|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Feb 20, 2020 15:23:55 GMT
How much do they think the red button games at night are affecting attendances? Same for other clubs as well though. None. Ref button had very little to do with attendances, the club being ran like shit is much more of a factor I'd say. Zero identity |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Feb 20, 2020 15:27:22 GMT
I presume the additional pension payment came because he is on some kind of guaranteed arrangement and the actuaries have said his plan was under water.
Falling annuity rates caused by most of us now sadly living for ever and low investment returns for years and years have seen to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by loosestools on Feb 20, 2020 15:33:40 GMT
Hi John, is it just a coincidence that the systematic decline of our football club coincided with you project managing the design and build of your bespoke multi-million pound rural home? And that was also a shambols my informant tells me. |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Feb 20, 2020 19:06:17 GMT
Given the club have announced on the 20th february , the departure of the commercial manager that means that 4 managers , the director of football and the commercial manager all senior reports to the chief executive have left their role in short space of time , plus of course the loss of the recently appointed chief scout is this indication of a
1 poor recruitment in key roles and if so who is accountable for those mistakes and how has that being handled , presumably their line manger
2 A complete lack of their line manger being held to account for their recruitment , performance , and coaching and development
3 They have been held accountable but their boss has not been .
What evidence can the club offer that the chief executive is being held to the same performance standards as his direct reports as one natural conclusion on the evidence of such turnover is the anyone but the chief executive is being held reposnsible for the business performance can the owners offer an explanation as to why that might be .
|
|
|
|
Post by houstonsteve on Feb 20, 2020 19:08:28 GMT
Hi John, is it just a coincidence that the systematic decline of our football club coincided with you project managing the design and build of your bespoke multi-million pound rural home? Is that bespoke home derelict and almost beyond repair as well? |
|
|
|
Post by neddy on Feb 20, 2020 19:08:48 GMT
Given the club have announced on the 20th february , the departure of the commercial manager that means that 4 managers , the director of football and the commercial manager all senior reports to the chief executive have left their role in short space of time , plus of course the loss of the recently appointed chief scout is this indication of a 1 poor recruitment in key roles and if so who is accountable for those mistakes and how has that being handled , presumably their line manger 2 A complete lack of their line manger being held to account for their recruitment , performance , and coaching and development 3 They have been held accountable but their boss has not been . What evidence can the club offer that the chief executive is being held to the same performance standards as his direct reports as one natural conclusion on the evidence of such turnover is the anyone but the chief executive is being held reposnsible for the business performance can the owners offer an explanation as to why that might be . Harsh but fair 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by meirparkpotter on Feb 20, 2020 20:10:55 GMT
Where do you start? Scholes: How can you possibly have the brass neck to award yourself a huge pay rise when, as CEO, you have overseen four years of systematic and cataclysmic decline in the club's fortunes? Coates: Do you think you should ever again be allowed to have a say in the appointment of a manager for Stoke City Football Cub after your abysmal record in recent years? O'Neill: Do you really drink the whiskey, drink the Guinness and hate the Vale? Award himself, I haven't seen anywhere thats suggested he awarded it to himself..... Well, as CEO he could certainly decline it, if he was offered one by the family in the wake of our recent performances... |
|
|
|
Post by jonparkinsgut on Feb 20, 2020 21:42:02 GMT
I think you can be quite certain that he didn't and couldn't award himself a pay rise. The Chair of the Supporters Council posted on here a while back that he only got the same cost of living rise as the rest of the staff, and the sum shown in the accounts related to a pension contribution. I don't fully understand that, and why it should show such a variance from the previous year, and of course it's still to his benefit, but it's unwise for anyone to go in all guns blazing without properly knowing and understanding exactly what the position is. Malcolm, as you know, I am a partner in a law firm and practise corporate law, so I know full well that he cannot award it to himself. In any board meeting setting his remuneration and benefits, he would have to leave the room and the matter be voted on by the other directors (if matters were dealt with properly). However, setting aside the curious case of the pension contribution which is marked as additional remuneration (why was it done like this and why was his, no doubt already substantial, pension even topped in this way at this time?), to say he got a cost of living rise like others is being rather disingenuous. 2 or 3% of close to a million pounds is a significantly higher amount than 2 or 3% of the 20 or 30 thousand pounds that may be paid to someone else at the club. As directors of our firm, we give cost of living, or slighter higher if we can, to our admin staff every year, but do not take the same ourselves. We recognise the disparity in our circumstances and that we are remunerated in a different way and at a different level, and that our rewards fluctuate with the fortunes of the business. It would be entirely in keeping with this approach for Tony Scholes to not accept such cost of living rise and, indeed, given the club's startling decline under his watch, to even take a pay cut (like other high earners, the players, did). When we had a new government in Bermuda a few years ago, and the economy was doing badly, they all turned in their government issue fancy cars and took a 10% pay cut - an action which was well received by the populace. Could you ever see any such exhibition of self-awareness coming from our erstwhile CEO? It all stinks of his total disregard for how he is perceived by the fans, his out of touch attitude (January was good month!) and his lack of any feeling of responsibility for the catastrophic management of the club as a whole (not just the team) during recent years whilst he has been CEO. Sense at last , can I come and work for you? To my mind, he should have have been sacked at least two years ago, but that is a different debate for another day. |
|
|
|
Post by jonparkinsgut on Feb 20, 2020 21:43:10 GMT
Sense at last, can I come and work for you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 20, 2020 22:19:26 GMT
I think you can be quite certain that he didn't and couldn't award himself a pay rise. The Chair of the Supporters Council posted on here a while back that he only got the same cost of living rise as the rest of the staff, and the sum shown in the accounts related to a pension contribution. I don't fully understand that, and why it should show such a variance from the previous year, and of course it's still to his benefit, but it's unwise for anyone to go in all guns blazing without properly knowing and understanding exactly what the position is. Malcolm, as you know, I am a partner in a law firm and practise corporate law, so I know full well that he cannot award it to himself. In any board meeting setting his remuneration and benefits, he would have to leave the room and the matter be voted on by the other directors (if matters were dealt with properly). However, setting aside the curious case of the pension contribution which is marked as additional remuneration (why was it done like this and why was his, no doubt already substantial, pension even topped in this way at this time?), to say he got a cost of living rise like others is being rather disingenuous. 2 or 3% of close to a million pounds is a significantly higher amount than 2 or 3% of the 20 or 30 thousand pounds that may be paid to someone else at the club. As directors of our firm, we give cost of living, or slighter higher if we can, to our admin staff every year, but do not take the same ourselves. We recognise the disparity in our circumstances and that we are remunerated in a different way and at a different level, and that our rewards fluctuate with the fortunes of the business. It would be entirely in keeping with this approach for Tony Scholes to not accept such cost of living rise and, indeed, given the club's startling decline under his watch, to even take a pay cut (like other high earners, the players, did). When we had a new government in Bermuda a few years ago, and the economy was doing badly, they all turned in their government issue fancy cars and took a 10% pay cut - an action which was well received by the populace. Could you ever see any such exhibition of self-awareness coming from our erstwhile CEO? It all stinks of his total disregard for how he is perceived by the fans, his out of touch attitude (January was good month!) and his lack of any feeling of responsibility for the catastrophic management of the club as a whole (not just the team) during recent years whilst he has been CEO. To my mind, he should have have been sacked at least two years ago, but that is a different debate for another day. The Chair of the Board will be there to answer questions at this event, so it's an opportunity for any supporters who so wish to ask for clarification of and reasons for, and to express opinions on, the Board's decisions on this matter. As I recall and said above the pension explanation was posted by the Chair of the Supporters Council. I don't recall seeing any statement or explanation directly from the Club itself, but I may have missed it. It may be that they have a policy that issues of employee remuneration are private and not for the public domain, which wouldn't be at all surprising, but if so, it seems very odd for the Chair of the Supporters Council to be in a position to provide information on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Feb 20, 2020 22:37:32 GMT
I think when O'Neill drives away from this event it will be the last we see of him. Imagine being in the spotlight with those two fuckwits.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 20, 2020 23:19:14 GMT
I think you can be quite certain that he didn't and couldn't award himself a pay rise. The Chair of the Supporters Council posted on here a while back that he only got the same cost of living rise as the rest of the staff, and the sum shown in the accounts related to a pension contribution. I don't fully understand that, and why it should show such a variance from the previous year, and of course it's still to his benefit, but it's unwise for anyone to go in all guns blazing without properly knowing and understanding exactly what the position is. Malcolm, as you know, I am a partner in a law firm and practise corporate law, so I know full well that he cannot award it to himself. In any board meeting setting his remuneration and benefits, he would have to leave the room and the matter be voted on by the other directors (if matters were dealt with properly). However, setting aside the curious case of the pension contribution which is marked as additional remuneration (why was it done like this and why was his, no doubt already substantial, pension even topped in this way at this time?), to say he got a cost of living rise like others is being rather disingenuous. 2 or 3% of close to a million pounds is a significantly higher amount than 2 or 3% of the 20 or 30 thousand pounds that may be paid to someone else at the club. As directors of our firm, we give cost of living, or slighter higher if we can, to our admin staff every year, but do not take the same ourselves. We recognise the disparity in our circumstances and that we are remunerated in a different way and at a different level, and that our rewards fluctuate with the fortunes of the business. It would be entirely in keeping with this approach for Tony Scholes to not accept such cost of living rise and, indeed, given the club's startling decline under his watch, to even take a pay cut (like other high earners, the players, did). When we had a new government in Bermuda a few years ago, and the economy was doing badly, they all turned in their government issue fancy cars and took a 10% pay cut - an action which was well received by the populace. Could you ever see any such exhibition of self-awareness coming from our erstwhile CEO? It all stinks of his total disregard for how he is perceived by the fans, his out of touch attitude (January was good month!) and his lack of any feeling of responsibility for the catastrophic management of the club as a whole (not just the team) during recent years whilst he has been CEO. To my mind, he should have have been sacked at least two years ago, but that is a different debate for another day. Any chance you can dial in Jezza? It sounds like other supporter representatives might have out the bowl and be washing his feet! |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 21, 2020 2:59:44 GMT
I think when O'Neill drives away from this event it will be the last we see of him. Imagine being in the spotlight with those two fuckwits. With that in mind one pertinent question to ask might be what exactly is the situation with Northern Ireland, and in the event that things end badly for Stoke this season, is there any reason Stoke fans should not prepare themselves to see MON walk back through a door which thus far seems to have been left conspicuously ajar? I’d like to hear both Scholes’ and MON’s answer that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 5:11:31 GMT
I think when O'Neill drives away from this event it will be the last we see of him. Imagine being in the spotlight with those two fuckwits. The reason they can do these these forums is due to comments like that as they know they can handle ridiculous comments and people without the full facts. O'Neill sees what goes on at the club 24/7, you don't . He's a smart man also, he has that advantage as well |
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Feb 21, 2020 8:19:42 GMT
Will a local radio station broadcast the event live?
|
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Feb 21, 2020 17:09:12 GMT
Got my ticket. I'll try and be calm and rational. |
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Feb 21, 2020 18:17:16 GMT
I think when O'Neill drives away from this event it will be the last we see of him. Imagine being in the spotlight with those two fuckwits. The reason they can do these these forums is due to comments like that as they know they can handle ridiculous comments and people without the full facts. O'Neill sees what goes on at the club 24/7, you don't . He's a smart man also, he has that advantage as well You don't say. Jeeez |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Feb 21, 2020 19:12:38 GMT
Malcolm, as you know, I am a partner in a law firm and practise corporate law, so I know full well that he cannot award it to himself. In any board meeting setting his remuneration and benefits, he would have to leave the room and the matter be voted on by the other directors (if matters were dealt with properly). However, setting aside the curious case of the pension contribution which is marked as additional remuneration (why was it done like this and why was his, no doubt already substantial, pension even topped in this way at this time?), to say he got a cost of living rise like others is being rather disingenuous. 2 or 3% of close to a million pounds is a significantly higher amount than 2 or 3% of the 20 or 30 thousand pounds that may be paid to someone else at the club. As directors of our firm, we give cost of living, or slighter higher if we can, to our admin staff every year, but do not take the same ourselves. We recognise the disparity in our circumstances and that we are remunerated in a different way and at a different level, and that our rewards fluctuate with the fortunes of the business. It would be entirely in keeping with this approach for Tony Scholes to not accept such cost of living rise and, indeed, given the club's startling decline under his watch, to even take a pay cut (like other high earners, the players, did). When we had a new government in Bermuda a few years ago, and the economy was doing badly, they all turned in their government issue fancy cars and took a 10% pay cut - an action which was well received by the populace. Could you ever see any such exhibition of self-awareness coming from our erstwhile CEO? It all stinks of his total disregard for how he is perceived by the fans, his out of touch attitude (January was good month!) and his lack of any feeling of responsibility for the catastrophic management of the club as a whole (not just the team) during recent years whilst he has been CEO. To my mind, he should have have been sacked at least two years ago, but that is a different debate for another day. The Chair of the Board will be there to answer questions at this event, so it's an opportunity for any supporters who so wish to ask for clarification of and reasons for, and to express opinions on, the Board's decisions on this matter. As I recall and said above the pension explanation was posted by the Chair of the Supporters Council. I don't recall seeing any statement or explanation directly from the Club itself, but I may have missed it. It may be that they have a policy that issues of employee remuneration are private and not for the public domain, which wouldn't be at all surprising, but if so, it seems very odd for the Chair of the Supporters Council to be in a position to provide information on it. I know Malcolm it’s not you say suggesting the supporters council aren’t challenging enough but Im sure I definitively recall in this case the Chair saying they had rung the.club for a answer and reiterated what was said , I also believe I recall some comment that the sentinel chose not to report on the issue , given the absence of a official statement , so your correct in saying the club have not given a definitive statement in my view , therefore it’s legitimate to ask for a official view given the speculation on reasoning the absence of comment had generated . The council chair in this case is actually the one with the courage to have asked or so it would appear They May as you say refuse to comment , but then again as others have said there is not just one issue here and could be summarised as follows 1 Remuneration review in the face of clear cost cutting requirements due to FFP and lack of clarity of role ie stadium etc , what exactly does the role do for such handsome reward and for what exactly is the role accountable , are supporters attaching blame in the wrong area ? 2 Overall business performance which by any measure has been poor to diabolical , and how it relates to the performance , reward and accountability of its highest paid executive 3 Turnover of key senior staff , 4 managers in two years , director of football , commercial manager and chief scout in 6 months suggests others are either being held accountable or not satisfied in role indicating cultural issues , or are recruitment mistakes 4 The latest comment that January was good which is not supported by any on field evidence . My personal view is the performance of the chief executive is the single most relevant issue for this forum and should not be allowed to be swept under the carpet nor relegated to a side issue with O’Neil’s popularity and reasoned approach used to distract from the core issue the club faces and one on which it’s not unreasonable to say a significant number of supporters are not clear on . |
|
|
|
Post by Billy the kid on Feb 22, 2020 9:52:11 GMT
They better vet all questions otherwise this could turn in to a false and even more cringe than the last time TS and little john appeared in public together.
|
|
|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Feb 22, 2020 13:41:39 GMT
The Chair of the Board will be there to answer questions at this event, so it's an opportunity for any supporters who so wish to ask for clarification of and reasons for, and to express opinions on, the Board's decisions on this matter. As I recall and said above the pension explanation was posted by the Chair of the Supporters Council. I don't recall seeing any statement or explanation directly from the Club itself, but I may have missed it. It may be that they have a policy that issues of employee remuneration are private and not for the public domain, which wouldn't be at all surprising, but if so, it seems very odd for the Chair of the Supporters Council to be in a position to provide information on it. I know Malcolm it’s not you say suggesting the supporters council aren’t challenging enough but Im sure I definitively recall in this case the Chair saying they had rung the.club for a answer and reiterated what was said , I also believe I recall some comment that the sentinel chose not to report on the issue , given the absence of a official statement , so your correct in saying the club have not given a definitive statement in my view , therefore it’s legitimate to ask for a official view given the speculation on reasoning the absence of comment had generated . The council chair in this case is actually the one with the courage to have asked or so it would appear They May as you say refuse to comment , but then again as others have said there is not just one issue here and could be summarised as follows 1 Remuneration review in the face of clear cost cutting requirements due to FFP and lack of clarity of role ie stadium etc , what exactly does the role do for such handsome reward and for what exactly is the role accountable , are supporters attaching blame in the wrong area ? 2 Overall business performance which by any measure has been poor to diabolical , and how it relates to the performance , reward and accountability of its highest paid executive 3 Turnover of key senior staff , 4 managers in two years , director of football , commercial manager and chief scout in 6 months suggests others are either being held accountable or not satisfied in role indicating cultural issues , or are recruitment mistakes 4 The latest comment that January was good which is not supported by any on field evidence . My personal view is the performance of the chief executive is the single most relevant issue for this forum and should not be allowed to be swept under the carpet nor relegated to a side issue with O’Neil’s popularity and reasoned approach used to distract from the core issue the club faces and one on which it’s not unreasonable to say a significant number of supporters are not clear on . Brilliant post. This should be the main issue of the fans forum. MON didn't really have to be there does he? I would be bothered if he wasn't, the general view that the club lacks vision, creativity and leadership in so many departments stems from above and how TS still has a position at the club is beyond me. |
|
