LRD Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Yeah, I would like to know your source too. It can't be a FA ruling targeting PL club owners from owning another club in a different league since Man City will have the NYC franchise in the MLS. And the case of Watford as bimpy said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Rangers fans despise him as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexf Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Seriously how did Steve Wraith become the voice of Newcastle fans. It's been going on for far too long now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 They'll get to CL before us. Quite easily. With hardly any investment from Fat Ash Yes but to compete with the levels of money you get from the Premierships TV money they would not only have to get into the CL but progress well in it as well. He can run that club on much less though and compete in the league, when they get back there, with a lot less investment than you'd need to in the PL. He can leave the club to run it's self, and concentrate on using it as a marketing tool. Which is all he wants to do with us. It'd be very interesting to see some figures on this. How much realistically Rangers need to spend to remain in the top 2 and get him some guaranteed European exposure. He'd hope they can get through to the group stages at least each year with very little financial input and plaster SD all over the place. Someone put together a dossier and send it to him, explaining all the reasons why Rangers are a better club for his tripe than we are. not with champions league extreme strict advertising structure he won't Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Could he own Newcastle and Rangers at the same time? No - against FA rules. Does that count in different countries ? because dont the owners of Watford also own Udinese and Granada. could be the same person can't own different clubs in UEFA but they might have the 3 clubs in the names of a different member of the family Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 if i remember correct, im sure abramovich had something to do with a club in russia, that chelsea actually met in a uefa competition, but im not sure what it was. something along the lines of a russian team he sponsored with one of his companies ended up playing chelsea.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Get out of our club, get out of our club, Fuck off to Rangers and get out of our club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Get out of our club, get out of our club, f*** off to Rangers and get out of our club. I'm sure he will, just as soon as someone offers him best part of a quarter of a billion pounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theregulars Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 If you've seen the new Wolverine, that bit where he discovers the insect attached to his heart sapping his healing powers was the perfect reflection of what it feels like having him as owner. If he doesn't die within a decade social Darwinism has failed me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Spoilers FFS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I've seen the Wolverine, but anyone who hasn't should not scroll up the page unless they want to see a massive spoiler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theregulars Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 It's really not massively relevant to the plot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Anyone who hasn't seen the film doesn't know that ffs, even though it is very relevant to the middle third and one of the main selling features of the film Leave it out So yeah, a Wolverine spoiler is on the last page... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theregulars Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Sigh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Haha, how fucking dare I try to be helpful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theregulars Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Or self-flatteringly moralistic for a bunch of people you don't know? Either way, I don't care. Ashley sucks, wahey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 If you've seen the new Wolverine, that bit where he discovers the insect attached to his heart sapping his healing powers was the perfect reflection of what it feels like having him as owner. If he doesn't die within a decade social Darwinism has failed me. Cool Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 If you've seen the new Wolverine, that bit where he discovers the insect attached to his heart sapping his healing powers was the perfect reflection of what it feels like having him as owner. If he doesn't die within a decade social Darwinism has failed me. I take it thats a massive plot point Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Lucky I wasn't planning on seeing that then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Or self-flatteringly moralistic for a bunch of people you don't know? Either way, I don't care. Ashley sucks, wahey. Started off as a simple helpful post, then, for some bizarre reason, I had to justify myself and for some ridiculous reason I'm having to do it again. Christ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ste Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I wonder what is going through Ashley's mind for the coming seasons that he will be here. Probably best not knowing actually. Would love to know the thinking behind the Kinnear appointment. It surely can't be just "he's the best man for the job" can it? Urgh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I wonder what is going through Ashley's mind for the coming seasons that he will be here. Probably best not knowing actually. Would love to know the thinking behind the Kinnear appointment. It surely can't be just "he's the best man for the job" can it? Urgh. I think he just makes a decision and sticks with it without thinking it through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I wonder what is going through Ashley's mind for the coming seasons that he will be here. Probably best not knowing actually. Would love to know the thinking behind the Kinnear appointment. It surely can't be just "he's the best man for the job" can