Jump to content

New contracts


Fudgey1989

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, fraz65 said:

I had an "ensure/insure" issue last week. Fortunately Skygod is always on hand to point out the error!

Aye everyone loves a smart arse......:38:

My father made a speech at my sisters wedding where he said, "The only place where reward comes before success is the dictionary"

Of course it should have been - Where reward/success, comes before work, is the dictionary.

Perhaps ts a family trait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Jeez, you are like a broken record.

If it's not bringing up that stuff, it's wanking yourself into a fury about crowd sizes.

Get a hobby.

I think you’re being unreasonably harsh on this one. That’s understandable, because he’s usually a dick, but he makes some fair points for discussion on this particular topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Caldow said:

I think you’re being unreasonably harsh on this one. That’s understandable, because he’s usually a dick, but he makes some fair points for discussion on this particular topic.

As I said, I think we'll increase our wage budget but I can't see us spending 300k-500k more on first team wages than we currently do.

Full club wages might increase around that figure once you take into account Project Brave/extra community staff etc.

What I'm not overly comfortable with is suggesting that BB dips into his pocket to fund it, as we still owe him soft loans for previous bail outs.

I'd like to see us sustainable - fair enough if BB if just wants to throw money at us but he's not that daft and neither he should be.

I'd have replied with the same concerns had somebody other than McLean suggested spending 20-25% extra on wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

What I'm not overly comfortable with is suggesting that BB dips into his pocket to fund it, as we still owe him soft loans for previous bail outs.

I genuinely think it’s a good debate between Mclean and sh on this. There is obviously a lot of bad blood ( which as a relatively new poster don’t fully understand) but the respective points made are valid I think. I agree with sh that going back anywhere near the cavalier approach of the late 1990s would be a mistake and rely8ng on personal bail out is not a sustainable way to take us forward. That said, if there was ever a time to prospect or even speculate to accumulate, this is probably it. Sc has worked miracles. He has created a top end premiership squad. I think that the majority of contract renewals are consequently going to involve higher than previous salaries as exp3ctation increase and rewards are provided. In some cases like Taylor, a multiple of previous level (jones may take 75 k increase on his own). Depending on the addition we add and those that leave,I don’t think McLean will be far out with a 300k plus increase. Of course this carries risk but if we want to chase sustainable European football for a few seasons, we need to raise the quality of the squad which will cost. In Taylor we have an asset which at rate of improvement his valuation covers some of the variable cost risk on salary. Brophy the same. I’m not sure what the upside could be for couple of euro ties but with tv and increased crowds for ties (10000 people at 25 quid a pop)...we would cover the increase in salary. If we want to excite sc to spend some time with us, we need to take a little more risk. I personally trust him to deliver and balance the books, generating some special memories on route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Jeez, you are like a broken record.

If it's not bringing up that stuff, it's wanking yourself into a fury about crowd sizes.

Get a hobby.

What a shame that any debate has to end with crude and personal comments. I'm sorry, but for years I heard a " broken record " being spun constantly that MJ was the main barrier to any new investment. (Have I imagined that, everyone)? When he is in a position to sell next year, then I would expect those people desparate to invest to step forward. The lack of comment on new investment from the usual suspects makes me think they would rather the thousands of posts regarding this were quietly forgotten. If you dispute that this was the general line of attack at the time, I am at a loss. By the way, I've shown how a 25% increase in budget is easily affordable, but you choose to ignore it. I've not replied for a few hours as I've been out pursuing line of my many interests. Please stop making personal comments about someone you know very little about and concentrate on the debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mclean07 said:

What a shame that any debate has to end with crude and personal comments. I'm sorry, but for years I heard a " broken record " being spun constantly that MJ was the main barrier to any new investment. (Have I imagined that, everyone)? When he is in a position to sell next year, then I would expect those people desparate to invest to step forward. The lack of comment on new investment from the usual suspects makes me think they would rather the thousands of posts regarding this were quietly forgotten. If you dispute that this was the general line of attack at the time, I am at a loss. By the way, I've shown how a 25% increase in budget is easily affordable, but you choose to ignore it. I've not replied for a few hours as I've been out pursuing line of my many interests. Please stop making personal comments about someone you know very little about and concentrate on the debate. 

I agree, there were a lot of posts on here about local investors waiting in the wings.

I suppose we'll have to see what happens next year when the parasite finally leaves. 

Billy Bowie might have made much of the local investor argument redundant though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thebigguy68 said:

I genuinely think it’s a good debate between Mclean and sh on this. There is obviously a lot of bad blood ( which as a relatively new poster don’t fully understand) but the respective points made are valid I think. I agree with sh that going back anywhere near the cavalier approach of the late 1990s would be a mistake and rely8ng on personal bail out is not a sustainable way to take us forward. That said, if there was ever a time to prospect or even speculate to accumulate, this is probably it. Sc has worked miracles. He has created a top end premiership squad. I think that the majority of contract renewals are consequently going to involve higher than previous salaries as exp3ctation increase and rewards are provided. In some cases like Taylor, a multiple of previous level (jones may take 75 k increase on his own). Depending on the addition we add and those that leave,I don’t think McLean will be far out with a 300k plus increase. Of course this carries risk but if we want to chase sustainable European football for a few seasons, we need to raise the quality of the squad which will cost. In Taylor we have an asset which at rate of improvement his valuation covers some of the variable cost risk on salary. Brophy the same. I’m not sure what the upside could be for couple of euro ties but with tv and increased crowds for ties (10000 people at 25 quid a pop)...we would cover the increase in salary. If we want to excite sc to spend some time with us, we need to take a little more risk. I personally trust him to deliver and balance the books, generating some special memories on route.

Plus anyone whose hero is Tommy McLean gets cut a bit of slack by me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Fletch said:

I think we'd be lucky to get through the summer without losing players to clubs bidding more than we can afford to turn down. If that's the case I could see the wage budget going up more than anticipated. 

I'd see that as a good thing.  Getting cash bids for players from England is where the money is at.  Tishbola is a 5 million pound player.  English transfer fees, once a season, would trump any cash investors and each season 96 English teams are spending money on players - half of them huge money.  Punting a player a season is what we should be looking to do for good money, investing it back in the team, getting better younger players - eg a Brophy or Erwin who wasn't brilliant at Leeds.

Would we even have Brophy or Erwin without the Coulibaly money?

But you're right about the wages, we don't want another Cocard situation as McLean was saying.

I'd doubt you get that under SC though, is no need for a box office signing to put bums on seats with SC at the helm.  Who needs Hollywood when you've got the Saltcoats Mafia?! 

A small incremental improvement on this team (2-3 players) would be enough to have our best season in 50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jimmy Superscot said:

Plus anyone whose hero is Tommy McLean gets cut a bit of slack by me...

Anyone who’s old enough to have Tommy McLean (the Killie footballer, not when he played for anyone else or was a greeting faced wee pr!ck manager) as a hero gets cut more slack by me. 

Edited by Ycfc1922
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite sure BB indicated at the AGM in December that our wage bill is linked to our turnover, and suggested that the bigger the turnover the bigger the wage bill our manager will have to use?

Therefore if our income does increase through increased gate money, increased season ticket sales, increased prize money, increased sponsorship money then it is perfectly feasible our wage bill could rise by a reasonable sum for next season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mclean07 said:

What a shame that any debate has to end with crude and personal comments. I'm sorry, but for years I heard a " broken record " being spun constantly that MJ was the main barrier to any new investment. (Have I imagined that, everyone)? When he is in a position to sell next year, then I would expect those people desparate to invest to step forward. The lack of comment on new investment from the usual suspects makes me think they would rather the thousands of posts regarding this were quietly forgotten. If you dispute that this was the general line of attack at the time, I am at a loss.

For the purpose of debate I will challenge your statement here. Most of the people who were going to 'invest' in the club once MJ was gone actually have. In terms of those who were staying away just because of him and not having just fallen by the wayside out of sheer frustration, I don't know anyone who has not come back and most of whom will buy a season ticket next season. I also know plenty of 'hold outs' who have taken up sponsorship again when they stopped previously due to MJ's involvement. You may wish to forget about the 'smaller' investors but they make up the majority in terms of numbers and I would say they are investing again.

Let's assume you are referring to 'large' investors, which for the most part was QTS, who threatened to leave, didn't, waited until now and announced their impending exit on a timescale. We had Marie Macklin at one stage tried to buy out MJ and failed, that was a longer time ago than you think and she was never involved in the more recent talks about buy-outs - and if she's said she'd come back in when he was gone I've missed it. The only 'group' I can think that you are talking about was the so-called ABG which included Chris McMail of Microtech, Alan McLeish of QTS and the guy from down south that made a killing from selling his online bookie business, sorry I can't remember his name. They wanted to wrest control of the club from MJ, but I don't think they were at any stage desperate to throw their cash at the club, especially if MJ was profiting more than the actual club was.

Through mutual friends I have been in contact with two of them and its a case of you can only buy what is on sale. Neither have been approached by the club since MJ's abdication about making any sort of investment. You'd think we are still loving a bit of the old "they know where we are" but in fact it is probably because the club do not currently want any new investment. Incredulous as that may seem, the nice guys in charge want to stay in complete control (there are tax benefits for certain levels of shareholding) and do not want the current situation to change, at least until they find out where they are after MJ sells out. I don't know for sure but as I've said before there has no doubt a deal been struck already which includes a lot of swapping about of shares and the hotel, that's how they like to do things to keep other shareholders and the tax man out of the equation.

These people would have come in at the time if MJ had been more accessible but he stopped it at every turn. They said they'd be back if he left (what else would you expect them to say, really?) and as much as he's now not on the board he still has a winning hand in any kind of constitutional change at the club which he could use to stymie anything he wanted. He's gone but he's not, not in real terms for levels of investment that high. That the club don't actually want investment is also a huge factor here and completely negates what you are saying about these guys. Another reason they are stalling on the trust deal, they want money of course, as much as possible, but they don't want to give up their percentages. The only time we are going to see any further large investments is when Billy B has secured at least 75% and knows how much extra he can sell off. It's not a healthy situation for the club again, but at least its Bowie and not MJ and that is still some kind of progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately not many Scottish transfer deals to England result in significant transfer fees. They seem to reserve the monopoly money for each other and overseas deals. Cardiff were linked last week with the ‘Well keeper Carson and “are expected to bid around £100k in the summer”. Hardly an exciting number for them to rebuild with. A big fee for one of our players is aspirational at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mclean07 said:

What a shame that any debate has to end with crude and personal comments. I'm sorry, but for years I heard a " broken record " being spun constantly that MJ was the main barrier to any new investment. (Have I imagined that, everyone)? When he is in a position to sell next year, then I would expect those people desparate to invest to step forward. The lack of comment on new investment from the usual suspects makes me think they would rather the thousands of posts regarding this were quietly forgotten. If you dispute that this was the general line of attack at the time, I am at a loss. By the way, I've shown how a 25% increase in budget is easily affordable, but you choose to ignore it. I've not replied for a few hours as I've been out pursuing line of my many interests. Please stop making personal comments about someone you know very little about and concentrate on the debate. 

Haha, you make plenty of personal comments. You've said a hell of a lot worse to me and I couldn't care less. I give it out so I can take it. Seems you, somebody who spends 99% of their posts looking for arguments can't handle that.

Pot and kettle springs to mind.

What was personal about that post? The fury bit? It's a figure of speech, a laugh.

I'm guessing it's hit a nerve though.

PS - rb_506 beat me to it with the reply.

Edited by Squirrelhumper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Haha, you make plenty of personal comments. You've said a hell of a lot worse to me and I couldn't care less.

Pot and kettle springs to mind.

What was personal about that post? The wanking bit? It's a figure of speech, a laugh.

I'm guessing it's hit a nerve though.

PS - rb_506 beat me to it with the reply.

I must be getting something right, because my post has overwhelming approval as opposed to disapproval.

As for rb_506, it really does tickle me that after years of claiming MJ was the barrier to investment, there are now wonderful, rational reasons why it won't happen after all. We were all mobilised to get rid of him as we were told he had foiled all sorts of bids with his cunning tricks and now suddenly they're no longer there, and that's ok. I can't believe how history is being rewritten. For most of the time this was THE main reason to have him gone and you and I privately corresponded on the issue behind the scenes. ( a bit like Trump and Kim Jong-un ;) ). Surely you can acknowledge the barrier to investment argument? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, rb_506 said:

For the purpose of debate I will challenge your statement here. Most of the people who were going to 'invest' in the club once MJ was gone actually have. In terms of those who were staying away just because of him and not having just fallen by the wayside out of sheer frustration, I don't know anyone who has not come back and most of whom will buy a season ticket next season. I also know plenty of 'hold outs' who have taken up sponsorship again when they stopped previously due to MJ's involvement. You may wish to forget about the 'smaller' investors but they make up the majority in terms of numbers and I would say they are investing again.

