trousers

Not sure why you're asking on here, as nobody knows anything.

Perhaps the moral of this, and other, 'ITK exclusives', is that people who receive and post these "done deal" messages on here should caveat those posts with "subject to player agreeing personal terms".

Hoo?

Ffs

Plums

Story of my life

Bar steward?

Define 'small'.

This guy was in Southampton for 2 days looking at apartments and no-one from the SaintsWeb Forum Sleuths Department spotted him? Un-bloody-believable.

I'm sure it was pretty obvious to Coulson and his legal team what the line of enquiry would be so he would know what to say in advance.

He was able to say "no" to the question about "income" on the semantic technicalities that Phil has outlined. Yes, he was morally wrong to say an outright "no" to the income question, but technically and/or legally he can 'get away with it' We can smell a rat all we like but these people will be shielded by clever lawyers. Anyway, I wonder what Ed Miliband is making of this latest angle on the coulson story?

As mentioned by someone else above, it depends how the word "income" is being used here. Rightly or wrongly, the word can be used generically to describe all the money one receives into one's bank account or it can be used to mean 'salary'. Coulson can squirm out of this one by saying he meant 'salary' and didn't include 'severence' payments. Semantics I know, but lawyers are rich for a reason.... ;-)

Fair point

Dragging this down to party political level for a moment....I see Miliband hasn't jumped on this particular band wagon yet...not sure why he's being so slow on this one. Nothing to do with his ex-News International employee having similar severance arrangements one assumes...?

Apologies for the MLG style intervention but the conservative party weren't in 'government' at the time of these severance payments...

I don't see that as unusual. As long as it doesn't affect my ability to do my current job (which of course is debatable) then my personal finances are just that - personal and private. Who declares supplementary income to their employers? Yes, there's a potential conflict of interests here but, in principle, there is nothing automatically wrong with having secondary or tertiary streams of income that you don't declare to your current employer.

Many people have a "financial relationship" with their previous employer, typically a pension. I have a 20 year staff pension fund with my previous employer. I therefore have a significant vested interest in the performance of my previous employer. Does this mean my current company (a competitor to my previous company) shouldn't have employed me? Ok, I know this isn't comparing apples with apples at the tangible level, but the principle of a "financial relationship" is comparable. Just because you're receiving a deferred and staggered severance payment doesn't automatically mean you're going to extract favours for your previous employer. As much as the sensationalist Mr Peston would like to believe it could. Over to SWF thought police to throw accusations of naivity my way. Not that there's any predictability in the pattern of debate on here... ;-)

Assuming the fundamentals of consumer law haven't changed since I studied the subject in the '80s, the position is pretty simple. If you buy something that turns out to be "broken" at the time of purchase, then your ONLY legal entitlement is a refund.... However, the retailer is entitled to ask you if you want a repair or exchange instead (in addition to your statutory right to a refund). However....if you accept the offer of a repair you forfeit your right to the refund from that moment onwards. So, I was told that you should ALWAYS exercise your statutory rights by asking for a refund (in writing) BEFORE entering into discussions about alternative, such as a repair. Then, even if you accept the repair, you should do so by stating (again in writing) that you are only willing to take up the offer of a repair on the basis that your original demand for a refund is upheld in the event of the repair being unsuccessful at the first attempt. Unfortunately, from what you say, you forfeited your legal right to a refund by unconditionally accepting the repair. Always reject faulty goods in the first instance! Well, that's my understanding of the law c.1986 anyway!

Yep, sorry, that's what I meant - speculation. But, as with a lot of speculation, there's quite often a spark of truth somewhere amongst the chaff that triggers the debates on here. As such, given those discussions, it doesn't come as a big surprise that Clifford is now simply confirming those 'rumours' circulating at the time.

I seem to recall that very notion was discussed on here (or this forum's predecessor) at the time, when both Clifford and Woodward were on the scene, albeit in the background. So not really a revelation as such.

Perhaps the statto-meisters but this is one area that sets Adkins apart from Pardew. I always felt with Pardew that he made subs according to the time on the clock rather than react to what was happening on the pitch..,.at the time it was happening.... As I say, happy to be proved wrong. Just a gut feel.

0-0

Ah, one of those "Spot the Corp Ho" threads. Good game, good game...

Sigh