Damn right you would, but it depends on the terms though doesn't it that were agreed.
Damn right you would, but it depends on the terms though doesn't it that were agreed.
I think if you've rented a football stadium without thinking to check if there was a decent pitch you've made a slight oversight!
Damn right you would, but it depends on the terms though doesn't it that were agreed.
SISU have explained to us all that they are building a new stadium, so the question is - what is best for the club in the interim period?
The answer is that they agree a deal to get back to the Ricoh.
In this context the much talked about issue of "match day revenues" is a virtual irrelevance. Pretty much any deal at the Ricoh will leave the club in a better position than more years on life support in Northampton.
Nonsense Rob. There's no reason, especially financial, to be in Northampton. You've swallowed the bullshit hook line and sinker there mate.
you wouldn't expect a landlord to make repairs on a property ?
Did you read what you wanted to read Shmmeee? I clearly stated that everyone think that the Ricoh is clearly the best option, me included as I stated in another post, however the Club have to be proactive in this instance it doesn't happen, what is wrong with that?
He doesn't understand concepts of alternative strategies. He's been bred on council dogmatism since birth.
That's not something I disagree with DTD, but what is wrong with the Club being proactive just in case it doesn't happen?
A virtual irrelevance? I think that virtual irrelevance you are referring to is revenues that could entice CCFC back to the Ricoh for the long term.
Did you read what you wanted to read Shmmeee? I clearly stated that everyone think that the Ricoh is clearly the best option, me included as I stated in another post, however the Club have to be proactive in this instance if the Ricoh return doesn't happen, what is wrong with that?
Read the CT Article Immediately after the JR result ,there Is No long Term deal to be achieved back at the RICOH.
Yes they have been Pro-active we are not headed back to Coventry.
CCFC has a prospect for returning to the Ricoh according to Tim Fisher, we haven't heard from anyone at ACL, surely a statement on there position is due?
CCFC has a prospect for returning to the Ricoh according to Tim Fisher, we haven't heard from anyone at ACL, surely a statement on there position is due?
In all honesty you have to be a bit suspicious of the open letter.
That said the real disappointment is the lack of attempt from our supporter groups to try and encourage the council and ACL to engage in dialogue now an offer is there. They could even attempt to attend a meeting and minute it and provide the details to the football league.
The trust you would think would do this. Kcic always want face to face meetings and already have an offer agreed by ACL. Yet these fan representatives remain silent.
Poor approach with a lack of strategic direction.
I disagree.
Anything is possible but it needs motive to do something about it, whether there is any I am not sure, but I think if a deal was put in place that could at long term ownership of ACL then then club would be over it.
You know that's not what Steve Waggott said or the intention of my post, yes NTFC are responsible for repairing the property however CCFC are allegedly making a gesture as CCFC are aware of the need to maintain the condition of the pitch, maybe it wasn't even asked for and CCFC did it off their own backs?
In all honesty you have to be a bit suspicious of the open letter.
That said the real disappointment is the lack of attempt from our supporter groups to try and encourage the council and ACL to engage in dialogue now an offer is there. They could even attempt to attend a meeting and minute it and provide the details to the football league.
The trust you would think would do this. Kcic always want face to face meetings and already have an offer agreed by ACL. Yet these fan representatives remain silent.
Poor approach with a lack of strategic direction.
But surely as they offer their services to only one club/company, they must be employed.They can't be as they are on a fixed term contract. So they are entitled to have that honoured and can't be dismissed and be subject to normal employment laws.
Poor approach with a lack of strategic direction.
But surely as they offer their services to only one club/company, they must be employed.
They are allowed paternity leave (though i don't know of any who have take it), are paid when sick/injured and have money deducted and paid into their pension pots.
Like Wingy says, their image rights are a different matter and can be dealt with through a limited company.
The player will save an awful lot of tax, as corporation tax rates are much lower that the top rate of income tax.
FA Rules C 1 (b), C1 (c) and C2 (b) require that:
-all payments to a player are made by the Club and fully recorded in the accounting records
of the Club;
-all salaried payments to a player must be subject to PAYE and NI. This includes weekly
wages, performance bonuses (win, points, goals scored etc, share of prize money), loyalty
bonuses and signing on fees;
-where a player is paid expenses then payments are supported by an expenses claim form in
a format acceptable to HMRC and that such forms are retained by the Club;
-all payments and or benefits due and or made to a contract player must be set out in a
written agreement between the Club and the player and a copy provided to The FA;
-all amounts due to a contract player are set out in the contract and must be stated gross
before the deduction of PAYE and National Insurance.
-all player contracts must be in the full name of the Club and state the company number if
the Club is incorporated;
-contracts between a Club and a player must state that all amounts due are payable to the
player and not to any company or any agency acting on behalf of the player (ie a player
must be an employee of the Club and cannot be self employed).
Why the feck are we paying anything towards it though? End of July and there is even grass on the parks pitches so what are we actually paying for, thicker grass, a deeper shade of green, grass that tickles your balls when you tackle or just more bullshit to try and force peoples hands. I'm afraid Waggot is cut from the same cloth as the other lying turds.
So if your plc has an agreed HR directive you can performance manage someone for 9 months and they under achieve you can fire them are you saying that a player on a 5 year contract can be fired for under performance?
How about a manager? Can he be sacked with no compensation for under performance against agreed targets?
Seriously that's rubbish. They are contractors to a plc,
So if your plc has an agreed HR directive you can performance manage someone for 9 months and they under achieve you can fire them are you saying that a player on a 5 year contract can be fired for under performance?
How about a manager? Can he be sacked with no compensation for under performance against agreed targets?
Seriously that's rubbish. They are contractors to a plc,
I just don't believe the upkeep of the pitch wasn't included in the original rental deal. Not having it. Reckon its more posturing from your owners.
It's seems your fight is with the FA then.
The entire FA and it's 150 year history vs. Grendel
Maybe you ought to write to them, and tell them that their rules are wrong...or maybe give them a phone call
Also HMRC (with their IR35 directive) would disagree with you.
No they are just contracted and I imagine the contractor is the football league which is why they attract NI and tax at source. If they were employed you could sack Adam Barton for example and owe him nothing. Sadly you sack him and you pay off his contract and he can get a job tomorrow in the same industry without returning the money to his prior employer. I've never seen any company that employs people on that basis.
Tell me more
No they are just contracted and I imagine the contractor is the football league which is why they attract NI and tax at source. If they were employed you could sack Adam Barton for example and owe him nothing. Sadly you sack him and you pay off his contract and he can get a job tomorrow in the same industry without returning the money to his prior employer. I've never seen any company that employs people on that basis.
They employ people on temporary contracts where I work. They get just about all the same perks as us other than a pension. A fair few give up a permanent job to come as a temp in the hope that they can get a permanent job. It isn't very secure though. It is temporary.
If they work as a temp for over 50 weeks they get taken on full time. They can be taken on as long term sick cover. But it has been known to be finished after a few months of a six month contract as they are not needed for whatever reason. And they don't get compo if this happens. This is because they are not employed on a full time contract by our company. If they were compo would be payable to the end of their contract.
You mean like a deal to buy it? Surely if that was the case why have Sisu not made a single offer to buy it and followed it through?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?