|
Post by thedarkknight on Dec 18, 2019 0:21:32 GMT
Controversial opinion he helped cut the wage bill by £33m paying less than 1% of that in extra salary to CEO would normally be considered a good deal, plus its not just salary its total remuneration package including pension, any bonuses etc etc No you’re wrong. It is total monetary recompense for holding a position. In fact In the full accounts his pension contribution is listed separately. It’s his total “cash” income. Not the most hes taken home in recent years true, but it’s 10k less than his ‘reward’ in 2016 after the dizzy heights of the 2015-16 season. Our purple patch I like to call it. God do we feel along way from that now. Truly a spectacular fall from grace in my eyes. I suggest the fact old Teflon has had such a huge jump in payment is the fact the barometers by which he’s judged, are purely financial and the further down we tumble, the more cost cutting our CEO is going to do, in all areas, Thus aiding our decline back to the dark ages. I’ll leave that one with you.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Dec 18, 2019 0:29:41 GMT
I agree that you cannot vote Tory and complain about something like this. Why? Quite the opposite. Most conservatives believe that hard work= success = you get paid more. Tony Scholes = lazy ass leadership = failure = paid more. I was under the impression that traditionally most conservatives believed that other peoples hard work = you get paid more.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Dec 18, 2019 1:23:51 GMT
Controversial opinion he helped cut the wage bill by £33m paying less than 1% of that in extra salary to CEO would normally be considered a good deal, plus its not just salary its total remuneration package including pension, any bonuses etc etc How can the board justify a bonus when we were relegated? This is the ultimate piss-take. At worse his pay should have been cut 50% at best he should have been sacked.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 18, 2019 1:46:05 GMT
your taking the piss your taking the piss Tony scholes your taking the piss Get out of our club Get out of our club Tony scholes get out of club Next match and certainly the next home game chants please. They'd sack the manager.
|
|
|
Post by jarhead on Dec 18, 2019 7:26:43 GMT
your taking the piss your taking the piss Tony scholes your taking the piss Get out of our club Get out of our club Tony scholes get out of club Next match and certainly the next home game chants please. They'd sack the manager. True 😐😐
|
|
|
Post by Championship Potter on Dec 18, 2019 8:09:07 GMT
CEO job description To create and implement the vision of the organisation. Under Hughes the vision was to move us on from our Rugby team title. But in order for a new formation or style of play to work. Each player needs to have the right attributes. Scholes should have prevented all this by understanding football and raising that issue with the manager and the board. We saw some good football with BMX. Three players dont make a happy successful squad. Giving Bauer a new 5 year contract when Rowett didnt like Bauer. Surely you would ask the manager his interest in the player. Than giving out new contracts to those offering to stay after relegation. The contracts for Butland, Allen and Bauer must have been terrible for squad morale (there was a recent article that basically confirmed that). Easy to say with hindsight but selling Butland/Allen and building a younger squad should have been the way forward.
|
|
|
Post by butlerstbob on Dec 18, 2019 8:16:18 GMT
I agree that you cannot vote Tory and complain about something like this. Whats voting tory got to do with it? Scholes's boss is a Labour supporter and donor and no matter who was running the government, it could be the tree hugging green party and Scholes would still be earning ridiculous amounts of money! makes no difference what so ever!!
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Dec 18, 2019 8:26:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 18, 2019 10:15:20 GMT
Controversial opinion he helped cut the wage bill by £33m paying less than 1% of that in extra salary to CEO would normally be considered a good deal, plus its not just salary its total remuneration package including pension, any bonuses etc etc No you’re wrong. It is total monetary recompense for holding a position. In fact In the full accounts his pension contribution is listed separately. It’s his total “cash” income. Not the most hes taken home in recent years true, but it’s 10k less than his ‘reward’ in 2016 after the dizzy heights of the 2015-16 season. Our purple patch I like to call it. God do we feel along way from that now. Truly a spectacular fall from grace in my eyes. I suggest the fact old Teflon has had such a huge jump in payment is the fact the barometers by which he’s judged, are purely financial and the further down we tumble, the more cost cutting our CEO is going to do, in all areas, Thus aiding our decline back to the dark ages. I’ll leave that one with you. Now the full accounts are out I can see pensions is shown separately, I am not wrong on the other items it includes any other economic benefits received which might include healthcare, company car etc. I also looked back at the May 2018 accounts (the year of relegation) is salary dropped £792k to £701k based on change from £3.6m profit to £31.9m loss, in May 2019 cutting the loss to £15.4m saw pay increase by £155k. So yes I agree you are right there seems a substantial element of his salary is based on the financial results but this will presumably be based on managing to a budget the board approved, I don't see it aiding a return to the dark ages the Coates family have large amounts invested in the club the only way they see a return is on sale and that needs us to be in or close to the premier league to get their money back
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 18, 2019 10:17:44 GMT
Controversial opinion he helped cut the wage bill by £33m paying less than 1% of that in extra salary to CEO would normally be considered a good deal, plus its not just salary its total remuneration package including pension, any bonuses etc etc How can the board justify a bonus when we were relegated? This is the ultimate piss-take. At worse his pay should have been cut 50% at best he should have been sacked. Because his salary is not based on the performance of the football team except for the impact that has on the financials besides the sentinel story is wrong his salary fell by £91k in the year of relegation.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 18, 2019 10:27:24 GMT
How can the board justify a bonus when we were relegated? This is the ultimate piss-take. At worse his pay should have been cut 50% at best he should have been sacked. Because his salary is not based on the performance of the football team except for the impact that has on the financials besides the sentinel story is wrong his salary fell by £91k in the year of relegation. He is part of the recruitment mechanism at the club.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 18, 2019 10:50:38 GMT
Because his salary is not based on the performance of the football team except for the impact that has on the financials besides the sentinel story is wrong his salary fell by £91k in the year of relegation. He is part of the recruitment mechanism at the club. Yes but essentially only because he is the money man, his main role is I assume to decide if we can afford the deal and then negotiate to deliver the players requested by the manager.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Dec 18, 2019 15:55:50 GMT
Couldn’t the media team put together a Jesé-esque #ambition video to publicise this news? Maybe a grinning Scholes spinning a chequebook on his finger like a basketball, shot by the Stan statue from a funny angle with a moody filter applied?
Just thinking out loud, you know. Might put a positive spin on things and appease the fans a bit.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Dec 19, 2019 20:20:30 GMT
Controversial opinion he helped cut the wage bill by £33m paying less than 1% of that in extra salary to CEO would normally be considered a good deal, plus its not just salary its total remuneration package including pension, any bonuses etc etc He'll drive us down to the Vauxhall Conference (showing my age here) then, claim he cut the wage bill by 90% or something. I've not read the article, but one way of cutting a wage bill is to pay people off (so you pay up the remainder of their contract as a lump sum), lo and behold wage bill goes down. There'll probably be a net saving as well, assuming you don't pay it off at 100%, but this kinda ignores that you were the numpty that approved the contract in the first place ...
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Dec 20, 2019 1:00:52 GMT
How can the board justify a bonus when we were relegated? This is the ultimate piss-take. At worse his pay should have been cut 50% at best he should have been sacked Because his salary is not based on the performance of the football team except for the impact that has on the financials besides the sentinel story is wrong his salary fell by £91k in the year of relegation. Whomever wrote his annual objectives needs sacking too. Oh hang on, that would be brilliant business owner. Companies should never, ever take a short solution to a long-term problem. We crashed and burned because they apparently never had a long term plan to consolidate as a mid-table premier league team.
|
|
|
Post by ibby on Dec 20, 2019 1:10:10 GMT
He should be sacked
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 1:19:48 GMT
I thought that we had established that he took a £95k pay cut after relegation. He now has had a rise of £155k.
