: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:31 pm  

Forever FC wrote:

Would it not be possibly be the case that the club feel that by doing this they are safeguarding a key worker. When people get these posts its gives them more of an emotional attachment which would make it a little harder for another club to come and poach a director.

Im guessing the psychological contract is pretty strong driven by an increased package!

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:34 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

Im guessing the psychological contract is pretty strong driven by an increased package!

Need to get more sleep, read that as...


Im guessing the physical contact is pretty strong driven by an increased package!

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:42 pm  

Stan Butler wrote:

Need to get more sleep, read that as...


Im guessing the physical contact is pretty strong driven by an increased package!

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:15 pm  

Standee wrote:

You really don't understand t.i.c comments do you?

Nice backtrack ! You just got owned, be a man and admit it!

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:41 pm  

Don't mean to be picky but you pay dividends to shareholders not directors.
As pointed out by Mrs B the club couldn't pay a dividend anyway.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:37 pm  

Standee wrote:

It's that time of year when people get promoted into positions where they can avoid tax by getting dividends

I doubt he has any equity in the business

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:41 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Our P&L reserves are negative by £1.5m, so on current run rate we'd be allowed to pay a dividend in 2025.

In terms of "what other reason can I think of?", FC only have 2 directors running the day to day business. I'd suggest that the community arm of the club, if you include building strategic partnerships such as the NHS training facility, working with external funding bodies on the community programmes and working to expand other sources of investment for the club could be managed more effectively by Rule giving accountability to a senior director. For me, Rule has too many areas of direct, rather than indirect, accountability. I'd guess that the appointment has been made therefore to a) recognise and reward the work that John has already done, particularly on the NHS partnership, and b) to ensure that appropriate senior management resource is invested in what will be a key area of the business over the next few years. But if it suits you to make something up about dividends just to ensure you start the day with criticism of the club, go for your life.

And your point is??

Mine is 'Why make him a director' can't he work in this position as just an employee??

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:48 pm  

Ian.FCF wrote:

And your point is??

Mine is 'Why make him a director' can't he work in this position as just an employee??

Don't knock the sycophants Ian, we know nothing, we've only been fans for 30 years!

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:50 pm  

Another non shareholding director. Another puppet

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:50 pm  

Ian.FCF wrote:

And your point is??

Mine is 'Why make him a director' can't he work in this position as just an employee??

Directors are employees. Some also own shares, some don't. My point is that the guy seems to have done well and earned a promotion and the foundation/community side of the club, including the new training facilities is now an area big enough to warrant a director in the opinion of the board. Why do we automatically assume they are wrong when we don't know how much work and senior management time is needed to make them a success?