All your above points are relevant and I agree if it wasn't advertised then it should have been. But County are in desperate need of additional revenue and it could be possible that in the course of general conversations with the FAW that the FAW suggested Alex Eagle to County as a solution to the problem.

You could of course write to the BOD expressing your dismay at how this appointment has been made and suggesting that they follow accepted industry practice. Your history of "talking a good game" is usually followed by nil follow-up letter to the people making decisions you disagree with. Can I suggest instead of continually moaning on here that you "put up or shut up"?

pembsexile wrote:Morning Brendan. Just have to say - sometimes, you are quite naughty on this board. You are enjoying this little spat. I feel that it is only fair that I point out that it is my understanding that you are a Barrister who has a speciality in employment law. Wherever and whenever this applies to the County it gives added spice to you. You bloody love it! Naughty.

I was going to put a 'maybe' before the 'has a speciality' then of course as you point out my argument would have been flawed. (Maybe).

Morning Mike,

Immigration and crime. However I did win my only employment case. (maybe)

My point is a serious one. If you cut corners, often you will get away with it. But, and it's a big but, sooner or later cutting corners will rear up and bite you on the bum.

You were in the RAF. No doubt you will have questioned why everything had to be done to so high a standard. Until the day that the high standard saved your life, or the life of some 20 year old pilot who was not quite as good as he thought he was.

Thankfully the stakes are not quite so high at a football club. But the principle remains.

Best wishes,

Bren the pendant.

wattsville_boy wrote:All your above points are relevant and I agree if it wasn't advertised then it should have been....

.....Can I suggest instead of continually moaning on here that you "put up or shut up"?

You can of course suggest I shut up.

You're wasting your time, but it's your time to waste.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

wattsville_boy wrote:All your above points are relevant and I agree if it wasn't advertised then it should have been....

.....Can I suggest instead of continually moaning on here that you "put up or shut up"?

You can of course suggest I shut up.

You're wasting your time, but it's your time to waste.

It's no fun if you don't bite...

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

pembsexile wrote:Morning Brendan. Just have to say - sometimes, you are quite naughty on this board. You are enjoying this little spat. I feel that it is only fair that I point out that it is my understanding that you are a Barrister who has a speciality in employment law. Wherever and whenever this applies to the County it gives added spice to you. You bloody love it! Naughty.

I was going to put a 'maybe' before the 'has a speciality' then of course as you point out my argument would have been flawed. (Maybe).

Morning Mike,

Immigration and crime. However I did win my only employment case. (maybe)


My point is a serious one. If you cut corners, often you will get away with it. But, and it's a big but, sooner or later cutting corners will rear up and bite you on the bum.

You were in the RAF. No doubt you will have questioned why everything had to be done to so high a standard. Until the day that the high standard saved your life, or the life of some 20 year old pilot who was not quite as good as he thought he was.

Thankfully the stakes are not quite so high at a football club. But the principle remains.

Best wishes,

Bren the pendant.

I stand corrected. I thought I had read on here something about an employment case you had done. My grey cells are not what they used to be unfortunately.

I would like to say it is because of all the pressure, hard work and professionalism that I had expended whilst in the RAF. I would like to say that....

Certainly get your comment about standards. People must try (me included) to keep them high at all times, otherwise there is a tendency to fail.

Unless you are referring to the RAF flags and pendants, I am the pedant on here. I thought that had been established.

pembsexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

pembsexile wrote:Morning Brendan. Just have to say - sometimes, you are quite naughty on this board. You are enjoying this little spat. I feel that it is only fair that I point out that it is my understanding that you are a Barrister who has a speciality in employment law. Wherever and whenever this applies to the County it gives added spice to you. You bloody love it! Naughty.

I was going to put a 'maybe' before the 'has a speciality' then of course as you point out my argument would have been flawed. (Maybe).

Morning Mike,

Immigration and crime. However I did win my only employment case. (maybe)


My point is a serious one. If you cut corners, often you will get away with it. But, and it's a big but, sooner or later cutting corners will rear up and bite you on the bum.

