Redundancies at Argyle?

Just rob wrote:

Why do the club have to make a statement about this. Would you want your employer to announce it if you had lost your job.

Would you want your employees, difficult when you run your own recruit agency so hypothetically, to be gossiping about it for days before it was announced to you?

That was clearly the case here.

Fletch watches oppostion teams twitter for clues? Not doing him much bloody good is it?

How about reading your own players embarrassing twitter feeds Fletch?

I think our teams twitter feeds do highlight our tactics, Nandos, call of duty, prem results, where they are taking the grandchildren.

SirCumfrance wrote:

For those who were able to watch Spotlight last night, did they report that the redundencies are confirmed? I didn't see it.

And, if the redundencies have been confirmed, will they all be compulsory?

Apparently there was an announcement on the official site yesterday that everything at the club would be closed for an hour or so - it didn't stay there long. I reckon the BBC bloke (the one who sent the first tweet Andy posted) spotted that and followed it up. Certainly people on pasoti were speculating about it.

Clearly, somebody's spoken to the media: both the BBC and the Herald quote that ridiculous 250 employees figure. And the BBC in particular won't be publishing anything that isn't confirmed - not in the current climate.

The BBC also report that the club has opened the statutory consultation period. That means that they'll be seeking voluntary redundancies first, but of course if they can't be found it could become compulsory. That's why people don't know yet if they'll be affected, which is very painful.

Andy_Symons wrote:

The fact is, the staff have been told about the redundancies, but none of the staff know if they are one of the individuals affected yet. That's a really poor way to treat all the staff - every one of them now has the spectre of redundancy hanging over them. I'm sure that sort of treatment will do wonders for staff morale.

I think thats a statutory requirement (to give people a 'warning' period) if you are going to make a certain level of redundancies. I worked at a company where we had to go through a similar process. We knew how many were going, but now who or from where. It isn't great for the staff (I think we were all wating for 2 months until we found out who was for the chop) but I think it's a legal necessity if the company are making redundancies above a certain level.

A sell out as a president acting as if its good news to lay 10 people off. This is what our club has become now people a sick joke.

Buying the actual football club and the surrounding land is a bit like Sainsbury's selling loss leaders. The potential for massive profits from development of the car park and other contracts from the City council must far outweigh the projected losses for this season.

Also I'm no tax expert (have never had enough to get concerned with tax 'efficiency' schemes) - but I'm sure Mr Brent is.

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

The fact is, the staff have been told about the redundancies, but none of the staff know if they are one of the individuals affected yet. That's a really poor way to treat all the staff - every one of them now has the spectre of redundancy hanging over them. I'm sure that sort of treatment will do wonders for staff morale.

I think thats a statutory requirement (to give people a 'warning' period) if you are going to make a certain level of redundancies. I worked at a company where we had to go through a similar process. We knew how many were going, but now who or from where. It isn't great for the staff (I think we were all wating for 2 months until we found out who was for the chop) but I think it's a legal necessity if the company are making redundancies above a certain level.

You're absolutely correct - I worded my post pretty badly. My point was that the leaking of this information left the staff in a very unpleasant limbo. Certainly, the correct procedures need to be followed, and I'm sure they will; but haven't the staff (without whom there would be no club) done enough to deserve just a bit more consideration, sympathy and respect from Management than just going through the statutory motions?

Andy_Symons wrote:

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

The fact is, the staff have been told about the redundancies, but none of the staff know if they are one of the individuals affected yet. That's a really poor way to treat all the staff - every one of them now has the spectre of redundancy hanging over them. I'm sure that sort of treatment will do wonders for staff morale.

I think thats a statutory requirement (to give people a 'warning' period) if you are going to make a certain level of redundancies. I worked at a company where we had to go through a similar process. We knew how many were going, but now who or from where. It isn't great for the staff (I think we were all wating for 2 months until we found out who was for the chop) but I think it's a legal necessity if the company are making redundancies above a certain level.

You're absolutely correct - I worded my post pretty badly. My point was that the leaking of this information left the staff in a very unpleasant limbo. Certainly, the correct procedures need to be followed, and I'm sure they will; but haven't the staff (without whom there would be no club) done enough to deserve just a bit more consideration, sympathy and respect from Management than just going through the statutory motions?

Quite. I am hoping all service is recognised rather than just when the new company was formed out of administration, that redundancy is above the statutory minimum and that any unpaid salary due is paid up at the date of leaving rather than waiting over the 5 year period (and if that means going against the football league and their rules that everyone as to be paid at the same time players and staff then so be it)

If the overheads are too high, they (the overheads) need to be cut, and sadly, this usually means staff.


I am however, confused on a couple of points:

When the club was in Administration, surely all staffing was cut to the bone? So, are these redundancies because some staff have been taken on since the club came out of Administration? If so, why were they taken on? Or is the implication that the club was overstafffed while in Administration? And that the club has been overstaffed for the last tweelve months without JB doing anything about it?

Has the playing budget also been reviewed? PAFC must have one of the largest squads in this League. Is that necessary, especially with no Cup run and only a need to keep out of the bottom two places for the rest of the season?

If the rumours about the budgets being based on crowds in excess of 8,000 are correct, I can only assume that there was an expectation of a promotion push?
Were did that expectation come from? And will the manager pay the price? Or would sacking him be too costly?

Maybe the roles will be undertaken by volunteers.

Then again, I can't see that much of a cost saving if that were the way of things.

It will be interesting to see which roles may be affected.

Quote :

However, it has since been suggested that 7.5k was the real figure used for calculations this season.

Clarification given to John Lloyd. Still idiotic. The break even figure not John Lloyd.

I wonder if any of those being made redundant were having to serve the great and the good in the directors box tonight.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

A sell out as a president acting as if its good news to lay 10 people off. This is what our club has become now people a sick joke.

No. It's good news that 5 people are not being made redundant.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"This shows that consultation processes can work to keep people in employment."

Leak 10, sack 5. What a guy!

There they go again, spinning the 250 line.

How many full time non-playing employees do Plymouth Argyle have?

At one level (not the correct one of course) it's the presumption that we are all fucktards (thanks Jock!) that drives me insane. At least those made redundant can benefit from the cheapest match tickets in the football league. £14 is a bargain.

Does anyone there have O level maths? 250 employees, 20,000 fans, 8,000 average home gates ... are these figures just plucked out of thin air or is there a major problem with decimal points.

Why has it taken a year to see there is a problem with the staffing balance/fit for purpose. Has there been any staff training (eg with a manager from a successful hotel) to get the existing staff up to speed?

How convenient is that? Announce up to 10 redundancies will be made, then all celebrate when James Brent "saves" 5 people's jobs

Where the feck Chris Webb is during all of this who knows, but I saw him on TV yesterday handing out leaflets to the poor postmen in Bristol who are threatening to strike because of a heavier workload.

So he'll fight for his comrades in the CWU, but not the friends and fellow supporters he sees week in week out at Home Park.

feckin turncoat. Sold out for a title, badge and a spot on Radio Devon.

Greenjock wrote:

How convenient is that? Announce up to 10 redundancies will be made, then all celebrate when James Brent "saves" 5 people's jobs

Where the feck Chris Webb is during all of this who knows, but I saw him on TV yesterday handing out leaflets to the poor postmen in Bristol who are threatening to strike because of a heavier workload.

So he'll fight for his comrades in the CWU, but not the friends and fellow supporters he sees week in week out at Home Park.

feckin turncoat. Sold out for a title, badge and a spot on Radio Devon.

I don't want it to seem that I've been possessed by the spirit of Tringreen, but I've been saying that since he was appointed as Supreme Leader.

That report just states there will be no more than 5 compulsory redundancies but makes no mention of voluntary redundancies. My money would be on there still being 10 members of staff leaving Argyle in this round of 'restructuring'.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

How convenient is that? Announce up to 10 redundancies will be made, then all celebrate when James Brent "saves" 5 people's jobs

Where the feck Chris Webb is during all of this who knows, but I saw him on TV yesterday handing out leaflets to the poor postmen in Bristol who are threatening to strike because of a heavier workload.

So he'll fight for his comrades in the CWU, but not the friends and fellow supporters he sees week in week out at Home Park.

feckin turncoat. Sold out for a title, badge and a spot on Radio Devon.

I don't want it to seem that I've been possessed by the spirit of Tringreen, but I've been saying that since he was appointed as Supreme Leader.

How village

Pete1886 wrote:

That report just states there will be no more than 5 compulsory redundancies but makes no mention of voluntary redundancies. My money would be on there still being 10 members of staff leaving Argyle in this round of 'restructuring'.

Or even more than 10 if there are enough volunteers?

Chris Webbs old man passed away today. Nikkk had a moan about this thread then apologised when told about the condolence thread on half time.
Sorry for your loss Chris.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

A sell out as a president acting as if its good news to lay 10 people off. This is what our club has become now people a sick joke.

No. It's good news that 5 people are not being made redundant.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"This shows that consultation processes can work to keep people in employment."

Leak 10, sack 5. What a guy!

5 now 5 later its an old trick of the trade

Iggy wrote:

Chris Webbs old man passed away today. Nikkk had a moan about this thread then apologised when told about the condolence thread on half time.
Sorry for your loss Chris.

I think it needs to be left there and nothing more said that could start another war of words.

Iggy wrote:

Chris Webbs old man passed away today. Nikkk had a moan about this thread then apologised when told about the condolence thread on half time.
Sorry for your loss Chris.

Is there anything else I shouldn't discuss because of events that I know nothing about? Quite how one man's personal tragedy ties in to another man's business plan escapes me but I don't think I would like anything quite so personal mentioned by a third party on a message board at all if it was me.

SFD no one was to know. I started a thread on half time page half an hour before Nikkkkks intervention. He wasn't to know that had happened either although it was visible as the header on that board in all that time. I put it there because I didn't want to cause a fuss. I've asked the mods if they would consider moving it to the main board but in the meantime it's here

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]