Should Adkins name and shame

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Revolution

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
13,767
Reaction score
23,708
Over the last couple of weeks it has become apparent that one of the many problems we have at the Lane is that there is clique of players who are at best a negative influence and at worst are actively undermining Adkins.

According to Adkins, at least one player disobeyed his instructions on Tuesday. Whatever you may think of Adkins, that is unacceptable.

Those apparently ITK have suggested that whilst some of these players have departed, others remain at the club, and remain a problem.

So - if you were Adkins, would you consider naming and shaming these arseholes?

I would strongly consider the idea. What's the harm? Worst case scenario - they continue to behave like arseholes until their contracts expire. Best case scenario - they are shamed into doing better.

If they want to behave like children, should we treat them like children?
 



No.

He just needs to sort it out and either get them out of the club on loan, or if nobody wants them, drop them from the squad and force them to train on their own. It worked well for Kenny Jackett when he took charge at Wolves.

What I do think is pointless, is what he has done, publicly single out one player in the media for not following his instructions, and then back tracking the next time he speaks to the media. He comes across as such a soft touch and I'd be amazed if players don't take advantage of that.
 
The problem with being tough on players is if you lose games you lose confidence from your entire squad. It's one thing dropping someone, it's another publicly singling someone out. If you are winning games, you can get away with anything. If you aren't, the rest of the squad just think the manager is a useless twat.
 
He sort of has named & shamed the departed loanees in what he said during his interview with Paul Walker. His understated delight at the failure each of them is making (to greater or lesser degrees) of their loan moves was one of the highlights of the interview.

Like Ricky says, a bit of an assertion of his position wouldn't go amiss. Hopefully the threat of this was seriously made to one or two players during the one-to-one interviews he said he had with them on Wednesday.

Still a bit baffled by how a player blatantly ignoring instructions on Tuesday wasn't hauled off. Maybe, just by mentioning it publicly, Adkins has been able to make his point to the player concerned & to others who might fancy doing similar: I suppose the next step is to directly name & embarrass culprits.
 
To expand about suspending them, it's not like we can't do without them on the pitch. We have no chance of promotion and are in no danger of relegation.

Ideally they'd be suspended without pay or continuously fined, but if we're going to carry on paying them it's better to pay them for doing nothing than paying them to have a negative impact. That would also have the added advantage of causing their fitness levels to deteriorate so they find it harder with their new clubs.

If they can't be suspended then they should be made to train alone (not with the kids) well away from the rest of the squad.
 
No. Adkins was possibly wrong to allude it as well. As much as there is patently player/manager interface problems, taking the whole issue public is counterproductive and will widen the gap between manager and players. It's also counter to any firm, proven leadership/management ethics. You are asking the public to do your job by making an opinion of a player and by action making him re-evaluate his actions. That isn't our job. We can have opinions, but it should be based on what we see on the pitch, not any internal friction in the club. He is also right in 'no commenting' about Baxter. Baxter is still a club member and if her goes live with what he truly thinks about Baxters morals and actions, that will seriously fuck up any loyalty the players will feel about Adkins because where do you stop? Baxter/drugs right down to Long missing a cross?

pommpey
 
Get HR involved and sort one of these out:

A Performance Improvement Plan (or ‘PIP’ as it is commonly known) is a process frequently used by employers where it is being alleged an employee has not carried out work to satisfactory standard. It is usually set out in writing for the employee to acknowledge and accept, and is often also coupled with the formal disciplinary process (although it doesn’t have to be).

The PIP should:

  • clearly and objectively set out where you are failing;
  • set out the improvement expected of you using measurable objectives;
  • state whether any support or training will be provided;
  • provide for the timescales and frequency of reviews; and
  • make clear what sanctions there will be if you fail to improve.
Should you sign a PIP that you do not agree with?
If you do not agree with the performance process, first and foremost, you should not sign or be seen to be complying with it- even if your employer is attempting to force you to do so. It will be much more difficult to defend your position if you have already signalled your agreement to the process. You should, if possible, take early legal advice before you do anything else.

Is there an alternative to your having to go through a performance improvement process?
If the situation cannot be resolved informally with HR or your line manager, it will always be a good idea to lodge a formal grievance setting out why you are not happy with the process and what you do not agree with. The grievance lays down a marker to your employer in an open and formal manner that there is an issue, and something they will need to investigate. The PIP process is often put on hold once a grievance is investigated, although this is not always the case.

Alternatively (or in addition), it may be possible to come to an agreement with your employer to leave employment on mutual terms under a settlement agreement. This is especially where you consider that whatever the outcome of the performance process, the employment relationship has broken down. From an employee’s perspective, the indignity of being put on a PIP in itself will often be enough to result in a breakdown of trust and confidence with their employer, especially where the PIP perceived to be without foundation. Indeed, in extreme cases where being placed on a PIP makes the continuing relationship untenable, and it can amount to constructive dismissal.

This is a highly tactical situation and not one that should be adopted if possible without you being aware of all your rights, including what type of settlement is possible. It is for this reason that it is usually far better to have legal representation in negotiating a severance so that you do not say or do the wrong thing which could put at risk a negotiated settlement. We have successfully negotiated thousands of settlements where employees have been put on a PIP.

Negotations should always be conducted on a “without prejudice basis“, which essentially means “off the record”. If terms can be agreed, we always ensure that part of the settlement will include an agreed job reference and appropriate non-derogatory clauses,so you are not bad-mouthed in the future. The full terms of the settlement agreement will need to be carefully negotiated.

What if your employer approaches you with a financial settlement?
You may be approached out of the blue by your employer, and be offered a financial payment to leave. This is known as a “protected conversation”, which means you cannot rely on such a discussion in any future tribunal proceedings. Such an approach is quite common where there are performance issues, as it saves both parties going down a lengthy process when a continuing relationship is going to be unlikely in any event.

Under Acas guidelines, you are entitled to a period of 10 days to consider any offer, and you don’t have to accept it. An employer cannot rely on the same degree of protection where there has been undue influence against an employee to accept an offer, or against a background of discrimination, whistleblowing and harassment. You should if possible take immediate legal advice if you have been approached by your employer, not least, because you are unlikely to know whether what is being offered represents a decent proposal.
 
Keep quiet, retain as much of the little vale they have and get shut. I have never watched our team with so little apparent desire to play.
 
Ooooh. 'failing'. Bad term.

'Current acknowledged difference between set and agreed objective deliverables and targets and forecasted objective deliverables and targets.'

In other words:

Set and agrred objective - Promotion to Championship via automatic method

Forecasted - utter wank mid-table mediocrity

You could clean the club out on that, in fact.

pommpey
 



Some players are making him look like a twat though, he's in a very tricky position. His job is on the line after giving them a clean slate, which some of them, after performing poorly last season have had another season out of the club when realistically a lot should have been moved on, they should have a bit more respect for both the club and the manager IMHO.

Most of them have the ability to play better more consistently, which is what makes it so frustrating.

Problem is if NA gets the bullet and some underperformers are given extensions on expired contracts and others another clean slate the situation won't improve if the players don't agree with the incoming manager, and we waste yet another season down here.
 
Over the last couple of weeks it has become apparent that one of the many problems we have at the Lane is that there is clique of players who are at best a negative influence and at worst are actively undermining Adkins.

According to Adkins, at least one player disobeyed his instructions on Tuesday. Whatever you may think of Adkins, that is unacceptable.

Those apparently ITK have suggested that whilst some of these players have departed, others remain at the club, and remain a problem.

So - if you were Adkins, would you consider naming and shaming these arseholes?

I would strongly consider the idea. What's the harm? Worst case scenario - they continue to behave like arseholes until their contracts expire. Best case scenario - they are shamed into doing better.

If they want to behave like children, should we treat them like children?

I'd say no – while I'm sure a few would love to see their least favourite players publicly scewered, I don't think there's anything at this stage to gain that wouldn't be gained by keeping it internal and just dropping the people involved. If they're players under contract, it probably wouldn't help us attract any potential buyers for them either.
 
Some players are making him look like a twat though, he's in a very tricky position. His job is on the line after giving them a clean slate, which some of them, after performing poorly last season have had another season out of the club when realistically a lot should have been moved on, they should have a bit more respect for both the club and the manager IMHO.

Most of them have the ability to play better more consistently, which is what makes it so frustrating.

