Does Tim Davis Deserve

[davieG]

a 23% pay rise considering we made a loss of £3.5 million?

Davies, the highest-paid administrative employee, saw his total pay package, which included a bonus for the club's financial performance in 2003-04 and pension contributions, rise by 23 per cent to £197,000.

Leicester Mercury

Does this reflect what is wrong with football and business in general in this country, where most workers are restricted to inflation based increases, at best and 'Captains of Industry' get paid large salaries and even larger pensions for seemingly failing to make profits.

Is it a mad, mad world?

[Jay]

a 23% pay rise considering we made a loss of £3.5 million?

Leicester Mercury

Does this reflect what is wrong with football and business in general in this country, where most workers are restricted to inflation based increases, at best and 'Captains of Industry' get paid large salaries and even larger pensions for seemingly failing to make profits.

Is it a mad, mad world?

I personally think that Tim Davies does a very good job, and works very very hard for the club!

not many Chief execs are as approachable as him

it may seem alot of money but when you consider Matt Elliott was getting a very similar amount in his bank account every month for sitting around and doing very little over the past two seasons it doesn't quite seem that over the top to me.

[lush]

a 23% pay rise considering we made a loss of £3.5 million?

Does this reflect what is wrong with football and business in general in this country, where most workers are restricted to inflation based increases, at best and 'Captains of Industry' get paid large salaries and even larger pensions for seemingly failing to make profits.

Is it a mad, mad world?

He must surely be worth his £2,000 a week salary, yeah give him my season ticket money too

[Sparky]

i think the people who have met the guy seem to think he is a nice bloke , but hey im a nice bloke does that mean i should get a 23 % wage increase

[davieG]

I personally think that Tim Davies does a very good job, and works very very hard for the club!

not many Chief execs are as approachable as him

it may seem alot of money but when you consider Matt Elliott was getting a very similar amount in his bank account every month for sitting around and doing very little over the past two seasons it doesn't quite seem that over the top to me.

I'm not querying his salary or his contribution in general to the club, furthermore I see no relevance in relating his remuneration to what we payed Matt Elliott but when we're living on a shoestring and the club/business has made a loss of £3.5 mill under his management should that warrant a payrise let alone a 23% one.

It begs the question what rise does he get if we make a profit?

[lush]

i think the people who have met the guy seem to think he is a nice bloke , but hey im a nice bloke does that mean i should get a 23 % wage increase

No, because you dont work for leicester city football club, a company that thousands adhore.

[Steven]

All I would is say that for a business the size of City, 200 grand would seem a lot of money to get paid.

[lush]

All I would is say that for a business the size of City, 200 grand would seem a lot of money to get paid.

Theres possibly some players at city earn less than tim now, that dont make any sense what so ever. 4 grand a week, lucky man. Im only doing half that, its not fair

[City Fan]

Surely if the Clubs finances fall, his salary should fall? When the finances rose, his salary rose so why not the other way round?

Would rather have a Chief Exec who isn't a money grabbing git........

[lush]

Surely if the Clubs finances fall, his salary should fall? When the finances rose, his salary rose so why not the other way round?

Would rather have a Chief Exec who isn't a money grabbing git........

Yes but he "listens to us" (what good that does i dont know) phsychiatrists earn the same, i should know

[City Fan]

Yes but he "listens to us"

That's some kind of joke, right?

[lush]

That's some kind of joke, right?

Of course, hes just an over paid phsychiatrist, and his customers are seemingly hooked on his words.

Im trying to bring them out of this nightmare, i say, lets get someone who is REALLY dedicated to city, like our very own poster Lisa, im sure she would be brilliant at his job, and she`d do it for peanuts compared. If she needed help, theres plenty of people on this and other websites that would gladly assist her.

Im sure we could save an absolute minimum of £100,000 a year.

ITS A SUGGESTION, anyone see the benefits?

I`ll get slated for this

[Foxes_Trust]

Surely if the Clubs finances fall, his salary should fall? When the finances rose, his salary rose so why not the other way round?

Would rather have a Chief Exec who isn't a money grabbing git........

Think you are all missing the timing element here.

The accounts cover June 04- May 05, therefore the bonus payment relates to the performance in the previous financial year - i.e, in profit, Premiership season, where we exceeded budget

Our understanding is that all contracts reflect which division we are in & therefore next years accounts will show a fall in his overall package received.

[davieG]

Think you are all missing the timing element here.

The accounts cover June 04- May 05, therefore the bonus payment relates to the performance in the previous financial year - i.e, in profit, Premiership season, where we exceeded budget

Our understanding is that all contracts reflect which division we are in & therefore next years accounts will show a fall in his overall package received.

Thanks for clarifying that, it's a shame it wasn't made clear in the official statements.

[Foxes_Trust]

Thanks for clarifying that, it's a shame it wasn't made clear in the official statements.

Don't think TD's rewards would feature in official statements, but would have been lifted from the accounts as the highest paid director has to be detailed within company accounting rules

[lush]

Thanks for clarifying that, it's a shame it wasn't made clear in the official statements.

Who produced this thread, i want names and demand an explanation only joking dave.

[lookwhaticando]

Thanks for clarifying that, it's a shame it wasn't made clear in the official statements.

Official statements aren't know for their clarity

200 grand isn't a huge amount, and City isn't exactly a small business - how many small businesses boast turnover of over 22 million in a year?

Not entirely relavent, but the "Average CEO" earns well over 2 million a year, according to a recent survey.

I know Tim Davis isn't the average CEO in the average industry - but this puts it somewhat into perspective. 200 grand is a lot of money to most people, but he could be earning a lot more in a different position, maybe a different industry.

