|
|
Post by Squeekster on Aug 18, 2024 18:09:02 GMT
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. Not really, she had a choice to sign or not, she would of been well aware of the contract she signed, this stinks to me as bet365 have zillions but I didn't get a penny. |
|
|
|
Post by redphizzer on Aug 18, 2024 21:46:07 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. What newspaper do you read? Come on, give us a laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by maine on Aug 18, 2024 23:27:44 GMT
Must admit that I hope Abby Hunt gets access to this thread. As it's generally supportive, it might give her some helpful ideas. Unfortunately at times it's deeply depressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 18, 2024 23:37:08 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. What newspaper do you read? Come on, give us a laugh. Since the Guardian is believed by 76% of the population and the Daily Hate only 46% I'm hoping it's the Daily Hate 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by hamsta2 on Aug 18, 2024 23:48:13 GMT
Which is the mark of an extremely poor employer. Not really, she had a choice to sign or not, she would of been well aware of the contract she signed, this stinks to me as bet365 have zillions but I didn't get a penny. Wrong on several counts. |
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Aug 19, 2024 7:58:02 GMT
Not really, she had a choice to sign or not, she would of been well aware of the contract she signed, this stinks to me as bet365 have zillions but I didn't get a penny. Wrong on several counts. Do tell. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 19, 2024 11:29:54 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 The club is responsible for what is in the contracts they issue. An employment tribunal could decide that the contracts are in breach of employment law - in which case the fact that somebody signed the contract is irrelevant because the contract itself will have been deemed to be discriminatory. If the women's team was run by a separate company that only ran a womens semi pro team then it could be argued that the contracts are not discriminatory because that company does not employ men on a different contract doing the same job. The issue here is that SCFC are employing both men and women doing essentially the same job albeit in different contexts. Employment tribunals will also look at the economic circumstances of the company and whether it is reasonable to expect the company to be able to afford to do what they need to do to ensure compliance and will be lenient on small companies who would struggle to accommodate the changes required to comply. Clearly SCFC could not use that to defend their practices - they could afford to insure women if they wanted to and indeed have just done it. My money is on an out of court settlement |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 19, 2024 11:42:38 GMT
Which is the mark of an extremely poor employer. Not really, she had a choice to sign or not, she would of been well aware of the contract she signed, this stinks to me as bet365 have zillions but I didn't get a penny. That isn't how it works. Employment legislation is there to ensure companies don't get away with discriminatory practices. Many industry's are male dominated. If all the companies in an industrial sector offered different contracts for men and women doing the same job they would not get away with saying the women were not being discriminated against because they agreed to sign the contract. The companies would be using their power to define the contracts to ensure women were being descrimated against - that would be a breach of employment law. Birmingham City Council got fined millions because they paid a group of workers who were predominantly women lower wages than another group of workers who were predominantly men. The women weren't doing the same job as the mem but they demonstrated in a tribunal that the work was of equal value - similar level of qualifications and complexity and it resulted in the entire public sector having to review all their contracts to ensure they weren't discriminatory. The fact the women in Birmingham had signed their contracts was irrelevant - the contracts themselves were discriminatory. |
|
|
|
Post by independent on Aug 19, 2024 11:46:14 GMT
It seems obvious to me that the Club’s owners have no interest in the Women’s team. Unless they are embarrassed into doing something , then nothing happens. Norton, ACL, and this girls injury, at least they are now insured. I really think that the Owners should either disband the team or else put some proper investment into it. Were the Women to win promotion to the Championship then at least 1 or 2 million a year would have to be put in each year. And this amount is only going to grow as the Championship shortly becomes a fully Professional League demanding better facilities and staffing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Aug 19, 2024 12:06:36 GMT
As a stoke fan I don't really like the story and I don't share your view That's fair enough. We're not a charity though, we're a business. We're not going to throw huge amounts of money at a Division of the Business that returns very little. That's just common sense. It's not exactly a nice story to read but she's not alone in having to wait for NHS treatment and not having their employer pay for them to go private. Absolutely Out of curiosity, how many attend these games? Is ok many sat criticising and saying throw money at it if the interest isn't there from the start. |
|
|
|
Post by independent on Aug 19, 2024 12:21:43 GMT
Reading about players , even in the Championship, being paid minimum wages for 18 hours a week it seems likely that things are even worse as you go down the Leagues. The situation is horrendous.
