PDA

View Full Version : Petrie - performance related pay...



EasterRoad4Ever
09-07-2009, 08:00 PM
... read somewhere that the Hibs Board strip out a steady 400k a year out of the club no doubt justified by the that Rod makes wheelin and dealin in the transfer market.

Maybe time for the Board (and Petrie in particular) to fully align his pay/fees with the performance of the team on the pitch, and the interests of the Hibs fans. For example, is it reasonable to expect a club of Hibs size to make the top 6 of the SPL each year? I'd say, yes. Anything less is failure. So, as a starting point Petrie should receive absolutely NO salary or fees from the club if they fail to make the top 6. Progress in the cups and qualification for Europe, position in SPL all bring rewards and higher fees.

At least that way, we might have a little more faith that if Petrie chooses to sell off the main playing assets of the club and not reinvest a fraction back into the product on the pitch, then at least we'll have the satisfaction of knowing he'll be paying for it in his own pocket.

As things stand, there is little incentive for Petrie to reinvest in the playing staff and much easier for him to focus on building stands and cash-flows ie within his comfort zone.

Blurry Face
09-07-2009, 08:17 PM
mibbe's aye, if what you read was true.

new malkyhib
09-07-2009, 11:34 PM
... read somewhere that the Hibs Board strip out a steady 400k a year out of the club no doubt justified by the that Rod makes wheelin and dealin in the transfer market.

Maybe time for the Board (and Petrie in particular) to fully align his pay/fees with the performance of the team on the pitch, and the interests of the Hibs fans. For example, is it reasonable to expect a club of Hibs size to make the top 6 of the SPL each year? I'd say, yes. Anything less is failure. So, as a starting point Petrie should receive absolutely NO salary or fees from the club if they fail to make the top 6. Progress in the cups and qualification for Europe, position in SPL all bring rewards and higher fees.

At least that way, we might have a little more faith that if Petrie chooses to sell off the main playing assets of the club and not reinvest a fraction back into the product on the pitch, then at least we'll have the satisfaction of knowing he'll be paying for it in his own pocket.

As things stand, there is little incentive for Petrie to reinvest in the playing staff and much easier for him to focus on building stands and cash-flows ie within his comfort zone.

:top marksSteady...that kind of talk will get you banned from on here 4ever - and a few of Petrie's disciples will already have you on their ignore list.

aazza91
10-07-2009, 12:52 AM
No,

Surely this would be majorly unfair on the board, if the players don't perform aswell as they should it isn't the boards fault.

A good idea would be to offer players a lower wage with a higher performance bonus. That way your more than likely to get players giving 110% all the time

Iain G
10-07-2009, 02:05 AM
:top marksSteady...that kind of talk will get you banned from on here 4ever - and a few of Petrie's disciples will already have you on their ignore list.

There is an ignore list?? :greengrin

Is there a "talking repetitive bollox about the board" ignore list that automatically filters out when someone is stuck in the same repetitve groove and can't get out of it... :wink:

IWasThere2016
10-07-2009, 07:46 AM
There is an ignore list?? :greengrin

Is there a "talking repetitive bollox about the board" ignore list that automatically filters out when someone is stuck in the same repetitve groove and can't get out of it... :wink:

Who said that?

Blurry Face
10-07-2009, 07:55 AM
No,

Surely this would be majorly unfair on the board, if the players don't perform aswell as they should it isn't the boards fault.

A good idea would be to offer players a lower wage with a higher performance bonus. That way your more than likely to get players giving 110% all the time

Couldn't be done on performance. 90 minutes of attacking football and the goalkeeper doesn't touch the ball. His fault?

90 minutes defending striker doe.... etc.
besides, anyone giving 110% has been slacking in the past.

IWasThere2016
10-07-2009, 08:06 AM
I am not sure there needs to be any PRP for RP. He is a co-owner.

RP is protecting his investment by being prudent and investing in tangible assets. Our Board take a disporportionate % of salary to turnover IMHO. Even the bankers would have the good grace to blush at!

Hibbyradge
10-07-2009, 08:13 AM
I have no idea if that figure is true or not, but it works out at an average of about 1000 a week for running a multi million pound business.

That doesn't seem excessive.

How much do you think the players "strip out of the club"?


So, as a starting point Petrie should receive absolutely NO salary or fees from the club if they fail to make the top 6.

:faf:

I wonder how many supporters would agree to a salary system like that!

NORTHERNHIBBY
10-07-2009, 08:14 AM
I would find that hard to believe. Holding out for the best return for our players is hardly rocket surgery.

Hibbyradge
10-07-2009, 08:14 AM
I am not sure there needs to be any PRP for RP. He is a co-owner.

RP is protecting his investment by being prudent and investing in tangible assets. Our Board take a disporportionate % of salary to turnover IMHO. Even the bankers would have the good grace to blush at!

What evidence do you have of that?

IWasThere2016
10-07-2009, 08:17 AM
What evidence do you have of that?

The ONLy league we will top - trust me

Hibbyradge
10-07-2009, 08:24 AM
The ONLy league we will top - trust me

Ah, the blind faith argument. :wink:

Not particularly persuasive, G.

Vlad recently said he's made 10m from Hearts. :hmmm:

IWasThere2016
10-07-2009, 08:31 AM
Ah, the blind faith argument. :wink:

Not particularly persuasive, G.

Vlad recently said he's made 10m from Hearts. :hmmm:

That's virtual though :greengrin I'm talking real cash! :cool2:

Our 08 Accounts show 506k taken out by the Directors. This was against a turnover of just over 8,053k.

So that's 6.3% - or the first 660-odd STs through the door. There won't be a higher % in the SPL.

Anyone have a link to that site with all the club's accounts?

matty_f
10-07-2009, 08:38 AM
If we were going performance related pay for the people that sanction the money for signings, you can kiss goodbye to the manager getting to pick who comes and who goes.

cockneymike
10-07-2009, 09:30 AM
This is an interesting debate because I think that the board probably do get very well paid and perhaps as percentage of turnover they get too much. Yet they do run a tight ship and are probably providing a decent return to the shareholders in terms of increasing the value, if not in dividends.

I also wonder if RP's salary has been reduced/ halved even since Scott Lindsay has joined. As I don't think that Ken Lewandowski, Malcom MacPherson, Tom O'Mally, or even Lex Gold would have taken much, if any, of a salary when they were chairman.

Also I understand that the non-exec's don't get paid (although to be honest, I'd pay to do that job).

Criswell
10-07-2009, 12:20 PM
This is an interesting debate because I think that the board probably do get very well paid and perhaps as percentage of turnover they get too much. Yet they do run a tight ship and are probably providing a decent return to the shareholders in terms of increasing the value, if not in dividends.

I also wonder if RP's salary has been reduced/ halved even since Scott Lindsay has joined. As I don't think that Ken Lewandowski, Malcom MacPherson, Tom O'Mally, or even Lex Gold would have taken much, if any, of a salary when they were chairman.

Also I understand that the non-exec's don't get paid (although to be honest, I'd pay to do that job).

Who exactly are these shareholders? The only ones I can think of are the few fans who bought shares in the Gray/Duff era. (fair play to them) A miniscule amount of equity that was regarded as worthless from day one.

The only person who has put money into the club was Farmer. Interesting that Petrie is now described as a co-owner. How exactly did that happen? I am willing to bet he hasn't invested a penny of his own money in the club.

IWasThere2016
10-07-2009, 12:22 PM
This is an interesting debate because I think that the board probably do get very well paid and perhaps as percentage of turnover they get too much. Yet they do run a tight ship and are probably providing a decent return to the shareholders in terms of increasing the value, if not in dividends.

I also wonder if RP's salary has been reduced/ halved even since Scott Lindsay has joined. As I don't think that Ken Lewandowski, Malcom MacPherson, Tom O'Mally, or even Lex Gold would have taken much, if any, of a salary when they were chairman.

Also I understand that the non-exec's don't get paid (although to be honest, I'd pay to do that job).

SL started in April/May time, and RP took a cut from August onwards IIRC. I don't think it was 50% though

oldbutdim
10-07-2009, 12:26 PM
I think STF owns about 90% of the parent body, with Rodders having 10%.


I'm one of the blokes who lost his money trying to prevent the Wallets take over, and was gifted new shares by STF.

No return on them.........

Seveno
10-07-2009, 12:29 PM
[QUOTE=

As things stand, there is little incentive for Petrie to reinvest in the playing staff and much easier for him to focus on building stands and cash-flows ie within his comfort zone.[/QUOTE]


RP knows full well that he has to invest in the players or revenue at the gate, ST's and shop will drop. He has to do it prudently though.

If East Mains isn't investment in the playing staff, then what is ? Not only does it help develop our own talent but it helps to attract players who want to improve their standards e.g. Danny Galbraith.

Apart from the capital costs though, it apparently costs over 1m p.a. to run and players sales is an essential element is meeting these costs.

Woody1985
10-07-2009, 03:01 PM
Performance related pay isn't always the best way depending on the environment the person is in.

E.g you take banking. The new exec was given a target to increase the SP to 70p. Therefore, he could potentially use methods to push the value up to that mark in the short term but harming the long term value of the business.

If the same applies to a football team then petrie could go and spend millions that he doesn't have to get to 3rd. Allowing him to get a bonus and short term gain for the fans. We'd be close to going down the tubes and if someone did takeover we'd have to go through a debt clearing process all over again. This board would be full of the same chat for the next 15 years. We keep selling our best players to clear debt etc.

Once the debt and infrastructure is complete we'll take great strides forward IMO.

Although I do agree the board is top heavy pay wise.

Mikey
10-07-2009, 04:35 PM
that kind of talk will get you banned from on here 4ever


Any chance you can draw up a list of all the people who have been banned from here for speaking out against the club?

degenerated
10-07-2009, 04:46 PM
dont be holding your breath waiting on a response mikey

CropleyWasGod
10-07-2009, 04:54 PM
Who exactly are these shareholders? The only ones I can think of are the few fans who bought shares in the Gray/Duff era. (fair play to them) A miniscule amount of equity that was regarded as worthless from day one.

The only person who has put money into the club was Farmer. Interesting that Petrie is now described as a co-owner. How exactly did that happen? I am willing to bet he hasn't invested a penny of his own money in the club.

Doesn't need to. Employees getting bonuses in the form of shares is common these days. It's an incentive to stay with the company, and work hard to increase the value of that holding.

Phil D. Rolls
10-07-2009, 04:55 PM
There is an ignore list?? :greengrin

Is there a "talking repetitive bollox about the board" ignore list that automatically filters out when someone is stuck in the same repetitve groove and can't get out of it... :wink:

I've never looked
I think there should be one


I've never looked
I think there should be one


I've never looked
I think there should be one


I've never looked
I think there should be one


I've never looked
I think there should be one

Petrie get it sorted!!

CropleyWasGod
10-07-2009, 05:00 PM
I think STF owns about 90% of the parent body, with Rodders having 10%.


I'm one of the blokes who lost his money trying to prevent the Wallets take over, and was gifted new shares by STF.

No return on them.........

TBH, you're not really looking for one, are you? That said, if the company stopped trading tomorrow, and the assets were divvied up, you would get considerably more back than you paid.

ancient hibee
10-07-2009, 05:02 PM
As well as turnover of 8Million in the year to 2008 there was also nearly 3Million gain on transfers so the percentager of board pay(which also includes pensions,company cars and in RPs case a performance related bonus of 12500-down from 30K the year before)doesn'tlook too high.2 of the directors got zilch.

aberhibsfc
10-07-2009, 05:04 PM
I too put money in like many others during this period. I never received shares. But I'm not bothered, I love my club and was prepared to make that sacrifice.

Just wish that the club was aiming a bit higher on player recruitment STOP not getting into that one again, well not on this post.

Blurry Face
10-07-2009, 08:01 PM
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/

Not bang up to date but a good site nonetheless

new malkyhib
11-07-2009, 07:48 AM
There is an ignore list?? :greengrin

Is there a "talking repetitive bollox about the board" ignore list that automatically filters out when someone is stuck in the same repetitve groove and can't get out of it... :wink:

...you've used repetitive twice there. It's getting a bit repetitive.

Hibs07p
17-09-2009, 11:45 AM
An accurate update of Petrie's salary.


Petrie, who had seen his basic salary reduced from 145,000 to 125,000 in the previous financial year, was, as of 1 August, now in receipt of 75,000 a year, a reflection, Lindsay said, of more of his responsibilities being passed to other directors.



http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Hibs-proclaiming-a-ray-of.5655176.jp

bawheid
17-09-2009, 12:02 PM
So, as a starting point Petrie should receive absolutely NO salary or fees from the club if they fail to make the top 6.

A quite ridiculous suggestion. Good luck finding a CEO or exec chairman who would work under those terms.



I wonder how many supporters would agree to a salary system like that!

Quite, but it's Petrie, and he's fair game.


trust me

:faf: Come on now. When's Mallo signing?

Jack
17-09-2009, 01:36 PM
I have no idea if that figure is true or not, but it works out at an average of about 1000 a week for running a multi million pound business.

That doesn't seem excessive.

How much do you think the players "strip out of the club"?



:faf:

I wonder how many supporters would agree to a salary system like that!

I agree. The directors have walked a very thin line these past few years from almost being history to being at the forefront of the future of Scottish football. Not all clubs will be there to see it, indeed some didn't make it this far.

Onceinawhile
17-09-2009, 01:50 PM
I also agree that the Directors take a bit to much out of the clubs, especially as a % of the wage bill. However SL and RP have been doing a very good job for the last 5 years:agree:

Woody1985
17-09-2009, 01:57 PM
Daft idea IMO.

If it was all about personal gain for him then he'd just go out and spend money we don't have ala Hearts in the hope of hitting the CL jackpot.

The worst example of PRP is the banking sector. These guys were pushing and breaking the boundaries to achieve their bonus targets.

Some of these guys must have knew the bubble was going to burst at some stage, however, the desire from the shareholders (fans) to keep increasing the share prices meant no one cared.

Now look at the state everything is in.

That's obviously an extreme example but illustrates why PRP isn't always the best IMO.

RIP
17-09-2009, 02:14 PM
I agree with the OP's main point if not the detail

In the past no self-respecting football Chairman would be satisfied with a break-even balance sheet/P&L accounts if the club were suffering from poor performances on the park.

We are after all a football club, an entertainment business. Without a quality product that the consumers appreciate no-one can feel happy - board, manager, players or fans.

Football targets have to be set and if met or exceeded .... only then should a football chairman and his board be satisfied................and rewarded

IWasThere2016
17-09-2009, 02:19 PM
Come on now. When's Mallo signing?

I thought that was another one of yours? :greengrin

bawheid
17-09-2009, 02:22 PM
I thought that was another one of yours? :greengrin

I've got Stokes and Miller; you've got Mallo and Ayling.

:greengrin

IWasThere2016
17-09-2009, 02:24 PM
I've got Stokes and Miller; you've got Mallo and Ayling.

:greengrin

I'm protecting someone here for Mallo :cool2: and besides I thought they were all yours :greengrin .. oh and Dunderheid's :wink:

bawheid
17-09-2009, 02:32 PM
and besides I thought they were all yours :greengrin .. oh and Dunderheid's :wink:

It is true to say that me and Danderhall Hibs are generally "in the know" about most things going on at Hibs.

I find that if you flood the boards with enough pish and wind you can usually claim the scoop when the deal is finally done. :wink:

GC
17-09-2009, 03:21 PM
Are we still battering on about this?

So, let me get this correct.

If we do not make the top 6, Rod Petrie should receive absolutely NO PAY..

:faf::faf::faf::faf:

This is because:

"we might have a little more faith that if Petrie chooses to sell off the main playing assets of the club and not reinvest a fraction back into the product on the pitch"

We sold, we got good money back, there is also the wee tiny issue that the players we have sold have wanted to leave to further their careers.

Look at the position we are in now, Stokes, Miller, possible bids for Barr & Arfield.

I would not call that not re-investing in the team.

We are in a position to take advantage of the dire straights of other SPL sides now and we will do once the balance is corrected in the current squad, something that we will spend money to do.

Let's save the Petrie bashing for a time when it is justified and now after we get beat and the wind is knocked off our sails slightly.

Speedway
17-09-2009, 05:49 PM
I would find that hard to believe. Holding out for the best return for our players is hardly rocket surgery.

That's true but you can't count your chickens in one basket.

basehibby
17-09-2009, 06:24 PM
I'd be quite happy with the notion of performance related pay linked to league position for everybody at the club (excluding the general admin/retail/bar staff etc.). But the notion of anybody, including the board, receiveing nade for their efforts is utter nade IMO.