Author: Guy Thomas Now that the transfer window has closed, the list of free agents published by the Professional Footballers Association  makes for illuminating reading. Whilst (in theory) many of these could be signed up by clubs tomorrow, the BBC (and others) have already reported on how quiet the transfer market has been this season. When players like DeMerit, who performed well for the United States at the recent World Cup, are still looking for a position at this stage of the season, then it seems like financial restraint has at last dampened the market. Hang on…..whilst its tempting to point to this as a sign of the financial strain that clubs are still under, statistics published by the German based website www.transfermarkt.co.uk seem to point to yet another enormous mismatch between the monies received in by Premiership clubs from player sales and how much they have (reportedly) had to fork out for their new purchases. No one should be surprised that Manchester City tops the table for net transfer spending but with an apparent mismatch of £247.490.000 for the Premiership’s season so far (i.e. the reported transfer revenue received in by Premiership clubs is £168.160.500 & the reported transfer expenditure spent by Premiership clubs is £390.901.500), it’s surprising that more alarm bells haven’t rung out about this. Put another way; it’s an odd sort of belt tightening that leads Premiership clubs that are paying for new players to spend close to quarter of a billion pounds more then they have received in on the sale of other players.

View original post here: 
Spend, Spend, Spend?

Author: Nathanael Young For years, the identity of Top Gear’s the Stig has been the subject of speculation and amateur detective work. Now, with publisher HarperCollins set to reveal all in a new book, the matter has been passed to the lawyers. The BBC has applied for an injunction to halt publication, and both parties were in the High Court on Monday over the issue. At present, further details of the case are hard to come by. It seems the BBC is alleging that the publication breaches confidentiality agreements entered into in connection with the show, and that HarperCollins is standing by its right to publish the mysterious driver’s story. No doubt more will emerge in due course, although how much depends on the outcome of the litigation. To the public, the interesting question may be the face behind the trademark black visor, but there are likely to be serious legal issues in a case of this sort. Secrets are not usually kept for long under the constant glare of media publicity; they have to be carefully guarded. There can be little doubt the BBC has given serious thought to the issue from Stig’s first appearance in 2003, or there would now be nothing confidential to protect. In English law, secrets of this sort will be protected by the law of confidence. To stop disclosure, someone will generally have to show the information is confidential in nature, that it was disclosed in confidential circumstances and that there is a threat to use it to their detriment. The best way to satisfy this test is by having a carefully drafted confidentiality agreement. In this case, HarperCollins is not likely to have received their information from the BBC, so there is unlikely to be a signed agreement. It may be the BBC will instead allege the publisher is obliged not to use information they received from the unknown driver, since they knew or ought to have known that was confidential. There is precedent for this; since when Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sued Hello! magazine for using unauthorised images of their wedding, there was again no confidentiality agreement between the magazine and the couple. In that case the source of the photographs must have been a guest or member of staff with a hidden camera. However, it was held that Hello! were liable for using the images obtained in breach of confidence. Cases of this sort may seem far from the world of business. However, all businesses will have confidential information about their processes, customers, suppliers and systems. Sometimes, this information can be the single most valuable thing the business owns. It makes sense to control and protect it, and this means carefully worded confidentiality clauses are a must. After all, some things are best kept under your hat – or helmet.

More here:
The Stig Issue: BBC battles to keep driver veiled

Author: Chris Cook   I am pleased to report that SA Law recorded its third consecutive victory on Wednesday evening against a strong Hillier Hopkins side.   Having elected to bat on a damp evening, SA Law made a stuttering start with Satinder and Rob Griffiths both falling early on and ringer Nathanael Young  and Chris Alexander departing without scoring.  The skipper was joined by Gary Dunger  at the crease, the latter of whom batted impressively to reach 25 and retire before ringer Josh Rose arrived and gave us the usual display of powerful hitting to score him 25 and retire in express fashion.  Simon Walsh then came to the crease and the rain started to fall and gave us a humorous display of his skating skills as he spent most of his innings on his backside.  The heavens opened 11 overs into the scheduled 15 and the SA Law innings finished on 90 for 4, giving Hillier Hopkins a decent target of just over a run a ball.   There were calls to call off the match during a 30 minute downpour but after discussion the match carried on.  Ringers Josh and Pahrag produced tidy bowling spells in slippery conditions.  In the circumstances SA Law’s fielding was solid although there were understandably a few errors, most notably including Pahrag’s son copping a fearsome blow to the shin and Chris A bottling a routine stop in the field, clearly mindful of the same outcome.  Chris A atoned with some solid bowling against some decent batsmen, as he (one wicket) and Satinder (two wickets) both kept the run rate down.  Hillier Hopkins finished on 77 for 7, which was 319 runs short of their Duckworth-Lewis adjusted score.   Many thanks to the players and spectators.  It is likely that this was our last game of the season, and if so the players are to be commended on finishing undefeated against some good opponents, particularly in the absence of Rob “we’ve never lost a game when I’ve played” Ryall.

Original post:
Cricket V Hillier Hopkins

Author: Guy Thomas And on the Third Day the Word came down… Not Guilty!* After yesterday (the second day of the hearing) in which the HMRC finished off putting their case to Mr Justice Mann, Pompey’s lawyer, Richard Sheldon QC, took about three hours to explain the club’s position and plead for the Clubs survival (amazingly) it worked. The Judge gave his executive summary this afternoon and, as reported by Portsmouth News and others, HMRC have decided not to Appeal. No doubt the judge will publish his fulsome and no doubt carefully worded explanation, very soon. The judge’s decision was hoped for by many and expected by only a few. Mr Sheldon had told the judge yesterday the club would receive a total of £48m over the next four seasons. The judge said that with £22.5m owed to football creditors this would leave £25.5m. HMRC position was that they were determined to get the best deal for the taxpayer. High stakes poker, winner takes all, with a dealer called Mr Justice Mann. This appeared to be largely technical case focused on case law, the interesting Football and Tax aspects were merely the setting, but in the end though the Judge seems to have taken the view that the alternative was too poor an outcome for all concerned (including the HMRC). Yesterday, Pompey’s lawyer painted a Doomsday scenario for the judge if he failed to back the club in his verdict, stating that if the Revenue won the club it would prevent Mr Chainrai becoming the new owner and ‘in all likelihood [the Club] would go into liquidation’. There is so much at stake for the HMRC that an appeal seemed inevitable (and I still would have rated their chances). You’ll notice who I missed off from that …the fans, they’ll not want to appeal this. Where were Andronikou and Lampitt for the result? Were they too embarrassed to show their face to the media and fans whose attention they had previously courted? No, that’s unfair. They were more likely already preparing the Club’s Appeal had they lost. Well that’s that, except for the lawyer’s fees of course. £230,000? You’ll have heard the expression: “Play Up Pompey”, well now it’s “Pay Up, Pay Up Taxman”. *Well not exactly, not guilty but you get the gist.

Here is the original: 
Pompey in the Dock: Pompey Win! And No Appeal

Author: Guy Thomas The hearing of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs’ (HMRC) appeal against the approval of Portsmouth’s Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) kicked off this morning in Court 52 of the Royal Courts of Justice in front of Mr Justice Mann. Portsmouth Today reported on the day’s proceedings by Twitter and with on line reports. BBC’s Dan Roan also attended and blogged before the hearing. For all of you that can’t wait for the more considered analysis, the first days highlights are as follows: The hearing started briefly but was immediately adjourned so the judge, Mr Justice Mann, to read extra papers submitted by HMRC. Having read the additional evidence, the Judge began proceedings by listening to the submissions of Gregory Mitchell QC (for HMRC). Mr Mitchell said the taxpayer was always the victim when a football club went into administration. ‘It’s always the Treasury which loses out when a football club becomes insolvent.  Mr Mitchell QC went on to say that HMRC had worked out Pompey owed them over £30m. ‘This assessment goes back some way - to the tax year of 2006/07 - and has been a very complex investigation. ‘PAYE should have been paid and has not been paid. He went on to describe the arrangements as. ‘a sham. It was a way in which the club could pay the money into a tax haven.’ Mr Mitchell went on to criticise another ’sham’ he alleged Pompey used to avoid paying tax. This concerned money paid into players’ employment benefit trusts in what he described as ‘tax havens’.  He said: ‘The Revenue says these are disguised payments of salaries on which PAYE should have been paid.’ The arguments then went on to “whether HMRC might have suffered prejudicial treatment by Pompey” and, “whether that prejudicial treatment was unfair”. Mr Justice Mann also queried exactly which grounds the Revenue has brought the case against the club and the differences between the rules of association for the premier league and football league (and what happens when a club goes bust in either league) and finally what happened when Wimbledon FC went bust. There will be more tomorrow and the judgement will be handed down on Thursday. As he went in to Court this morning Pompey’s chief executive David Lampitt was reported to be  “nervous” about these proceedings….It’s too early to tell but that sounds about right!

See original here:
Pompey in the Dock – Day 1 : ‘This appeal is not about precise figures, it’s about principle”

Author: Nikki Petken You may recall SA Law’s blog on 25 September 2009, in which we confirmed that the High Court had ruled it was legal for employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65. The government has now made a dramatic u-turn and proposed that the current default retirement age of 65 is scrapped in the UK from October 2011. The implications are that employers would no longer be able to dismiss staff because they had reached the age of 65. The current position is that an employer can meet with an employee 6 to 12 months before their 65th birthday and notify them of their intention to retire them at that date. An employee is entitled to put forward their case not to be retired but the only obligation on an employer is to consider this. It is the employer’s discretion as to whether or not to terminate employment. Groups that have long campaigned for the default retirement age to be scrapped have welcomed the decision. Marion Birch, Chief Executive of Age UK Hertfordshire has told SA Law, “Older people are one group of society that are not protected from discrimination by legislation so we are delighted that people over the age of 65 will have full employment rights for the first time. Age UK Hertfordshire is pleased that the Government is finally sweeping away this discrimination against older people and will be allowing individuals the dignity of choosing when to retire.  Enabling people to work and contribute their skills for longer not only keeps them active, it also makes economic sense as our population ages.” Given the length of notice required to notify an employee of their intended retirement, it is likely that these measures will come into force from 6 April 2011. The main concern appears to be the length of time in which employers will need to come up to speed with the new law. Really they have only just got to grips with the retirement process and employers will need to deal with their new workforce at that time in particular; •    reviewing policies and practices such as benefits to ensure these are not discriminatory to employees over the age of 65 years; •    consider alternatives to forcing retirement such as adjustments to role, variation of terms or flexible working. If you have any questions about the new retirement plans, do not hesitate to call Nikki Petken on 01727 798023

Excerpt from:
New Government: New Plans for Retirement

Author: Jacqueline Button Public sector employees worried about their pay and pensions aren’t the only ones affected by the new government’s clamp down on spending. Property Week reported last month (4/6/10) that on 24 May Whitehall’s Efficiency and Reform Group announced a halt to lease extensions in the current financial year that do not have Treasury approval. The government is also planning to exercise break options which it has this year, including at Eland House, Victoria Street SW1, the 24,200 sq ft headquarters of the Communities and Local Government Department. A client of ours has had a similar experience – a government department tenant, initially keen to renew their lease have backed out of negotiations and will be relocating to cheaper premises. (Spare a thought for the staff – no pay rise, no pension and forced to work in the back of beyond). So landlords of public sector bodies must beware – your once star tenants are fading. Check break dates and expiry dates. If any are coming up soon, you may find yourself looking for a new tenant.

Read the original post: 
Public Sector Lease Freeze

Author: Guy Thomas   In the run up to today’s creditor’s meeting at Pompey’s Fratton Park, Guy Thomas has been commenting in www.sportingintelligence.com on the background to today’s meeting and the options available to the creditors of Portsmouth City Football Club (In Administration) when they vote. Click here to read more.

See the original post: 
Portsmouth: Why Thursday’s creditors meeting means so much to so many (not least the helpless fans)

Author Chris Cook When I think of the world cup I think of 3 things: Gazza’s tears, penalty shoot out disappointments and…unexplained work place absence! There is simply no getting away from the fact that some fans are so passionate about the team they support that they might be tempted to ‘pull a sickie’ to watch critical matches. Here are my tip tips for managing “World Cup Fever” Flexible hours   - allow employees to take the time off to watch the games provided that they make up the hours at a different time Shift swaps - allow employees to swap shifts in order for them to be able to watch the games as long as an appropriate level of cover is organised Unpaid leave - allow employees to take unpaid leave provided that this does not interfere with business operations Annual leave - remind employees that they will need to book annual leave in advance if they wish to watch the games, with approval of such request based on maintaining adequate staffing levels. TV/radio in the background - allow employees to have the TV or radio on in the background so that they can keep track of the games as they work or having special screenings of the games on the premises.  Remember if you are planning to show the matches at work make sure you have a TV licence and you have paid your PRS licence Not everyone is a football fan - employees should be treated fairly and equally at all times. You could therefore consider offering an incentive to anyone who agrees to work through the matches when they are being screened in the office In summary when managing your employees’ during the world cup …….. “You’ve got to hold and give , But do it at the right time , You can be slow or fast , But you must get to the line , They’ll always hit you and hurt you , Defend and attack , There’s only one way to beat them Get round the back”   New order  “World in Motion”  1990 Come on England!!!!

Go here to read the rest: 
Be on the ball: How to successfully manage World Cup “Fever”

Author: Helen Duffy A former police sergeant is suing Kent Police under the Disability Discrimination Act (“DDA”).  She suffers from a voice disorder, which results in her generally only being able to speak in a whisper.  She wanted to become a dog handler but experienced problems because she could not shout controls to the animals.  She claims that the force did not give her the opportunity to carry out the dog training.  She has further claimed that she felt discriminated against after being asked to attend a meeting with the assistant chief constable after she left. When an employee suffers from a ‘disability’ under the DDA, an employer is obliged to make any ‘reasonable’ adjustments in order to assist that person in their employment.  However, there is a limit to what is ‘reasonable’. It seems in this case that there is little that can be done if the employee’s disability actually prevents her from being able to do her job.  Perhaps the dogs could be communicated to through whistle commands, but it would certainly go beyond reasonableness to expect the police force to re-train all of its dogs to respond to whistle, rather than shout commands, simply to cater for one officer’s disability. Employers are (and indeed should be) expected to assist employees with disabilities in any way that is reasonable, but there is a limit to what is expected of an employer. The Tribunal Judge made his opinion clear in his comment that, “The Disability Discrimination Act is not a charter to blame someone for everything that happens to them in life”

Read more from the original source:
When a “reasonable” adjustment is “unreasonable”

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation UK