jonny1403

He's not borrowing against the tv money specifically. Any company that takes out a loan will need to grant security over an income stream to support it. Typically, any bank will ask for that loan to be secured against as many assets/income streams as possible. The TV money is naturally included in that. It's not that the TV money is being paid to the bank, its just being used as security should the club default on the loan. It's pretty standard practice.

No we wouldn't. We would have had a different draw number than Watford.

Gillinghams CEO earns 3x his salary and Aberdeens earns 5x his salary. He is the CEO of a premier league team in effect a hundred million pound operation and he earns less than a London cab driver It just shows how much out of his depth he is how seriously underqualified and how much lack of self belief he has. People working in his position for other teams in the league command salaries in the millions yet here he is on 115k a year The guy is a cucking clueless puppet and its completely embarrassing that we have someone so useless tasked with running our club. He doesn't kick up a stink as he knows hed go back to earning 30k a year if he loses the gig hes got at the moment No other premier league CEO would get out of bed for what he earns I don't think this is entirely accurate - what will be being reported is Charnley's base salary - Ashley likes to pay a low base salary and incentivise employees heavily with performance related bonuses, none of which would be reported in the media.

The Articles of association are the governing documents of a corporate entity - so a resolution has been passed amending them. We can see what that is in a few days when CH upload the docs themselves. Could be anything though - from changing the number of directors on the board to changing how many days’ notice is given for shareholder meetings.

Cancelling a sky subscription is in no way equivalent to not going to a game. Ashley has 52,000 'subscribers' a fortnight. Sky has 22.9 million subscribers a year. The vast majority of which have nothing to do with NUFC. It's a pointless comparison. It's about money is it not ? The point being that if 10,000 Newcastle fans stop going to a game - the empty seats, the financial impact are directly felt by Mike Ashley. Visually, if nothing else, the impact is felt. If 10,000 NUFC fans stop subscribing to Sky it will barely affect their own bottom line. Once that is diluted through the amounts distributed to football, the amounts distributed to the premier league and amounts eventually reaching the club and Mike Ashley, the effect is non-existent.

Cancelling a sky subscription is in no way equivalent to not going to a game. Ashley has 52,000 'subscribers' a fortnight. Sky has 22.9 million subscribers a year. The vast majority of which have nothing to do with NUFC. It's a pointless comparison.

This ffs. My parents didn't get tickets and didn't have sky - I think I went to one game between the ages of 4-12 - and I was still a massive Newcastle fan despite barely seeing them play live or even on tv. Used to watch them in the pub whenever I could with my dad and when I did get a season ticket at the age of 15 it was brilliant. I wasn't being denied a 'right' to attend the match though - if you're taking your kids for that reason you're doing so because you want to - over and above your grievances with the owner. Just admit that, don't pretend you're doing so because Ashley would otherwise take away some sacred childhood bond you'd get with your kids What's the difference? I want to take my kid, yes. And I'm not going to let my dislike for the owner get in the way of building those bonds with my kid. And that's absolutely fine - but don't pretend that its something you have to do in order to raise your kid properly rather than something you want to do. Plenty of other ways to watch us that don't involve propping up the owner. And what if I believe that? My dad took me to games semi regularly from the age of 4. Those bonds I built with my dad through those years mean the world to me and were a huge part of my childhood. I want to have the same with my lad. So respectfully, Jonny, wind your fucking neck in and stop telling me (and others) what I should be doing. I'm not telling you what you should be doing. Feel free to go to the games. Just accept that you're going to come across as a hypocrite in the future when commenting on all things Ashley.

This ffs. My parents didn't get tickets and didn't have sky - I think I went to one game between the ages of 4-12 - and I was still a massive Newcastle fan despite barely seeing them play live or even on tv. Used to watch them in the pub whenever I could with my dad and when I did get a season ticket at the age of 15 it was brilliant. I wasn't being denied a 'right' to attend the match though - if you're taking your kids for that reason you're doing so because you want to - over and above your grievances with the owner. Just admit that, don't pretend you're doing so because Ashley would otherwise take away some sacred childhood bond you'd get with your kids What's the difference? I want to take my kid, yes. And I'm not going to let my dislike for the owner get in the way of building those bonds with my kid. And that's absolutely fine - but don't pretend that its something you have to do in order to raise your kid properly rather than something you want to do. Plenty of other ways to watch us that don't involve propping up the owner.

This ffs. My parents didn't get tickets and didn't have sky - I think I went to one game between the ages of 4-12 - and I was still a massive Newcastle fan despite barely seeing them play live or even on tv. Used to watch them in the pub whenever I could with my dad and when I did get a season ticket at the age of 15 it was brilliant. I wasn't being denied a 'right' to attend the match though - if you're taking your kids for that reason you're doing so because you want to - over and above your grievances with the owner. Just admit that, don't pretend you're doing so because Ashley would otherwise take away some sacred childhood bond you'd get with your kids

I mean, to be clear, he owns the club. If he wants to take £200m out the club every year he is perfectly entitled to do so. There's no legal restrictions on him doing so.

Anyone know what the away pub is for this one? Just heading over now.

The way he's went on in the media, getting a new contract for absolutely no reason after getting one a year ago. So the club offers him a new contract and he should turn it down for fear of being labelled as 'cocky'? FFS

I work in the area and this is exactly right. Any amendment would take place on completion not in advance.

As much as he is a prick he's not going to just stop and have a chat and tell some random guys how much he wants for the club ffs...

