Non - Zouma

SlowDownDerek said:
Fine but I don't see why he's the guy expected to make these moral decisions. Same as Southgate has somehow got to manage a football team and be judge and jury regarding player misdemeanors. If he needs to be banned then the FA, PL or West Ham should ban him. If he's available Moyes should get on with doing his job.
Click to expand...

Have you actually seen the video?

If I was a manager (or any profession) and I'd seen that video, I'd be telling the people above me to get rid.

Drop kicking a defenseless animal, utter disgusting behaviour.
 
Red_till_im_ded said:
Ok, so I really do get the issue of animal cruelty. I'm an animal lover myself and have 3 dogs that are a massive part of the family but let's face the facts with this. If it hadn't have been a footballer doing this then it wouldn't have made even a paragraph in your local rag. The RSPCA do a wonderful job and all of my dogs are via rehoming, one's all the way from Romania, but animal cruelty happens everyday all over this country from breeding farms to dogs bred dor fighting. This really isn't a story but it just so happened to be a PL footballer. I'm not saying it's right, 100% not saying that but a £250,000 fine?? That's absurd, unless all of that money goes to the RSPCA.
Click to expand...

Utter bulls*it, any video of a person appearing on social media treating an animal like that would have got in the press.

Like SDD, surely you haven't seen the actual video if you're giving him a pass because he's a footballer?

I'll come round your house and drop kick all your dogs you apparently love, won't be a story though, will it, as I'm not a professional footballer. Jeez.
 
ACAW said:
Utter bulls*it, any video of a person appearing on social media treating an animal like that would have got in the press.

Like SDD, surely you haven't seen the actual video if you're giving him a pass because he's a footballer?

I'll come round your house and drop kick all your dogs you apparently love, won't be a story though, will it, as I'm not a professional footballer. Jeez.
Click to expand...
Fcuk off you prick . Try reading through it again before making your knuckle dragging conclusions. Your brain cell missed the whole point I was making
 
Last edited:
[
Kudos said:
Twofold just that I wanted to share that I adopted a Romanian dog too and was curious if you tried Blue Cross and RSPCA and had no joy too.

The other part was that I totally misread your post, it came across to me like "animal cruelty happens all the time why the big deal now it's a footballer?" but it's clear from your reply I got it wrong. My mistake.
Click to expand...
No worries. We took our Romanian dog in 3 1/2 years ago. She had some issues and was extremely frightened of everything and everyone but she has , for the most part, totally changed. She's a cracking dog. A kind of collie cross. So many Romanian dogs coming over that need rehoming
 
ACAW said:
Have you actually seen the video?

If I was a manager (or any profession) and I'd seen that video, I'd be telling the people above me to get rid.

Drop kicking a defenseless animal, utter disgusting behaviour.
Click to expand...

Yes I've seen the video. My point 100% stands and it doesn't matter how bad the behaviour is as I clarified when someone asked me about Greenwood.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Yes I've seen the video. My point 100% stands and it doesn't matter how bad the behaviour is as I clarified when someone asked me about Greenwood.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify....the manager is the manager. Why should anyone higher than the manager make the decision? How high would be acceptable? One rung above? Two? The owner?

In every other line of business the manager can hire and fire.

I dont think it would surprise many that if a Greenwood audio/video came to light of someone in my team, they would be suspended or removed completely depending on police action.

It is 100% a managers position to make a moral judgement. Thats part of what being a manager is.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
What annoys me about these things, obviously other than that there's some absolute dickhead mistreating animals and laughing about it, is that people are having a pop at his manager for picking him. Why on earth should the manager have to be the moral arbiter for everything their players might get up to? If the guy's employers or the football authorities want to ban him then they should do it and not pass the buck to a manager who has enough to worry about.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify my point...the manager IS his employer.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
Just to clarify....the manager is the manager. Why should anyone higher than the manager make the decision? How high would be acceptable? One rung above? Two? The owner?

In every other line of business the manager can hire and fire.

I dont think it would surprise many that if a Greenwood audio/video came to light of someone in my team, they would be suspended or removed completely depending on police action.

It is 100% a managers position to make a moral judgement. Thats part of what being a manager is.
Click to expand...

The manager should decide on football related things and have nothing to do with being the moral arbiter for everyone employed by the company.

Obviously it would depend on the business but it would depend on your disciplinary procedures - in most cases it would be the HR team to decide on non job related issues as most managers would want.

Druss_the_Legend said:
Just to clarify my point...the manager IS his employer.
Click to expand...

No he's the manager - responsible for football decisions.
 
Mark WFC said:
Antonio comparing it to racism.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1491711888958402560
Click to expand...

Probably easier to keep my mouth shut, but I'd argue that kicking and punching a defenseless animal is worse than using racial slurs, yes. Worse than racially motivated assault? No. His question is too open ended. Obviously both are completely unacceptable so I don't really understand the point of bringing it up.
 
Silent AFCB said:
Probably easier to keep my mouth shut, but I'd argue that kicking and punching a defenseless animal is worse than using racial slurs, yes. Worse than racially motivated assault? No. His question is too open ended. Obviously both are completely unacceptable so I don't really understand the point of bringing it up.
Click to expand...

Didn't Chris Kirkland bring it up?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
The manager should decide on football related things and have nothing to do with being the moral arbiter for everyone employed by the company.

Obviously it would depend on the business but it would depend on your disciplinary procedures - in most cases it would be the HR team to decide on non job related issues as most managers would want.



No he's the manager - responsible for football decisions.
Click to expand...

Managers are responsible for the players. The clue is in the name. Who is a players manager for all things not on the football pitch then?
 
Some players will do anything to keep in the News...its part of Celeb Culture...its about Them...they don't care who or what they damage.
...Rooney is now making Money from a Documentary about his numerous affairs with Tarts !
Then there are those that try to dabble in Political issues...like ' two planks' Le Tissier.

Money........as always...the Root of all Evil.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
Managers are responsible for the players. The clue is in the name. Who is a players manager for all things not on the football pitch then?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be Druss. In my opinion the manager should not be made to be responsible for non-football issues. He is not the moral and legal arbiter and does not need these decisions added to his already very difficult job.

The answer to your question is the HR department and ultimately the board of directors. The first team manager is a football manager - the clue is indeed in the name. I guess you're in a small firm because in a firm the size of a football club I'd suggest the HR and legal team would want to get involved in decisions involving disciplining a member of staff for non work related issues. Most normal managers would want to leave them to it - perhaps you're different.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be Druss. In my opinion the manager should not be made to be responsible for non-football issues. He is not the moral and legal arbiter and does not need these decisions added to his already very difficult job.

The answer to your question is the HR department and ultimately the board of directors. The first team manager is a football manager - the clue is indeed in the name. I guess you're in a small firm because in a firm the size of a football club I'd suggest the HR and legal team would want to get involved in decisions involving disciplining a member of staff for non work related issues. Most normal managers would want to leave them to it - perhaps you're different.
Click to expand...

Ive managed in a company that has revenue over $200billion. So I will go out of a short limb here and say that its not smaller than AFC Bournemouth. As manager, I would of course get support from HR but it was my decision on who to hire, who to fire and disciplinary. If it wasnt then I guess I wouldnt have been called a manager?

Now we can resolve this quite easily...Parker is a head coach so its easier to see where his responsibilities lie at Bournemouth. West Ham have a manager.

Edited to add...you think the board of directors get involved in staff disciplinaries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;