Giggs

[iot]

If he were any sort of decent person he would not have taken a million quid from Welsh football for no work at all irrespective of whether his trial has run its course or not. I'm sure the FAW could do with that money a lot more than Giggs. Maybe it's just a sign of the Johnsonian times we currently live in, but decent people in politics or within other public realms were expected to resign if they were doing more harm than good for the institutions they represented.

[dai]

I suspect the reason he's resigned now is because we've actually managed to qualify for the WC without him, and that he's realised there's not much else for him to do.

I think he's stuck to his contract because he was hoping, or thought we wouldn't qualify, and he could waltz back in with promise of qualification and how we can't do it without him.

Either that, or his trial is looking pretty bleak from a defence point of view where he will ultimately loose.

[insertname]

Jun 21, 2022 13:58:20 GMT iot said:

If he were any sort of decent person he would not have taken a million quid from Welsh football for no work at all irrespective of whether his trial has run its course or not. I'm sure the FAW could do with that money a lot more than Giggs. Maybe it's just a sign of the Johnsonian times we currently live in, but decent people in politics or within other public realms were expected to resign if they were doing more harm than good for the institutions they represented.

How do you think a jury views someone who resigns from their role in the wake of an accusation? Would you risk prejudicing a jury in your trial to save Welsh football a few quid? Pffffft.

Perhaps in the old days that sort of thing was possible but in these days of 24 hour news coverage people have to be very careful about how these things are managed. After hearing some things recently about people’s experiences on jury service and how idiotic, biased and forceful jurors can be I for one would want to give them absolutely nothing to work with if I was a defendant. In fact I’m not even sure that juries are the best way to go anymore as you are left relying on every day people who generally lack self-awareness to be objective and impartial and reading about others experiences on juries has left me horrified and sceptical that the general populace has those qualities.

[conwy10]

Jun 21, 2022 14:29:44 GMT dai said:

I suspect the reason he's resigned now is because we've actually managed to qualify for the WC without him, and that he's realised there's not much else for him to do.

I think he's stuck to his contract because he was hoping, or thought we wouldn't qualify, and he could waltz back in with promise of qualification and how we can't do it without him.

Either that, or his trial is looking pretty bleak from a defence point of view where he will ultimately loose.

Would a former Man United have that mentality? I mean they mopped up everything there was to play for whilst he was a player for pretty much his whole career. I can only guess but I'd think he'd enjoy being part of a set up that's working as it's all he's really known.

[conwy10]

Jun 21, 2022 11:26:23 GMT gwernybwch said:

Jun 21, 2022 11:08:41 GMT 1gwaunview said:

Good riddance. He took too long to do this, and made a packet from the FAW in the meantime.
The Association should have put a clause in his contract beforehand, to suspend his salary if he brought any type of scandal to their door. Especially given his previous antics.
Obviously not a nice guy, but innocent until proven guilty.

It is common practice to have a 'bringing the organisation into disrepute' clause in the contracts of employees that are public facing in some way. If the FAW didn't have one in his contract, somebody at the FAW needs a kick in the arse.



I suspect that there was a clause in the contract the but the FAW were reluctant to exercise it. Remember that for many on the FAW council he was 'their man'. There would have been much eggs on faces for them to admit the obvious that Giggs was a wrong appointment.

When this first broke, he was just being interviewed by the Police. At that time did the FAW have the financial resources to defend a claim against breach of contract / unfair dismissal? Probably not. It would have meant coming up against Giggs £1k per hour lawyers arguing that being interviewed by the Police hasn't brought the FAW into disrepute. The longer that it went on the harder it would have been to prove that he had actually brought the organisation into disrepute.

I think that they figured it would be easier and cheaper just to continue to pay him and let it take its natural course.

Can you get back what you've been paying someone if they are found guilty whilst they were suspended? I mean most these days have a loss of earnings (I think it's called) policy and having to pay an extra person to do their jobs whilst they can't do it surely is a loss of earning.

[gwernybwch]

Jun 21, 2022 12:26:45 GMT insertname said:

Jun 21, 2022 11:26:23 GMT gwernybwch said:

It is common practice to have a 'bringing the organisation into disrepute' clause in the contracts of employees that are public facing in some way. If the FAW didn't have one in his contract, somebody at the FAW needs a kick in the arse.



I suspect that there was a clause in the contract the but the FAW were reluctant to exercise it. Remember that for many on the FAW council he was 'their man'. There would have been much eggs on faces for them to admit the obvious that Giggs was a wrong appointment.

When this first broke, he was just being interviewed by the Police. At that time did the FAW have the financial resources to defend a claim against breach of contract / unfair dismissal? Probably not. It would have meant coming up against Giggs £1k per hour lawyers arguing that being interviewed by the Police hasn't brought the FAW into disrepute. The longer that it went on the harder it would have been to prove that he had actually brought the organisation into disrepute.

I think that they figured it would be easier and cheaper just to continue to pay him and let it take its natural course.

Don’t you think moneybags Man City would have done that with Mendy if it was just about paying someone off and getting rid of the negative PR?

As I’ve said on here about a million times there is legal process to follow and it’s imperative that that happens so as not to prejudice a trial. Hence why even the richest clubs will typically suspend a player/manager pending an investigation and potential trial where the encumbent will be associated with the club’s name.

The difference between a player and a Manager is that a player is a valuable asset. How much is Mendy worth? £50m? Even for money bags Man City that is a lot of money to write off by dismissing him. In dismissing him it would also effectively allow him to go and play somewhere else, maybe even one of their Champions League competitors.

Arguably the disrepute of one player in a squad of many is much lesser than the disrepute of the Head Coach.



Everyday people are having their employment brought to an end because of charges or even arrests for activities outside of work. Most employees weigh up if they want to fight it in an employment tribunal they have to accept that there is going to be some further reputational damage to them. Most understand the employer / employee relationship; that the (financial) power is in the hands of the employer. The alternative is to accept (a partial payment) settlement and go quietly.



The FAW has somehow achieved the worst of both worlds. They have paid Giggs what £1m? and still had the association brought into disrepute through their connection to him.



Your argument that him resigning or accepting a settlement in the wake of an accusation would potentially prejudice a jury doesn't make sense. That is what his has effectively done now. Why is Giggs prejudicing his case by resigning now?
We all know why. It was never about potentially prejudicing a case, it was all about milking the FAW for every penny that he could. I'll guarantee that the only reason he has resigned now is that they have reached a settlement to pay out his contract until December.

[pclaude]

Jun 21, 2022 19:47:11 GMT conwy10 said:

Jun 21, 2022 11:26:23 GMT gwernybwch said:

It is common practice to have a 'bringing the organisation into disrepute' clause in the contracts of employees that are public facing in some way. If the FAW didn't have one in his contract, somebody at the FAW needs a kick in the arse.



I suspect that there was a clause in the contract the but the FAW were reluctant to exercise it. Remember that for many on the FAW council he was 'their man'. There would have been much eggs on faces for them to admit the obvious that Giggs was a wrong appointment.

When this first broke, he was just being interviewed by the Police. At that time did the FAW have the financial resources to defend a claim against breach of contract / unfair dismissal? Probably not. It would have meant coming up against Giggs £1k per hour lawyers arguing that being interviewed by the Police hasn't brought the FAW into disrepute. The longer that it went on the harder it would have been to prove that he had actually brought the organisation into disrepute.

I think that they figured it would be easier and cheaper just to continue to pay him and let it take its natural course.

Can you get back what you've been paying someone if they are found guilty whilst they were suspended? I mean most these days have a loss of earnings (I think it's called) policy and having to pay an extra person to do their jobs whilst they can't do it surely is a loss of earning.

This is why I suspect that we’ve not paid him yet. The money is probably sat in a solicitors account somewhere waiting for the case. I doubt the FAW would be that keen for such a large chunk of their budget to go someone doing xxxx all for two years.

[conwy10]

Jun 21, 2022 22:11:42 GMT pclaude said:

Jun 21, 2022 19:47:11 GMT conwy10 said:

Can you get back what you've been paying someone if they are found guilty whilst they were suspended? I mean most these days have a loss of earnings (I think it's called) policy and having to pay an extra person to do their jobs whilst they can't do it surely is a loss of earning.

