| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:31 - May 24 with 1795 views | perchrockjack |
Now then now then.i mention Vasquez only in context when we re talking about sub standard strikers.laudrup has numerous threads even now for the reason that some want to see us fail to vindicated their love for the Koont who was ruining our club slowly but surely.laudrp brought to our club the great Spanish shuitehouse, so there |  |
|  |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:34 - May 24 with 1788 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:19 - May 24 by Shaky |
So Lisa, tell me and Lord Bony more about yourself.
You're an expect on all aspects of employment disputes, including the PR angle.
You've been a follower of the Swansea for many years, but have by pure coincidence decided to join in with the discussion at a time when the club is involved in a high profile employment dispute where press briefings have been previously flying around most typically in an easterly direction.
Is that a fair summary?
Perhaps you would be good enough to vouchsafe me the details of where your knowledge - nay expertise - is superior to my own humble musings.
To get the ball rolling I'll tell you that my own insights into this type of situation come solely from a handful of hostile acquisitions I have advised on. |
To be honest, you haven't advised at a very high level if you believe that the way that a settlement agreement is calculated is by multiplying someone's basic salary by the length of their remaining contract :)
I wasn't aware that posters on this forum had to present a CV before they could comment, so I think I'll pass on that thanks very much.
I was only commenting on this thread because I find it an interesting example of some posters adopting a rabidly anti club stance on absolutely everything, based on nothing but speculation. I stated a few weeks ago when I rejoined the forum that I was moved to do so by the absurd positions that certain 'fans' were adopting. | | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:35 - May 24 with 1787 views | airedale |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:23 - May 24 by Phil_S |
Having a fight over a Snickers bar in the Spar in Uplands does not count as a hostile acquisition mind |
In the Uplands Spar is soo last season, its Tesco Express or Sainsers now Phil. |  | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:37 - May 24 with 1775 views | perchrockjack |
Lisa.not a cv just need to agree with the top posters and you ll have loads of chums on here | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:41 - May 24 with 1766 views | reddythered |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:23 - May 24 by Phil_S |
Having a fight over a Snickers bar in the Spar in Uplands does not count as a hostile acquisition mind |
Fom what I've been reading, doubt any confectionary purchasing from Shaky would be non-hostile.
Wonder if Laudrup apologised... | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:45 - May 24 with 1757 views | Phil_S |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:41 - May 24 by reddythered |
Fom what I've been reading, doubt any confectionary purchasing from Shaky would be non-hostile.
Wonder if Laudrup apologised... |
How much did you pay Manky do you know? |  | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:47 - May 24 with 1708 views | reddythered |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:45 - May 24 by Phil_S |
How much did you pay Manky do you know? |
I'd be amazed if any was paid. Something really doesn't smell right about the whole situation.
EDIT: Guessing it may show up in the 13/14 financial accounts, when published? [Post edited 24 May 2014 15:48]
| |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:51 - May 24 with 1683 views | longlostjack |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:47 - May 24 by reddythered |
I'd be amazed if any was paid. Something really doesn't smell right about the whole situation.
EDIT: Guessing it may show up in the 13/14 financial accounts, when published? [Post edited 24 May 2014 15:48]
|
Not unless he was a director. It would just be part of salary and wages. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:53 - May 24 with 1671 views | reddythered |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:51 - May 24 by longlostjack |
Not unless he was a director. It would just be part of salary and wages. |
Mackay wasn't a director. He was also suing the club, not Tan.
What seems odd to me was the Moody apology - any settlement for him would be fairly small anyway due to getting the Palace role fairly quickly. That's what makes me think something did happen in summer. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:54 - May 24 with 1668 views | swanjackal |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:34 - May 24 by londonlisa2001 |
To be honest, you haven't advised at a very high level if you believe that the way that a settlement agreement is calculated is by multiplying someone's basic salary by the length of their remaining contract :)
I wasn't aware that posters on this forum had to present a CV before they could comment, so I think I'll pass on that thanks very much.
