Ed balls

[Greavsy 2,413]

Put you down as a ''maybe'' then gagster?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="The Butler"]It wasn''t wages, he is not paid a wage, he is not an employee.

It was a "bonus" for the work that has proven "faulty".

So as chairman of the company and I was paid a bonus for what proved a big mistake, then yes I would expect to pay some or all of it back.[/quote]TB, you are right, of coure, that it wasn''t wages. But you are making two assumption. Firstly, that a significant part of Balls'' work (and so of his bonus) involved choosing Moxey. That must be the case because you say that work has proved faulty, and that is in the context of Moxey resigning. But Balls may have had little or nothing to do with the selection process. Smith and Jones found McNally  all on their ownsome, so may have done the same with his successor.Secondly, you may know more about what happened, but that Moxey has

resigned doesn''t necessarily mean he was a bad choice. He may have been

doing a good job (the transfer window seems to have been very well

handled) but fell foul of other factors outside his control.

[morty 0]

The club actually used an external consultant, and made their decision based on that.It certainly wasn''t down to Ed.

[Van wink 2,994]

I believe he was on radio 5 this morning, did he mention the Chairmans resignation?

[Mike 2]

So Moxey being big friends with the Stowmarket two had nothing to do with his appointment? Really....

Him going solves nothing in my opinion. He was not the one to say he wanted a manager for 10 years, or the one that did the Times interview that split fans down the middle.

Two CEO''s in 12 months is not a good indication of good leadership at board level...

[TCCANARY 263]

"Mike "So Moxey being big friends with the Stowmarket two had nothing to do with his appointment? ReallyWas he big friends with them?....

Him going solves nothing in my opinion. He was not the one to say he wanted a manager for 10 years, or the one that did the Times interview that split fans down the middle. Did it split fans down the middle, was there a poll?

Two CEO''s in 12 months is not a good indication of good leadership at board level...Isn''t good leadership where you recognise there is a problem and do something about it?

[cornish sam 953]

If you''re going down that route Mr boots then surely this is all bowketts fault. It was him stepping down that heralded this "chaos" and ed balls is just an unwitting butterfly caught up in the maelstrom...

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="The Butler"]It wasn''t wages, he is not paid a wage, he is not an employee.

It was a "bonus" for the work that has proven "faulty".

So as chairman of the company and I was paid a bonus for what proved a big mistake, then yes I would expect to pay some or all of it back.[/quote]TB, you are right, of coure, that it wasn''t wages. But you are making two assumption. Firstly, that a significant part of Balls'' work (and so of his bonus) involved choosing Moxey. That must be the case because you say that work has proved faulty, and that is in the context of Moxey resigning. But Balls may have had little or nothing to do with the selection process. Smith and Jones found McNally  all on their ownsome, so may have done the same with his successor.Secondly, you may know more about what happened, but that Moxey has

resigned doesn''t necessarily mean he was a bad choice. He may have been

doing a good job (the transfer window seems to have been very well

handled) but fell foul of other factors outside his control.[/quote]

Afternoon PC the comment was made “tongue in cheek” as I am world wise enough to know that Balls would be very unlikely to pay back all or any of the “reluctantly accepted” bonus. Although it would be very interesting to know what vital work was carried out to warrant such a payment.

The vital work carried out by the previous chairman in dragging the club from the brink again, I don’t think received similar recognition.

McNally was recommended to the board by Roy Hodgson I believe (from their Fulham days together) so could be down to their find.

As Stone applied (I believe) for the CEO’s post he could hardly be expected to interview and recommend one of his competitors, so Balls was the likely one to carry out that roll.

The news of Moxey leaving stated “by mutual agreement” so hardly a resignation as such more a face saving on both parts.

I think that the details of the ex CEO’s manner and his hands off with fans and fan based groups was well known(from his Wolves days) and it seemed odd at the time that a club that has “the best fans in the world” should employ someone that had so little time for said fans.

I cannot comment about his handling of this transfer window as we do not know what the full aims were to assess his success or failure.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04hl44k

Balls has on a number of occasions stated that he was responsible for bringing in Moxey. In fact its what he cited as part of the justification for his £90k although if, as is widely being claimed now, the process was largely handled by external headhunters then it makes that payment and how much time he supposedly put into that process even more questionable.

Interviewing CEO candidates selected by headhunters would seem to me to fall fairly and squarely within the remit of an "unpaid" club chairman.

The whole £90k thing is very grubby if you ask me. Mind you with that coupled with his payoff when he lost his seat and his strictly antics its presumably lucrative days outside politics for Ed.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04hl44k

Balls has on a number of occasions stated that he was responsible for bringing in Moxey. In fact its what he cited as part of the justification for his £90k although if, as is widely being claimed now, the process was largely handled by external headhunters then it makes that payment and how much time he supposedly put into that process even more questionable.

Interviewing CEO candidates selected by headhunters would seem to me to fall fairly and squarely within the remit of an "unpaid" club chairman.

The whole £90k thing is very grubby if you ask me. Mind you with that coupled with his payoff when he lost his seat and his strictly antics its presumably lucrative days outside politics for Ed.[/quote]Well done on illustrating the point that, for some people, this is about a personal dislike for Ed and his politics[;)]

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I couldn''t care less about his politics to be honest.

I don''t think he should have been offered that money or that he should have accepted it and would question what he actually did to earn it based on what is in the public domain. I think its another example of our "co-operative" board not doing as they preach.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04hl44k

Balls has on a number of occasions stated that he was responsible for bringing in Moxey. In fact its what he cited as part of the justification for his £90k although if, as is widely being claimed now, the process was largely handled by external headhunters then it makes that payment and how much time he supposedly put into that process even more questionable.

Interviewing CEO candidates selected by headhunters would seem to me to fall fairly and squarely within the remit of an "unpaid" club chairman.

The whole £90k thing is very grubby if you ask me. Mind you with that coupled with his payoff when he lost his seat and his strictly antics its presumably lucrative days outside politics for Ed.[/quote]That reeks of personal animus. The pay-off for losing his seat was modest, with most of it a payment to cover the costs of closing down his office. Since then he has has taken two teaching jobs - hardly great moneyspinners, those. If he  had wanted something really lucrative he could have followed his brother''s example and got some vastly-paid job in the City, or done an Osborne and coined it with speaking fees.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]I couldn''t care less about his politics to be honest.

I don''t think he should have been offered that money or that he should have accepted it and would question what he actually did to earn it based on what is in the public domain. I think its another example of our "co-operative" board not doing as they preach.[/quote]Do you do any unpaid work yourself, at all, Jim?

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]The suggestion that Balls has very little to do with the day to day running of the club makes me wonder why he received £90K if that is the case.[/quote]

Well said TIL 1010. I wonder too.

Dont forget there may be more money for Balls UP! in the 2016-17 Accounts too.

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="Mike "]So Moxey being big friends with the Stowmarket two had nothing to do with his appointment? Really....

Him going solves nothing in my opinion. He was not the one to say he wanted a manager for 10 years, or the one that did the Times interview that split fans down the middle.

Two CEO''s in 12 months is not a good indication of good leadership at board level...[/quote]

Its a Balls UP!

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="cornish sam"]If you''re going down that route Mr boots then surely this is all bowketts fault. It was him stepping down that heralded this "chaos" and ed balls is just an unwitting butterfly caught up in the maelstrom...[/quote]

Now think why an excellent Chairman like Mr Bowkett would resign?

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="morty"]

Well done on illustrating the point that, for some people, this is about a personal dislike for Ed and his politics[/quote]

Alternatively it could be a club that according to the reports of the AGM Ive heard needed cash (£5m?) yet managed to give Balls UP! £90k (up to the 30th June 2016) and good knows what in this years accounts.

What on earth has Balls UP! done to justify the money?

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Donkey dangler"][quote user="cornish sam"]If you''re going down that route Mr boots then surely this is all bowketts fault. It was him stepping down that heralded this "chaos" and ed balls is just an unwitting butterfly caught up in the maelstrom...[/quote]

Now think why an excellent Chairman like Mr Bowkett would resign?[/quote]

Why did he resign?

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

Mr Bowkett resigned because of Mr McNally didn''t he Mr Springall?

Those that know, know. As you were usually one that knew what there was to know and what we didn''t know I assume you know.

Just like old times on here!! Tangible agreeing with Tilly, the Butler getting stuck in, just need Cluck to don his cape and the Purists could reform!!!

Lovely to see you all posting and enjoying yourselves now that the misery of the Premier League is gone. 😂😉👏

[Greavsy 2,413]

Everyone feeling the lurve!!!??

[GPs Beard 0]

Purple Canary. That reeks of personal animus. The pay-off for losing his seat was modest, with most of it a payment to cover the costs of closing down his office. Since then he has has taken two teaching jobs - hardly great moneyspinners, those. If he had wanted something really lucrative he could have followed his brother''s example and got some vastly-paid job in the City, or done an Osborne and coined it with speaking fees.

So Ed is now a humble school teacher? Perhaps he has patches on his elbows. Not like his brother and following the coin?

I think that is a wonderfully fluffy version of events Purple. You must have missed the book deal (complete with publicity) , the two month TV show and now the Strictly Tour. You may even be surprised to know that Our Ed DOES speak for a fee (don''t ask me how I know) . chuck in a couple of Media interviews , a few papers for Harvard , maybe even a cake or two , and I think he (and his "team" see edballs.co.uk ) do OK.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Donkey dangler"]Alternatively it could be a club that according to the reports of the AGM Ive heard needed cash (£5m?) yet managed to give Balls UP! £90k (up to the 30th June 2016) and good knows what in this years accounts.

What on earth has Balls UP! done to justify the money?[/quote]You are so clever coming up with names like that Tangy, I wish I was clever like you. [:(]However, I think your time could be better served by working out how to quote posts on here. Even your bro has given up hoping it will come right one day. [;)]Oh, I nearly forgot..........Balls UP! ...........MEGA LOL!

[Donkey dangler 0]

Hey Lapdog,

Have you stopped looking at the History Channel otherwise some might think you are a Binner in disguise?

Has Purple Canary taught you how to understand the Accounts yet?

Balls UP! MEGA LOL! and all that........

[Nuff Said 5,131]

Donkey dangler: "Hey Lapdog,

Have you stopped looking at the History Channel otherwise some might think you are a Binner in disguise?

Has Purple Canary taught you how to understand the Accounts yet?

Balls UP! MEGA LOL! and all that........"

Exchanging insults on opposing views is one thing, but please at least make them understandable.

Tl;Dr: WTF?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Donkey dangler"]Hey Lapdog,

Have you stopped looking at the History Channel otherwise some might think you are a Binner in disguise?

Has Purple Canary taught you how to understand the Accounts yet?

Balls UP! MEGA LOL! and all that........[/quote]Oh bless. And I thought you''d forgotten me. [W]xxxx

[nutty nigel 7,531]

It''s all a bit like Take That getting back together..........

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

This is nice. Like old times.

[Guest]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]It''s all a bit like Take That getting back together..........[/quote]

Oi Austin Powers! Take That?

Barry Lee and the Planets is more your era.