2012 ACCOUNTS

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="Canary Wundaboy"]Purely out of interest, given the figure of £20m for expansion of Carrow Road, how much would building a new 40,000 seater stadium on a new site cost?
[/quote]

Tom Cavendish has all the info on this.[;)]

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

I remember a 35k+ gate in the early seventies for a relegation survival match, v Crystal Palace. Anybody else there?

We won and stayed up!

OTBC!

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

I remember a 35k+ gate in the early seventies for a relegation survival match, v Crystal Palace. Anybody else there?

We won and stayed up!

OTBC!

[/quote]

Yes.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

I remember a 35k+ gate in the early seventies for a relegation survival match, v Crystal Palace. Anybody else there?

We won and stayed up!

OTBC!

[/quote]

 

Yes.

 

 

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

I remember a 35k+ gate in the early seventies for a relegation survival match, v Crystal Palace. Anybody else there?

We won and stayed up!

OTBC!

[/quote]

 

Yes.

 

 

[/quote]

YesAnd as I think I have mentioned before it is one of only 9 league gates to top 35k in the entire history of CR.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]I remember a 35k+ gate in the early seventies for a relegation survival match, v Crystal Palace. Anybody else there?

We won and stayed up!

OTBC![/quote]

Yes.

[shefcanary 2,402]

Yes, me too!

[Jonzey 0]

Excellent read Purple, thanks for the effort there. My one ''whaaaaat!?'' is the amount taken by McNally at £1.36 million! That is a lot of money.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Jonzey"]Excellent read Purple, thanks for the effort there. My one ''whaaaaat!?'' is the amount taken by McNally at £1.36 million! That is a lot of money.[/quote]

 

Jonzey, it is a bit on the eye-watering side! I was assuming that he would receive a big bonus for us staying in the Premier League, just as he presumably got one for us getting there, but that did raise an eyebrow. To be clear, although I am not so much in the McNally fan club as many posters I don''t for a moment object to him being rewarded for success.

That said, as a shareholder, there are some points to be made. Firstly there should be much more openness and detail about exactly for what he is being rewarded. We should know what the targets are so we can judge if he has achieved them. At the moment we don''t have a clue. Secondly, which follows on from that, he shouldn''t keep on being rewarded even if he doesn''t reach whatever the targets are. So, for example, if we get relegated this season his overall package should revert much closer to his basic pay.

Thirdly, if (which is yet to be determined) it transpires that we end up getting little or no compensation for Lambert (plus large legals fees) as a result of executive incompetence then that too should be reflected in a smaller than otherwise justified pay package. It is hard to be precise but the club''s mishandling of the Colchester compensation case probably cost us at least £100,000 and quite possibly double that. If we have unnecessarily lost out on £1m or more for Lambert that would need to be painfully acknowledged in the wallet.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Jonzey"]Excellent read Purple, thanks for the effort there. My one ''whaaaaat!?'' is the amount taken by McNally at £1.36 million! That is a lot of money.[/quote]

 

Jonzey, it is a bit on the eye-watering side! I was assuming that he would receive a big bonus for us staying in the Premier League, just as he presumably got one for us getting there, but that did raise an eyebrow. To be clear, although I am not so much in the McNally fan club as many posters I don''t for a moment object to him being rewarded for success.

That said, as a shareholder, there are some points to be made. Firstly there should be much more openness and detail about exactly for what he is being rewarded. We should know what the targets are so we can judge if he has achieved them. At the moment we don''t have a clue. Secondly, which follows on from that, he shouldn''t keep on being rewarded even if he doesn''t reach whatever the targets are. So, for example, if we get relegated this season his overall package should revert much closer to his basic pay.

Thirdly, if (which is yet to be determined) it transpires that we end up getting little or no compensation for Lambert (plus large legals fees) as a result of executive incompetence then that too should be reflected in a smaller than otherwise justified pay package. It is hard to be precise but the club''s mishandling of the Colchester compensation case probably cost us at least £100,000 and quite possibly double that. If we have unnecessarily lost out on £1m or more for Lambert that would need to be painfully acknowledged in the wallet.

[/quote]

I raised this in an earlier post.

But  fortunately Purple ( quite rightly) enjoys a little more gravitas on the board.

I was interested in people’s reaction to this. My view, which I didn’t give at the time , is that in many other walks of business life he would be rewarded in much the same way (you have missed the contribution to the pension – a classic Chief Exec method of remuneration) and at much the same level.

Imagine he walked into NCFC after relegation to the third division (apologies for showing may age) and said “for a million pounds I will get you promoted to the premier league” – which club  wouldn’t bite his arm off?

 

The Bonus is paid for “ achieving an improved financial performance in the year and retention of Premier League status” so we have to assume it would not  be as high if we are relegated.

BUT

And this is the main point....

 

With his CV ...what is Macnasty’s market value? To Wolves? Or Blackburn? I contend he would double his basic and double his bonus

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Jonzey"]Excellent read Purple, thanks for the effort there. My one ''whaaaaat!?'' is the amount taken by McNally at £1.36 million! That is a lot of money.[/quote]

 

That''s roughly 26,000 per week for the year.

 

I wonder how that compares with Lambert and the top playing staff. And would that comparison be disconcerting to Lambert & Holt for example.

 

Anyone?

 

OTBC

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

That said, as a shareholder, there are some points to be made. Firstly there should be much more openness and detail about exactly for what he is being rewarded. We should know what the targets are so we can judge if he has achieved them. At the moment we don''t have a clue. Secondly, which follows on from that, he shouldn''t keep on being rewarded even if he doesn''t reach whatever the targets are. So, for example, if we get relegated this season his overall package should revert much closer to his basic pay.

[/quote]

I am sure most posters interested in the accounts will recall that Tangible started a thread about this time last year regarding his one on one meeting with Bowkett over the detail of McNally''s contract.It was such a shame that Tangible then proceeded to say that he was not at liberty to discuss what was said at that meeting or divulge any information with regard to the content of said contract. My understanding being a mere humble season ticket holder and shareholder with a very limited understanding of the accounts was that any shareholder could obtain an audience with the chairman if they knew how to go about it. Maybe in light of this massive amount that McNally takes as remuneration for his services as CEO Tangible could outline how this may be achieved.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

I raised this in an earlier post.

But  fortunately Purple ( quite rightly) enjoys a little more gravitas on the board.

I was interested in people’s reaction to this. My view, which I didn’t give at the time , is that in many other walks of business life he would be rewarded in much the same way (you have missed the contribution to the pension – a classic Chief Exec method of remuneration) and at much the same level.

Imagine he walked into NCFC after relegation to the third division (apologies for showing may age) and said “for a million pounds I will get you promoted to the premier league” – which club  wouldn’t bite his arm off?

 

The Bonus is paid for “ achieving an improved financial performance in the year and retention of Premier League status” so we have to assume it would not  be as high if we are relegated.

BUT

And this is the main point....

 

With his CV ...what is Macnasty’s market value? To Wolves? Or Blackburn? I contend he would double his basic and double his bonus

 

[/quote]

 

I don''t know how a CE''s market value could be worked out Mr Beard. Are they head hunted and move from club to club? We lavish McNasty with credit for what the club has achieved, I think probably too much so, but he has the results to back him up. Neil Doncaster was the opposite but he walked into a top football appointment on leaving us.

 

Interesting that you mention Wolves because Moxey seems to have had the job there forever. I''m pretty sure he was CE at the play off final so I wonder how many managers have been appointed in that time yet they''ve never felt the need to change the CE.

 

I''m not really making a point here, just an observation. Is it just at our club the CE is deemed to be so important to the football results?

 

 

 

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

I raised this in an earlier post.

But  fortunately Purple ( quite rightly) enjoys a little more gravitas on the board.

I was interested in people’s reaction to this. My view, which I didn’t give at the time , is that in many other walks of business life he would be rewarded in much the same way (you have missed the contribution to the pension – a classic Chief Exec method of remuneration) and at much the same level.

Imagine he walked into NCFC after relegation to the third division (apologies for showing may age) and said “for a million pounds I will get you promoted to the premier league” – which club  wouldn’t bite his arm off?

 

The Bonus is paid for “ achieving an improved financial performance in the year and retention of Premier League status” so we have to assume it would not  be as high if we are relegated.

BUT

And this is the main point....

 

With his CV ...what is Macnasty’s market value? To Wolves? Or Blackburn? I contend he would double his basic and double his bonus

 

[/quote]

 

I don''t know how a CE''s market value could be worked out Mr Beard. Are they head hunted and move from club to club? We lavish McNasty with credit for what the club has achieved, I think probably too much so, but he has the results to back him up. Neil Doncaster was the opposite but he walked into a top football appointment on leaving us.

 

Interesting that you mention Wolves because Moxey seems to have had the job there forever. I''m pretty sure he was CE at the play off final so I wonder how many managers have been appointed in that time yet they''ve never felt the need to change the CE.

 

I''m not really making a point here, just an observation. Is it just at our club the CE is deemed to be so important to the football results?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Market value is exactly that Nutty.  What someone is prepared to pay . I have no idea what Wolves, or Blackburn , (or Ipswich) would pay a man with DM''s CV. But it is more interesting than 95% of the rubbish on this board so I''m happy to extend my 700- odd posts since 2003 over it...

[chicken 0]

I think saying that the Lambert decision is incompetence would be harsh.

I posed a question at the time that if you were in charge of the club and Lambert was suggesting he was going to leave, at a time when we had just gained promotion would you try to convince him to stay, knowing what abilities he has?

Then if you did and he said the only way he would stay is if he could have the contract he wanted including a clause allowing him to talk to any premiership club the following summer would you accept it?

From a selfish and professional point of view it was clear enough to see that at the time Lambert was the best manager to have at the helm, even if you knew that he may not have the same ability to push and drive the team as he did at the two lower leagues he had performed in.

He was a safer bet than a new manager who would want to invest in new and perhaps different types of player and you would be looking at a period of transition in your first season back in the prem.

So not incompetence, a financial and performance ''risk'' in weighing up loosing Lambert then or as we did a season later.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

That said, as a shareholder, there are some points to be made. Firstly there should be much more openness and detail about exactly for what he is being rewarded. We should know what the targets are so we can judge if he has achieved them. At the moment we don''t have a clue. Secondly, which follows on from that, he shouldn''t keep on being rewarded even if he doesn''t reach whatever the targets are. So, for example, if we get relegated this season his overall package should revert much closer to his basic pay.

[/quote]

I am sure most posters interested in the accounts will recall that Tangible started a thread about this time last year regarding his one on one meeting with Bowkett over the detail of McNally''s contract.It was such a shame that Tangible then proceeded to say that he was not at liberty to discuss what was said at that meeting or divulge any information with regard to the content of said contract. My understanding being a mere humble season ticket holder and shareholder with a very limited understanding of the accounts was that any shareholder could obtain an audience with the chairman if they knew how to go about it. Maybe in light of this massive amount that McNally takes as remuneration for his services as CEO Tangible could outline how this may be achieved.

[/quote]

I did look at Mr. McNallys contract at a meeting with somebody (not Mr. Bowkett).

At Mr. Bowkett''s invitation I did have a meeting with our superb Chairman.  However it is up to the Chairman as to who has a discussion with and he is not obliged to meet any shareholder or shareholder other than attending the club''s AGM.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="chicken"]I think saying that the Lambert decision is incompetence would be harsh. I posed a question at the time that if you were in charge of the club and Lambert was suggesting he was going to leave, at a time when we had just gained promotion would you try to convince him to stay, knowing what abilities he has? Then if you did and he said the only way he would stay is if he could have the contract he wanted including a clause allowing him to talk to any premiership club the following summer would you accept it? From a selfish and professional point of view it was clear enough to see that at the time Lambert was the best manager to have at the helm, even if you knew that he may not have the same ability to push and drive the team as he did at the two lower leagues he had performed in. He was a safer bet than a new manager who would want to invest in new and perhaps different types of player and you would be looking at a period of transition in your first season back in the prem. So not incompetence, a financial and performance ''risk'' in weighing up loosing Lambert then or as we did a season later.[/quote]

 

I was careful not to assume anything about what went on. Simply raising executive incompetence as a possibility. For this reason. As I understamd it the situation with NCFC vs Aston Villa (not NCFC vs Lambert or Lambert vs NCFC) is this:

It is usual when a manager leaves one club for another for compensation to be paid from the new club to the old. This happened with us and Colchester. We never claimed we owed Colchester nothing; we were simply at odds over how much. With us and Villa it appears Villa are sayng they owe us nothing at all, because we broke Lambert''s contract, or made some drafting or whatever. If that is the case, and we get nothing instead of £1m or more, then that might very well have to be put down to incompetence.

I think I followed your argument, although it wasn''t entirely clear to me. What you seemed to be envisaging was some kind of judgment call by NCFC about what should or should not be in Lambert''s contract, based on his track record of itchy feet. In other words we made it less watertight than we would normally have done. That MAY be what happened, but it is also possible (and I suspect more likely) that we had exactly what we wanted in his contract (or thought was necessary) but that either we drafted it badly, or did indeed break it.

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

I raised this in an earlier post.

But  fortunately Purple ( quite rightly) enjoys a little more gravitas on the board.

I was interested in people’s reaction to this. My view, which I didn’t give at the time , is that in many other walks of business life he would be rewarded in much the same way (you have missed the contribution to the pension – a classic Chief Exec method of remuneration) and at much the same level.

Imagine he walked into NCFC after relegation to the third division (apologies for showing may age) and said “for a million pounds I will get you promoted to the premier league” – which club  wouldn’t bite his arm off?

 

The Bonus is paid for “ achieving an improved financial performance in the year and retention of Premier League status” so we have to assume it would not  be as high if we are relegated.

BUT

And this is the main point....

 

With his CV ...what is Macnasty’s market value? To Wolves? Or Blackburn? I contend he would double his basic and double his bonus

 

[/quote]

 

I don''t know how a CE''s market value could be worked out Mr Beard. Are they head hunted and move from club to club? We lavish McNasty with credit for what the club has achieved, I think probably too much so, but he has the results to back him up. Neil Doncaster was the opposite but he walked into a top football appointment on leaving us.

 

Interesting that you mention Wolves because Moxey seems to have had the job there forever. I''m pretty sure he was CE at the play off final so I wonder how many managers have been appointed in that time yet they''ve never felt the need to change the CE.

 

I''m not really making a point here, just an observation. Is it just at our club the CE is deemed to be so important to the football results?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Market value is exactly that Nutty.  What someone is prepared to pay . I have no idea what Wolves, or Blackburn , (or Ipswich) would pay a man with DM''s CV. But it is more interesting than 95% of the rubbish on this board so I''m happy to extend my 700- odd posts since 2003 over it...

[/quote]

 

Well I found it interesting too as I usually do find your posts. I don''t look at post counts because they are meaningless. An opinion is not strengthened or weakened by a post count. Mine wasn''t meant to be a criticism just an observation on what I have seen at other clubs. As for market values, it remains to be seen if  Lambert & Culverhouse''s market value reflects their value to the club. IMO Holty''s certainly wouldn''t.

 

I think football is a team game both on and off the pitch. I think a club which has fans, owners, board, managers and players all pulling the same way is more likely to be successful. Babes made an interesting point about Lambert and Holt. It''s pretty much accepted that those two and McNally have been the leaders of the revolution since 2009. But what I was trying to say is I get the impression a lot of posters on here would place Mcnally at the top of that trinity followed by Lambert and then Holt. My feeling is that it''s the other way around. Games are won on the pitch and goals win games. So Grant Holt would be first for me, followed by Lambert with McNally last of the three. In the summer Lambert walked and Holty had a strop. Mcnally seemed to breeze through it without any criticism at all.

 

Again Beardo buddy, they''re just observations.

 

[vos 155]

As a Chief Executive it is his basic job to appoint a good manager and hopefully achieve promotion. This is what he achieved and I do not see there is any justification to pay out a ridiculous bonus. Any bonus should be based over a longer period - say 5 years. Having been paid a huge sum now he can now tick over for a while in the knowledge that he is very financially safe. I do not actually suggest that McNally is that sort of person, but we can only wait and see. Let there be no doubt about it, the person who got us in to the Premiership was Paul Lambert.

The Club are only following current business practice and as we all know this has led us in to a terrible mess. I am old enough to have worked  in an era when bonuses were unheard of and yet companies were run on a far more efficient basis. I would suggest the Club spends a little more time looking after their many long term supporters.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

That said, as a shareholder, there are some points to be made. Firstly there should be much more openness and detail about exactly for what he is being rewarded. We should know what the targets are so we can judge if he has achieved them. At the moment we don''t have a clue. Secondly, which follows on from that, he shouldn''t keep on being rewarded even if he doesn''t reach whatever the targets are. So, for example, if we get relegated this season his overall package should revert much closer to his basic pay.

[/quote]

I am sure most posters interested in the accounts will recall that Tangible started a thread about this time last year regarding his one on one meeting with Bowkett over the detail of McNally''s contract.It was such a shame that Tangible then proceeded to say that he was not at liberty to discuss what was said at that meeting or divulge any information with regard to the content of said contract. My understanding being a mere humble season ticket holder and shareholder with a very limited understanding of the accounts was that any shareholder could obtain an audience with the chairman if they knew how to go about it. Maybe in light of this massive amount that McNally takes as remuneration for his services as CEO Tangible could outline how this may be achieved.

[/quote]

I did look at Mr. McNallys contract at a meeting with somebody (not Mr. Bowkett).

At Mr. Bowkett''s invitation I did have a meeting with our superb Chairman.  However it is up to the Chairman as to who has a discussion with and he is not obliged to meet any shareholder or shareholder other than attending the club''s AGM.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Tangible, I have answered quite a few questions from you in the past (and occasionally even got an acknowledgment[:P]) so I would appreciate an answer to this:

Leaving aside the meeting with Bowkett, which I am not in itself bothered about, what was the basis of you being allowed to see McNally''s contract? Was it juat as a result of a normal request from you as a shareholder? If so then I don''t see why the details, and particularly the bonus targets etc, cannot be sent to all shareholders. Or is it a question of shareholders having to make a request to see the contract, and be able to visit Carrow Road? Or was it part of the meeting Bowkett granted you, but it was just that it wasn''t Bowkett who showed you the contract?

Obviously I ask as a fellow shareholder. If the access you have been granted to McNally''s contract has come about simply because you had the gumption to ask, and all shareholders could do that, then that is fine. But was it a favour granted as part of the one-to-one Bowkett meeting that would not apply to others? Because, as you say, it is up to Bowkett whom he meets.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

I raised this in an earlier post.

But  fortunately Purple ( quite rightly) enjoys a little more gravitas on the board.

I was interested in people’s reaction to this. My view, which I didn’t give at the time , is that in many other walks of business life he would be rewarded in much the same way (you have missed the contribution to the pension – a classic Chief Exec method of remuneration) and at much the same level.

Imagine he walked into NCFC after relegation to the third division (apologies for showing may age) and said “for a million pounds I will get you promoted to the premier league” – which club  wouldn’t bite his arm off?

 

The Bonus is paid for “ achieving an improved financial performance in the year and retention of Premier League status” so we have to assume it would not  be as high if we are relegated.

BUT

And this is the main point....

 

With his CV ...what is Macnasty’s market value? To Wolves? Or Blackburn? I contend he would double his basic and double his bonus

 

[/quote]

 

I don''t know how a CE''s market value could be worked out Mr Beard. Are they head hunted and move from club to club? We lavish McNasty with credit for what the club has achieved, I think probably too much so, but he has the results to back him up. Neil Doncaster was the opposite but he walked into a top football appointment on leaving us.

 

Interesting that you mention Wolves because Moxey seems to have had the job there forever. I''m pretty sure he was CE at the play off final so I wonder how many managers have been appointed in that time yet they''ve never felt the need to change the CE.

 

I''m not really making a point here, just an observation. Is it just at our club the CE is deemed to be so important to the football results?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Market value is exactly that Nutty.  What someone is prepared to pay . I have no idea what Wolves, or Blackburn , (or Ipswich) would pay a man with DM''s CV. But it is more interesting than 95% of the rubbish on this board so I''m happy to extend my 700- odd posts since 2003 over it...

[/quote]

 

Well I found it interesting too as I usually do find your posts. I don''t look at post counts because they are meaningless. An opinion is not strengthened or weakened by a post count. Mine wasn''t meant to be a criticism just an observation on what I have seen at other clubs. As for market values, it remains to be seen if  Lambert & Culverhouse''s market value reflects their value to the club. IMO Holty''s certainly wouldn''t.

 

I think football is a team game both on and off the pitch. I think a club which has fans, owners, board, managers and players all pulling the same way is more likely to be successful. Babes made an interesting point about Lambert and Holt. It''s pretty much accepted that those two and McNally have been the leaders of the revolution since 2009. But what I was trying to say is I get the impression a lot of posters on here would place Mcnally at the top of that trinity followed by Lambert and then Holt. My feeling is that it''s the other way around. Games are won on the pitch and goals win games. So Grant Holt would be first for me, followed by Lambert with McNally last of the three. In the summer Lambert walked and Holty had a strop. Mcnally seemed to breeze through it without any criticism at all.

 

Again Beardo buddy, they''re just observations.

 

[/quote]

 

Agree completely Nutty, and enjoy your posts too. There is no doubt that Holty would have vastly highly market value of the three,  and plenty of Clubs would still pay several million to have him on board.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

That said, as a shareholder, there are some points to be made. Firstly there should be much more openness and detail about exactly for what he is being rewarded. We should know what the targets are so we can judge if he has achieved them. At the moment we don''t have a clue. Secondly, which follows on from that, he shouldn''t keep on being rewarded even if he doesn''t reach whatever the targets are. So, for example, if we get relegated this season his overall package should revert much closer to his basic pay.

[/quote]

I am sure most posters interested in the accounts will recall that Tangible started a thread about this time last year regarding his one on one meeting with Bowkett over the detail of McNally''s contract.It was such a shame that Tangible then proceeded to say that he was not at liberty to discuss what was said at that meeting or divulge any information with regard to the content of said contract. My understanding being a mere humble season ticket holder and shareholder with a very limited understanding of the accounts was that any shareholder could obtain an audience with the chairman if they knew how to go about it. Maybe in light of this massive amount that McNally takes as remuneration for his services as CEO Tangible could outline how this may be achieved.

[/quote]

I did look at Mr. McNallys contract at a meeting with somebody (not Mr. Bowkett).

At Mr. Bowkett''s invitation I did have a meeting with our superb Chairman.  However it is up to the Chairman as to who has a discussion with and he is not obliged to meet any shareholder or shareholder other than attending the club''s AGM.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Tangible, I have answered quite a few questions from you in the past (and occasionally even got an acknowledgment[:P]) so I would appreciate an answer to this:

Leaving aside the meeting with Bowkett, which I am not in itself bothered about, what was the basis of you being allowed to see McNally''s contract? Was it juat as a result of a normal request from you as a shareholder? If so then I don''t see why the details, and particularly the bonus targets etc, cannot be sent to all shareholders. Or is it a question of shareholders having to make a request to see the contract, and be able to visit Carrow Road? Or was it part of the meeting Bowkett granted you, but it was just that it wasn''t Bowkett who showed you the contract?

Obviously I ask as a fellow shareholder. If the access you have been granted to McNally''s contract has come about simply because you had the gumption to ask, and all shareholders could do that, then that is fine. But was it a favour granted as part of the one-to-one Bowkett meeting that would not apply to others? Because, as you say, it is up to Bowkett whom he meets.

[/quote]

It does seem Purple that no matter how polite and reasonable you may be with our Tangible that a few straightforward questions the answers to which lay with him and him only which is of interest to all shareholders cannot bring a sensible,constructive and informative reply.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

That said, as a shareholder, there are some points to be made. Firstly there should be much more openness and detail about exactly for what he is being rewarded. We should know what the targets are so we can judge if he has achieved them. At the moment we don''t have a clue. Secondly, which follows on from that, he shouldn''t keep on being rewarded even if he doesn''t reach whatever the targets are. So, for example, if we get relegated this season his overall package should revert much closer to his basic pay.

[/quote]

I am sure most posters interested in the accounts will recall that Tangible started a thread about this time last year regarding his one on one meeting with Bowkett over the detail of McNally''s contract.It was such a shame that Tangible then proceeded to say that he was not at liberty to discuss what was said at that meeting or divulge any information with regard to the content of said contract. My understanding being a mere humble season ticket holder and shareholder with a very limited understanding of the accounts was that any shareholder could obtain an audience with the chairman if they knew how to go about it. Maybe in light of this massive amount that McNally takes as remuneration for his services as CEO Tangible could outline how this may be achieved.

[/quote]

I did look at Mr. McNallys contract at a meeting with somebody (not Mr. Bowkett).

At Mr. Bowkett''s invitation I did have a meeting with our superb Chairman.  However it is up to the Chairman as to who has a discussion with and he is not obliged to meet any shareholder or shareholder other than attending the club''s AGM.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Tangible, I have answered quite a few questions from you in the past (and occasionally even got an acknowledgment[:P]) so I would appreciate an answer to this:

Leaving aside the meeting with Bowkett, which I am not in itself bothered about, what was the basis of you being allowed to see McNally''s contract? Was it juat as a result of a normal request from you as a shareholder? If so then I don''t see why the details, and particularly the bonus targets etc, cannot be sent to all shareholders. Or is it a question of shareholders having to make a request to see the contract, and be able to visit Carrow Road? Or was it part of the meeting Bowkett granted you, but it was just that it wasn''t Bowkett who showed you the contract?

Obviously I ask as a fellow shareholder. If the access you have been granted to McNally''s contract has come about simply because you had the gumption to ask, and all shareholders could do that, then that is fine. But was it a favour granted as part of the one-to-one Bowkett meeting that would not apply to others? Because, as you say, it is up to Bowkett whom he meets.

[/quote]

It does seem Purple that no matter how polite and reasonable you may be with our Tangible that a few straightforward questions the answers to which lay with him and him only which is of interest to all shareholders cannot bring a sensible,constructive and informative reply.

[/quote]

 

Perhaps you helpfully bumping it up will prompt a reply from Tangible. We shall see. I remain in all things a sunny optimist.

[Crafty Canary 495]

What surprised me about the CE''s bonus was the bit about retaining premiership status. I''d have thought that was the football management team''s target and therefore bonus.

As for the financial performance bonus, does this impact on pricing decisions and player budgets?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="crafty canary"]What surprised me about the CE''s bonus was the bit about retaining premiership status. I''d have thought that was the football management team''s target and therefore bonus. As for the financial performance bonus, does this impact on pricing decisions and player budgets?[/quote]

 

That at least part of McNally''s pay package includes a bonus for retaining PL status is an assumption of mine, although a very reasonable one. It is not stated in the accounts. Which is precisely why I and other posters are interested in Tangible having been allowed to examine McNally''s contract of employment. He might be in a position to explain what are the targets that McNally has been set to earn his bonuses.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

If Tangie knows Crafty might know too....

 

 

[Crafty Canary 495]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

If Tangie knows Crafty might know too....

 

 

[/quote]

or I might not.

[Duncan Edwards 0]

Those that know, know. Those that don''t know, don''t. Some might claim to know what those that know, know. Some might claim not to know what those that know, know when in truth they know what some people claim to know, know without actually knowing what those that know, know.

Who knows?

[Crabby 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="crafty canary"]What surprised me about the CE''s bonus was the bit about retaining premiership status. I''d have thought that was the football management team''s target and therefore bonus. As for the financial performance bonus, does this impact on pricing decisions and player budgets?[/quote]

 

That at least part of McNally''s pay package includes a bonus for retaining PL status is an assumption of mine, although a very reasonable one. It is not stated in the accounts. Which is precisely why I and other posters are interested in Tangible having been allowed to examine McNally''s contract of employment. He might be in a position to explain what are the targets that McNally has been set to earn his bonuses.

[/quote]

I would have thought that performance targets for the CE would be in a separate document agreed between himself and the Chairman and these would then cascade down into the business plan for the NCFC management team and organisation as a whole. Whatever his targets are he cant deliver them on his own. They may be more organisational based rather than football performance based. If he has bonus payments built into his contract then it would be reasonable to expect that the NCFC management team have something similar built into theirs. There must be some form of performance management system but maybe the cost of this is just built into the salaries budget as a whole without being separately identified.   I have never seen the final accounts or the budget so forgive me if I am talking cr@p, it wouldnt be the first time![:)]

[Crabby 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="crafty canary"]What surprised me about the CE''s bonus was the bit about retaining premiership status. I''d have thought that was the football management team''s target and therefore bonus. As for the financial performance bonus, does this impact on pricing decisions and player budgets?[/quote]

 

That at least part of McNally''s pay package includes a bonus for retaining PL status is an assumption of mine, although a very reasonable one. It is not stated in the accounts. Which is precisely why I and other posters are interested in Tangible having been allowed to examine McNally''s contract of employment. He might be in a position to explain what are the targets that McNally has been set to earn his bonuses.

[/quote]

I would have thought that performance targets for the CE would be in a separate document agreed between himself and the Chairman and these would then cascade down into the business plan for the NCFC management team and organisation as a whole. Whatever his targets are he cant deliver them on his own. They may be more organisational based rather than football performance based. If he has bonus payments built into his contract then it would be reasonable to expect that the NCFC management team have something similar built into theirs. There must be some form of performance management system but maybe the cost of this is just built into the salaries budget as a whole without being separately identified.   I have never seen the final accounts or the budget so forgive me if I am talking cr@p, it wouldnt be the first time![:)]