| O'Neill totally avoided the question 10:54 - Dec 3 with 2211 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
of if the cost of Lambert's 5 year contract is prohibitive to sacking him. He answered why it was given, which is a totally different question. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |  |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 11:06 - Dec 3 with 2153 views | TieDyedIn95 |
I think that they know we've sussed that they were stupid enough to offer high compensation in the event he was sacked without any break clauses on the end of the club. It goes back to when O'Neill said promotion wasn't a priority last season, after the season had ended and people were asking then why no break clauses were initiated and the manager was still in post. They don't have any break clauses and it's another monumental cock up on their part. |  |
| Football League First Division / Premier League
Champions (1): 1961—62 - Runners-up (2): 1980—81, 1981—82
Football League Second Division / EFL Championship
Champions (3): 1960—61, 1967—68, 1991—92 - Play-off winners (1): 1999—2000
Football League Third Division / EFL League One Champions (2): 1953—54, 1956—57 - Southern League Champions (1): 1936—37
FA Cup Winners (1): 1977—78 - Texaco Cup Winners (1): 1972—73
UEFA Cup / UEFA Europa League Winners (1): 1980—81 | | Poll: | Would you attend a socially distanced training ground protest? |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 11:18 - Dec 3 with 2128 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 11:06 - Dec 3 by TieDyedIn95 |
I think that they know we've sussed that they were stupid enough to offer high compensation in the event he was sacked without any break clauses on the end of the club. It goes back to when O'Neill said promotion wasn't a priority last season, after the season had ended and people were asking then why no break clauses were initiated and the manager was still in post. They don't have any break clauses and it's another monumental cock up on their part. |
That would be extraordinary if true. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 11:22 - Dec 3 with 2123 views | ElderGrizzly |
Because it would likely break data protection rules to do so.
Managers never tend to get the full contract paid up anyway and i’m sure we had it on fairly good authority that there was a non-promotion clause in there. It was only Covid that saved him last season |  | | |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 11:30 - Dec 3 with 2088 views | Steve_M |
He is hardly going to answer that though is he? Not should he be disclosing the terms of any other employee at the club publicly (not like he's Symonds after a few beers).
It may be that there are conditions that make paying off PL cheaper if, say, we were outside the top six at the end of the year. |  |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 12:56 - Dec 3 with 1995 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 11:30 - Dec 3 by Steve_M |
He is hardly going to answer that though is he? Not should he be disclosing the terms of any other employee at the club publicly (not like he's Symonds after a few beers).
It may be that there are conditions that make paying off PL cheaper if, say, we were outside the top six at the end of the year. |
I'm not asking him to disclose terms. The question was simply whether the cost of sacking a manager who signed a five-year deal on New Year’s Day would be prohibitive. He could simply answer: no, it's nothing to do with cost. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 13:21 - Dec 3 with 1954 views | factual_blue |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 12:56 - Dec 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I'm not asking him to disclose terms. The question was simply whether the cost of sacking a manager who signed a five-year deal on New Year’s Day would be prohibitive. He could simply answer: no, it's nothing to do with cost. |
It's a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' question though. Damned however you answer it. |  |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 13:23 - Dec 3 with 1941 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 13:21 - Dec 3 by factual_blue |
It's a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' question though. Damned however you answer it. |
I'm not sure how. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 13:40 - Dec 3 with 1913 views | BloomBlue |
Why should he give out any personal information?
There are employment and personal information laws in this country, why do people assume football clubs don't have to follow the rules that other business do? Like all companies ITFC have a care of duty to their employees which includes not disclosing personal information |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 13:46 - Dec 3 with 1891 views | Herbivore |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 11:06 - Dec 3 by TieDyedIn95 |
I think that they know we've sussed that they were stupid enough to offer high compensation in the event he was sacked without any break clauses on the end of the club. It goes back to when O'Neill said promotion wasn't a priority last season, after the season had ended and people were asking then why no break clauses were initiated and the manager was still in post. They don't have any break clauses and it's another monumental cock up on their part. |
That's pure speculation and strikes me as being very unlikely. I doubt any manager has ever been given a 5 year contract with absolutely no clauses that enable them to be sacked without having to pay the full remainder of the contract. |  |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 14:55 - Dec 3 with 1827 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 13:40 - Dec 3 by BloomBlue |
Why should he give out any personal information?
There are employment and personal information laws in this country, why do people assume football clubs don't have to follow the rules that other business do? Like all companies ITFC have a care of duty to their employees which includes not disclosing personal information |
FFS, another straw man builder!
Again, I'm not asking him to disclose terms. The question was simply whether the cost of sacking a manager who signed a five-year deal on New Year’s Day would be prohibitive. He could simply answer: no, it's nothing to do with cost.
How is that remotely any personal information? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 14:57 - Dec 3 with 1819 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 13:46 - Dec 3 by Herbivore |
That's pure speculation and strikes me as being very unlikely. I doubt any manager has ever been given a 5 year contract with absolutely no clauses that enable them to be sacked without having to pay the full remainder of the contract. |
Quite. I think some people on here think the multi-millionaire businessman Marcus Evans came down with the last shower. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:18 - Dec 3 with 1776 views | Lockdownleonard |
Just reading the variety of responses to this post, highlights quite clearly the naivety of most fans when it comes to contracts and the level of detail they expect to have access to as ‘end-users’.
