|
|
Post by knowingeye on Mar 6, 2008 15:11:08 GMT
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7280939.stmClub refuses to pay jailed player A non-league club faces suspension by the Football Association from all competitions for refusing to pay an ex-player jailed on a robbery charge. Grays Athletic FC terminated Ashley Sestanovich's contract before his conviction for conspiracy to rob. Grays have been given 14 days by the FA to pay Sestanovich £14,000 for the five months up to his conviction. He was jailed for eight years. Two other men were jailed for life for shooting a man dead during the raid. An FA disciplinary hearing ordered Grays to pay Sestanovich five months' wages, in June, last year, after ruling they were in breach of FA regulations. My principles will not allow me to pay this money from either my own pocket, or from the club's The club must also pay a £500 fine and the hearing's costs. If they fail to do so, the south Essex club will be suspended from all football. Grays have been involved in a counterclaim against Sestanovich who played one pre-season friendly for the club before his arrest. The club claim that Sestanovich originally told them he was being held on remand for motoring offences, but once the nature of the charges became known they served him with 14 days' notice. His conviction related to a robbery in Streatham, London, in 2005 in which Thomas Fahey was murdered. Grays chairman Mike Woodward said: "I am bitterly disappointed in the FA's judgment, all they seem to want to do is take money from football clubs. "We are being forced to pay approximately £14,000 to a player who only had three training sessions and 20 minutes in a pre-season friendly due to his involvement in a heinous crime which saw a young father shot in cold-blood. "Unfortunately my principles will not allow me to pay this money from either my own pocket, or from the club's, and the directors are of the same opinion. "I feel sorry for the supporters of this club but I hope that you will back me on this decision." The FA said because Sestanovich was arrested after he signed for Grays, the club were obliged to honour his contract until he was actually convicted of an offence, under contract law. Sestanovich also doubled for former Arsenal star Thierry Henry's TV advertisements for clothing company Nike.
|
|
|
|
Post by ben88 on Mar 6, 2008 15:13:09 GMT
tossers of the highest order
|
|
|
|
Post by Do it for bringbackthevic on Mar 6, 2008 15:16:03 GMT
Good for them. I'd like see the FA dare suspend them when they'll have the entire country behind them.
|
|
|
|
Post by icelandpotter on Mar 6, 2008 15:17:51 GMT
hang on, but what if he did turn out to be innocent?
|
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Mar 6, 2008 15:18:16 GMT
Bang out of order.
And so wide of the mark on this it's just not true.
He / Grays' board deserve every football fan's support on this one.
|
|
feedthebeast
Academy Starlet
Please Dont Feed The Beast He's Had Enough!!!
Posts: 240
|
Post by feedthebeast on Mar 6, 2008 15:18:17 GMT
Good for you Grays!!! Deserves frig all!
|
|
|
|
Post by Do it for bringbackthevic on Mar 6, 2008 15:19:35 GMT
hang on, but what if he did turn out to be innocent? At the time of his arrest he told the club it was for motoring offences. That was a blatant lie there. |
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on Mar 6, 2008 15:19:50 GMT
Grays Athletic view "We are being forced to pay approx £14k to a player who only had 3 training sessions and 20 minutes in a pre-season friendly due to his involvement in a heinous crime which saw a young father shot in cold blood"www.graysathletic.co.uk/Club Secretary: secretary@graysathletic.co.uk |
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Mar 6, 2008 15:20:06 GMT
hang on, but what if he did turn out to be innocent?
Been convicted iceland.
Done deal.
Unless he gets off on appeal and is exonerated for e.g. |
|
|
|
Post by icelandpotter on Mar 6, 2008 15:20:30 GMT
Only if the club could guarantee that it was a lie at the time can I agree with it then.
Innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
rocket
Spectator
"Thats another fine mess Tony !" Sorry Peter
Posts: 33
|
Post by rocket on Mar 6, 2008 15:23:47 GMT
This just shows how much non league players are being paid in present day £14,000 for 5 months !!!  |
|
|
|
Post by jpm64 on Mar 6, 2008 16:16:05 GMT
Only if the club could guarantee that it was a lie at the time can I agree with it then. Innocent until proven guilty. But he HAS been proven Guilty |
|
|
|
Post by icelandpotter on Mar 6, 2008 16:21:36 GMT
Only if the club could guarantee that it was a lie at the time can I agree with it then. Innocent until proven guilty. But he HAS been proven Guilty I may be wrong but they refused to pay him before he was found guilty, which I don't agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by **** Pulling Himself Off on Mar 6, 2008 16:24:40 GMT
Criminals deserve fuck all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 6, 2008 16:30:36 GMT
I'm sure the FA are correct in law. Obviously Grays had every right to terminate the player's contract AFTER he was found guilty. But they broke FA rules by terminating his contract BEFORE he was found guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheBra1n on Mar 6, 2008 16:31:19 GMT
i can see the legal view point on this one, and that is that when grays tore up his contract he had'nt been convicted of any crime, which means that they had no grounds to terminate his contract. They could only legally terminate his contract once he had been convicted, the law would apply to any person in any job, you are innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
Grays are arguing that they only signed him because he said the crimes he commited where of a motoring nature, once they discovered the full extent of the crimes he was involved in they then terminated his contract, however until the courts have ruled on this matter then the F.A. Can only act on the laws as they pertain to this time, not what might or might not transpire at a later date in a court of law, in this respect the F.A. are correct.
If grays successfull argue there case then they wont have to give him a penny and can claim expenses from him, had the F.A. had an ounce of sense they would have adjorned there verdict until after grays had been to court, as it is the F.A once again make themselves look like cunts
|
|
|
|
Post by **** Pulling Himself Off on Mar 6, 2008 16:33:15 GMT
Even if Grays had paid him until he was officially found guilty, he should then have been made to pay the money back just for being a complete and utter cunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on Mar 6, 2008 16:38:17 GMT
Place the funds in an Escrow account until the matter is resolved legally. Better still, pay it directly to the murdered man's family.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancer on Mar 6, 2008 17:58:27 GMT
Bloody hell!
Don't tell me the pricks that are running the country, are the same bunch of pricks that are running the F.A as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by dwdstokie on Mar 6, 2008 21:21:33 GMT
easly solved fine the twat for not turning up for training how about 14k its a club rule
|
|
|
|
Post by knype on Mar 6, 2008 21:32:57 GMT
Just waiting for the PC do-gooding liberal tree huggers to say that criminals have rights...... WANKER END OF!
|
|
|
|
Post by EccyStokie on Mar 6, 2008 21:55:32 GMT
I think that the rights of the criminal should be taken into account here...
|
|
|
|
Post by padders01 on Mar 6, 2008 22:24:00 GMT
We paid Pericard didn't we?
|
|
|
|
Post by daverichards on Mar 6, 2008 22:41:18 GMT
Surely by lying to his employer regarding the nature of his arrest , HE was in breach of contract , and thus they were within their rights to tear up his contract even before a conviction
|
|
|
|
Post by powchirper on Mar 7, 2008 0:45:24 GMT
We paid Pericard didn't we? Yeah but vinny didnt rob, shoot or kill an innocent man in cold blood, hang the fuckers and give the 14 grand to the victims family, problem sorted. |
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Mar 7, 2008 3:17:34 GMT
I suppose their lawyers will find a legal reason why they do not have to pay him. It will have to be legal though - you can't just interpret the law as you see fit just because it appears to be morally right to do so.
The law is too complicated to simply state who is in the right on this one..it depends on the individual facts of the case which none of us are in possession of.
For those non-lawyers (me) who have access to court judgements there are a load of cases involving footballers with detailed transcripts and the verdict explained by the judge. They mainly involve agents and freedom of contract surprisingly. I was reading one the other day about Rooney and how he changed agents when he was still at Everton. If people are interested in the small print of a footballer's life then these transcripts can be quite informative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 7, 2008 6:44:27 GMT
I am surprised at the club's lack of efforts to get confirmation of what he was charged with. If they hadn't known that he was the subject of a Police investigation that is one thing. However, they obviously did know that he was the subject of a case - albeit that he said it was to do with a motoring offence. Why didn't they ask to see the documents he would have received from the Police specifying the charge BEFORE they gave him a contract?
|
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on Mar 7, 2008 10:06:33 GMT
Sometimes, in life (and death), some things are worth fighting for despite what the law is. Contract law in football has never been particularly respected, so why this time?
What has the PFA got to say on the subject?
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stokie on Mar 7, 2008 13:11:53 GMT
An absolute disgrace, the FA need to appoint someone with a bit of common sense to sort out these problems and not just this case but in general they seem to be able to make a bollox out of anything. Fair play Gray, stick it wer all behind you!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sirpineapple89 on Mar 7, 2008 13:58:00 GMT
I remember him being highly rated at Sheffield United. Turns out he's just a cunt. Don't bother paying the scumbag.
|
|
