Webber’s mountain climbing training

[(Hoola)Han Solo 324]

3 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

I have stated that what he does when he's not at work is up to him. I've not mentioned the majority shareholders in this matter, why did you have to make that bit up?

I think that if Stuart Webber believes he can do his job for NCFC and prepare for this event then it's his decision.

I don't think that it has affected our results on the pitch, in what way do you think it has, did Josh Sargent under hit that shot against Brighton because he was thinking about Stuart Webber climbing a mountain? 

So the long and short of it is that you have your opinion (which is fine), but you are going to go around the thread taking smart ar$e pot shots at anyone who doesn’t take your view. Fair enough.

[king canary 8,425]

Live look at LoS these last couple of days

 

[king canary 8,425]

17 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I wonder how many of the critics would be similar if our DoF were a woman and this was maternity leave?

None, hopefully.

[Jim Smith 2,498]

37 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Which players did we miss out on in January?

It was our stated intention not to buy anyone in January.

Webber was away for that reason. The reason we didn't buy anyone was because we didn't plan to. 

You doing it again Jim, where does 'on the QT' come from? You made it up, didn't you?

Well a well known journalist said last night on the TNC discussion that he knows we were trying to sign players. 
 

 

[A Load of Squit 6,066]

9 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Well a well known journalist said last night on the TNC discussion that he knows we were trying to sign players. 
 

 

Why so cryptic? 

[Monty13 2,688]

27 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I wonder how many of the critics would be similar if our DoF were a woman and this was maternity leave?

There would presumably be maternity cover in place or that would be very negligent of the club. Regardless I don’t see how that’s comparable.

For the record if he was a woman doing exactly the same job and undertaking exactly the same activity outside that job I’d personally have exactly the same questions, but keep building strawmen.

[A Load of Squit 6,066]

24 minutes ago, (Hoola)Han Solo said:

So the long and short of it is that you have your opinion (which is fine), but you are going to go around the thread taking smart ar$e pot shots at anyone who doesn’t take your view. Fair enough.

Was it the Josh Sargent question that sent you over the edge?

 

[(Hoola)Han Solo 324]

5 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Was it the Josh Sargent question that sent you over the edge?

 

Josh Sargent looks like a totally ineffective Premier League player. Maybe Webber could find a replacement up Everest?

[(Hoola)Han Solo 324]

10 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Why so cryptic? 

If you think that’s cryptic I wouldn’t try your hand at any crosswords if I were you mate.

[A Load of Squit 6,066]

1 minute ago, (Hoola)Han Solo said:

Josh Sargent looks like a totally ineffective Premier League player. Maybe Webber could find a replacement up Everest?

There's an 83% chance he will not, which is impressive.

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

20 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

There would presumably be maternity cover in place or that would be very negligent of the club. Regardless I don’t see how that’s comparable.

For the record if he was a woman doing exactly the same job and undertaking exactly the same activity outside that job I’d personally have exactly the same questions, but keep building strawmen.

Except that's not a strawman. The bit in bold was the key part.

The question was essentially about the nature of the activity being done / the prolonged period of time away. As you said, there would probably be cover in place if it were maternity leave or it would be negligent on the club's part. My suspicion is that Webber / the club has presumably organised cover to avoid similar allegations of negligence.

[Monty13 2,688]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

There weren't very many people who critical of our signings during the transfer window this summer, it's always a gamble even with the amounts we had to spend on the players.

I said I thought he was honest enough to know if it was affecting his ability to do the job.

I don’t think anyone is disputing transfers are a gamble, but its pretty clear now last summers gambles were mainly wrong (just like last PL season) and doing nothing in January but offloading Cantwell was a poor decision. 

Which is an awful lot of faith in him like I said.

[(Hoola)Han Solo 324]

Stuart Webber has been the sporting director for nearly two Premier League seasons. At the end of this one, it’ll be unlikely we’d have accumulated 50 points across the two. I think it’s only natural that supporters are questioning his performance. 

[Monty13 2,688]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Except that's not a strawman. The bit in bold was the key part.

Fair enough, it read like you were saying they are comparable and they aren’t IMO.

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The question was essentially about the nature of the activity being done / the prolonged period of time away. As you said, there would probably be cover in place if it were maternity leave or it would be negligent on the club's part. My suspicion is that Webber / the club has presumably organised cover to avoid similar allegations of negligence.