it? Urgh. I genuinely can't work it out. Completely stopped trying to fathom these kinds of decisions now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I wonder what is going through Ashley's mind for the coming seasons that he will be here. Probably best not knowing actually. Would love to know the thinking behind the Kinnear appointment. It surely can't be just "he's the best man for the job" can it? Urgh. IMO he was probably told he needed a football man at board level rather than another finance man like Dekka, he knows and trusts Joe therefore he is appointed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prefabtoon Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Retail chain's 20,000 part-time workforce do not know how many hours they will work each week and have no holiday or sick pay. While 20,000 Sports Direct staff are on zero-hour contracts, 2,000 others are about to receive cash bonuses of up to £100,000. Photograph: Mark Richardson/Alamy Sports Direct's entire 20,000 part-time workforce are employed on zero-hour contracts at a time when 2,000 full-time staff are about to cash in bonuses of up to £100,000. The contracts, handed to 90% of the company's 23,000 employees, leave staff not knowing how many hours they will work from one week to the next, with no sick pay or holiday pay, and no guarantee of regular work. Bosses at Sports Direct, the UK's biggest sports retailer, were this month hailing their bonus policy for full-time staff as that of a model employer. The Guardian has also discovered that the bonus scheme rules give managers the power to exclude a member of staff if they are considered an "unsatisfactory performer", although they do not precisely define this term and it could be subject to abuse, according to employment lawyers. About 20 current staff are known to have been excluded from the scheme already, while others who had been excluded have since left, according to the Unite union. The four biggest supermarkets in Britain, Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons, said they do not use zero-hour contracts. Other retailers to confirm that they do not employ staff on these terms include Argos, B&Q, Homebase, John Lewis and Marks & Spencer. Politicians have been campaigning to ban the contracts and have called on Mike Ashley, the billionaire owner of Sports Direct, to consider introducing part-time contracts with guaranteed hours. Former and current part-time staff have also spoken out against zero hours, stressing the uncertainty created by the contracts, under which work can be cut with less than a day's notice. Others said regional managers may reduce staff hours if targets are not met. Meanwhile, some staff still entitled to the bonus – which pays out in the form of shares next month – have suggested it has created a culture of fear that they may lose out if they are deemed to be "unsatisfactory". Andy Sawford, the Labour MP for Corby, who has submitted a private member's bill to try to ban the use of zero-hour contracts, said: "It would be much better for Sports Direct to instead of offering bonus gimmicks, they should offer their staff the security of proper contracts. "The zero-hours contracts are highly exploitative and suit the company because it keeps people in a fragile state where they are at the beck and call of their employers." Alison McGovern, the Labour MP for Wirral South, is also campaigning for businesses to offer fewer such contracts. She said: "It seems quite bizarre that a company would on the one hand be awarding bonuses in this way, and treating other staff in a completely different way. "I would want Sports Direct to see if there is a possibility of more fixed term contracts. It appears this has been imposed across the board and is inappropriate. How can there be any investment in employees, or training or progression? "Lots of workers in retail start off part-time on the shop floor and rise to the top, but with zero-hour contracts there is no incentive at all." Some 2,000 permanent full-time staff who have been with Sports Direct since 2008 are to get a bonus paid in shares worth about £75,000 each for hitting profit targets. A similar payout, of shares worth about £17,500, was awarded last year. Sports Direct's chief executive, Dave Forsey, told the Guardian at the time: "The share scheme glues this company together. These schemes are typically only for the executives, but this goes deep into the company. I'm surprised more businesses haven't adopted something like this sooner." The Guardian has seen a copy of the share scheme rules, stating it is "intended to drive group performance and to motivate and retain permanent employees at all levels of the group, and to align the interests of those employees with those of shareholders". However, the document adds that employees can be excluded from the scheme. It says that any "participant who is determined to be an unsatisfactory performer" will not get the shares. "For the purposes of the scheme, an unsatisfactory performer means a participant who at any time during the period between the grand date of his award and any relevant vesting date has been (a) notified in writing that his performance is unsatisfactory, or he has been given a written warning or other sanction under the company's disciplinary policy in place from time to time, or (b) suspended from his employment by reason of suspected gross misconduct." By comparison, John Lewis, which runs one of the best-known employee bonus schemes in the country as part of its partnership structure, pays all employees a bonus regardless of disciplinary warnings against them. Employment lawyers have said the wording is too vague and could be abused. David Cohen, consultant solicitor at Keystone Law, said: "It is unusual under an all-employee share scheme for the directors to have the power to deprive continuing employees, as opposed to 'bad leavers', of their share awards. "If workers generally became aware that the scheme was being operated in a capricious and arbitrary way, the company would risk frittering away the reputational and motivational advantages of putting in place such a generous scheme." Sports Direct declined to comment. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/28/sports-direct-staff-zero-hour-contracts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts