[cite]Posted By: redman[/cite]Sad for those involved as I'm sure they are all very committed and work very hard. However let's get some balance here. If it means we can keep a stronger playing squad than we otherwise could then that must be what we really want.
Also the comment from Ketman about the Board is misinformed - none of them get paid and in effect many of them effectively pay huge sums for the privelige of keeping us solvent
Disagree.
The plc board get paid as well, I'm pretty sure of that.
I didn't take anything out of context Len, I just think you didn't understand my point entirely, which was this:
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]
Now I am in no position to know, firstly, how many people Charlton Athletic employs or, secondly, how much those people earn but the salaries I've quoted are probably not unrealistic for non-football staff so it is not unreasonable to think that 20-30 peoples jobs should have been saved thanks to the departure of Waggott and Moutouakil.
How can you know that it didn't save 20-30 jobs (we'll go with your figures, for ease) and that the jobs being discussed now are above and beyond what has been saved by Waggot and Moo2's leaving. It's jumping to conclusions.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]I didn't take anything out of context Len, I just think you didn't understand my point entirely, which was this:
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]
Now I am in no position to know, firstly, how many people Charlton Athletic employs or, secondly, how much those people earn but the salaries I've quoted are probably not unrealistic for non-football staff so it is not unreasonable to think that 20-30 peoples jobs should have been saved thanks to the departure of Waggott and Moutouakil.
How can you know that it didn't save 20-30 jobs (we'll go with your figures, for ease) and that the jobs being discussed now are above and beyond what has been saved by Waggot and Moo2's leaving. It's jumping to conclusions.
How many non-football staff can there be given that 14 were made redundant last year?
I reiterate the ongoing losses and underlying financial position must be extremely serious if the sums saved cannot protect the non-footballing jobs.
I don't think I'm "jumping to conclusions" at all just interpreting events with the assistance of a few back of an envelope calculations!
Perhaps you have not fully appreciated my point which is that the Club's financial problems must be extremely serious indeed if jobs are still in jeopardy after the savings made.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Perhaps you have not fully appreciated my point which is that the Club's financial problems must be extremely serious indeed if jobs are still in jeopardy after the savings made.
I don't disagree with that at all, I just don't feel the assumption that no jobs have been saved as a result of waggot and moo2 leaving is probably a little unfair.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Perhaps you have not fully appreciated my point which is that the Club's financial problems must be extremely serious indeed if jobs are still in jeopardy after the savings made.
I don't disagree with that at all, I just don't feel the assumption that no jobs have been saved as a result of waggot and moo2 leaving is probably a little unfair.
Fair enough.
Maybe someone "in the know" will cast a bit of light on all this in due course.
WSS - Why are you sure the plc board get paid? I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Richard Murray took a salary for one year in the Prem only. Waggot (and Varney when he was around) was obviosly paid but the others don't
[cite]Posted By: redman[/cite]WSS - Why are you sure the plc board get paid? I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Richard Murray took a salary for one year in the Prem only. Waggot (and Varney when he was around) was obviosly paid but the others don't
I'm aware that many of the non-executives on the board don't take home a wage - indeed a lot of the work and contributions they provide is during their own time and without any (financial) reward or thanks a lot of the time.
That being said, there will be some people who sit on the board that do earn a living and I personally don't know whether they are "worth" it or not.
Regardless, wee are going off on a tangent and I completely sympathise with all those who are facing the potential hardship in the forseeable future - a lot of it not down to themselves.
feel sorry for all my old colleagues going through it all again. not sure who's at risk but wishing them all the luck in the world. personally am surprised the process didnt start earlier in the year. also, dont really understand what saving will be made from the majority of the existing salaries that are there. the big changes should have been done last season imo then perhaps it would have made a difference to those staff this year. must be dreadful at the moment if the same people who fought for their jobs last year have to do it again.
I think you would struggle to take 20-30 additional jobs out of the club, unless we scrap the programme, website, ask for volunteers to come in and cut the grass, and move to honesty boxes instead of tickets.
It's unlikely that contracted high earners leaving now have gone without compensation, so any saving is likely to be less substantial in year one than is being assumed. The directors aren't being paid as far as I know.
The redundancies probably wouldn't have been necessary if we had gone up, so the process couldn't really have started until May 18th.
im wondering how the so-called wage cap will affect clubs when it comes in in 2012 or whenever. is it all divisions or just premier? i would love to see players paid a low basic, plus a bonus only for promotion, based on a sliding scale on games played. i work for the nhs and am now looking at a two year cap. i consider myself lucky to have a job and im actually in agreement if it gets the country out of the poo pile its in financially. wouldnt it be refreshing to see players adopt a similar approach and accept what clubs could 'afford' rather than a completely unrealistic wage. didn't blackpool have such a scheme and have a wage structure with a take it or leave it attitude? if so it didn't affect their players desire to win did it?
"Sad for those involved as I'm sure they are all very committed and work very hard. However let's get some balance here. If it means we can keep a stronger playing squad than we otherwise could then that must be what we really want. Also the comment from Ketman about the Board is misinformed - none of them get paid and in effect many of them effectively pay huge sums for the privelige of keeping us solvent"
Totally disagree. How often do we say its more than a club and we approve of people who are "proper Charlton". The staff are, they are the ones who care, they are the ones who graft and they do it all for low wages.
