forlanssister

As was said about McCarthy and McArthur, whatever happened to them again?

Hence the Luddite mentality being binned....

That the purpose of the U20's is to win every game.

They've ditched that mentality thank f*&k!

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/21/mike-ashley-sports-direct-fails-to-put-representative-on-findel-board

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/20/sports-direct-boss-mike-ashley-faces-findel-board-defeat

Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.

An invitation is a waste of time a summons would be more in order.

The killing of JJB was an extremely cute affair, Ashley's sidekick parachuted in and the money borrowed from an Icelandic Bank. Ashley's biggest competitor removed at no cost to himself.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/18/sports-direct-mike-ashley-to-oversee-review-of-agency-workers-conditions

Think about it and you'll see you actually answered your own question.

Given that at least part of the indictments Green wants the company to pay for defending was prior to the company's existence was he at that point a third party? It is beyond question that Green like everyone else is entitled to the presumption of innocence and it is not beyond possibility we may see a scenario where the company is liable in the event of a not guilty or not proven verdict and not liable in the event of a guilty verdict. Other factors include the knowledge of the other Directors when the agreement was entered into and the contents of the Pinsent Masons report which I'm led to believe that contrary to what was claimed at the time was far from an absolution and not all Directors were privy to its' contents.

Was the agreement made in good faith? given Green's knowledge of events I cannot see it was made in good faith. I'm not sure or not whether it is a transaction or not either hence my doubts.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/16/sports-direct-labour-demand-government-investigation

I think 40 certainly applies but and can see arguments either way on 41.

I wonder if inserting such a clause in his contract is in itself a breech of Sections 40/41 of the Companies Act.

Horrific is being kind,wee lassies in Kindergarten throw better punches than that everyday. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2s7634

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/15/sports-direct-public-accounts-hmrc-investigation?CMP=share_btn_tw

Perhaps so but it certainly killed off any faint (however deluded!) hope we had.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/14/sports-direct-mps-call-for-hmrc-to-investigate-minimum-wage-claims

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/14/sports-direct-crisis-grows-as-mps-and-investors-question-business

At worst it should have been brought to the QC's attention during the lunch break in order to correct the error when the Court rose after the break. Both our Chairman and Company Secretary were in Court so I fail to see why it wasn't done.

Guardian not letting up.....

They didn't tell us it was paid off merely that they were going to. It was the QC who said it was paid off, King should have corrected him. It was sloppy and self-harming, two traits that should now be in the past. No doubt we'll now have to pay the largely ineffective Traynor & Co to draft statement to correct the misconception.

Has the appearance of a communication cock up more than anything else. Be interesting to know if something signed by a Director of one company binds the Director's of another.