This is why I suspect that we’ve not paid him yet. The money is probably sat in a solicitors account somewhere waiting for the case. I doubt the FAW would be that keen for such a large chunk of their budget to go someone doing xxxx all for two years.

On the flip side of that though if you have a verbal disagreement with a partner and accusations are thrown at you surely there's mechanisms in place to protect you until you're found guilty? Say for example you're accused, can't pay your mortgage or bills and lose everything before being found not guilty in court. Is that just bad luck if it happens or is there some type of protection?

[insertname]

Jun 21, 2022 23:43:58 GMT conwy10 said:

Jun 21, 2022 22:11:42 GMT pclaude said:

This is why I suspect that we’ve not paid him yet. The money is probably sat in a solicitors account somewhere waiting for the case. I doubt the FAW would be that keen for such a large chunk of their budget to go someone doing xxxx all for two years.

On the flip side of that though if you have a verbal disagreement with a partner and accusations are thrown at you surely there's mechanisms in place to protect you until you're found guilty? Say for example you're accused, can't pay your mortgage or bills and lose everything before being found not guilty in court. Is that just bad luck if it happens or is there some type of protection?

Not as far as I am aware.

An acquaintance of mine fell foul of his mentally deficient wife. She was very badly advised by women’s services (told she could get their house to herself if she was just willing to cry abuse) and the Police, instead of using some common sense and picking him up at a discreet time, waited for him at his place of work which was retail based and very public, thus alerting everyone that he was in some trouble with the law.

He was later completely exonerated via evidence before it got to the charging stage let alone court but it was too late by then. By that time his life was ruined- his employer gave him the boot, his wife took off with their kid. The only support he got was sincere commiserations from myself and others who sadly didn’t have the power to undo what the state had done to him based on a false accusation.

I’ll also say that I know of two other men completely exonerated by evidence without any further action needed. Throw the Ched case in there and that’s why I prefer to give characters like Giggs (as odious as he is according to rumour) the benefit of the doubt until a verdict has been reached in a court of law. Women are, rightly or wrongly, used as pawns by the legal profession to stimulate cases and cases stimulate profits. Whilst the likes of Ched are no doubt scummy characters in general, they often are not law breakers. The legal system however, would love to convince juries that they are.

[Dubai Reds]

Jun 21, 2022 11:19:52 GMT conwy10 said:

Jun 21, 2022 6:50:36 GMT Dubai Reds said:

About time he did resign/pushed.

We could afford to pay him off the rest of the contract once we qualified for the World Cup, and FAW would have said his contract was not going to be renewed and we would be giving the job to Rob Page anyways.

PR says he's done the right thing by "Resigning", and shows some humility in not wanting to overshadow preparations for the World Cup.

BUT he could have done this 12 months ago

To me it suggests he was pushed judging by the FAW statement.

I'd prefer the money went into grassroots than going into Giggs bank for a contract he voided through troubles in his personal life.

Agree but that's never going to happen. Money would be going into his bank account until 18th December regardless. If he's been paid off, it would likely have been a discounted lump sum.

[pendragon]

Jun 21, 2022 14:29:44 GMT dai said:

I suspect the reason he's resigned now is because we've actually managed to qualify for the WC without him, and that he's realised there's not much else for him to do.

I think he's stuck to his contract because he was hoping, or thought we wouldn't qualify, and he could waltz back in with promise of qualification and how we can't do it without him.

Either that, or his trial is looking pretty bleak from a defence point of view where he will ultimately loose.

My two cents is that he has been told in no uncertain terms that if he is found guilty, he's out of a job, even if he does not serve a custodial.

Or, it might be that after the events of the last few weeks, the FAW have decided not to renew his contract irrespective of the verdict (there is no obligation to renew it in any case). 

[pendragon]

Jun 21, 2022 11:08:41 GMT 1gwaunview said:

Good riddance. He took too long to do this, and made a packet from the FAW in the meantime.
The Association should have put a clause in his contract beforehand, to suspend his salary if he brought any type of scandal to their door. Especially given his previous antics.
Obviously not a nice guy, but innocent until proven guilty.

I am in agreement with you. Employment law employs a civil - not a criminal - standard to establish burden of proof. A lot of people on far lower salaries than him have been dismissed for a lot less than what he has been accused of. 