I was only commenting on this thread because I find it an interesting example of some posters adopting a rabidly anti club stance on absolutely everything, based on nothing but speculation. I stated a few weeks ago when I rejoined the forum that I was moved to do so by the absurd positions that certain 'fans' were adopting. |
I personally feel the club have handled the whole thing very professionally since the sacking, they have been polite and courteous in the press after the dismissal and have refused to be pulled into any post sacking debate. The fact that people have to cling to speculation and rumour, tells you how well the club have done, no apparent mud slinging, or detrimental press stories a la Cardiff really seen, just a few snippets from danish tabloids. The fact that the deal is done, and the situation has had the line drawn under it by both parties, with a serious lack of a real media circus, vindicates for me the way this was dealt with. The facts are: he was sacked (whether right or wrong, the board felt we needed to change), he was removed, after the initial shock for some, official news dries up until a few months seen that severance agreement agreed without court and parties seem to have agreed some form of non disclosure.
Both parties leave the table with reputation firmly intact. Both can (and should) move on. |  |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:56 - May 24 with 1669 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:54 - May 24 by swanjackal |
I personally feel the club have handled the whole thing very professionally since the sacking, they have been polite and courteous in the press after the dismissal and have refused to be pulled into any post sacking debate. The fact that people have to cling to speculation and rumour, tells you how well the club have done, no apparent mud slinging, or detrimental press stories a la Cardiff really seen, just a few snippets from danish tabloids. The fact that the deal is done, and the situation has had the line drawn under it by both parties, with a serious lack of a real media circus, vindicates for me the way this was dealt with. The facts are: he was sacked (whether right or wrong, the board felt we needed to change), he was removed, after the initial shock for some, official news dries up until a few months seen that severance agreement agreed without court and parties seem to have agreed some form of non disclosure.
Both parties leave the table with reputation firmly intact. Both can (and should) move on. |
I completely agree . | | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:56 - May 24 with 1667 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:54 - May 24 by swanjackal |
I personally feel the club have handled the whole thing very professionally since the sacking, they have been polite and courteous in the press after the dismissal and have refused to be pulled into any post sacking debate. The fact that people have to cling to speculation and rumour, tells you how well the club have done, no apparent mud slinging, or detrimental press stories a la Cardiff really seen, just a few snippets from danish tabloids. The fact that the deal is done, and the situation has had the line drawn under it by both parties, with a serious lack of a real media circus, vindicates for me the way this was dealt with. The facts are: he was sacked (whether right or wrong, the board felt we needed to change), he was removed, after the initial shock for some, official news dries up until a few months seen that severance agreement agreed without court and parties seem to have agreed some form of non disclosure.
Both parties leave the table with reputation firmly intact. Both can (and should) move on. |
Good luck dealing with the Spratty response to that. I hope you've got nothing planned for the rest of the weekend. |  |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:58 - May 24 with 1659 views | reddythered |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:54 - May 24 by swanjackal |
I personally feel the club have handled the whole thing very professionally since the sacking, they have been polite and courteous in the press after the dismissal and have refused to be pulled into any post sacking debate. The fact that people have to cling to speculation and rumour, tells you how well the club have done, no apparent mud slinging, or detrimental press stories a la Cardiff really seen, just a few snippets from danish tabloids. The fact that the deal is done, and the situation has had the line drawn under it by both parties, with a serious lack of a real media circus, vindicates for me the way this was dealt with. The facts are: he was sacked (whether right or wrong, the board felt we needed to change), he was removed, after the initial shock for some, official news dries up until a few months seen that severance agreement agreed without court and parties seem to have agreed some form of non disclosure.
Both parties leave the table with reputation firmly intact. Both can (and should) move on. |
The difference between us is that I doubt Laudrup and his agent have as many media contacts in the UK as Moody and Mackay have - after all, Moody used to be a journo. EDIT: Plus Laudrup doesn't strike me as someone caring enough to have a pi**ing war via the media.
Equally, the context is utterly different. For us, a media desparate to use anything to fit the agenda of "evil foreigner vs had working future great Brit". For you, a club liked in the media, Laudrup a great but fairly reserved, then there's no milage in running that kind of story.
Having said that, doubt there was much to you situation other than gossip, rumour and fanboism. [Post edited 24 May 2014 16:01]
| |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:59 - May 24 with 1655 views | 3swan |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 14:20 - May 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Six pages of both "camps" making sh*t up and claiming it supports their viewpoint. Pathetic. Only Lisa is making any kind of sense at all.
