Woodstock Jag Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 I never knew we offered him a new contract. Why would we suspend him then offer him a new deal? Two separate issues. He was suspended on full pay after the drugs test result was communicated to the Club, in order to allow for a full investigation to take place. A positive test result does not always mean wrondgoing has taken place, even though a policy of strict liability normally applies to players found in that situation. The Club were fulfilling their duties as an employer not to dismiss someone for gross misconduct without first establishing beyond reasonable doubt that he was in fact culpable. It's what any responsible employer would do. The Club offered him a new contract on revised terms, which would have allowed him to continue to train with us and to receive the appropriate medical, personal and professional support, one presumes possibly at a reduced wage-level given his ineligibility, then to allow him to return to the full team as and when any ban expired. The contract was contingent in part upon the doping ban being reduced below two years given the putative circumstances McMillan had cited. Obviously the Club wanted to try to keep him if they could, but they couldn't just throw a wage at a player indefinitely for two years who couldn't play. My understanding is McMillan rejected that contract offer. The Club passing on to McMillan the doping agencies' concerns about the legal advice he was getting probably related to whether it was in his interests to contest the charges as vigorously as he did, instead of displaying contrition and an appeal for clemency. That prolonged the disciplinary process and meant there was a much bigger gap between when McMillan was first suspended on full pay and any tribunal determination. The Club decided to terminate his contract when it became clear this process would not allow them effectively to plan an alternative arrangement to allow McMillan to stay at the club to which he himself would agree. The Club could have, if it wanted, left him out on his arse. They could have sacked him on the spot when the doping finding came back. They could have sacked him even in the weeks after, having established a fuller factual account of what happened. But they didn't, because they're essentially good people who were willing to give Jordan the benefit of the doubt. Which makes it all the more galling that he comes out with this pish. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Two separate issues. He was suspended on full pay after the drugs test result was communicated to the Club, in order to allow for a full investigation to take place. A positive test result does not always mean wrondgoing has taken place, even though a policy of strict liability normally applies to players found in that situation. The Club were fulfilling their duties as an employer not to dismiss someone for gross misconduct without first establishing beyond reasonable doubt that he was in fact culpable. It's what any responsible employer would do. The Club offered him a new contract on revised terms, which would have allowed him to continue to train with us and to receive the appropriate medical, personal and professional support, one presumes possibly at a reduced wage-level given his ineligibility, then to allow him to return to the full team as and when any ban expired. The contract was contingent in part upon the doping ban being reduced below two years given the putative circumstances McMillan had cited. Obviously the Club wanted to try to keep him if they could, but they couldn't just throw a wage at a player indefinitely for two years who couldn't play. My understanding is McMillan rejected that contract offer. The Club passing on to McMillan the doping agencies' concerns about the legal advice he was getting probably related to whether it was in his interests to contest the charges as vigorously as he did, instead of displaying contrition and an appeal for clemency. That prolonged the disciplinary process and meant there was a much bigger gap between when McMillan was first suspended on full pay and any tribunal determination. The Club decided to terminate his contract when it became clear this process would not allow them effectively to plan an alternative arrangement to allow McMillan to stay at the club to which he himself would agree. The Club could have, if it wanted, left him out on his arse. They could have sacked him on the spot when the doping finding came back. They could have sacked him even in the weeks after, having established a fuller factual account of what happened. But they didn't, because they're essentially good people who were willing to give Jordan the benefit of the doubt. Which makes it all the more galling that he comes out with this pish. Thanks WJ. I was unaware of a lot of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted August 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Typical of any person with a problem, they blame everyone else but themselves. I like McMillan as a player but glad the club showed him the door! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnyjag Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Why are we even giving this guy air time. He messed up, lots of people do and many of them deserve a second chance, however when you blame your employer for your own fck up and slag them off at any given opportunity by way of a defence, you deserve nothing. let's forget about McMillan, we have moved on big time since he was here and I personally don't want an influence like that around our young players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LambieIsGod Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Think we are all on the same hymn sheet here. I read the article earlier today and was really disappointed in McMillan's apparent need to blame everyone but himself. I was a big fan of his but now I can't stand the boy. To direct responsibility towards the club for his own problems when they clearly did everything they could, was a disgrace. His credibility and respect have been shot. Not because of his demeanour, but because of his conduct afterwards. Getting to the basics, here's food for thought. 1. Why is McMillan drinking a pint in the 1st place? Thought he was a professional athlete? 2. As has been previously said, you don't put cocaine in a drink to ingest it. Doesn't make sense. 3. Why did McMillan not notice his pint was 'cloudy' before drinking it? Doesn't make sense. But most strange (or damning of all?)..... 4. If you took cocaine, you would (I imagine) clearly feel totally different. You would know. I am assuming for a moment (as it seems to fit McMillan's story) that his mate told him that night what he had done. So why did McMillan not approach the Club the day after this episode to report that he had accidentally taken cocaine and why did he leave it until a failed drugs test to come out with it. Prior to the urine test he would have completed a questionnaire confirming that he had not taken any illegal substances and he answered no. So he waited till he was caught before coming out with this very dubious defence. All doesn't add up. And yet it was all the Clubs fault! He let himself down and he let his family down but he doesn't have the balls to take the responsibility. He needs to stay clean, but he also needs to man up! Total loser who deserves what he got. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter of '63 Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 According to McMillan's evidence to the Tribunal, he had 4 pints of Lager as well as drinking vodkas from a half-pint glass - it was the vodka laced with cocaine which one of his mates supposedly gave him by mistake. He was unfit to play for Thistle and on medication at the time - seems an unlikely rehabilitation programme for a professional athlete.. There was an overly sympathetic interview with McMillan on BBC Scotland last night - soft questions by Kenny MacIntyre backed up by Scotland's Soccer Intellectual, John Hughes, which pandered to McMillan's " A Big Boy Did It and Ran Away" excuse. A very poor standard of journalism. The Club's Statement was spot on...and although McMillan was a decent footballer, he doesn't seem to be a person of the highest calibre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 According to McMillan's evidence to the Tribunal, he had 4 pints of Lager as well as drinking vodkas from a half-pint glass - it was the vodka laced with cocaine which one of his mates supposedly gave him by mistake. He was unfit to play for Thistle and on medication at the time - seems an unlikely rehabilitation programme for a professional athlete.. There was an overly sympathetic interview with McMillan on BBC Scotland last night - soft questions by Kenny MacIntyre backed up by Scotland's Soccer Intellectual, John Hughes, which pandered to McMillan's " A Big Boy Did It and Ran Away" excuse. A very poor standard of journalism. Par for the course for the BBC. For most MSM outlets to be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabbath Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 Better than Conrad, mon back son................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted August 31, 2016 Report Share Posted August 31, 2016 I had been kind of keeping an open mind on the whole issue and hoping that JM might get back into the game after his ban, though probably not with Thistle. Now I don't give a monkey's about whether he gets back into the game or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.