I have no idea of the whys and wherfores, but let's at least get the basics right.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 1:20:48 GMT
Because his salary is not based on the performance of the football team except for the impact that has on the financials besides the sentinel story is wrong his salary fell by £91k in the year of relegation. Whomever wrote his annual objectives needs sacking too. Oh hang on, that would be brilliant business owner. Companies should never, ever take a short solution to a long-term problem. We crashed and burned because they apparently never had a long term plan to consolidate as a mid-table premier league team. We haven't yet crashed and burned. Oh yea let's us all panic and run for the hills. Isn't that what you do?
|
|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Dec 20, 2019 6:28:11 GMT
Whomever wrote his annual objectives needs sacking too. Oh hang on, that would be brilliant business owner. Companies should never, ever take a short solution to a long-term problem. We crashed and burned because they apparently never had a long term plan to consolidate as a mid-table premier league team. We haven't yet crashed and burned. Oh yea let's us all panic and run for the hills. Isn't that what you do? Have you been coaching our defence by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 20, 2019 21:58:50 GMT
He’s done a cracking job taking us back 20 years
|
|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Dec 20, 2019 22:01:24 GMT
It makes sense to me, you get bonuses by balancing the books. If we went crazy and showed ambition, he would have to take a drastic wage hit.... So he simply pinches the penny's unless it's authorised from above him.
Basically he's on more now than when we were relegated, because he was fucking stingy when we should have gone all out after sacking Hughes, but we've cheaped it. So... He really isn't interested in the club and his wages are almost guaranteed aren't they? It was always going to end badly, and not for him.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Dec 20, 2019 22:34:34 GMT
Controversial opinion he helped cut the wage bill by £33m paying less than 1% of that in extra salary to CEO would normally be considered a good deal, plus its not just salary its total remuneration package including pension, any bonuses etc etc I don't get this logic. He is already paid a handsome salary to make those kind of decisions. It does not warrant a pay rise merely because he is doing his job. When he took the job was it not envisaged that as CEO he would have to make decisions to balance the books each year..through good times and bad? Bet365 are a private company so they can do what they want. If they think he is worth it then that is all that should matter.I would not be happy if I was a shareholder in a public listed company and under performance was rewarded in this way. There have been many examples of undue enrichment of executives of under performing businesses. I know Scholes does not pick the team but he is part of the whole and should not be unduly enriched at a time when the whole business is losing money. I wonder if there might be something more to it other than removing £33m off the wage bill? Cutting staff and wages is easy...especially when you don't have to manage the majority of the remaining assets that form the bulk of the costs and you can pass that responsibility onto the football manager. I supposes that may explain why MoN allegedly earns 75% more than Scholes.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 20, 2019 23:04:51 GMT
Controversial opinion he helped cut the wage bill by £33m paying less than 1% of that in extra salary to CEO would normally be considered a good deal, plus its not just salary its total remuneration package including pension, any bonuses etc etc I don't get this logic. He is already paid a handsome salary to make those kind of decisions. It does not warrant a pay rise merely because he is doing his job. When he took the job was it not envisaged that as CEO he would have to make decisions to balance the books each year..through good times and bad? Bet365 are a private company so they can do what they want. If they think he is worth it then that is all that should matter.I would not be happy if I was a shareholder in a public listed company and under performance was rewarded in this way. There have been many examples of undue enrichment of executives of under performing businesses. I know Scholes does not pick the team but he is part of the whole and should not be unduly enriched at a time when the whole business is losing money. I wonder if there might be something more to it other than removing £33m off the wage bill? Cutting staff and wages is easy...especially when you don't have to manage the majority of the remaining assets that form the bulk of the costs and you can pass that responsibility onto the football manager. I supposes that may explain why MoN allegedly earns 75% more than Scholes. There isn't another Chief Executive in world football who would have survived the rapidity of the decline we've had and that's a cast iron fact. The fact that we reward the fucker for it sums up the state of the club. We deserve everything, absolutely everything coming our way. We are beyond ridicule.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 20, 2019 23:16:28 GMT
Taking the win bonus away was a masterstroke.
|
|
|
Post by chigstoke on Dec 23, 2019 11:52:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 23, 2019 12:00:02 GMT
Ah that’s fine then. 🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Dec 23, 2019 12:01:38 GMT
Fuck him off Stoke. Nothing will begin to change at this club until he has gone.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 23, 2019 12:02:45 GMT
I absolutely despair
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Dec 23, 2019 12:06:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chigstoke on Dec 23, 2019 12:06:47 GMT
Ah that’s fine then. 🤦♂️ As if the cost of living is going to affect Teflon Tony of all people. A highly paid CEO.
Get him gone.
|
|