Wes Tender Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Fair enough. I'll probably tend to assume that an independent adjudication and subsequent court case came to the correct decision. They came to a decision which is binding on both parties. Whether it was the correct decision or not is debateable, although the assumption does appear to be sound at face value. There was that lady judge who decided to allow the Skates a stay of execution based on what were probably falsely prepared financial projections when they were almost certainly trading while insolvent. Was that the correct decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 More worried than what, exactly? Than writing an opinion piece which a few precious souls are going to get upset about? If you can find a quote from the manager that suggest we play 4231 then fair play; Nigel Adkins has called it 433 all season long, despite the fact it has indeed been more like a 4231 (except when we played 442). First game of the season against Man City we had Ward-Prowse and Schneiderlin playing as the 2, Lallana as the other more advanced central midfielder. If you can point out the glaring difference between that formation and Saturday's, I guess I'd appreciate it. About the only time we've started with a true 4-3-3 was against Man United and Arsenal. Anyone discussing our formation without using 2-6-2 as identified by me against Man City (and much later by Gary Neville on MNF) needs shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 They came to a decision which is binding on both parties. Whether it was the correct decision or not is debateable, although the assumption does appear to be sound at face value. There was that lady judge who decided to allow the Skates a stay of execution based on what were probably falsely prepared financial projections when they were almost certainly trading while insolvent. Was that the correct decision? Well apparently I don't have all of the information and it would be entirely reckless of me to make a snap decision either way for that particular case. Although, rather than assume the worst all the time, I should tend to assume the best; positivity and all that, and therefore I'd tend to align myself with the football club. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 They came to a decision which is binding on both parties. Whether it was the correct decision or not is debateable, although the assumption does appear to be sound at face value. There was that lady judge who decided to allow the Skates a stay of execution based on what were probably falsely prepared financial projections when they were almost certainly trading while insolvent. Was that the correct decision? Using individual cases rather than a general assumption that the justice system achieves a suitable goal in the vast majority of cases is a long and boring road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 (edited) Just how how many bills do saints pay every month to local businesses? based on the annual turnover of the club there must be a lot of large bills on a regular basis. Does anyone really know why this one particular one wasnt paid! Statistically speaking, to draw any logical conclusion from this one case is not possible, particulalry given the complete absence of facts. If any one of us receive a lower than expected quality of service might we not hold payment back? and if we did! does that make us serial non or late payers? Just because the court case wasnt contested doesnt necessairly meant the club didnt have a a legitamate grievance in the first place. For example they may well have decided the cost of defending the case exceeded any likely benefit. (just as plausible an argument) Also, I would hazard an educated guess, that since promotion the club is plowing back far more money into the local community than it ever did in league 1.( most of that coming from outside the local community from Sky TV and commercial benefits and so Saints are now a net benefactor in the region!)! Where is the more positive story covering this angle? This is lazy journalism drawing conclusions based on minimum fact and maximum conjecture! no more no less! When Saints stop paying the majority of their bills month on month like Pompey, is when I for one will begin worrying, not before! Edited 20 November, 2012 by Saint Without a Halo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Just how how many bills do saints pay every month to local businesses? based on the annual turnover of the club there must be a lot of large bills on a regular basis. Does anyone really know why this one particular one wasnt paid! Statistically speaking, to draw any logical conclusion from this one case is not possible, particulalry given the complete absence of facts. If any one of us receive a lower than expected quality of service might we not hold payment back? and if we did does that make us serial non payers? Just because the court case wasnt contested doesnt meant the club didnt have a a legitamate grievance in the first place. They may well have decided the cost of defending the case exceeded any likely benefit even if they were right (just as plausible an argument) Also I would hazard an educated guess that since promotion the club is plowing back far more money into the local community than it ever did in league 1 most of that coming into the area from Sky TV and commercial benefits and so a net benefactor! (where is the more positive story covering this angle) This is lazy journalism drawing conclusions based on minimum fact and maximum conjecture! no more no less! When Saints stop paying the majority of their bills month on month like Pompey, is when I for one will begin worrying, not before! Once again; why have you failed to take into account the independent adjudication that found in favour of the contractor? Where any legitimate grievance would have been taken into account. Are you suggesting this was invalid, or inappropriate in any way? I'm not sure why we should disregard it otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Once again; why