Annoys me even more with results like these when Rafa gets slagged off for losing 2-1 to City away when you look at our relegation rivals - 6-1 Huddersfield, 5-0 Cardiff, 5-0 Burnley, 5-1 Southampton as it stands

Shola was on Soccer AM - took around 7 attempts to even get a volley on target

Mata’s was close to perfect - he didn’t just get it up and down, but the ball was only a foot or two above the ground when it scraped inside the post. Even if Dubravka could get across, he was never going to get down in time. The wall was set properly. A wall isn’t perfect - it’s a risk mitigation tactic. When Juan Mata is twenty yards out, it’s a huge risk to reduce. i'm not convinced his positioning was perfect, google it there's a YT vid a fan took from behind the goal and you can see how open he's left the near post with the angle That's bollocks to be fair. A free kick that close you have to cover the right side of the goal. When it is subsequently hit that well you simply aren't going to get across to the left in time. If it was 25-30 yards out, fair enough, but Dubravka did nothing wrong there.

Quoted for a few months time...

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions. Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it. You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing. If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario. Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement. Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract. I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like. Again, they have unilaterally terminated his contract because he has breached it, in my opinion materially so. They are entitled to claim damages as a consequence of that breach and one of those heads of damages will naturally be the value of his transfer fee. They may or may not be successful as there is virtually no precedent here in a football context but as a matter of contract law its a natural course of action to assess loss suffered by that breach. They aren't preventing him for moving somewhere else, but saying that if he does so, that's a transfer fee they have missed on as a direct result of his breach. The Bosman case has nothing to do with this I'm afraid - the facts are completely irrelevant. Bosman is relevant if they're holding his registration or if they're deemed to be restricting his right to free movement by threatening his future potential employers. You appear very confident in your assertions but I don't agree with your conclusions. Time will tell I guess. End of the day the facts are they can't afford him, have found an excuse to stop paying him and sack him, but now also want to make money out of the deal. I'm really not sure that's gonna fly in the real world mate. I'm confident because I'm required to know about cases such as the Bosman ruling as part of my job I have explained to you several times the reasons why Sunderland would be entitled to claim a transfer fee. They are entitled to under the law of contract. I'm not saying they'll be successful but there's a clear basis for claim there. 'Finding an excuse to stop paying him' is certainly one of saying he's massively breached his contract and the club are trying to claim associated damages, yes.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. Have they? that's completely indeterminable though. Obviously I wouldn't know the figure but it clearly is determinable - young players moving on at the end of their contract have their values determined by a tribunal so that a compensation fee can be agreed. You mean between academies? they don't anymore, they have agreed compensation structures in place for Age/Cat of club. Either way that isn't really applicable here. His contract is terminated, therefore they aren't in a position to be looking at potential transfer fees. He does not belong to them, he is not their player. You can't sack a player, and then demand that you get the money from a theoretical transfer that might have materialized somewhere down the line if you hadn't sacked him for breach of contract. And a new club will no way pay them anything for that. Why would they? he's a free agent now. Again...obviously this is quite a unique scenario but of course you can claim damages for a breach of contract. One of those heads of damage will be the transfer fee Sunderland have lost as a consequence of his breach. You absolutely can do that as a matter of law, its whether the employment and football context affects this somehow. Right, I get that they can pursue damages from Ndong, though I very much doubt they will get it but that statement specifically said they'd pursue a new club for compensation. I can not see how there is anyway that a buying club is going to pay that and surely they are restricting his employment opportunities by threatening them with that. The only comparable case I can remember is Mutu, and he was banned for 7 months from playing and sacked for gross misconduct. He paid them personally but none of his subsequent clubs did. Yes, I agree with you on the new club part. I think what they are trying to say (but badly worded) is that as they are entitled to sue for (let's say £5m for sake of argument) £5m as lost transfer income, while NDong is technically liable for that they would expect the buying club to pay that on his behalf. But as a standalone point, it doesn't seem as if they are restricting his employment opportunities because regardless of where he ends up, Sunderland have lost £5m as a consequence of that breach and are entitled to claim for it.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions. Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it. You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing. If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario. Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement. Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract. I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like. Again, they have unilaterally terminated his contract because he has breached it, in my opinion materially so. They are entitled to claim damages as a consequence of that breach and one of those heads of damages will naturally be the value of his transfer fee. They may or may not be successful as there is virtually no precedent here in a football context but as a matter of contract law its a natural course of action to assess loss suffered by that breach. They aren't preventing him for moving somewhere else, but saying that if he does so, that's a transfer fee they have missed on as a direct result of his breach. The Bosman case has nothing to do with this I'm afraid - the facts are completely irrelevant.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. Have they? that's completely indeterminable though. Obviously I wouldn't know the figure but it clearly is determinable - young players moving on at the end of their contract have their values determined by a tribunal so that a compensation fee can be agreed. You mean between academies? they don't anymore, they have agreed compensation structures in place for Age/Cat of club. Either way that isn't really applicable here. His contract is terminated, therefore they aren't in a position to be looking at potential transfer fees. He does not belong to them, he is not their player. You can't sack a player, and then demand that you get the money from a theoretical transfer that might have materialized somewhere down the line if you hadn't sacked him for breach of contract. And a new club will no way pay them anything for that. Why would they? he's a free agent now. Again...obviously this is quite a unique scenario but of course you can claim damages for a breach of contract. One of those heads of damage will be the transfer fee Sunderland have lost as a consequence of his breach. You absolutely can do that as a matter of law, its whether the employment and football context affects this somehow.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions. Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it. You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing. If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. Have they? that's completely indeterminable though. Obviously I wouldn't know the figure but it clearly is determinable - young players moving on at the end of their contract have their values determined by a tribunal so that a compensation fee can be agreed.

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything? They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions. They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions. Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.