|
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
|
|
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,415,020 Views)
|
|
ChiliPepper
|
17 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM
Post #101
|
- Posts:
- 5,530
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #32,832
- Joined:
- 29 August 2013
- Favourite all-time player
- Alan Thompson
|
I hope the board haven't hired a manager who uses a different style without the intention of backing him fairly significantly.
We have a team of players who are grafters more than anything. If they don't suit Ronny and he can't get new players then things will probably go badly... I'm worried he's got buttons to spend.
|
|
|
| |
|
murphio
|
17 Jul 2014, 12:28 AM
Post #102
|
Could start a row in an empty room
- Posts:
- 47,800
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- @murphio1888
|
- herbert viola
- 16 Jul 2014, 10:51 PM
- kingbhoyd
- 16 Jul 2014, 08:28 PM
- Corky Buczek
- 16 Jul 2014, 07:57 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Doesn't matter how many times you say it an ltip isn't a glorified testimonial, it's a standard part of a CEO contract and many directors contracts. Eric Riley had one as well. I hope your beef isn't with him on this, he doesn't decide what goes into his contract, you need to start a thread on the remuneration committee if you really want to rant about it. Make sure you look up Swiss ramblers thoughts on it first though, eh.
Youd have to ask what who the remun committee were looking at as competitors when they agreed to that peak in the competitive salary as CEO of a football club with a paultry 80m turnover. perhaps we should look by that pish though and just agree that it was window dressing a nice one-off bonus payable to pistol pete agreed by desmond. His salary and entire remuneration is shocking for the role he has. He is likely on close to 3-4* the salary paid to the manager of the football club, and not far off par with some of our higher paid players. And it just seems to go up year after year. Perhaps he has an inverse bonus based on quantity of reducing season ticketholders? Don't forget he is also the de facto Director of Football.
|
|
|
| |
|
herbert viola
|
17 Jul 2014, 12:41 AM
Post #103
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 9,852
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #11,925
- Joined:
- 9 November 2007
|
- murphio
- 17 Jul 2014, 12:28 AM
- herbert viola
- 16 Jul 2014, 10:51 PM
- kingbhoyd
- 16 Jul 2014, 08:28 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Youd have to ask what who the remun committee were looking at as competitors when they agreed to that peak in the competitive salary as CEO of a football club with a paultry 80m turnover. perhaps we should look by that pish though and just agree that it was window dressing a nice one-off bonus payable to pistol pete agreed by desmond. His salary and entire remuneration is shocking for the role he has. He is likely on close to 3-4* the salary paid to the manager of the football club, and not far off par with some of our higher paid players. And it just seems to go up year after year. Perhaps he has an inverse bonus based on quantity of reducing season ticketholders?
Don't forget he is also the de facto Director of Football. I dont think the two roles combined should be paid 1m GBP Murphio.
|
|
|
| |
|
Bobby Carroll
|
17 Jul 2014, 12:58 AM
Post #104
|
- Posts:
- 360
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32,398
- Joined:
- 1 April 2013
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul mcstay
|
The board would go up in my estimation if they paid their staff a living wage ( as previously mentioned, the current state of affairs, is unceltic minded imo.
|
|
|
| |
|
murphio
|
17 Jul 2014, 02:07 AM
Post #105
|
Could start a row in an empty room
- Posts:
- 47,800
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- @murphio1888
|
- herbert viola
- 17 Jul 2014, 12:41 AM
- murphio
- 17 Jul 2014, 12:28 AM
- herbert viola
- 16 Jul 2014, 10:51 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Don't forget he is also the de facto Director of Football.
I dont think the two roles combined should be paid 1m GBP Murphio. Whatever the salary his role is very obviously more than that of just CEO.
|
|
|
| |
|
mikebhoy
|
17 Jul 2014, 12:47 PM
Post #106
|
Too old for hamlet, too young for Lear
- Posts:
- 35,072
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #121
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- mikebhoy
|
- embdysman
- 16 Jul 2014, 05:10 PM
There has been a theory doing the rounds for a few years now that if we only spent £x million on two or three players then we would 'guarantee' qualification for the CL group stages. I call it the 'Steven Fletcher' theory.
Utter tosh.
Also, someone earlier mentioned that we shouldn't spend so much on all these 'projects', some of whom turn out to be poor. The idea proposed was that we should use the money from the 'failed' projects to buy one good quality player. Do I need to point out that it's impossible to do that? We don't know the 'failed' ones until we try and they fail. With that approach you don't get a VVD or a Wanyama and for all you know your one good quality player could be a Tommy Gravesen or a Juninho.
There are no certainties in football transfers. There is no magic solution. Remember that the team who lost 5-0 to Artmedia had Marshall, Balde, Maloney, Lennon, Petrov, Thompson, Hartson, Sutton and McGeady in the team. How much would it cost to buy all of them?
We are therefore left with a choice - live within our means, develop the youth setup and buy up-and-coming players with potential OR take a gamble and spend £x million on new players who might improve the squad or might not.
It doesn't make any sense. Clubs all over Europe do it every year, so it seems to us to be the norm but it is absolute madness and will eventually end in tears.
Ross McCormack for £11m anyone?
Right now we are not in a great place in terms of competing with other clubs in Europe. That is largely due to an awful domestic league with minimal TV income. For the time being that is a factor outwith our control and there is no point complaining about it. We just need to get on with supporting our team and being thankful that we will be here for years to come and one day will have a chance to capitalise on running a tight ship just now.
P.S. Totally agree that staff should be paid a Living Wage. That decision was appalling. I reckon it would take the wages of one first team player to cover the whole initiative and as someone alluded to earlier - you reap what you sow.
I agree with a lot of that I guess. There’s always 20-20 hindsight over ‘projects’ who don’t make it and expensive signings that flopped. I think the Gravesen deal in particular really burned Lawwell’s fingers. Juarez and Bangura were also relatively expensive flops.
I do think the strategy is leaning too far one way though. I think it’s fairly common knowledge that some players have been signed against, or at least not with the full support of the manager at the time, due to interference from a number of areas.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deebhoy
|
17 Jul 2014, 02:06 PM
Post #107
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 12,652
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- 31 August 2004
|
We remain financially well run but have become too risk adverse which will continue to bite away at the income and support of the club.
|
|
|
| |
|
Stephane_Mahe
|
17 Jul 2014, 02:07 PM
Post #108
|
- Posts:
- 5,936
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #26,991
- Joined:
- 18 September 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- The King of Kings
|
- embdysman
- 16 Jul 2014, 05:10 PM
There has been a theory doing the rounds for a few years now that if we only spent £x million on two or three players then we would 'guarantee' qualification for the CL group stages. I call it the 'Steven Fletcher' theory.
Utter tosh.
Also, someone earlier mentioned that we shouldn't spend so much on all these 'projects', some of whom turn out to be poor. The idea proposed was that we should use the money from the 'failed' projects to buy one good quality player. Do I need to point out that it's impossible to do that? We don't know the 'failed' ones until we try and they fail. With that approach you don't get a VVD or a Wanyama and for all you know your one good quality player could be a Tommy Gravesen or a Juninho.
There are no certainties in football transfers. There is no magic solution. Remember that the team who lost 5-0 to Artmedia had Marshall, Balde, Maloney, Lennon, Petrov, Thompson, Hartson, Sutton and McGeady in the team. How much would it cost to buy all of them?
We are therefore left with a choice - live within our means, develop the youth setup and buy up-and-coming players with potential OR take a gamble and spend £x million on new players who might improve the squad or might not.
It doesn't make any sense. Clubs all over Europe do it every year, so it seems to us to be the norm but it is absolute madness and will eventually end in tears.
Ross McCormack for £11m anyone?
Right now we are not in a great place in terms of competing with other clubs in Europe. That is largely due to an awful domestic league with minimal TV income. For the time being that is a factor outwith our control and there is no point complaining about it. We just need to get on with supporting our team and being thankful that we will be here for years to come and one day will have a chance to capitalise on running a tight ship just now.
P.S. Totally agree that staff should be paid a Living Wage. That decision was appalling. I reckon it would take the wages of one first team player to cover the whole initiative and as someone alluded to earlier - you reap what you sow.
Had we bought Fletcher, we'd have vastly increased our chances of winning the league that season. The SPL champions from that season got automatic qualification to the CL. Obviously no one will ever know for sure, but it's not a huge leap to suggest that the failure to spend £3/4m on Fletcher costs us £10m or so in CL money.
At the very least, Fletcher would have had significant sell on value - something that has been undoubtedly proven since. The failure to sign him was a huge mistake, regardless of how you look at that.
As for the rest of your post - you've picked 2 great successes(although as VVD hasn't actually been sold yet, he's so far only a playing success rather than a financial one) and mentioned this as some sort of proof of success, despite the fact that for every great success of this system, there are at least 2 total failures.
You've then mentioned 2 high profile failures as some sort of proof of failure of spending big, neglecting to mention any of the many, many successful high profile/expenditure signings we've made since the days of MON.
You've then mentioned probably the biggest freak result in our history as sort of proof that high profile signings don't always work, again neglecting to mention any of the many, many big games both in Europe and domestically won by the likes of Balde, Lennon, Thompson, Sutton, Hartson and Petrov - all either big wage and/or big fee players.
You've then mentioned Ross McCormack's ridiculous transfer fee - what is that supposed to prove? Michu cost Swansea £2million.
If you want to have a player in your team who plays like a player who cost £3million should, you've a much better chance of getting one by spending £3million on one player, rather than spending £1million on 3 players.
|
|
|
| |
|
murphio
|
17 Jul 2014, 02:20 PM
Post #109
|
Could start a row in an empty room
- Posts:
- 47,800
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- @murphio1888
|
Re Fletcher - it was claimed at the time Lawwell did all he could to get the Fletcher deal done. A few months back Paul67 produced an article which claimed Celtic pulled out of the Fletcher deal when land became available for purchase. There is no doubt in my mind that the failure to sign Fletcher was a major factor in losing the league and the subsequent Champions League cash. http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=14469
|
|
|
| |
|
Dannybhoy95
|
17 Jul 2014, 02:22 PM
Post #110
|
- Posts:
- 22,588
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #29,742
- Joined:
- 25 October 2011
|
- embdysman
- 16 Jul 2014, 05:10 PM
Also, someone earlier mentioned that we shouldn't spend so much on all these 'projects', some of whom turn out to be poor. The idea proposed was that we should use the money from the 'failed' projects to buy one good quality player. Do I need to point out that it's impossible to do that? We don't know the 'failed' ones until we try and they fail. With that approach you don't get a VVD or a Wanyama and for all you know your one good quality player could be a Tommy Gravesen or a Juninho. VVD wasn't a project.
He's the only defender that we've spent serious money* on since Loovens.
He wasn't out of left-field like the majority of the folk we sign these days. VVD was pretty highly rated in Holland when we signed him.
*Serious money going by our previous transfer dealings.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rieper's Toe
|
17 Jul 2014, 02:32 PM
Post #111
|
- Posts:
- 277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32,762
- Joined:
- 9 August 2013
|
- Stephane_Mahe
- 17 Jul 2014, 02:07 PM
You've then mentioned probably the biggest freak result in our history as sort of proof that high profile signings don't always work, again neglecting to mention any of the many, many big games both in Europe and domestically won by the likes of Balde, Lennon, Thompson, Sutton, Hartson and Petrov - all either big wage and/or big fee players.
And we lost so much money doing that we had to have a share issue to balance the books, and its now 30 million and 100,000 a week for a player of Sutton or Hartson's ability.
- Quote:
-
You've then mentioned Ross McCormack's ridiculous transfer fee - what is that supposed to prove? Michu cost Swansea £2million.
So are you agreeing that spending money for the sake of it doesn't actually guarantee anything about player quality ?
|
|
|
| |
|
Shuggie Edvaldsson
|
17 Jul 2014, 02:42 PM
Post #112
|
- Posts:
- 3,163
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #25,712
- Joined:
- 7 March 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Tommy Burns
|
- Stephane_Mahe
- 17 Jul 2014, 02:07 PM
- embdysman
- 16 Jul 2014, 05:10 PM
There has been a theory doing the rounds for a few years now that if we only spent £x million on two or three players then we would 'guarantee' qualification for the CL group stages. I call it the 'Steven Fletcher' theory.
Utter tosh.
Also, someone earlier mentioned that we shouldn't spend so much on all these 'projects', some of whom turn out to be poor. The idea proposed was that we should use the money from the 'failed' projects to buy one good quality player. Do I need to point out that it's impossible to do that? We don't know the 'failed' ones until we try and they fail. With that approach you don't get a VVD or a Wanyama and for all you know your one good quality player could be a Tommy Gravesen or a Juninho.
There are no certainties in football transfers. There is no magic solution. Remember that the team who lost 5-0 to Artmedia had Marshall, Balde, Maloney, Lennon, Petrov, Thompson, Hartson, Sutton and McGeady in the team. How much would it cost to buy all of them?
We are therefore left with a choice - live within our means, develop the youth setup and buy up-and-coming players with potential OR take a gamble and spend £x million on new players who might improve the squad or might not.
It doesn't make any sense. Clubs all over Europe do it every year, so it seems to us to be the norm but it is absolute madness and will eventually end in tears.
Ross McCormack for £11m anyone?
Right now we are not in a great place in terms of competing with other clubs in Europe. That is largely due to an awful domestic league with minimal TV income. For the time being that is a factor outwith our control and there is no point complaining about it. We just need to get on with supporting our team and being thankful that we will be here for years to come and one day will have a chance to capitalise on running a tight ship just now.
P.S. Totally agree that staff should be paid a Living Wage. That decision was appalling. I reckon it would take the wages of one first team player to cover the whole initiative and as someone alluded to earlier - you reap what you sow.
Had we bought Fletcher, we'd have vastly increased our chances of winning the league that season. The SPL champions from that season got automatic qualification to the CL. Obviously no one will ever know for sure, but it's not a huge leap to suggest that the failure to spend £3/4m on Fletcher costs us £10m or so in CL money. At the very least, Fletcher would have had significant sell on value - something that has been undoubtedly proven since. The failure to sign him was a huge mistake, regardless of how you look at that. As for the rest of your post - you've picked 2 great successes(although as VVD hasn't actually been sold yet, he's so far only a playing success rather than a financial one) and mentioned this as some sort of proof of success, despite the fact that for every great success of this system, there are at least 2 total failures. You've then mentioned 2 high profile failures as some sort of proof of failure of spending big, neglecting to mention any of the many, many successful high profile/expenditure signings we've made since the days of MON. You've then mentioned probably the biggest freak result in our history as sort of proof that high profile signings don't always work, again neglecting to mention any of the many, many big games both in Europe and domestically won by the likes of Balde, Lennon, Thompson, Sutton, Hartson and Petrov - all either big wage and/or big fee players. You've then mentioned Ross McCormack's ridiculous transfer fee - what is that supposed to prove? Michu cost Swansea £2million. If you want to have a player in your team who plays like a player who cost £3million should, you've a much better chance of getting one by spending £3million on one player, rather than spending £1million on 3 players. How should a player who cost 3m play these days?
It's fairly obvious - unfortunately - that 3m is buttons in football.
|
|
|
| |
|
Stephane_Mahe
|
17 Jul 2014, 02:43 PM
Post #113
|
- Posts:
- 5,936
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #26,991
- Joined:
- 18 September 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- The King of Kings
|
- Rieper's Toe
- 17 Jul 2014, 02:32 PM
- Stephane_Mahe
- 17 Jul 2014, 02:07 PM
You've then mentioned probably the biggest freak result in our history as sort of proof that high profile signings don't always work, again neglecting to mention any of the many, many big games both in Europe and domestically won by the likes of Balde, Lennon, Thompson, Sutton, Hartson and Petrov - all either big wage and/or big fee players.
And we lost so much money doing that we had to have a share issue to balance the books, and its now 30 million and 100,000 a week for a player of Sutton or Hartson's ability. - Quote:
-
You've then mentioned Ross McCormack's ridiculous transfer fee - what is that supposed to prove? Michu cost Swansea £2million.
So are you agreeing that spending money for the sake of it doesn't actually guarantee anything about player quality ? I'm well aware that these players cost us more money than we really should have been spending. I was pointing out that highlighting the one truly disastrous result they had in their time together, without mentioning any of the excellent results they did achieve, doesn't give any weight at all to the argument that paying high money doesn't guarantee success.
In fact, they players are pretty much proof of the opposite. That was an expensively assembled squad, both in terms of wages and transfer fees, and was the best team(if not squad) we've had in years.. And that doesn't mean that I'm advocating spending money we don't have again.
No, I'm pointing out that mentioning one outrageously expensive transfer proves as much as mentioning one incredibly good value transfer - ie. eff all.
|
|
|
| |
|
Stephane_Mahe
|
17 Jul 2014, 02:45 PM
Post #114
|
- Posts:
- 5,936
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #26,991
- Joined:
- 18 September 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- The King of Kings
|
- Shuggie Edvaldsson
- 17 Jul 2014, 02:42 PM
How should a player who cost 3m play these days?