Let's assume you are referring to 'large' investors, which for the most part was QTS, who threatened to leave, didn't, waited until now and announced their impending exit on a timescale. We had Marie Macklin at one stage tried to buy out MJ and failed, that was a longer time ago than you think and she was never involved in the more recent talks about buy-outs - and if she's said she'd come back in when he was gone I've missed it. The only 'group' I can think that you are talking about was the so-called ABG which included Chris McMail of Microtech, Alan McLeish of QTS and the guy from down south that made a killing from selling his online bookie business, sorry I can't remember his name. They wanted to wrest control of the club from MJ, but I don't think they were at any stage desperate to throw their cash at the club, especially if MJ was profiting more than the actual club was.

Through mutual friends I have been in contact with two of them and its a case of you can only buy what is on sale. Neither have been approached by the club since MJ's abdication about making any sort of investment. You'd think we are still loving a bit of the old "they know where we are" but in fact it is probably because the club do not currently want any new investment. Incredulous as that may seem, the nice guys in charge want to stay in complete control (there are tax benefits for certain levels of shareholding) and do not want the current situation to change, at least until they find out where they are after MJ sells out. I don't know for sure but as I've said before there has no doubt a deal been struck already which includes a lot of swapping about of shares and the hotel, that's how they like to do things to keep other shareholders and the tax man out of the equation.

These people would have come in at the time if MJ had been more accessible but he stopped it at every turn. They said they'd be back if he left (what else would you expect them to say, really?) and as much as he's now not on the board he still has a winning hand in any kind of constitutional change at the club which he could use to stymie anything he wanted. He's gone but he's not, not in real terms for levels of investment that high. That the club don't actually want investment is also a huge factor here and completely negates what you are saying about these guys. Another reason they are stalling on the trust deal, they want money of course, as much as possible, but they don't want to give up their percentages. The only time we are going to see any further large investments is when Billy B has secured at least 75% and knows how much extra he can sell off. It's not a healthy situation for the club again, but at least its Bowie and not MJ and that is still some kind of progress.

I did refer to investment next year, when MJ s in a position to sell.

Two staggering statements there. 

1) The club don't want investment.

2) They are stalling on the Trust deal.

My goodness, can you imagine the uproar if this was MJ?

If they are stalling on the Trust deal, I may have to consider my contribution to TiK. I suspected they were. 

What do other posters think if these serious allegations? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Mclean07 said:

I did refer to investment next year, when MJ s in a position to sell.

Two staggering statements there. 

1) The club don't want investment.

2) They are stalling on the Trust deal.

My goodness, can you imagine the uproar if this was MJ?

If they are stalling on the Trust deal, I may have to consider my contribution to TiK. I suspected they were. 

What do other posters think if these serious allegations? 

Re number 1) at boardroom level the sitting directors of a successful company ( or a football club having a good season) are loathe to let others have a share of their success . The flip side of that is probably when they’d welcome extra investment and dilution of their shares . 

Re number 2) I think that is the case see above 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RAG said:

I'd see that as a good thing.  Getting cash bids for players from England is where the money is at.  Tishbola is a 5 million pound player.  English transfer fees, once a season, would trump any cash investors and each season 96 English teams are spending money on players - half of them huge money.  Punting a player a season is what we should be looking to do for good money, investing it back in the team, getting better younger players - eg a Brophy or Erwin who wasn't brilliant at Leeds.

Would we even have Brophy or Erwin without the Coulibaly money?

But you're right about the wages, we don't want another Cocard situation as McLean was saying.

I'd doubt you get that under SC though, is no need for a box office signing to put bums on seats with SC at the helm.  Who needs Hollywood when you've got the Saltcoats Mafia?! 

A small incremental improvement on this team (2-3 players) would be enough to have our best season in 50 years.

I'm not saying selling is a negative, lucky was probably a bad term to use. Fully agree with you in a business sense. I just meant lucky in terms of on-field continuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Pelesboots said:

I am quite sure BB indicated at the AGM in December that our wage bill is linked to our turnover, and suggested that the bigger the turnover the bigger the wage bill our manager will have to use?

Therefore if our income does increase through increased gate money, increased season ticket sales, increased prize money, increased sponsorship money then it is perfectly feasible our wage bill could rise by a reasonable sum for next season. 

This is probably the nail on the head. Bowie is an experienced businessman. He probably knows a healthy percentage of turnover to wage and will probably just apply whatever that percentage is or thereabouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...