She's a 30 year old footballer, she'll know as much about UK tax rules, as I know about making a soufflé.
Mark Sampson done one.
- Thread starter John Ex Aberdeen now E.R.
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
She's a 30 year old footballer, she'll know as much about UK tax rules, as I know about making a soufflé.
She's a 30 year old qualified lawyer, she's knows more about financial settlements than most.
Bit patronising that OLM. She's got a first class law degree, she may well have exercised her brain cells on UK tax law.
I wasn't suggesting she was an idiot, she's quite obviously a very bright woman, but the PFA negotiated the terms of the settlement and I'm sure it was them who specified the terms (she's a lawyer, not an accountant).
Agreed, but it was still patronising.
I'm a self-employed computer programmer not an accountant but I know about the tax regulations that can affect me because I looked them up and asked people questions. She could easily have done then same and instructed the PFA what terms she wanted them to negotiate for her.
I also know how to make a souffle.
You don't need specialist knowledge to know a tax exemption on 'lost earnings' is immoral, you're not recouping lost earnings, you're making money on top of what you would have earned, essentially profiting from the situation.
She will have seen the settlement before it was presented, she had the chance to remove that part, if indeed this was just about justice and not money she would have asked them to take it out.
The players. You may well be right about him legally having a case for unfair dismissal, the FA are to blame for this fiasco as far as I can see.
I just wonder whether he may well let sleeping dogs lie, as it is likely what went on at Bristol would be dragged through the mud, which might be more damaging for him. It may be better for him to have a go at the FA and get them to settle out of court so to speak, as that might suit both parties.
I have never liked the guy, I think he is arrogant, and appeared to feel that he was shot proof and water proof, and could say and do whatever he liked and get away with it. Well great credit to Aluko and the other girl for coming out and not letting it get swept under the carpet.
It was a childish response to what I saw as an initial childish response, Fez. Maybe let's both be grown-ups about it? As for my record, I have also managed large teams and am often used as 'independent official' who semi-frequently sits in on employment disputes within my company (someone between the union and HR if you like). All very mundane (I spend a fair bit of time listening to 'experts'), but probably, along with a long-standing admiration of women's football, what aroused my interest in this matter. As for the racism, I'm sure you know as well as I do that racism isn't a black and white issue, if you'll pardon what I promise you isn't a horrible pun. The judge stated that he isn't racist, but essentially discriminated against someone based on her colour. I think the only person who can truly answer what his intentions were (and broadly speaking, where racism is concerned I think that intent and context are of key importance) is Sampson. If the allegations against Kendall are proved to be true, however, it does all paint a picture of a worrying atmosphere within the set-up. We disagree for the most part on Aluko's actions, which I doubt is going to alter much.
I agree with your final sentence in full. The comments from David Bernstein this morning, if you've read them, are pretty telling.
Her colour wasn't mentioned at all and is completely irrelevant, he made reference to the geographical location from which her family were travelling from, that's it, no mention of race or colour, anything people choose to interpret from what he said is conjecture.
The ruling said: "I have concluded that on two separate occasions, MS has made ill-judged attempts at humour, which, as a matter of law, were discriminatory on the grounds of race within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010." That's a mention of race, which is what I was referring to above. I get what you're saying but from my reading of everything on this I don't see how it is 'completely irrelevant'.
Everything seems black and white these days.
Sure I wouldn't ever think of making an ebola joke like that, but at the same time I very much doubt he's racist, most people aren't.
Sure I wouldn't ever think of making an ebola joke like that, but at the same time I very much doubt he's racist, most people aren't.
I think the chances of a qualified lawyer signing an agreement without knowing all the details within it, are approximately zero.
I make an excellent tax-exempt soufflé. The key is not using a vat when whisking.
I wasn't suggesting she hadn't read the terms, merely that it was the PFA, rather than her, who came up with those terms.
Isn't it amazing how a seemingly harmless comment can be taken offence at ...
... although I am not saying it is as offensive as the stupid jokey remarks, just a point immediately made.
I really do not see what was childish about my original post, I simply used your own words to agree with you. My growing up was done a long time ago and I have been viewing this as fairly as I am able (with the information available).
Your involvement in disputes must surely have given you a good insight to matters such as this, so why so coy, our life experience should stand us in good stead?
The barrister who judged this review said he wasn't racist, Sampson has said he isn't racist. I have only ever discussed the situation and cause of Sampson's dismissal from the England post; Kendall was never given as a part of the reason. Or do you know something other to that?
I have yet to see Bernstein's comments.