I saw a headline “Premier League invests in Womens’ Football” but when I read the article it stated that the Prem. had given a loan of £20 million – some investment. They need to be giving at least £40/50 million a year for at least 10 years to get Womens’ Football established. Otherwise it looks like the game is going to be put on life support, just like Stoke Women, until Players realise that it is a mug’s game trying to make a career in it. Paying a few players at the top big money for a while won't cover up the poverty in the rest of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by matelot1996 on Aug 24, 2024 17:34:31 GMT
What newspaper do you read? Come on, give us a laugh. Since the Guardian is believed by 76% of the population and the Daily Hate only 46% I'm hoping it's the Daily Hate 😆 Not sure what the Daily hate is? Is that an "in - joke" between Guardian Reading, Rainbow flag waving, lefties? For the record I subscribe to the Digital Version of the Times. A quality, balanced read with no hint of hatred towards any opposing political demographic. If you honestly believe 76% of the public believe what is written in the Guardian then you are a cliche that cannot be helped  Ironically a paper driven by hatred of anything that challenges their world order view. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 24, 2024 18:39:39 GMT
Since the Guardian is believed by 76% of the population and the Daily Hate only 46% I'm hoping it's the Daily Hate 😆 Not sure what the Daily hate is? Is that an "in - joke" between Guardian Reading, Rainbow flag waving, lefties? For the record I subscribe to the Digital Version of the Times. A quality, balanced read with no hint of hatred towards any opposing political demographic. If you honestly believe 76% of the public believe what is written in the Guardian then you are a cliche that cannot be helped Ironically a paper driven by hatred of anything that challenges their world order view. It's not what I believe or don't believe that matters too much in this case. It was the results of a poll carried out by OfCom. I'm assuming you have evidence to the contrary? |
|
|
|
Post by matelot1996 on Aug 24, 2024 18:47:11 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. Yes, I can read perfectly Thanks. To me it boils down to simple matter of Contracts. I'm guessing her contract (If she even sign one ?) doesn't include medical bills for injuries ? Did her contract (If she even signed one ?) prevent dismissal if they were injured? My employers don't pay for medical bills. Maybe the financing of Stoke Women's football by the big nasty Bet365 didn't stretch to private medical insurance or maintaining employment in the vent of incapacity. The latter half of the "Journalism" is a classic Guardian attack on capitalism and the nasty Men's game not suitably supporting the Women's game. Feel sorry for the Girl but I will reserve judgement until Stoke's side of the story emerges (Which were strangely omitted from this piece) |
|
|
|
Post by matelot1996 on Aug 24, 2024 18:51:25 GMT
Not sure what the Daily hate is? Is that an "in - joke" between Guardian Reading, Rainbow flag waving, lefties? For the record I subscribe to the Digital Version of the Times. A quality, balanced read with no hint of hatred towards any opposing political demographic. If you honestly believe 76% of the public believe what is written in the Guardian then you are a cliche that cannot be helped Ironically a paper driven by hatred of anything that challenges their world order view. It's not what I believe or don't believe that matters too much in this case. It was the results of a poll carried out by OfCom. I'm assuming you have evidence to the contrary? Ahh That pillar of truth Offcom. I'm sure they surveyed a wide range of people with differing political opinions. Must be true then. |
|
|
|
Post by hamsta2 on Aug 24, 2024 19:06:10 GMT
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. They’d take it on if they thought they’ve got at least an 80% chance of success. And that’s being relatively generous. It’s not a criticism - it’s the reality - been working with it for 25 years |
|
|
|
Post by hamsta2 on Aug 24, 2024 19:08:07 GMT
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 The club is responsible for what is in the contracts they issue. An employment tribunal could decide that the contracts are in breach of employment law - in which case the fact that somebody signed the contract is irrelevant because the contract itself will have been deemed to be discriminatory. If the women's team was run by a separate company that only ran a womens semi pro team then it could be argued that the contracts are not discriminatory because that company does not employ men on a different contract doing the same job. The issue here is that SCFC are employing both men and women doing essentially the same job albeit in different contexts. Employment tribunals will also look at the economic circumstances of the company and whether it is reasonable to expect the company to be able to afford to do what they need to do to ensure compliance and will be lenient on small companies who would struggle to accommodate the changes required to comply. Clearly SCFC could not use that to defend their practices - they could afford to insure women if they wanted to and indeed have just done it. My money is on an out of court settlement It’s called ‘ a commercial decision’ in some quartets. A settlement closes it down, nothing will be said any more and it’s a result for both sides. Hardh may be but true. IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 24, 2024 19:40:08 GMT
It's not what I believe or don't believe that matters too much in this case. It was the results of a poll carried out by OfCom. I'm assuming you have evidence to the contrary? Ahh That pillar of truth Offcom. I'm sure they surveyed a wide range of people with differing political opinions. Must be true then. Why would they rig it? Sounds a bit Trumpish 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by matelot1996 on Aug 25, 2024 9:12:35 GMT
Ahh That pillar of truth Offcom. I'm sure they surveyed a wide range of people with differing political opinions. Must be true then. Why would they rig it? Sounds a bit Trumpish 🤔 Spoken like a cliche’d Guardian Reader 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 25, 2024 9:27:49 GMT
The club is responsible for what is in the contracts they issue. An employment tribunal could decide that the contracts are in breach of employment law - in which case the fact that somebody signed the contract is irrelevant because the contract itself will have been deemed to be discriminatory. If the women's team was run by a separate company that only ran a womens semi pro team then it could be argued that the contracts are not discriminatory because that company does not employ men on a different contract doing the same job. The issue here is that SCFC are employing both men and women doing essentially the same job albeit in different contexts. Employment tribunals will also look at the economic circumstances of the company and whether it is reasonable to expect the company to be able to afford to do what they need to do to ensure compliance and will be lenient on small companies who would struggle to accommodate the changes required to comply. Clearly SCFC could not use that to defend their practices - they could afford to insure women if they wanted to and indeed have just done it. My money is on an out of court settlement It’s called ‘ a commercial decision’ in some quartets. A settlement closes it down, nothing will be said any more and it’s a result for both sides. Hardh may be but true. IMO. Yes - I was a union rep and you are right in that most cases dont end up in a tribunal and are settled usually with a non disclosure agreement. My main point is that people are assuming that the contract that Abby signed is the be all and end all in the matter. It isn't. The contract itself could be deemed discriminatory and therefore a breach of employment law but that have to be decided at an employment tribunal and would set a precedent - clubs offering the same contracts would have to change them or face a claim from all the women players that signed them. If Abby takes up the case it's more likely she will get a payoff with a NDA and the clubs will can get away with offering discriminatory contracts until a case is taken to a tribunal and is successful. Employers will make a commercial decision - is it going to be cheaper to pay off the occasional claimant or change all the contracts. As well as the financial side they will also look at the optics - what they are doing isn't a great look and makes a mockery of any claims about supporting the women's game. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 25, 2024 9:28:19 GMT
Why would they rig it? Sounds a bit Trumpish 🤔 Spoken like a cliche’d Guardian Reader 😂 I don't really read any newspapers that aren't linked on here, the only link I won't read on here is one to the Daily Mail because I know for an absolute stone cold fact that they make stuff up, it seems that in an independent survey more people think that than don't. Again, why would Ofcom rig it? What do they stand to gain? |
|
|
|
Post by gaznandi on Aug 25, 2024 9:38:26 GMT
Since the Guardian is believed by 76% of the population and the Daily Hate only 46% I'm hoping it's the Daily Hate 😆 For the record I subscribe to the Digital Version of the Times. A quality, balanced read with no hint of hatred towards any opposing political demographic. Quality balanced read owned by the Rupert Murdoch News Corporation. OK then.... |
|
|
|
Post by redphizzer on Aug 25, 2024 10:30:57 GMT
Since the Guardian is believed by 76% of the population and the Daily Hate only 46% I'm hoping it's the Daily Hate 😆 Not sure what the Daily hate is? Is that an "in - joke" between Guardian Reading, Rainbow flag waving, lefties? For the record I subscribe to the Digital Version of the Times. A quality, balanced read with no hint of hatred towards any opposing political demographic. If you honestly believe 76% of the public believe what is written in the Guardian then you are a cliche that cannot be helped Ironically a paper driven by hatred of anything that challenges their world order view. So, when did you last read the Guardian? And, which articles demonstrated a hatred of anything challenging their own views? |
|
|
|
Post by frasier37 on Aug 25, 2024 10:50:49 GMT
Only my my view but, I don't think the player was demanding the club should pay.... help funding her op was asked on social media. (Very understandable)
It became so popular by caring people that it shamed the club. (((Good))) imo
Not the players doing.
Media outlets ask her about the story.....she says it like it is.
Im sure more on here would be more supportive if the billionaires being shamed weren't red and white.
