Andrew Gayle

Patel needs bringing to task. The sackings were/are deplorable. (Guilty before proven innocent). No interviews conducted with those people. No other club staff other than coaching and medical staff were affected. Which appears a witch hunt on the face of it.
He says. It will cost him and others a fortune to defend themselves against the ECB.
Some have admitted making comments they bitterly regret and apologised. A fully independent enquiry should take place. In my view. And those with nothing to answer for, take yorkshire and the ECB (who applauded Yorkshire's actions) to the cleaners. For defamation of character.

 

Correct…..

 

Lots of interesting snippets in his statement. ECB not talking to him and the 'coincidence' that players weren't part of the sackings (so we didn't strengthen other counties with freebies) being the main two. He's been found guilty of nothing but now seemingly has no career in professional Cricket ever again, his qualifications wasted and his income to suffer.

 

Wonder what Adil Rashid says about what he's said.
Lord Patel did right getting shut of them.

Also, why do people think it's okay to criticise the player's senior members but not the lower members which people have said.

Be it at Oakwell or Headingley. Everyone that takes a penny out of the club should be under the scrutiny of any fan that wants to question them publicly or privately.

 

Sorry your answer doesn't wash. (Have you read the transcript) In fact defies belief.
So getting shut of possibly innocent people without interviewing em and blighting their careers is ok with you. You've taken one side over the other without any evidence. Out of 16 sacked only 6 are under investigation. And have been asked to attend a hearing.
I don't know if Gale is innocent or guilty. But until proven one way or the other. Innocent. He should have been interviewed by Patel. Who sacked the lot of em without defending themselves. You do know he sacked THE ENTIRE COAHING AND MEDICAL STAFF.. NO PLAYERS OR CLUB WORKERS OF WHICH A COUPLE WERE ACCUSED. Sounds like you are judge an jury ffs..

 

Adil actions speak a million words Hooky.

He didn't want to play for Yorkshire because of someone.

 

Someone ffs. ALL GOT SACKED. NOT SOMEONE. He didn't accuse everyone of those sacked either. quite possibly didn't know all of em.

 

Those terms only ran up to the end of this season and with Yorkshire making public their disappointment at the call-up, Rashid responded by telling the BBC: “If they treat me like they have done I have to think about the future in terms of which county I play for.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ntract-yorkshire-cricket-all-format-cricketer

Who was he speaking about Hooky. Was it the Huddersfield fan.

 

.

 

Can't get my head around how any of this was handled. Summary Dismissal, no employment procedure followed, no hearing for those implicated.

 

What I do know is. Is that's an article from 2018. Inferring the contract ending that year. Rashid could have gone to Worcester. But chose to stay.

 

Really.?
Forgot about the Rafiq comment he admitted to and subsequently apologised for. (fair do's to him I certainly wouldn't hold it against him. Given he now knows it was a stupid. Remark ) Should he be barred from any future employment. ? As some others (innocent without recourse) have been. Because of the fallout.

 

Agree . We would have taken industrial action on those procedures not being followed.

 

If Andrew Gale (or anyone for that matter) believes they have been wrongly treated they should front up and defend themselves. He seemingly has chosen not to engage or attend the ECB hearing.

 

Should Patel resign ?
article 7-6-22

Yorkshire admit staff sacked during Azeem Rafiq scandal were victims of 'unfair dismissal'

The crisis-hit county agreed their former coaches’ legal action had merit in a judgment issued

Yorkshire have admitted that unfair dismissal complaints by staff sacked in the wake of the club’s racism scandal are “well founded” and now face paying out compensation.

The crisis county agreed their former coaches’ legal action against them at Leeds Employment Tribunal had merit in a consent judgment issued just over two weeks ago and published on Tuesday.

The judgment, signed by Employment Judge JM Wade, was issued on the same day as Telegraph Sport revealed sacked staff had been made “derisory” offers to settle their toxic legal battle with their former employer.

Yorkshire’s admission means they will almost certainly have to pay tens of thousands in compensation to the six former members of their coaching team who brought the claim.

However, the legal battle was poised to continue over other complaints that could cost the club millions, with the consent order stating: “Remedy and any other complaints proceed to hearing unless otherwise resolved.”

The Telegraph was told last month that Yorkshire had asked the six complainants to sign deals starting at as little as £2,000.

The figures said to be involved were branded “derisory” by one source, with two other sacked staff members having settled for a combined sum of between £500,000 and £750,000.

News of the offers emerged a fortnight after the first hearing into the cases brought by former members of Yorkshire’s coaching team, something that threatens to cost the debt-ridden club millions in compensation and legal fees.

Telegraph Sport has been told settlement negotiations are being handled by Paul Hudson, the county’s acting chief executive who is said to be planning to quit by the autumn.

 

To be sacked without a disciplinary hearing etc is obviously wrong, but let's not champion Gale as some kind of hero.

He's a bad bloke, with a history of racism. Just ask Ashwell Prince.

 

I don't think anyone has, including me.
He's pointed out the failings and incompetence of YCCC and the ECB.in procedures. The last post I produced identifies that. It's not a simple as Rafiq v Gale. But the Sacked v YCCC.
If anyone else had produced a similar statement. I'd have said the same.
The Prince one was controversial (had to look it up tbf) in the fact He (Prince) didn't consider the spat Racist. The ECB decided it contained racial connotations.

 

This