I've not seen anything to suggest the current dozy incumbent of this great club is doing any less damage than Roland. We've protested over on par situations in the past. Can anyone tell me one positive implementation that this fella has bought to us in nigh on two years?
#Sandgaardout!
I think the protests would probably start after January if/when we’ve fallen way off the play offs. Somehow we are still not that far off them at the moment so TS has a January window to try and save himself
I don't think protests will be necessary, Sandgaard doesn't have the money that RD has and is getting desperate to offload. I suppose he might worry if he was showing prospective buyers around and it was all kicking off, one flaw in that plan though, nobody will give him a bean for the club so there won't be anyone to show around.
Is he desperate to offload? That’s an assumption. If he wanted out I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say so to avoid any grief. Even if he is looking for a way out I think he would need pressure put on him to drop his probably deluded asking price so protests would still be necessary
Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?
I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up.
I've not seen anything to suggest the current dozy incumbent of this great club is doing any less damage than Roland. We've protested over on par situations in the past. Can anyone tell me one positive implementation that this fella has bought to us in nigh on two years?
#Sandgaardout!
I think the protests would probably start after January if/when we’ve fallen way off the play offs. Somehow we are still not that far off them at the moment so TS has a January window to try and save himself
I don't think protests will be necessary, Sandgaard doesn't have the money that RD has and is getting desperate to offload. I suppose he might worry if he was showing prospective buyers around and it was all kicking off, one flaw in that plan though, nobody will give him a bean for the club so there won't be anyone to show around.
Is he desperate to offload? That’s an assumption. If he wanted out I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say so to avoid any grief. Even if he is looking for a way out I think he would need pressure put on him to drop his probably deluded asking price so protests would still be necessary
Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?
I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up.
Confidence comes from knowledge, so what is the basis of your confidence J Block ?
Sounds like dodgy advice, possibly from the solicitor/lawyer that was strongly rumoured to have their place of work on an industrial site in Maidstone ?
SO glad you're out of this madhouse, Dan !
Isn't that just a standard non-compete/non-solicitation clause? Had them in most of my contracts back when I was an employee.
Really ?
I guess as an ex civil service long term employee there was NO "associated company" !
It used to be in my contacts in Finanial Services but it was 3 months not 12. I'm not sure 12 is legal, but stand to be corrected on that.
Just picking up on this thread.
A non-compete clause is the norm rather than the exception, however 12 months, although lawful to include, would be successfully challenged in court as being unreasonable and therefore unenforceable.
3-6 months is not unreasonable but even then would only be for senior staff and any period that the ex-employee would not be able to ply their trade would be expected to be paid.
Hard to see on what basis most/all employees could be competing with Charlton unless working for another football club. Not sure how working for a sponsor is competing? Perhaps they are worried about someone working for a sponsor and then getting the sponsor to withdraw sponsorship? I am sure there would be other legal mechanisms in place to cover that though.
It all seems bonkers and completely OTT, but it is sort of what you would expect isn't it? As others have said, things are starting to get as weird as in the Roland days.
Indeed - any non-compete clause would have to state clearly the nature of that 'competition'. CAFC is not in competition with heating and ventilation suppliers for example, or kit manufacturers.
He can put whatever he likes into a contract change, but firstly the employees have to agree with that change and secondly even if they do it would be dead in the water if he ever thought about suing them (absolute madness for him to even think that would be doable).
Hiya Bob, my information is…… staff are well aware the law is on their side, but they are also well aware of the methods used if they refuse to sign
Hi Ray - then they should sign it and then tear it up when they leave. There is the square root of f*ck all Tommy boy could do about it.
Easy for me to say, I know, they have to deal with these wankers on a daily basis.
Of all the things that need to be managed something like this is a non priority ( but it gives us an insight into the petty mindedness and unprofessional way they manage) For Raelynn read KM ..
I worked for ages in an environment where employees had these type of " handcuffs " but never put them in contracts myself..there are much better ways of managing people.
Of all the things wrong with TS management this shd be about 2,000 on a to do list ..what's worse though is that the petty vengeances are so opaque
So is this clause being added just as a housekeeping type thing or under some other explanation?
Whilst easy to comment when not personally impacted I hope it can taken as a non issue on a practical level for most.
If you were concerned about not being able to join another company who are a sponsor / supplier wouldn’t you just resign and join them anyway if that offer existed today?
Presumably they can’t introduce the clause against your will without some sort of severance if it’s a red line for anyone. But maybe they can?
To play devils advocate is the explanation actually it’s genuinely only a housekeeping tidy up on contracts that didn’t exist before and simplifies / harmonises for all? Only some more senior staff would practically see this clause try to be invoked i.e. those with a longer notice period and then it’s a negotiation point between you and your prospective new employer isn’t it?
but as I understand the club don’t pay very well it’s hard to see anyone not jumping ship if they had a genuine opportunity with a sponsor for example.
Or you could just look on it as more bullying, which is how I see it. There is good reason based on recent history to think staff who don’t sign it may be victimised, and it’s likely to intimidate them while having no practical effect in law.
I meant more how was it being 'sold' or 'explained' to the staff.
They we’re firing Hot Dogs into the MLB stands in Philadelphia, USA over a decade ago. I have no idea whether they still do it. Is it something I would recommend for the UK? No, but it is hardly the crime of the century. A simple Google search will reveal all.
In terms of non compete clauses might I suggest people actually read the text.
It is not a generic non compete clause.
It is specific to the corporate relationships entered into by the club where commercial data is deemed sensitive. Non compete clauses in such scenarios are as common as any other corporate confidentiality clauses.
Beyond initial discussions initial framework documents often reference NDAs and NCCs.
The terms and conditions are invariably binding on both organisations.
The restrictions are time limited and specific to an employee leaving his employment to join a company which has entered into a commercial contract with his (then/ former) employer.
Such clauses represent the infrastructure under which business organisations enter into good faith negotiations or commercial contracts. Many sponsorship or associate agreements involve shared commercial data, joint marketing initiatives or areas of common interest.
Stealing the other company’s staff is most palpably not good faith and often counterproductive to working relationship between the two companies.
Staff involved are not there representing themselves - they are being paid to represent the best interests of their employers. That’s the job.
Where does being employed to represent the best interests of their employer include the act of carving out a new employment opportunity for yourself in the process?
Does it happen? Of course but let’s not pretend it is either good, normal or even acceptable business practice. It has a potential conflict of interest written all over it.
Why would you take this step? Because any new entrant to the industry will be appalled at the sieve like nature of most professionals in it. It falls under the category « but this is football » where normal business disciplines don’t apply. It normally follows the line « I shouldn’t be telling you this but…… »
The idea of confidentiality judged by the nature of the content of this message board and other social media sites is completely foreign to the culture. The entire industry is one of invariably self interested one sided arguments, rumour, half truths, 2nd hand gossip and downright lies. Why anyone would even contemplate a professional career in it is beyond me.
In the normal course of business “non competes” are rarely generically imposed on existing staff because the employer would be unilaterally changing the terms of your employment contract specifically outside of the specific place of work. No tribunal would see that as ethical.
However if such restriction is specifically included in a signed contract of employment you are on notice that under contract law you can be pursued for damages. That said, as with any claim for damages, the club would have to evidence and prove the cost of damages incurred. That is always easier said than done almost to the point of zero benefit.
Anecdotally I spent years working on new business preferred supplier relationships and joint ventures. After 18months working on one joint venture in the US market my UK bank due to a potential takeover ultimately pulled out of the deal. In doing so they made a point of referencing the non compete to the US Company.
They were restricted under the terms of the Head of Agreement (which I had drawn up) from recruiting me or my staff.
Any corporate breach of such restriction can most certainly be pursued through the legal channels.
