jimsleftfoot

...so we just need a rich sugar daddy then?!

Technically we do (ish)....

TTA's £6m or so that they have given the club don't have payment terms attached and so they have done similar.

As above, the owner can give the money to the club as long as no terms for repayment.

Think of a local authority which owns lots of buildings and hence has a lot of work that needs to be carried out on them, maintaining, cleaning, compliance issues etc. From my reading this appears to be a system which deals with this.

A bit of a mix of procurement System, workflow monitoring and a database all in one.

 

So that's the Owls gone to Tameside, Oldham Rugby going to Tameside, even bloody Ikea has gone to Tameside. What a damning indictment of my home town.

Whilst Oldham is still struggling to build an M&S, Ashton got rid of the old one and built an even better one.

And strangely a Five Guys has opened, third in the North, there isn't even one in Manchester City Centre.

 

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear, I did not mean my post in any way, shape or form in relation to rape, but to the 'smashing in the head assault', and then only as an example of a potential legal defence for assault.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that provocation / temptation / any form of 'asking for it' is no justification for rape, full stop.

If someone was threatening you with a meat cleaver (e.g. an armed robber) and you smashed their head in with a vase, their perhaps would be a decent argument that you would be using reasonable force.

Unlike rape, I don't believe the law requires both parties to be consenting such a case...

What about a boxing or UFC match?

And if the lad doesn't know what they're doing too?

 

Consensual sex doesn't exist when both of you are totally plastered. Neither can consent to being able to consent.

If someone smashes someone's head in and doesn't know what they are doing, would they be any less at fault?

To the average person, the Bury video looks like the OAFC fans being aggressive. The Bradford (home match) stone throwing incident speaks for itself and the MEN have already made the most of the Rochdale away game. I don't think any are that significant but Oldham is losing the PR battle here. Police are facing cuts, they've spotted a way of raising money, they have the MEN behind them, doesn't take a genius.

 

As for the ludicrous pedants and philistines middle classes out there in the home counties...if they engage their brains (a long shot) they might actually go for it. One fact about the general election is that very few voters swung. Middle England decided to stay put. Labour has to do something extra to persuade people to vote Labour when Tories are the incumbents. Lots of people criticised and declined to vote Labour because it didn't stand up for working people, civil liberties, peace, workers' rights and so on. The shorthand for that is Labour lost its soul and therefore became meaningless. Things have changed.

Best way to get the middle class vote is to attack them then????

I voted Labour but I cannot see how middle class Southerners (and from the like of Stockport) didn't vote Labour because it wasn't working class enough. They did it because they feared Labour of the recent past and they feared that Labour wasn't good for the economy. They protected themselves. They won't make the jump to Corbyn, they will go elsewhere and suddenly, the Lib Dems are a player again.

 

They've not made the commitment to come here permanently like contracted players though. For what that's worth.

Most contracted players seem to be about who pays them the most over a 1 or 2 year contract and they are quick to run.

Definitely not. Them putting money into the club was compensation for their giant cock up. They can't then hold us over a barrel for it for years to come.

 

They can have input on anything to do with land and the build of the new stand but for me, on-field matters are nothing to do with anyone but the owners and coaching staff.

Fair enough. Are legal matters on-field?

423,000 total votes out of an eligible electorate of 46.3 million.

Yup - I should add that I was only talking about the £3 voters in the last para for clarity. The message it sends to me is that the vocal minority have backed him.

 

That's not what the voting shows. Corbyn got very slightly less than 50% of the vote among members, which is by far the largest voting group. Cleaned up the affiliates and registered clicktivists mind you.

 

I'm still not sure. Had to pop into the chamber this afternoon to make sure it wasn't a hoax. He's got a new suit. I realise this is a terrible example, but no one could take any of the Lib Dems seriously before they became ministers and secretaries of state. Just sitting there gives you a weird type of authority, or at least an actuality. He's got one chance and one chance only: he has to stick to his guns while people like you get used to the idea. If Corbyn can go over the heads of most of the parliamentary party and all of the press, and if he can generate some actual popular appeal, you never know.

 

Exactly what do you disagree with Corbyn about? For me, he's a bit of a sellout because there's no pledge currently to establish re-education camps.

Yes, without the £3 vote he got 51/52% (so not as good as Tony Blair after all), so he would have won anyway in the first round, though it could have turned out slightly different perhaps if it had been closer.

Also, despite his wave of so called popular support, only 105,000 people voted (of which he got 84%) which is hardly going to swing an election. I like his charisma, I like some of his principles, but there are a lot of middle class people who will be afraid of him ultimately.