Then both should be clear on that arrangement and then people wouldn’t be questioning his ability to do the role, although it generates other questions.

[Capt. Pants 4,797]

Shakey can take over 1st team training and tactics, leaving Smith and Adams to deal with recruitment and who to bin off.

It could work very well, with Webber is making himself expendable. Works for me.

[Badger 2,743]

44 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Well a well known journalist said last night on the TNC discussion that he knows we were trying to sign players. 

Yes, I saw that too. What about the fact that we had agreed a deal to sign Koulibaly + agreed terms with the player but that it fell through because they couldn't get a replacement? ☹️

+ Toby Alderweireld was close too!

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

4 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Fair enough, it read like you were saying they are comparable and they aren’t IMO.

Then both should be clear on that arrangement and then people wouldn’t be questioning his ability to do the role, although it generates other questions.

They actually are comparable - quite simply they're both activities that mean someone is away from the office for a prolonged period and back-up/reorganisation would be expected for some considerable time to work around it. The reason I posed that question was that I suspect someone on maternity leave would get a pass (or the opprobrium would be aimed squarely at the club), but someone mountain climbing wouldn't, as this thread appears to be making abundantly clear. In other words, I suspect a serious double-standard.

I agree that there's a communication breakdown re. explaining what is being done in his absence though.

Edited March 29, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[Badger 2,743]

I don't want to get into the debate about the purchases that we have made because clearly they have not worked (yet) and kept us up (barring unforeseen miracles).

However, if we were to have a balanced debate of Weber's effectiveness, which this seems to be touching on, we should also consider the increased impact of the academy and the young players coming through. Surely this is a positive on the balance sheet?

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

4 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Shakey can take over 1st team training and tactics, leaving Smith and Adams to deal with recruitment and who to bin off.

It could work very well, with Webber is making himself expendable. Works for me.

Yep, I remember saying in a previous thread that it could be seen as a form of succession planning.

[A Load of Squit 6,066]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yes, I saw that too. What about the fact that we had agreed a deal to sign Koulibaly + agreed terms with the player but that it fell through because they couldn't get a replacement? ☹️

+ Toby Alderweireld was close too!

Did they say if we missed out on any players because Webber was climbing Kilimanjaro?

[Monty13 2,688]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

They actually are comparable - quite simply they're both activities that mean someone is away from the office for a prolonged period and back-up/reorganisation would be expected for some considerable time to work around it. The reason I posed that question was that I suspect someone on maternity leave would get a pass, but someone mountain climbing wouldn't, as this thread appears to be making abundantly clear. In other words, I suspect a serious double-standard.

I agree that there's a communication breakdown re. explaining what is being done in his absence though.

You really just compared having a child with climbing Everest as the same?  

One is a normal life event for the vast majority of people that has legal requirements on the company to support.

The other is an extremely expensive, privileged life experience that doesn’t.

Other than the fundamental point that they require the individual to be away from work for a prolonged period of time I don’t see how they are remotely comparable or a double standard personally.

Regardless I imagine if Webber was taking 9 months to a year off unpaid to undertake this  the response and the questions would be different. 

[king canary 8,425]

11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

They actually are comparable - quite simply they're both activities that mean someone is away from the office for a prolonged period and back-up/reorganisation would be expected for some considerable time to work around it. The reason I posed that question was that I suspect someone on maternity leave would get a pass (or the opprobrium would be aimed squarely at the club), but someone mountain climbing wouldn't, as this thread appears to be making abundantly clear. In other words, I suspect a serious double-standard.

I agree that there's a communication breakdown re. explaining what is being done in his absence though.

As Monty has pointed out it isn't a double standard at all.

Maternity leave is a legal requirement, someone being given time to follow an expensive and time consuming hobby isn't. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by king canary

[Capt. Pants 4,797]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yep, I remember saying in a previous thread that it could be seen as a form of succession planning.

I wonder if Deano will relish the opportunity of having Webber out the way? Possibly he'll have the greater say in the type of player he wants, or doesn't want, and can have more influence in the final decision.

Many have been critical of Webber's signings so far, and rightly so. This is the perfect opportunity to see how we do without him. 

[Mello Yello 2,511]

On an average day does Webbo have an 8 hours 45 minute tea-break coupled with a 15 minute work-break?.....