[mikejones]

I've read back several pages in this thread and the interesting thing is that I didn't find a single person thinking that losing Giggs as a manager would hurt the squad.

[allezlesrouges]

Jun 23, 2022 4:39:48 GMT mikejones said:

I've read back several pages in this thread and the interesting thing is that I didn't find a single person thinking that losing Giggs as a manager would hurt the squad.

A good point, and I think it's a testament to our setup overall. I think most people recognise that the setup is self-sufficient and most managers would probably come into it and do reasonably well. Nothing in Page's CV suggested he'd be an excellent manager, but he's flourishing at the helm, and I think if anything he's a better man-manager than Giggs, so if anything we've improved since he came in (more so in recent months than the beginning of Page's tenure)

[aberbeeg]

Jun 23, 2022 13:07:42 GMT allezlesrouges said:

Jun 23, 2022 4:39:48 GMT mikejones said:

I've read back several pages in this thread and the interesting thing is that I didn't find a single person thinking that losing Giggs as a manager would hurt the squad.

A good point, and I think it's a testament to our setup overall. I think most people recognise that the setup is self-sufficient and most managers would probably come into it and do reasonably well. Nothing in Page's CV suggested he'd be an excellent manager, but he's flourishing at the helm, and I think if anything he's a better man-manager than Giggs, so if anything we've improved since he came in (more so in recent months than the beginning of Page's tenure)

I’m so glad that Giggs isn’t anywhere near the Wales set up now that his court case has began. He May be innocent until proven guilty but the guy sounds like a right scumbag and a bully to any woman who he’s been involved with. 
Lots of news on day 1 about how he physically abused women as well as mentally abusing them. 

[iantov]

Giggs is described as having "a much uglier and more sinister side to his character' in the prosecution's opening address to the court today

www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-62423393

[gwernybwch]

Wouldn't it be ironic if that Juror overcomes their slight niggle and will be fit to return to their paid job come first thing Tuesday -
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62685381

[insertname]

Aug 26, 2022 17:12:45 GMT gwernybwch said:

Wouldn't it be ironic if that Juror overcomes their slight niggle and will be fit to return to their paid job come first thing Tuesday -
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62685381

If you read the full article it’s a nothing story- the judge has said all 12 will deliberate together so the trial will not continue until the 12th juror is well

[insertname]

And it’s worth highlighting that the jury retired for their verdict on Tuesday, so this is obviously not a cut and tied case of “guilty” by any stretch and not surprising really as the most compelling publicly reported evidence seems to have come from the defence.

[Albert]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62645830

[1gwaunview]

From the articles in the newspapers one seemed to be as childish as the other, although Giggs does come across as a complete cheating tosser (which we already knew), and the girlfriend comes across as very immature. Probably only the two of them and the sister know exactly what happened, and both sides have embellished their tales. I'd find it very difficult to come up with a solid opinion either way were I on the jury as well.

[insertname]

Aug 31, 2022 15:09:35 GMT 1gwaunview said:

From the articles in the newspapers one seemed to be as childish as the other, although Giggs does come across as a complete cheating tosser (which we already knew), and the girlfriend comes across as very immature. Probably only the two of them and the sister know exactly what happened, and both sides have embellished their tales. I'd find it very difficult to come up with an solid opinion either way were I on the jury as well.

The fact that she seemed to be showing off her bruises and he asked the neighbour to call the police stand out for me. Like you say, at the very least they seem to both be a pair of twats but has a crime actually been committed?

Seems very much like the Ched case to me. What a rigmarole though for it to still not be done. The case will surely be dropped now though

[iantov]

Aug 31, 2022 15:15:16 GMT insertname said:

Aug 31, 2022 15:09:35 GMT 1gwaunview said:

From the articles in the newspapers one seemed to be as childish as the other, although Giggs does come across as a complete cheating tosser (which we already knew), and the girlfriend comes across as very immature. Probably only the two of them and the sister know exactly what happened, and both sides have embellished their tales. I'd find it very difficult to come up with an solid opinion either way were I on the jury as well.

The fact that she seemed to be showing off her bruises and he asked the neighbour to call the police stand out for me. Like you say, at the very least they seem to both be a pair of twats but has a crime actually been committed?

