SirStan wrote:
To suggest Rovers sacked Kelly purely as a financial measure is naive in the extreme, as anyone with even a passing understanding of employment law will tell you.
Kelly was suspended for a last straw act, which was at the end of a long line of previous misdemeanours. I applaud the club for taking a principled stand against a very disruptive bloke, who had lost support from all his work colleagues at that point.
His dismissal would have been on solid legal grounds otherwise we'd be looking at an unfair dismissal case from fat lad.
don't disagree with anything you say in your second sentence but to say it was not for financial reasons they took the decision to suspend him at that point in your season, that is naïve, rovers saw a way out of the rest of his contract without paying him off they couldn't play him if that was there intention after they suspended him or they would have deemed to have put the matter to bed but by keeping him on suspension and then sacking him they walk away without comp, but was it the right decision? would he have made the difference in those last few games? I think he would so to me it was a poor call and may have cost you your SL place and financially a million quid one of a string of stinking calls made by your management team in my opinion, but if you genuinely think it was the right call fair enough like ou say its your club this is just a discussion forum that's all