|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 18, 2024 15:41:03 GMT
Low revenues are no excuse for exploitative employment when it would be easily affordable in the wider context of the club's finances to look after them a little better. It isn't an excuse. An "excuse" would infer the club has done something wrong. It hasn't. It's just business. And there's very little interest or revenue in the women's game. That's the bottom line. This board itself, The Oatcake, is a Stoke City board. It isn't strictly for the men's 1st team. It covers the club as a whole, the youth and academy teams and the women's team. How many posts or threads do you see on the women's team? How many have you made, outside of this thread? The reality is, there's very little interest in it. That's not sexist. It's just the reality. I'm sure all the women who signed contracts were made aware that insurance wasn't a part of the contract. There's no exploitation. It is what it is. It's a non story. Why are you persistently ignoring the point that the men’s team is far, far worse “business” for the owners than the women’s team? Either way none of this is remotely relevant. It makes zero difference how much interest there is in it or how much money it makes or loses, if a multibillion pound corporation decides to be represented by a women’s team, it has an obligation to treat them correctly and maintain medical insurance for their physical well-being. It's so painfully obvious. And thankfully the club disagree with you, as they’ve now seemingly started to cover them. |
|
|
|
Post by delilahwhy on Aug 18, 2024 15:47:41 GMT
It isn't an excuse. An "excuse" would infer the club has done something wrong. It hasn't. It's just business. And there's very little interest or revenue in the women's game. That's the bottom line. This board itself, The Oatcake, is a Stoke City board. It isn't strictly for the men's 1st team. It covers the club as a whole, the youth and academy teams and the women's team. How many posts or threads do you see on the women's team? How many have you made, outside of this thread? The reality is, there's very little interest in it. That's not sexist. It's just the reality. I'm sure all the women who signed contracts were made aware that insurance wasn't a part of the contract. There's no exploitation. It is what it is. It's a non story. Why are you persistently ignoring the point that the men’s team is far, far worse “business” for the owners than the women’s team? Either way none of this is remotely relevant. It makes zero difference how much interest there is in it or how much money it makes or loses, if a multibillion pound corporation decides to be represented by a women’s team, it has an obligation to treat them correctly and maintain medical insurance for their physical well-being. It's so painfully obvious. And thankfully the club disagree with you, as they’ve now seemingly started to cover them. There's Millions and Millions involved in the men's game. They know what they're doing. They're successful business people. Lots of big businesses go through phases of making losses. Doesn't mean they aren't successful in the grand scheme of things and the longer term picture. There's next to nowt in the women's game. Very difficult to sustain it is a going concern. |
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Aug 18, 2024 15:52:43 GMT
how does it compare to semi pro men’s teams , do they look after their injured players any better ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Aug 18, 2024 15:59:01 GMT
how does it compare to semi pro men’s teams , do they look after their injured players any better ? Yes the women are semi-pro. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 18, 2024 16:02:48 GMT
So the men's team can lose millions as a business and we treat the players like overpaid show ponies, the women's team can lose a few grand and we treat them like shit? I think you've just made the Guardian's point for them. There's very little interest in the women's game if we're being honest. Which means very little revenue is generated. That's the bottom line. It's all business related. Sounds to me like the women have a case for unfair treatment. The women's and the men's team are both operating under the SCFC banner and are being treated differently for doing essentially the same job. That's discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 18, 2024 16:05:15 GMT
If you've been injured at work even if your employer doesn't pay you to go private then you don't expect them to terminate your contract while you're unable to work. If your employer did that to you I'd imagine you'd have 'a problem'. Her contract wasn't renewed. That's a part of the game, ruthless or not. Again, are the media going to start printing all stories of where this has happened to others? No doubt she got full pay for the entire time she was injured. A luxury most others don't have the privilege of. It is my understanding that players got minimum wage when they trained and played but got no pay if they didn’t train or play.That’s why they’re Semi pro and not Pro. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Aug 18, 2024 16:06:43 GMT
There's very little interest in the women's game if we're being honest. Which means very little revenue is generated. That's the bottom line. It's all business related. Sounds to me like the women have a case for unfair treatment. The women's and the men's team are both operating under the SCFC banner and are being treated differently for doing essentially the same job. That's discrimination. I find it hard to believe the women weren’t aware of the situation, maybe they didn’t read the handbook |
|
|
|
Post by hamsta2 on Aug 18, 2024 16:08:46 GMT
Her contract wasn't renewed. That's a part of the game, ruthless or not. Again, are the media going to start printing all stories of where this has happened to others? No doubt she got full pay for the entire time she was injured. A luxury most others don't have the privilege of. It is my understanding that players got minimum wage when they trained and played but got no pay if they didn’t train or play.That’s why they’re Semi pro and not Pro. Which is the mark of an extremely poor employer. |