You were in the RAF. No doubt you will have questioned why everything had to be done to so high a standard. Until the day that the high standard saved your life, or the life of some 20 year old pilot who was not quite as good as he thought he was.

Thankfully the stakes are not quite so high at a football club. But the principle remains.

Best wishes,

Bren the pendant.

I stand corrected. I thought I had read on here something about an employment case you had done. My grey cells are not what they used to be unfortunately.

I would like to say it is because of all the pressure, hard work and professionalism that I had expended whilst in the RAF. I would like to say that....

Certainly get your comment about standards. People must try (me included) to keep them high at all times, otherwise there is a tendency to fail.

Unless you are referring to the RAF flags and pendants, I am the pedant on here. I thought that had been established.

Auto spelling I'm afraid. Although only a fellow pedant would have made a point of it.

wattsville_boy wrote:
It's no fun if you don't bite...

No problem. If the best you can do to give your life purpose is to say daft things so that I can correct you, then sobeit.

Unbelievable!

We bring someone in that:

a) knows the club
b) knows the area
c) knows football
d) has a good track record

and still people moan!

Willthiswork wrote:Unbelievable!

We bring someone in that:

a) knows the club
b) knows the area
c) knows football
d) has a good track record

and still people moan!

No. The issue is not with the person but with the process.

Now can disagree with my view or you can make smart arse comments. To do the former you have to give reasons. To do the latter all you have to do is press the rolling eyes emoji.

As I often say nuanced argument is beyond the wit of some on here.

Edit.

In fact your post is the type of post that annoys me. I make no criticism of the person appointed. And yet you choose to post up all of his attributes, as you see them. And your post will actually make it appear that I am making such a criticism.

Pause for a moment, if he is the best person for the job, and he may well be, then he would get the job in any event.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Willthiswork wrote:Unbelievable!

We bring someone in that:

a) knows the club
b) knows the area
c) knows football
d) has a good track record

and still people moan!

No. The issue is not with the person but with the process.

Now can disagree with my view or you can make smart arse comments. To do the former you have to give reasons. To do the latter all you have to do is press the rolling eyes emoji.

As I often say nuanced argument is beyond the wit of some on here.

'The process' you talk about has brought in this person whom I speak about...go figure!

But if there was a better candidate who this process prevented from applying, you will have supported a process which will have damaged our club.

I went, I figured, I came to the conclusion that I am right and you are wrong.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:But if there was a better candidate who this process prevented from applying, you will have supported a process which will have damaged our club.

I went, I figured, I came to the conclusion that I am right and you are wrong.

LOL! I should have figured!

If - the biggest little word in the world.

Willthiswork wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:But if there was a better candidate who this process prevented from applying, you will have supported a process which will have damaged our club.

I went, I figured, I came to the conclusion that I am right and you are wrong.

LOL! I should have figuered!

If - the biggest little word in the world.

Serious point.

Do you think jobs should be given via open tender or by patronage?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
Serious point.

Do you think jobs should be given via open tender or by patronage?

An honest approach from me is that I simply don't care as long as we get a right appointee.

I'm not into quotas of BME, male/female ratio etc.

What I see with what we have appointed is someone who knows the club etc. (as above) and has contacts within the FAW.

A potential great appointment by the club which hasn't cost anything on advertisements, time or cash!

Willthiswork wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
Serious point.

Do you think jobs should be given via open tender or by patronage?

An honest approach from me is that I simply don't care as long as we get a right appointee.

I'm not into quotas of BME, male/female ratio etc.

What I see with what we have appointed is someone who knows the club etc. (as above) and has contacts within the FAW.

A potential great appointment by the club which hasn't cost anything on advertisements, time or cash!

Okay, so you don't care.

But your argument is without merit.

If the person appointed would have been the best candidate he would get the job in any event. If there was a better candidate who should and would have got the job, the process has effectively damaged Newport County.

You might not care. I do.