Half f you need to remember that Laudrup's gone now, he's got his wonga (however much it was) so there's no point arguing with his fanboys who won't leave it drop while you keep arguing with them.
The other half of you need to remember that you're supposed to be Swansea City fans not Michael f*cking Laudrup fans. The fact that you're taking pleasure that you feel Laudrup has been "vindicated" over the club brings into question where your loyalties lie. Any true Swansea City fan would have been happy to see Laudrup walk away with nothing.
Get a grip of yourselves. |
Andrew I was going to post in full agreement especially the bit about Lisa, and that both camps reading what they want in statements.
Then I came to your last bit
" Any true Swansea City fan would have been happy to see Laudrup walk away with nothing."
I would want him to walk away with what he was entitled to under his contract and not a penny more. Football is a small world and I want our club to be seen to do the right thing | | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:09 - May 24 with 1611 views | swanjackal |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:58 - May 24 by reddythered |
The difference between us is that I doubt Laudrup and his agent have as many media contacts in the UK as Moody and Mackay have - after all, Moody used to be a journo. EDIT: Plus Laudrup doesn't strike me as someone caring enough to have a pi**ing war via the media.
Equally, the context is utterly different. For us, a media desparate to use anything to fit the agenda of "evil foreigner vs had working future great Brit". For you, a club liked in the media, Laudrup a great but fairly reserved, then there's no milage in running that kind of story.
Having said that, doubt there was much to you situation other than gossip, rumour and fanboism. [Post edited 24 May 2014 16:01]
|
I can see your point, but the fact we don't have the level of leaks Cardiff have is again testament to more the professional nature of the club, rather than this "Evil Empire" scenario.
Swansea seem content to leave the clubs problems at the boardroom door and employ a solidarity, where Cardiff it seems are content with the mantra "any publicity is good publicity". [Post edited 24 May 2014 16:11]
| |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:12 - May 24 with 1590 views | Shaky |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:34 - May 24 by londonlisa2001 |
To be honest, you haven't advised at a very high level if you believe that the way that a settlement agreement is calculated is by multiplying someone's basic salary by the length of their remaining contract :)
I wasn't aware that posters on this forum had to present a CV before they could comment, so I think I'll pass on that thanks very much.
I was only commenting on this thread because I find it an interesting example of some posters adopting a rabidly anti club stance on absolutely everything, based on nothing but speculation. I stated a few weeks ago when I rejoined the forum that I was moved to do so by the absurd positions that certain 'fans' were adopting. |
Well Lisa, I'm clearly in the minority here because as I see it you are evasive, you misrepresent my position, and you obviously haven't got a clue what advising on a hostile acquisition means.
At the same time I can easily believe you work in PR, and am reminded of an old girlfriend thusly employed, who on being told I couldn't make a date due to a dinner commitment with some fund managers begged me to be allowed to come along.
"Aww I desperately want to meet them" she said, "I'd really love to know how you become a fun manager". [Post edited 24 May 2014 16:14]
|  |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:13 - May 24 with 1589 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 15:59 - May 24 by 3swan |
Andrew I was going to post in full agreement especially the bit about Lisa, and that both camps reading what they want in statements.
Then I came to your last bit
" Any true Swansea City fan would have been happy to see Laudrup walk away with nothing."
I would want him to walk away with what he was entitled to under his contract and not a penny more. Football is a small world and I want our club to be seen to do the right thing |
Fair enough, perhaps I'll taper it downwards to say that I wouldn't have lost any sleep if Laudrup had walked away with nothing. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:14 - May 24 with 1588 views | reddythered |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:09 - May 24 by swanjackal |
I can see your point, but the fact we don't have the level of leaks Cardiff have is again testament to more the professional nature of the club, rather than this "Evil Empire" scenario.
Swansea seem content to leave the clubs problems at the boardroom door and employ a solidarity, where Cardiff it seems are content with the mantra "any publicity is good publicity". [Post edited 24 May 2014 16:11]
|
I'd disagree with the latter point.
Moody/Mackay leaked for their own agenda. Some within the club have been leaking info, leaks have been there for years, detrimental to the club. I'd say it's more the case we've people pulling against the club for their own ends, something you don't seem to have.
