Ched Evans kicked into touch - at last.

[grimbletart]

At last Sheffield United have done the decent thing.

[www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30054475]

Anne - this isn't surprising, and any observer could point to any facet of the management of the club and claim 'this is how the club feel'. You'd also be free to speculate on the internal power dynamics in any organisation, where the issue at hand disguises other agendas i.e. here maybe Phipps has concerns about his own influence/authority in other areas and wishes to use this issue as a stick.

On Zazzles point about the impact of contracts with sponsors, I don't recognise any of that, tbh. IN my dealings, it's usually at service level agreement level (SLAs), which concern themselves with info sharing protocols with a view to Data Protection, and are largely uncontroversial as they don't involve a lot of money. So I'm trusted with those.

Sometimes though it's also with commercial contracts with private companies. If I were ever to present a proposed bidders offerings with an element that says "IF they don't think we can meet their KPIs, then they can terminate it with no recourse", our Contracts Manager would look at me with a highly-arched brow and she'd wonder if I was on glue, or had received a back hander.
I'd still say that there would be a host of competers to replace those companies and they would do so knowing that in 6 months or a year or so, the CE factor would be utterly irrelevant.

I've just seen that the 'anger' from Phipps was about denying an opportunity for rehabilitation. An opportunity which CE consistently refuses.

Service level agreements are completely different from sponsorship contracts. The sponsorship contracts mentioned on this thread are not SLAs. I have dealt with both in my professional capacity, and I have seen KPIs in both of them. Just because the ones you see don't have KPIs doesn't mean there aren't contracts which do. Even in the SLAs in my industry we are contracted to buy a certain amount of product from a supplier, and they are contracted to supply a certain amount - if either party were unable to reach that KPI, then they are able to either look outside the contract, or terminate the contract completely. A work colleague has warned me that she will be assessing a supply contract in the next 2 months for possible termination. Just because your experience of sponsorship contracts do no have KPIs doesn't mean that there are sponsorships contracts which do.

Erm..I did say that SLAs are not the commercial contracts, necessarily with with KPIs - they are quite different as you say Zazzles. And I don't deal with sponsorship contracts, just 'service-supply' ones. Even when I have those, the contract review sessions are tedious defined - lots of suits arguing minor detail when the actual activities we do are really interesting. That's what I'm immersed in, not the contracts stuff. I'd much prefer that people like you are around, to do that for us.
But we are wandering off the purpose of the thread, aren't we, to which I've contributed.

No, to bring it back to the topic, you said:

I'd think the shirt sponsorship thing isn't so strong here.

There would still be lots of other local companies willing to take up the opportunity to have the coverage, despite the association with CE.

I am simply pointing out that this view is incorrect. This absolutely would and should have an impact on the companies that either sponsor or want to sponsor CE. As you don't deal with sponsorship contracts your view isn't correct, and as your experience is with SLAs that don't have KPIs, your view isn't really valid.

Btw, in a sponsorship, any negative press about the sponsored should and would lead to a termination of that sponsorship contract. A sponsor does not want that sort of negative press rubbing off on them.

okay. No the sponsorship thing isn't so strong as, as I've said also apart from the technical stuff, in 6 months/year the CE effect will be irrelevant. So no, tbh it isn't incorrect.
And not being valid? I'd pointed out the clear nonsense you'd posted about the detail of contracts re cop out on not meeting KPIs. So either you make stuff up out your imagination, or you are shit at what you do. Either way is fine, as re this issue on CE it has no impact.

Aww insulting me again??? Wow, you haven't learned from last time have you? Why do you need to insult a woman, when she has pointed out that your view is not right in some way? Why is that? Would you have a problem with a man telling you you were wrong in some way? You know that descending into an insult says so, so, so much about you, and nothing about me? I am pointing out the inconsistencies in your posts as they are misleading - why do you have such a problem with that? Btw, have you been banned recently and name changed and come back?

no, I am pretty sure you've been sort of called out on posting nonsense on detail re contracts, which you think you can 'bamboozle' posters on with alleged expertise, which is actually froth. I haven't insulted you Zazzles, just challenged that which you post, and claim as 'knowledge'. Nothing to do with your sex or gender. It's still nonsense whoever posted it.

Have I been 'banned'? . Just a bit more of your frankly inadequate nonsense. Sorry.

g'night.

Aww more name calling from you . I guess that is to be expected. No you haven't even 'sort of' called me on stuff. You have insulted me, you said you are shit at what you do. The proof is there in writing, can you not go back to your own post and see that? What you are doing is known as gaslighting - presenting false information with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity. Can't do that to me I'm afraid, I see through that , and its there in print for everyone else to see as well.

I am sure that you would like to think I am less intelligent than I actually am, because that serves your own purpose doesn't it? Why would you need to think a woman is less intelligent than a man? What agenda does that serve for you? And do you think that all women post nonsense? Or is it just the women who challenge you?

Oddly, males have a very strong hand to play in this.

apart from the technical stuff, in 6 months/year the CE effect will be irrelevant

Not sure why you crossed out "and male" there

That own petard keeps hoisting.

Zazzles, Pan changes name a fair bit but is always Pan, AFAIK,

Zazzles, unlikely to been banned, but, as Yonic says, he does NC quite a bit. Always has Pan in the name so you can spot him coming though.

...so you can spot him coming though

Yes, its always the same schtick isn't it?

Morning!
oh, I see the same 'alleged misogyny-based' obfustication, Zazzles. Doesn't really cut the mustard - just a cheap slur. So good luck with that. Shall we move on?

Back on CE...I see Graham Taylor, a former England footie manager indicates CE won't be signing another pro contract (at least not at the same level he was at when convicted) - because of all the baggage he brings. I'd played representative footie up to quite a good grade, sort of 'county level' in other sports, and even there it was clear it was stuffed with highly competitive alpha males, and sometimes it was pretty unpleasant. Trouble for CE is that society has evolved, and esp at the big earning level the accountability has markedly increased. 10 years ago, or probably even less than that, he could have 'gotten away with it' and played again. Not so now.

Why do you find it so hard to accept that posters have a certain view of you? Why are you trying to denigrate me and my opinion again? Do you try that with all women that challenge you? Are you unable to interact respectfully in a discussion with women, especially if they don't agree with you? Your language is very reminiscent of MRAs the world over. Why can't you see that?

Do you realise that by not examining yourself on a deeper level, you are doing yourself a disservice? You profess not to be a misgynist, but then are willing to dismiss and denigrate a woman on a feminist's board no less. Don't you think that is rather contradictory if you aren't a misogynist? How does this square with your conscience?

oh change the bloody record eh Zazzles? It's the same faux psychology/psycho-analysis you trot out right across the board when, it seems, you feel like 'having a go' or disagree with someone and wish to 'silence' them. It was tres tedious first time and it hasn't gotten any better.

I'd picked up your stuff recently from another thread too. It's as if the criticisms expressed a few weeks ago re the FWR has no bearing on you, esp the 'exclusivity' thing. Have a little look at yourself over that, eh?

AHEM

Random.

I'm going to complain to HQ. None of ^ those smilies are on my list!

cool.