Babylon Posted 12 March 2013 Posted 12 March 2013 I wonder if they will pay off the contracts of the big earners as well? Dyer? Beckford? Danns? Konchesky? Schmeichel? Wellens? Gallagher? Depends on who the manager is... could end up with someone wanting to play Wellens and Danns in the middle.
5waller5 Posted 12 March 2013 Posted 12 March 2013 I wonder if they will pay off the contracts of the big earners as well? Dyer? Beckford? Danns? Konchesky? Schmeichel? Wellens? Gallagher? If FFP is really being taken as seriously as everyone claims it would make sense wouldn't it.
5waller5 Posted 12 March 2013 Posted 12 March 2013 If FFP is really being taken as seriously as everyone claims it would make sense wouldn't it. Actually what's to stop them from paying off the big earners and then giving them a new contract as part of the pay-off but on £2k a week .... effectively pre-paying them?? And then thinking that through - a signing on bonanza could happen with large signing on fees replacing the bulk of the weekly wage for contracts just prior to the year end?
Babylon Posted 12 March 2013 Posted 12 March 2013 Actually what's to stop them from paying off the big earners and then giving them a new contract as part of the pay-off but on £2k a week .... effectively pre-paying them?? And then thinking that through - a signing on bonanza could happen with large signing on fees replacing the bulk of the weekly wage for contracts just prior to the year end? Or to pay them all minimum wage and then give them part time jobs working 5 minutes a year in a Kingpower outlet and pay them £10k a week for it through King Power.
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 12 March 2013 Posted 12 March 2013 What a crap article. Is this what passes for journalism these days? No source, no additional info vs BBC quotes. Nothing. It seems that way and a Twitter account. The laughable thing is that since the Thais took over the club owners have been very private with their thinking, apart from periodic statements which are quite consistent. It's not hard to see if the slump continues NFP could be out
5waller5 Posted 12 March 2013 Posted 12 March 2013 Or to pay them all minimum wage and then give them part time jobs working 5 minutes a year in a Kingpower outlet and pay them £10k a week for it through King Power. It's how Rugby union used to work before going pro!
5waller5 Posted 12 March 2013 Posted 12 March 2013 Or to pay them all minimum wage and then give them part time jobs working 5 minutes a year in a Kingpower outlet and pay them £10k a week for it through King Power. That's actually a very probable work around .... seperate the playing contract with the "publicity services" contract .... Have the players work as a brand ambassador, public appearances, merchandise promotion etc, through the KP contract and the playing side with LCFC. There'll be so many work arounds that FFP will just be a set of rules for accountants to work around. Or to pay them all minimum wage and then give them part time jobs working 5 minutes a year in a Kingpower outlet and pay them £10k a week for it through King Power. That's actually a very probable work around .... seperate the playing contract with the "publicity services" contract .... Have the players work as a brand ambassador, public appearances, merchandise promotion etc, through the KP contract and the playing side with LCFC. There'll be so many work arounds that FFP will just be a set of rules for accountants to work around.
flowwolf Posted 12 March 2013 Posted 12 March 2013 With FFP coming in next year it will be interesting to see how that alters clubs attitudes to sacking manager. For the owners to get rid of Pearson and all of his backroom team you are looking at a couple of million quid, on top of paying a new guys wages and for his team. That would be a large chunk of next seasons budget gone, and something we possibly can't afford to do considering we are already running well over what's needed to comply with FFP. That's a bloody good reason to get rid of him now then.
ozleicester Posted 13 March 2013 Posted 13 March 2013 That's actually a very probable work around .... seperate the playing contract with the "publicity services" contract .... Have the players work as a brand ambassador, public appearances, merchandise promotion etc, through the KP contract and the playing side with LCFC. There'll be so many work arounds that FFP will just be a set of rules for accountants to work around. That's actually a very probable work around .... seperate the playing contract with the "publicity services" contract .... Have the players work as a brand ambassador, public appearances, merchandise promotion etc, through the KP contract and the playing side with LCFC. There'll be so many work arounds that FFP will just be a set of rules for accountants to work around. I imagine that FFP will have contingencies for this in place, for example here in OZ the salarycap/Draft is completely managed and any, Marketing, public appearance income is considered part of the players payments and cant be hidden.
MattyFromLE Posted 13 March 2013 Posted 13 March 2013 That's a bloody good reason to get rid of him now then. They'd still have to pay out, and it'd still count as a loss right? If we're going to fail the first FFP implementation then, we should be trying damage limitation to make sure we don't get a hefty penalty, not sacking a manager who is renowned for rebuilding teams at a fraction of the cost. I'm fairly sure that the owners employed him for this reason - and will continue to back him unless we drop out of the play offs. If we remain in the play offs and lose, in the final or not - I believe they'll keep him.
flowwolf Posted 13 March 2013 Posted 13 March 2013 They'd still have to pay out, and it'd still count as a loss right? If we're going to fail the first FFP implementation then, we should be trying damage limitation to make sure we don't get a hefty penalty, not sacking a manager who is renowned for rebuilding teams at a fraction of the cost. I'm fairly sure that the owners employed him for this reason - and will continue to back him unless we drop out of the play offs. If we remain in the play offs and lose, in the final or not - I believe they'll keep him. The owners employed him because several other potential managers turned them down. He has always been a stop gap interim manager as you will see at the end of the season.
MooseBreath Posted 13 March 2013 Posted 13 March 2013 Can't remember the wording but FFP does have written into it something which binds clubs into acting in the correct spirit, ie it prevents them from actively seeking workarounds, and gives the FFP people discretionary powers. The only way to get around it will be to 'wine and dine' your alloted auditor, which i'm sure will be commonplace
indierich06 Posted 14 March 2013 Posted 14 March 2013 The owners employed him because several other potential managers turned them down. He has always been a stop gap interim manager as you will see at the end of the season. Then why not sack him last summer rather than letting him build a team and have this season? What you're saying is absolute nonsense as usual.
Raj Posted 14 March 2013 Posted 14 March 2013 We may disagree on him being sacked or kept BUT there is no doubt he will be under pressure until the season finale at Forest where our fans,for the last few months have been planning the victory ceremony infront of the dejected forest fans...Oh hang on....
Mark_w Posted 14 March 2013 Posted 14 March 2013 The owners employed him because several other potential managers turned them down. He has always been a stop gap interim manager as you will see at the end of the season. If they were looking for a stop gap why did they go for someone already employed that they had to pay a decent amount in compensation to get?
indierich06 Posted 14 March 2013 Posted 14 March 2013 If they were looking for a stop gap why did they go for someone already employed that they had to pay a decent amount in compensation to get? He's a ****ing moron, we really shouldn't have bitten.
5waller5 Posted 14 March 2013 Posted 14 March 2013 If they were looking for a stop gap why did they go for someone already employed that they had to pay a decent amount in compensation to get? Because that's what the marketplace dictates, championship level manager is going to cost you a few mill .... however long you intend to keep him. Whatever your view this is not an argument against him being a stop gap at all.
indierich06 Posted 14 March 2013 Posted 14 March 2013 Because that's what the marketplace dictates, championship level manager is going to cost you a few mill .... however long you intend to keep him. Whatever your view this is not an argument against him being a stop gap at all. Not that I would have wanted him, but they could have had Billy Davies for free at the time? There are always good quality Championship managers out of work and I'm sure plenty of them would have jumped at the chance of working with what was perceived, at the time, as a very good squad with owners who were throwing money around left, right and centre. If the owners were looking for a stop gap (although one and a half seasons is a weird sort of stop gap when they want promotion as soon as possible) there were plenty of out-of-work managers on the market with good reputations who could have steadied the ship for a short period - so why go to all the trouble of what ended up being a protracted and expensive affair in getting Pearson in from Hull? There were even other managers at clubs who would've come and steadied the ship and would've come a lot cheaper and with a lot less fuss. This stop gap nonsense just does not ring true at all for me; Pearson is the owner's man. He may not have been their number one target (Martin O'Neill IMO) but when first choices weren't available, he was their next choice. I think Flowwolf is doing his usual thing of sticking a bit of bait on his hook and throwing it out there. If he actually believes it's true? Well, he's wrong IMO.
5waller5 Posted 14 March 2013 Posted 14 March 2013 Not that I would have wanted him, but they could have had Billy Davies for free at the time? There are always good quality Championship managers out of work and I'm sure plenty of them would have jumped at the chance of working with what was perceived, at the time, as a very good squad with owners who were throwing money around left, right and centre. If the owners were looking for a stop gap (although one and a half seasons is a weird sort of stop gap when they want promotion as soon as possible) there were plenty of out-of-work managers on the market with good reputations who could have steadied the ship for a short period - so why go to all the trouble of what ended up being a protracted and expensive affair in getting Pearson in from Hull? There were even other managers at clubs who would've come and steadied the ship and would've come a lot cheaper and with a lot less fuss. This stop gap nonsense just does not ring true at all for me; Pearson is the owner's man. He may not have been their number one target (Martin O'Neill IMO) but when first choices weren't available, he was their next choice. I think Flowwolf is doing his usual thing of sticking a bit of bait on his hook and throwing it out there. If he actually believes it's true? Well, he's wrong IMO. I don't think he was a stop gap either .... Just pointing out that the compensation argument isn't one that supports the theory either way - it's just the cost of the management appointment and is peanuts in the scheme of things .... Bit like paying a recruitment consultant's fees for the rest of us ..... You could argue that all management appointments are stop gap anyway .... because there aren't many that last beyond a couple of years these days.
flowwolf Posted 15 March 2013 Posted 15 March 2013 He's a ****ing moron, we really shouldn't have bitten. You did Moron ! :D
indierich06 Posted 15 March 2013 Posted 15 March 2013 You did Moron ! :D Do you not understand the word 'we'? Well I guess this makes us a pair of ****ing morons.
Mark_w Posted 15 March 2013 Posted 15 March 2013 You did Moron ! :D I don't understand, if people post perfectly reasonable, unaggresive, responses to your posts... then surely you've not succeeded in trolling them... you've just made yourself look like a moron? I don't see what possible satisfaction you could get from that.
seenitall Posted 15 March 2013 Posted 15 March 2013 Nige was appointed after numerous attempts to replace Sven failed and none of the 'big (therefore probably crap to FT board members anyway) names' wanted the gig. Realising that they had spectacularly ballsed up on a scale only equalled by Svenkys at Blackburn, the owners needed a result to stop the fans leaving in their thousands so they overpaid massively for a 'safe' name. It hasn't really worked but while there is still hope Nige can become the man he was three years ago he will remain in a job - wouldn't it be great if he could do that?
Mark_w Posted 15 March 2013 Posted 15 March 2013 Nige was appointed after numerous attempts to replace Sven failed and none of the 'big (therefore probably crap to FT board members anyway) names' wanted the gig. Realising that they had spectacularly ballsed up on a scale only equalled by Svenkys at Blackburn, the owners needed a result to stop the fans leaving in their thousands so they overpaid massively for a 'safe' name. It hasn't really worked but while there is still hope Nige can become the man he was three years ago he will remain in a job - wouldn't it be great if he could do that? He's a ****ing moron, we really shouldn't have bitten. Ok, I'm taking your advice this time.
seenitall Posted 15 March 2013 Posted 15 March 2013 Ok, I'm taking your advice this time. Oops sorry, alternative view to the gospel according to St Nige - stone the heretic
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.