PDA

View Full Version : Well, this explains why we always panic buy dross at the end of the transfer window



Not In The Know
06-09-2014, 06:57 AM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/record-fc-hibs-fans-easter-4169012

lucky
06-09-2014, 07:07 AM
Is this accurate? Did she really admit the player budget was knocked back time and time again until it was agreed on the 28/08/14? I know we are in a mess but all the back room changes and stories coming out now show RP has been a disaster at Hibs. So much for a well run club .

Newcastlehibby
06-09-2014, 07:12 AM
It is strange that none of the reports I have read from people who were at the forums made any mention of a late budget authorisation. Perhaps the writer misheard?

Billy Whizz
06-09-2014, 07:12 AM
It was most probably a rebudget. Businesses do it all the time

Scott Allan Key
06-09-2014, 07:13 AM
I remember working in hospitality and being told the head chef at Easter Road, we're going back 7 years or so now, faked his job application and wasn't actually a chef.

It seems Petrie (or his/Farmer's cronies may've been making a lasagna with pickled onions again, the fools.

Not In The Know
06-09-2014, 07:13 AM
It's in the Record. It must be true...

it is supposedly written by a fan so could have some truth.

grunt
06-09-2014, 07:14 AM
Who is Jamie Montgomery? Does he post on here?

carnoustiehibee
06-09-2014, 07:14 AM
Daily record, Christ, you'd get more truth out the viz

Tom Hart RIP
06-09-2014, 07:24 AM
I was there on Monday night and LD definitely said that it took her 3 attempts to get her budget through and it was only agreed a few days ago.
She also got frustrated when a guy asked how much STF wanted for the club so I think the article is accurate.
She did say however that this budget will result in a substantial loss as the club are spending more than we bring in to try and get promoted and the injury to Farid meant we needed to find a like for like replacement which presumably wasn't in the agreed budget??
I had no idea that the Record had a Hibs blogger and never heard of Jamie Montgomery but will be following him from now on.

Hibs7
06-09-2014, 07:34 AM
It wasn't mentioned at the Wednesday meeting and regarding the cost to buy the club, she did say it is not all about money and that seems to be true, Sir Tom has no intention of selling up unless the proposal looks after the interests of Hibernian football club as well as the correct price, so a bit of journalistic licence employed by the Record . Surprise surprise. .

R'Albin
06-09-2014, 07:34 AM
I notice that poll at the end asks "Are you happy with your club's transfer deadline day signings?" and that one of the answers is "Good, but we could of done better". That's amateur stuff :hilarious

Pretty Boy
06-09-2014, 07:40 AM
At the 1st meeting she had with fans she admitted that, due to relegation, the budget for players would be cut. I'm not sure anyone would be surprised by that. What I would say is it was the one question she seemed very defensive about and the only time she employed the old politicians trick of flipping the question back at the asker.

Maybe these rebudgets were actually increasing the budget after the realisation the squad we had was clearly inadequate?

matty_f
06-09-2014, 07:46 AM
I notice that poll at the end asks "Are you happy with your club's transfer deadline day signings?" and that one of the answers is "Good, but we could of done better". That's amateur stuff :hilarious
FFS!!! :faf:

theonlywayisup
06-09-2014, 07:49 AM
If Hibs were a girlfriend, you would have dumped them years ago for someone more reliable, fun and less disappointing in bed.

Well said!

bingo70
06-09-2014, 07:55 AM
Who is Jamie Montgomery? Does he post on here?

Assuming there's only one that goes by that name then I know him.

Does post on here but not going to say who it is as he's got the right to keep it private the same as everyone else.

Jack
06-09-2014, 07:56 AM
If you take the Farid/Dom thing then its more than likely the budget was reassessed when it became clear how serious the injury was. In that respect I suppose the 'final' budget wasn't known till then.

