• Tottenham Hotspur Message Board

  • Henry Beard! Henry Beard! Jan 24, 2012 18:05 Flag

    If you were fans of Pompey....

    I wonder how you would feel about 'arry taking bungs off the boss for selling your teams players?

    Surely that aint right?

    How would you feel if a year down the road you found out that 'arry recieved a large fee for selling say, Bale to United???

    Can you honestly say that the sale of your clubs players are in the best interest of the club when those running said club are dishing out the wonga between each other every time it happens???

    Tutt Tutt 'arry.

    Tutt tutt indeed!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • PS you said:
      '.....What makes this particular case different IMO is the obvious conflict of interest (the Manager wanting to sell a player based on making a fat bonus!) and the complete disregard for the loyal fan who has no idea his teams manager has such a clause and that he might be seeing his teams best player being sold to a hated rival and he cannot understand why!!....'

      But 'arry should only have been recommending the ins/outs. If 'arry was dictating to the board, or ignoring the board and effectively running all the ins and outs and spending whatever money he liked, then ok.

      Another analogy, if my board says I can have 10% of any sales I make, and I then sell the best stock at a loss and I claim my bonus, whose fault is that? The stupidity of the board not putting in constraints? I've done what they asked in the contract, I've sold. If at the same time the board sanction the purchase of raw materials that they can't pay for without my sales going ahead - ie they create a situation that's impossible to manage - again whose fault is that? Mine? They needed me to make the sales - they needed the cash to keep the business going short term - they ignored the long term problems stacking up.

      Don't you enjoy a good discussion? ;-)

    • Sfer,
      I don't know what 'arry's contract said or who suggested what. Normally when I've been for a job, the terms were largely dictated by the employer, not by me. I just signed the contract.
      I don't know if the contract said that 'arry was due a cut of profits or a cut of the sales figures of each player. If the latter, then surely, if the board agreed to it, then they are culpable? I bet 'arry never thought he'd be buying and selling players at Pompey worth millions anyway.
      I can't see that a Hitler analogy (although I like the use of analogies to get across points) works here. 'arry surely didn't dictate the spending, so wouldn't have know if the board were going to spend 10p or £100m in the transfer market. Obviously he would have been privy to the boards plans and aspirations, but 'arry doesn't appear to be lacking 'common sense', so I guess he largely took Pompey's aspirations with a pinch of salt (given the majority of other club takeovers that have occurred over the past 20-30 years and then the lack of funds put into the clubs). For the Hitler analogy to work (IMHO) 'arry would have had to be part of the board rather than the manager. IE one of the team making the policies and pushing the club in the direction of those policies rather than someone who just followed the policies laid down.
      In any war situation, you then have a major issue apportioning blame. Sure, some of the soldiers were nasty vicious bastards who enjoyed torturing and killing, some were there because they believed in the ideology. But most were just there because they were told to be there - and that is true on both sides of any conflict. A fascist dictatorship needs a core to run it fine, but once the fear factor has been engendered, it gathers momentum with only a few having to believe in its core concepts. War works on fear. On both sides, I bet soldiers were coerced into fighting and loads have been shot for refusing to fight (or being incapable as in the shell shocked of WWI). So unless you're saying 'arry forced the players out under duress or threats on their life.

      I will concede that 'arry had the final say, and could have declined the bonus offered. Fine. But again I say, if your boss says he'll give you a 10% bonus for every candidate you place, would you turn it down? I don't think many people look at the financial situation of their own company before accepting/rejecting a bonus. They simply look at their bank balance.

    • But that is my point John. All parties are to blame. The Manager for asking for such a clause (assuming the Board did not suggest it!!) and the Board for agreeing to it.

      You are saying that its not Arry's fault because the Board OK'd it. Well, technically yes you are right but in so many other ways you are wrong. Arry is wrong, Mandaric is wrong and the other idiot Board members were wrong.

      Based on your thinking Hitler was wrong but none of his generals were because they had employment contracts that laid out what they had to do. Once you have a collection of people that are all scratching each others backs (and that is what is happening here and in a lot of PLC boardrooms) you have the opportunity for wrong doing. And when you are talking about such large sums of money the temptation is sometimes just too much.

      I know very well what the legal ramifications of being a Director are - however, I have seen many many times Ltd Co's go to the wall owing loads in debt and the Directors walk away unscathed only to see them pop up shortly afterwards in another company making the same financial mistakes. The legal ramifications you talk of are usually ignored unfortunately. We have all seen it.

      What makes this particular case different IMO is the obvious conflict of interest (the Manager wanting to sell a player based on making a fat bonus!) and the complete disregard for the loyal fan who has no idea his teams manager has such a clause and that he might be seeing his teams best player being sold to a hated rival and he cannot understand why!!

      You can keep repeating "it was agreed by the Board and it was in writing and therefore has to be paid" as much as you like but that does not make it right.

      No sorry John. I can't see anyway this can be justified and therefore I can't see a way of us agreeing on this one.

    • Sfer,
      I agree that it's wrong - the bit I dispute is who is to blame. Do you blame the person receiving the 'bonus' or the person giving it? To me, the bonus should never have been given. The same as the banking bonuses.I'm beginning to think that any bonuses paid to people earning over say £100,000 are wrong anyway, as surely the salary offered is sufficient anyway. BUT, if a bonus is offered in a contract, then that contract should be honoured. I may not like the bonus being paid, but my objection is with the idiots who offered it in the first place, not the person who accepted it.
      David Moyes doesn't spend as Everton haven't got the money - exactly my point - nor did Pompey. They created a massive debt that they couldn't service. OK for clubs like Utd, the Scousers where the banks/HMRC would be loathe to foreclose, but for Pompey that was a recipe for disaster. The board cannot be excused. I repeat again, when you're a director you have an actual legal responsibility to ensure the correct running of a company. The board and the owners, not the players or the manager, should be in control of the finances. That includes all bonuses.
      The manager, like any manager in any other business, should be controlled financially. Not the other way round. The manager should not control how the club is run financially.

    • It seems to me, that in this particular Pompey case, Mandaric "WAS" the Board and he and Arry came to this agreement based on one player ie Crouch, which was based on a silly bet about whether of or not he was any good and how much he might be worth in the future.

      I don't dissagree with you as far as what has been agreed in contracts should be honoured BUT what I am saying is some of these clauses (and the one where a manager gets a slice of selling one of the best players is one of them) are absolutely disgusting and just because the Board have agreed to it because the Manager has asked for it does not make it right no matter what anybody says.

      The fact is that greed has taken its hold on just about everybody and that desease has spread through the boardrooms like wildfire. You sanction my disgustingly huge and unwarranted bonus and I will sanction yours!! By the time anybody notices (thats assuming they do!) we will be living high on the hog and we can live with any criticism that might come our way.

      I am surprised that you have taken this laize faire attitude to such a volatile subject John as I know you like to see fairness brought about. Just because it is written in some small print by some sleazy conman somewhere does not make it right. OK so this example of Arry/Manadaric/Crouch might be a little different due to the jokey nature of what a lanky plank like Crouch might be worth but if Arry asked seriously for this type of bonus clause to be in his contract then I for one have lost a lot of respect for the guy.

      To keep repeating "its the Boards fault" is IMHO a little naive. Yes of course ultimately it is the fault of all those silly blokes (elected to the Board by other self interested individuals) and because it was a "collective" decision no one Board member can be blamed. Nice eh!!

      "Why is that clause in 'arry's contract 'arry's problem? Surely the board agreed to pay it?"

      I will tell you why - because it is just downright greedy, obviously presents a conflict of interest, not what the fans would have agreed to if they had known about it and should not have been asked for (By Arry or any other decent manager) or sanctioned by any Board.

      Of course you don't see Moyes going out and spending £20 Million. 1) because he is not allowed to 2) because Everton don't have that kind of money AND 3) because he has no financial incentive to buy and sell players because the Everton Board is too bloody sensible to allow that sort of clause in a contract and, if I am any sort of judge of character, Moyes would not ask for such a clause.

    • Not read all the other comments on this, but thought you might be interested in Ollie's thoughts on the matter: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/ian-holloway-they-call-it-performancerelated-pay-at-other-places-why-not-in-football-6296279.html

      In short, it's common practice.

    • sooner than I thought!

      heres Fab being all mature and talking football on the Manc board.

      http://uk.messages.eurosport.yahoo.com/Football/Teams/threadview?m=te&bn=UKS-FO-manchester-united&tid=294614&mid=294614&tof=10&frt=1#294614

      YAWN some leopards simply cannot change their spots eh pixie?

      PMSL alright

    • Yaaaaaaaaawn.

      United lose did they?

    • Just in case you yiddos havent worked it out yet Beardy is none other than Fabongrass. Everyones favourite twerp.

      He had to change his ID due to persisitant racism on the goon and Utd boards. He'll reveal his true colours soon though. He always does!

      much love

    • Just in case you yiddos havent worked it out yet Beardy is none other than Fabongrass. Everyones favourite twerp.

      He had to change his ID due to persisitant racism on the goon and Utd boards. He'll reveal his true colours soon though. He always does!

      much love

    • View More Messages