Joss Labadie - Accepts 10 game Ban

Chris B · Post by **Chris B** » 18 Mar 2014, 19:47

My reading of this is Labadie and/or his agent have decided it would be better to see out the ban with us and write off the 2013/14 season, rather than making himself a much less attractive option for potential employers in the summer if he failed with an appeal and still had part of his suspension to serve.

If this is the case, whilst it's understandable for a footballer to look after his own interests, it isn't right that he wasted the time of people at and working on behalf of the club. The whole affair has been an unnecessary distraction, and Labadie has brought our club into disrepute. I hope the club looks after its interests now, and if that involves sacking Labadie and leaving him stranded with his suspension, so be it.

Post by **exilegull** » 18 Mar 2014, 20:41

If the club were to dismiss him then I assume the ban would only be classed as served when he has re-signed for another club.

I would be very happy if we stand by him and he signs a new contract for next season - however I can't imagine we could offer that as if he turned it down and then sacked him, he would probably have a good wrongful appeal case and I don't suppose either the club or the player are in a position to commit until we know which division we are in.

brucie · Post by **brucie** » 18 Mar 2014, 20:49

Obviously he isn't appealing because he can see his ban out and then sign for somebody else at the start of next season.
What a joke.

SkyBlueGull · Post by **SkyBlueGull** » 18 Mar 2014, 21:51

I don't understand the HE comment

- something along the lines that the PFA have the problem of a conflict of interest in that they also represent Ollie Banks the Chesterfield player.

Surely in nearly every case where there is a player under some scrutiny for a foul, head butt, spitting, leg breaker, bite etc there are usually 2 players involved that the PFA will be representing.

So wont there always be conflict - I think this is a red herring

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 18 Mar 2014, 21:58

If they haven't already done so, the club should fine him the appropriate amount, at least equal to his earnings for the ten games he has been banned, and then he should pack his bags. The club can't afford players who get banned for ten games.

arcadia · Post by **arcadia** » 18 Mar 2014, 23:13

exilegull wrote:If the club were to dismiss him then I assume the ban would only be classed as served when he has re-signed for another club.

I would be very happy if we stand by him and he signs a new contract for next season - however I can't imagine we could offer that as if he turned it down and then sacked him, he would probably have a good wrongful appeal case and I don't suppose either the club or the player are in a position to commit until we know which division we are in.

I like that,sack him and then hope none of the games count against the ban, he's been tapped up for next season already if the agent is involved like that. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

tomogull · Post by **tomogull** » 19 Mar 2014, 00:42

arcadia wrote:Thomo and I were right his frame of mind was all over the place last Saturday Matt!

Yes - Joss contributed very little at Cheltenham last Saturday and I'm not surprised it was his last game for the Gulls. Hindsight is wonderful I know, but perhaps it would have been better if he had been substituted at half time.

arcadia · Post by **arcadia** » 20 Mar 2014, 22:23

I hope we are not going to have to pay his wages, after admitting that he did bite the Chesterfield player by acepting the ban. If we do have to I'd have him in, training every day running from Torquay to Brixham as he's made the club look stupid after saying he can't remember biting the player as he just did not want to admit to it. He's set himself up for next season and let down Torquay.
He would have been more respectfull by admitting to it in the first place.

tomogull · Post by **tomogull** » 21 Mar 2014, 00:33

arcadia wrote:I hope we are not going to have to pay his wages, after admitting that he did bite the Chesterfield player by acepting the ban. If we do have to I'd have him in, training every day running from Torquay to Brixham as he's made the club look stupid after saying he can't remember biting the player as he just did not want to admit to it. He's set himself up for next season and let down Torquay.
He would have been more respectfull by admitting to it in the first place.

He's been a very silly lad and for his sake, let's hope he learns from his stupidity. Dave Thomas in this week's Herald Depress suggests that 'Hargreaves may want to bring in a replacement for Labadie before next week's transfer deadline'. If this is the case, possibly it would suggest that Joss's contract is to be terminated ...... or I may be adding 2 and 2 and making 5 (never much good at maths !)

CP Gull · Post by **CP Gull** » 21 Mar 2014, 07:33

If we don't actually formally "sack" him as such, then I would imagine that we will see something from the club after the weekend to the effect that he (Labadie) has left the club by " mutual agreement". I would imagine we will pay him something but hopefully not anything like what is left on his contract. It would make sense all around as Joss can return " home" and begin the search in earnest for a new club for next season ... the alternative (should he choose not to accept) would I imagine involve him hanging around like a spare part, probably training with the kids, which doesn't help either party.

Hopefully with the money saved, Greavsie will be able to add another loan signing or two, before the deadline closes on Thursday.

Mav · Post by **Mav** » 21 Mar 2014, 08:03

I maybe misreading this, but my understanding of a 10 game ban is that he has to be registered at a club to serve it. Which means if we sack him or he leaves by mutal consent he is no longer serving the ban, and any new club he signs for he would have to serve the ban for them. Is it not likely that the club have an arrangement where they have said to him, you can serve out your ban here, however we are not going to pay you any wages. Then at the end of the season he walks away with ban completed. Or they tell him, we will just sack you now, and that would hamper his chances of getting a new club next season. Not sure if this can be done with employment laws or not?

kevgull · Post by **kevgull** » 21 Mar 2014, 08:50

IMHO

This was a reckless act from an individual and therefore any punishment should have been heavily weighted towards the indiviual.
The correct punishment should have been an 8 week wages fine with possible a 3 match ban.
If we had practiced "biting the opponent" after a "keepy uppy session" then that would of course be different. :}

He has definately been advised not to appeal against the ban as he is now only concerned in securing a future contract at A N Other club. His actions have dropped us right in the sh*t and if he ever returns to the club I would have no hesitations in slatting him for the full 90 minutes!

Rightfully, the club is now going through the due process of investigation, leading to the sacking of Labadie (with a compromised payout).

I would expect to see a midfielder in place by the end of the Loan transfer window on Thursday, being paid for by the wages saved on Gnasher.

I wonder if there is still a little gem out there like Danny Hollands (Chelsea youth captain) was in the past, as I don't think any experienced player would want, or be given permission, to come down to a potentially relegated club........unless of course we sneek another win on Saturday!

Gloomy Gull · Post by **Gloomy Gull** » 21 Mar 2014, 12:36

Surely the club could and should sack Labadie immediately for Gross Misconduct, without the fear of a Tribunal hearing?

If he had bit, for instance, Thea - would that not be grounds for instant dismissal for GM?

Why should we worry about his future ability to find another club - he obviously had no concern how his actions might impact on this club. Time for the Board (except Thea!) to grow a pair and take some decisive action and not play the nice guy.

Labadie OUT !!

arcadia · Post by **arcadia** » 21 Mar 2014, 13:12

kevgull wrote:IMHO

This was a reckless act from an individual and therefore any punishment should have been heavily weighted towards the indiviual.
The correct punishment should have been an 8 week wages fine with possible a 3 match ban.
If we had practiced "biting the opponent" after a "keepy uppy session" then that would of course be different. :}

He has definately been advised not to appeal against the ban as he is now only concerned in securing a future contract at A N Other club. His actions have dropped us right in the sh*t and if he ever returns to the club I would have no hesitations in slatting him for the full 90 minutes!

Rightfully, the club is now going through the due process of investigation, leading to the sacking of Labadie (with a compromised payout).

I would expect to see a midfielder in place by the end of the Loan transfer window on Thursday, being paid for by the wages saved on Gnasher.

I wonder if there is still a little gem out there like Danny Hollands (Chelsea youth captain) was in the past, as I don't think any experienced player would want, or be given permission, to come down to a potentially relegated club........unless of course we sneek another win on Saturday!

What would happen if you bit a potential customer in a shop or work place. There would be no if''''''s and but's you'd be out the door.

ferrarilover · Post by **ferrarilover** » 21 Mar 2014, 13:47

So much reactionary nonsense, so little thinking. The maximum allowable fine is a fortnight's salary, which is what he got.

We can't 'just sack him', because we live in England, not North Korea.

I don't know, but I'd suggest we won't see him again in yellow and that he probably will be disposed of.

The usual wording of suspensions is that 'Player X is suspended until such a time as Team X has completed X number of first team matches'.
I find it far too convenient that he should be suspended for precisely the number of matches we have remaining. I suspect that, had he been banned for longer, the FA may have found themselves in a position they didn't want to be in if anything had happened to us over the summer and Ladders was still subject to a ban, the ending of which relied upon TUFC playing matches.

Give it a week, then we'll know where we stand.

Matt.

Torquay United Fans Forum