|
|
|
Post by hamsta2 on Aug 18, 2024 16:10:27 GMT
There's very little interest in the women's game if we're being honest. Which means very little revenue is generated. That's the bottom line. It's all business related. Sounds to me like the women have a case for unfair treatment. The women's and the men's team are both operating under the SCFC banner and are being treated differently for doing essentially the same job. That's discrimination. Hmm. I see your point but proving it at a tribunal is difficult ( in most cases), time consuming and expensive. Employment law is a minefield which continually changes. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Aug 18, 2024 16:11:34 GMT
Sounds to me like the women have a case for unfair treatment. The women's and the men's team are both operating under the SCFC banner and are being treated differently for doing essentially the same job. That's discrimination. Hmm. I see your point but proving it at a tribunal is difficult ( in most cases), time consuming and expensive. Employment law is a minefield which continually changes. She hasn’t got a leg to stand on, pun intended |
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Aug 18, 2024 16:12:54 GMT
Sounds to me like the women have a case for unfair treatment. The women's and the men's team are both operating under the SCFC banner and are being treated differently for doing essentially the same job. That's discrimination. I find it hard to believe the women weren’t aware of the situation, maybe they didn’t read the handbook maybe they were blonde 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Aug 18, 2024 16:22:57 GMT
Why are you persistently ignoring the point that the men’s team is far, far worse “business” for the owners than the women’s team? Either way none of this is remotely relevant. It makes zero difference how much interest there is in it or how much money it makes or loses, if a multibillion pound corporation decides to be represented by a women’s team, it has an obligation to treat them correctly and maintain medical insurance for their physical well-being. It's so painfully obvious. And thankfully the club disagree with you, as they’ve now seemingly started to cover them. There's Millions and Millions involved in the men's game. They know what they're doing. They're successful business people. Lots of big businesses go through phases of making losses. Doesn't mean they aren't successful in the grand scheme of things and the longer term picture. There's next to nowt in the women's game. Very difficult to sustain it is a going concern. There's also next to nowt in the men's game. Just about every team makes millions in losses, it is also very difficult to sustain it as going concern, and there's no prospect of that changing. You point out lots of big businesses go through phases of making losses. When do you envisage this loss making phase to end? In the supposed business plan you allude to, what is the time scale in which you expect the men's team to break even and start making a profit? I don't think we can predict that. Same as we can't really predict how the women's game will develop and progress. We could just as easily say that maybe the women's team is going through a phase of making losses. Edit: just realised when you said next to nowt you meant in terms of money involved, and yes there is a lot of money involved in the men's game. There's still next to nowt profit though....in fact less than nowt profit. So I think my point still stands. |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 18, 2024 16:53:21 GMT
Low revenues are no excuse for exploitative employment when it would be easily affordable in the wider context of the club's finances to look after them a little better. It isn't an excuse. An "excuse" would infer the club has done something wrong. It hasn't. It's just business. And there's very little interest or revenue in the women's game. That's the bottom line. This board itself, The Oatcake, is a Stoke City board. It isn't strictly for the men's 1st team. It covers the club as a whole, the youth and academy teams and the women's team. How many posts or threads do you see on the women's team? How many have you made, outside of this thread? The reality is, there's very little interest in it. That's not sexist. It's just the reality. I'm sure all the women who signed contracts were made aware that insurance wasn't a part of the contract. There's no exploitation. It is what it is. It's a non story. We it isn't a non story is it otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it and the more you continue to tslk about it the more of a story it bocomes. It's also got bugger all to do with how popular the womens game is or isn't It's about how employees are treated. You might think it's ok to treat employees badly because the tills aren't ringing in their particular department but I don't - particularly when the cost of doing so is small in the context of the turnover of the club as a whole. And that's not feminist its just about not being a shit employer and not wanting your reputation tarnished.. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 18, 2024 17:06:47 GMT
Sounds to me like the women have a case for unfair treatment. The women's and the men's team are both operating under the SCFC banner and are being treated differently for doing essentially the same job. That's discrimination. I find it hard to believe the women weren’t aware of the situation, maybe they didn’t read the handbook So the clubs defence on an employment tribunal is they should have been aware that they would be subject to discriminatory behaviour therefore it is ok that they should be subject to discriminatory behaviour? The tribunal has to decide whether the contract itself is discriminatory - they will then been deemed of breaching employment law because of the contracts they had written fir women to sign. Whatever happens unless the women concerned are shown to have lied this is very damaging to the club's reputation. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Aug 18, 2024 17:08:56 GMT
