Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.

Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,414,597 Views)
pads99
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
markybhoy
27 Jul 2016, 11:53 AM
If the board aren't asking pretty serious question of PL right now they're completely failing in their duty to hold the operational manager to account. They've changed manager and it was a roaring success, I've no doubt that the managers list of transfer signings have been communicated to the board, so PL should be explaining why those haven't happened.

The Celtic board is PL. the rest are flunkys. Anyone who questioned his actions wouldn't last long.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
pads99
27 Jul 2016, 12:14 PM
markybhoy
27 Jul 2016, 11:53 AM
If the board aren't asking pretty serious question of PL right now they're completely failing in their duty to hold the operational manager to account. They've changed manager and it was a roaring success, I've no doubt that the managers list of transfer signings have been communicated to the board, so PL should be explaining why those haven't happened.

The Celtic board is PL. the rest are flunkys. Anyone who questioned his actions wouldn't last long.
Who has been removed from the board?

Do you have any evidence of this?

Dermot Desmond a flunky?
Edited by Adam Smith 11, 27 Jul 2016, 12:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lesdon67
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
pads99
27 Jul 2016, 12:14 PM

The Celtic board is PL. the rest are flunkys. Anyone who questioned his actions wouldn't last long.
Pretty sweeping statement, that. Care to expand on it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QualityStreet1970
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 12:03 PM
paulfg42
27 Jul 2016, 11:40 AM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 11:36 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I have no real idea what goes on in board meetings but I have serious doubts that it is the board providing the strategic vision for the club. We need a new CEO with new ideas and ambition (and I know DD will have the final say).
It's the new ideas bit I struggle with. What are they?

Football is heavily regulated by powerful regulators who have a vested interest in the status quo.

Only a fundamental change in the structure of European football will change much.

Changing the CEO of Celtic will not influence that.

It is wishful thinking to think that changing the pantomime villain will change our strategy.

Moving towards being football led rather than accountancy led is a step that will help us. What does a new CEO bring to the party given that the role is being made less influential.
Celtic's CEO should either be a football man, or somebody who knows how to surround himself with capable football men. Lawwell seems to think that you can run a football along the same lines as any other business. You can't. You have to have a feel for it.

A new CEO puts in place a competent scouting system, and makes more than occasional use of the fact that we have the world's richest football league on our doorstep. The likes of Wanyama and Foster should be the exception, not the rule. Of course, we can't build a decent team if key players aren't staying at CP for more than a couple of seasons; but if our scouting system was functioning properly, we wouldn't have to operate a revolving-door policy. The club would be transformed if we started to feel confident that most of our signings could be sold on at some kind of profit. For the last few years, the assumption seems to have been that most of them will be duds, with just the occasional success. No wonder Lawwell isn't willing to invest much money in new players--most of them have indeed turned out to be a waste of money! The problem is, he doesn't have the confidence to overhaul Celtic's scouting system, or hire somebody who can. That's how we've ended up with "nothing ventured nothing lost" wee-team mentality, and a downward spiral that has produced diminishing returns. Things need to change pretty drastically--but who knows if the will is there. I'm not sure Rodgers fully appreciates how bad the situation is; he doesn't seem to have understood how mentally fragile the team were when he arrived. (I would have thought the Huns semi-final would have made that clear.)

If we had several years of sustained success, we might end up complaining about the constraints that football's regulators were putting on us. Right now, any constraints we have are strictly self-imposed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
markybhoy
Member Avatar
Banana?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I used to have a manager who worked along PL's lines. He'd squeeze suppliers and folk bidding on business until they bled. One supplier I know was practically frantic trying to get the deal and this guy just kept squeezing.

Now there's two ways to look at that. One is that he was just getting the best deal possible and it's hard to argue with that. The other is that he completely soured the relationship we had with those suppliers to the point that when we inevitably needed a favour (something done quickly for instance) we were basically told to bolt.

Moral of the story being it's all well and good to drive a hard bargain but if you're too f*cking tight they'll find some other way to f*ck you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
QualityStreet1970
27 Jul 2016, 01:37 PM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 12:03 PM
paulfg42
27 Jul 2016, 11:40 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It's the new ideas bit I struggle with. What are they?

Football is heavily regulated by powerful regulators who have a vested interest in the status quo.

Only a fundamental change in the structure of European football will change much.

Changing the CEO of Celtic will not influence that.

It is wishful thinking to think that changing the pantomime villain will change our strategy.

Moving towards being football led rather than accountancy led is a step that will help us. What does a new CEO bring to the party given that the role is being made less influential.
Celtic's CEO should either be a football man, or somebody who knows how to surround himself with capable football men. Lawwell seems to think that you can run a football along the same lines as any other business. You can't. You have to have a feel for it.

A new CEO puts in place a competent scouting system, and makes more than occasional use of the fact that we have the world's richest football league on our doorstep. The likes of Wanyama and Foster should be the exception, not the rule. Of course, we can't build a decent team if key players aren't staying at CP for more than a couple of seasons; but if our scouting system was functioning properly, we wouldn't have to operate a revolving-door policy. The club would be transformed if we started to feel confident that most of our signings could be sold on at some kind of profit. For the last few years, the assumption seems to have been that most of them will be duds, with just the occasional success. No wonder Lawwell isn't willing to invest much money in new players--most of them have indeed turned out to be a waste of money! The problem is, he doesn't have the confidence to overhaul Celtic's scouting system, or hire somebody who can. That's how we've ended up with "nothing ventured nothing lost" wee-team mentality, and a downward spiral that has produced diminishing returns. Things need to change pretty drastically--but who knows if the will is there. I'm not sure Rodgers fully appreciates how bad the situation is; he doesn't seem to have understood how mentally fragile the team were when he arrived. (I would have thought the Huns semi-final would have made that clear.)

If we had several years of sustained success, we might end up complaining about the constraints that football's regulators were putting on us. Right now, any constraints we have are strictly self-imposed.
Not sure of your point here in the context of what I have said. We needed a change of strategy, it looks like we have had that with the appointment of a strong manager.

Does the appointment of Brendan Rodgers to be in charge of all footballing matters including scouting not resolve the issues you stated.*

What would a new CEO do differently from what we are doing now?




* If Rodgers isn't in charge of these things then that is because the board have decided otherwise not the CEO. So changing the CEO under the same board changes nothing.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QualityStreet1970
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 02:25 PM

* If Rodgers isn't in charge of these things then that is because the board have decided otherwise not the CEO. So changing the CEO under the same board changes nothing.



The CEO makes no difference? OK, by that logic, Lawwell's salary is an even more egregious waste of money.

What would a new CEO do differently to what we're doing right now? As I said, we can only judge by the end product, and presumably there is still activity going on behind the scenes. It's more a question of what he would have done up to his point? Hired a manager with more experience with Deila. Shown some signs that he knew how hopeless Celtic's scouting system is. He would not have acted as a de facto DoF, playing Football Manager with real money.

The more realistic question here would be, what do you think Lawwell has done to deserve such an outrageous salary at a time when Celtic repeatedly failed to qualify the Champions League, and when attendances went into decline? (And yes, that decline has now been halted--by Desmond's signing of Brendan Rodgers.) Beginning to wonder if you're really serious about defending Lawwell, or just at the wind-up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
QualityStreet1970
27 Jul 2016, 07:31 PM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 02:25 PM

* If Rodgers isn't in charge of these things then that is because the board have decided otherwise not the CEO. So changing the CEO under the same board changes nothing.



The CEO makes no difference? OK, by that logic, Lawwell's salary is an even more egregious waste of money.

What would a new CEO do differently to what we're doing right now? As I said, we can only judge by the end product, and presumably there is still activity going on behind the scenes. It's more a question of what he would have done up to his point? Hired a manager with more experience with Deila. Shown some signs that he knew how hopeless Celtic's scouting system is. He would not have acted as a de facto DoF, playing Football Manager with real money.

The more realistic question here would be, what do you think Lawwell has done to deserve such an outrageous salary at a time when Celtic repeatedly failed to qualify the Champions League, and when attendances went into decline? (And yes, that decline has now been halted--by Desmond's signing of Brendan Rodgers.) Beginning to wonder if you're really serious about defending Lawwell, or just at the wind-up.
I don't care one way or the other whether Lawwell is here or not. I made that clear, I am no apologist for him or his salary so I don't need to explain anything to you about whether or not he deserves it.

So lets assume we bring on a new CEO and save £500k a year. What strategic advantage do we get from it? It makes very little as I stated beforehand.one extra squad player or £10 off the season ticket.

My point is that changing CEO will not change anything.

So we sack Lawwell, dance on his grave, feel good for a day and save half a million pound. But fundamentally nothing will have changed.

Is Lawwell overpaid? Maybe.

Will we be far better off by getting a cheaper version? No.

Will we be slightly better off by getting a cheaper version? Maybe

What bit of that do you disagree with?
Edited by Adam Smith 11, 27 Jul 2016, 08:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
leangreen
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
QualityStreet1970
27 Jul 2016, 07:31 PM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 02:25 PM

* If Rodgers isn't in charge of these things then that is because the board have decided otherwise not the CEO. So changing the CEO under the same board changes nothing.



The CEO makes no difference? OK, by that logic, Lawwell's salary is an even more egregious waste of money.

What would a new CEO do differently to what we're doing right now? As I said, we can only judge by the end product, and presumably there is still activity going on behind the scenes. It's more a question of what he would have done up to his point? Hired a manager with more experience with Deila. Shown some signs that he knew how hopeless Celtic's scouting system is. He would not have acted as a de facto DoF, playing Football Manager with real money.

The more realistic question here would be, what do you think Lawwell has done to deserve such an outrageous salary at a time when Celtic repeatedly failed to qualify the Champions League, and when attendances went into decline? (And yes, that decline has now been halted--by Desmond's signing of Brendan Rodgers.) Beginning to wonder if you're really serious about defending Lawwell, or just at the wind-up.
Good summation. It makes me wonder if he has compromising details on Desmond to warrant an exorbitant salary for such consistently abysmal performance. Summarily dismissing Park & Co and installing a Pete Hall or Frank McParland would be the first structural change a competent CEO would make. Celtic are being fleeced by charlatans.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
leangreen
27 Jul 2016, 09:07 PM
QualityStreet1970
27 Jul 2016, 07:31 PM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 02:25 PM

* If Rodgers isn't in charge of these things then that is because the board have decided otherwise not the CEO. So changing the CEO under the same board changes nothing.



The CEO makes no difference? OK, by that logic, Lawwell's salary is an even more egregious waste of money.

What would a new CEO do differently to what we're doing right now? As I said, we can only judge by the end product, and presumably there is still activity going on behind the scenes. It's more a question of what he would have done up to his point? Hired a manager with more experience with Deila. Shown some signs that he knew how hopeless Celtic's scouting system is. He would not have acted as a de facto DoF, playing Football Manager with real money.

The more realistic question here would be, what do you think Lawwell has done to deserve such an outrageous salary at a time when Celtic repeatedly failed to qualify the Champions League, and when attendances went into decline? (And yes, that decline has now been halted--by Desmond's signing of Brendan Rodgers.) Beginning to wonder if you're really serious about defending Lawwell, or just at the wind-up.
Good summation. It makes me wonder if he has compromising details on Desmond to warrant an exorbitant salary for such consistently abysmal performance. Summarily dismissing Park & Co and installing a Pete Hall or Frank McParland would be the first structural change a competent CEO would make. Celtic are being fleeced by charlatans.
Surely that is Brendan Rodgers choice not the CEO's?

You have just contradicted the "good summation" by suggesting that the CEO should get involved in DOF activities. QS1970 quite rightly stated that Lawwell should never have been a de facto DOF. I would imagine he wouldn't want the next CEO to do the same.
Edited by Adam Smith 11, 27 Jul 2016, 09:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paulfg42
Member Avatar
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 12:03 PM
paulfg42
27 Jul 2016, 11:40 AM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 11:36 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I have no real idea what goes on in board meetings but I have serious doubts that it is the board providing the strategic vision for the club. We need a new CEO with new ideas and ambition (and I know DD will have the final say).
It's the new ideas bit I struggle with. What are they?


It might sound crazy but maybe some advance planning so that we're not trying to qualify for Europe with a squad lacking the quality the manager is looking for?

Who on the board holds the CEO to account? Not DD, because he is never there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 12:48 AM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 12:03 PM
paulfg42
27 Jul 2016, 11:40 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It's the new ideas bit I struggle with. What are they?


It might sound crazy but maybe some advance planning so that we're not trying to qualify for Europe with a squad lacking the quality the manager is looking for?