have you failed to take into account the independent adjudication that found in favour of the contractor? Where any legitimate grievance would have been taken into account. Are you suggesting this was invalid, or inappropriate in any way? I'm not sure why we should disregard it otherwise. Of course the court would find for the plaintiff if the other side offered no defence! As I said they may have decided that defending the case was more cost and bother than any benefit and just given in! Doesn't mean they had no case to defend. The point i am making is the journalist is not in possession of the facts and is making out that this is serial behaviour that is hurting the local community! He needs far more evidence to reach such a conclusion and as I pointed out this bill is probably a drop in the ocean to what the club pays out to local businesses on a monthly basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Of course the court would find for the plaintiff if the other side offered no defence! As I said they may have decided that defending the case was more cost and bother than any benefit and just given in! Doesn't mean they had no case to defend. The point i am making is the journalist is not in possession of the facts and is making out that this is serial behaviour that is hurting the local community! He needs far more evidence to reach such a conclusion and as I pointed out this bill is probably a drop in the ocean to what the club pays out to local businesses on a monthly basis. Wow, this is hard work. The adjudication happened in advance of the court case. The club ignored that independent ruling, which meant it then went to court. Well, one side did.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Well: if, after adjudication, the club still felt that something was wrong with the end product they had ample chance to do something about it. If they genuinely thought they had a legal (or moral) case, then they had ample opportuity to appear in court and make that case. I can't have any sympathy for an organisation that pushed all the way for its day in court to present its own point of view and then stuck its fingers up at the very last minute to that very opportunity. Fair enough, but one would assume that the club would also have taken legal advice on such an issue. I am frequently frustrated by the club's lack of communication, especially around those issues that either effect fans or reflect on the image of the club we support, because like most, I have a natural curiosity and hunger for information, but also because their silence leads to so much negative speculation and provides ammunition for those determined to find them guilty - as a result I have just enough self awareness to recognise this results in an almost zealot like defence, but I stand by my point that if we want to judge a situation fairly, we need to hear from all sides if wanting to make a truely informed opinion, whether it be this issue, or one of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Wow, this is hard work. The adjudication happened in advance of the court case. What ever happened in adjudication and the later case we do not have the full facts for and whether or not Saints were wrong or right in this one case and whether payments were held back on purpose or in error cannot be extrapolated into the conclusion that the Journo is intimating i.e that they have a policy of withholdong payments into local businesses in general! of more interest is how many bills have saints paid into the local community every month and what percentage of them do these bills constitute? and therefore can any sensible conclusion be drawn from this one isolated case at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Well apparently I don't have all of the information and it would be entirely reckless of me to make a snap decision either way for that particular case. Although, rather than assume the worst all the time, I should tend to assume the best; positivity and all that, and therefore I'd tend to align myself with the football club. Or something. The Turkish defence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Using individual cases rather than a general assumption that the justice system achieves a suitable goal in the vast majority of cases is a long and boring road. It's the exception that proves the rule, eh? But this is an individual case we're discussing here. And I note that you assume that the justice system achieves a "suitable" goal rather than necessarily a right one, which would be made more difficult to assess if one party in the case didn't attend to defend their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Well apparently I don't have all of the information and it would be entirely reckless of me to make a snap decision either way for that particular case. Although, rather than assume the worst all the time, I should tend to assume the best; positivity and all that, and therefore I'd tend to align myself with the football club. Or something. I am not disagreeing that on the balance of probability and the facts available to us at present it looks like Saints are in the wrong in this particular case! What I am saying is you then cannot make the giant leap the Journo makes by extrapolating this assumption and intimating and inferring there is somehow a club policy to delay payments to local businesses in general when in fact the club has this year brought a lot of new business into the local community as a result of promotion and the Sky money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Wow, this is hard work. The adjudication happened in advance of the court case. The club ignored that independent ruling, which meant it then went to court. Well, one side did.... the point being though, that whatever the reasons, guilt, rights or wrongs of this iniviual case, its surely not enough to use it to paint a picture of a serial non-payer that does not give a flying feck about the local community, with 'mouths to feed' - highly emotive language which is not factual, but designed to protray the club in a