| Today’s court case on 21:25 - Dec 11 with 8438 views | Garyjack |
Not a good start for them is it? |  | |  |
| Today’s court case on 21:35 - Dec 11 with 8363 views | Neath_Jack |
Reads like sour grapes from that little snippet. |  |
| |
| Today’s court case on 21:35 - Dec 11 with 8358 views | max936 |
I like the bit about them "trying to make money out of the club" fuk my eyes. |  |
| |
| Today’s court case on 21:46 - Dec 11 with 8298 views | LeonWasGod |
| Today’s court case on 21:35 - Dec 11 by max936 |
I like the bit about them "trying to make money out of the club" fuk my eyes. |
That's lawyers for you. Never shy to be hypocrites.
It's seems like a sordid little place at the moment. Power and money corrupting people on both sides of the fence. |  | | |
| Today’s court case on 21:54 - Dec 11 with 8251 views | max936 |
| Today’s court case on 21:46 - Dec 11 by LeonWasGod |
That's lawyers for you. Never shy to be hypocrites.
It's seems like a sordid little place at the moment. Power and money corrupting people on both sides of the fence. |
Its a bit much saying that about people after what's gone on down there. | |
| |
| Today’s court case on 22:01 - Dec 11 with 8191 views | AguycalledJack |
| Today’s court case on 21:35 - Dec 11 by Neath_Jack |
Reads like sour grapes from that little snippet. |
Exactly. a little snippet.
Let’s not believe all that is written in the press. Particularly as from the tone of that report there is clearly a certain slant being put on it. [Post edited 11 Dec 2017 22:01]
|  | | |
| Today’s court case on 22:10 - Dec 11 with 8129 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
What a mess
Ffs |  |
| |
| Today’s court case on 22:12 - Dec 11 with 8098 views | max936 |
Looking at those four ugly fuking mugs makes me wanna spew. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Today’s court case on 13:00 - Dec 12 with 7657 views | monmouth |
This is exactly why we would never let anything get to court even when the employee was in the wrong and the shittest worker on the planet, and I had a couple of those. This is why compromise agreements exist and tend to be so generous.
So the Club solicitor is also Jenkins solicitor? Cosy. |  |
| |
| Today’s court case on 13:22 - Dec 12 with 7594 views | fiftypencehead |
Bitter people wanting to cause as much fuss about something no one gives a flying fig about.
I love the part about wanting a bonus to reflect their efforts! They all did very well thank you very much from SCFC in the time they were there, with an annual salary of £100k plus the free tickets/travel/hospitality they ALL received when they travelled with the team, not to mention the pre-season trips to the States etc...
Sour grapes and typical legal types looking for loopholes to squeeze more money from a cash cow. I know that HJ et al are not well like in Swansea, but, this isn't going to help these two in the long term either as they are painting themselves as money hungry sycophants who don't like it when mummy takes the bottle away.
SCFC does not need this at this time.....the circus continues. |  |
| When the ball hits the goal it's not Shearer or Cole it's Lee Trundle! |
| |
| Today’s court case on 13:35 - Dec 12 with 7539 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Today’s court case on 13:22 - Dec 12 by fiftypencehead |
Bitter people wanting to cause as much fuss about something no one gives a flying fig about.
I love the part about wanting a bonus to reflect their efforts! They all did very well thank you very much from SCFC in the time they were there, with an annual salary of £100k plus the free tickets/travel/hospitality they ALL received when they travelled with the team, not to mention the pre-season trips to the States etc...
Sour grapes and typical legal types looking for loopholes to squeeze more money from a cash cow. I know that HJ et al are not well like in Swansea, but, this isn't going to help these two in the long term either as they are painting themselves as money hungry sycophants who don't like it when mummy takes the bottle away.
SCFC does not need this at this time.....the circus continues. |
You've made a handful of posts ever, three are slagging off the two in this case, one is moaning that the club have to provide pitches for the community (in return by the way , for a minuscule lease payment for taking over a £30m asset and even then, only when in the premier league).
Not like you have an agenda is it?
And people do give a 'flying fig' about this sort of thing. It's the difference between a community club that people can be proud of and a money making American owned business that has as much link to the community as KFC. The fact that people like you don't think it matters are exactly what's wrong with the club at the moment. | | | |
| Today’s court case on 13:52 - Dec 12 with 7488 views | Wingstandwood |
| Today’s court case on 13:22 - Dec 12 by fiftypencehead |
Bitter people wanting to cause as much fuss about something no one gives a flying fig about.
I love the part about wanting a bonus to reflect their efforts! They all did very well thank you very much from SCFC in the time they were there, with an annual salary of £100k plus the free tickets/travel/hospitality they ALL received when they travelled with the team, not to mention the pre-season trips to the States etc...
Sour grapes and typical legal types looking for loopholes to squeeze more money from a cash cow. I know that HJ et al are not well like in Swansea, but, this isn't going to help these two in the long term either as they are painting themselves as money hungry sycophants who don't like it when mummy takes the bottle away.
SCFC does not need this at this time.....the circus continues. |
Yep. from where I'm standing SCFC has been nothing but a freeloading initiative for a good few!
I don't fall the complete and utter b@llocks and JTAK myth about Jenkins, Morgan, Dineen and Van Zweden…. All the cr@p about their presence at the club being some act of unconditional love, some act of selfless kindness, some form of self-sacrifice! Likewise the others in this court case.
FFS the paid roles, the contracts awarded by themselves to kith and kin, the perks, the privileges, the status symbol titles! That is why most never had any intention of giving up their titles i.e. Chairman, Director, Vice Chairman. The leeching started years before SCFC was even a PL club! |  |
| |
| Today’s court case on 14:02 - Dec 12 with 7458 views | JoshTheJack |
| Today’s court case on 13:22 - Dec 12 by fiftypencehead |
Bitter people wanting to cause as much fuss about something no one gives a flying fig about.
I love the part about wanting a bonus to reflect their efforts! They all did very well thank you very much from SCFC in the time they were there, with an annual salary of £100k plus the free tickets/travel/hospitality they ALL received when they travelled with the team, not to mention the pre-season trips to the States etc...
Sour grapes and typical legal types looking for loopholes to squeeze more money from a cash cow. I know that HJ et al are not well like in Swansea, but, this isn't going to help these two in the long term either as they are painting themselves as money hungry sycophants who don't like it when mummy takes the bottle away.
SCFC does not need this at this time.....the circus continues. |
They got fecked over and they're standing up for themselves,Nothing wrong with that.The trust should be doing the same. |  | | |
| Today’s court case on 14:50 - Dec 12 with 7365 views | monmouth |
| Today’s court case on 13:35 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
You've made a handful of posts ever, three are slagging off the two in this case, one is moaning that the club have to provide pitches for the community (in return by the way , for a minuscule lease payment for taking over a £30m asset and even then, only when in the premier league).
Not like you have an agenda is it?
And people do give a 'flying fig' about this sort of thing. It's the difference between a community club that people can be proud of and a money making American owned business that has as much link to the community as KFC. The fact that people like you don't think it matters are exactly what's wrong with the club at the moment. |
What do we want?
Lisa for Supporter Director
When do we want it
NOW!!! | |
| |
| Today’s court case on 14:56 - Dec 12 with 7350 views | fiftypencehead |
| Today’s court case on 13:35 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
You've made a handful of posts ever, three are slagging off the two in this case, one is moaning that the club have to provide pitches for the community (in return by the way , for a minuscule lease payment for taking over a £30m asset and even then, only when in the premier league).
Not like you have an agenda is it?
And people do give a 'flying fig' about this sort of thing. It's the difference between a community club that people can be proud of and a money making American owned business that has as much link to the community as KFC. The fact that people like you don't think it matters are exactly what's wrong with the club at the moment. |
Thanks for your response Lisa, I'm sorry that I haven't yet reached the required number of posts to satisfy you as a 'real fan'. I choose to read rather than post, however, if this doesn't fit with your opinion of my agenda we'll agree to disagree.
My post about pitches was a moan at the fact that government are not prepared to get behind sporting facilities in the UK in the same way our European counterparts do, this seems a reasonable question to ask, and, judging by replies afterwards, it seems to be a view felt by more than just myself, but, hey ho lets not let the facts get in the way.
Regarding, MY views on the current court case, I feel that this is a state of affairs that needn't have gone this far, however, if you were the ex-employer would you have just settled out of court to keep the case away from the press? or if you felt you were in the right would you have had your day in court?
I have no agenda, I was merely posting on a public forum MY opinion, the same way that you post yours. I'm not pro the American's, in fact, I would love SCFC to still be a 'community' club, but, as soon as the final whistle was blown at Wembley we stopped being 'little old Swansea' and became another cog in the Premier League wheel. I don't like the fact that our club is 'like the rest' but we all have to accept that this is progress, not as we would like it, but, as with all other businesses, growth is the overriding driver behind their existence.
My point really about the case is that it is two very well paid individuals objecting to not being well paid anymore, and attempting to use the law to ensure they get one last pay off as a 'F You' to their previous employers.
It does no one any good at all, and is a sorry state of affairs, but, to accuse me of having an agenda because my views don't match yours is disappointing to say the least, we all support the same team after all. | |
| When the ball hits the goal it's not Shearer or Cole it's Lee Trundle! |
| |
| Today’s court case on 15:09 - Dec 12 with 7311 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Today’s court case on 14:56 - Dec 12 by fiftypencehead |
Thanks for your response Lisa, I'm sorry that I haven't yet reached the required number of posts to satisfy you as a 'real fan'. I choose to read rather than post, however, if this doesn't fit with your opinion of my agenda we'll agree to disagree.
My post about pitches was a moan at the fact that government are not prepared to get behind sporting facilities in the UK in the same way our European counterparts do, this seems a reasonable question to ask, and, judging by replies afterwards, it seems to be a view felt by more than just myself, but, hey ho lets not let the facts get in the way.
Regarding, MY views on the current court case, I feel that this is a state of affairs that needn't have gone this far, however, if you were the ex-employer would you have just settled out of court to keep the case away from the press? or if you felt you were in the right would you have had your day in court?
I have no agenda, I was merely posting on a public forum MY opinion, the same way that you post yours. I'm not pro the American's, in fact, I would love SCFC to still be a 'community' club, but, as soon as the final whistle was blown at Wembley we stopped being 'little old Swansea' and became another cog in the Premier League wheel. I don't like the fact that our club is 'like the rest' but we all have to accept that this is progress, not as we would like it, but, as with all other businesses, growth is the overriding driver behind their existence.
My point really about the case is that it is two very well paid individuals objecting to not being well paid anymore, and attempting to use the law to ensure they get one last pay off as a 'F You' to their previous employers.
It does no one any good at all, and is a sorry state of affairs, but, to accuse me of having an agenda because my views don't match yours is disappointing to say the least, we all support the same team after all. |
Oh come come, you choose to read rather than post and yet have made three posts about this issue. The latest two have made quite specific allegations about trips and whether or not people have taken their wives on trips.
I quote:
" two men who have done very well financially out of SCFC are now looking for more money to top up their retirement funds. One of them was invoicing the club for a consultancy fee each month on top of a salary, whilst the other was being paid handsomely whilst taking his wife on expensive away trips courtesy of SCFC for gratis.... "
And then:
" Bitter people wanting to cause as much fuss about something no one gives a flying fig about.
I love the part about wanting a bonus to reflect their efforts! They all did very well thank you very much from SCFC in the time they were there, with an annual salary of £100k plus the free tickets/travel/hospitality they ALL received when they travelled with the team, not to mention the pre-season trips to the States etc... "
And now:
"two very well paid individuals objecting to not being well paid anymore, and attempting to use the law to ensure they get one last pay off as a 'F You' to their previous employers. "
And yet you've never felt moved to criticise anyone else involved with the club?
We may support the same team, but I very much doubt we are on the same side... | | | |
| Today’s court case on 15:15 - Dec 12 with 7296 views | Darran |
| Today’s court case on 15:09 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh come come, you choose to read rather than post and yet have made three posts about this issue. The latest two have made quite specific allegations about trips and whether or not people have taken their wives on trips.
I quote:
" two men who have done very well financially out of SCFC are now looking for more money to top up their retirement funds. One of them was invoicing the club for a consultancy fee each month on top of a salary, whilst the other was being paid handsomely whilst taking his wife on expensive away trips courtesy of SCFC for gratis.... "
And then:
" Bitter people wanting to cause as much fuss about something no one gives a flying fig about.
I love the part about wanting a bonus to reflect their efforts! They all did very well thank you very much from SCFC in the time they were there, with an annual salary of £100k plus the free tickets/travel/hospitality they ALL received when they travelled with the team, not to mention the pre-season trips to the States etc... "
And now:
"two very well paid individuals objecting to not being well paid anymore, and attempting to use the law to ensure they get one last pay off as a 'F You' to their previous employers. "
And yet you've never felt moved to criticise anyone else involved with the club?
We may support the same team, but I very much doubt we are on the same side... |
 |  |
| |
| Today’s court case on 15:37 - Dec 12 with 7240 views | fiftypencehead |
| Today’s court case on 15:09 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh come come, you choose to read rather than post and yet have made three posts about this issue. The latest two have made quite specific allegations about trips and whether or not people have taken their wives on trips.
I quote:
" two men who have done very well financially out of SCFC are now looking for more money to top up their retirement funds. One of them was invoicing the club for a consultancy fee each month on top of a salary, whilst the other was being paid handsomely whilst taking his wife on expensive away trips courtesy of SCFC for gratis.... "
And then:
" Bitter people wanting to cause as much fuss about something no one gives a flying fig about.