Who on the board holds the CEO to account? Not DD, because he is never there.
I will endeavour here to be very clear on what I am saying:

1. I am taking the individual who is CEO out of the equation. Whether it is PL or A N Other I am proposing is irrelevant strategically.
2. I am talking about going forward, I am not concerned about the past failures if we have already taken the strategic steps to resolve these past failures by putting in place a strong football manager.

If people want to talk about whether or not PL should be sacked or not for previous performance that is fair enough I am not going to argue with it and you will get no defence of PL from me. I couldn't care less if he stays or goes I am just pointing out that it makes next to no difference strategically and that is what a board is interested in - this is the board discussion thread.

My point in response to the OP (allthewine) is that it will make no real difference strategically as there is not a lot that a new CEO will be able to do differently.

So to answer your point specifically, given that we have put a high level manager in place to look after ( in the way MON did) all football matters including player identification and squad building / pruning then whomever is CEO is irrelevant. It could be Elon Musk, Jack Welch or Bill Gates and it wouldmake no difference as the CEO is no longer directly responsible for this function. The forward planning you quite rightly ask for is the responsibility of BR now.

The main functions the CEO will now be responsible for are: the recruitment of a football manager, recruitment of administration staff and the generation of commercial income such as ticket pricing, shirt sponsorship, match day hospitality contracts and getting maximum income for player sales. They will also negotiate as good a deal for incoming players in terms of fees and wages however the player, the upper values to be paid and time constraints will be set by the manager within the overall constraint of the budget.

Given that prize money and TV deals are negotiated outside the club then the CEO has some but minimum ability to influence this.

There is an argument that the CEO salary / bonus be reduced given these diminished responsibilities, my point is that a few hundred thousand pounds will make almost no difference to the success of a club our size. To be clear here this Is not an argument not to sack PL or not reduce his income it is just pointing out that it will make little difference - this is a subtle distinction but it is important in terms of my response to the OP who stated that we need to change the CEO in order to create a new approach.

A new CEO will not create a new approach as they woukd be required to follow the same approach as the current CEO which has been set out by the board who clipped his wings.

It is therefore a false assertion to equate a new CEO with a new approach as the OP (allthewine) did. The approach has been laid out by the board and the CEO's only role now whoever they are is to excecute this approachi on behalf of the board on day to day basis.






Edited by Adam Smith 11, 28 Jul 2016, 05:39 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fearghas
Member Avatar
First-team captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
28 Jul 2016, 04:44 AM
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 12:48 AM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 12:03 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It might sound crazy but maybe some advance planning so that we're not trying to qualify for Europe with a squad lacking the quality the manager is looking for?

Who on the board holds the CEO to account? Not DD, because he is never there.
I will endeavour here to be very clear on what I am saying:

1. I am taking the individual who is CEO out of the equation. Whether it is PL or A N Other I am proposing is irrelevant strategically.
2. I am talking about going forward, I am not concerned about the past failures if we have already taken the strategic steps to resolve these past failures by putting in place a strong football manager.

If people want to talk about whether or not PL should be sacked or not for previous performance that is fair enough I am not going to argue with it and you will get no defence of PL from me. I couldn't care less if he stays or goes I am just pointing out that it makes next to no difference strategically and that is what a board is interested in - this is the board discussion thread.

My point in response to the OP (allthewine) is that it will make no real difference strategically as there is not a lot that a new CEO will be able to do differently.

So to answer your point specifically, given that we have put a high level manager in place to look after ( in the way MON did) all football matters including player identification and squad building / pruning then whomever is CEO is irrelevant. It could be Elon Musk, Jack Welch or Bill Gates and it wouldmake no difference as the CEO is no longer directly responsible for this function. The forward planning you quite rightly ask for is the responsibility of BR now.

The main functions the CEO will now be responsible for are: the recruitment of a football manager, recruitment of administration staff and the generation of commercial income such as ticket pricing, shirt sponsorship, match day hospitality contracts and getting maximum income for player sales. They will also negotiate as good a deal for incoming players in terms of fees and wages however the player, the upper values to be paid and time constraints will be set by the manager within the overall constraint of the budget.

Given that prize money and TV deals are negotiated outside the club then the CEO has some but minimum ability to influence this.

There is an argument that the CEO salary / bonus be reduced given these diminished responsibilities, my point is that a few hundred thousand pounds will make almost no difference to the success of a club our size. To be clear here this Is not an argument not to sack PL or not reduce his income it is just pointing out that it will make little difference - this is a subtle distinction but it is important in terms of my response to the OP who stated that we need to change the CEO in order to create a new approach.

A new CEO will not create a new approach as they woukd be required to follow the same approach as the current CEO which has been set out by the board who clipped his wings.

It is therefore a false assertion to equate a new CEO with a new approach as the OP (allthewine) did. The approach has been laid out by the board and the CEO's only role now whoever they are is to excecute this approachi on behalf of the board on day to day basis.






that's what should happen in a boardroom but in the case of pl
it's the tail that's wagging the dog by the looks of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paulfg42
Member Avatar
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
28 Jul 2016, 04:44 AM
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 12:48 AM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 12:03 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It might sound crazy but maybe some advance planning so that we're not trying to qualify for Europe with a squad lacking the quality the manager is looking for?

Who on the board holds the CEO to account? Not DD, because he is never there.
I will endeavour here to be very clear on what I am saying:

1. I am taking the individual who is CEO out of the equation. Whether it is PL or A N Other I am proposing is irrelevant strategically.
2. I am talking about going forward, I am not concerned about the past failures if we have already taken the strategic steps to resolve these past failures by putting in place a strong football manager.

If people want to talk about whether or not PL should be sacked or not for previous performance that is fair enough I am not going to argue with it and you will get no defence of PL from me. I couldn't care less if he stays or goes I am just pointing out that it makes next to no difference strategically and that is what a board is interested in - this is the board discussion thread.

My point in response to the OP (allthewine) is that it will make no real difference strategically as there is not a lot that a new CEO will be able to do differently.

So to answer your point specifically, given that we have put a high level manager in place to look after ( in the way MON did) all football matters including player identification and squad building / pruning then whomever is CEO is irrelevant. It could be Elon Musk, Jack Welch or Bill Gates and it wouldmake no difference as the CEO is no longer directly responsible for this function. The forward planning you quite rightly ask for is the responsibility of BR now.

The main functions the CEO will now be responsible for are: the recruitment of a football manager, recruitment of administration staff and the generation of commercial income such as ticket pricing, shirt sponsorship, match day hospitality contracts and getting maximum income for player sales. They will also negotiate as good a deal for incoming players in terms of fees and wages however the player, the upper values to be paid and time constraints will be set by the manager within the overall constraint of the budget.

Given that prize money and TV deals are negotiated outside the club then the CEO has some but minimum ability to influence this.

There is an argument that the CEO salary / bonus be reduced given these diminished responsibilities, my point is that a few hundred thousand pounds will make almost no difference to the success of a club our size. To be clear here this Is not an argument not to sack PL or not reduce his income it is just pointing out that it will make little difference - this is a subtle distinction but it is important in terms of my response to the OP who stated that we need to change the CEO in order to create a new approach.

A new CEO will not create a new approach as they woukd be required to follow the same approach as the current CEO which has been set out by the board who clipped his wings.

It is therefore a false assertion to equate a new CEO with a new approach as the OP (allthewine) did. The approach has been laid out by the board and the CEO's only role now whoever they are is to excecute this approachi on behalf of the board on day to day basis.






There's no evidence that it's the board setting the agenda. The board appear to be rubber stamping the decisions of the CEO. who is also busy empire building.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 10:10 AM
Adam Smith 11
28 Jul 2016, 04:44 AM
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 12:48 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I will endeavour here to be very clear on what I am saying:

1. I am taking the individual who is CEO out of the equation. Whether it is PL or A N Other I am proposing is irrelevant strategically.
2. I am talking about going forward, I am not concerned about the past failures if we have already taken the strategic steps to resolve these past failures by putting in place a strong football manager.

If people want to talk about whether or not PL should be sacked or not for previous performance that is fair enough I am not going to argue with it and you will get no defence of PL from me. I couldn't care less if he stays or goes I am just pointing out that it makes next to no difference strategically and that is what a board is interested in - this is the board discussion thread.

My point in response to the OP (allthewine) is that it will make no real difference strategically as there is not a lot that a new CEO will be able to do differently.

So to answer your point specifically, given that we have put a high level manager in place to look after ( in the way MON did) all football matters including player identification and squad building / pruning then whomever is CEO is irrelevant. It could be Elon Musk, Jack Welch or Bill Gates and it wouldmake no difference as the CEO is no longer directly responsible for this function. The forward planning you quite rightly ask for is the responsibility of BR now.

The main functions the CEO will now be responsible for are: the recruitment of a football manager, recruitment of administration staff and the generation of commercial income such as ticket pricing, shirt sponsorship, match day hospitality contracts and getting maximum income for player sales. They will also negotiate as good a deal for incoming players in terms of fees and wages however the player, the upper values to be paid and time constraints will be set by the manager within the overall constraint of the budget.

Given that prize money and TV deals are negotiated outside the club then the CEO has some but minimum ability to influence this.

There is an argument that the CEO salary / bonus be reduced given these diminished responsibilities, my point is that a few hundred thousand pounds will make almost no difference to the success of a club our size. To be clear here this Is not an argument not to sack PL or not reduce his income it is just pointing out that it will make little difference - this is a subtle distinction but it is important in terms of my response to the OP who stated that we need to change the CEO in order to create a new approach.

A new CEO will not create a new approach as they woukd be required to follow the same approach as the current CEO which has been set out by the board who clipped his wings.

It is therefore a false assertion to equate a new CEO with a new approach as the OP (allthewine) did. The approach has been laid out by the board and the CEO's only role now whoever they are is to excecute this approachi on behalf of the board on day to day basis.






There's no evidence that it's the board setting the agenda. The board appear to be rubber stamping the decisions of the CEO. who is also busy empire building.
If that is true then it is a new board that is needed not a new CEO.

We probably also need a new manager, because if he has accepted this job without guarantees that he is in charge of the football side of the business from end to end then he is a fool.

My opinion is that PL has had his wings clipped and we will see the evidence of this over 3 transfer windows.

It is far easier for me to believe that DD and BR are not fools who are getting the run around by the dark master of machiavelianism Peter Lawwell than these pronouncements of Lawwell's ability to manipulate everyone and everything at Celtic to achieve his own aims.
Edited by Adam Smith 11, 28 Jul 2016, 11:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pads99
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
lesdon67
27 Jul 2016, 12:59 PM
pads99
27 Jul 2016, 12:14 PM

The Celtic board is PL. the rest are flunkys. Anyone who questioned his actions wouldn't last long.
Pretty sweeping statement, that. Care to expand on it?
The board is there in name only. What PL says goes. Trust me
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paulfg42
Member Avatar
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
28 Jul 2016, 11:02 AM
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 10:10 AM
Adam Smith 11
28 Jul 2016, 04:44 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
There's no evidence that it's the board setting the agenda. The board appear to be rubber stamping the decisions of the CEO. who is also busy empire building.
If that is true then it is a new board that is needed not a new CEO.

We probably also need a new manager, because if he has accepted this job without guarantees that he is in charge of the football side of the business from end to end then he is a fool.

My opinion is that PL has had his wings clipped and we will see the evidence of this over 3 transfer windows.

It is far easier for me to believe that DD and BR are not fools who are getting the run around by the dark master of machiavelianism Peter Lawwell than these pronouncements of Lawwell's ability to manipulate everyone and everything at Celtic to achieve his own aims.
The lack of forward planning in this transfer window is pretty damning.

I'm a bit bemused by your argument though. You seem to be suggesting that it doesn't matter who the CEO is. What is the point of having a CEO in that case?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs HF4Ls Biggest fan
Member Avatar
Formerly M74 Extension
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 08:13 PM
QualityStreet1970
27 Jul 2016, 07:31 PM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 02:25 PM

* If Rodgers isn't in charge of these things then that is because the board have decided otherwise not the CEO. So changing the CEO under the same board changes nothing.



The CEO makes no difference? OK, by that logic, Lawwell's salary is an even more egregious waste of money.

What would a new CEO do differently to what we're doing right now? As I said, we can only judge by the end product, and presumably there is still activity going on behind the scenes. It's more a question of what he would have done up to his point? Hired a manager with more experience with Deila. Shown some signs that he knew how hopeless Celtic's scouting system is. He would not have acted as a de facto DoF, playing Football Manager with real money.

