What also amazes me is why did they give the caretaker role to M Murray. What a slap in the face for Dale Tonge and Martin Devanney. Surely they worked more with D Stendel and know the way he wanted to play? If Murray takes the job then many of the fan base will be on his back seeing him as the boards yes man and the cheap option who has limited managerial experience and motivational experience to the reds off the bottom of the table .
"Legal proceedings are ongoing." Logically, I can see only three possibilities. The first is that Daniel Stendel is suing the club for constructive dismissal. The second is that the club are suing Daniel Stendel for some form of breach of contract. The third is that some other non-football related incident has occurred which is alleged to constitute gross misconduct. (Unlikely, but a remote possibility nevertheless) If one of those three situations has arisen then I can see no reason not to state that fact, with a perfectly justifiable rider that no further comment can be made until matters are resolved. The identity of the manager/head coach is a matter of huge interest to a fan of any football club. All the more so where an outgoing manager is a successful and charismatic leader who the overwhelming majority of fans still supported. Legitimate questions abound regarding the current failure of the ownership's strategies to achieve their stated aims. It is absolutely the right of the owners to run the club in whatever way they wish. But a football club depends upon support for success, and that in turn depends on achieving 'buy-in' by the supporters. Failing to communicate information to the supporters regarding both the above matters jeopardises that buy-in, and even diehard fans on here are voicing serious doubts about their ongoing financial involvement with the club. People will naturally fill the communication void with their own theories, and it's not unreasonable to speculate whether the owners still see their stewardship as a viable project going forward, given the short-term failure of their strategy. The absence of the owners from games, the exit from Nice and the attempts to buy Partick Thistle raise further doubts. Will they talk to us? Who knows.
He worked with the first team every day and he has much more managerial experience than both Tonge and Devaney. He was the obvious choice for caretaker.
Tonge and Devaney presumably worked more closely on tactics with DS? And as Tonge was second in command usually they take the caretaker role. Not sure whether Murray was the obvious choice or the only one to volunteer!
I cant agree that IF there is a legal action being taken by either side that it should be stated. Pretty sure basic employment law wouldn't allow/recommend this(but could be wrong). However the lack of communication over the progress/plan of the replacement is different and agree totally with the second paragraph.
You hear all the time about employment disputes that are taken to tribunal or even higher on appeal. I can see no problem disclosing the mere existence of proceedings, accompanied (if appropriate) by a statement that they are being resisted.
Indeed. And if comment can't be made in a statement, it absolutely shouldn't be made to fan representatives by the CEO either.
I truly hope its a case of... good things come to those who wait.... and wait... and wait... and wait...
No it shouldn’t. All I know is when I won a case against my old employer, I got a bigger payout because they had released details like suggested. I appreciate each case is different but am pretty sure DS is a higher profile than me and as such could win larger sums than I did.