Thank goodness for thoughtful caring human beings.
|
|
|
|
Post by matelot1996 on Aug 25, 2024 14:52:28 GMT
For the record I subscribe to the Digital Version of the Times. A quality, balanced read with no hint of hatred towards any opposing political demographic. Quality balanced read owned by the Rupert Murdoch News Corporation. OK then.... Irrelevant and a very Silly Juxtaposition to make really. I really don’t have a great deal of time for Guardian readers generally as they all sound the same and trot out the same tired diatribes about the same subjects. You know, Trump, Conservatism, Capitalism, Immigration, LGBT. It’s the very definition of “Group Think” by a cult like band of its followers. I like to have a more balanced centrist Journalism which leaves me to form my own opinions. The original article in OP literally implores the reader to hate Stoke City, Denise Coates and the Bet365 without any comment from the other side of the argument. That’s the modus operandi of that shit rag in plain text, for every sensible person to see. If you want your thoughts and hatred for certain entities eg murdoch corp, Trump etc to be shaped by media then the Guardian is your paper. |
|
|
|
Post by redphizzer on Aug 25, 2024 15:42:21 GMT
Quality balanced read owned by the Rupert Murdoch News Corporation. OK then.... Irrelevant and a very Silly Juxtaposition to make really. I really don’t have a great deal of time for Guardian readers generally as they all sound the same and trot out the same tired diatribes about the same subjects. You know, Trump, Conservatism, Capitalism, Immigration, LGBT. It’s the very definition of “Group Think” by a cult like band of its followers. I like to have a more balanced centrist Journalism which leaves me to form my own opinions. The original article in OP literally implores the reader to hate Stoke City, Denise Coates and the Bet365 without any comment from the other side of the argument. That’s the modus operandi of that shit rag in plain text, for every sensible person to see. If you want your thoughts and hatred for certain entities eg murdoch corp, Trump etc to be shaped by media then the Guardian is your paper. Sorry mate, but if you read the article then you would see you're wrong to write that it was written 'without any comment from the other side...'. Here is that comment - "The club said: “All of Stoke’s women’s team, regardless of injury or contract status, were offered an end-of-season meeting with the head coach and her coaching team. The club’s investment in women’s football has increased year-on-year with the women’s team achieving semi-professional status from the 2023-24 season onwards – the team are paid, fully insured and benefit from investment in, and improvement to, the infrastructure and support available to them. Stoke City supports and is fully committed to the growth of women’s football.” |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 26, 2024 9:47:02 GMT
Irrelevant and a very Silly Juxtaposition to make really. I really don’t have a great deal of time for Guardian readers generally as they all sound the same and trot out the same tired diatribes about the same subjects. You know, Trump, Conservatism, Capitalism, Immigration, LGBT. It’s the very definition of “Group Think” by a cult like band of its followers. I like to have a more balanced centrist Journalism which leaves me to form my own opinions. The original article in OP literally implores the reader to hate Stoke City, Denise Coates and the Bet365 without any comment from the other side of the argument. That’s the modus operandi of that shit rag in plain text, for every sensible person to see. If you want your thoughts and hatred for certain entities eg murdoch corp, Trump etc to be shaped by media then the Guardian is your paper. Sorry mate, but if you read the article then you would see you're wrong to write that it was written 'without any comment from the other side...'. Here is that comment - "The club said: “All of Stoke’s women’s team, regardless of injury or contract status, were offered an end-of-season meeting with the head coach and her coaching team. The club’s investment in women’s football has increased year-on-year with the women’s team achieving semi-professional status from the 2023-24 season onwards – the team are paid, fully insured and benefit from investment in, and improvement to, the infrastructure and support available to them. Stoke City supports and is fully committed to the growth of women’s football.” So basically we aren't denying the story, we got caught out and are now doing something about it because it isn't a good look. To be fair the club have made changes and we'll done Abby for bringing it to people's attention - it takes guts to come out stand up like that given the crap she would get as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by maine on Aug 26, 2024 17:25:20 GMT
CBU etc said
' it takes guts to come out stand up like that given the crap she would get as a result.'
Exactly and sadly some of it appears on this Oatcake thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Aug 26, 2024 18:51:46 GMT
Quality balanced read owned by the Rupert Murdoch News Corporation. OK then.... Irrelevant and a very Silly Juxtaposition to make really. I really don’t have a great deal of time for Guardian readers generally as they all sound the same and trot out the same tired diatribes about the same subjects. You know, Trump, Conservatism, Capitalism, Immigration, LGBT. It’s the very definition of “Group Think” by a cult like band of its followers. I like to have a more balanced centrist Journalism which leaves me to form my own opinions. The original article in OP literally implores the reader to hate Stoke City, Denise Coates and the Bet365 without any comment from the other side of the argument. That’s the modus operandi of that shit rag in plain text, for every sensible person to see. If you want your thoughts and hatred for certain entities eg murdoch corp, Trump etc to be shaped by media then the Guardian is your paper. That's a poor stereotype imo that doesn't relate to my reality. I read the Guardian more than any other paper while I often find myself disagreeing strongly with many of their stances in articles. This would seem to undermine your argument as does the fact that you don't seem to have read the article which does include a statement from the Club (for balance?) Maybe reading the article you comment on is a sensible place to start forming your own opinion rather jumping to conclusions? |
|