If that's the case they are sweating our assets whilst holding the debt? Who would ever want to invest in that business??? They have just got to hope some nutter with too much money wants to own a football club with a bit of history...loads of those lying around

One that would try and negotiate for the assets and the club. Whatever is now doesn't actually matter, it would be the negotiations going forward.

Unless someone comes out and says they have bid for the club and have been turned down/or has said the deal is crap, how would we know what the deal would be?

It's been a long time since someone produced a halfway decent football conspiracy theory. For me, it's lacking two staples: a motorway service station, which is a staple of football conspiracies generally, and Featherstall Road Tesco, which is a staple of OAFC conspiracies. I'm all for originality but tradition is tradition.

In today's MEN, a billionaire returns home from Switzerland where he is resident, to Failsworth. Maybe this is the one!!!

There are a few holes to this story, but the deal is pretty much a pre-packed adminstration, so plausible. About 1 in 4 adminstrations in the UK are now Pre-pack type. The allow things to carry more seamlessly. JJB used this.

 

The reason I can't quite see this being 100% true, is that the adminisatarion would presumably require SC to write off the £6m debts.

Also, if we were in such dire financial straights we would not have been able to hold onto our players this summer, or sign others of the calibre we have.

SC only has to hold on 1 year before the stand starts producing a profit, not a lot in terms of 12 years.

There has been quite a heavy investment in OEC in the past few months, not only cash but time, marketing and getting it right. Not the actions of someone about to sell and almost bankrupt.

 

On the other side, there is lot of detail there for some seemingly unconnected with no interest in peddling the tale.

Of course, that might not be the case, and there could be an unknown connection.

 

FWIW, I reckon that deal may well have been tabled, but SC has left it on the table and not been of interest (so far).

As with most speculation like this, there will be an kernel of truth and an embellishment. The embellishment, IMHO, is that it is a done deal.

 

It still amazes me people are corncerned that the stand has taken time. We are not a rich club, we have survived hand to mouth for decades.

 

The problems with the stand seem to be more cash flow related rather than near bankruptcy. Temp cash flow issues should surpise no-one, surely?

Yup, the club has (or had at least) limited debts which has been the point all along. The only real debt is to the owners, though not treated as a repayable loan and so admin wouldn't have any effect. The club has the lease on the Stadium, but the land is owned by Brassbank so again unaffected.

Doesnt Admin clear debt like Portsmouth did and give a clean start....? Genuine question dont know. That would allow well backed to be used positively rather than clearing debts? It sounds odd someone in Midlands knows any details unless an element of truth in it or how would they know anything at all unless a bull:censored: merchant in general.

Good point, they just got rid of having to get a CVA if I remember rightly?

I agree, how does he know whats going on? Until you know that, he could have been just told by a mate who 'knows whats going on' (in his opinion) and then span it for the sake of trying to get a better deal out of the OP.

Few questions:

Who told him?

If the club is to be well backed, why the need for admin?

Could he have heard this from someone who just made it up?

Did he get a deal out of you?

I asked about migrants, you responded with refugee.

 

All refugees are migrants, but not all migrants are refugees.

or expats?

 

I'm just wondering what factors influence corporations such as Tesco or CBPE Capital to operate a system whereby they keep the money people give to the waiting staff. Genuinely curious as to why they reckon they're entitled to - roughly - 10% on top of what they charge for the meal.

It seems that Tesco agree with you and have started giving 100% of their tips to staff.

I often think that Union's have the wrong priorities but they are simply helping a work force sector which isn't particularly well represented by Unions traditionally and so I have to applaud them ultimately.

Fair point, but different in many different cases. Certainly in a proper restaurant I'd hope the chefs were on different contracts to the waiting staff and pursuing a profession, in the UK at least the latter tend to be shorter term jobs.

Lower end cooking staff are often minimum wage.

My economics here are no different from those which Marxist and Engels understood. It's the same reason why serving staff in the States who can make very good tips work for low basic pay.

 

Personally I prefer to tip the individual, you might argue that pooling of tips is stealing from the better staff who earn them. But you choose where to eat and where to work.

There might be a few exceptions but from my own experience of working in catering, it's a team game. If someone cooks a great pizza and the waitress takes it over to the customer, is it only the waitress who is giving good customer service?

 

Good service and cookery brings the punters in and satisfied punters like to broadcast what a great time they had a Generic Restaurant X. Nothing capitalist about disincentivising good work.

 

And people aren't working for the betterment of the shareholders. They're working for their own betterment. If the system works, the shareholders also benefit.

 

Harry Bosch. It's obvious isn't it? When the company takes the tips, the service is :censored:.

In the current state of the economy, it will be easier for Pizza Express to hire good/enthusiastic staff than ten, years ago regardless of them nicking their tips.

The way he took both goals was mightly impressive. He hit the post from 25 yards as well.