• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Mr Henry Winterbone (HARRY)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If a small club needs to hide behind legalities and management speak in dealing with a long standing employee then we really have sunk to new depths. If this is an example of what the new chief executive brings to what should be a family club it's not a good look. A football club is not just another business, it's part of the community.
 
I think there are two very conflicting issues here and both sides probably have merit in their arguments, so to me it really isn't a case of right v wrong.
As the original poster says herself 'he is a liability'.
That statement alone would indicate the club needs to take some action here.
It would not be best practice to allow an employee ( official or unofficial, paid or unpaid) to continue working if they would potentially cause harm to themselves or others ( not just legally but morally).
Many have been caught up with the emotion here of a loyal , hardworking man being robbed of the pure joy of helping out.
I get that and it must be so hard for him , but there comes a time for us all to stand down.
From what I've seen and heard of the CEO he seems fair minded but professional so at the very least we need to here his side before condemning too quickly.
Good luck Harry moving forward and thank you for all you've done for our club - you should be very proud.
 
I think there are two very conflicting issues here and both sides probably have merit in their arguments, so to me it really isn't a case of right v wrong.
As the original poster says herself 'he is a liability'.
That statement alone would indicate the club needs to take some action here.
It would not be best practice to allow an employee ( official or unofficial, paid or unpaid) to continue working if they would potentially cause harm to themselves or others ( not just legally but morally).
Many have been caught up with the emotion here of a loyal , hardworking man being robbed of the pure joy of helping out.
I get that and it must be so hard for him , but there comes a time for us all to stand down.
From what I've seen and heard of the CEO he seems fair minded but professional so at the very least we need to here his side before condemning too quickly.
Good luck Harry moving forward and thank you for all you've done for our club - you should be very proud.
Exactly this. Sensible balance @dannypav.
 
If a small club needs to hide behind legalities and management speak in dealing with a long standing employee then we really have sunk to new depths. If this is an example of what the new chief executive brings to what should be a family club it's not a good look. A football club is not just another business, it's part of the community.

Playing devils avocado here, but isn’t it possible that without the adherence to strict legalities, the community could face not having a club at all?

I’d be interested to hear SUFC’s version, and why they’ve come to this decision. I assume it’s something obvious such as liability, and it wasn’t done to save money, nor was it out of spite.

On the face of it, It’s just another one of those stories that makes us look a bit of a shambles, really (and let’s face it, that tally only ever gets bigger, it doesn’t seem to regress), but it feels like the club would have been damned in whichever decision they took on this topic. I’m hopeful there is method in the madness.

I’d also like to think the club have recognised Henry’s dedication and service and either have already, or will be, offering him some form of sweetener, starting with a free season ticket for the rest of his days, which would be the very least.
 
It certainly sounds like the decision is the right one in the interest of all parties. SUFC can't run the risk of being liable for someone who they don't feel is safe working at Roots Hall, and while he may be keen to continue, it may not be good for him to continue doing so. But, it does sound like it could have been better handled.

Unfortunately, that comes as no surprise as I doubt SUFC can afford itself the luxury of much HR. Tom and the rest of the team are good at what they do, but lawyers, finance people, marketers, etc. aren't going to be the best to handle such sensitive issues where there's so much emotional attachment. As horrible as that is for Harry, it's an uncomfortable truth which is true for SUFC, many other clubs and many other businesses across the country.

As others have said, would like to thank Harry for all his dedication and effort over the years. Sounds like he's one of those select few who has kept the club together during some very difficult times over the years. I'd like to hope there can be some kind of gesture or a different voluntary role offered from the club to thank him for his service, if only it could have been better handled from the start.
 
@GBJ makes a valid point about handling the story.
If the club had thought ahead, they might have surmised how it would appear and presented a rational reason.
They're not very good at that are they?
If it's about insurance and liability, how much would it cost to come up with a policy that took care of that and minimised risk to Henry?
Could he have taken on any other chores for the club?
Roxy has indicated it's as much about about self-worth as pay. Did the club think about this aspect?
 
The club has no obligation to provide a hobby to an octogenarian if they believe it creates an unnecessary risk.
It is always easy to find a cast iron reason why something cannot be done.
Doing the right thing might always be a little more difficult.
An entity like this Football Club is reliant, perhaps even totally dependent, on the good will of not only its supporters but the wider community at large.
This looks like a totally unnecessary self inflicted injury. Regardless of the outcome (ie whether it is realistic or even possible for him to continue working) the situation could surely have been handled better.
Someone needs to step up.
 
It is always easy to find a cast iron reason why something cannot be done.
Doing the right thing might always be a little more difficult.
An entity like this Football Club is reliant, perhaps even totally dependent, on the good will of not only its supporters but the wider community at large.
This looks like a totally unnecessary self inflicted injury. Regardless of the outcome (ie whether it is realistic or even possible for him to continue working) the situation could surely have been handled better.
Someone needs to step up.
Assuming that it unfeasible for us to continue employing Harry what is it you want us to have done differently? Excluding people that were planning to quit anyway I don't think anyone has ever been sacked and walked away happy from the meeting.
 
Playing devils avocado here, but isn’t it possible that without the adherence to strict legalities, the community could face not having a club at all?

I’d be interested to hear SUFC’s version, and why they’ve come to this decision. I assume it’s something obvious such as liability, and it wasn’t done to save money, nor was it out of spite.

On the face of it, It’s just another one of those stories that makes us look a bit of a shambles, really (and let’s face it, that tally only ever gets bigger, it doesn’t seem to regress), but it feels like the club would have been damned in whichever decision they took on this topic. I’m hopeful there is method in the madness.

I’d also like to think the club have recognised Henry’s dedication and service and either have already, or will be, offering him some form of sweetener, starting with a free season ticket for the rest of his days, which would be the very least.

So you want to kick the poor bloke again !
 
Every season, I've been slowly falling out of love with the club on a personal level and reading stuff like this just compounds that.

The gap between the club and the supporters is bigger than ever and recently I've enjoyed supporting Hullbridge Sports more.

Southend United is feeling more like a cold corporate business.
 
Assuming that it unfeasible for us to continue employing Harry what is it you want us to have done differently? Excluding people that were planning to quit anyway I don't think anyone has ever been sacked and walked away happy from the meeting.
I have no idea in this particular case what was possible or what was not.
Having previously worked for bureaucracy for many years I do know how easy it is to take the easy option, and, in doing so, find a reason not to do something
At the very least communication has been poor.
The Club is dealing with a lifelong supporter in his twilight years. Over the years he has been happy to give up his time to work for the club.
The letter from from his wife at the beginning of this thread screams at me that this issue could and should have been dealt with better.
 
I don't have a problem with the decision. We live in an age of risk assessment and mitigation and it was probably the right decision.

I do have a problem with what has been reported as the method of relaying the decision. Obviously the individual involved has spent years helping the club and it appears is fairly emotionally invested in Southend United. Would it have been too hard to make a 'fuss' of this individual for the years of hard work they've given to the club instead of 'here's your cards, please leave'?

As blues exile mentioned above, I've always viewed our club as a family one. It would have been nice to honour someone how has given years of their free time for the betterment of the club. I do hope the club hasn't become hard, sterile and bereft of emotion. Some softer skills would have worked wonders on this situation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GBJ
The club has no obligation to provide a hobby to an octogenarian if they believe it creates an unnecessary risk.
Then in that case, the club could have found him something to occupy his time. There must be things he can do "unpaid" just to feel wanted.
Its a long time to serve the club paid or not
 
Sounds like a really awful situation but if it has been done on H&S grounds then an understandable one.

The club have a legal duty of care towards anyone on their premises from a H&S point of view. God forbid If anything serious were to happen then the HSE would come down on the club and the individuals responsible like a ton of bricks, it has nothing to do with the thoughts of the person involved, the HSE don't factor that in.

This can even result in prison time for the individuals involved in the most serious of breaches, that's not something that can be allowed to happen

That may sound harsh but it's the reality of the world we live in.
 
I can't comment on this situation. I haven't got the full facts and it would be wrong to leap on this as another opportunity to take a pop at the Club without that understanding.

However, in general terms it is worth pointing out that the Club have many of the same responsibilities towards volunteers as they do employees. In particular my understanding is under the H & Safety Act 1974 they have significant responsibilities and more generally a duty of care. This may very well play into insurances but these are legal requirements and the penalties can be severe.

As I say I have no idea of the facts so my observation may or may not even be relevant.
 
None of us know the full story but there are ways of doing things.
It’s also possible to make a “problem” a “positive”.
Pimlico plumbers were famous for employing buster martin until he passed away at 104.
They then went on to employee an 83 year old

I wonder if we could have generated some (well needed) good publicity by highlighting Harry’s history with the club and maybe changing his responsibilities if he was a “liability “.

As a minimum their should be a story on the website highlighting his achievements and something explaining why we couldn’t keep him on (insurance is the only obvious thing to me).It would then have a positive spin.

the free season ticket is a great idea, walk out on pitch at home game etc, and of course the most important thing- explaining everything to Harry and his family.
 
Sounds like a really awful situation but if it has been done on H&S grounds then an understandable one.

The club have a legal duty of care towards anyone on their premises from a H&S point of view. God forbid If anything serious were to happen then the HSE would come down on the club and the individuals responsible like a ton of bricks, it has nothing to do with the thoughts of the person involved, the HSE don't factor that in.

This can even result in prison time for the individuals involved in the most serious of breaches, that's not something that can be allowed to happen

That may sound harsh but it's the reality of the world we live in.
Agreed, but could they have changed his responsibilities so H&S wasn’t an issue?

genuine question which I don’t think any of us can answer unless we have inside info
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top