I still think that it was a "sacking of convenience" & if we had won the previous 10 matches wouldn't have happened, but with the evidence that has been made public Sheridan has no defence & I find it disgusting that the LMA are backing him.
I still think that it was a "sacking of convenience" & if we had won the previous 10 matches wouldn't have happened, but with the evidence that has been made public Sheridan has no defence & I find it disgusting that the LMA are backing him.
Surely this depends on what was in his contract ? If effing and blinding is described as gross misconduct then he's lost. If it isn't referred to then the court/tribunal may consider it normal in his job.