The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 10th August

[npearl4spurs]

Wow it is a dry day isn't it

 

[DogsOfWar]

Sorry but this is completely untrue, and would be absolutely insane in football or any other business. You have to recognise the loss, there is nothing to stop you selling whatever you want at whatever price you like. In fact the opposite is true as you can use the loss to reduce your tax bill, so actually the tax code (quite rightly) tries to help businesses recover from these kind of mistake.

What you say may be true but I've yet to find an accountant/finance director/CEO who would sign off on a preventable £50,000 asset loss, let alone a £12 million loss on an asset and that's at a couple of £500 million+ turnover companies and a £100 million+ turnover company I've worked at.
Whether that's for accounting reasons, protecting bonuses, or possible fraud I couldn't say but it's what I have experienced in the real world.

 

[Col_M]

If staff are not doing a job to satisfy our needs then surely they need to go?
I realise football is full of very rich *staff but if they are not doing a job for us anymore they are not worth their salary now.
Are we now a care agency too?
Just exasperated with goalposts seemingly being moved and apologies to all our ITKs who try to keep us in the link but without our support, the players who are being overpaid, can’t be bothered to turn up for training on time, just past their prime, or employed in the wrong positions are just beyond our help?
The info we get is propelling the discontent and our great club and new manager deserve better than this.


*NOT itk info btw!!!

mate you suggesting we put Ndombele on a performance improvement plan? These players are on Fixed Term Contracts so different rules apply. Unless they are in serious breach of contract (and even Greenwood’s wasn’t cut and dried) then we abide by contracts. If we don’t, no other footballer will come near us for fear of it happening to them too.

 

[Pochie]

Wow it is a dry day isn't it

Is that a cryptic? We going for Richard Towell from Shamrock Rovers?

 

[Fidget]

mate you suggesting we put Ndombele on a performance improvement plan? These players are on Fixed Term Contracts so different rules apply. Unless they are in serious breach of contract (and even Greenwood’s wasn’t cut and dried) then we abide by contracts. If we don’t, no other footballer will come near us for fear of it happening to them too.

Just disagree! Sorry Col M!
Maybe you are right re FTCs, actually (having googled lol) it depends on the wording of the contract, etc., etc.
Sigh. Guess I’m just ranting. Just things looking so promising and some don’t deserve.

Fixed-term employment contracts

Employees' rights at work under fixed-term contracts - and what happens if a contract is renewed or ended

www.gov.uk

and apologies again!

 

[hugrr]

Wow it is a dry day isn't it

We're bringing back Jamie O'Sahara

 

[rawhide]

So just write it off completely even though in the next 5-6 days you very well could get a fee of 9-10M for him? Even if he says "I'm not going to Turkey" today, in a week that can change when he sees what his options are. You can write him off next week.

Ok. I understand what you’re saying. But from his perspective, he can stay at a company where he’s earning a huge amount for another year, or he can leave and go somewhere else, possibly somewhere he doesn’t want to go to (yes I know he has to agree to the move), and earn much less.

I know what I’d be doing, and it isn’t moving to a lower contract. If there’s the possibility of his current contract being bought out, I don’t blame him for sitting tight.

 

[Thenewcat]

What you say may be true but I've yet to find an accountant/finance director/CEO who would sign off on a preventable £50,000 asset loss, let alone a £12 million loss on an asset and that's at a couple of £500 million+ turnover companies and a £100 million+ turnover company I've worked at.
Whether that's for accounting reasons, protecting bonuses, or possible fraud I couldn't say but it's what I have experienced in the real world.

You can double down but it just isn’t true at all. If you’ve bought something worthless any accountant worth their salt will write it down to help you. Ndombele isn’t going to magically be worth something in future, so the loss is just about timing

 

[Nebby]

Ok. I understand what you’re saying. But from his perspective, he can stay at a company where he’s earning a huge amount for another year, or he can leave and go somewhere else, possibly somewhere he doesn’t want to go to (yes I know he has to agree to the move), and earn much less.

I know what I’d be doing, and it isn’t moving to a lower contract. If there’s the possibility of his current contract being bought out, I don’t blame him for sitting tight.

Harry Maguire has apparently turned down a pay-off of £6million from United. I think he has two years to go on his contract.

 

[rawhide]

Harry Maguire has apparently turned down a pay-off of £6million from United. I think he has two years to go on his contract.

Like I said, I’m not surprised. But enough of this contact talk. We’ve proper ITK to discuss.

 

[dovahkiin]

brennan

Our interest goes back two years. Involves couple our players, and at least one player. Ange rates him, but I don’t.

 

[nedley]

brennan

Think we're all on boarsd if this is indeed the truth.

But we also heard that Conte wanted Spence.

And that turned out to be bollocks imo.

 

[piedpiper]

I don't get the hype around Brennan Johnson.... we certainly shouldn't be spending the reported sums on him.

 

[Spursberg]

I don't get the hype around Brennan Johnson.... we certainly shouldn't be spending the reported sums on him.

smells like a Levy purchase to me. They want a player from us we need homegrown players. Levy doing the math again instead of going for quality.

 

[Col_M]

What does “ Involves couple our players, and at least one player. “ mean? At least Brennan?

 

[Hotspur88]

What does “ Involves couple our players, and at least one player. “ mean? At least Brennan?

I think he probably meant that it could involve one or two players but I could easily be wrong.

 

[Stoof]

I think he probably meant that it could involve one or two players but I could easily be wrong.

Not less than 1 but no more than 2.

#ConfusingWaysToDraftNumbersOfThingsThatIHaveSeenDraftedInDocumentsFromActualLawyers

 

[Col_M]

I think he probably meant that it could involve one or two players but I could easily be wrong.

ah. As in They like two of our players so one is likely to be in the swap deal

 

[Stoof]

ah. As in They like two of our players so one is likely to be in the swap deal

No, just the actual words he said. It could involve one or two of our players.

 

[Hercules]

I think he probably meant that it could involve one or two players but I could easily be wrong.

Correct!