I love the part about wanting a bonus to reflect their efforts! They all did very well thank you very much from SCFC in the time they were there, with an annual salary of £100k plus the free tickets/travel/hospitality they ALL received when they travelled with the team, not to mention the pre-season trips to the States etc... "
And now:
"two very well paid individuals objecting to not being well paid anymore, and attempting to use the law to ensure they get one last pay off as a 'F You' to their previous employers. "
And yet you've never felt moved to criticise anyone else involved with the club?
We may support the same team, but I very much doubt we are on the same side... |
Its clear we are not on the same side.
I would love to air opinions on lots of club related issues, however, as this is now in the national press I felt it was open to public criticism.
The fact that you totally avoided your misdirection about 3G pitches clearly shows you are the one with agenda, and cannot handle a difference of opinion.
Let's leave it there. | |
| When the ball hits the goal it's not Shearer or Cole it's Lee Trundle! |
| |
| Today’s court case on 15:52 - Dec 12 with 7190 views | jack247 |
| Today’s court case on 13:35 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
You've made a handful of posts ever, three are slagging off the two in this case, one is moaning that the club have to provide pitches for the community (in return by the way , for a minuscule lease payment for taking over a £30m asset and even then, only when in the premier league).
Not like you have an agenda is it?
And people do give a 'flying fig' about this sort of thing. It's the difference between a community club that people can be proud of and a money making American owned business that has as much link to the community as KFC. The fact that people like you don't think it matters are exactly what's wrong with the club at the moment. |
They are going to love you on the trust! Cat right amongst the pigeons. Just what it needed | | | |
| Today’s court case on 16:02 - Dec 12 with 7146 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Today’s court case on 15:37 - Dec 12 by fiftypencehead |
Its clear we are not on the same side.
I would love to air opinions on lots of club related issues, however, as this is now in the national press I felt it was open to public criticism.
The fact that you totally avoided your misdirection about 3G pitches clearly shows you are the one with agenda, and cannot handle a difference of opinion.
Let's leave it there. |
I haven't remotely avoided the comments about 3G pitches - I simply chose to focus on your post s about the court case.
On the subject of 3 g pitches you said, and I quote:
"It seems rather rich that football clubs are asked to provide for the community just because they are seen to have surplus funds that can be used to fund local projects.
Using the Netherlands as a direct comparisson where the central/local government provide ALL of the Sportparks, and the clubs that use them manage the clubhouse (and take profits from refreshment sales). I cannot see why this model could not be applied to the UK."
You went on to say:
"just because the Premier League is doing well it sholudn't have to make up the shortfall of the failings of central and local government."
Now I would say that these pitches are being funded by the local authority. Because it's part of a lease agreement with the club. The club aren't funding pitches out of the goodness of their hearts, they're funding them as part of a lease payment in return for taking control of a £30m asset paid for by local government (largely) for the remaining 38 years or so of the original 50 year covenented term.
So it's an interesting take that the club is being used as a cash cow don't you think?
Always good to know what's happening in the Netherlands though. [Post edited 12 Dec 2017 16:05]
| | | |
| Today’s court case on 16:02 - Dec 12 with 7144 views | WarwickHunt |
| Today’s court case on 13:22 - Dec 12 by fiftypencehead |
Bitter people wanting to cause as much fuss about something no one gives a flying fig about.
I love the part about wanting a bonus to reflect their efforts! They all did very well thank you very much from SCFC in the time they were there, with an annual salary of £100k plus the free tickets/travel/hospitality they ALL received when they travelled with the team, not to mention the pre-season trips to the States etc...
Sour grapes and typical legal types looking for loopholes to squeeze more money from a cash cow. I know that HJ et al are not well like in Swansea, but, this isn't going to help these two in the long term either as they are painting themselves as money hungry sycophants who don't like it when mummy takes the bottle away.
SCFC does not need this at this time.....the circus continues. |
Shouldn't you be putting the lights on your...Xmas tree? |  | | |
| Today’s court case on 16:11 - Dec 12 with 7107 views | Uxbridge |
| Today’s court case on 16:02 - Dec 12 by WarwickHunt |
Shouldn't you be putting the lights on your...Xmas tree? |
Funnily enough, I gather that was cleared up on Twitter the other week. |  |
| |
| Today’s court case on 16:18 - Dec 12 with 7080 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Today’s court case on 16:11 - Dec 12 by Uxbridge |
Funnily enough, I gather that was cleared up on Twitter the other week. |
What was the outcome? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