I find it hard to believe the women weren’t aware of the situation, maybe they didn’t read the handbook So the clubs defence on an employment tribunal is they should have been aware that they would be subject to discriminatory behaviour therefore it is ok that they should be subject to discriminatory behaviour? The tribunal has to decide whether the contract itself is discriminatory - they will then been deemed of breaching employment law because of the contracts they had written fir women to sign. Whatever happens unless the women concerned are shown to have lied this is very damaging to the club's reputation. That’s right and none of us have any idea how the contracts are set up. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 18, 2024 17:10:30 GMT
Sounds to me like the women have a case for unfair treatment. The women's and the men's team are both operating under the SCFC banner and are being treated differently for doing essentially the same job. That's discrimination. Hmm. I see your point but proving it at a tribunal is difficult ( in most cases), time consuming and expensive. Employment law is a minefield which continually changes. This would be a significant test case - the interpretation of employment law does indeed change and is based in precedent. Thus case could set a precedent. If the women are members of a trade union their union would almost certainly cover the costs and in a case like this a special interest group might step in to cover the costs. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 18, 2024 17:13:27 GMT
So the clubs defence on an employment tribunal is they should have been aware that they would be subject to discriminatory behaviour therefore it is ok that they should be subject to discriminatory behaviour? The tribunal has to decide whether the contract itself is discriminatory - they will then been deemed of breaching employment law because of the contracts they had written fir women to sign. Whatever happens unless the women concerned are shown to have lied this is very damaging to the club's reputation. That’s right and none of us have any idea how the contracts are set up. The contracts almost certainly don't include insurance cover for injuries otherwise this would be a straightforward case of breach of contract. The issue us whether the contracts are discriminatory because the contracts offered male players does include insurance. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Aug 18, 2024 17:14:47 GMT
Are we now accepting the Guardian as a reputable news source for disaffected sporting minorities ? Just Fuck Off. 😂😂😂😂 Anyone who does needs certifying. It really is a hideous cult of misinformation. Have you actually read the the piece, and considered the merits of the story or are you just here to make a cheap political point? Dismissing her account on what basis? It's poor to dismiss this person because of where it is published. The club has plenty of platforms to counter the allegations made here, so it is up to them to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Aug 18, 2024 17:15:09 GMT
Preferential treatment. She wants mens semi pro players to be treated the way that she currently is but she wants women's semi pro players to be treated the same as professionals. And if they aren't willing to comply she will go to the papers and make it into a political battle. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Aug 18, 2024 17:15:13 GMT
That’s right and none of us have any idea how the contracts are set up. The contracts almost certainly don't include insurance cover for injuries otherwise this would be a straightforward case of breach of contract. The issue us whether the contracts are discriminatory because the contracts offered male players does include insurance. I’m no expert in employment contracts but I can’t see how it’s discriminatory if the people involved are aware and sign it anyway |
|
|
|
Post by hamsta2 on Aug 18, 2024 17:21:08 GMT
The contracts almost certainly don't include insurance cover for injuries otherwise this would be a straightforward case of breach of contract. The issue us whether the contracts are discriminatory because the contracts offered male players does include insurance. I’m no expert in employment contracts but I can’t see how it’s discriminatory if the people involved are aware and sign it anyway Neither am I but I work in that field and it’s not as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by hamsta2 on Aug 18, 2024 17:22:27 GMT
Preferential treatment. She wants mens semi pro players to be treated the way that she currently is but she wants women's semi pro players to be treated the same as professionals. And if they aren't willing to comply she will go to the papers and make it into a political battle. I really hope this is an attempt at a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 18, 2024 17:24:35 GMT
The contracts almost certainly don't include insurance cover for injuries otherwise this would be a straightforward case of breach of contract. The issue us whether the contracts are discriminatory because the contracts offered male players does include insurance. I’m no expert in employment contracts but I can’t see how it’s discriminatory if the people involved are aware and sign it anyway As a general point just because you sign a contract doesn't mean that it can't contain terms that are either unfair, discriminatory or unenforceable (as opposed to simply disadvantageous). A court or tribunal with usually favour the employee in such circumstances as it will be deemed that the employer has much more resource at their dispisal to make sure that the contract is legally fair than the employee has to evaluate the legality of what it is that they are signing Obviously I have no insight as to whether this applies in this instance. |
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Aug 18, 2024 17:24:49 GMT
