Webber’s mountain climbing training

[TIL 1010 5,123]

50 minutes ago, Badger said:

To be fair though, they did say that they totally understood why why he didn't want to speak to them at the moment.

He would have had to to maintained the line that staying up was still a possibility, so there would be very few productive outcomes from such an interview.

Better to wait until our fate is confirmed and then have a more honest appraisal.

I thought we were looking for answers about his absence from the club and whether it is detrimentral to his position as SD.

[canarydan23 4,650]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

If it is considered harsh or below the belt to criticise a mother in that situation (and yes, it is illegal if from the employer), then the double standard is saying Webber deserves flak regardless even though the Club has granted permission for it.

Just repeating that it's a double standard doesn't make it so. You do know that, don't you?

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

6 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Just repeating that it's a double standard doesn't make it so. You do know that, don't you?

Just saying they're not doesn't make it so. You do know that, don't you?

Still, saw the 'weirdo' insult in the previous comment. When people are reduced to that, they don't really have much to say.

Edited March 29, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[essex canary 592]

38 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I actually think this is a really laudable, progressive move in employment terms by the Club itself re. sabbaticals and hope all staff have that option available to them. The justifiable criticism, as per the discourse with Monty, is that the Club haven't communicated how duties will be resolved, or indeed how Webber will still perform what duties.

They could also explain why they have replaced a customer facing role such as the Chief Operating Officer with an Assistant Director of Football.

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,173]

10 hours ago, Badger said:

I don't know that 70% is impressive at all? On the basis of what I've seen, I would have expected 95% at least!

Ignore the surveys though: they are meaningless and just a bit of fun.

I agree

[canarydan23 4,650]

9 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Just saying they're not doesn't make it so. You do know that, don't you?

Still, saw the 'weirdo' insult in the previous comment. When people are reduced to that, they don't really have much to say.

Not having much to say is something you should have mastered before entering this thread to be honest.

[hogesar 10,390]

10 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I've just read through your little discourse with him. I now realise he's one of these weirdos who chose not to have children but then rails against the existence of child benefit and gnashes his teeth at the thought of some of his tax contributions going towards schools or incubators for babies. I know one in real life and he's so easy to wind up.

I think that's a little harsh on @TheGunnShow, who although has completely opposing views to your own has been relatively polite throughout.

I do get his point, actually. I don't have kids (yet) but am recently married. As an employer I also understand that societal changes does dirty the water a bit. In it's really simplistic form, the most obvious example I can think of was people who smoked getting weird 5 minute breaks to go and smoke, whilst those who didn't smoke would continue working. It's a really small thing but can still upset the balance. I think generally speaking that exists far less now, if at all, partly down to societal changes.

And of course, from an employers point of view he's correct that as far as the club is concerned it's not really any different to maternity leave in terms of what the club has to do to operate. If anything, something like this might be a bit easier to manage because you can actually give more advance notice than maternity leave. I don't know if he has or not, but he could have done.

[Jim Smith 2,498]

33 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think that's a little harsh on @TheGunnShow, who although has completely opposing views to your own has been relatively polite throughout.

I do get his point, actually. I don't have kids (yet) but am recently married. As an employer I also understand that societal changes does dirty the water a bit. In it's really simplistic form, the most obvious example I can think of was people who smoked getting weird 5 minute breaks to go and smoke, whilst those who didn't smoke would continue working. It's a really small thing but can still upset the balance. I think generally speaking that exists far less now, if at all, partly down to societal changes.

And of course, from an employers point of view he's correct that as far as the club is concerned it's not really any different to maternity leave in terms of what the club has to do to operate. If anything, something like this might be a bit easier to manage because you can actually give more advance notice than maternity leave. I don't know if he has or not, but he could have done.

It’s a bit different though isn’t it because the point here is he’s staying in his job over a period of 1-2 years whilst preparing for/undertaking this challenge. So aside from the 2-3 months for the climb itself it’s not like he’s going to be completely absent and someone else is filling in, nor will the club be getting statutory maternity pay to (part) cover wages during any periods of absence. When a woman is about to go on maternity leave she doesn’t take multiple weeks off in advance over the course of 18 months to practice for giving birth. 

For me it’s about being reassured that the appropriate level of focus is still there and that the new contract agreed recently (when surely this must have been discussed as he knew he was going to be doing it?) protects the club if it’s not (ie we are not still paying him silly money if he’s off climbing a mountain every other month and Adams is doing everything).

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Jim Smith

[Mello Yello 2,511]

Maybe as a token of our admiration and esteem of our DoF Stu and his future climbing challenges, we should all turn up last game of this season against Spurs wearing climbing helmets and ropes slung over our shoulders?.....(I think the stewards would draw the line on us bringing in ice-axes though).....

[Badger 2,743]

10 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I thought we were looking for answers about his absence from the club and whether it is detrimentral to his position as SD.

I can't imagine that the club would say that the absence was detrimental!

TBH as he's top of his particular pyramid, his role will be more strategic than operational. I imagine the decisions that need to be taken already have been. The cover arrangements seem to be pretty clear as well (Adams).

I think that a review of this season and lessons  to be learned and shared with fans is best done once our fate is confirmed and probably at the end of the season. 

[Mason 47 1,793]

I think I've read *most* of the relevant posts on this thread now, and I have to say, I'll never not be left amazed at how cross people get about things that don't matter.

Internation breaks, man 🤦‍♂️

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

13 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

I think I've read *most* of the relevant posts on this thread now, and I have to say, I'll never not be left amazed at how cross people get about things that don't matter.

Internation breaks, man 🤦‍♂️

It’s ‘international’ you dribbling lunatic.

[Monty13 2,688]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I think that's a little harsh on @TheGunnShow, who although has completely opposing views to your own has been relatively polite throughout.

I do get his point, actually. I don't have kids (yet) but am recently married. As an employer I also understand that societal changes does dirty the water a bit. In it's really simplistic form, the most obvious example I can think of was people who smoked getting weird 5 minute breaks to go and smoke, whilst those who didn't smoke would continue working. It's a really small thing but can still upset the balance. I think generally speaking that exists far less now, if at all, partly down to societal changes.

And of course, from an employers point of view he's correct that as far as the club is concerned it's not really any different to maternity leave in terms of what the club has to do to operate. If anything, something like this might be a bit easier to manage because you can actually give more advance notice than maternity leave. I don't know if he has or not, but he could have done.

There’s definitely a grain of a valid point in what he’s saying, I agree on smoking breaks as a great example, but I think he’s pretty clearly got an axe to grind on this issue.

We’ve likely all been there as the childless worker, as the person working extra hours (for some reason), losing out first choice on holidays during non term time, being asked to cover weekends more etc. then you grow as a person gain some emotional intelligence and realise working harder/longer is a personal choice and I can go on holiday any time and play Xbox just as easily on a Monday as a Sunday so maybe I can support my coworkers with kids and people will hopefully do the same for me when I choose to.

Maternity/paternity leave isn’t about that individual, it’s about the child, they aren’t analogous.

Until the club or Webber confirm he’s taking an extended period of unpaid time off to pursue his personal ambitions and being covered by X while he does so the potential affect on and response of the club as an employer clearly isn’t the same.

Not to mention championing a privileged millionaires right to do something when there’s zero evidence more junior people would get the same treatment is a bit odd to me.

If the club also comes out and say whatever they have arranged for Webber is a benefit for all employees I’ll give them a massive amount of credit.

If the club explained transparently what is going on with this situation a lot of questions would fizzle out depending on their answers. I’m genuinely surprised how many seem unperturbed by it. To me it’s Nero fiddling while Rome burns and I find it rather incredible the senior person responsible for sporting matters is undertaking this while the club is massively failing to meet its on field objectives, but maybe I’m in a small minority.

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

4 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

There’s definitely a grain of a valid point in what he’s saying, I agree on smoking breaks as a great example, but I think he’s pretty clearly got an axe to grind on this issue.

We’ve likely all been there as the childless worker, as the person working extra hours (for some reason), losing out first choice on holidays during non term time, being asked to cover weekends more etc. then you grow as a person gain some emotional intelligence and realise working harder/longer is a personal choice and I can go on holiday any time and play Xbox just as easily on a Monday as a Sunday so maybe I can support my coworkers with kids and people will hopefully do the same for me when I choose to.

Maternity/paternity leave isn’t about that individual, it’s about the child, they aren’t analogous.

Until the club or Webber confirm he’s taking an extended period of unpaid time off to pursue his personal ambitions and being covered by X while he does so the potential affect on and response of the club as an employer clearly isn’t the same.

Not to mention championing a privileged millionaires right to do something when there’s zero evidence more junior people would get the same treatment is a bit odd to me.

If the club also comes out and say whatever they have arranged for Webber is a benefit for all employees I’ll give them a massive amount of credit.

If the club explained transparently what is going on with this situation a lot of questions would fizzle out depending on their answers. I’m genuinely surprised how many seem unperturbed by it. To me it’s Nero fiddling while Rome burns and I find it rather incredible the senior person responsible for sporting matters is undertaking this while the club is massively failing to meet its on field objectives, but maybe I’m in a small minority.

No-one's championing a "privileged millionaire", I'm simply saying it's good that the Club is granting such an option as an employer. Indeed I even said in a post at the bottom of the previous page that I hope they extend it as an option to all staff where workable. We do seem to agree on that being a measure worth a lot of credit if they do though, looking at your penultimate paragraph.

From the employer's perspective maternity leave is analogous though, as @hogesar correctly noted - the operational/reorganising issues resulting from it are exactly the same regardless of the underlying cause. They've signed off on it, so clearly they're confident in their contingency plans. 

[hogesar 10,390]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s a bit different though isn’t it because the point here is he’s staying in his job over a period of 1-2 years whilst preparing for/undertaking this challenge. So aside from the 2-3 months for the climb itself it’s not like he’s going to be completely absent and someone else is filling in, nor will the club be getting statutory maternity pay to (part) cover wages during any periods of absence. When a woman is about to go on maternity leave she doesn’t take multiple weeks off in advance over the course of 18 months to practice for giving birth. 

For me it’s about being reassured that the appropriate level of focus is still there and that the new contract agreed recently (when surely this must have been discussed as he knew he was going to be doing it?) protects the club if it’s not (ie we are not still paying him silly money if he’s off climbing a mountain every other month and Adams is doing everything).

 

Yeah, there's not much I disagree with Jim.

But I think at the moment the anger is being placed at Webber for doing this where in reality it should be directed at the club, the directors above him etc if anyone - it's them who have to agree to it and ensure contingency plans have no detrimental impact on our fortunes.

[Monty13 2,688]

19 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

No-one's championing a "privileged millionaire", I'm simply saying it's good that the Club is granting such an option as an employer. Indeed I even said in a post at the bottom of the previous page that I hope they extend it as an option to all staff where workable. We do seem to agree on that being a measure worth a lot of credit if they do though, looking at your penultimate paragraph.

From the employer's perspective maternity leave is analogous though, as @hogesar correctly noted - the operational/reorganising issues resulting from it are exactly the same regardless of the underlying cause. They've signed off on it, so clearly they're confident in their contingency plans. 

But you have no idea if they are offering this as an option to anyone but him, so why is it good without that confirmation? Because without that confirmation to me it looks like massive privilege.

And to repeat its not analogous from an employers perspective for many reasons. However if you want to take all context away other than the fact it’s a person who needs covering for an extended period of time away from work, unless they react the same to it as they would maternity - which unless they tell us otherwise based on what Webber has said they haven't - it’s not the same. Given your shouts about double standards I’m not sure what about that you don’t get.

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

But you have no idea if they are offering this as an option to anyone but him, so why is it good without that confirmation? Because without that confirmation to me it looks like massive privilege.

And to repeat its not analogous from an employers perspective for many reasons. However if you want to take all context away other than the fact it’s a person who needs covering for an extended period of time away from work, unless they react the same to it as they would maternity - which unless they tell us otherwise based on what Webber has said they haven't - it’s not the same. Given your shouts about double standards I’m not sure what about that you don’t get.

1. It's good simply as work-life balance is something to strive for. As far as I am concerned, the ability to take longer periods away from work without having to worry about your job disappearing should be an option available to as many as possible, regardless of the reason why, where possible. I don't know if only Webber will ever get this in the future, but if the Club is thinking on those lines AND making it possible for as many staff as possible, it's a massive step forward, right?

2. That's precisely why it is the same in that regard...extended absence, signed off by the club. The only difference in essence is that one is legally mandated, the other is not. As @hogesar said, and I quote verbatim: "But I think at the moment the anger is being placed at Webber for doing this where in reality it should be directed at the club, the directors above him etc if anyone - it's them who have to agree to it and ensure contingency plans have no detrimental impact on our fortunes."

The Club signed it off. The Club is where justified criticism lies.

 

[Monty13 2,688]

20 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

1. It's good simply as work-life balance is something to strive for. As far as I am concerned, the ability to take longer periods away from work without having to worry about your job disappearing should be an option available to as many as possible, regardless of the reason why, where possible. I don't know if only Webber will ever get this in the future, but if the Club is thinking on those lines AND making it possible for as many staff as possible, it's a massive step forward, right?

And I’ll try this once again, if, and only if, this is something the club is universally looking to support its employees with yes this is a good thing. However it currently just looks like a massive privilege of position without further information.

22 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

2. That's precisely why it is the same in that regard...extended absence, signed off by the club. The only difference in essence is that one is legally mandated, the other is not. As @hogesar said, and I quote verbatim: "But I think at the moment the anger is being placed at Webber for doing this where in reality it should be directed at the club, the directors above him etc if anyone - it's them who have to agree to it and ensure contingency plans have no detrimental impact on our fortunes."

The Club signed it off. The Club is where justified criticism lies.

Again I’ll try one last time, Jim put it rather well read his post, but it’s not analogous unless Webber is taking a large continuous number of months unpaid absence to focus on his personal ambition and the club have put plans in place to cover him during that time. Which does not appear to be the case from what we know so far.

A lot of questions on this can be levelled at the club (criticism comes after we know the full facts) but I don’t see how the motivations and commitment of a person in Webbers position get a free pass personally, it’s a privilege to be in a role like Webber’s.

Regardless I’m done taking this further with you, as you just keep ignoring what my actual point is and saying the same thing. 

[(Hoola)Han Solo 324]

19 hours ago, king canary said:

It is a shame because for a period under the new structure I thought comms between the club and the fans were significantly improved- you had Webber and the owners going to talk to local, fan created podcasts, regular access to players and generally a lot of transparency between the higher ups in the club and the fans. That seems to have dropped off a fair bit and instead the club is seemingly becoming a bit more inward.

I agree that communication was definitely better in the first 2 or 3 years of the Webber era. I don’t expect the club to comment after every defeat, but with Webber’s gutsy bravado and comments about the previous regime wasting money, and the infamous water pistol and bazooka comments, I wonder if he’s staying quiet to avoid any more foot-in-mouth moments. SW is very keen to be seen and remind us of our success when things are going well but the opposite is true at the minute. There definitely needs to be a lengthy discussion in the summer about our strategy going forward and a review of this season. It’s looking likely we will not perform much better than 19/20. I get the losses of Buendia and Skipps but it’s Webber’s job to ensure the squad is good enough, and he has patently failed at this mission.

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

34 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

And I’ll try this once again, if, and only if, this is something the club is universally looking to support its employees with yes this is a good thing. However it currently just looks like a massive privilege of position without further information.

Again I’ll try one last time, Jim put it rather well read his post, but it’s not analogous unless Webber is taking a large continuous number of months unpaid absence to focus on his personal ambition and the club have put plans in place to cover him during that time. Which does not appear to be the case from what we know so far.

A lot of questions on this can be levelled at the club (criticism comes after we know the full facts) but I don’t see how the motivations and commitment of a person in Webbers position get a free pass personally, it’s a privilege to be in a role like Webber’s.