Executives can easily be enticed to a different job with a large salary increase - probably part of the reason executives get double digit rises quite often (16% on average according to the same recent survey) and rank-and-file employees dont. Afterall, to replace an executive can prove costly - more instability on the balance sheet if you have to sign a new executive (maybe stumping up cash as a signing bonus?). I think a 23% pay rise is probably more cost effective than replacing Tim Davis with somebody else on 160 grand (his previous annual salary).

I think before asking if Tim Davis is worth almost 200 grand, we should compare his salary to those of comparable executives in our league - those at Derby, Leeds, QPR, Southampton and Norwich for example.

ISS Goverance Centre - 2005 Archived news

[davieG]

Don't think TD's rewards would feature in official statements, but would have been lifted from the accounts as the highest paid director has to be detailed within company accounting rules

It was splashed in the Mercury report.

[Anish]

I agree with Davieg on this one. £200k is absurd money for our club considering our losses. Yes that figure may relate to a previous season in which we were in the Prem blah blah blah... but do you really think his salary next year will drop significantly to reflect our drop in performances on and off the pitch? I somehow doubt it.

[davieG]

Official statements aren't know for their clarity

200 grand isn't a huge amount, and City isn't exactly a small business - how many small businesses boast turnover of over 22 million in a year?

Not entirely relavent, but the "Average CEO" earns well over 2 million a year, according to a recent survey.

I know Tim Davis isn't the average CEO in the average industry - but this puts it somewhat into perspective. 200 grand is a lot of money to most people, but he could be earning a lot more in a different position, maybe a different industry.

Executives can easily be enticed to a different job with a large salary increase - probably part of the reason executives get double digit rises quite often (16% on average according to the same recent survey) and rank-and-file employees dont. Afterall, to replace an executive can prove costly - more instability on the balance sheet if you have to sign a new executive (maybe stumping up cash as a signing bonus?). I think a 23% pay rise is probably more cost effective than replacing Tim Davis with somebody else on 160 grand (his previous annual salary).

I think before asking if Tim Davis is worth almost 200 grand, we should compare his salary to those of comparable executives in our league - those at Derby, Leeds, QPR, Southampton and Norwich for example.

ISS Goverance Centre - 2005 Archived news

If you'd have noticed the original question was not about his salary level as such, well I certainly never questioned the amount. It was to do with whether he justified a 23% pay rise on a loss of £3.5 mill, which is quite a different question.

[lush]

I agree with Davieg on this one. £200k is absurd money for our club considering our losses. Yes that figure may relate to a previous season in which we were in the Prem blah blah blah... but do you really think his salary next year will drop significantly to reflect our drop in performances on and off the pitch? I somehow doubt it.

But once you pay someone a salary, you cant change the contract in mid air. we`ll just have to suffer his expense for now, i dearly hope he earns it, which is severly questionable.

[lookwhaticando]

If you'd have noticed the original question was not about his salary level as such, well I certainly never questioned the amount. It was to do with whether he justified a 23% pay rise on a loss of £3.5 mill, which is quite a different question.

Sorry for going off-question I just wanted to show off

Stranger things have happened - larger increases on larger losses. Executive pay and performance never seem to be correlated properly, even tho they really ought to be. If this trend reverses on Tim Davis in the financial year ending May 31st 2006, then in fact as Foxes_Trust has pointed out, performance and pay will be related somewhat.

[Guest]

But once you pay someone a salary, you cant change the contract in mid air. we`ll just have to suffer his expense for now, i dearly hope he earns it, which is severly questionable.

The contract won't be changing, but it doesn't mean that he'll still have earned the same sum last season. He'll be on a basic plus bonuses, even the Mercury got that bit right. Seeing as the club made a loss last season, he won't have had those bonuses last season.

I'm not surprised the Mercury has printed a report that isn't very clear. It looks to me as though someone there wants to discredit City at every given opportunity. Whatever happened to promoting local sides? I don't it's paranoia either, as in the last couple of weeks there's been some negative reports directed at the Tiggers too.

[Manwell Pablo]

If you'd have noticed the original question was not about his salary level as such, well I certainly never questioned the amount. It was to do with whether he justified a 23% pay rise on a loss of £3.5 mill, which is quite a different question.

Read what the Foxes Trust has put!! its based on last years 4.7 Mil Profit or whatever it was not 3.5 mil loss we made this year.

[Thracian]

I'm not querying his salary or his contribution in general to the club, furthermore I see no relevance in relating his remuneration to what we payed Matt Elliott but when we're living on a shoestring and the club/business has made a loss of £3.5 mill under his management should that warrant a payrise let alone a 23% one.

It begs the question what rise does he get if we make a profit?

Emotionally I think you're right and have often felt disgusted that anyone should get big rewards for poor results.

The golden handshakes for failure are another thing that disgusts me...God I dopn't want to get started down that road and the way people in power manipulate matters and constantly feather their own nest whatever their achievements or otherwise.

But, the rub is in the last sentence. Key executives (and I agree Tim Davies seems a decent bloke and, probably on balance, a decent bloke to have in his position) protect their situations and their lifestyles with contract clauses and such pay rises are probably as the norm at this time.

If City want to keep their executives they have to pay the rate for the job (with incentives). It certainly sucks when we lose so much money (cos it is the directors who make appointments/decisions etc) but if managers/players get compensation for terminated contracts, big salaries even if we lose etc, then I cannot see the status quo changing in a hurry.

Unless, perhaps, the fans owned the clubs. Even then I think you'd quickly find you had to live in the real world rather than the fair and just utopia you might wish for. Pity though.