Problem is if NA gets the bullet and some underperformers are given extensions on expired contracts and others another clean slate the situation won't improve if the players don't agree with the incoming manager, and we waste yet another season down here.

D'you not think the brief when Adkins arrived was summat like this:

"Right NIge, you're in. Cloughy bought a shitload of players in but they clearly aren't much cop. We've got no money ... (cough, Desso) so you'll have to make do with the shit we have and if you can tempt Sharp away from never getting a game with the club he is at at the moment all very well and good. I hear you are after Hammond ... drag it out and go cheap ... and get Woolford in if you must but he must be below £x.00. Edgar ... the answer is yes but if you can make to with Basham and McE playing out of position then do so. Have a look at the sqaud, make the adjustments and crack on. By the way, just tell those buch of cunts out there that you are 'evaluating'. You're not getting any spondoolies this year, promotion or not."

pommpey
 
Quite simply don't put him in the 18 and make him train elsewhere. Wouldn't even put him in the youth.

I think we will be able to work it out from there
 
Over the last couple of weeks it has become apparent that one of the many problems we have at the Lane is that there is clique of players who are at best a negative influence and at worst are actively undermining Adkins.

According to Adkins, at least one player disobeyed his instructions on Tuesday. Whatever you may think of Adkins, that is unacceptable.

Those apparently ITK have suggested that whilst some of these players have departed, others remain at the club, and remain a problem.

So - if you were Adkins, would you consider naming and shaming these arseholes?

I would strongly consider the idea. What's the harm? Worst case scenario - they continue to behave like arseholes until their contracts expire. Best case scenario - they are shamed into doing better.

If they want to behave like children, should we treat them like children?
honest to god i would name coutts even though i rate him as a player, sammon would be shamed, again as much as i like him baxter has to be shamed as well
 
He sort of has named & shamed the departed loanees in what he said during his interview with Paul Walker. His understated delight at the failure each of them is making (to greater or lesser degrees) of their loan moves was one of the highlights of the interview.

Like Ricky says, a bit of an assertion of his position wouldn't go amiss. Hopefully the threat of this was seriously made to one or two players during the one-to-one interviews he said he had with them on Wednesday.

Still a bit baffled by how a player blatantly ignoring instructions on Tuesday wasn't hauled off. Maybe, just by mentioning it publicly, Adkins has been able to make his point to the player concerned & to others who might fancy doing similar: I suppose the next step is to directly name & embarrass culprits.
well unless it was coutts in which case he bought on a youth who ive been waiting to see again ever since crewe in fa cup last season
 
D'you not think the brief when Adkins arrived was summat like this:

"Right NIge, you're in. Cloughy bought a shitload of players in but they clearly aren't much cop. We've got no money ... (cough, Desso) so you'll have to make do with the shit we have and if you can tempt Sharp away from never getting a game with the club he is at at the moment all very well and good. I hear you are after Hammond ... drag it out and go cheap ... and get Woolford in if you must but he must be below £x.00. Edgar ... the answer is yes but if you can make to with Basham and McE playing out of position then do so. Have a look at the sqaud, make the adjustments and crack on. By the way, just tell those buch of cunts out there that you are 'evaluating'. You're not getting any spondoolies this year, promotion or not."

pommpey

I reckon you could be right with the no money and make do part of the brief, he did say the squad wasn't good enough to get automatic before the season, before we sold Murphy. He's been dealt a shit hand
 
Get HR involved and sort one of these out:

A Performance Improvement Plan (or ‘PIP’ as it is commonly known) is a process frequently used by employers where it is being alleged an employee has not carried out work to satisfactory standard. It is usually set out in writing for the employee to acknowledge and accept, and is often also coupled with the formal disciplinary process (although it doesn’t have to be).

The PIP should:

  • clearly and objectively set out where you are failing;
  • set out the improvement expected of you using measurable objectives;
  • state whether any support or training will be provided;
  • provide for the timescales and frequency of reviews; and
  • make clear what sanctions there will be if you fail to improve.
Should you sign a PIP that you do not agree with?
If you do not agree with the performance process, first and foremost, you should not sign or be seen to be complying with it- even if your employer is attempting to force you to do so. It will be much more difficult to defend your position if you have already signalled your agreement to the process. You should, if possible, take early legal advice before you do anything else.

Is there an alternative to your having to go through a performance improvement process?
If the situation cannot be resolved informally with HR or your line manager, it will always be a good idea to lodge a formal grievance setting out why you are not happy with the process and what you do not agree with. The grievance lays down a marker to your employer in an open and formal manner that there is an issue, and something they will need to investigate. The PIP process is often put on hold once a grievance is investigated, although this is not always the case.

Alternatively (or in addition), it may be possible to come to an agreement with your employer to leave employment on mutual terms under a settlement agreement. This is especially where you consider that whatever the outcome of the performance process, the employment relationship has broken down. From an employee’s perspective, the indignity of being put on a PIP in itself will often be enough to result in a breakdown of trust and confidence with their employer, especially where the PIP perceived to be without foundation. Indeed, in extreme cases where being placed on a PIP makes the continuing relationship untenable, and it can amount to constructive dismissal.

This is a highly tactical situation and not one that should be adopted if possible without you being aware of all your rights, including what type of settlement is possible. It is for this reason that it is usually far better to have legal representation in negotiating a severance so that you do not say or do the wrong thing which could put at risk a negotiated settlement. We have successfully negotiated thousands of settlements where employees have been put on a PIP.

Negotations should always be conducted on a “without prejudice basis“, which essentially means “off the record”. If terms can be agreed, we always ensure that part of the settlement will include an agreed job reference and appropriate non-derogatory clauses,so you are not bad-mouthed in the future. The full terms of the settlement agreement will need to be carefully negotiated.

What if your employer approaches you with a financial settlement?
You may be approached out of the blue by your employer, and be offered a financial payment to leave. This is known as a “protected conversation”, which means you cannot rely on such a discussion in any future tribunal proceedings. Such an approach is quite common where there are performance issues, as it saves both parties going down a lengthy process when a continuing relationship is going to be unlikely in any event.

Under Acas guidelines, you are entitled to a period of 10 days to consider any offer, and you don’t have to accept it. An employer cannot rely on the same degree of protection where there has been undue influence against an employee to accept an offer, or against a background of discrimination, whistleblowing and harassment. You should if possible take immediate legal advice if you have been approached by your employer, not least, because you are unlikely to know whether what is being offered represents a decent proposal.

I made a similar, though far less detailed ( ;) ) point the other day. In any other profession they'd be "managed out" of the company with a month's wages (or whatever their notice period) in lieu of notice.
 
I made a similar, though far less detailed ( ;) ) point the other day. In any other profession they'd be "managed out" of the company with a month's wages (or whatever their notice period) in lieu of notice.
Notice period is a bit more difficult with footballers as they will be on fixed term contracts that will stipulate any notice period. Never seen a footballers contact but I can't imagine there being a clause in there about poor performance - too subjective.
 
Notice period is a bit more difficult with footballers as they will be on fixed term contracts that will stipulate any notice period. Never seen a footballers contact but I can't imagine there being a clause in there about poor performance - too subjective.
No , you're probably right. There's poor performance as in being crap at your job and poor performance as in not trying. I can forgive the first one more than the second, but in many places I've worked you'd be managed out the door for either. I've also worked in one placve on a fixed term contract but it was all still subject to performance objectives being met. Like I said before, footballers have it too cushy compared to the rest of us.
 
I made a similar, though far less detailed ( ;) ) point the other day. In any other profession they'd be "managed out" of the company with a month's wages (or whatever their notice period) in lieu of notice.
Their notice period will be the length of their contracts, just like yours.

The difference is that theirs is fixed (and long), yours is rolling (and short)

UTB
 



Their notice period will be the length of their contracts, just like yours.

The difference is that theirs is fixed (and long), yours is rolling (and short)

UTB
Not necessarily. Some FTC's have a clause in that allows termination earlier in certain circumstances - ask Jose Baxter Baby.

No , you're probably right. There's poor performance as in being crap at your job and poor performance as in not trying. I can forgive the first one more than the second, but in many places I've worked you'd be managed out the door for either. I've also worked in one placve on a fixed term contract but it was all still subject to performance objectives being met. Like I said before, footballers have it too cushy compared to the rest of us.

That's when things boil down to "will" or "skill". "Will" is a straight misconduct disciplinary offence, "Skill" is a PiP. I can think of a both for some of our players at moment!
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom