Sir Tom Farmer

[Onceinawhile]

Quote

"the football club would have one job, and one job only, that was to build a highly motivated team of people who played on the field."

Taken from that was the team that was part 2.

Didn't work out quite so as planned did it?:cool2:

[linlithgowhibbie]

Maybe not at present, but it has, and will do again!:thumbsup:

[Kaiser1962]

jeezus .... a slow night in Antwerp is it?


Quote

"the football club would have one job, and one job only, that was to build a highly motivated team of people who played on the field."

Taken from that was the team that was part 2.

Didn't work out quite so as planned did it?:cool2:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Quote

"the football club would have one job, and one job only, that was to build a highly motivated team of people who played on the field."

Taken from that was the team that was part 2.

Didn't work out quite so as planned did it?:cool2:

I was away to ask "where do we get these people", but your user name is a giveaway. Are you the sort of person who cannot accept the rough with the smooth. Even big teams like Madrid, Arsenal and Hearts have transitional periods.

Maybe we should just borrow a stack of cash from ourselves and invest it in a team that finishes in the bottom six, and plays at a flea pit of a stadium. Or go the whole hog and follow Dundee's strategy.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Does anyone else think Sir Tom looks a bit like Joe Baker in one of the banner photos:confused:

[ScottB]

I'd love to know how anything to do with the playing staff can be remotely Sir Tom's fault.

Honestly, whats the point in all these threads?

[jdships]

Quote

"the football club would have one job, and one job only, that was to build a highly motivated team of people who played on the field."

Taken from that was the team that was part 2.

Didn't work out quite so as planned did it?:cool2:

And your point is ?
Or is it just a pointless thread :bitchy:

[HFC 0-7]

I was away to ask "where do we get these people", but your user name is a giveaway. Are you the sort of person who cannot accept the rough with the smooth. Even big teams like Madrid, Arsenal and Hearts have transitional periods.

Maybe we should just borrow a stack of cash from ourselves and invest it in a team that finishes in the bottom six, and plays at a flea pit of a stadium. Or go the whole hog and follow Dundee's strategy.

One of the longest transitional periods in football I would say! 4 Years since mowbray departed? We are honking just now and IMO, the decisions of the board, be it managerial choice or investment decisions mean that we will be mid table calibre for a few seasons to come which will mean this 'transitional' period will be around the 6 year mark.

I feel sorry for Calderwood as I think he has only just grasped the size of the job ahead, This season will be a write off as I think he will be able to get a few loan deals from down south in the January window to steady the ship, what hibs need however is decent players on longer contracts. As there are so many players out of contract at the end of the season he may just not have the time to find all the right players should they all choose to leave.

[Kaiser1962]

I would agree with most of this 13681 except that I would lay the blame on the industry rather than the board. Player's contracts are basically worthless these days and are very rarely honoured at our level, unless the player concerned is rank. Any players who show some promise, even whilst being on long term contracts, are difficult to keep (Brown and Thompson obvious examples). These two signed a contract just months before all the bru ha ha in the papers when Willie McKay basically tore them up on the promise of untold riches elsewhere and, given the unrest that was being caused, I thought the club came out of it reasonably well.
Same with Fletcher and O'Connor in that these were young men offered life changing sums of money to play elsewhere and, whilst disappointing, we have to make the best of it. Whilst I would like to think we can keep them but the money on offer makes that pretty high impossible short of holding them prisoner.
I think we will be in "transition" for evermore.
On a similar point I would argue that our entire board, at £526k a year, earn what Scott Brown now earns in four months and RP, at £106k per year will not, by a long shot, be the best paid individual at Hibs.
That said the really annoying thing is that we stay within our means when others do not and that puts us at a disadvantage.


One of the longest transitional periods in football I would say! 4 Years since mowbray departed? We are honking just now and IMO, the decisions of the board, be it managerial choice or investment decisions mean that we will be mid table calibre for a few seasons to come which will mean this 'transitional' period will be around the 6 year mark.

I feel sorry for Calderwood as I think he has only just grasped the size of the job ahead, This season will be a write off as I think he will be able to get a few loan deals from down south in the January window to steady the ship, what hibs need however is decent players on longer contracts. As there are so many players out of contract at the end of the season he may just not have the time to find all the right players should they all choose to leave.

[Cropley10]

I would agree with most of this 13681 except that I would lay the blame on the industry rather than the board. Player's contracts are basically worthless these days and are very rarely honoured at our level, unless the player concerned is rank. Any players who show some promise, even whilst being on long term contracts, are difficult to keep (Brown and Thompson obvious examples). These two signed a contract just months before all the bru ha ha in the papers when Willie McKay basically tore them up on the promise of untold riches elsewhere and, given the unrest that was being caused, I thought the club came out of it reasonably well.
Same with Fletcher and O'Connor in that these were young men offered life changing sums of money to play elsewhere and, whilst disappointing, we have to make the best of it. Whilst I would like to think we can keep them but the money on offer makes that pretty high impossible short of holding them prisoner.
I think we will be in "transition" for evermore.
On a similar point I would argue that our entire board, at £526k a year, earn what Scott Brown now earns in four months and RP, at £106k per year will not, by a long shot, be the best paid individual at Hibs.
That said the really annoying thing is that we stay within our means when others do not and that puts us at a disadvantage.

So Rod's on £106k pa. What are highest paid players on then? :dunno:

[ScottB]

So Rod's on £106k pa. What are highest paid players on then? :dunno:

Even if we assume an average at £2k a week basic, there will be plenty on over £100k a year, once any add ons are factored in certainly; goal bonuses, appearance fees etc etc. I would imagine the likes of Miller are on more than that, so to say RP is the top earning individual at the club is a nonsense, I'd go as far as to say he's among the average earners.

Wasn't Hughes on £200k a year?

[SRHibs]

Rod's on 106k a year? I knew it was something along those lines. I was having an argument on FB with that clueless 'Riz' who was claiming Rod alone was on 500k a year.

[Cropley10]

Even if we assume an average at £2k a week basic, there will be plenty on over £100k a year, once any add ons are factored in certainly; goal bonuses, appearance fees etc etc. I would imagine the likes of Miller are on more than that, so to say RP is the top earning individual at the club is a nonsense, I'd go as far as to say he's among the average earners.

Wasn't Hughes on £200k a year?

He would have earned £200k in two years. IIRC he was on £100k plus bonuses (circa £125k).

Plenty on over £100k? How do you know this? And bonuses are performance related - just like the rest of Rod's performance.

How would you know 'the likes of Miller' (whoever they are) are on more than that. The fact is you don't. You don't know what any of our players earn.

I think you'd be very surprised how little alot of our players are on.

[tamig]

He would have earned £200k in two years. IIRC he was on £100k plus bonuses (circa £125k).

Plenty on over £100k? How do you know this? And bonuses are performance related - just like the rest of Rod's performance.

How would you know 'the likes of Miller' (whoever they are) are on more than that. The fact is you don't. You don't know what any of our players earn.

I think you'd be very surprised how little alot of our players are on.

So do you know what some of the players earn then? I know of one player - for a fact - who earns in excess of £150k before bonuses. And the identity of that player would surprise a few on here.

At the younger/novice end of the scale, I agree wages are maybe not as great as what folk would expect. However, there are a good few who are on 150k and higher in the current squad.

[Cropley10]

So do you know what some of the players earn then? I know of one player - for a fact - who earns in excess of £150k before bonuses. And the identity of that player would surprise a few on here.

At the younger/novice end of the scale, I agree wages are maybe not as great as what folk would expect. However, there are a good few who are on 150k and higher in the current squad.

Yes I know what some of the players earn. And what some earned when they were here...

We pay £496k for our Board and are lucky to be able afford such quality people.

[Kaiser1962]

I think people would be surprised at how "little" some of our young lads are on.
But the senior pros are another matter entirely. Whilst not at Rangers, Celtic or Hearts levels they wont starve. £106k a year probably wont get you very much on a football field these days though.



He would have earned £200k in two years. IIRC he was on £100k plus bonuses (circa £125k).

Plenty on over £100k? How do you know this? And bonuses are performance related - just like the rest of Rod's performance.

How would you know 'the likes of Miller' (whoever they are) are on more than that. The fact is you don't. You don't know what any of our players earn.

I think you'd be very surprised how little alot of our players are on.

[Cropley10]

I think people would be surprised at how "little" some of our young lads are on.
But the senior pros are another matter entirely. Whilst not at Rangers, Celtic or Hearts levels they wont starve. £106k a year probably wont get you very much on a football field these days though.

Of course they won't starve. But how much do you think - say - Kevin McBride is earning? Or what do you think Steven Fletcher was on.

Remember the Board are salaried, with pensions and other benefits, with no fixed term contract either.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Of course they won't starve. But how much do you think - say - Kevin McBride is earning? Or what do you think Steven Fletcher was on.


I'd say they both earned more than £2k per week which takes them above the £106k that's being talked about.

[Kaiser1962]

What do you suggest then Cropley10? Sack the board then what?


Of course they won't starve. But how much do you think - say - Kevin McBride is earning? Or what do you think Steven Fletcher was on.

Remember the Board are salaried, with pensions and other benefits, with no fixed term contract either.

[Cropley10]

What do you suggest then Cropley10? Sack the board then what?

Sorry, I've obviously misled you. Our Board are very important and do a good job. However, with the situation we find ourselves in now, it's a good job we have quality people on the Board, as we need them to SUABC; we're not bottom of the League by accident, in fact, quite the opposite.

Hibs are - as Football Club - complete off the pitch, no question. We now need to increase our income, rather than try to chase break even by cost cutting, which means we need to re-think what we do with regards to investment on the pitch and how we do it.

Our hiring/firing and signing policies need to change; that's the job of our Chairman, Chief Exec and others. They have work to do now - and it's a good job we can afford such quality people to take us forward. We have the chance this summer to, quite radically, change the nature and personnel of our team.

The only was is up. Literally.

[Kaiser1962]

But if we find ourselves in the position of another Scott Brown what do we do? Pay him the money he would get at Celtic or hold him to his contract? I am genuinely interested.


Sorry, I've obviously misled you. Our Board are very important and do a good job. However, with the situation we find ourselves in now, it's a good job we have quality people on the Board, as we need them to SUABC; we're not bottom of the League by accident, in fact, quite the opposite.

Hibs are - as Football Club - complete off the pitch, no question. We now need to increase our income, rather than try to chase break even by cost cutting, which means we need to re-think what we do with regards to investment on the pitch and how we do it.

Our hiring/firing and signing policies need to change; that's the job of our Chairman, Chief Exec and others. They have work to do now - and it's a good job we can afford such quality people to take us forward. We have the chance this summer to, quite radically, change the nature and personnel of our team.

The only was is up. Literally.

[Andy Bee]

But if we find ourselves in the position of another Scott Brown what do we do? Pay him the money he would get at Celtic or hold him to his contract? I am genuinely interested.

I'd like to think if we found ourselves in that situation again with all the major investment finished off field, RP would shell out to keep that sort of team together.

[Kaiser1962]

I'd like to think if we found ourselves in that situation again with all the major investment finished off field, RP would shell out to keep that sort of team together.

£28k a week? Say they accepted £20k a week thats still over £1m a year. On a good year we turn over £10m. Where would the shortfall come from? Again I have been in business for over 25 years and am interested in how we could make this work realistically.

[Andy Bee]

£28k a week? Say they accepted £20k a week thats still over £1m a year. On a good year we turn over £10m. Where would the shortfall come from? Again I have been in business for over 25 years and am interested in how we could make this work realistically.

Stop the dramatics Kaiser, at the time SB was on record as stating £6k-£7k a week would keep him at Hibs, at the time we were running at 42% wages to turnover ratio, £6k to £7k was certainly achievable but we'd have no new stand and still be training on public parks, it's a different story now :agree:

[greenlex]

£28k a week? Say they accepted £20k a week thats still over £1m a year. On a good year we turn over £10m. Where would the shortfall come from? Again I have been in business for over 25 years and am interested in how we could make this work realistically.


I reckon monies and quite substantial moneis will be made available for signing on fees from any transfer fees in future. The wage structure will increase gradually.
To attract players that have the quality to make a difference this is they only way.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's his Riotdan Miller and Stokes were landed.

[ScottB]

Stop the dramatics Kaiser, at the time SB was on record as stating £6k-£7k a week would keep him at Hibs, at the time we were running at 42% wages to turnover ratio, £6k to £7k was certainly achievable but we'd have no new stand and still be training on public parks, it's a different story now :agree:

I would imagine our wage structure now is a bit more accommodating than it was back then, however, I'd think it risky to have one player earning over and above any maximum wage we may have in place, it would demoralise the squad and make other players start looking for more wages.

And yes, I'd think had we wanted to, we could have kept Brown longer, but then we were being offered £6 million for the guy, we couldn't, still can't and probably never will be able to afford to turn that sort of cash down for a player who, if viewed in cold hard business logic, could break his leg tomorrow and never kick a ball again.

Out of the current lot I would presume Murray, Miller and Riordan are on decent wages by any measure given where they came from, so I suspect the budget is there to get good players in, but finances aside, how often does any player stay at any club for more than 4 or 5 seasons these days anyway?

[Kaiser1962]

Its not dramatics Andy. What do you think we could pay to keep a player?


Stop the dramatics Kaiser, at the time SB was on record as stating £6k-£7k a week would keep him at Hibs, at the time we were running at 42% wages to turnover ratio, £6k to £7k was certainly achievable but we'd have no new stand and still be training on public parks, it's a different story now :agree:

[Kaiser1962]

I reckon monies and quite substantial moneis will be made available for signing on fees from any transfer fees in future. The wage structure will increase gradually.
To attract players that have the quality to make a difference this is they only way.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's his Riotdan Miller and Stokes were landed.

Absolutely agree but it's a gradual process and I cant envisage a scenario where we could pay a single player in the region of £1m a year (other than an oil sheik with money to throw away) And you dont really get a great deal for that these days. Zaliukis, Goncalves or Nade?

[ScottB]

Absolutely agree but it's a gradual process and I cant envisage a scenario where we could pay a single player in the region of £1m a year (other than an oil sheik with money to throw away) And you dont really get a great deal for that these days. Zaliukis, Goncalves or Nade?

Actually our recent policy (I believe) has been to pay large signing on fees rather than higher basic wages...

[Kaiser1962]

Actually our recent policy (I believe) has been to pay large signing on fees rather than higher basic wages...

Again absolutely correct but thats just a way of circumventing the wage structure. As has been pointed out, absolutely correctly by Cropley10, we have an opportunity to completely overhaul things this summer. We need the humbaws to stick with CC and trust his judgement. Now some will work and some wont but I would expect that Yogi has laid the foundations as to how Hibs are going to operate (with players on short term contracts) which means the big fees will probably dry up but we wont be left with people on silly money who cant/wont be moved on(Tam McManus and Paul Fenwick spring to mind)

[ScottB]

Again absolutely correct but thats just a way of circumventing the wage structure. As has been pointed out, absolutely correctly by Cropley10, we have an opportunity to completely overhaul things this summer. We need the humbaws to stick with CC and trust his judgement. Now some will work and some wont but I would expect that Yogi has laid the foundations as to how Hibs are going to operate (with players on short term contracts) which means the big fees will probably dry up but we wont be left with people on silly money who cant/wont be moved on(Tam McManus and Paul Fenwick spring to mind)

Hopefully so, we've suffered from paying big wages to folk like Maka and O'Brien in recent years for example, It's a difficult one to judge, do you offer a big contract to someone you think is good to protect your investment, but risk it all going wrong, or do you offer a short term deal and risk losing them for f all.

Annoying when some folk come on and moan that Petrie should just give the manager a load more cash, as if that is some simple solution to having a team of quality players...

[Andy Bee]

Its not dramatics Andy. What do you think we could pay to keep a player?


Obviously I can't put a figure to that Kaiser, the Brown, Thomson era is a right bugbear of mine, we could of kept them but we wouldn't have the facilities we have now, was it right to swap them for a 20k stadium and East Mains? I suppose so :agree:

[Cropley10]

But if we find ourselves in the position of another Scott Brown what do we do? Pay him the money he would get at Celtic or hold him to his contract? I am genuinely interested.

Then we rub our hands with glee and take the money thank you very much, just like almost every, if not, every Club in the World ie when the circumstances are right and on our terms - or as close to as possible. Brown's a great example, Stokes, no matter what off-field, wasn't IMHO.

However what we should then do is use some of the income on a replacement of better quality than we have right now i.e none, or very little.

I'd like to see us doing profit shares with players, giving them a generous portion of transfer fees above certain pre-agreed figures. Apparently we don't want to reinvest transfer income on wages and that makes good sense, so offering good parts of transfers offers good incentive to the player and doesn't inflate our wage bill.

If you're a quality player then getting a good hit of any future sale from Hibs, who have a reputation for developing young players and getting good deals for them, wouldn't seem to be too difficult a proposition :dunno:

[ScottB]

Obviously I can't put a figure to that Kaiser, the Brown, Thomson era is a right bugbear of mine, we could of kept them but we wouldn't have the facilities we have now, was it right to swap them for a 20k stadium and East Mains? I suppose so :agree:

Indeed, what would the trade off have been? Keep them here for a few more years, with them being pretty annoyed at missing out on substantial wage increases, our balance sheet taking a hint and the infrastructure projects you mention well behind where they are now. Would we have won anything more than we did? Who can say, but it's not like keeping Scott Brown would have brought us the title is it, and that whole team, as good as it was, won one trophy.

I'd rather have the facilities in place so that the next time we find ourselves with a good squad we can build upon it.

[Kaiser1962]

The thing about Scott Brown in particular is that he has went backwards since he went to Celtic. I honestly thought he was the real deal when at Hibs. He was a dynamic, attacking, hard hitting force of nature and now he is what? A sitting defensive midfielder? I again truly believe that the (young) players that moved on to the OF would have benefited from staying at Hibs. Fletcher, for example, will not be significantly worse off financially, I would agrue the opposite, from staying a while longer and he is probably a more complete professional because of it.


Indeed, what would the trade off have been? Keep them here for a few more years, with them being pretty annoyed at missing out on substantial wage increases, our balance sheet taking a hint and the infrastructure projects you mention well behind where they are now. Would we have won anything more than we did? Who can say, but it's not like keeping Scott Brown would have brought us the title is it, and that whole team, as good as it was, won one trophy.

I'd rather have the facilities in place so that the next time we find ourselves with a good squad we can build upon it.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Do the players actually discuss their wages with each other and with non players? If so I find that quite sad. Are they bragging about what they earn or complaining?

See, the bottom line is you agree a contract with your employer for a fixed period of time for a salary. When that contract is due to expire or other extraneous circumstances arise you agree, or not as the case may be, on another period of contract time and a salary. If you are happy with it, smile and continue, if not find another employer and see if they will pay you more. Their circumstances are absolutely no different from other contract workers like myself. I know what my wages are going to be, I know what bonuses I am going to get, when I am going to get them, and what I have to achieve to get them. I do not however have a clue what anybody else in the company earns, apart from those working directly for me. Neither do I particularly care. I agreed my salary, I will live with the decision until this contract expires and thewn ask for more money again to re-sign. Simples!

[ScottB]

The thing about Scott Brown in particular is that he has went backwards since he went to Celtic. I honestly thought he was the real deal when at Hibs. He was a dynamic, attacking, hard hitting force of nature and now he is what? A sitting defensive midfielder? I again truly believe that the (young) players that moved on to the OF would have benefited from staying at Hibs. Fletcher, for example, will not be significantly worse off financially, I would agrue the opposite, from staying a while longer and he is probably a more complete professional because of it.

Oh I agree, and hopefully Fletchers example will be the one future players follow, especially with Riordan around as an example of how it can all go wrong along the M8.

Thing is, it comes down to the player as well, Celtic and other teams came in with bids that met our valuation, it was then up to Brown to decide if he wanted to go. I don't think keeping a player against their will is a great thing to be doing if at all possible to avoid. But yeah, he's been ruined at Celtic, he should have went down south, if he'd ended up at say, Tottenham or somewhere I think he'd have really kicked on, but now he's nothing like the player he was.

[ancienthibby]

So Rod's on £106k pa. What are highest paid players on then? :dunno:

I know the thread has gone off in a different direction but, in the interests of providing accurate information, this may be of interest, and is extracted from the Hibs Annual Report for 2010.

Total Salaries (fully burdened) was £404K.

RP's basic salary was £75k, but, fully burdened, it was £106k.

So, the balance of the cost £404k-£106k, being, £298k, was ascribed to four other directors: CEO, finance, commercial and Company Secretary.

Hardly robbing the bank for those 4!!