I waited 6 months for the formal offer. It was a matter of personal and corporate standards.
At which point I was free to take my expertise to my new employer and comparable joint venture propositions to multiple banks in different markets to ultimately directly compete with my former employees.
They we’re firing Hot Dogs into the MLB stands in Philadelphia, USA over a decade ago. I have no idea whether they still do it. Is it something I would recommend for the UK? No, but it is hardly the crime of the century. A simple Google search will reveal all.
In terms of non compete clauses might I suggest people actually read the text.
It is not a generic non compete clause.
It is specific to the corporate relationships entered into by the club where commercial data is deemed sensitive. Non compete clauses in such scenarios are as common as any other corporate confidentiality clauses.
Beyond initial discussions initial framework documents often reference NDAs and NCCs.
The terms and conditions are invariably binding on both organisations.
The restrictions are time limited and specific to an employee leaving his employment to join a company which has entered into a commercial contract with his (then/ former) employer.
Such clauses represent the infrastructure under which business organisations enter into good faith negotiations or commercial contracts. Many sponsorship or associate agreements involve shared commercial data, joint marketing initiatives or areas of common interest.
Stealing the other company’s staff is most palpably not good faith and often counterproductive to working relationship between the two companies.
Staff involved are not there representing themselves - they are being paid to represent the best interests of their employers. That’s the job.
Where does being employed to represent the best interests of their employer include the act of carving out a new employment opportunity for yourself in the process?
Does it happen? Of course but let’s not pretend it is either good, normal or even acceptable business practice. It has a potential conflict of interest written all over it.
Why would you take this step? Because any new entrant to the industry will be appalled at the sieve like nature of most professionals in it. It falls under the category « but this is football » where normal business disciplines don’t apply. It normally follows the line « I shouldn’t be telling you this but…… »
The idea of confidentiality judged by the nature of the content of this message board and other social media sites is completely foreign to the culture. The entire industry is one of invariably self interested one sided arguments, rumour, half truths, 2nd hand gossip and downright lies. Why anyone would even contemplate a professional career in it is beyond me.
In the normal course of business “non competes” are rarely generically imposed on existing staff because the employer would be unilaterally changing the terms of your employment contract specifically outside of the specific place of work. No tribunal would see that as ethical.
However if such restriction is specifically included in a signed contract of employment you are on notice that under contract law you can be pursued for damages. That said, as with any claim for damages, the club would have to evidence and prove the cost of damages incurred. That is always easier said than done almost to the point of zero benefit.
Anecdotally I spent years working on new business preferred supplier relationships and joint ventures. After 18months working on one joint venture in the US market my UK bank due to a potential takeover ultimately pulled out of the deal. In doing so they made a point of referencing the non compete to the US Company.
They were restricted under the terms of the Head of Agreement (which I had drawn up) from recruiting me or my staff.
Any corporate breach of such restriction can most certainly be pursued through the legal channels.
I waited 6 months for the formal offer. It was a matter of personal and corporate standards.
At which point I was free to take my expertise to my new employer and comparable joint venture propositions to multiple banks in different markets to ultimately directly compete with my former employees.
A six month non-compete clause where you were operating at a high level in joint ventures is not unreasonable. Expecting relatively junior employees to accept a 12 month restrictive covenant that prevents them working for a supplier/sponsor most definitely is, and would not be enforceable.
They we’re firing Hot Dogs into the MLB stands in Philadelphia, USA over a decade ago. I have no idea whether they still do it. Is it something I would recommend for the UK? No, but it is hardly the crime of the century. A simple Google search will reveal all.
In terms of non compete clauses might I suggest people actually read the text.
It is not a generic non compete clause.
It is specific to the corporate relationships entered into by the club where commercial data is deemed sensitive. Non compete clauses in such scenarios are as common as any other corporate confidentiality clauses.
Beyond initial discussions initial framework documents often reference NDAs and NCCs.
The terms and conditions are invariably binding on both organisations.
The restrictions are time limited and specific to an employee leaving his employment to join a company which has entered into a commercial contract with his (then/ former) employer.
Such clauses represent the infrastructure under which business organisations enter into good faith negotiations or commercial contracts. Many sponsorship or associate agreements involve shared commercial data, joint marketing initiatives or areas of common interest.
Stealing the other company’s staff is most palpably not good faith and often counterproductive to working relationship between the two companies.
Staff involved are not there representing themselves - they are being paid to represent the best interests of their employers. That’s the job.
Where does being employed to represent the best interests of their employer include the act of carving out a new employment opportunity for yourself in the process?
Does it happen? Of course but let’s not pretend it is either good, normal or even acceptable business practice. It has a potential conflict of interest written all over it.
Why would you take this step? Because any new entrant to the industry will be appalled at the sieve like nature of most professionals in it. It falls under the category « but this is football » where normal business disciplines don’t apply. It normally follows the line « I shouldn’t be telling you this but…… »
The idea of confidentiality judged by the nature of the content of this message board and other social media sites is completely foreign to the culture. The entire industry is one of invariably self interested one sided arguments, rumour, half truths, 2nd hand gossip and downright lies. Why anyone would even contemplate a professional career in it is beyond me.
In the normal course of business “non competes” are rarely generically imposed on existing staff because the employer would be unilaterally changing the terms of your employment contract specifically outside of the specific place of work. No tribunal would see that as ethical.
However if such restriction is specifically included in a signed contract of employment you are on notice that under contract law you can be pursued for damages. That said, as with any claim for damages, the club would have to evidence and prove the cost of damages incurred. That is always easier said than done almost to the point of zero benefit.
Anecdotally I spent years working on new business preferred supplier relationships and joint ventures. After 18months working on one joint venture in the US market my UK bank due to a potential takeover ultimately pulled out of the deal. In doing so they made a point of referencing the non compete to the US Company.
They were restricted under the terms of the Head of Agreement (which I had drawn up) from recruiting me or my staff.
Any corporate breach of such restriction can most certainly be pursued through the legal channels.
I waited 6 months for the formal offer. It was a matter of personal and corporate standards.
At which point I was free to take my expertise to my new employer and comparable joint venture propositions to multiple banks in different markets to ultimately directly compete with my former employees.
A six month non-compete clause where you were operating at a high level in joint ventures is not unreasonable. Expecting relatively junior employees to accept a 12 month restrictive covenant that prevents them working for a supplier/sponsor most definitely is, and would not be enforceable.
It has nothing to do with commercial sensitivity and all to do with being spiteful.
They we’re firing Hot Dogs into the MLB stands in Philadelphia, USA over a decade ago. I have no idea whether they still do it. Is it something I would recommend for the UK? No, but it is hardly the crime of the century. A simple Google search will reveal all.
In terms of non compete clauses might I suggest people actually read the text.
It is not a generic non compete clause.
It is specific to the corporate relationships entered into by the club where commercial data is deemed sensitive. Non compete clauses in such scenarios are as common as any other corporate confidentiality clauses.
Beyond initial discussions initial framework documents often reference NDAs and NCCs.
The terms and conditions are invariably binding on both organisations.
The restrictions are time limited and specific to an employee leaving his employment to join a company which has entered into a commercial contract with his (then/ former) employer.
Such clauses represent the infrastructure under which business organisations enter into good faith negotiations or commercial contracts. Many sponsorship or associate agreements involve shared commercial data, joint marketing initiatives or areas of common interest.
Stealing the other company’s staff is most palpably not good faith and often counterproductive to working relationship between the two companies.
Staff involved are not there representing themselves - they are being paid to represent the best interests of their employers. That’s the job.
Where does being employed to represent the best interests of their employer include the act of carving out a new employment opportunity for yourself in the process?
Does it happen? Of course but let’s not pretend it is either good, normal or even acceptable business practice. It has a potential conflict of interest written all over it.
Why would you take this step? Because any new entrant to the industry will be appalled at the sieve like nature of most professionals in it. It falls under the category « but this is football » where normal business disciplines don’t apply. It normally follows the line « I shouldn’t be telling you this but…… »
The idea of confidentiality judged by the nature of the content of this message board and other social media sites is completely foreign to the culture. The entire industry is one of invariably self interested one sided arguments, rumour, half truths, 2nd hand gossip and downright lies. Why anyone would even contemplate a professional career in it is beyond me.
In the normal course of business “non competes” are rarely generically imposed on existing staff because the employer would be unilaterally changing the terms of your employment contract specifically outside of the specific place of work. No tribunal would see that as ethical.
However if such restriction is specifically included in a signed contract of employment you are on notice that under contract law you can be pursued for damages. That said, as with any claim for damages, the club would have to evidence and prove the cost of damages incurred. That is always easier said than done almost to the point of zero benefit.
Anecdotally I spent years working on new business preferred supplier relationships and joint ventures. After 18months working on one joint venture in the US market my UK bank due to a potential takeover ultimately pulled out of the deal. In doing so they made a point of referencing the non compete to the US Company.
They were restricted under the terms of the Head of Agreement (which I had drawn up) from recruiting me or my staff.
Any corporate breach of such restriction can most certainly be pursued through the legal channels.
I waited 6 months for the formal offer. It was a matter of personal and corporate standards.
At which point I was free to take my expertise to my new employer and comparable joint venture propositions to multiple banks in different markets to ultimately directly compete with my former employees.
They we’re firing Hot Dogs into the MLB stands in Philadelphia, USA over a decade ago. I have no idea whether they still do it. Is it something I would recommend for the UK? No, but it is hardly the crime of the century. A simple Google search will reveal all.
In terms of non compete clauses might I suggest people actually read the text.
It is not a generic non compete clause.
It is specific to the corporate relationships entered into by the club where commercial data is deemed sensitive. Non compete clauses in such scenarios are as common as any other corporate confidentiality clauses.
Beyond initial discussions initial framework documents often reference NDAs and NCCs.
The terms and conditions are invariably binding on both organisations.
The restrictions are time limited and specific to an employee leaving his employment to join a company which has entered into a commercial contract with his (then/ former) employer.
Such clauses represent the infrastructure under which business organisations enter into good faith negotiations or commercial contracts. Many sponsorship or associate agreements involve shared commercial data, joint marketing initiatives or areas of common interest.
Stealing the other company’s staff is most palpably not good faith and often counterproductive to working relationship between the two companies.
Staff involved are not there representing themselves - they are being paid to represent the best interests of their employers. That’s the job.
Where does being employed to represent the best interests of their employer include the act of carving out a new employment opportunity for yourself in the process?
Does it happen? Of course but let’s not pretend it is either good, normal or even acceptable business practice. It has a potential conflict of interest written all over it.
Why would you take this step? Because any new entrant to the industry will be appalled at the sieve like nature of most professionals in it. It falls under the category « but this is football » where normal business disciplines don’t apply. It normally follows the line « I shouldn’t be telling you this but…… »
The idea of confidentiality judged by the nature of the content of this message board and other social media sites is completely foreign to the culture. The entire industry is one of invariably self interested one sided arguments, rumour, half truths, 2nd hand gossip and downright lies. Why anyone would even contemplate a professional career in it is beyond me.
In the normal course of business “non competes” are rarely generically imposed on existing staff because the employer would be unilaterally changing the terms of your employment contract specifically outside of the specific place of work. No tribunal would see that as ethical.
However if such restriction is specifically included in a signed contract of employment you are on notice that under contract law you can be pursued for damages. That said, as with any claim for damages, the club would have to evidence and prove the cost of damages incurred. That is always easier said than done almost to the point of zero benefit.
Anecdotally I spent years working on new business preferred supplier relationships and joint ventures. After 18months working on one joint venture in the US market my UK bank due to a potential takeover ultimately pulled out of the deal. In doing so they made a point of referencing the non compete to the US Company.
They were restricted under the terms of the Head of Agreement (which I had drawn up) from recruiting me or my staff.
Any corporate breach of such restriction can most certainly be pursued through the legal channels.
I waited 6 months for the formal offer. It was a matter of personal and corporate standards.
At which point I was free to take my expertise to my new employer and comparable joint venture propositions to multiple banks in different markets to ultimately directly compete with my former employees.
A six month non-compete clause where you were operating at a high level in joint ventures is not unreasonable. Expecting relatively junior employees to accept a 12 month restrictive covenant that prevents them working for a supplier/sponsor most definitely is, and would not be enforceable.
Exactly, and people might be surprised how "relative" their junior status might be. It happens a lot in ad agencies that a client company hires one of their team. Such a person might well be on £100k plus p.a. probably at least 4 x what the likes of Dan Burke were paid by Charlton. Agencies don't like it, and some enlightened clients don't do it, because they understand that if you keep nicking your agency's best people, you don't have a good agency any more. But illegal? No way, because the law understands that employment is a market. Both sids have the inalienable right to hire, fire/ stay or quit.To develop, people need new challenges, and the training that will help them to succeed. That's usually why good people move. But moving, and hiring, is risky. If you hire someone whom you've already seen in action, and if you join a company whose people and culture you already know, the risk is much reduced. Why would the law seek to restrict a healthy way to hire effectively and build individual careers?
But it remains inconvenient, to say the least, for the company that loses employees to companies it deals with. So what can they do? They can make sure their smart employees are identified, motivated, trained and given a clear career map. Most employees are innately loyal to good employers, and see moving as a risk, rightly so. so this approach works in the majority of cases. I am surprised if TS does not understand this, but then I've been surprised by a few things he doesn't seem to understand lately.
Is there any chance you could come in at an early onset on all threads @grapevine49 to prevent pages of waffle about absolutely nothing based on posters knowledge of absolutely nothing, it would sure save a lot of time?
Is there any chance you could come in at an early onset on all threads @grapevine49 to prevent pages of waffle about absolutely nothing based on posters knowledge of absolutely nothing, it would sure save a lot of time?
You assume that because his posts are long, verbose and structured that they are definitive. They aren’t. His posts contain as much bollocks as any on here. He isn’t a sage, he’s another poster with a view.
Is there any chance you could come in at an early onset on all threads @grapevine49 to prevent pages of waffle about absolutely nothing based on posters knowledge of absolutely nothing, it would sure save a lot of time?
You assume that because his posts are long, verbose and structured that they are definitive. They aren’t. His posts contain as much bollocks as any on here. He isn’t a sage, he’s another poster with a view.
Call me a cynic... Announcing this close to Friday's fixture that Valley Gold is to be the match sponsor, suggests, does it not, that there'd been no other takers for the match sponsorship package? At least, not at whatever elevated price this is usually peddled.
The whole BTTV fits quite nicely given that was VG's initial purpose but VG's funds nowadays are dedicated elsewhere, aren't they?
TS's assurance that commercial revenues could easily, swiftly and significantly be increased (doubled?), turning out to be as much half arsed hubris as everything else. No coincidence of course that staff treatment/morale is in the toilet
Call me a cynic... Announcing this close to Friday's fixture that Valley Gold is to be the match sponsor, suggests, does it not, that there'd been no other takers for the match sponsorship package? At least, not at whatever elevated price this is usually peddled.
The whole BTTV fits quite nicely given that was VG's initial purpose but VG's funds nowadays are dedicated elsewhere, aren't they?
TS's assurance that commercial revenues could easily, swiftly and significantly be increased (doubled?), turning out to be as much half arsed hubris as everything else. No coincidence of course that staff treatment/morale is in the toilet
Or do I judge him harshly and this is altruism?
Well if that is the case isn't it time he stopped talking about it & showed us how easy it actually is ? The bloke is full of shit.
Comments
I worked for ages in an environment where employees had these type of " handcuffs " but never put them in contracts myself..there are much better ways of managing people.
Of all the things wrong with TS management this shd be about 2,000 on a to do list ..what's worse though is that the petty vengeances are so opaque
They we’re firing Hot Dogs into the MLB stands in Philadelphia, USA over a decade ago. I have no idea whether they still do it. Is it something I would recommend for the UK? No, but it is hardly the crime of the century. A simple Google search will reveal all.
In terms of non compete clauses might I suggest people actually read the text.
It is not a generic non compete clause.
It is specific to the corporate relationships entered into by the club where commercial data is deemed sensitive. Non compete clauses in such scenarios are as common as any other corporate confidentiality clauses.
Beyond initial discussions initial framework documents often reference NDAs and NCCs.
The terms and conditions are invariably binding on both organisations.
The restrictions are time limited and specific to an employee leaving his employment to join a company which has entered into a commercial contract with his (then/ former) employer.
Such clauses represent the infrastructure under which business organisations enter into good faith negotiations or commercial contracts. Many sponsorship or associate agreements involve shared commercial data, joint marketing initiatives or areas of common interest.
Stealing the other company’s staff is most palpably not good faith and often counterproductive to working relationship between the two companies.
Staff involved are not there representing themselves - they are being paid to represent the best interests of their employers. That’s the job.
Does it happen? Of course but let’s not pretend it is either good, normal or even acceptable business practice. It has a potential conflict of interest written all over it.
The idea of confidentiality judged by the nature of the content of this message board and other social media sites is completely foreign to the culture. The entire industry is one of invariably self interested one sided arguments, rumour, half truths, 2nd hand gossip and downright lies. Why anyone would even contemplate a professional career in it is beyond me.
In the normal course of business “non competes” are rarely generically imposed on existing staff because the employer would be unilaterally changing the terms of your employment contract specifically outside of the specific place of work. No tribunal would see that as ethical.
However if such restriction is specifically included in a signed contract of employment you are on notice that under contract law you can be pursued for damages. That said, as with any claim for damages, the club would have to evidence and prove the cost of damages incurred. That is always easier said than done almost to the point of zero benefit.
Anecdotally I spent years working on new business preferred supplier relationships and joint ventures. After 18months working on one joint venture in the US market my UK bank due to a potential takeover ultimately pulled out of the deal. In doing so they made a point of referencing the non compete to the US Company.
They were restricted under the terms of the Head of Agreement (which I had drawn up) from recruiting me or my staff.
Any corporate breach of such restriction can most certainly be pursued through the legal channels.
I waited 6 months for the formal offer. It was a matter of personal and corporate standards.
But still - what have we become?!
But it remains inconvenient, to say the least, for the company that loses employees to companies it deals with. So what can they do? They can make sure their smart employees are identified, motivated, trained and given a clear career map. Most employees are innately loyal to good employers, and see moving as a risk, rightly so. so this approach works in the majority of cases. I am surprised if TS does not understand this, but then I've been surprised by a few things he doesn't seem to understand lately.
I assume nothing.
Do we know why the hotdogs were chosen?
Announcing this close to Friday's fixture that Valley Gold is to be the match sponsor, suggests, does it not, that there'd been no other takers for the match sponsorship package?
At least, not at whatever elevated price this is usually peddled.
The whole BTTV fits quite nicely given that was VG's initial purpose but VG's funds nowadays are dedicated elsewhere, aren't they?
TS's assurance that commercial revenues could easily, swiftly and significantly be increased (doubled?), turning out to be as much half arsed hubris as everything else.
No coincidence of course that staff treatment/morale is in the toilet
Or do I judge him harshly and this is altruism?
Reading between the lines he's not welcome at the Valley?