|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Jan 18, 2020 22:49:01 GMT
Was there a meeting prior to the Blackburn game in November?
The last minutes I can find are from September, am I failing to find more recent minutes on the Club website?
Cheers for any updates that may follow
|
|
|
|
Post by Scouse on Jan 18, 2020 23:17:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 18, 2020 23:22:06 GMT
Date of next meeting - Saturday 25th January 2020, 11.00am-12.30pm, prior to Swansea City game.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 19, 2020 11:46:30 GMT
Date of next meeting - Saturday 25th January 2020, 11.00am-12.30pm, prior to Swansea City game. I expect to see congratulations to Tony Scholes on his pay rise formally minuted. |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 20, 2020 2:57:16 GMT
Date of next meeting - Saturday 25th January 2020, 11.00am-12.30pm, prior to Swansea City game. I expect to see congratulations to Tony Scholes on his pay rise formally minuted. Alongside a list of recent achievements which merited it 1 loss of £100m per annum revenue 2 relegation 3 3 failed managerial appointments 4 squandering of £190m shareholders loans 5 Bottom 4 of the championship 6 huge list of unsellable assets Imbula ,Wimmer, Berahino etc 7 special mention to the Jesse tweet 8 overseeing a club going from 30 richest in the world to buying Blackpool squad players in their most critical ever window 9 waste of £50m in the key post relegation transition window 10 loss of significant customer numbers 11 not to mention IT , catering and match day issues |
|
|
|
Post by StaffordPotter on Jan 20, 2020 8:25:49 GMT
I expect to see congratulations to Tony Scholes on his pay rise formally minuted. Alongside a list of recent achievements which merited it 1 loss of £100m per annum revenue 2 relegation 3 3 failed managerial appointments 4 squandering of £190m shareholders loans 5 Bottom 4 of the championship 6 huge list of unsellable assets Imbula ,Wimmer, Berahino etc 7 special mention to the Jesse tweet 8 overseeing a club going from 30 richest in the world to buying Blackpool squad players in their most critical ever window 9 waste of £50m in the key post relegation transition window 10 loss of significant customer numbers 11 not to mention IT , catering and match day issues I'll bet you none of these get asked. There's a few questions I've put to them which I've been promised with be highlighted at their next meeting, fully expecting nothing to come of it as usual. Most of those fuckers on the council don't want to rock the boat and don't seem interested in taking our questions to the board. |
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Jan 20, 2020 8:49:55 GMT
Thanks for providing the link |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jan 20, 2020 10:26:31 GMT
Alongside a list of recent achievements which merited it 1 loss of £100m per annum revenue 2 relegation 3 3 failed managerial appointments 4 squandering of £190m shareholders loans 5 Bottom 4 of the championship 6 huge list of unsellable assets Imbula ,Wimmer, Berahino etc 7 special mention to the Jesse tweet 8 overseeing a club going from 30 richest in the world to buying Blackpool squad players in their most critical ever window 9 waste of £50m in the key post relegation transition window 10 loss of significant customer numbers 11 not to mention IT , catering and match day issues I'll bet you none of these get asked. There's a few questions I've put to them which I've been promised with be highlighted at their next meeting, fully expecting nothing to come of it as usual. Most of those fuckers on the council don't want to rock the boat and don't seem interested in taking our questions to the board. Don't know much about all this supporters council stuff but seems to me to be a total waste of time if no searching questions are ever asked of the senior management. Must operate as a bit of a closed shop and therefore pointless for your average fan. This is where the club need to start being more upfront with its regular fans. They might actually be surprised as to how tolerant we are with them if we actually knew what was going on behind the scenes. If the club can't see the problem it has with the relationship with its fans then I don't see things changing very quickly. And also I think some of that top brass needs to participate in an actual fans match day experience. It really isn't that good especially if you have kids with you. And the catering is beyond awful. Vans outside the ground put on far superior fayre than inside the ground where they have access to industrial sized catering areas. I mean how, just how is this possible? And lets face it the ground is colder than ice station zebra. Fill in the fookin corners with wind breaks, you are worth 8 or 9 billion quid ffs and rising rapidly. Its Monday. Thought I would get that off my chest. |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 20, 2020 11:58:37 GMT