By comparison, readers might like to know that a single director at a certain club in the South side of Glasgow, earned some 150% of the entire Hibs board combined!!

[Keith_M]

By comparison, readers might like to know that a single director at a certain club in the South side of Glasgow, earned some 150% of the entire Hibs board combined!!


Queens Park? That's outrageous!

[Kaiser1962]

I know the thread has gone off in a different direction but, in the interests of providing accurate information, this may be of interest, and is extracted from the Hibs Annual Report for 2010.

Total Salaries (fully burdened) was £404K.

RP's basic salary was £75k, but, fully burdened, it was £106k.

So, the balance of the cost £404k-£106k, being, £298k, was ascribed to four other directors: CEO, finance, commercial and Company Secretary.

Hardly robbing the bank for those 4!!

By comparison, readers might like to know that a single director at a certain club in the South side of Glasgow, earned some 150% of the entire Hibs board combined!!

Agree 100% and thanks for that.

[ancienthibby]

Queens Park? That's outrageous!

I was going to say 'West End' of Glasgow but thought better!!:greengrin

p.s. Next you will accuse me of demeaning Third Lanark!!:faf:

[Ozyhibby]

The thing about Scott Brown in particular is that he has went backwards since he went to Celtic. I honestly thought he was the real deal when at Hibs. He was a dynamic, attacking, hard hitting force of nature and now he is what? A sitting defensive midfielder? I again truly believe that the (young) players that moved on to the OF would have benefited from staying at Hibs. Fletcher, for example, will not be significantly worse off financially, I would agrue the opposite, from staying a while longer and he is probably a more complete professional because of it.

They both left at the age of 22.

[Speedy]

I reckon monies and quite substantial moneis will be made available for signing on fees from any transfer fees in future. The wage structure will increase gradually.
To attract players that have the quality to make a difference this is they only way.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's his Riotdan Miller and Stokes were landed.

Not so sure about that. Did someone not say at the AGM that they were planning to reduce the wages to turnover ratio? Therefore we will only spend more if we make more?

[Kaiser1962]

They both left at the age of 22.

Good point :greengrin

And they probably broke into the team at around the same age but you get my overall point. Mind you if Fletch had got his way he would have went to Celtic as well. I wonder what he thinks now? Anybody know him?

[ScottB]

Not so sure about that. Did someone not say at the AGM that they were planning to reduce the wages to turnover ratio? Therefore we will only spend more if we make more?

Thats just the total volume of wages though, up to the manager how many players are paid out of that I'd presume...

[Speedy]

Thats just the total volume of wages though, up to the manager how many players are paid out of that I'd presume...

:confused:

Are you suggesting we could have less players(but on higher wages)?

I noticed this in the shareholder's meeting thread:

"The wages to turnover ratio of 68% will be reduced through a growth in revenues, not a reduction in staff costs."

It sounds to me that they are not seeking to reduce wages but will not increase them either, until we increase revenue.

[ancienthibby]

:confused:

Are you suggesting we could have less players(but on higher wages)?

I noticed this in the shareholder's meeting thread:

"The wages to turnover ratio of 68% will be reduced through a growth in revenues, not a reduction in staff costs."

It sounds to me that they are not seeking to reduce wages but will not increase them either, until we increase revenue.

That's the key to everything!:greengrin

We will always suffer (as a club of our size) if we do not do well on the pitch, most especially in Cup runs and this has been our key failing these past few years.

The Board always budgets conservatively for Cup runs but this year and last we have fallen behind even these. We are out of one Cup this year already, but what a huge difference a good SC run (let's say at least semis) would do for our finances!!:agree:

[ScottB]

:confused:

Are you suggesting we could have less players(but on higher wages)?

I noticed this in the shareholder's meeting thread:

"The wages to turnover ratio of 68% will be reduced through a growth in revenues, not a reduction in staff costs."

It sounds to me that they are not seeking to reduce wages but will not increase them either, until we increase revenue.

Yeah pretty much, if we have a couple players less than currently, we could afford to bring in one or two more on a higher amount, while the total remains the same.

From the sounds of it the Board are really hoping for / banking on greatly increased attendances. If we bomb out the Scottish Cup and finish Bottom 6 this season our income is going to take a massive hit and that percentage will shoot up regardless of what we do!