Seems very much like the Ched case to me. What a rigmarole though for it to still not be done. The case will surely be dropped now though

Unless some new, additional, compelling evidence is produced, surely the Crown Prosecution will no longer pursue matters?

[welshrover]

So what we are saying is that it's this girl's fault that Tom Lawrence doesn't get a game 😀

[insertname]

Aug 31, 2022 15:47:42 GMT welshrover said:

So what we are saying is that it's this girl's fault that Tom Lawrence doesn't get a game 😀

Don’t start! 😝

It does raise a question of how things might be different if this hadn’t turned out the way it had. I do have some sympathy him that sense- he’s been suspended for how many years? Lost his job and when it came to court it was absolutely not a one sided case at all and the girl involved sounds like a bit of a horror herself. It looks like he won’t be found guilty, so all those years of his career lost for what? I don’t deny the bloke is undoubtedly a scumbag, but the FAW knew he was a scumbag before giving him a contract so can hardly complain about how it’s turned out. What a mess.

[insertname]

Aug 31, 2022 15:44:04 GMT iantov said:

Aug 31, 2022 15:15:16 GMT insertname said:

The fact that she seemed to be showing off her bruises and he asked the neighbour to call the police stand out for me. Like you say, at the very least they seem to both be a pair of twats but has a crime actually been committed?

Seems very much like the Ched case to me. What a rigmarole though for it to still not be done. The case will surely be dropped now though

Unless some new, additional, compelling evidence is produced, surely the Crown Prosecution will no longer pursue matters?

Well exactly, unable to reach a verdict suggests they were both as bad as each other in the eyes of the jury and they couldn’t decide who was worse. Without being able to add new evidence surely it’s a waste of time charging the tax payer to do it all again in the hope of a guilty outcome. It will get dropped now, it has to unless something turns up that tips the odds significantly in favour of a guilty verdict

[bobbyghoul]

"The jury needed to come to a 10-1 agreement but Messrs Neville and Scholes were not able to agree with their fellow jurors."

[gwernybwch]

Aug 31, 2022 16:02:41 GMT insertname said:

Aug 31, 2022 15:47:42 GMT welshrover said:

So what we are saying is that it's this girl's fault that Tom Lawrence doesn't get a game 😀

Don’t start! 😝

It does raise a question of how things might be different if this hadn’t turned out the way it had. I do have some sympathy him that sense- he’s been suspended for how many years? Lost his job and when it came to court it was absolutely not a one sided case at all and the girl involved sounds like a bit of a horror herself. It looks like he won’t be found guilty, so all those years of his career lost for what? I don’t deny the bloke is undoubtedly a scumbag, but the FAW knew he was a scumbag before giving him a contract so can hardly complain about how it’s turned out. What a mess.

Sorry to be the pedant, it was gardening leave rather than suspended. Both a neutral act from an employment perspective, but gardening leave is on the whole one where the employee also agrees to it as well. And he didn't lose his job, it naturally came to an end (after receiving the pay throughout his contract).

Maybe this is the best set of circumstances all round. It has been fully confirmed that he is the fucking horrible cwnt that everybody - apart from the FAW and the Giggs fan boys - knew that he was. And clearly not the type of person that can or should be the figure head for Welsh international football.
But at the same time he doesn't get convicted which allows him to get on with his life. He can continue with the work he was doing whilst being the Manager of Wales; a guest slot on BeIn Sports here, an autograph signing session there. Maybe even become the Manager of some country like Thailand and dedicate as much time to that job as he did to his 'dream job' of managing Wales.

[iantov]

Aug 31, 2022 16:05:34 GMT insertname said:

Aug 31, 2022 15:44:04 GMT iantov said:

Unless some new, additional, compelling evidence is produced, surely the Crown Prosecution will no longer pursue matters?

Well exactly, unable to reach a verdict suggests they were both as bad as each other in the eyes of the jury and they couldn’t decide who was worse. Without being able to add new evidence surely it’s a waste of time charging the tax payer to do it all again in the hope of a guilty outcome. It will get dropped now, it has to unless something turns up that tips the odds significantly in favour of a guilty verdict

We were both wrong! The Judge has ordered a retrial.

[cymro]

Sensational return incoming? 👀