The more realistic question here would be, what do you think Lawwell has done to deserve such an outrageous salary at a time when Celtic repeatedly failed to qualify the Champions League, and when attendances went into decline? (And yes, that decline has now been halted--by Desmond's signing of Brendan Rodgers.) Beginning to wonder if you're really serious about defending Lawwell, or just at the wind-up.
I don't care one way or the other whether Lawwell is here or not. I made that clear, I am no apologist for him or his salary so I don't need to explain anything to you about whether or not he deserves it.

So lets assume we bring on a new CEO and save £500k a year. What strategic advantage do we get from it? It makes very little as I stated beforehand.one extra squad player or £10 off the season ticket.

My point is that changing CEO will not change anything.

So we sack Lawwell, dance on his grave, feel good for a day and save half a million pound. But fundamentally nothing will have changed.

Is Lawwell overpaid? Maybe.

Will we be far better off by getting a cheaper version? No.

Will we be slightly better off by getting a cheaper version? Maybe

What bit of that do you disagree with?
Taking your arguments to their logical conclusion you would never try to move a player on with a view to replacing them as we may not be better off.

Taking your financial point first, £500k need not be "another squad player". It could mean being able to pay an additional £10k a week to pull in a quality signing.

But the key point here is that Lawwell's MO appears to be to take no risk whatsoever. And when I say "risk" I mean risk as he perceives it. The strategic advantage we may gain by removing him is that we might actually be able to appoint someone who understands the need to address the issues on the park.

With some better management of the club we could have qualified for the CL over the past couple of years. That would have brought in significant income that could be invested back in the team. Which improves the possibility of qualifying. And sells more tickets. Which improves the income and so on. It is a virtuous circle.

Lawwell's approach of we'll try and get through with what we have has cost the club a huge amount of money. Which means less income. And therefore less quality signings. Which has resulted in a worse product on the pitch and less tickets sold. Which has reduced the income and further failures to qualify and so on.

People talk about Lawwell treating Celtic like any other business. And that is entirely wrong; if Lawwell was the CEO of any other kind of business that had gone through the decline in the last 3 years that he has presided over he would have been sacked long before now.

And before anyone replies with comments about look what happened across the river, I absolutely understand that you cannot continually spend beyond your means. That results in what happened under Murray and Whyte. However, businesses that do not invest can just as easily stagnate and die. A small amount of appropriate investment could have reaped huge rewards over the past couple of years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 11:20 AM
Adam Smith 11
28 Jul 2016, 11:02 AM
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 10:10 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If that is true then it is a new board that is needed not a new CEO.

We probably also need a new manager, because if he has accepted this job without guarantees that he is in charge of the football side of the business from end to end then he is a fool.

My opinion is that PL has had his wings clipped and we will see the evidence of this over 3 transfer windows.

It is far easier for me to believe that DD and BR are not fools who are getting the run around by the dark master of machiavelianism Peter Lawwell than these pronouncements of Lawwell's ability to manipulate everyone and everything at Celtic to achieve his own aims.
The lack of forward planning in this transfer window is pretty damning.

I'm a bit bemused by your argument though. You seem to be suggesting that it doesn't matter who the CEO is. What is the point of having a CEO in that case?
A new strategy has been put in place that will take time (at least 3 transfer windows) to rebalance the squad.

It can't be fixed in half a window.

I haven't said it doesn't matter who the CEO is. I'm saying it would not make much of a difference.

The CEO has a job to do but in our situation they are much of a muchness.

The cult of the CEO has been built up over the years to justify massive wages - KDS does not seem to be immune to this cult. In a business as regulated as ours there is not a lot of difference they can make especially when there is a strong football department in place.

Edited by Adam Smith 11, 28 Jul 2016, 02:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
pads99
28 Jul 2016, 11:06 AM
lesdon67
27 Jul 2016, 12:59 PM
pads99
27 Jul 2016, 12:14 PM

The Celtic board is PL. the rest are flunkys. Anyone who questioned his actions wouldn't last long.
Pretty sweeping statement, that. Care to expand on it?
The board is there in name only. What PL says goes. Trust me
Unless you provide evidence of this I'll stick to a more logical theory given I don't know you from Adam.

Your theory requires me to believe that you are so much cleverer than our owner, board of directors and new manager. You can see from a distance what is going on but they can't.

If you provide evidence Of your theory fair enough, until then it is the old In God we trust everyone else must bring data.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply