Site Supporter only1swanny Posted March 16, 2016 Site Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2016 I'm not defending him.. Just simply pointing out he had no legal obligation to cover wages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Goodman Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I'm not defending him.. Just simply pointing out he had no legal obligation to cover wages You must be on a wind up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 You must be on a wind up? Why? Do you think he did have a legal obligation to pay their wages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter HomerJay Posted March 16, 2016 Site Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2016 Saul, are you 8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Cheese Posted March 16, 2016 Site Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2016 You must be on a wind up? You do know that when he WAS paying peoples wages, it was out of his own pocket, in the form of money he was LENDING the club. He wasn't running the business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Goodman Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Why? Do you think he did have a legal obligation to pay their wages? More like a moral obligation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leebwfc Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I think everyone will have different opinions of ED in terms of how things have gone tits up and whether he was good or bad for the club.. but he was majority shareholder so whether you think he is a cunt or not he wasn't responsible for paying the wages. I have said the opposite in previous messages usually out of frustration for those not getting paid like "its your club Davies pay your fucking staff" but thats a wrong view in reality because the club should have been run well enough to pay the staff, not that ED should pay it himself. unfortunately a company owned by shareholders will in the main act in the best interests of the shareholders. I don't think that is going to ever change. In my opinion he is as responsible as much as the board for the way this club has been run into the ground and that created the situation where the staff didnt get paid, so he is a cunt for that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter only1swanny Posted March 16, 2016 Site Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2016 More like a moral obligation He invested a fortune and wouldn't see it back.. Why invest more.? Everyone has a cut off point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 More like a moral obligation maybe if the club hadn't been bullied out of having sponsorship money from a loan company they could've used that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leebwfc Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) maybe if the club hadn't been bullied out of having sponsorship money from a loan company they could've used that. Strange point to make about a moral argument, surely if Saul thinks that morally ED should have paid the wages then he will also think that it wouldn't have been very moral to gain sponsorship money from a loan company set up to fleece people with fuck all to start with. Maybe the staff could have been given quickquid loans to cover them?. We should, as a professional football club, be run well enough to not need funding by wankers and also to pay our staff Edited March 16, 2016 by leebwfc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyldesley_white Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 But didn't the staff get paid ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Strange point to make about a moral argument, surely if Saul thinks that morally ED should have paid the wages then he will also think that it wouldn't have been very moral to gain sponsorship money from a loan company set up to fleece people with fuck all to start with. Maybe the staff could have been given quickquid loans to cover them?. We should, as a professional football club, be run well enough to not need funding by wankers and also to pay our staff Not strange at all. These emotive comments don't help. I've seen one today on here mentioning some of the staff have kids. And? It needs to be run like a business. I dread to think of the hand wringing should Deano make redundancies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2e4 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) maybe if the club hadn't been bullied out of having sponsorship money from a loan company they could've used that. Fuckers that don't even go. Stella Creasy Mob grifters whining about shit like women on the paper currency, shit that no one gives two shits about coz they're too busy working. She didn't give a fuck once she got her cut. The should force shit stirring bastards like that to buy 800 goldline tickets a week. Edited March 16, 2016 by e2e4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leebwfc Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Not strange at all. These emotive comments don't help. I've seen one today on here mentioning some of the staff have kids. And? It needs to be run like a business. I dread to think of the hand wringing should Deano make redundancies. Point taken, but its not been run like a business has it, well badly I suppose but run properly then there wouldn't have been a need for quick quid to begin with. I just don't think the clubs inability to pay staff wages was, or should have been because we didn't take money from scumbags, probably a different topic altogether to be fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Every little helps though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyldesley_white Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Lee, it not like we had a shit load of sponsors lined up did we, we then give it away of fuck all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leebwfc Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The way the club has been run, the money from quickquid would have been gone in a month anyway! the lack of alternative sponsors was just another reminder of how wank we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The way the club has been run, the money from quickquid would have been gone in a month anyway! the lack of alternative sponsors was just another reminder of how wank we are. http://www.manutd.com/en/muapps/2015/Aug/STWL-Registration-Left-Hand-Nav.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomski Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 You must be on a wind up?Leave them too it mate. Some odd opinions on this subject and yours isn't one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2e4 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Giving people the ability to get Payday Loans seems a lot more honest than grifting about how bad payday loan firms are, then moving on to the next grift about women in the workplace or whatever and lying about hoax rape threats from sockpuppets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter only1swanny Posted March 16, 2016 Site Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2016 Leave them too it mate. Some odd opinions on this subject and yours isn't one. isn't an odd opinion when its an actual fact, Shareholders are not liable for debts.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomski Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 isn't an odd opinion when its an actual fact, Shareholders are not liable for debts.. I wasn't on about the letter of the law. If that was the case he would of had to have coughed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GudniB Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I blame Sue Davies. Telling Eddie he had spent enough on BWFC, when he had only spent a measly £170million, was entirely unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I used to be in the I don't know camp,but the fact that Eddie a multi millionaire, skipped paying his staff, some who have kids to feed, puts me in the league of never being able to trust him. What if instead he had made half of them redundant 2 years a go in a cost cutting exercise to bring our outgoings more in line with income? Would he have been more a cunt or less a cunt? Surely trying to keep them employed as long as possible counts for something? If Deano and his merry men make hundreds of them redundant this summer will he also be labelled a cunt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomski Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 What if instead he had made half of them redundant 2 years a go in a cost cutting exercise to bring our outgoings more in line with income? Would he have been more a cunt or less a cunt? Surely trying to keep them employed as long as possible counts for something? If Deano and his merry men make hundreds of them redundant this summer will he also be labelled a cunt? You can't be suggesting he did all this for his employees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.