certyain negative light...based on one case for which the blogger has only one side of the argument... The issue I have is quite simple. Some have made a very valid point that as fans we have a duty of care to question the club. 100% agreed. But if this is to be seen as more than just an execise in club bashing for the sake of it, it requires balance - both in recognising that the media is not always presenting an unbiassed opinion... and in that before drawing conclusions and spreading them as gospel, some proper research needs to be done - FACT finding, rather than gossip mongering, all sides of the story, rather than treating the whinge and moan of a few displeased as the correct information, just because its currently the ONLY source of information. Otherwise, like some journalists, the end result is lazy, incomplete and lacks any credibilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 the point being though' date=' that whatever the reasons, guilt, rights or wrongs of this iniviual case,[b'] its surely not enough to use it to paint a picture of a serial non-payer that does not give a flying feck about the local community[/b], with 'mouths to feed' - highly emotive language which is not factual, but designed to protray the club in a certyain negative light...based on one case for which the blogger has only one side of the argument... The issue I have is quite simple. Some have made a very valid point that as fans we have a duty of care to question the club. 100% agreed. But if this is to be seen as more than just an execise in club bashing for the sake of it, it requires balance - both in recognising that the media is not always presenting an unbiassed opinion... and in that before drawing conclusions and spreading them as gospel, some proper research needs to be done - FACT finding, rather than gossip mongering, all sides of the story, rather than treating the whinge and moan of a few displeased as the correct information, just because its currently the ONLY source of information. Otherwise, like some journalists, the end result is lazy, incomplete and lacks any credibilty. Is that what the blog does then? I thought it just asks the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Is that what the blog does then? I thought it just asks the question. Come on, you can do better than that... you know exactly the picture it is trying to paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Come on' date=' you can do better than that... you know exactly the picture it is trying to paint.[/quote'] Its a blog piece, Frank. An opinion; someone joining various dots together from tittle tattle here or there and random snippets of fact. Believe it, or don't believe it; its a personal choice. If it gets people talking and brings some more facts out (or even if it doesn't) then I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 The Echo: ......quite rightly have chastised Portsmouth for leaving so many small local firms high and dry when that club went into administration. Now Saints are doing exactly the same. Are there other firms in similar positions, having not been paid by Saints? I’d love to say there definitely aren’t any but I don’t know. If this is something Southampton FC does regularly.... If you couldn’t put food on your table because Saints hadn’t paid their bill..... Just to make it crystal clear that this journo doesn't have much of a grasp of the facts, I've highlighted the parts that point to journalistic tendencies towards sensationalising a piece to put his rag's own spin on it. It might be a blog piece, the journo's opinion, but like many blog opinions, this is based on so much conjecture and just a few facts. One wouldn't know from reading it that this blog piece was written by a supposedly professional journalist, but then again, it is the Echo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 The Echo: Just to make it crystal clear that this journo doesn't have much of a grasp of the facts, I've highlighted the parts that point to journalistic tendencies towards sensationalising a piece to put his rag's own spin on it. It might be a blog piece, the journo's opinion, but like many blog opinions, this is based on so much conjecture and just a few facts. One wouldn't know from reading it that this blog piece was written by a supposedly professional journalist, but then again, it is the Echo. I'm not sure i follow what you're getting at Les. Pompey did leave a number of local firms high and dry and were rightly critisised for it. Saints have just done the same haven't they? No conjecture, just FACTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Isn't a blog supposed to create debate? In that case, maybe the article isn't as poor as so many people on here are claiming... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Wow, this is hard work. The adjudication happened in advance of the court case. The club ignored that independent ruling, which meant it then went to court. Well, one side did.... Exactly. Whilst not wishing to generalise it seems very difficult for some posters to grasp the obvious logical arguments. It is a very simple case of the Club being either unable to pay or not wanting to pay. If they don't want to pay because they have a valid grievance, then air that grievance in the prescribed way, it might just be a winner. The adjudication was the place for that, but i suspect they offered very little in their response to the claimants referral. They lost the adjudication and whilst the Adjudicators decision is final but not binding, it can be challenged in the courts. If they wanted to do this (which is, i suspect, what happened) but didn't offer a defence, then they are fecking stupid and Cortese needs to shake up his administrative procedures as this is very much a business own goal. Simple, you do not go to court and then decide to not offer a defence. It is just bloody stupid. But i doubt that very much, which leads onto the only other logical reason; that being they cannot pay. Irrespective, the damage to the business reputation of the club is already done. Arguments