Alongside a list of recent achievements which merited it 1 loss of £100m per annum revenue 2 relegation 3 3 failed managerial appointments 4 squandering of £190m shareholders loans 5 Bottom 4 of the championship 6 huge list of unsellable assets Imbula ,Wimmer, Berahino etc 7 special mention to the Jesse tweet 8 overseeing a club going from 30 richest in the world to buying Blackpool squad players in their most critical ever window 9 waste of £50m in the key post relegation transition window 10 loss of significant customer numbers 11 not to mention IT , catering and match day issues I'll bet you none of these get asked. There's a few questions I've put to them which I've been promised with be highlighted at their next meeting, fully expecting nothing to come of it as usual. Most of those fuckers on the council don't want to rock the boat and don't seem interested in taking our questions to the board. Personally I think that’s about unfair on the counsel it’s pretty clear these subjects aren’t in the scope of the counsel and it’s another example of the closed nature of the executive leadership rather than the counsel members |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jan 20, 2020 13:03:10 GMT
Alongside a list of recent achievements which merited it 1 loss of £100m per annum revenue 2 relegation 3 3 failed managerial appointments 4 squandering of £190m shareholders loans 5 Bottom 4 of the championship 6 huge list of unsellable assets Imbula ,Wimmer, Berahino etc 7 special mention to the Jesse tweet 8 overseeing a club going from 30 richest in the world to buying Blackpool squad players in their most critical ever window 9 waste of £50m in the key post relegation transition window 10 loss of significant customer numbers 11 not to mention IT , catering and match day issues I'll bet you none of these get asked. There's a few questions I've put to them which I've been promised with be highlighted at their next meeting, fully expecting nothing to come of it as usual. Most of those fuckers on the council don't want to rock the boat and don't seem interested in taking our questions to the board. I’m not on the council and I’ve not got much interest in that stuff but seeing as though you do and are having a go at them ( when they do it for free and in their own time ) why don’t you join it and ask all the questions you want? |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 20, 2020 13:14:25 GMT
I expect to see congratulations to Tony Scholes on his pay rise formally minuted. Alongside a list of recent achievements which merited it 1 loss of £100m per annum revenue 2 relegation 3 3 failed managerial appointments 4 squandering of £190m shareholders loans 5 Bottom 4 of the championship 6 huge list of unsellable assets Imbula ,Wimmer, Berahino etc 7 special mention to the Jesse tweet 8 overseeing a club going from 30 richest in the world to buying Blackpool squad players in their most critical ever window 9 waste of £50m in the key post relegation transition window 10 loss of significant customer numbers 11 not to mention IT , catering and match day issues The problem with that is that you both don't recognise the nature of football and how it is very different to other industries and also completely over-egg the pudding, as you always do in any mention of Tony Scholes. I am certainly not a mouthpiece for TS - he has a perfectly good mouthpiece of his own and PR staff to disseminate his responses if he thinks it's worth doing - but if we wish to have credibility as critical friends of the club, hyperbole and misrepresentation of the way football works don't help our cause. If the Premier League had the 20 best managers in the world; the 20 best CEOs, and the 20 best and richest owners, 3 clubs would still be relegated each season. That's the way a competitive league works. And it is relegation which has been the main cause of 1,2,8 & 10 on your list. You therefore cannot make an automatic assumption that any relegated club has an under-performing CEO who is responsible for it. The second reason why you can't make that link is because relegation is caused by what happens on the pitch, not off it. Unlike CEOs of many other organisations and industries, CEOs of football clubs do not have complete authority over all the decisions made by their staff. I think the large majority of us would think that's a very good thing, and would not want Tony Scholes (or any other non-qualified person) picking the team ( although it has happened, but not at Stoke) or deciding which players to buy, although he will have a role in the non-football, financial aspects of such decisions. That's the job of the coaching and recruitment teams. You are right that there are have been some very bad decisions on 3, 4,6 & 9, which have caused 5. That's down to the managers and the recruitment team, the leader of whom for many of those decisions departed the club (I assume, but don't actually know, because the Board were not happy with his performance), as have the managers you mention, working within the financial parameters laid down by the Board. TS will I'm sure have had a significant role in transfer and contract negotiations, and we appear to have paid well over the value for some of those but I'm also sure that if TS over-ruled the recruitment team and the manager to prevent us from a signing a player the manager wanted, you and many others would have been be up in arms. It's the Board ( which in practice means the owners) which takes the decisions on who fills those roles (your point 3). TS is a member of that Board and will no doubt have an influence but he's only one vote and the real power as always in football clubs lies with the owners. It was quite apparent for example from the Q & A with Jon Coates and Tony Scholes that Nathan Jones was very much JC's choice who had had him on his radar for some time. Which leaves 7 & 11. I've no idea what 7 refers to, but 11 is the only one on your list which is very much the direct responsibility of the CEO. The owners obviously still have confidence in their CEO otherwise I have no doubt that given the level of their investment, both financial and emotional,they would have sacked him. None of this is to say that the items on your list shouldn't be raised with the club by the Supporters Council. They definitely should be in an assertive way but I'm afraid that to do so by focussing solely or even mainly on the CEO is to misunderstand the situation and thereby reduce the credibility of the supporters views. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 20, 2020 13:32:45 GMT