Also, I'd say for leaks to be run with by the media, there needs to be a market for them. Is there a market for a media spat between Jenkins and Laudrup on a national basis? I'd say absolutely not. Laudrup's not as engaged with the UK media as say Mackay, I'd also say most people don't have much knowledge or feeling either way towards Jenkins either.
So I'd reject the "any publicity" argument tbh. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:15 - May 24 with 1582 views | swanjackal |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:02 - May 24 by reddythered |
Editted to expand the point... I'd suggest a former UK journo may have more media contacts within the UK, hmm? EDIT: And even so, Laudrup doesn't strike me as someone necessarily a media whore anyway. [Post edited 24 May 2014 16:03]
|
Apart from arranging a press conference to tell people he has been sacked and can't really say more. Laudrup had the potential to be a whole lot more with his status in world football, but the club sat back and wanted to do it correctly, thus staying any further conflict, hence showing a professional way of dealing with the situation. | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:16 - May 24 with 1579 views | reddythered |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:12 - May 24 by Shaky |
Well Lisa, I'm clearly in the minority here because as I see it you are evasive, you misrepresent my position, and you obviously haven't got a clue what advising on a hostile acquisition means.
At the same time I can easily believe you work in PR, and am reminded of an old girlfriend thusly employed, who on being told I couldn't make a date due to a dinner commitment with some fund managers begged me to be allowed to come along.
"Aww I desperately want to meet them" she said, "I'd really love to know how you become a fun manager". [Post edited 24 May 2014 16:14]
|
Well, if you suffer from a speech defect meaning "fund" sounds like "fun", I'd assume all your hostile acquisition meetings had full transcripts, allowing for any corrections to be made and noted. | |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:17 - May 24 with 1573 views | 3swan |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:13 - May 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Fair enough, perhaps I'll taper it downwards to say that I wouldn't have lost any sleep if Laudrup had walked away with nothing. |
Ok full agreement now then   | | | |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:25 - May 24 with 1548 views | swanjackal |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:14 - May 24 by reddythered |
I'd disagree with the latter point.
Moody/Mackay leaked for their own agenda. Some within the club have been leaking info, leaks have been there for years, detrimental to the club. I'd say it's more the case we've people pulling against the club for their own ends, something you don't seem to have.
Also, I'd say for leaks to be run with by the media, there needs to be a market for them. Is there a market for a media spat between Jenkins and Laudrup on a national basis? I'd say absolutely not. Laudrup's not as engaged with the UK media as say Mackay, I'd also say most people don't have much knowledge or feeling either way towards Jenkins either.
So I'd reject the "any publicity" argument tbh. |
Then we have a disagreement on what is publicity. I can only go from the amount of times you have seen Tan being antagonistic to the fans, , club and even Mackay in actual video and not just "club sources" would realistically be enough evidence to say that publicity is an important part for Tan.
Laudrup has had form for being quite outspoken of other regimes he has worked for in the past, so the fact this has been done quietly for me testament of the professional approach, without the need for a circus (barring some on net forums). A world legend sacked would have certainly been of equal possible public exposure if allowed to,but it was not. | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:25 - May 24 with 1548 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Settlement reached with Laudrup on 16:12 - May 24 by Shaky |
Well Lisa, I'm clearly in the minority here because as I see it you are evasive, you misrepresent my position, and you obviously haven't got a clue what advising on a hostile acquisition means.
At the same time I can easily believe you work in PR, and am reminded of an old girlfriend thusly employed, who on being told I couldn't make a date due to a dinner commitment with some fund managers begged me to be allowed to come along.
"Aww I desperately want to meet them" she said, "I'd really love to know how you become a fun manager". [Post edited 24 May 2014 16:14]
|
In what way have I misrepresented your views? You stated earlier that you couldn't understand on a basic salary of £700k how you would get to a figure of £2.7m and I pointed out some ways in which this could happen. Do you wish to retract that now?
The phrase in common parlance by the way that you are searching for is hostile takeover, but I'm sure that you know that as someone who once attended a meeting carrying the boxes for someone who knows what they are talking about. I've often wondered who all the little juniors are sitting in a corner, desperately scribbling away everything that comes out of the mouths of anyone who actually knows what they are doing and jumping to get coffees - now I know.
Why don't you shove your condescending sexism up your backside. Who do you work for by the way?
I probably know your boss's boss. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