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

You really just compared having a child with climbing Everest as the same?  

One is a normal life event for the vast majority of people that has legal requirements on the company to support.

The other is an extremely expensive, privileged life experience that doesn’t.

Other than the fundamental point that they require the individual to be away from work for a prolonged period of time I don’t see how they are remotely comparable or a double standard personally.

Regardless I imagine if Webber was taking 9 months to a year off unpaid to undertake this  the response and the questions would be different. 

They're the same for the company regardless of the reason for absence. Your organisation has a period of months on which to organise cover or to reorganise the work that has to be done. You literally said it right there in bold. That is exactly why they are fundamentally identical.

The why behind the absence is utterly irrelevant. The key is the fundamental point you said in bold.

In fact, you've even said it in your second and third lines. One's considered a "normal event", the other isn't. There's your double standard right there. One's expected to be supported, the other isn't. And people will let the first one slide without judgement, but the second...well.

[Monty13 2,688]

1 minute ago, Capt. Pants said:

I wonder if Deano will relish the opportunity of having Webber out the way? Possibly he'll have the greater say in the type of player he wants, or doesn't want, and can have more influence in the final decision.

Many have been critical of Webber's signings so far, and rightly so. This is the perfect opportunity to see how we do without him. 

Feels like that fundamentally questions the model. If the Sporting Director isn’t responsible for signings what’s the difference between that and the previous Chief Exec/Manager model we had?

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

As Monty has pointed out it isn't a double standard at all.

Maternity leave is a legal requirement, someone being given time to follow an expensive and time consuming hobby isn't. 

Strawman, the comment about the double standard is about social expectations, not statutory requirements. As said, I suspect someone on maternity leave would get no criticism and it would be squarely aimed at the club for not providing support. This thread's showing some disdain just because Webber's gone on an ambitious personal undertaking instead.

That's the double standard I suspected.

[king canary 8,425]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

They're the same for the company regardless of the reason for absence. Your organisation has a period of months on which to organise cover or to reorganise the work that has to be done. You literally said it right there in bold. That is exactly why they are fundamentally identical.

The why behind the absence is utterly irrelevant. The key is the fundamental point you said in bold.

In fact, you've even said it in your second and third lines. One's considered a "normal event", the other isn't. There's your double standard right there. One's expected to be supported, the other isn't. And people will let the first one slide without judgement, but the second...well.

**** me, this is really quite stupid from a usually sensible poster.

The why behind the absence is entirely relevant due to the legal protection for pregnant women, that exists because society generally believes having children shouldn't mean you're suddenly unemployed.

I originally suspected, and now feel pretty confident to say, that this is the latest extension of your militant obsession with how badly society apparently treats you as a single, childless man. It is all a bit weird.

Edited March 29, 2022 by king canary

[Monty13 2,688]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

They're the same for the company regardless of the reason for absence. Your organisation has a period of months on which to organise cover or to reorganise the work that has to be done. You literally said it right there in bold. That is exactly why they are fundamentally identical.

The why behind the absence is utterly irrelevant. The key is the fundamental point you said in bold.

In fact, you've even said it in your second and third lines. One's considered a "normal event", the other isn't. There's your double standard right there. One's expected to be supported, the other isn't. And people will let the first one slide without judgement, but the second...well.

So Webber is taking a large chunk (6-12 months) of unpaid time off to fully focus on his personal pursuits? And someone else has been brought in to replace him for this period? I obviously missed this identical process he is undertaking and the clubs explanation as to the cover.

So in your opinion I should support peoples legal right to have children and millionaires rights to undertake flights of fancy equally? I’m going to have to disagree sorry, and I don’t think that’s a double standard.

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

**** me, this is really quite stupid from a usually sensible poster.

The why behind the absence is entirely relevant due to the legal protection for pregnant women, that exists because society generally believes having children shouldn't mean you're suddenly unemployed.

You just doubled down on your strawman. The point is that if it were maternity leave a pass would be given. No-one's disputed the need for legal protection. I'm simply saying that because he's mountain-climbing it's suddenly got some frothing at the mouth.

Both require the same thing - cover to be organised for a prolonged period of time. One just happens to be legally mandated, the other does not.

Although if we're going to have a discussion on how childfree people are hosed over in the work environment, that's one for the non-football section. There definitely is a problem there, but no need to discuss that in further detail here.