Date of next meeting - Saturday 25th January 2020, 11.00am-12.30pm, prior to Swansea City game. I expect to see congratulations to Tony Scholes on his pay rise formally minuted. What is odd about this was that the Chair of the Supporters Council asked the club about this and posted on here that his pay rise was cost of living, the same as all the other staff, and the sum shown in the accounts was pension contributions. I don't personally think that explaining this was the role of the Council chair. When the Sentinel ran the story, I assume they asked the Club for a comment ( if they didn't, they certainly should have done, and the club should have given an explanation when the story appeared). It's not really for the supporters council to take the responsibility of answering the Sentinel piece, because it can easily, if unfairly, appear that they are acting as the club mouthpiece. The pension explanation in any case doesn't explain why there was such a large increase year on year, and it is still money paid for the benefit of the postholder. I suspect that the main cause of the negative reaction is the size of the salary itself. This is planet football and perhaps nothing should surprise us any more on how much is paid to players and officials. But it would be very interesting to see some benchmarking. How does TS's salary compare to CEOs of other clubs of comparable size ? Personally, I've no idea. |
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Jan 20, 2020 13:34:34 GMT
Alongside a list of recent achievements which merited it 1 loss of £100m per annum revenue 2 relegation 3 3 failed managerial appointments 4 squandering of £190m shareholders loans 5 Bottom 4 of the championship 6 huge list of unsellable assets Imbula ,Wimmer, Berahino etc 7 special mention to the Jesse tweet 8 overseeing a club going from 30 richest in the world to buying Blackpool squad players in their most critical ever window 9 waste of £50m in the key post relegation transition window 10 loss of significant customer numbers 11 not to mention IT , catering and match day issues The problem with that is that you both don't recognise the nature of football and how it is very different to other industries and also completely over-egg the pudding, as you always do in any mention of Tony Scholes. I am certainly not a mouthpiece for TS - he has a perfectly good mouthpiece of his own and PR staff to disseminate his responses if he thinks it's worth doing - but if we wish to have credibility as critical friends of the club, hyperbole and misrepresentation of the way football works don't help our cause. If the Premier League had the 20 best managers in the world; the 20 best CEOs, and the 20 best and richest owners, 3 clubs would still be relegated each season. That's the way a competitive league works. And it is relegation which has been the main cause of 1,2,8 & 10 on your list. You therefore cannot make an automatic assumption that any relegated club has an under-performing CEO who is responsible for it. The second reason why you can't make that link is because relegation is caused by what happens on the pitch, not off it. Unlike CEOs of many other organisations and industries, CEOs of football clubs do not have complete authority over all the decisions made by their staff. I think the large majority of us would think that's a very good thing, and would not want Tony Scholes (or any other non-qualified person) picking the team ( although it has happened, but not at Stoke) or deciding which players to buy, although he will have a role in the non-football, financial aspects of such decisions. That's the job of the coaching and recruitment teams. You are right that there are have been some very bad decisions on 3, 4,6 & 9, which have caused 5. That's down to the managers and the recruitment team, the leader of whom for many of those decisions departed the club (I assume, but don't actually know, because the Board were not happy with his performance), as have the managers you mention, working within the financial parameters laid down by the Board. TS will I'm sure have had a significant role in transfer and contract negotiations, and we appear to have paid well over the value for some of those but I'm also sure that if TS over-ruled the recruitment team and the manager to prevent us from a signing a player the manager wanted, you and many others would have been be up in arms. It's the Board ( which in practice means the owners) which takes the decisions on who fills those roles (your point 3). TS is a member of that Board and will no doubt have an influence but he's only one vote and the real power as always in football clubs lies with the owners. It was quite apparent for example from the Q & A with Jon Coates and Tony Scholes that Nathan Jones was very much JC's choice who had had him on his radar for some time. Which leaves 7 & 11. I've no idea what 7 refers to, but 11 is the only one on your list which is very much the direct responsibility of the CEO. The owners obviously still have confidence in their CEO otherwise I have no doubt that given the level of their investment, both financial and emotional,they would have sacked him. None of this is to say that the items on your list shouldn't be raised with the club by the Supporters Council. They definitely should be in an assertive way but I'm afraid that to do so by focussing solely or even mainly on the CEO is to misunderstand the situation and thereby reduce the credibility of the supporters views. Many have tried to reason with him Malcolm but theres none so blind as those that will not see. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jan 20, 2020 13:52:11 GMT
Alongside a list of recent achievements which merited it 1 loss of £100m per annum revenue 2 relegation 3 3 failed managerial appointments 4 squandering of £190m shareholders loans 5 Bottom 4 of the championship 6 huge list of unsellable assets Imbula ,Wimmer, Berahino etc 7 special mention to the Jesse tweet 8 overseeing a club going from 30 richest in the world to buying Blackpool squad players in their most critical ever window 9 waste of £50m in the key post relegation transition window 10 loss of significant customer numbers 11 not to mention IT , catering and match day issues The problem with that is that you both don't recognise the nature of football and how it is very different to other industries and also completely over-egg the pudding, as you always do in any mention of Tony Scholes. I am certainly not a mouthpiece for TS - he has a perfectly good mouthpiece of his own and PR staff to disseminate his responses if he thinks it's worth doing - but if we wish to have credibility as critical friends of the club, hyperbole and misrepresentation of the way football works don't help our cause. If the Premier League had the 20 best managers in the world; the 20 best CEOs, and the 20 best and richest owners, 3 clubs would still be relegated each season. That's the way a competitive league works. And it is relegation which has been the main cause of 1,2,8 & 10 on your list. You therefore cannot make an automatic assumption that any relegated club has an under-performing CEO who is responsible for it. The second reason why you can't make that link is because relegation is caused by what happens on the pitch, not off it. Unlike CEOs of many other organisations and industries, CEOs of football clubs do not have complete authority over all the decisions made by their staff. I think the large majority of us would think that's a very good thing, and would not want Tony Scholes (or any other non-qualified person) picking the team ( although it has happened, but not at Stoke) or deciding which players to buy, although he will have a role in the non-football, financial aspects of such decisions. That's the job of the coaching and recruitment teams. You are right that there are have been some very bad decisions on 3, 4,6 & 9, which have caused 5. That's down to the managers and the recruitment team, the leader of whom for many of those decisions departed the club (I assume, but don't actually know, because the Board were not happy with his performance), as have the managers you mention, working within the financial parameters laid down by the Board. TS will I'm sure have had a significant role in transfer and contract negotiations, and we appear to have paid well over the value for some of those but I'm also sure that if TS over-ruled the recruitment team and the manager to prevent us from a signing a player the manager wanted, you and many others would have been be up in arms. It's the Board ( which in practice means the owners) which takes the decisions on who fills those roles (your point 3). TS is a member of that Board and will no doubt have an influence but he's only one vote and the real power as always in football clubs lies with the owners. It was quite apparent for example from the Q & A with Jon Coates and Tony Scholes that Nathan Jones was very much JC's choice who had had him on his radar for some time. Which leaves 7 & 11. I've no idea what 7 refers to, but 11 is the only one on your list which is very much the direct responsibility of the CEO. The owners obviously still have confidence in their CEO otherwise I have no doubt that given the level of their investment, both financial and emotional,they would have sacked him. None of this is to say that the items on your list shouldn't be raised with the club by the Supporters Council. They definitely should be in an assertive way but I'm afraid that to do so by focussing solely or even mainly on the CEO is to misunderstand the situation and thereby reduce the credibility of the supporters views. You make some very good valid points. But what can't be denied is the fact that the clubs communication with its fans in terms of what the plan is and how they are going about it is a total shambles. This is why you get idiots like me shouting my mouth off making all sorts of quite likely not entirely accurate accusations. We currently have one of the wealthiest owners in the football business yet we are standing on the edge of a cliff looking at league one football. Something has gone very badly wrong somewhere and the fans simply would like to know a bit more as to why and how this has happened. Don't think as paying customers that is actually an unreasonable ask. Scholes is in a position to make this "communication" issue better because he is the CE fookin O. Does he? Does he fuck. Only hear from him when its rosey in the garden. He's a coward if you ask me and should have gone long ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 20, 2020 14:32:08 GMT
The problem with that is that you both don't recognise the nature of football and how it is very different to other industries and also completely over-egg the pudding, as you always do in any mention of Tony Scholes. I am certainly not a mouthpiece for TS - he has a perfectly good mouthpiece of his own and PR staff to disseminate his responses if he thinks it's worth doing - but if we wish to have credibility as critical friends of the club, hyperbole and misrepresentation of the way football works don't help our cause. If the Premier League had the 20 best managers in the world; the 20 best CEOs, and the 20 best and richest owners, 3 clubs would still be relegated each season. That's the way a competitive league works. And it is relegation which has been the main cause of 1,2,8 & 10 on your list. You therefore cannot make an automatic assumption that any relegated club has an under-performing CEO who is responsible for it. The second reason why you can't make that link is because relegation is caused by what happens on the pitch, not off it. Unlike CEOs of many other organisations and industries, CEOs of football clubs do not have complete authority over all the decisions made by their staff. I think the large majority of us would think that's a very good thing, and would not want Tony Scholes (or any other non-qualified person) picking the team ( although it has happened, but not at Stoke) or deciding which players to buy, although he will have a role in the non-football, financial aspects of such decisions. That's the job of the coaching and recruitment teams. You are right that there are have been some very bad decisions on 3, 4,6 & 9, which have caused 5. That's down to the managers and the recruitment team, the leader of whom for many of those decisions departed the club (I assume, but don't actually know, because the Board were not happy with his performance), as have the managers you mention, working within the financial parameters laid down by the Board. TS will I'm sure have had a significant role in transfer and contract negotiations, and we appear to have paid well over the value for some of those but I'm also sure that if TS over-ruled the recruitment team and the manager to prevent us from a signing a player the manager wanted, you and many others would have been be up in arms. It's the Board ( which in practice means the owners) which takes the decisions on who fills those roles (your point 3). TS is a member of that Board and will no doubt have an influence but he's only one vote and the real power as always in football clubs lies with the owners. It was quite apparent for example from the Q & A with Jon Coates and Tony Scholes that Nathan Jones was very much JC's choice who had had him on his radar for some time. Which leaves 7 & 11. I've no idea what 7 refers to, but 11 is the only one on your list which is very much the direct responsibility of the CEO. The owners obviously still have confidence in their CEO otherwise I have no doubt that given the level of their investment, both financial and emotional,they would have sacked him. None of this is to say that the items on your list shouldn't be raised with the club by the Supporters Council. They definitely should be in an assertive way but I'm afraid that to do so by focussing solely or even mainly on the CEO is to misunderstand the situation and thereby reduce the credibility of the supporters views. You make some very good valid points. But what can't be denied is the fact that the clubs communication with its fans in terms of what the plan is and how they are going about it is a total shambles. This is why you get idiots like me shouting my mouth off making all sorts of quite likely not entirely accurate accusations. We currently have one of the wealthiest owners in the football business yet we are standing on the edge of a cliff looking at league one football. Something has gone very badly wrong somewhere and the fans simply would like to know a bit more as to why and how this has happened. Don't think as paying customers that is actually an unreasonable ask. Scholes is in a position to make this "communication" issue better because he is the CE fookin O. Does he? Does he fuck. Only hear from him when its rosey in the garden. He's a coward if you ask me and should have gone long ago. I don't disagree with you about the quality of the communication on how we've ended up we've ended up we are and what the plan is. That is perfectly legitimate business for the Supporters Council. |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 20, 2020 14:41:17 GMT
You make some very good valid points. But what can't be denied is the fact that the clubs communication with its fans in terms of what the plan is and how they are going about it is a total shambles. This is why you get idiots like me shouting my mouth off making all sorts of quite likely not entirely accurate accusations. We currently have one of the wealthiest owners in the football business yet we are standing on the edge of a cliff looking at league one football. Something has gone very badly wrong somewhere and the fans simply would like to know a bit more as to why and how this has happened. Don't think as paying customers that is actually an unreasonable ask. Scholes is in a position to make this "communication" issue better because he is the CE fookin O. Does he? Does he fuck. Only hear from him when its rosey in the garden. He's a coward if you ask me and should have gone long ago. I don't disagree with you about the quality of the communication on how we've ended up we've ended up we are and what the plan is. That is perfectly legitimate business for the Supporters Council. Malcom at the end of the day he is a chief executive the most senior paid executive of a business that has failed by every conceivable measure over a sustained speriod there is no excuse he has failed systematically and continuously and others who have in the Same organisation lower down have paid with their jobs |
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Jan 20, 2020 15:01:19 GMT
Malcolm, I asked the question myself not as current chair, but I do appreciate that many will link the role. I did so because it did not appear from the published story that anyone had asked what the payments were for. I was told that this question had not been asked prior to writing the story either. I wanted an answer, like most fans. I publicised the answer for fans to see.
As for asking the legitimate questions, as mentioned in this thread I believe the Council does so and just as when you were Chair, the CEO retains the right to answer or not as he sees fit at that time. Thanks for your clarity re the nature of football as an industry. I am sure many will be interested. We have a Council meeting on Saturday and will of course ask questions that relate to the current situation .
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 20, 2020 16:02:57 GMT
It is interesting to note that the two clubs relegated with us have changed their chief exec and chairman. One of the clubs is top of the league the other is sixth. We gave ours a pay rise.
Tony Scholes would not have a job at any other serious football club in the world and that is a fact, as is the fact that we no longer (and haven't for some time) resembled anything approaching. a serious football club.
The Council just forms part of the blight of complacency, arrogance and half arsed bufoonery that continues to ail the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jan 20, 2020 16:29:03 GMT
Like I put above I’ve no inkling to join the council so I won’t criticise it
They give up their own time without payment to sit on it
If people feel so strongly about what they should be doing, asking and in what direction they should head in those meetings next time there’s an election put your names forward
It’s that simple
|
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jan 20, 2020 16:37:05 GMT
Like I put above I’ve no inkling to join the council so I won’t criticise it They give up their own time without payment to sit on it If people feel so strongly about what they should be doing, asking and in what direction they should head in those meetings next time there’s an election put your names forward It’s that simple Can't argue with your point at all. But the point is if the club did communicate effectively there probably wouldn't even be the need for a supporters council in the first place. I don't think the average Stoke fan is expecting much, just a bit of clarity so we can all stop feeling like we are going insane. It would actually make the clubs life easier in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jan 20, 2020 16:55:36 GMT
I expect to see congratulations to Tony Scholes on his pay rise formally minuted. What is odd about this was that the Chair of the Supporters Council asked the club about this and posted on here that his pay rise was cost of living, the same as all the other staff, and the sum shown in the accounts was pension contributions. I don't personally think that explaining this was the role of the Council chair. When the Sentinel ran the story, I assume they asked the Club for a comment ( if they didn't, they certainly should have done, and the club should have given an explanation when the story appeared). It's not really for the supporters council to take the responsibility of answering the Sentinel piece, because it can easily, if unfairly, appear that they are acting as the club mouthpiece. The pension explanation in any case doesn't explain why there was such a large increase year on year, and it is still money paid for the benefit of the postholder. I suspect that the main cause of the negative reaction is the size of the salary itself. This is planet football and perhaps nothing should surprise us any more on how much is paid to players and officials. But it would be very interesting to see some benchmarking. How does TS's salary compare to CEOs of other clubs of comparable size ? Personally, I've no idea. In 2016 Scholes had a package of £865k, 2017 £792k, 2018 £701k, 2019 it was £856k so its clear there is some variable in his pay, 2017 we made a small profit, 2018 a stonking loss, 2019 a much smaller loss its possible there is +/- 10% of salary dependent on financial performance, its also possible there is a valuation of the pension scheme every 2 or 3 years that might require extra contribution either way you cant really expect the club or employee to go into that much detail on the pay package. Its only since we have gone well a bit shit on the pitch that seems so much focus on Scholes's pay, I know Denise has her own foundation but in business they are not a charity if they didnt think he was doing the job they wanted or was underperforming he'd be gone just like Pulis was. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 20, 2020 17:00:20 GMT
Malcolm, I asked the question myself not as current chair, but I do appreciate that many will link the role. I did so because it did not appear from the published story that anyone had asked what the payments were for. I was told that this question had not been asked prior to writing the story either. I wanted an answer, like most fans. I publicised the answer for fans to see. As for asking the legitimate questions, as mentioned in this thread I believe the Council does so and just as when you were Chair, the CEO retains the right to answer or not as he sees fit at that time. Thanks for your clarity re the nature of football as an industry. I am sure many will be interested. We have a Council meeting on Saturday and will of course ask questions that relate to the current situation . If the Sentinel didn’t give the club the opportunity to comment on the story pre publication that’s poor journalism and I’m a bit surprised that the club didn’t make a statement on it but that’s their judgement call. In the light of the story it’s not surprising that people are focussing on the CEO but I really think it’s a side issue |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 17:02:47 GMT
It is interesting to note that the two clubs relegated with us have changed their chief exec and chairman. One of the clubs is top of the league the other is sixth. We gave ours a pay rise. Tony Scholes would not have a job at any other serious football club in the world and that is a fact, as is the fact that we no longer (and haven't for some time) resembled anything approaching. a serious football club. Only one of those relegated clubs, to my knowledge, openly promised an overhaul. It was that club that actually didn't deliver the overhaul, carried on as it was and just threw money at an ailing situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 20, 2020 17:22:49 GMT
It is interesting to note that the two clubs relegated with us have changed their chief exec and chairman. One of the clubs is top of the league the other is sixth. We gave ours a pay rise. Tony Scholes would not have a job at any other serious football club in the world and that is a fact, as is the fact that we no longer (and haven't for some time) resembled anything approaching. a serious football club. The Council just forms part of the blight of complacency, arrogance and half arsed bufoonery that continues to ail the club. It’s not a “fact” it’s hypothetical speculation which I personally doubt if only because the industry trade magazine gave him CEO of the year not long ago but I think it’s irrelevant speculation. You can of course also find examples of clubs who change their CEO who didn’t do better and sometimes did worse so I don’t think you can use that as evidence. I’m not sure from your reference to changing the Chairman whether or not you are advocating that the current owners sell the club ? K |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 20, 2020 17:39:22 GMT
It is interesting to note that the two clubs relegated with us have changed their chief exec and chairman. One of the clubs is top of the league the other is sixth. We gave ours a pay rise. Tony Scholes would not have a job at any other serious football club in the world and that is a fact, as is the fact that we no longer (and haven't for some time) resembled anything approaching. a serious football club. The Council just forms part of the blight of complacency, arrogance and half arsed bufoonery that continues to ail the club. It’s not a “fact” it’s hypothetical speculation which I personally doubt if only because the industry trade magazine gave him CEO of the year not long ago but I think it’s irrelevant speculation. You can of course also find examples of clubs who change their CEO who didn’t do better and sometimes did worse so I don’t think you can use that as evidence. I’m not sure from your reference to changing the Chairman whether or not you are advocating that the current owners sell the club ? K I included the word Chairman because it basically appears like the Chairman at Swansea assumes the duties that most people would describe as being those of a Chief Exec. Name me any Chief Exec or similar position in ANY industry in the world who is still in situ after similair decline to that seen at Stoke in under 3 years? It simply doesn't happen. It's been catastrophic and in virtually every other organisition on planet earth, they have something called accountability, that's a concept that simply doesn't exist at SCFC. For someone who claims not to be a mouthpiece for Scholes, you certainly display a keen desire to defend his honour, Malcolm  For someone |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 20, 2020 18:05:05 GMT
It’s not a “fact” it’s hypothetical speculation which I personally doubt if only because the industry trade magazine gave him CEO of the year not long ago but I think it’s irrelevant speculation. You can of course also find examples of clubs who change their CEO who didn’t do better and sometimes did worse so I don’t think you can use that as evidence. I’m not sure from your reference to changing the Chairman whether or not you are advocating that the current owners sell the club ? K I included the word Chairman because it basically appears like the Chairman at Swansea assumes the duties that most people would describe as being those of a Chief Exec. Name me any Chief Exec or similar position in ANY industry in the world who is still in situ after similair decline to that seen at Stoke in under 3 years? It simply doesn't happen. It's been catastrophic and in virtually every other organisition on planet earth, they have something called accountability, that's a concept that simply doesn't exist at SCFC. For someone who claims not to be a mouthpiece for Scholes, you certainly display a keen desire to defend his honour, Malcolm For someone That’s simply not true if you read what I’ve written . I have no reason at all to be “keen “ to defend him. But neither will I join in a hue and cry which is not based on an evidence-based analysis of the situation which does nothing to further the supporters cause. All the key decisions in the football club which affect playing performance are made or sanctioned by the owners . |
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Jan 20, 2020 18:13:36 GMT
It’s not a “fact” it’s hypothetical speculation which I personally doubt if only because the industry trade magazine gave him CEO of the year not long ago but I think it’s irrelevant speculation. You can of course also find examples of clubs who change their CEO who didn’t do better and sometimes did worse so I don’t think you can use that as evidence. I’m not sure from your reference to changing the Chairman whether or not you are advocating that the current owners sell the club ? K I included the word Chairman because it basically appears like the Chairman at Swansea assumes the duties that most people would describe as being those of a Chief Exec. Name me any Chief Exec or similar position in ANY industry in the world who is still in situ after similair decline to that seen at Stoke in under 3 years? It simply doesn't happen. It's been catastrophic and in virtually every other organisition on planet earth, they have something called accountability, that's a concept that simply doesn't exist at SCFC. For someone who claims not to be a mouthpiece for Scholes, you certainly display a keen desire to defend his honour, Malcolm For someone Momo I don’t think Malcolm is defending the CEO or his disastrous tenure of the last fours years, I would suggest he’s endeavouring to consider and discuss all angles in a pragmatic manner. Personally I’m firmly in the same camp as yourself and probably many others. |
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jan 20, 2020 18:18:25 GMT
Like I put above I’ve no inkling to join the council so I won’t criticise it They give up their own time without payment to sit on it If people feel so strongly about what they should be doing, asking and in what direction they should head in those meetings next time there’s an election put your names forward It’s that simple It's not that simple at all. It's like saying if you're not happy with the job your MP is doing then why don't you become an MP. These people were voted in (although we don't know how many votes!) so they surely should expect some kind of questioning. What are they expecting - tea and biscuits every month and a friendly chat.... |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jan 20, 2020 18:19:30 GMT
I expect to see congratulations to Tony Scholes on his pay rise formally minuted. Alongside a list of recent achievements which merited it 1 loss of £100m per annum revenue 2 relegation 3 3 failed managerial appointments 4 squandering of £190m shareholders loans 5 Bottom 4 of the championship 6 huge list of unsellable assets Imbula ,Wimmer, Berahino etc 7 special mention to the Jesse tweet 8 overseeing a club going from 30 richest in the world to buying Blackpool squad players in their most critical ever window 9 waste of £50m in the key post relegation transition window 10 loss of significant customer numbers 11 not to mention IT , catering and match day issues Knighthood due anytime soon! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 18:26:56 GMT
Malcolm's about the only thing positive about our club these days  The problem is people want to point the finger, they want to know who is to blame and they want someone to suffer in return for how they've suffered. This leads to scapegoating, at first it was Cartwright but he's gone and things are still a mess, now it's Scholes. The issue is we are only assuming these people are to blame and we could be forcing useful people out of the club at a time we desperately need stability. That was worded terribly but you don't end up in a situation like we have without multiple failings and I don't think sacking any one person will help. What we need is a proper evaluation of events and not a kangaroo court. |
|
