is a figurehead of the organisation who has lost the confidence of pretty much everyone except for the board. And this was before the Gainsborough incident. Something murky is happening where the board obviously can't sack him whatever he does. He can do what he likes, say what he likes, and he knows it.

45YEARS+ wrote:Hi,
Perhaps I have not read all the previous posts on this matter and I'm sure there are many more intelligent people written their replies to this issue but I believe that under employment laws a misdemeanor of this type by Mr. Bayliss would not normally result in the dismissal from a companies/organisations employment, please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will).
Put yourself in situation where you swore at your boss or one of his customers, would get dismissed, yes they may give a final warning but the sack I very much doubt it. There are employment laws, people make mistakes
I know the wolves were baying for blood and some of them who write regular on this site, would be thinking ' Here is our opportunity to get shut of this manager', but we could be taken to court over unfair dismissal. Perhaps I'm wrong and it’s just a thought, now stand back and wait for the abuse from the wolves still waiting for 'their pound of flesh'.

If i swore at my boss? If i swore at a few thousand people live on air? Dont even compare the two!

Bayliss on RC Football Forum tonight - skip to 34.40

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01g5wdq

ruins wrote:

mally wrote: Like I say, you and the witnesses push this issue then, someone will have to listen.

What have you got thats wrong in your head that sees anything "proper" about all this? Are you a tad backward? From the point of the 1st incident to the repeat tonight of calling a good man a liar its all been stacked up against DB? Do you see this or do you just want to see what you want?

Well well Mr Ruins, a rather nasty temper you have there, could you have been one of Jehovas,sorry,Johns witnesses.

Thanks for the link barrowfan.

Manchester Branch wrote:...This is a figurehead of the organisation who has lost the confidence of pretty much everyone except for the board...

Get your point but maybe that should read "pretty much everyone on this forum". There are many that don't read what is on here and many that never directly heard what he said on the radio. This forum is often very vocal and I've read many calls for him to be sacked on here, I've not talked to anyone face to face that has said that.

K_BFC wrote:Thanks for the link barrowfan.

Manchester Branch wrote:...This is a figurehead of the organisation who has lost the confidence of pretty much everyone except for the board...

Get your point but maybe that should read "pretty much everyone on this forum". There are many that don't read what is on here and many that never directly heard what he said on the radio. This forum is often very vocal and I've read many calls for him to be sacked on here, I've not talked to anyone face to face that has said that.

Mr Ruins could possibly put that right !.

Mally - In all seriousness are you for real or just trolling. Whilst I respect the fact that you can express your opinion, I find your views a tad puzzling.

Andy wrote:Mally - In all seriousness are you for real or just trolling. Whilst I respect the fact that you can express your opinion, I find your views a tad puzzling.

And I find a lot of views on here a tad nasty.

mally wrote:

ruins wrote: What have you got thats wrong in your head that sees anything "proper" about all this? Are you a tad backward? From the point of the 1st incident to the repeat tonight of calling a good man a liar its all been stacked up against DB? Do you see this or do you just want to see what you want?

Well well Mr Ruins, a rather nasty temper you have there, could you have been one of Jehovas,sorry,Johns witnesses.

I dont think its me with a nasty temper here, we know who has that. I just dont see how your actually being serious here? Thats all. I dont think i will swim toward your ever tasteful bait Mally. Good on you though for trying.