|
Post by Danstoke82 on Oct 2, 2019 13:57:21 GMT
Absolutely agreed 100%
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Oct 2, 2019 14:03:09 GMT
he has had a pay cut was 975k a few years ago , maybe its the relegation clause
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 2, 2019 14:04:05 GMT
Its an absolute mystery how he still has a job if you ask me. It simply makes no sense given what has occurred on his watch this last 4 years.
And I think the fact that he is still here gives a hint into why the whole hierarchy is failing.
They need to go and get a CEO who knows how to run a football club properly and JC needs to step aside as well.
|
|
|
Post by dreamtheater on Oct 2, 2019 14:04:39 GMT
No shit ?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 2, 2019 14:05:08 GMT
He's a board member rather than an employee right ?
With Peter, John and Richard.
Not sure what the mechanics of removing him would be therefore.
I get the impression he is not held directly accountable for results, more the smooth running of the football club.
|
|
|
Post by senojbor on Oct 2, 2019 14:07:00 GMT
He and JC have absolutely ruined the club.
|
|
|
Post by ibby on Oct 2, 2019 14:08:42 GMT
Need to be carefully what i say about him.
|
|
|
Post by gogogadget on Oct 2, 2019 14:08:44 GMT
It will have to wait. He is on holiday for another week. That's why jones will be in charge this weekend
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Oct 2, 2019 14:08:47 GMT
The skip rat has prosided over our freefall whilst earning £750,000 a year. Have a think on that. Only £750.000 a year, poor thing. Well at least he’s worth it, bet he can sleep easy knowing he’s rightfully paid the correct amount for the results he’s getting in his role. 😬
|
|
|
Post by Edward Tattsyrup on Oct 2, 2019 14:09:31 GMT
He's a board member rather than an employee right ? With Peter, John and Richard. Not sure what the mechanics of removing him would be therefore. I get the impression he is not held directly accountable for results, more the smooth running of the football club. I agree it could be tricky. The mafia always found that a bullet between the eyes worked. #justsaying
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 2, 2019 14:11:26 GMT
He's a board member rather than an employee right ? With Peter, John and Richard. Not sure what the mechanics of removing him would be therefore. I get the impression he is not held directly accountable for results, more the smooth running of the football club. Well the club sure isn't running smoothly. He's got to go or nothing will improve. Some of these last few managers might not be "that good", maybe, but one thing is for certain, the operating circumstances within the club have made their job harder than it should be. Its part of the reason why they all keep failing.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Oct 2, 2019 14:19:03 GMT
How the board can’t realise they need a man between themselves and the manager is staggering given the mistakes that just keep happening.
|
|
|
Post by tosh on Oct 2, 2019 14:43:50 GMT
It will have to wait. He is on holiday for another week. That's why jones will be in charge this weekend The CEO on holiday while the club is in a major crisis and urgently needs a new manager? Ridiculous! Why isn’t he scurrying back? Has Boris booked any holidays yet over the Brexit deadline?
|
|
|
Post by tosh on Oct 2, 2019 14:48:23 GMT
He's a board member rather than an employee right ? With Peter, John and Richard. Not sure what the mechanics of removing him would be therefore. I get the impression he is not held directly accountable for results, more the smooth running of the football club. There is no reason why a Director who is a minority shareholder cannot be removed by the other Directors who are the majority shareholders, if they so decide.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Oct 2, 2019 14:58:45 GMT
He's a board member rather than an employee right ? With Peter, John and Richard. Not sure what the mechanics of removing him would be therefore. I get the impression he is not held directly accountable for results, more the smooth running of the football club. dunner fael too smooth to may thayz days dine thier. I don't think we will ever know what happened but complacency set in at some point in the Prem and major decisions since then have all been wrong and the same mistakes are being repeated . who accepts responsibility , clearly nobody as they don't think they were making bad decisions .
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Oct 2, 2019 15:29:44 GMT
The skip rat has prosided over our freefall whilst earning £750,000 a year. Have a think on that. Only £750.000 a year, poor thing. Well at least he’s worth it, bet he can sleep easy knowing he’s rightfully paid the correct amount for the results he’s getting in his role. 😬 10-15 years ago our old mate Jez Moxey was on about £1.5m at the custard bowl down the road and was also given a £712,000 payoff after 7 months at Norwich! Maybe Mr Scholes is on the correct salary for a mediocre CEO.
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Oct 2, 2019 15:32:56 GMT
How the board can’t realise they need a man between themselves and the manager is staggering given the mistakes that just keep happening. They do.Its a mate of Johns from down the pub. (who goes to 3 matches a week you know!)
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 2, 2019 16:11:38 GMT
He's a board member rather than an employee right ? With Peter, John and Richard. Not sure what the mechanics of removing him would be therefore. I get the impression he is not held directly accountable for results, more the smooth running of the football club. There is no reason why a Director who is a minority shareholder cannot be removed by the other Directors who are the majority shareholders, if they so decide. Would it need a majority vote then (3 to 1) or can the Chairman just summarily remove him ?
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Oct 2, 2019 16:17:33 GMT
There is no reason why a Director who is a minority shareholder cannot be removed by the other Directors who are the majority shareholders, if they so decide. Would it need a majority vote then (3 to 1) or can the Chairman just summarily remove him ? it depends on the articles of association that the business has in place, but votes may well be based on shareholding. But imagine if Tommy and Arthur Shelby wanted to remove Michael. I doubt it would be too difficult
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Oct 2, 2019 16:31:44 GMT
He is a board member (the articles of the club should allow for removal by a majority of the shareholders) and CEO (there should be termination provisions in his employment contract, one of which may be if he is removed as a director - to sack him probably involves a notice period and maybe gardening leave, with a decent pay out to him as well, maybe, if he is not sacked for "cause" - yeah, I know, surely being so crap is "cause", but probably not in an employment law sense). "Cause" would be sticking his hand in the till, shitting on old Pete's desk etc., whereas just a general uselessness is harder to justify.
If he has shares in the club/holding company, it may trickier to get him to sell them, unless they are tied to his employment, so that his leaving would trigger a deemed offer of the shares to the remaining shareholders. Otherwise, the Coates/BET 365 could have to offer to buy them, but he could refuse to do so.
|
|
|
Post by pushon on Oct 2, 2019 16:47:20 GMT
He's a board member rather than an employee right ? With Peter, John and Richard. Not sure what the mechanics of removing him would be therefore. I get the impression he is not held directly accountable for results, more the smooth running of the football club. There is no reason why a Director who is a minority shareholder cannot be removed by the other Directors who are the majority shareholders, if they so decide. It seems obvious that the other directors see no reason to vote Scholes from the board and ultimately out of the club. Stoke City and it's satelite companies are owned by Bet365 (though not quite entirely). Of the Stoke Board, John is by far the biggest Bet365 shareholder and as such can "Throw his weight around" if he so wishes. As far as Stoke City are concerned he probably holds the key to the piggy bank, under the auspices of big sister. I assume that Peter is now just a figure-head, who is allowed to vent his spleen every so often and pandered to even less often. So then TS has attached himself to John with a super-glue like grasp and won't be dislodged easily. I have no club insider views to qualify these thoughts, it's just my take on the likelyhood of what's probably going on.
|
|
|
Post by devondumpling on Oct 2, 2019 16:58:43 GMT
Stoke City Holdings own 75% of the shares of the football club, in addition PC and JC have further shares. SCH 100% owned by PC and JC. So if they can get rid of TS, anytime they please, with payoff. In 2018 accounts TS earned £701000 + £10000 pension contribution. The club lost £75878000 in 2018 accounts! So much for the self financing theorists.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Oct 2, 2019 20:05:20 GMT
He's a board member rather than an employee right ? With Peter, John and Richard. Not sure what the mechanics of removing him would be therefore. I get the impression he is not held directly accountable for results, more the smooth running of the football club. I agree it could be tricky. The mafia always found that a bullet between the eyes worked. #justsaying Simple boards fire chief executives every day , three happened in the city today , fact is they clearly don’t want Too
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Oct 2, 2019 20:08:18 GMT
Stoke City Holdings own 75% of the shares of the football club, in addition PC and JC have further shares. SCH 100% owned by PC and JC. So if they can get rid of TS, anytime they please, with payoff. In 2018 accounts TS earned £701000 + £10000 pension contribution. The club lost £75878000 in 2018 accounts! So much for the self financing theorists. Devon not saying your wrong but I don’t recall the club reporting those kind of losses is that a bury the bad news for FFP ?
|
|
|
Post by Edward Tattsyrup on Oct 2, 2019 20:14:38 GMT
I agree it could be tricky. The mafia always found that a bullet between the eyes worked. #justsaying Simple boards fire chief executives every day , three happened in the city today , fact is they clearly don’t want Too He's not a chief exec though, he's a director and has shares in the business.
|
|
|
Post by future100 on Oct 2, 2019 20:20:41 GMT
The terms of his contract of employment will have been sorted by the companies accountants and solicitors, any one who believes that this contract is not skewed in favour of Bet365 or whoever he is employed by is kidding themselves. It could be that his employers don't see him as responsible for this decline.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Oct 2, 2019 20:34:09 GMT
Simple boards fire chief executives every day , three happened in the city today , fact is they clearly don’t want Too He's not a chief exec though, he's a director and has shares in the business. It doesn’t matter the other directors can vote him off and any shareholding if there is one will be a small minority
|
|