Cut one or two non-first team players who really couldn't care less what coloured shirt they pull on and keep five or six back-room staff who do care.
I would rather support a league two side that cares about the community again that one who is all form profit and prizes and not for the people.
[cite]Posted By: Harveys Trainer[/cite]"Also the comment from Ketman about the Board is misinformed - none of them get paid and in effect many of them effectively pay huge sums for the privelige of keeping us solvent"
I have never said that they get paid, you are the second poster to say that, is someone re-writing my posts or are people not reading them?
[cite]Posted By: Harveys Trainer[/cite]"Also the comment from Ketman about the Board is misinformed - none of them get paid and in effect many of them effectively pay huge sums for the privelige of keeping us solvent"
I have never said that they get paid, you are the second poster to say that, is someone re-writing my posts or are people not reading them?
I'd guess at people perhaps implying it from your comment about being unable to make some of the Board redundant.
As you say nowhere have you expressly said it though.
[cite]Posted By: Harveys Trainer[/cite]"Also the comment from Ketman about the Board is misinformed - none of them get paid and in effect many of them effectively pay huge sums for the privelige of keeping us solvent"
I have never said that they get paid, you are the second poster to say that, is someone re-writing my posts or are people not reading them?
I couldn't quote you from across the page so I simply copied and pasted. If you read my post you will see that all my comments refer to the first part of your post. I do not mention the Directors pay thing only staff issues.
[cite]Posted By: Harveys Trainer[/cite]I wonder if they will reveal the names this year like last year so people can get a more personal thanks?
My guess is that the press people have asked those going if they would prefer to be named or not and this is the result.
No. Just not been done that way this time. It's a no-win situation. Last year staff requested names were published, but not all those affected were asked.
It's not correct that all the retail staff have gone or that the shop is being closed during the week, etc.
Also please bear in mind that not all changes will result from redundancies.
Comments
The plc board get paid as well, I'm pretty sure of that.
How can you know that it didn't save 20-30 jobs (we'll go with your figures, for ease) and that the jobs being discussed now are above and beyond what has been saved by Waggot and Moo2's leaving. It's jumping to conclusions.
How many non-football staff can there be given that 14 were made redundant last year?
I reiterate the ongoing losses and underlying financial position must be extremely serious if the sums saved cannot protect the non-footballing jobs.
I don't think I'm "jumping to conclusions" at all just interpreting events with the assistance of a few back of an envelope calculations!
Perhaps you have not fully appreciated my point which is that the Club's financial problems must be extremely serious indeed if jobs are still in jeopardy after the savings made.
I don't disagree with that at all, I just don't feel the assumption that no jobs have been saved as a result of waggot and moo2 leaving is probably a little unfair.
Fair enough.
Maybe someone "in the know" will cast a bit of light on all this in due course.
That being said, there will be some people who sit on the board that do earn a living and I personally don't know whether they are "worth" it or not.
Regardless, wee are going off on a tangent and I completely sympathise with all those who are facing the potential hardship in the forseeable future - a lot of it not down to themselves.
personally am surprised the process didnt start earlier in the year. also, dont really understand what saving will be made from the majority of the existing salaries that are there. the big changes should have been done last season imo then perhaps it would have made a difference to those staff this year. must be dreadful at the moment if the same people who fought for their jobs last year have to do it again.
It's unlikely that contracted high earners leaving now have gone without compensation, so any saving is likely to be less substantial in year one than is being assumed. The directors aren't being paid as far as I know.
The redundancies probably wouldn't have been necessary if we had gone up, so the process couldn't really have started until May 18th.
Shop closing or only open on matchdays and online?
Also the comment from Ketman about the Board is misinformed - none of them get paid and in effect many of them effectively pay huge sums for the privelige of keeping us solvent"
Totally disagree. How often do we say its more than a club and we approve of people who are "proper Charlton". The staff are, they are the ones who care, they are the ones who graft and they do it all for low wages.
Cut one or two non-first team players who really couldn't care less what coloured shirt they pull on and keep five or six back-room staff who do care.
I would rather support a league two side that cares about the community again that one who is all form profit and prizes and not for the people.
I have never said that they get paid, you are the second poster to say that, is someone re-writing my posts or are people not reading them?
I'd guess at people perhaps implying it from your comment about being unable to make some of the Board redundant.
As you say nowhere have you expressly said it though.
I couldn't quote you from across the page so I simply copied and pasted. If you read my post you will see that all my comments refer to the first part of your post. I do not mention the Directors pay thing only staff issues.
If that makes sense?
Redundancies confirmed but four people saved which is a small mercy.
Good luck to all those leaving and to those left behind to carry on.
Let's hope this is the last of the bad news for a while.
My guess is that the press people have asked those going if they would prefer to be named or not and this is the result.
True.
Nothing in the article.....
Hopefully nothing has been 'closed' ......
Regards to all concerned,
No. Just not been done that way this time. It's a no-win situation. Last year staff requested names were published, but not all those affected were asked.
It's not correct that all the retail staff have gone or that the shop is being closed during the week, etc.
Also please bear in mind that not all changes will result from redundancies.