Jump to content

High cost of changing manager


ramblur

Recommended Posts

Whilst having a very quick scroll through the accounts of the group's parent company,Sevco 5112 Ltd (actually looking for something else),I couldn't help but notice that we incurred costs of £2.283m in respect of management changes,which I presume must be PC&co.The 15/16 year end of these accounts was 31 August 2016.

I won't be posting anything else on these accounts,as I promised myself some months ago that I'd stick purely to the DCFC accounts,so I won't be going back in for another look.Apart from anything else,I've no particular interest in anything other than DCFC anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I forgot to mention that the next year end of Sevco has been adjusted to 30 June 2017,thus coming into line with the rest of the group.As there'll be no overlap,there's even less reason for me to look at them next year,tbtg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mega thanks to @ramblur for posting on this. Fascinating to see the actual cost of these things (hoping it's the whole thing not just a portion of the costs - eek!). Very expensive to switch. I never forgave Steve Mc for saying to Doughty he wasn't going to take the payoff when he left the Gumps, as it would have really screwed them at the time.

Let's hope we stick with Rowett for a few successful years and don't have to pay anyone else off in the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RamNut said:

How could any payments to managers be relocated from dcfc accounts?

Sevco 5112 is both parent company and consolidator of the accounts of the whole group,in other words it brings together its own results and the rest of the companies within the group,including DCFC. As DCFC is the trader,its own results will feature heavily in the consolidated accounts.

I didn't notice this note in the 15/16 DCFC accounts,so my conclusion is that either (a) It was omitted as an oversight,or (b) The costs were incurred between 1 July 16 and 31 August 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Sevco 5112 is both parent company and consolidator of the accounts of the whole group,in other words it brings together its own results and the rest of the companies within the group,including DCFC. As DCFC is the trader,its own results will feature heavily in the consolidated accounts.

I didn't notice this note in the 15/16 DCFC accounts,so my conclusion is that either (a) It was omitted as an oversight,or (b) The costs were incurred between 1 July 16 and 31 August 16.

Doubt you could miss £2m as an oversight? Presumably it would have a bearing on FFP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gritters said:

I see it all the time people getting rewarded for failure. Disgusting if you ask me. If they don't meet their target they should go do not pass go or collect  £200.

If you're never given the opportunity to meet there target is a different thing though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gritters said:

I see it all the time people getting rewarded for failure. Disgusting if you ask me. If they don't meet their target they should go do not pass go or collect  £200.

Did Clement fail the club or the club fail Clement? A contract swings both ways and if you want to break it then penalties are perfectly fair, in my book. Why should we just be able to dump a manager doing a decent job and not pay for the privilege? The blame for that lies elsewhere I'm afraid, assuming we really need to play the blame game at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gritters said:

I see it all the time people getting rewarded for failure. Disgusting if you ask me. If they don't meet their target they should go do not pass go or collect  £200.

PC didn’t fail to hit his targets. We were 5 th in the league with every chance of promotion (he would argue) when he was dismissed prior to the end of the season. Therefore deserves all monies due when his contract was terminated. It’s not a case of rewarding failure in this instance, more a case of awarding an over generous contract to an untried manager. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Gritters said:

I see it all the time people getting rewarded for failure. Disgusting if you ask me. If they don't meet their target they should go do not pass go or collect  £200.

And it really annoys me when people - anyone, including football managers - are 'unfairly dismissed' and then employers who were previously perfectly happy to sign a contract which has terms and conditions in it, then try and wriggle out of it.  And well done Mel (if that is what this is) for not doing so and for paying off PC's contract.

If employers want to sack someone fairly and can make the case subsequently stick in court or tribunal then fair enough, but if they want rid of someone but don't have a legal case for doing so then they should pay up.  You can't have it both ways and employment law applies to football just as much as it does to every other sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Doubt you could miss £2m as an oversight? Presumably it would have a bearing on FFP.

 

No,it would purely be a note to the accounts that was missing (just as the Sevco revelation came in the form of a note). I've no doubt the £2m+ formed part of the increase of £7m in admin expenses I've been going on about -at least it means this portion of it was non recurring.

Strike out option (b) in my last post.Sevco would hardly consolidate an additional 2 months of DCFC. It's amazing what comes to you in the shower (or should I say 'me').

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the cost might be of getting rid of your CEO ?

It goes without saying, I hope the case can be proved and Mel is vindicated and it costs fu... nothing, but if it goes the other way, Samuel is going to want serious compensation for damage to his reputation as well as his contract paid up...never a dull moment at DCFC eh ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Its speculation.

we don't know whether this is anything to do with payments to PC?

You're right on that count.If I'd thought about it properly,it could be Mac&co,PC&co,or a combination of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, rammieib said:

If you're never given the opportunity to meet there target is a different thing though. 

We had turned into the most boring team in the league under Clement. I would have sacked him if I owned the club for two reasons.

1. We were so boring I didn't enjoy going to games anymore. 

2. For signing Butterfield for God knows how many million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Did Clement fail the club or the club fail Clement? A contract swings both ways and if you want to break it then penalties are perfectly fair, in my book. Why should we just be able to dump a manager doing a decent job and not pay for the privilege? The blame for that lies elsewhere I'm afraid, assuming we really need to play the blame game at all.

He failed to sign a decent player. 

He failed to entertain me.

He failed to bring any value to the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Doodle said:

PC didn’t fail to hit his targets. We were 5 th in the league with every chance of promotion (he would argue) when he was dismissed prior to the end of the season. Therefore deserves all monies due when his contract was terminated. It’s not a case of rewarding failure in this instance, more a case of awarding an over generous contract to an untried manager. 

We were top at Christmas and we were dropping like lead balloon when he went.

I think we ought to have paid Blackmans transfer fee out of his money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...