Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Keith  Roads

The board is the problem - there must be change - Mr Tilson

Recommended Posts

Investment needed, put the club up for sale.  Get more money in, give me some hope.  Delia and Doncaster will finish us.  I''m not proud to say this but the board is killing us.  A protest against Grant would be a unfair waste of time. I feel the bad Chase days are back, sadly.  Time for NCISA to act.  What do you say, Mr Tilson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It''s not the Board killing us (although they certainly dont seem have a grasp on the seriousness of the situation) and it''s certainly not NCISA that needs to act -  it is solely the players that have that responsibility.

These gutless wonders need to display some heart and hunger for winning. So far those with any fight in them are in a distinct minority (of these few Dublin really stands out) - the majority are an embarrasment to the club and themselves. 

Topcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Keith Roads"]Investment needed, put the club up for sale.  Get more money in, give me some hope.  Delia and Doncaster will finish us.  I''m not proud to say this but the board is killing us.  A protest against Grant would be a unfair waste of time. I feel the bad Chase days are back, sadly.  Time for NCISA to act.  What do you say, Mr Tilson?
[/quote]

Its good to see more and more supports are beginning to realise just how bad this board has run NCFC. Starving manager after manager of funds the club has had so they can carrier on with their crack pot idea that "off the pitch" is more impotent than "on the pitch" at a FOOTBALL club and now WE are all paying the price.

I only hope there is a FOOTBALL club left when this FOOTBALL shy board has jumped ship.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the paper today it says our wage bill has been reduced by over £1.5million in the last year, we''ve made £2.5 million profit on player sales and ticket sales have been up by £100,000.Yet despite all of that - we''re still in huge amounts of debt, can''t afford to bring anybody new in and are, amazingly, talking about having to sell more players just to stay afloat. Really, I''m no accountant but what is going on??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Board may be the problem, but not so much for their attitude now as the profligacy under Worthington and their obstinate backing of him.The parachute payments have run out, and the Board really do not have the kind of money to make a silk purse out of.... If reports were right, that we bid £2.5m for Sharp, it seems that money was made available before the deserters left, and the Board knew that Worthington had left a small squad with a great deal of deadwood. If they sanctioned the bid, even if by then  we had one or two Bosmans in the pipeline, presumably there was money to replace the deadwood.I am not defending the Board, merely hoping that having made one or two howlers they will now be as generous as possible. If their view of PG is the same as some of the young experts who post on this board, then they have a difficult decision - to remove the manager with a four year contract will be costly, even if it is no more than £600k they paid Worthington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely if they are forced by results to have to pay off Grant they will then have to ask themselves why this has happened and who is responsible for getting us to the position we are in today. We all have different opinions on who''s to blame, but we are in the mire, well and truly.

IMO the board need to look a bit closer to home than Grant and underperforming players on the pitch. They are merely symptoms of a condition the club has been in for a long time.

Drastic surgery required and new business and football heads on the board. Quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Salopian"]The Board may be the problem, but not so much for their attitude now as the profligacy under Worthington and their obstinate backing of him.

The parachute payments have run out, and the Board really do not have the kind of money to make a silk purse out of.... If reports were right, that we bid £2.5m for Sharp, it seems that money was made available before the deserters left, and the Board knew that Worthington had left a small squad with a great deal of deadwood. If they sanctioned the bid, even if by then  we had one or two Bosmans in the pipeline, presumably there was money to replace the deadwood.

I am not defending the Board, merely hoping that having made one or two howlers they will now be as generous as possible. If their view of PG is the same as some of the young experts who post on this board, then they have a difficult decision - to remove the manager with a four year contract will be costly, even if it is no more than £600k they paid Worthington.
[/quote]

People really have to give up this myth that Worthy had loads of money to spend. Who-other than Earnshaw who replaced Ashton for under half the fee- cost decent money? Remember how small our squad was in that period-at times the smallest in the division? In 05/06 the club made a £3million profit on transfers and now apparently £2million more for last season. NONE of the parachute payments were made available to strengthen the squad, they were pumped into fixed assets which has the effect of boosting the value of the major shareholder`s stakes.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Keith Roads"]Investment needed, put the club up for sale.  Get more money in, give me some hope.  Delia and Doncaster will finish us.  I''m not proud to say this but the board is killing us.  A protest against Grant would be a unfair waste of time. I feel the bad Chase days are back, sadly.  Time for NCISA to act.  What do you say, Mr Tilson?
[/quote]

The fans are finally beginning to see through the celebrity smokescreen. Worthington (hapless as he was) was the perfect foil for the Boards'' ineptitude over a long period.....so they just strung him out and hid behind his distress. His criticised final payout was peanuts compared to the grief he saved them from and kept the eyes of the faithfull looking in the opposite direction.

Now there is nowhere to hide.......and surely the cynical Saviour myth is going to be dumped once and for all. She sits cosily in exactly the same controlling position as Robert Chase......yet she still gets away with it. For me the unforgettable Peter Grant press comment of  "it''s nice to be home" sums up the whole ethos of NCFC in 2007.....it stinks of patronisation and the view that all City fans are a field of turnips. Sadly quite a few are...and it is they who will see this club ruined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="topcat"]

It''s not the Board killing us (although they certainly dont seem have a grasp on the seriousness of the situation) and it''s certainly not NCISA that needs to act -  it is solely the players that have that responsibility.

These gutless wonders need to display some heart and hunger for winning. So far those with any fight in them are in a distinct minority (of these few Dublin really stands out) - the majority are an embarrasment to the club and themselves. 

Topcat

[/quote]

Whatever failings we may have at board level can never excuse senior players not giving 100%. There is no doubt we don''t compete with the big spenders in this league. There is also no doubt that those who spend less repeatedly out perform us. Last season fans gave gutless players a hiding place as they focussed on hounding out the manager. Lets not make the same mistake this time.

For sure draw attention to the failings of the board if you feel they are screwing up. For sure draw attention to a failing manager if you feel he is taking us down. But none of this is an excuse for players hiding and sulking.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Under Worthington, we spent something like £14m, admittedly with many small purchases. The profligacy was not so much in the vast amount but in the waste. Think of the long list of players who had to beought out of their contracts, or sold off at a loss -  Robinson, Crichton, Safri, Abbey, Emblen, Rivers, Briggs, Hughes, Ward and Easton, to name some I can think of for whom we paid There''s a longer list of players who may have come on a free or on loan but cost us good wages for little return - notoriously Thorne, but also Brennan, Charlton,. Stuart, Jarrett, Louis-Jean, Southall, Healy, Benjamin. Harper, Marney, L:isbie, Rehman, the Leicester duo, etc. As we have observed for several years, our late entrance into the transfer market each summer has potentially cost us some useful Bosmans, and dealt with by some fairly disappointing acquisitions.In all cases it''s not just the transfer fees or wages. As many people seem to forget, in each transaction there are other transaction costs of various kinds.In clearing up the mess he found, Grant has had to spend very carefully, except perhaps in Cureton as a quick replacement(?) for Earnie. The largest price paid is for Marshall it seems, of approaching £1m? There has been a massive clearout over the past 6 years, much of it from failed acquisitions. We have not made many purchases, apart from Ashton and Hux, which have seemed winners eventually. It remains to be seen in time how many of Grant''s signings will prove good ones, but it is early days yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Salopian"]The Board may be the problem, but not so much for their attitude now as the profligacy under Worthington and their obstinate backing of him.

The parachute payments have run out, and the Board really do not have the kind of money to make a silk purse out of.... If reports were right, that we bid £2.5m for Sharp, it seems that money was made available before the deserters left, and the Board knew that Worthington had left a small squad with a great deal of deadwood. If they sanctioned the bid, even if by then  we had one or two Bosmans in the pipeline, presumably there was money to replace the deadwood.

I am not defending the Board, merely hoping that having made one or two howlers they will now be as generous as possible. If their view of PG is the same as some of the young experts who post on this board, then they have a difficult decision - to remove the manager with a four year contract will be costly, even if it is no more than £600k they paid Worthington.
[/quote]

Billy Sharp would have been an investment in the Ashton mould i.e worth considerably more in 2 years, also wont depreciate like a journeyman.  I am quite sure that they would sanction a similar deal for another promising young asset.  What I think they wont do is buy an experienced old pro like Dailly who would have no sell on value and therefore give the club no way to re-coup the loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Salopian"]Under Worthington, we spent something like £14m, admittedly with many small purchases.

[/quote]

But how much did we get from selling players during the same period?  Net spend is what''s relevant. 

Even discounting the players who left, £14m over five seasons is less than £3m per season, and half the total was spent on one player, Dean Ashton.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoareyou? wrote "Parachute payments were used to pay inflated players wages, nothing else."

You are plain wrong. Player wages as a percentage of turnover were 36% in 05/06 and 30% in 06/07. The average for our league is 72%. As a percentage of turnover we probably have one of the lowest player wage bills in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Salopian"]Under Worthington, we spent something like £14m, admittedly with many small purchases. The profligacy was not so much in the vast amount but in the waste. Think of the long list of players who had to beought out of their contracts, or sold off at a loss -  Robinson, Crichton, Safri, Abbey, Emblen, Rivers, Briggs, Hughes, Ward and Easton, to name some I can think of for whom we paid There''s a longer list of players who may have come on a free or on loan but cost us good wages for little return - notoriously Thorne, but also Brennan, Charlton,. Stuart, Jarrett, Louis-Jean, Southall, Healy, Benjamin. Harper, Marney, L:isbie, Rehman, the Leicester duo, etc. As we have observed for several years, our late entrance into the transfer market each summer has potentially cost us some useful Bosmans, and dealt with by some fairly disappointing acquisitions.

In all cases it''s not just the transfer fees or wages. As many people seem to forget, in each transaction there are other transaction costs of various kinds.

In clearing up the mess he found, Grant has had to spend very carefully, except perhaps in Cureton as a quick replacement(?) for Earnie. The largest price paid is for Marshall it seems, of approaching £1m? There has been a massive clearout over the past 6 years, much of it from failed acquisitions. We have not made many purchases, apart from Ashton and Hux, which have seemed winners eventually. It remains to be seen in time how many of Grant''s signings will prove good ones, but it is early days yet.
[/quote]

Well you are going back quite a long time with those and the Leicester pair at least were under Hamilton. As far as Worthy leaving it to the last minute to bring players in, who pays his wages? Those at the top could have put pressure on him to speed things up, but they had their heads full of new infills, land deals, a new pitch, hotel, a new ticket office, subsiduary companies etc., etc.

In the last two seasons the club have made £5.5million clear profit in the transfer market despite receiving £12million in parachute payments, stating that all transfer money is re-invested in the squad, and appalling squad weakness being apparent to all. Do you really think this is Worthy`s fault? Get a grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

whoareyou? wrote "Parachute payments were used to pay inflated players wages, nothing else."

You are plain wrong. Player wages as a percentage of turnover were 36% in 05/06 and 30% in 06/07. The average for our league is 72%. As a percentage of turnover we probably have one of the lowest player wage bills in the country.

[/quote]

To be strictly accurate Mr C, I think 72% refers to the average total wage bill, not just players.  Nevertheless your case still stands. Our total wage bill last season was 53.3% of turnover.  I would not have been surprised if it had been slightly below average, given that our turnover was one of the highest, but not nearly 20% below average. 

Some people do not seem to realise that the truth is not always what they would like it to be, and that sticking their heads in the sand will not alter it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Carrow, you may be right about the profits from transfers - I would not claim to know. I was making the point that over the past several years we have bought some "rubbish" in panic, which has cost us dearly in undisclosed extra fees in transfers, in transfer fees themselves, in loan fees and in wages, and with a few exceptions,  especially Hux and Ashton/Earnie, an awful lot has proved to have been wasted. There were complaints often enough on this board to make it almost unnecessary to say it. If we had spent more wisely, especially in the case of the many loanees who came and disappeared after making little contribution on the pitch, we might have been in a healthier financial position than we are.It may be in the course of time that under Grant the same will be true, but I think we have to allow a little more time for this, because of injury (Brellier, Fozzy),  need for adjustment (Dave), or "bedding in". My impression is that the players he has brought in are certainly better than the deadwood he has got rid of. Perhaps the Board could have put pressure on Worthy to consider transfer activity earlier in the summer, despite his self-confessed belief that nothing happens until July, but rightly or wrongly they appointed him as manager and expert, and presumably took his word. We have seen one or two cases recently where billionaire owners have gone over the head of managers (or behind their backs) to sign players that manager did not value and did not want. It''s a dangerous policy, and a tight line to walk.You may be right about the distractions about infills, etc., but the new stand was not really a choice so much as a requirement on safety grounds. This, with respect seems irrelevant to what I was trying to say. I, as you seem to be, am disappointed with the Board, and I hope that a new business awareness will be introduced with the Turners arriving, as well as some more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

whoareyou? wrote "Parachute payments were used to pay inflated players wages, nothing else."

You are plain wrong. Player wages as a percentage of turnover were 36% in 05/06 and 30% in 06/07. The average for our league is 72%. As a percentage of turnover we probably have one of the lowest player wage bills in the country.

[/quote]

To be strictly accurate Mr C, I think 72% refers to the average total wage bill, not just players.  Nevertheless your case still stands. Our total wage bill last season was 53.3% of turnover.  I would not have been surprised if it had been slightly below average, given that our turnover was one of the highest, but not nearly 20% below average. 

Some people do not seem to realise that the truth is not always what they would like it to be, and that sticking their heads in the sand will not alter it.

 

[/quote]

I don`t think the D&T report made it totally clear Mystic but yes, i think you are probably right. Getting a bit carried away......

I would still be confident that our player wage bill would be well below average in football terms. Obviously our overall wage bill includes ridiculously high non-football wages which i very much doubt are replicated at many other clubs.

My set of accounts haven`t arrived yet so to be honest i`m going on the figures in the EDP and posted on here. Better wait and have a look for myself (hopefully) tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, so much money has been wasted because Delia and Hubby are not from a footballing background. They are media publishers and a celebrity cook - not exactly the qualifications to run a football club.

They left it up to Worthington to negoiate the financial side of players'' contracts, and since it wasn''t his money and the Smith''s lacked understanding it was bound to fall apart eventually.

The rot will not stop until people who really understand football ( as opposed to car insurance) are managing the club.

YH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="yellow hammer"]

Yes, so much money has been wasted because Delia and Hubby are not from a footballing background. They are media publishers and a celebrity cook - not exactly the qualifications to run a football club.

They left it up to Worthington to negoiate the financial side of players'' contracts, and since it wasn''t his money and the Smith''s lacked understanding it was bound to fall apart eventually.

The rot will not stop until people who really understand football ( as opposed to car insurance) are managing the club.

YH

[/quote]

Not quite accurate yellowhammer - ND told us that the manager has nothing to do with negotiating players contracts.  He said that at the time of the bungs enquiry about a year ago, to explain how he knew we were in the clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...