Chung Yong to follow NRC and quit Bolton?

Ah right got ya.

The size of Rooneys brain makes him much lighter than most folk

Chung yong lee is almost a stone heavier than Messi.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Chung yong lee is almost a stone heavier than Messi.

Have you got the weights of all professional footballers on a spreadsheet?

No but i do have access to google.

Messi is too lightweight for the nPower Championship.

Im fully expecting Zat Knight to break Chungys leg in training

Zat Knight is 4 stone heavier than Chungy.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:

But that would still leave a big gaping hole between what the company makes and its outgoings - thus leaving all your "loyal" staff on the verge of losing the job whilst knowing that a lot more could be done - so where is the loyalty to the loyal staff?

It's not loyal to turn up at work bang on 9am, do as little as possible all day, and then leave before the clock has finished striking 5pm.

I could lose 3 staff on a combined wage of around £100k, give the 8 remaining staff a £5k pay rise and increase my output. But the law won't allow me.

But in keeping with the hypothetical question that was set - if in a financial strain how can losing 3 memebers of staff equate to giving a payrise to others without the detriment of the company.



Basically what I am trying to get at is that any company, which is an entity just like a member of staff, has no loyalty and is just in it for the money to survive. Loyalty equates to one or both losing out in the short term. Loyalty doesn't exist in any business whatsoever one uses the other for their own needs.

This is what I expect from all players, and the club and all entities want to succeed and will do so by one means or another - loyalty breeds complancency.

bwfc71's standpoint on this is so fundamentally Marxist, it might be a direct quotation from The Communist Manifesto, but I happen to agree.

99% of private sector workers work for companies don't care one iota about their employees. Workers are fundamentally exploited by businesses. They generate profits for businesses which are not shared. If a company is not hitting its profit targets, or losing money, the first thing it looks to do is save money on its wage bill, through getting rid of staff, cutting their hours, cutting their benefits, introducing a new pay scheme, finding ways to screw people out of bonuses, exploiting and disregarding any existing goodwill with the workforce.

The 1% who do work for companies that do care about their employees work for very small businesses, small enough for the owner to have a personal relationship with each employee, and where that person has a conscience.

There's simply no loyalty in business.

In reply to BWFC1874:

We have short memories it seems ...... Holden got into the team due to an injury to ???? (i forget who) but he was a backup.....noone thought he was more than a stop gap. Was he a free ??? not sure but anyway over his first season he looks to be very good. Mavies was bought by Mugson to be a creative midfielder and blossom into a very good player.....so far that has not happened. Some were talking Mavies for England last year...... not so fast laddie.....we are still waiting.

Whittam quote - 'I could lose 3 staff on a combined wage of around £100k, give the 8 remaining staff a £5k pay rise and increase my output. But the law won't allow me.'



So you could lose over a quarter of your staff and the remainder would not only make up for that but increase output. Well I would suggest this remaining 3/4 are not being correctly utilised at present if this is the case, that or you are going to load extra long hours on them while at the same time you pocket the surplus £60k.

Doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me.

chipbutty wrote:Whittam quote - 'I could lose 3 staff on a combined wage of around £100k, give the 8 remaining staff a £5k pay rise and increase my output. But the law won't allow me.'



So you could lose over a quarter of your staff and the remainder would not only make up for that but increase output. Well I would suggest this remaining 3/4 are not being correctly utilised at present if this is the case, that or you are going to load extra long hours on them while at the same time you pocket the surplus £60k.

Doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me.

that's why she is a successful business woman....

chipbutty wrote:

So you could lose over a quarter of your staff and the remainder would not only make up for that but increase output. Well I would suggest this remaining 3/4 are not being correctly utilised at present if this is the case, that or you are going to load extra long hours on them while at the same time you pocket the surplus £60k.

Doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me.

The three people I'd like to fire do so little work it would be very easy for the remaining staff to take over their work. And with a £5k pay rise they'd work even harder. Who's getting £5k payrises in office work these days?