deaceydeaceyaggro Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 And what concrete facts do you have that prove he went for McGeady and offered him 65k a week? None as usual I suspect. Spot on. The only facts we do know is that under O'Neill we were a club going places, and without him we've become a club going nowhere, fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 Drummer, it was widely reported at the time, MON had effectively done the deal then the rug was pulled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaceydeaceyaggro Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Drummer, it was widely reported at the time, MON had effectively done the deal then the rug was pulled It was a rumour, no more. And anyway, who's to say he wouldn't have been a success? Under O'Neill we were a top six club. And that IS a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 We were moving sideways under MON & the finances were out of control, FACT also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Being a bit more positive could it be randy has said Get to the summer and beye is gone and a few others will be gone. Then you can have some money to spend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Being a bit more positive could it be randy has said Get to the summer and beye is gone and a few others will be gone. Then you can have some money to spend So were reducing wages..............so we can increase them again ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Being a bit more positive could it be randy has said Get to the summer and beye is gone and a few others will be gone. Then you can have some money to spend So were reducing wages..............so we can increase them again ? It depends. If wages are at a sustainable level as they are today and I believe they're not far off, then seeing the back of Beye and Heskey will leave us with over £100k a week to play with no? That could be three usable players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Being a bit more positive could it be randy has said Get to the summer and beye is gone and a few others will be gone. Then you can have some money to spend So were reducing wages..............so we can increase them again ? It depends. If wages are at a sustainable level as they are today and I believe they're not far off, then seeing the back of Beye and Heskey will leave us with over £100k a week to play with no? That could be three usable players. Forget the personalities for a moment. If we reduce the wage bill £100k a week as you suggest ...but you are then saying we have £100k to play with...........That doesn't reduce the wage bill at all .........[Which is the stated objective?] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villarocker Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Maybe he doesn't mind paying the wages if they are actually playing? Either way, we then have to hope that Mcboring buys decent players, which is something I am not certain of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 We've got some old players, average players and deadwood on ridiculous wages. As much as Dunne, Collins and Warnock are decent players, I suspect they are on high wages. Ireland is on mega bucks, as is Heskey (apparently). Beye is being paid good money to play for Doncaster. We're paying Jenas a lot of money to recover from injury, Robbie Kean will cost a lot for a couple of months pay. There must be more I'm forgetting. Anyway, from my extensive years playing football manager, it seems that our youth and younger players are likely not being paid as much as the players we've bought and they are pretty useful as squad players. That's the way to go really, fill the squad out with homegrown and only buy your better players. That's why the signing of Hutton angers me. He's shite and he'll cost us a lot of money and he's no better than Cuellar or Herd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO Hmm...last time I checked the details of the tribunal were confidential so you don't and I don't know how it was settled. By that I mean MON might have got 12 months salary he may have got very little. As a veteran of many employment tribunals I can categorically say that nothing is as simple as it seems in these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO Hmm...last time I checked the details of the tribunal were confidential so you don't and I don't know how it was settled. By that I mean MON might have got 12 months salary he may have got very little. As a veteran of many employment tribunals I can categorically say that nothing is as simple as it seems in these situations. But the fact he resigned and he got compensation indicates something surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Maybe he doesn't mind paying the wages if they are actually playing? Either way, we then have to hope that Mcboring buys decent players, which is something I am not certain of! In that case the objective is to get better value for the wages you pay. Where as the stated aim of the club is the reduce wages. So for example we dispense with Heskey for £65k a week - and replaced him with (for example) Stephen Fletcher for £65k a week - we would be no closer to the boards objective of reducing wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO He successfully argued 'constructive dismissal' therefore the agreed terms in which he operated were changed forcing him out - clearly that was an expensive change , but any more expensive than keeping him? Probably as we can see how far we have dropped since when he would have wanted to 'push on' We don't know how MON argued the constructive dismissal case, but it seems quite likely it was either due to a change in employment conditions (maybe the removal of some of his control such as players contract negotiations), or if Faulkner and MON had history, then it's also possible he argued that in promoting Faulkner to CEO Randy had made it impossible for him to continue. It doesn't necessarily make Faulkner responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_avfc Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Was Randy at the Everton game to shake hands with David Moyes again ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Was Randy at the Everton game to shake hands with David Moyes again ? Randy who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummybloke Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO He successfully argued 'constructive dismissal' therefore the agreed terms in which he operated were changed forcing him out - clearly that was an expensive change , but any more expensive than keeping him? Probably as we can see how far we have dropped since when he would have wanted to 'push on' We don't know how MON argued the constructive dismissal case, but it seems quite likely it was either due to a change in employment conditions (maybe the removal of some of his control such as players contract negotiations), or if Faulkner and MON had history, then it's also possible he argued that in promoting Faulkner to CEO Randy had made it impossible for him to continue. It doesn't necessarily make Faulkner responsible. what is faulkners job and can you tell me what he is responsible for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 Wonder if lerner will wait for Sland to make his next appearance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO He successfully argued 'constructive dismissal' therefore the agreed terms in which he operated were changed forcing him out - clearly that was an expensive change , but any more expensive than keeping him? Probably as we can see how far we have dropped since when he would have wanted to 'push on' We don't know how MON argued the constructive dismissal case, but it seems quite likely it was either due to a change in employment conditions (maybe the removal of some of his control such as players contract negotiations), or if Faulkner and MON had history, then it's also possible he argued that in promoting Faulkner to CEO Randy had made it impossible for him to continue. It doesn't necessarily make Faulkner responsible. what is faulkners job and can you tell me what he is responsible for? Faulkner as CEO is charged with delivering on the KPI's set by th shareholders (Randy). My point has been that as those KPI's aren't published, none of us know what his responsibilities are, and he.nce we can't judge his performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts