Revolutionary New Coaching Set Up ?

[farawaysaint]

So he and Mike are foregoing any wages then - nope, thought not.

 

He works for the company ergo he gets paid a wage Anyone in his position would expect the same.

[farawaysaint]

He works for the company ergo he gets paid a wage Anyone in his position would expect the same.

 

As is plainly evident if you look at the previous years AFS which shows aggregate emoluments of 579000 pounds and emoluments to the highest paid director of 226000 pounds. Maybe you shouldn't criticize until you've seen just how much the new board is being paid when the current financial statements come out Then feel free to moan

[Wes Tender]

He works for the company ergo he gets paid a wage Anyone in his position would expect the same.

 

I don't think that the rolly-eye thing is justified, as I have already pointed out that it is certainly not the case that every Chairman takes a wage. There is a distinct difference too between an Executive Chairman appointed by the board and a Chairman that is effectively appointed by himself because of his shareholding. But don't let these considerations influence your opinion.

[Fowllyd]

What is the relevance of a comparison between most of us who have to work and those who are wealthy enough not to have to? Crouch didn't get paid, so why should Lowe or Wilde? Many Club Chairmen don't take pay; it's not anything unusual in this industry. Many consider it a privilege to be able to play with their own private little "train set".

 

But Lowe and Wilde can look at their pay as a way of recouping some of the value of their shares as a partial insurance against the losses they would incur if we went into administration.

 

In business, non-executive directors are normally paid; in football they generally aren't (Ken Dulieu being a recent exception to this rule). So, as Lowe has executive duties, he'll be paid for performing them. Wilde has none, so I wouldn't expect him to be paid. I've no idea whether or not this is the case, it's just what I'd expect. But we do seem to be moving from a question about whether or not Wilde receives a salary to an assumption that he does.

[Wes Tender]

In business, non-executive directors are normally paid; in football they generally aren't (Ken Dulieu being a recent exception to this rule). So, as Lowe has executive duties, he'll be paid for performing them. Wilde has none, so I wouldn't expect him to be paid. I've no idea whether or not this is the case, it's just what I'd expect. But we do seem to be moving from a question about whether or not Wilde receives a salary to an assumption that he does.

 

You're right, but I expect that the non-executive chairmen aren't paid in football because of other benefits they receive such as their high profile in the sporting world, watching the game from the directors' box, the ability to play with the train set, etc. Yes, Dulieu was an exception to the rule and I had expressed disgust at it on more than one occasion. I suppose the pertinent question is whether we actually need an executive chairman, especially a part time one. But as I say, it is probably a way for Lowe to ensure that he gets some of his share value back in the event that we go under.

[Fowllyd]

You're right, but I expect that the non-executive chairmen aren't paid in football because of other benefits they receive such as their high profile in the sporting world, watching the game from the directors' box, the ability to play with the train set, etc. Yes, Dulieu was an exception to the rule and I had expressed disgust at it on more than one occasion. I suppose the pertinent question is whether we actually need an executive chairman, especially a part time one. But as I say, it is probably a way for Lowe to ensure that he gets some of his share value back in the event that we go under.

 

Actually, I'd always assumed that non-execs don't receive pay at football clubs because they're perceived to be doing it for the love of the club rather than for their own benefit. In which case it's hardly surprising that Dulieu was paid, as he was hardly doing the job for love. More to the point there is why he was appointed chairman in the first place, though that's hardly relevant now!

 

We need a chief exec or equivalent, as does any business. Whether that person should also be chairman is another matter; personally I'd say not as it's poor business practice to do things that way. Incidentally, I've seen Andrew Cowen described as both a non-exec director and as managing director, which seems more than a little contradictory to me. We seem to have drifted a long way from the thread topic here, though...