stevegrant

From what I've read from those who have been in the industry, the "excessive" earners have been at BA since before 1997 when the new contract structure was put in place, at a time when flying was still seen as a "premium" mode of transport. As a result, those salaries probably were seen as reasonable at the time. Times have changed, but the salaries of those people haven't been adjusted to fit. Whether that's down to management since then (possibly) or whether there is legislation which would prevent what would be a massive drop in salary, I've no idea. I do suspect BA won't see much "natural wastage" while the seemingly (and knowingly) overpaid can still earn far more than they could reasonably expect in a similar job elsewhere.

What's the big deal with this cash reserve? Any company in a position to do so would set cash aside as a safety net in case things turned bad, as they have done in the last couple of years. It's probably one of the few things BA's board has done absolutely right over the years. A company without cash reserves wouldn't have been able to survive the £500m loss suffered in the most recent financial period.

And yet they didn't feel the need to strike...

Two things: 1) I thought the union had conceded that change in the last round of talks? 2) Shock horror that a company feels that its staff should earn its wages - if that £56k figure is correct, why shouldn't they expect CSDs to have more duties than ordinary cabin crew rather than fewer?

It would appear to the casual observer that the Heathrow cabin crew have been particularly willing to go out of their way to send the company nearer to bankruptcy. The one question that stands out for me is why have BA's cabin crew based at other airports appeared to be quite happy to accept the revised conditions BA have asked them to adopt because of the company's financial situation, yet the Heathrow staff are the only ones kicking up a fuss?

People are still talking about that, it's not going to go away any time soon.

I think it's highly unlikely. Let's face it, at least half of last season's season ticket holders would probably buy a season ticket regardless of the price (within reason), so that's 7000 x £200 (give or take) the club are effectively giving away - that's £1.4m. Even in the privileged position we find ourselves in, they are still running the club on a sound financial basis, so I can't envisage that it's an option they've genuinely considered. If we're top of the table I would imagine we'd be getting at least 25k most games anyway. A winning team = a team the more casual fan wants to go and watch on a more regular basis.

On the Google front page today http://www.google.co.uk obviously

Pretty sure the GK kits are this season's.

He seems far too non-deluded to be as bad as them

David James has apparently told the administrator that he wants to be considered for the manager's job!

Unfortunately the club sold all this season's away kit some time ago, so we will be in *last* season's away kit... assuming it all gets sent down from Manchester in time [-o

I've been asked to publicise a charity match that is taking place at St Mary's on Saturday 22nd May, kickoff 4pm between locally-based employees of Veho and NatWest, raising money for the Breakthrough breast cancer charity. Entry is £3 for adults, £1 for kids, and a 2-adult, 2-kid family ticket is £6. The Itchen Suite will also be open after the game (between 6 and 8pm) for food and drink, and there will be a raffle to raise further funds. For further details, call Nicki Secker on 07920 252563. If you can't make it but would like to make a donation to this worthy cause, you can visit http://www.justgiving.com/veho-challenge-cup-NW

From 6pm, via turnstile A (I think - will confirm that). Which reminds me, I'll need a volunteer to run the turnstile... don't need to collect any money this year, so it's just a case of pressing a button to let people through

As it says on the tin... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/salisbury/8694467.stm

Seems they've decided they're in a position to offer players new contracts now! http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Pompey-Offer-Ten-Players-New-Deals-979.aspx

Apparently Grant's contract was renegotiated in February as a result of them failing to pay him so it's now a rolling contract. As a result, they wouldn't be entitled to any compensation even if they wanted it.

Is that a good thing? My place will be going on the market this weekend, presumably that'll mean I won't have to pay to get an HIP created, does that then put the onus back on the buyer to get everything that was contained within the HIP checked out?

Now you've done it... :mad:

That's possibly Gamestation's company policy (although that may not be up to date, as they're now owned by Game so you would assume they now have the same policies - Game haven't operated that policy for years), but it's not in consumer law. The only time you are legally eligible for a refund/replacement is if the product is faulty. If there's any other reason for requesting a refund, it'll be entirely subject to the company's policy as to whether they give you your money back. Game used to do the money-back guarantee years ago (back when I used to work there, circa 2001), but stopped it a year or two later, presumably because it was being abused. I know of people who used had a modded PS2 with a hard-drive to boot the games from, they'd buy the game from the shop, take it home, copy it to the HDD and then take the game back for a refund

One thing I noticed from McKenzie's figures yesterday was that he scored 48 of his 55 runs from boundaries! Lazy f'ker...

Yep, absolutely true. Also absolutely scandalous.

Gary Lineker's resigned from his Mail on Sunday column slot in protest - http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2010/may/18/gary-lineker-triesman-mail-sunday Good on him, I reckon.

Yep, although I suspect Morecambe v Dagenham tomorrow night will probably be a bit tame, for obvious reasons.

The atmosphere actually sounded pretty decent on TV (particularly by The Valley's pitiful standards), although the attendance was particularly poor.