about NC just being a ruthless businessman don't hold water as, at the very least, his organisation has some serious administrative holes if they let 2 legal decisions ride and, embarrassingly, offer no defence for their actions. The fact that this is being debated is confirmation enough. At worst, he's a nasty, duplicitous bastard who rides people for fun and enters into agreements he has no intention of honouring. If he does this with a local building firm who employ local guys and girls whose wages need to be paid and have to go to court to get what is rightfully theirs, it is only natural to speculate about his performance as a chairman on footballing matters and whether this club is in the proverbial "safe hands". I used to think that MLT was wrong in his assertion of Cortese's character, but the more that comes out, the more i find myself agreeing with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 I'm not sure i follow what you're getting at Les. Pompey did leave a number of local firms high and dry and were rightly critisised for it. Saints have just done the same haven't they? No conjecture, just FACTS. Sorry wrong again - to keep it simple.... Pompey have NOT paid a large number of local firms anything- and they are never likely to get a penny Saints did not pay a final 15% to a single supplier due to some dispute that we know nothing about - which they ahve now been ordered to pay - which I suspect they will - its possible saints had no justification, or they felt they did, we dont know, but they will pay, and no children will go hungry so you can rest easy. No conjecture, just FACTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Sorry wrong again - to keep it simple.... Pompey have NOT paid a large number of local firms anything- and they are never likely to get a penny Saints did not pay a final 15% to a single supplier due to some dispute that we know nothing about - which they ahve now been ordered to pay - which I suspect they will - its possible saints had no justification, or they felt they did, we dont know, but they will pay, and no children will go hungry so you can rest easy. No conjecture, just FACTS A dispute which we gave no defence to, didn't bother attending court to fight and were adjudicated to be in the wrong at back in July. Why the delay? Why no defence if it's a dispute? No conjecture, just FACTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Isn't a blog supposed to create debate? In that case, maybe the article isn't as poor as so many people on here are claiming... True, its is indeed, but debate is about presenting the facts to an argument from both sides - this was less about promoting debate, but bodering on propoganda - nowt wrong with that if you read it with your eyes open and aware of its true purpose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 A dispute which we gave no defence to, didn't bother attending court to fight and were adjudicated to be in the wrong at back in July. Why the delay? Why no defence if it's a dispute? No conjecture, just FACTS. There is nothing wrong in asking those two questions - but you assume you already have the answers... If you actually ASKED questions, no one would have an issue with you - its teh fact that you present your opinion as factual answers to your own questions which removes any credibilty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 A dispute which we gave no defence to, didn't bother attending court to fight and were adjudicated to be in the wrong at back in July. Why the delay? Why no defence if it's a dispute? No conjecture, just FACTS. NOtice you ignore the fact that your 'FACTS' were shown to be inaccurate with respect to pompey = saints.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Its a blog piece, Frank. An opinion; someone joining various dots together from tittle tattle here or there and random snippets of fact. Believe it, or don't believe it; its a personal choice. If it gets people talking and brings some more facts out (or even if it doesn't) then I'm all for it. It uses inference to paint a picture of an uncaring big local bully mistreating small local businesses and sets out with the main intent of doing just this! that is the problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 (edited) Duplicate removed Edited 20 November, 2012 by Saint Without a Halo duplicate post removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 It uses inference to paint a picture of an uncaring big local bully mistreating small local businesses and sets out with the main intent of doing just this! that is the problem! No it doesnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 It uses inference to paint a picture of an uncaring big local bully mistreating small local businesses and sets out with the main intent of doing just this! that is the problem! Errr, because that's exactly what it is. You can stick your head i the sand as far as you want to, but it doesn't alter the facts. Facts that have been determined by a court of law. Serious questions need to be asked of the business practices of the Club at present and as far as i can see, that is exactly what this Echo piece is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Errr, because that's exactly what it is. You can stick your head i the sand as far as you want to, but it doesn't alter the facts. Facts that have been determined by a court of law. Serious questions need to be asked of the business practices of the Club at present and as far as i can see, that is exactly what this Echo piece is doing. Hilariously, some of the CoC will defend their hero regardless of what the court has decided! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Exactly. Whilst not wishing to generalise it seems very difficult for some posters to grasp the obvious logical arguments. It is a very simple case of the Club being either unable to pay or not wanting to pay. If they don't want to pay because they have a valid grievance, then air that grievance in the prescribed way, it might just be a winner. The adjudication was the place for that, but i suspect they offered very little in their response to the claimants referral. They lost the adjudication and whilst the Adjudicators decision is final but not binding, it can be challenged in the courts. If they wanted to do this (which is, i suspect, what happened) but didn't offer a defence, then they are fecking stupid and Cortese needs to shake up his administrative procedures as this is very much a business own goal. Simple, you do not go to court and then decide to not offer a defence. It is just bloody stupid. But i doubt that very much, which leads onto the only other logical reason; that being they cannot pay. Irrespective, the damage to the business reputation of the club is already done. Arguments about NC just being a ruthless businessman don't hold water as, at the very least, his organisation has some serious administrative holes if they let 2 legal decisions ride and, embarrassingly, offer no defence for their actions. The fact that this is being debated is confirmation enough. At worst, he's a nasty, duplicitous bastard who rides people for fun and enters into agreements he has no intention of honouring. If he does this with a local building firm who employ local guys and girls whose wages need to be paid and have to go to court to get what is rightfully theirs, it is only natural to speculate about his performance as a chairman on footballing matters and whether this club is in the proverbial "safe hands". I used to think that MLT was wrong in his assertion of Cortese's character, but the more that comes out, the more i find myself agreeing with him. I dont disagree with your logic - I just struggle how you can extrapolate such a negative conclusion from this case considering how many suppliers and firms are paid each month in comparison - of which we dont see or hear any stories. This is what I mean about balance. Of course 'local firm pays local company for quality service' is not a story of any interest, but some perspective is needed. I dont like the idea of my club being crap in these things - but i also dont believe this is some sort of policy or strategy to screw over local businesses - even Cortese is unlikely to see any commercial benefit in alienating local companies that advertise and support the club. If there was an issue with thsi foirm, or not, I would love to know, but I dont have access to that information, So we can assume one of two things, which is the point - the worst, or that its an issue between the two firms, that does unfortunatey happen. Cortese, may indeed be all the things some think he is. I dont know, never met him, never seen how he operates, never seen him dealing with employees or suppliers on a day to day basis, and until we see accounts in 2014 for this season, we wont know how well he managed the transition and expenditure - It may well be full of holes, but I am not going to ASSUME it is, simply because of rumours and speculation, which has only ever come from sources with obvious grievences. Markus trusted NC - for some reason they were close friends. I dont believe Markus would have placed that trust in someone who has been characterised as a complete vindictive type some are insinuating. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit to it - but I simply dont believe in teh conclusions some are drawing from what is still only one side of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 No it doesnt. When are we marching? There's a few roadworks to negotiate around the Civic Centre but we should be able to circumnavigate those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Hilariously, some of the CoC will defend their hero regardless of what the court has decided! Hilariously, Turkish cant differentiate between defending a 'hero' and defending a principle - Cortese is irrelevent in all this - it could be anyone and I no opinion on whether he is a good or bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Hilariously' date=' Turkish cant differentiate between defending a 'hero' and defending a principle - Cortese is irrelevent in all this - it could be anyone and I no opinion on whether he is a good or bad....[/quote'] How about the principle of paying people for work that has been done? Or does that not apply to the CoC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Sorry wrong again - to keep it simple.... Pompey have NOT paid a large number of local firms anything- and they are never likely to get a penny Saints did not pay a final 15% to a single supplier due to some dispute that we know nothing about - which they ahve now been ordered to pay - which I suspect they will - its possible saints had no justification, or they felt they did, we dont know, but they will pay, and no children will go hungry so you can rest easy. No conjecture, just FACTS You can see why I have Dorkish on ignore, Frank, but a shame that you quote him therefore. He's obviously not worth much in a debate if he believes that this dispute between the club and the contractor and perhaps even the other one, constitutes a position exactly the same as the Skates, leaving so many local firms high and dry Perhaps he's wasted in tele-sales and ought to apply for a job at the Echo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 How about the principle of paying people for work that has been done? Or does that not apply to the CoC? Indeed a very good principle - which is why the club paid the previous installments on time and in full - my guess is something we dont know about went wrong which led to the dispute ... in my reckoning thats about 85% good v 15% bad, So if I acknowldge that something wrong with the clubs attitude for not paying the last 15%, will you acknowledge there is something right with teh clubs attitude in paying the other 85% on time and in full ... plus the countless other monthly payments? This is what's called perspective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 A dispute which we gave no defence to, didn't bother attending court to fight and were adjudicated to be in the wrong at back in July. Why the delay? Why no defence if it's a dispute? No conjecture, just FACTS. Maybe they forgot to go? maybe they got the date wrong? maybe someone forgot to pay? maybe they didnt pay their lawyer? neither you I or anyone else on here not associated with either side knows and the likelhood that the answer is Saints have a knowing policy of delaying payment to local firms is pure conjecture based on the flimsy evidence and facts currently availbale! so to infer such an answer as the journo was trying to do is patently diengenuous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 When are we marching? There's a few roadworks to negotiate around the Civic Centre but we should be able to circumnavigate those. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Maybe they forgot to go? maybe they got the date wrong? maybe someone forgot to pay? maybe they didnt pay their lawyer? I would suggest that if ANY of those things happened, there's a fairly serious problem somewhere. How do you forget to go to court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 How about the principle of paying people for work that has been done? Or does that not apply to the CoC? See, the trouble is, ALL of the people that have responded have said that *IT IS WRONG WHAT HAS OCCURRED* What the sensible fringe have a problem with is the blog insinuating that this is the MO for Saints' (and likening it to the shenanigans that have occurred down the road!!) FFS it might have nothing to do with NC, it might be entirely down to the CFO (whoever that is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 How about the principle of paying people for work that has been done? Or does that not apply to the CoC? I suspect the club pays many hundreds of bills a month and many of those to firms in the local community. So this case is but one small example where payment was not made for reasons no body is yet clear on! The point is "one Swallow doesnt make a Summer! So in all probability the club is complying with the principle you set out above in 99.99% of cases unless you have a lot of credible evidence to prove otherwise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 (edited) You can see why I have Dorkish on ignore, Frank, but a shame that you quote him therefore. He's obviously not worth much in a debate if he believes that this dispute between the club and the contractor and perhaps even the other one, constitutes a position exactly the same as the Skates, leaving so many local firms high and dry Perhaps he's wasted in tele-sales and ought to apply for a job at the Echo. Who said it was a position exactly the same as the Skate? As usual Les, talking condeceding bo*locks and being so wrong yourself. You are funny though, getting it wrong whilst continuing to reply to someone you have on ignore and accounce this at every opportunity. It really is hilarious. Edited 20 November, 2012 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 How about the principle of paying people for work that has been done? Or does that not apply to the CoC? I suspect the club pays many hundreds of bills a month and many of those to firms in the local community. So this case is but one small example where payment was not made for reasons no body is yet clear on! The point is "one Swallow doesnt make a Summer! So in all probability the club is complying with the principle you set out above in 99.99% of cases unless you have a lot of credible evidence to prove otherwise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Indeed a very good principle - which is why the club paid the previous installments on time and in full - my guess is something we dont know about went wrong which led to the dispute ... in my reckoning thats about 85% good v 15% bad, So if I acknowldge that something wrong with the clubs attitude for not paying the last 15%, will you acknowledge there is something right with teh clubs attitude in paying the other 85% on time and in full ... plus the countless other monthly payments? This is what's called perspective And you know this for FACT do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 I would suggest that if ANY of those things happened, there's a fairly serious problem somewhere. How do you forget to go to court? Agreed but they are all as likely as the fact the non payment is a club policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Agreed but they are all as likely as the fact the non payment is a club policy well the certainly didn't forget to go to court or get the day wrong as they emailed the court the day before to say they weren't attending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 I suspect the club pays many hundreds of bills a month and many of those to firms in the local community. So this case is but one small example where payment was not made for reasons no body is yet clear on! The point is "one Swallow doesnt make a Summer! So in all probability the club is complying with the principle you set out above in 99.99% of cases unless you have a lot of credible evidence to prove otherwise! Well if it was me that wasn't paid I'd be furious and I'd also question Saints financial management system to let a bill (irrespective of size or what for) to go unpaid for so long and get to court and not defend itself (admission of guilt). What other bills are they potentially not paying if they have no control. Bad business practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avenue Saint Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 Stopped buying it a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 20 November, 2012 Share Posted 20 November, 2012 See, the trouble is, ALL of the people that have responded have said that *IT IS WRONG WHAT HAS OCCURRED* What the sensible fringe have a problem with is the blog insinuating that this is the MO for Saints' (and likening it to the shenanigans that have occurred down the road!!) FFS it might have nothing to do with NC, it might be entirely down to the CFO (whoever that is) Less of the reasonableness please BBB, there's no place for that on this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now