Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)

What if a hot dog lands in a vegitarian's mouth?

Scoham said:

Katrien had the fans sofa, Raelynn has a failed attempt at firing hot dogs fired into the North Upper. Sums it all up.

Even if the flying hot dog idea got past the first hurdle, the uproar if there wasn’t a suitable vegetarian option would’ve quickly shelved the idea.

MuttleyCAFC said:

What if a hot dog lands in a vegitarian's mouth?

I'm surprised a couple of posters haven't yet kicked off because there was no reference to alternative Vegan options...(you know who you are  )

Redmidland said:

Fanny Fanackapan said:

Chunes said:

Fanny Fanackapan said:

carly burn said:

How can this be legal ????

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.

Why Hotdogs of all things?

bobmunro said:

Redmidland said:

Fanny Fanackapan said:

Chunes said:

Fanny Fanackapan said:

carly burn said:

How can this be legal ????

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. 

Todds_right_hook said:

cafcwill said:

Why Hotdogs of all things?

Because bovril would spill everywhere 

Should’ve been packets of crisps………….. oh hang on minute didn’t we do that during the protests 🤔

bobmunro said:

Redmidland said:

Fanny Fanackapan said:

Chunes said:

Fanny Fanackapan said:

carly burn said:

How can this be legal ????

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.

Restrictions imposed by employers on what an ex-employee can do for employment and for what time period are extremely limited.
Anything can be written into an employment contract but that won't make it enforceable.
In laymen's terms all the aces are held by the employee if anything of this nature is ever contested.
Nicking clients or setting up next door offering the same service are both areas the employer could perhaps expect to restrict but that's about it.
If the employer has trained up the employee, providing him/her/them with new skills, it can be possible to restrict them from bailing out the minute they're qualified and working for a competitor nearby.  If that same employee arrives already with the skills, works for Charlton for a quarter of a century or a couple of weeks, then leaves and does the self same thing for the spanners or nigels or Welling, there's realistically nothing TS or CAFC can do about it.
Employment contracts are not usually deemed to be signed "at arm's length".  It's not an even bargain between the employer and the employee, because the employee needs the job, the salary is likely to be far more critical to the individual than that employee is to the employer.  Any employer hoping to rely on restrictive clauses in employment contracts for non-executive roles is going to be disappointed.  That's even if they choose to take action.  Of course "CAFC will have the option...etc etc" but that shouldn't be of concern to many, if any of CAFC's current or former employees.  Anything potentially detrimental to the employee is unlikely to be upheld by a tribunal, let alone any higher jurisdiction.
If you've worked in the ticket office or catering for a few years and Welling offer you the same job on better terms, you're free to do so, after the stipulated notice period.  Even that is rarely going to be more than a month.
If you've freshly trained at Sparrows Lane as a groundsman and you bail to Blackheath Rugby Club to do exactly the same, maybe CAFC could raise a grievance.  But not to prevent you working there, probably only to recoup the training costs and even then that would have to have been dealt with in your contract.
Those sorts of clauses for non-executive staff amount to little more than bullying.
Even if that 12 month restriction were to hold up, what could CAFC show as the cost or detriment suffered by the departee joining a sponsor?  Even if it is a breach of contract what's it worth?  The remedy in any civil action will be to restore the plaintiff to the condition he ought to have been in if the breach hadn't happened.  So long as the ex-employee hasn't nicked anything there's no loss to CAFC.  £1 damages for breach of contract.  CAFC could sulk and prohibit the individual from attending CAFC premises but how's that going to sit with associates or sponsors?

All said and done it fits perfectly with the emerging narrative of TS being a total shit to work for unless you're one particular untouchable bullying arsehole, lovely.

I had the pleasure years back of working for a loathsome surveyor, Colin.  He had a chap, Adam, work for him for a decade or more, finished his RICS qualification/membership during that time and had been entrusted as a fellow professional and representative of the firm, with his own portfolio of the firm's clients.  Adam eventually got fed up with Colin's treatment and miserly salary and resigned. Colin was perplexed, Adam initially provided no explanation only that he was moving on.  Colin was then increasingly disturbed as most of Adam's client list promptly took their custom elsewhere.  Elsewhere was a new firm 2 miles up the road run by Adam offering broadly what Adam had been doing for Colin.  Colin went ballistic.  Instigated legal proceedings and reported Adam to RICS for professional misconduct.  Neither action was successful, both were costly.  Adam's firm had advertised in the local FreeAds and that was where all his clients got his details.  Colin could produce no evidence Adam had nicked anything.  Adam had acquired some of his skills before his time with Colin, wasn't operating on Colin's doorstep and wasn't pretending still to be associated with him. No case to answer.
Wounded by that dose of karma, Colin gave the rest of us new employment contracts to sign, written by some insurance company.  The contracts included all sorts of "you can't work within 5 miles of any of my premises for a minimum of 2 years, etc etc"  I ran it past a lawyer contact and was told "sign it, don't worry, it's completely unenforceable, it's far too restrictive, none of it will hold up".
2 other colleagues did the same to Colin a couple of years later but made the mistake of removing client files from Colin's premises.  That got one of them struck off with RICS but didn't prevent them taking the clients to another firm to earn a bigger slice of the fees.

Callumcafc said:

Todds_right_hook said:

cafcwill said:

Why Hotdogs of all things?

Because bovril would spill everywhere 

I'm now imagining someone who's earning barely a living wage trying to explain what Bovril is to a non-plussed Thomas and Raelynn.

They only need to move up to the west upper for 20 minutes if they want to find out

Seems to be poorly thought out prep work for investors/selling of club.
Reduce staffing costs, change contracts so staff can not walk if dissatisfied with owners etc.