That’s right and none of us have any idea how the contracts are set up. The contracts almost certainly don't include insurance cover for injuries otherwise this would be a straightforward case of breach of contract. The issue us whether the contracts are discriminatory because the contracts offered male players does include insurance. is that the difference between pro and semi pro , do semi pro men get insurance ? |
|
|
|
Post by delilahwhy on Aug 18, 2024 17:32:04 GMT
There's very little interest in the women's game if we're being honest. Which means very little revenue is generated. That's the bottom line. It's all business related. Sounds to me like the women have a case for unfair treatment. The women's and the men's team are both operating under the SCFC banner and are being treated differently for doing essentially the same job. That's discrimination.  |
|
|
|
Post by delilahwhy on Aug 18, 2024 17:34:46 GMT
It isn't an excuse. An "excuse" would infer the club has done something wrong. It hasn't. It's just business. And there's very little interest or revenue in the women's game. That's the bottom line. This board itself, The Oatcake, is a Stoke City board. It isn't strictly for the men's 1st team. It covers the club as a whole, the youth and academy teams and the women's team. How many posts or threads do you see on the women's team? How many have you made, outside of this thread? The reality is, there's very little interest in it. That's not sexist. It's just the reality. I'm sure all the women who signed contracts were made aware that insurance wasn't a part of the contract. There's no exploitation. It is what it is. It's a non story. We it isn't a non story is it otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it and the more you continue to tslk about it the more of a story it bocomes. It's also got bugger all to do with how popular the womens game is or isn't It's about how employees are treated. You might think it's ok to treat employees badly because the tills aren't ringing in their particular department but I don't - particularly when the cost of doing so is small in the context of the turnover of the club as a whole. And that's not feminist its just about not being a shit employer and not wanting your reputation tarnished.. They've treated her in line with the terms of her contract. There was no insurance. She had to wait for the NHS like 99% of the population. As I say, it's a non-story. Click bait at best. Let's move on 👍👍 |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Aug 18, 2024 17:39:59 GMT
The contracts almost certainly don't include insurance cover for injuries otherwise this would be a straightforward case of breach of contract. The issue us whether the contracts are discriminatory because the contracts offered male players does include insurance. is that the difference between pro and semi pro , do semi pro men get insurance ? The FA made it mandatory for all amateur and semi-pro clubs to have insurance in place for all players (since 2011?) This applies to Under 5s teams upwards. All clubs must have Public Liability Insurance cover of at least 10 million pounds (£10,000,000). Clubs can purchase PL insurance cover as part of the affiliation application or must provide evidence of compliant cover in the form of a cover note. non-league changes made 2023 relating to injuries and contracts |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 18, 2024 17:58:59 GMT
We it isn't a non story is it otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it and the more you continue to tslk about it the more of a story it bocomes. It's also got bugger all to do with how popular the womens game is or isn't It's about how employees are treated. You might think it's ok to treat employees badly because the tills aren't ringing in their particular department but I don't - particularly when the cost of doing so is small in the context of the turnover of the club as a whole. And that's not feminist its just about not being a shit employer and not wanting your reputation tarnished.. They've treated her in line with the terms of her contract. There was no insurance. She had to wait for the NHS like 99% of the population. As I say, it's a non-story. Click bait at best. Let's move on 👍👍 A 'non story' you just can't stop talking about or clicking on - the absence of insurance doesn't relieve the employer of liability for the player under contract so unless you've actually read her contract you've no idea whether she's been treated in line with it or not. In the meantime I would expect and want my club to be exemplary when it comes to looking after players who pull on the shirt - at whatever level of representation As I expect you would if Abby Hunt was your daughter |
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Aug 18, 2024 18:00:50 GMT
It’s a first-hand interview. Which part do you suspect to be “misinformation”, bearing in mind we know this exact thing happened with another female Stoke player about a year ago? I don’t trust ANYTHING written by the Guardian. I also have no direct knowledge of the incident. I suspect you also have no direct knowledge of the incident. Therefore I will reserve judgement but stick with my instincts that the shit rag in questions deliberately omits certain facts to adhere to its agenda. What a ridiculous response. You genuinely think every Guardian story is made up? You can be 100% sure their lawyers would not have let this go out if they had not checked it to death. No newspaper would want to go to litigation against our owners. Why would the player choose not to have the operation if it was going to be paid for by the club? I am struggling what facts in the article you think are lies |
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Aug 18, 2024 18:04:36 GMT
Because of a series of stories outing the club as being terrible. It’s not how it should work. You call it terrible. I call it sensible. Opinions, hey. We're a business, not a charity. I believe the women’s team operates under the charitable Community Foundation |
|