Regardless I’m done taking this further with you, as you just keep ignoring what my actual point is and saying the same thing. 

1. To me it looks like the Club is looking at other ways of ensuring work-life balance using a relatively rare sabbatical model. Whether it's a matter of privilege is something that will only become clear in a year or two, so I'm inclined to give them credit for a move that can be readily seen as a good thing if applied across the board, with the caveat that my stance will change if not applied. They're unlikely to be able to do this for many staff at once, not to mention whether one of the office staff or middle management gets such a sabbatical is not something we're ever likely to find out in the Pink'Un unless some of the Club's staff are on here to comment. So, for the moment I'll consider this as a prototype that could be laudable indeed and see what happens. 

You see 'privilege', I see 'potential prototype'.

Think this link might help: What is Sabbatical Leave? Definition and how does it work | Workable

2. Already read Jim's post. However, the subsequent comment that the Club ultimately signed off on it answers it in terms of their contentment with the situation. If the Club didn't think Webber was going to be committed, or if they didn't think reorganisation plans in his absence are up to the mark, or if they simply didn't like the conditions Webber was essentially saying he would be able to work under whilst preparing for this adventure, then do you think they'd let him have the sabbatical or indeed a new contract? Or do you think contract negotiations would have panned out differently and he'd be told to wait until he leaves the club? Or indeed just told to get lost and not get a new contract, so he's free to do it straight off when his current one expires?

The Club are clearly happy enough with it, or it would not be approved and signed, which is why criticising Webber's motivations for it are a low blow, IMO. However, what we would like to know is what is done as a back-up in mitigating his absence, and why they are confident in such planning. And if it does happen to go wrong, that's why criticism is squarely at the Club, as they ultimately signed off on it. They showed their satisfaction in signing, so they can tell us why.

Edited March 30, 2022 by TheGunnShow
Link added re. sabbaticals as leave from employment, they're rare here after all.

[Monty13 2,688]

33 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

1. To me it looks like the Club is looking at other ways of ensuring work-life balance using a relatively rare sabbatical model. Whether it's a matter of privilege is something that will only become clear in a year or two, so I'm inclined to give them credit for a move that can be readily seen as a good thing if applied across the board, with the caveat that my stance will change if not applied. They're unlikely to be able to do this for many staff at once, not to mention whether one of the office staff or middle management gets such a sabbatical is not something we're ever likely to find out in the Pink'Un unless some of the Club's staff are on here to comment. So, for the moment I'll consider this as a prototype that could be laudable indeed and see what happens. 

You see 'privilege', I see 'potential prototype'.

Think this link might help: What is Sabbatical Leave? Definition and how does it work | Workable

2. Already read Jim's post. However, the subsequent comment that the Club ultimately signed off on it answers it in terms of their contentment with the situation. If the Club didn't think Webber was going to be committed, or if they didn't think reorganisation plans in his absence are up to the mark, or if they simply didn't like the conditions Webber was essentially saying he would be able to work under whilst preparing for this adventure, then do you think they'd let him have the sabbatical or indeed a new contract? Or do you think contract negotiations would have panned out differently and he'd be told to wait until he leaves the club? Or indeed just told to get lost and not get a new contract, so he's free to do it straight off when his current one expires?

The Club are clearly happy enough with it, or it would not be approved and signed, which is why criticising Webber's motivations for it are a low blow, IMO. However, what we would like to know is what is done as a back-up in mitigating his absence, and why they are confident in such planning. And if it does happen to go wrong, that's why criticism is squarely at the Club, as they ultimately signed off on it. They showed their satisfaction in signing, so they can tell us why.

I know how sabbaticals work, I’ve took one, and it doesn’t look anything like what Webber is doing from what’s been shared. That’s the point I keep making and you keep ignoring.

From your link: “During that time, the employee is still employed at their organization, but they don’t need to perform their normal job duties or report to work.” 

