Alan Pardew Accused Of Giving Untrue Evidence In Jonas Gutierrez Discrimination Case

 

A tribunal considering ex-Newcastle midfielder Jonas Gutierrez's claim he suffered discrimination at the hands of his old employer has heard an allegation former manager Alan Pardew gave untrue evidence.

In closing remarks to an employment tribunal in Birmingham on Wednesday, the player's barrister said the case was unusual, high profile, and it's involved a number of high profile individuals, including former club managers Pardew, John Carver and managing director Lee Charnley. Martin Budworth, Gutierrez's barrister, claimed Newcastle's witnesses to the tribunal were not just mistaken about this, but are giving knowingly untrue evidence.

He alleged that Pardew had given suspicious evidence and that his account had been tailored to fit the club's versions of events. The Argentinian, who has already given evidence to the tribunal, is reported to be seeking about £2million in compensation for a disability discrimination claim, after alleging Newcastle ensured he did not start enough matches to trigger a lucrative one-year contract extension. Gutierrez, currently playing for Spanish side Deportivo La Coruna, spent seven seasons with Newcastle after joining the club in 2008, and underwent an operation to remove a tumour in his left testicle in October 2013.

In a statement to the tribunal, hesaid he was called into then manager Pardew's office in early December 2013 to be told that he no longer featured in Newcastle's future plans, and was free to agree terms with another club. However when Pardew gave his evidence, said he had told the player of his squad plans as early as the pre-season in 2012, and months before the player's diagnosis for testicular cancer. Newcastle, which is owned by businessman Mike Ashley, deny any wrongdoing.

On Wednesday Gutierrez's lawyer said in his closing remarks: “He wouldn't choose to languish if, in summer 2013, he had been told he didn't feature in their plans. There's no document that even hints at these exchanges in summer 2013. The respondent's (Newcastle's) witnesses are not just mistaken about this but are giving knowingly untrue evidence. What I invite you to infer has happened is they've found it irresistible to come up with a reason to deflect the obvious inference in this case from basic chronology. They've tried to come up with an explanation to deflect that inference and have failed and the tribunal should see through that”