It's fairly obvious - unfortunately - that 3m is buttons in football. It is an example figure.
|
|
|
| |
|
leangreen
|
17 Jul 2014, 04:48 PM
Post #115
|
- Posts:
- 3,308
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #5,898
- Joined:
- 7 December 2006
|
Underworked. Overpaid. LGTF.
|
|
|
| |
|
Flinchy
|
17 Jul 2014, 04:55 PM
Post #116
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 10,881
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #26,135
- Joined:
- 31 May 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Xavi Hernandez
|
- Deebhoy
- 17 Jul 2014, 02:06 PM
We remain financially well run but have become too risk adverse which will continue to bite away at the income and support of the club. Pretty much how I feel about it. Very happy with our success even without a real rival to push us on. However, I would like us to speculate sometimes. We've hit our peak with what we can buy and produce with what we're willing to spend. Need to spend more to go further but I don't see that happening any time soon. That's why we hired Ronny.
|
|
|
| |
|
Gonga
|
17 Jul 2014, 05:03 PM
Post #117
|
- Posts:
- 27,872
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #5,057
- Joined:
- 28 September 2006
- Favourite all-time player
- McStay
|
- Bobby Carroll
- 17 Jul 2014, 12:58 AM
The board would go up in my estimation if they paid their staff a living wage ( as previously mentioned, the current state of affairs, is unceltic minded imo. Whats this living wage thing about?
Seen it mentioned a few times re: the board.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tim Waits
|
17 Jul 2014, 05:32 PM
Post #118
|
Small-Minded Bien-Pensant
- Posts:
- 28,065
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #208
- Joined:
- 11 September 2004
- Favourite all-time player
- Jean-Joël Perrier-Doumbé
|
- Gonga
- 17 Jul 2014, 05:03 PM
- Bobby Carroll
- 17 Jul 2014, 12:58 AM
The board would go up in my estimation if they paid their staff a living wage ( as previously mentioned, the current state of affairs, is unceltic minded imo.
Whats this living wage thing about? Seen it mentioned a few times re: the board. It was raised at last year's AGM.
Another piece on it.
- Quote:
-
Following the AGM, Mr Lawwell, otherwise a very able husband of the club's resources, attempted to explain further by pointing out that most of the 180 or so employees paid below the living wage were part-time and topping up existing salaries. Did it not occur to him that the main salaries of these people may be so low that they are forced to take a second job? Surely no one thinks that because many of them have an emotional attachment to the club they are happy to accept scant remuneration because that would simply be exploitation.
|
|
|
| |
|
Fast n Bulbous
|
17 Jul 2014, 07:25 PM
Post #119
|
- Posts:
- 2,418
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26,460
- Joined:
- 21 July 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik Larsson
|
- Flinchy
- 17 Jul 2014, 04:55 PM
- Deebhoy
- 17 Jul 2014, 02:06 PM
We remain financially well run but have become too risk adverse which will continue to bite away at the income and support of the club.
Pretty much how I feel about it. Very happy with our success even without a real rival to push us on. However, I would like us to speculate sometimes. We've hit our peak with what we can buy and produce with what we're willing to spend. Need to spend more to go further but I don't see that happening any time soon. That's why we hired Ronny. I dunno, for a club that's supposedly risk averse, we've taken a huge risk in appointing a manager who's spent his career thus far at a minnow club in Norway, much as I hope it pays off. Penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
|
|
|
| |
|
Gonga
|
17 Jul 2014, 07:26 PM
Post #120
|
- Posts:
- 27,872
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #5,057
- Joined:
- 28 September 2006
- Favourite all-time player
- McStay
|
- Tim Waits
- 17 Jul 2014, 05:32 PM
- Gonga
- 17 Jul 2014, 05:03 PM
- Bobby Carroll
- 17 Jul 2014, 12:58 AM
The board would go up in my estimation if they paid their staff a living wage ( as previously mentioned, the current state of affairs, is unceltic minded imo.
Whats this living wage thing about? Seen it mentioned a few times re: the board.
It was raised at last year's AGM. Another piece on it.- Quote:
-
Following the AGM, Mr Lawwell, otherwise a very able husband of the club's resources, attempted to explain further by pointing out that most of the 180 or so employees paid below the living wage were part-time and topping up existing salaries. Did it not occur to him that the main salaries of these people may be so low that they are forced to take a second job? Surely no one thinks that because many of them have an emotional attachment to the club they are happy to accept scant remuneration because that would simply be exploitation.
Cheers.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|