A sabbatical, a period of continuous unpaid time off work to concentrate on personal life before returning to work, is pretty analogous to Maternity. That’s not what we’ve been told this is so far, that continues to be my point. Also it’s not about whether other staff get to or not in the next two years, there’s either a company policy or there isn’t. Most companies adding big employee benefits crow about it.

All I know is the club agreed a new contract with Webber and they did so after he just achieved his second PL promotion. What concessions NCFC felt they needed to give in order to keep him and what Webber pushed for to satisfy his own personal ambitions is a matter of speculation because, as far as I’m aware, none of us know. I’ve no idea who even negotiated his contract as we have no Board Chairman or Chief Exec.

I don’t see it as a low blow to question his motivation given his position. If a CEO, COO, CFO or any major leadership position of a company decided to do this without stepping down/away you can be sure shareholders would be looking to understand what was going on considering the privileged and important position of responsibility they already hold.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Monty13

[Danke bitte 1,144]

7 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I know how sabbaticals work, I’ve took one, and it doesn’t look anything like what Webber is doing from what’s been shared. That’s the point I keep making and you keep ignoring.

From your link: “During that time, the employee is still employed at their organization, but they don’t need to perform their normal job duties or report to work.” 

A sabbatical, a period of continuous unpaid time off work to concentrate on personal life before returning to work, is pretty analogous to Maternity. That’s not what we’ve been told this is so far, that continues to be my point. Also it’s not about whether other staff get to or not in the next two years, there’s either a company policy or there isn’t. Most companies adding big employee benefits crow about it.

All I know is the club agreed a new contract with Webber and they did so after he just achieved his second PL promotion. What concessions NCFC felt they needed to give in order to keep him and what Webber pushed for to satisfy his own personal ambitions is a matter of speculation because, as far as I’m aware, none of us know. I’ve no idea who even negotiated his contract as we have no Board Chairman or Chief Exec.

I don’t see it as a low blow to question his motivation given his position. If a CEO, COO, CFO or any major leadership position of a company decided to do this without stepping down/away you can be sure shareholders would be looking to understand what was going on considering the privileged and important position of responsibility they already hold.

Ultimately, Webber’s time off is a grey area. The public have not been informed whether Adams is currently in temporary charge or if Webber is working on a part time basis and this is the intention moving forward.

I don’t really care either way but just to allay speculation it would be good to know what the current position at the top is and will be should we find ourselves back in the Championship.

I also find it odd that the EDP have been denied a recent interview with him, he must have some idea of his future intentions regardless of the current position of the club, and I think, how badly the team is performing, it would be somewhat courteous of him to do so. 

[essex canary 592]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

Yeah, there's not much I disagree with Jim.

But I think at the moment the anger is being placed at Webber for doing this where in reality it should be directed at the club, the directors above him etc if anyone - it's them who have to agree to it and ensure contingency plans have no detrimental impact on our fortunes.

A fair point. Have the Directors created any impression whatsoever since Ed Balls recommended the post of Chief Operating Officer?

That is perhaps the major problem?

[king canary 8,425]

2 hours ago, Monty13 said:

There’s definitely a grain of a valid point in what he’s saying, I agree on smoking breaks as a great example, but I think he’s pretty clearly got an axe to grind on this issue.

We’ve likely all been there as the childless worker, as the person working extra hours (for some reason), losing out first choice on holidays during non term time, being asked to cover weekends more etc. then you grow as a person gain some emotional intelligence and realise working harder/longer is a personal choice and I can go on holiday any time and play Xbox just as easily on a Monday as a Sunday so maybe I can support my coworkers with kids and people will hopefully do the same for me when I choose to.

Maternity/paternity leave isn’t about that individual, it’s about the child, they aren’t analogous.

Until the club or Webber confirm he’s taking an extended period of unpaid time off to pursue his personal ambitions and being covered by X while he does so the potential affect on and response of the club as an employer clearly isn’t the same.

Not to mention championing a privileged millionaires right to do something when there’s zero evidence more junior people would get the same treatment is a bit odd to me.

If the club also comes out and say whatever they have arranged for Webber is a benefit for all employees I’ll give them a massive amount of credit.

If the club explained transparently what is going on with this situation a lot of questions would fizzle out depending on their answers. I’m genuinely surprised how many seem unperturbed by it. To me it’s Nero fiddling while Rome burns and I find it rather incredible the senior person responsible for sporting matters is undertaking this while the club is massively failing to meet its on field objectives, but maybe I’m in a small minority.

I think this is a pretty good summary.

There is a kernal of a point in @TheGunnShow's thoughts but maternity leave is absolutely the worst possible example he could have picked. 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by king canary

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

21 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I know how sabbaticals work, I’ve took one, and it doesn’t look anything like what Webber is doing from what’s been shared. That’s the point I keep making and you keep ignoring.

From your link: “During that time, the employee is still employed at their organization, but they don’t need to perform their normal job duties or report to work.” 

A sabbatical, a period of continuous unpaid time off work to concentrate on personal life before returning to work, is pretty analogous to Maternity. That’s not what we’ve been told this is so far, that continues to be my point. Also it’s not about whether other staff get to or not in the next two years, there’s either a company policy or there isn’t. Most companies adding big employee benefits crow about it.

All I know is the club agreed a new contract with Webber and they did so after he just achieved his second PL promotion. What concessions NCFC felt they needed to give in order to keep him and what Webber pushed for to satisfy his own personal ambitions is a matter of speculation because, as far as I’m aware, none of us know. I’ve no idea who even negotiated his contract as we have no Board Chairman or Chief Exec.

I don’t see it as a low blow to question his motivation given his position. If a CEO, COO, CFO or any major leadership position of a company decided to do this without stepping down/away you can be sure shareholders would be looking to understand what was going on considering the privileged and important position of responsibility they already hold.

And the point I keep making (and Hogesar tangentially made in response to the Jim post you mentioned earlier) and you seem to keep minimising is the fact that whilst we don't have a clue about the points you made in the part I highlighted in bold, or indeed his motivation levels in the first sentence of your last paragraph, the Club were evidently more than content enough otherwise that contract/this time away would ultimately not be agreed!

All we know is they've agreed to the requests that were made, or if there were differences to start with, an agreement was found. If it transpires they've actually felt "pushed" into it, then that's even more their lookout and a reason to be critical at their end. Granted, we fans don't know the terms of it, nor do we know how much notice was given to make contingency plans, and frankly I suspect confidentiality reasons alone would mean exact details of employment terms may never be published in full. But we do know - it was signed off and agreed!

We already agreed at an earlier point that there's a communication matter on the Club's side, but if the Club has signed this adventure off, I'm more than happy to accept that they think he's still motivated/will be motivated in the future. That's one camel I'm not swallowing.

[Monty13 2,688]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

And the point I keep making (and Hogesar tangentially made in response to the Jim post you mentioned earlier) and you seem to keep minimising is the fact that whilst we don't have a clue about the points you made in the part I highlighted in bold, or indeed his motivation levels in the first sentence of your last paragraph, the Club were evidently more than content enough otherwise that contract/this time away would ultimately not be agreed!

All we know is they've agreed to the requests that were made, or if there were differences to start with, an agreement was found. If it transpires they've actually felt "pushed" into it, then that's even more their lookout and a reason to be critical at their end. Granted, we fans don't know the terms of it, nor do we know how much notice was given to make contingency plans, and frankly I suspect confidentiality reasons alone would mean exact details of employment terms may never be published in full. But we do know - it was signed off and agreed!

We already agreed at an earlier point that there's a communication matter on the Club's side, but if the Club has signed this adventure off, I'm more than happy to accept that they think he's still motivated/will be motivated in the future. That's one camel I'm not swallowing.

I keep minimising even though I’ve been saying all along the club needs to explain what’s been agreed? I’ve never once suggested otherwise.

What I don’t agree on is that Webber’s motivations and commitment are unquestionable just because the club has agreed to his requests like you do.

[Jim Smith 2,498]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

1. To me it looks like the Club is looking at other ways of ensuring work-life balance using a relatively rare sabbatical model. Whether it's a matter of privilege is something that will only become clear in a year or two, so I'm inclined to give them credit for a move that can be readily seen as a good thing if applied across the board, with the caveat that my stance will change if not applied. They're unlikely to be able to do this for many staff at once, not to mention whether one of the office staff or middle management gets such a sabbatical is not something we're ever likely to find out in the Pink'Un unless some of the Club's staff are on here to comment. So, for the moment I'll consider this as a prototype that could be laudable indeed and see what happens. 

You see 'privilege', I see 'potential prototype'.

Think this link might help: What is Sabbatical Leave? Definition and how does it work | Workable

2. Already read Jim's post. However, the subsequent comment that the Club ultimately signed off on it answers it in terms of their contentment with the situation. If the Club didn't think Webber was going to be committed, or if they didn't think reorganisation plans in his absence are up to the mark, or if they simply didn't like the conditions Webber was essentially saying he would be able to work under whilst preparing for this adventure, then do you think they'd let him have the sabbatical or indeed a new contract? Or do you think contract negotiations would have panned out differently and he'd be told to wait until he leaves the club? Or indeed just told to get lost and not get a new contract, so he's free to do it straight off when his current one expires?

The Club are clearly happy enough with it, or it would not be approved and signed, which is why criticising Webber's motivations for it are a low blow, IMO. However, what we would like to know is what is done as a back-up in mitigating his absence, and why they are confident in such planning. And if it does happen to go wrong, that's why criticism is squarely at the Club, as they ultimately signed off on it. They showed their satisfaction in signing, so they can tell us why.

Depends who at "the club" has signed off on it really. The chief executive officer?

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

Just now, Monty13 said:

I keep minimising even though I’ve been saying all along the club needs to explain what’s been agreed? I’ve never once suggested otherwise.

What I don’t agree on is that Webber’s motivations and commitment are unquestionable just because the club has agreed to his requests like you do.

No, I said you're minimising the importance of the state that the Club has already agreed, that's all. I think you give the agreement less weight than I do.

If the contract had not been concluded and they were still in negotiations and Webber's future was still up in the air, then I would wonder about commitment as there's no sign.

The Club and whoever negotiated the deal clearly think he's motivated / still committed to the cause, or his contract would not have been offered or extended. That's another thing they will inevitably know far better than we do - his commitment/work ethic in the position, as well as his likely ability to handle matters when ostensibly not in the office full time.

[nutty nigel 7,844]

5 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

I think I've read *most* of the relevant posts on this thread now, and I have to say, I'll never not be left amazed at how cross people get about things that don't matter.

Internation breaks, man 🤦‍♂️

I actually do worry about this and their health. That lad on Emmerdale was always up the pole about stuff and look what's happened to him!

[Jim Smith 2,498]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

No, I said you're minimising the importance of the state that the Club has already agreed, that's all. I think you give the agreement less weight than I do.

If the contract had not been concluded and they were still in negotiations and Webber's future was still up in the air, then I would wonder about commitment as there's no sign.

The Club and whoever negotiated the deal clearly think he's motivated / still committed to the cause, or his contract would not have been offered or extended. That's another thing they will inevitably know far better than we do - his commitment/work ethic in the position, as well as his likely ability to handle matters when ostensibly not in the office full time.

We don't know that though do we. Thats really the point. It would be helpful to understand what the club has agreed to (if anything) and who agreed it because the obvious person dealing with senior level contracts and this sort of thing would appear to be Zoe Ward who just happens to be his wife and co-founder of the charitable foundation he has set up for this outing. I would hopre that someone else at the Club/on the board negotiated his new contract because it would be ridiculous if not.

Can you not see a potential issue/conflict of interest there? The two of them have almost complete executuve/day to day control of the club between them. 

If, however, when negotiating his new contract he made it very clear to the board that he wanted to do this and the board sanctioned it on the basis they would rather facilitate it than lose him at this juncture then its quite a different scenario and obviously the board will have to face the consequences if anything goes wrong with the arrangements. 

Someone will be along shortly to tell me off for speculating!