Chris_R

So there were 400 people at the first meeting, and 150 at this one. Yet we don't want a boycott in case it backfires and things fizzle out. Let me just put something out there: Standing outside a different branch of SD every match with a few banners is not going to drum up support or increase supporter engagement. People need to feel like they're part of something which is moving forward, at the moment this feels quite stationary. People need something to rally behind. Something to believe in. Something to give them hope. Something new, something that's pushing the boundaries. If between now and Christmas the only action is going to be standing outside various different branches of SD, then this movement is dead and Ashley has won. Again.

Wasn't the 7-1 v Spurs during Robson's reign? Don't disagree with the general sentiment though.

KBA wouldn't have to pay off Rupert Murdoch, they'd only have to pay off whoever has enough clout to make this happen within the network itself. That's an infinitely smaller amount.

I suspect Ashley is banned from most "all you can eat" places.

We've waited 11 years Lawro, you fucking plank. That's 22 transfer windows. Yeah, let's give him one more and see if things change.

This has angered me so much I'm going to have to put a few more reviews on. Yeah, he can keep getting them removed. But that's far more effort for him as an individual than it is for any of us as individuals to keep submitting them. It'll be like Sisyphus rolling that boulder up the hill, every time he gets near the top and thinks he's cleared Trustpilot, the boulder rolls back to the bottom and he has to start again. I can, and will, do this forever.

Maybe not sacked, but players have contracts cancelled by mutual consent all the time. Often that's a sacking in all but name, the player agrees not to dispute it and it goes down as "mutual consent" so they can say they weren't sacked when they approach their next club. See Ranger, Nile. There's good reason you don't see sackings often though - 99% of unwanted players on silly contracts they'll never replicate elsewhere are clever enough to at least turn up their place of employment.

There'll be no such clause, and there doesn't need to be. The contract will say you are expected to attend training. He's refused to do so, which is refusing to do his job. That's gross misconduct and an immediate (IF the employer wishes to enforce it) sacking in any job in the land. The contract doesn't need to say explicitly "If you don't turn up to training you're fired" any more than my job needs to say if I don't turn up to work I'll be fired. If I don't turn up though, I'll be just as sacked and no amount of me saying "But it didn't explicitly say that in my contract" is going to help me. It's gross misconduct. They're not trying to recoup the transfer fee, they've written that off. They're trying to not pay his wages anymore, which are crippling them. Honestly, I hope they get utterly rinsed in the court and they're found at fault, and have to pay him every penny of his contract. But if it's as it appears, that he just hasn't gone to training when he should have done for a month with no excuse, I can't see how this isn't an open and shut case where he's been fairly dismissed. If that happened to me in my job I'd be out, and the law is the same for all contracts of employment. The only differential is that normally football clubs want to keep their wayward players so don't enforce their rights to terminate. Here they want rid and he's given them an excuse.

That's the thing though, it isn't. Employment law is employment law. It's universal. There's no special "football employment law". What IS different is that footballers are regarded as more important assets - MOST of the time - in their jobs than you or I. The further down the list of skilled jobs you go, the less slack you get cut. That's not because the law changes, it's because your value to your employer changes. Let's imagine 3 hypothetical people; a shelf stacker, a brain surgeon, and a footballer. If you stack shelves at Tesco or whatever, and you don't turn up for a few days, you're liable to be binned off. Because you're incredibly easy to replace. Anyone off the street can do your job with a few hours training. If you're a brain surgeon, you'll still get a bit of a bollocking but you'll probably be still in employment because you're much harder to replace and a good asset to your employer. They've invested time in you and money, and replacing you - whilst possible - will be quite disruptive to their organisation. That's not because the law is different, it's because you're more valuable to them. They still could sack you if they want but they probably won't want to. There's limits though, if you persistently cause trouble you'll be out the door just as above. If you're a footballer, and they've spent £20m on acquiring you, and they have a realistic hope of recouping that money, then there's no danger at all that going AWOL for a week or a month will result in your dismissal. That's not because the law is any different, they'd be ENTITLED to sack you, but they won't because the club will lose all that financial investment in you. And if you do get sacked, there's a very real possibility that you'll end up lining up against your club for a rival. You can basically do what you want, you're fireproof. Again though, the actual law is not any different here, the club are just choosing to let the player off and not enforce their legal right to terminate the contract, because doing so will be detrimental to the club themselves. Finally, now let's imagine that the footballer is no longer an asset but a liability. You have NO chance of getting your £20m back (or whatever, that number is irrelevant), and you've sunk down the leagues. You can't afford the player's wages. You actively WANT the player to leave at any price. You're looking for an excuse. The player goes AWOL. This player has less value to the club than the shelf stacker above, they're a hinderance to the club not an asset. So instead of disregarding their legal right to terminate the player's contract as above, they enforce it. The law doesn't change in any of these examples, it's the same for all employees of all levels of all businesses. It's just only optional for the employer to enforce the law depending on the value of the employee. High value employees will get cut more slack, lower value ones will be out on their ear in no time. Maybe that's not fair, but it's how it works.

He's only entitled to sit on his contract if he actually bothers to turn up to his place of work. Football is no different to any other job, if you don't turn up for long enough, your employer is entitled (though not obliged) to sack you. I think the player has been amazingly stupid here if he's just not bothered to turn up to work for long enough to get sacked.

Like a lack of quotes makes any difference. He's publicly stated he wants to sell us before, multiple times, with quotes from his own mouth. He's a pathological liar. This "blows over" the day we're sold, and not a single second before. At that point he can go live whatever life he wants and I'll pay him no further heed, but until that point I'll do everything within my admittedly small remit to annoy or disrupt him, his cronies, and his business interests. I realise my small remit is indeed small, but there's tens of thousands of us and together we can have a serious impact on his ability to trade and operate in society on any level. The only way he'll ever sell is if we're more trouble than we're worth, but I genuinely believe that's within our hands. We've just got to keep turning the screw. Individually, we're all responsible for not letting up and then collectively the pressure will tell.

This. Alienating customers and suppliers before he's even properly got his chair under the desk. This isn't SD where you sell last year's fashions to the desperate and skint who can't afford to go elsewhere for their chav clothes.

League below the pub league which they pissed (themselves in) last year.

Awww, Poor Mike Ashley feels he's not been supported and has been stabbed in the back. Well now you know how Rafa feels, you absolute fucknugget.

That photo explains why the article says her husband is recovering from an aneurysm.

Got a link? http://www.nufcblog.co.uk/2018/09/12/nufc-reporter-reveals-what-mike-ashley-has-now-told-friends-about-a-takeover-good-news/ Aye right. This time he must be telling the truth. Exactly. We stop once the sale is completed and not a moment before.

Indeed. The only time I'll believe he's selling is once we're actually sold. Not a single second before

He didn't turn up for work for a fucking month. Not sure how much more of a breach of contract you want? Try doing that at your workplace whilst ignoring all their attempts to contact you, then swan back in and see what happens. Whilst you might get away with it if you had a great record and they thought the sun shone out your arse before doing that, if they instead wanted you gone then believe me you'd be gone and even a phonecall to ACAS would only result in them laughing at you for being a fucking prat. Much though I hate to say it, I think sunderland are in the right here. Though clearly I still hope they get taken to the cleaners and sued for millions. Employment law in our workplaces and employment law with footballers are 2 very different things. There are footballers who have been jailed, done for drink driving, done for drugs, done for assault and went on strike yet they all kept getting paid their lavish wages. If me or you had done any of them things the likelihood is wed be signing on very soon You're completely wrong. Employment law is no different between our jobs and that of footballers. If our bosses wanted to keep us after doing the above, they could. Fact is we're generally very replaceable so they'll easily go and get someone who can do the job just as well without any of that baggage. So we get sacked. So whilst the employment law is the same, footballers are different than us as employees. When you've paid £10m or £20m or whatever to get someone to sign for you, and they're one of the best in the land at doing what they do, ripping up their contract isn't something you want to do. You have to go and spend another £10m or £20m buying their replacement, for starters. So you cut them some slack. The fact remains though if you WANT to get rid of them, you still can, under exactly the same employment law as the rest of us operate under. In this case the player is not a massive benefit to Sunderland, and instead of them having to replace him with an equally-expensive player instead they're just desperate to get rid of the crippling wages he's lumbering them with. Accordingly, they're using exactly the same legislation as they would with us to get rid of him. There's not some magic divide between footballers and the rest though, it's a sliding scale. If you work minimum wage and fuck up, you'll be out the door because there's millions of equally-qualified people they can get in tomorrow to pack those boxes just as well as you do with half an hour's training. If you're a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist, you're harder to replace so you can get away with more provided you're still good at your job. It's possibly not fair, but it's life.

He didn't turn up for work for a fucking month. Not sure how much more of a breach of contract you want? Try doing that at your workplace whilst ignoring all their attempts to contact you, then swan back in and see what happens. Whilst you might get away with it if you had a great record and they thought the sun shone out your arse before doing that, if they instead wanted you gone then believe me you'd be gone and even a phonecall to ACAS would only result in them laughing at you for being a fucking prat. Much though I hate to say it, I think sunderland are in the right here. Though clearly I still hope they get taken to the cleaners and sued for millions.

As I said in the Mike Ashley thread, but was shouted down... He's the thinnest-skinned cunt alive, and a devious, manipulative shitbag as well. Never doubt that we're getting to him. Never doubt it. And never believe anything that comes out of his mouth or the mouth of anyone connected to him in any way.

It's not that. Shearer was a magnificent player for us and our all-time top scorer, but when I say I'd prefer to see Rondon out there next weekend it doesn't mean I think he's a better player than Big Al ever was. Times move on.

I don't care if only a fraction of 1% of the drop is to do with the protests, we still need to keep the pressure on. Any tweet, anything they do or say, it needs to be jumped on constantly. No waiting for the next organised SD protest. I'm sure most of us still are, but it just needs reinforcing. His business life needs to be made unbearable until he realises owning us is a massive hassle for him and all his cronies and has a directly negative impact on SD's performance.

Wouldn't be surprised if he did show up, but was putting out rumours he won't to stop angry Newcastle fans buying one share and making the long journey of they think they'll just see his empty chair. My money is on him being there still and this is just spin.

These photos are just making me angry. What a fucking mess we've made of the best managerial appointment we've had in over a decade.

We're uncertain of the WiFi facilities there but we are certainly looking into this. I'll try to remember that update you all on here if I hear owt. Just use a mobile phone as a personal hotspot. No need for Wifi at all.