Rather like buying a Mars Bar, you’ll be told it’s net weight and basic ingredients, but not how much the factory workers earn, or the percentage reduction in chocolate deemed acceptable by its manufacturer.
That sense of entitlement, is of course why you’ll never get the answers or detail you crave from someone who is essentially there to protect the owner and manager from idle or potentially damaging speculation.
A senior executive once advised me to forget about what goes into a pork sausage and to focus on enjoying its qualities once combined with bread, butter and ketchup. The pig can never be brought back to life, but it’s fate can still be celebrated. |  | | |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:30 - Dec 3 with 1748 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:18 - Dec 3 by Lockdownleonard |
Just reading the variety of responses to this post, highlights quite clearly the naivety of most fans when it comes to contracts and the level of detail they expect to have access to as ‘end-users’.
Rather like buying a Mars Bar, you’ll be told it’s net weight and basic ingredients, but not how much the factory workers earn, or the percentage reduction in chocolate deemed acceptable by its manufacturer.
That sense of entitlement, is of course why you’ll never get the answers or detail you crave from someone who is essentially there to protect the owner and manager from idle or potentially damaging speculation.
A senior executive once advised me to forget about what goes into a pork sausage and to focus on enjoying its qualities once combined with bread, butter and ketchup. The pig can never be brought back to life, but it’s fate can still be celebrated. |
You obviously didn't read the responses very well, as you appear to be another straw-manner. Again, where have I asked for any level of detail? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:32 - Dec 3 with 1744 views | hype313 |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:18 - Dec 3 by Lockdownleonard |
Just reading the variety of responses to this post, highlights quite clearly the naivety of most fans when it comes to contracts and the level of detail they expect to have access to as ‘end-users’.
Rather like buying a Mars Bar, you’ll be told it’s net weight and basic ingredients, but not how much the factory workers earn, or the percentage reduction in chocolate deemed acceptable by its manufacturer.
That sense of entitlement, is of course why you’ll never get the answers or detail you crave from someone who is essentially there to protect the owner and manager from idle or potentially damaging speculation.
A senior executive once advised me to forget about what goes into a pork sausage and to focus on enjoying its qualities once combined with bread, butter and ketchup. The pig can never be brought back to life, but it’s fate can still be celebrated. |
Very Cantona esq. |  |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:35 - Dec 3 with 1743 views | Dyland |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:32 - Dec 3 by hype313 |
Very Cantona esq. |
It's similarly idiotic and pretentious, just without the poetic descriptiveness.
This "new" poster reminds me of BleachBlonBeachHunk from many years ago. Something reminiscent of the form and how he played it dead straight. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 15:36]
|  |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:42 - Dec 3 with 1712 views | Dyland |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:40 - Dec 3 by footers |
It's the same tosser who came on here pretending to be a top psychologist a few months back.
His grasp of English hasn't improved either.
 |
I.e. it's Fookers | |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:49 - Dec 3 with 1694 views | Steve_M |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:42 - Dec 3 by Dyland |
I.e. it's Fookers |
Indeed, it's not only ITFC that was a lot better about 15 years ago. | |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:49 - Dec 3 with 1692 views | jeera |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:18 - Dec 3 by Lockdownleonard |
Just reading the variety of responses to this post, highlights quite clearly the naivety of most fans when it comes to contracts and the level of detail they expect to have access to as ‘end-users’.
Rather like buying a Mars Bar, you’ll be told it’s net weight and basic ingredients, but not how much the factory workers earn, or the percentage reduction in chocolate deemed acceptable by its manufacturer.
That sense of entitlement, is of course why you’ll never get the answers or detail you crave from someone who is essentially there to protect the owner and manager from idle or potentially damaging speculation.
A senior executive once advised me to forget about what goes into a pork sausage and to focus on enjoying its qualities once combined with bread, butter and ketchup. The pig can never be brought back to life, but it’s fate can still be celebrated. |
"Here's some more words I put together." |  |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:50 - Dec 3 with 1689 views | Herbivore |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:40 - Dec 3 by footers |
It's the same tosser who came on here pretending to be a top psychologist a few months back.
His grasp of English hasn't improved either.
|
Oh that guy! The one who didn't even grasp the basics of the field he claimed to be an expert in? Superb interwebz. | |
| |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:56 - Dec 3 with 1671 views | footers |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:50 - Dec 3 by Herbivore |
Oh that guy! The one who didn't even grasp the basics of the field he claimed to be an expert in? Superb interwebz. |
LittleBoyBlue or whatever it was. jeera sniffed him out in seconds! |  |
| |
| arf on 16:12 - Dec 3 with 1633 views | Dyland |
| O'Neill totally avoided the question on 15:49 - Dec 3 by Steve_M |
Indeed, it's not only ITFC that was a lot better about 15 years ago. |
:) | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