I also suspect our bad start to the season has exposed holes in the squad which may be why we're seemingly still looking at players, again that wouldn't be clear till after the season started.

jax67
06-09-2014, 08:00 AM
I was there on Monday night and LD definitely said that it took her 3 attempts to get her budget through and it was only agreed a few days ago.
She also got frustrated when a guy asked how much STF wanted for the club so I think the article is accurate.
She did say however that this budget will result in a substantial loss as the club are spending more than we bring in to try and get promoted and the injury to Farid meant we needed to find a like for like replacement which presumably wasn't in the agreed budget??
I had no idea that the Record had a Hibs blogger and never heard of Jamie Montgomery but will be following him from now on.

This is absolutely ridiculous!!
Its as though the board want us to succeed in nothing but FAILURE.
Sacking the board seems to be the only option for the club to progress,
even to survive by the sound of things.

NorthNorfolkHFC
06-09-2014, 08:02 AM
If the board members were to leave, would Dempster have to go?

Regardless, I think she's capable of doing a very good job.

Lucius Apuleius
06-09-2014, 08:06 AM
This is absolutely ridiculous!!
Its as though the board want us to succeed in nothing but FAILURE.
Sacking the board seems to be the only option for the club to progress,
even to survive by the sound of things.

Which parts are ridiculous? It is common practice to re-assess the budget. We needed to. Do you think it is ridiculous that the board are saying we are spending more than we earn? A bit of a drama queen response from you in my opinion. I

JoeT_WasTheBest
06-09-2014, 08:07 AM
I was there on Monday and she did not say it was playing budgets that were only agreed a few days before. She only said budgets. I didn't take this to mean playing budgets and I guess others didn't either, otherwise there was plenty time to question this further.

The blogger is trying to add colour to the comment to make it controversial, IMHO.

Danderhall Hibs
06-09-2014, 08:08 AM
I notice that poll at the end asks "Are you happy with your club's transfer deadline day signings?" and that one of the answers is "Good, but we could of done better". That's amateur stuff :hilarious

Deary me.

That's just the way it is now though - there'll be folk reading your post that have no idea what you're on about.

Jack
06-09-2014, 08:09 AM
Also 'nothing off the table' was about future ownership and although that was clear in the invitation there were a few that misunderstood.

Danderhall Hibs
06-09-2014, 08:10 AM
I was there on Monday and she did not say it was playing budgets that were only agreed a few days before. She only said budgets. I didn't take this to mean playing budgets and I guess others didn't either, otherwise there was plenty time to question this further.

The blogger is trying to add colour to the comment to make it controversial, IMHO.

Did anyone question the "budget" or was it clearly not playing budget?

Phil D. Rolls
06-09-2014, 08:11 AM
I was there on Monday and she did not say it was playing budgets that were only agreed a few days before. She only said budgets. I didn't take this to mean playing budgets and I guess others didn't either, otherwise there was plenty time to question this further.

The blogger is trying to add colour to the comment to make it controversial, IMHO.

So, by inserting the word "playing" he has lied? A risky thing to do, I would have thought.

Tom Hart RIP
06-09-2014, 08:18 AM
She certainly did not say it was a players budget, but I took it to be an overall budget that would include everything.
Calling it a budget is probably wrong as we are not trying to balance the books this year so I presume she was asking the board to agree on an amount that they were happy to exceed our income by.

Caversham Green
06-09-2014, 08:20 AM
It strikes me that the author has chosen to interpret various comments made in a completely different way from the most of the others who were there. To judge from the various threads on here the vast majority left the meeting feeling much more positive than when they went in.

But then they didn't have a 'controversial' article to write.

Hibbyradge
06-09-2014, 08:26 AM
Well said!

Unless you happened to love said girlfriend.

Wilson
06-09-2014, 08:29 AM
Unless you happened to love said girlfriend.

Well said. That's why I just enjoy a bit of Chelsea on the side.

Tyler Durden
06-09-2014, 08:30 AM
Jamie does post here so I'll be interested to see if he replies here to defend his blog.

From what I understand, he hasn't actually attended a game this season however. He's in the "I'm no goin back til Petrie's gone" camp.

Not sure the budget point is that startling personally.

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 08:32 AM
It strikes me that the author has chosen to interpret various comments made in a completely different way from the most of the others who were there. To judge from the various threads on here the vast majority left the meeting feeling much more positive than when they went in.

But then they didn't have a 'controversial' article to write.


If you can interpret what she said in 2 different ways by 2 different groups, each group with no hard evidence as to which is correct then it does create a concern that maybe they didn't explain things fully as they should and make it clear. This is where, IMO, the club should come out and explain things regarding the article. Silence will only lead to more questions and concerns.

You mention the vast majority came out feeling more positive than they went it. Given that the people tha attended were a very small % of the actual hibs support, if they could convince them it filters through the whole support as the knew it would be shared on these forums.

This is where a transcript or video of the Q&A would have helped and let the support decide themselves.

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 08:33 AM
She certainly did not say it was a players budget, but I took it to be an overall budget that would include everything.
Calling it a budget is probably wrong as we are not trying to balance the books this year so I presume she was asking the board to agree on an amount that they were happy to exceed our income by.

Either way it would have been difficult for her to offer contracts should she not know how much she can spend.

jax67
06-09-2014, 08:36 AM
Drama queen is it!!
You don't think it's ridiculous that our manager
Gets to know his player budget 4 days before the
transfer window closes?
How can he identify targets if he doesn't know if he can afford them?
Only a Yam wouldn't find it ridiculous!!

jax67
06-09-2014, 08:37 AM
If the board members were to leave, would Dempster have to go?

Regardless, I think she's capable of doing a very good job.

Me too!!

IanM
06-09-2014, 08:38 AM
I notice that poll at the end asks "Are you happy with your club's transfer deadline day signings?" and that one of the answers is "Good, but we could of done better". That's amateur stuff :hilarious

That should HAVE at least proofread before putting to print

Mikey
06-09-2014, 08:40 AM
I'm not entirely convince by Jamie's interpretation of this. If it had been said as clearly as is being suggested then someone else who attended the meeting would have raised it on here on Monday night, but no-one did.

It's FACT now though :greengrin

Borderhibbie76
06-09-2014, 08:41 AM
Jamie does post here so I'll be interested to see if he replies here to defend his blog.

From what I understand, he hasn't actually attended a game this season however. He's in the "I'm no goin back til Petrie's gone" camp.

Not sure the budget point is that startling personally.
So in other words...not really helping the club to improve said budget in other words?? Also kind of ridicules his girlfriend and hibs comment as he has already dumped Hibs by sounds of it...

jax67
06-09-2014, 08:41 AM
That should HAVE at least proofread before putting to print

6% actually thought we did well in the transfer window!
Lots of fingers slipping on screens me thinks.

Tyler Durden
06-09-2014, 08:42 AM
Drama queen is it!!
You don't think it's ridiculous that our manager
Gets to know his player budget 4 days before the
transfer window closes?
How can he identify targets if he doesn't know if he can afford them?
Only a Yam wouldn't find it ridiculous!!

Well another way to interpret the comment is that Stubbs was advised at the outset of a £1.5m budget, for example.

We manage to move some players on, get some additional revenue from sponsorship or something and Dempster proposes the budget increases to £1.75m. Board signs off late in August. Whats the problem?

Phil D. Rolls
06-09-2014, 08:45 AM
Drama queen is it!!
You don't think it's ridiculous that our manager
Gets to know his player budget 4 days before the
transfer window closes?
How can he identify targets if he doesn't know if he can afford them?
Only a Yam wouldn't find it ridiculous!!

:whistle:


6% actually thought we did well in the transfer window!
Lots of fingers slipping on screens me thinks.

Whoosh!

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 08:47 AM
Well another way to interpret the comment is that Stubbs was advised at the outset of a £1.5m budget, for example.

We manage to move some players on, get some additional revenue from sponsorship or something and Dempster proposes the budget increases to £1.75m. Board signs off late in August. Whats the problem?

The problems is, it's not clear, open to interpretation. When the board are trying to get fans onside they don't want things like this where fans are again questioning them. This could all be quickly cleared up by the club, they just need to make a statement as to what the comments actually meant.

Lucius Apuleius
06-09-2014, 08:48 AM
Drama queen is it!!
You don't think it's ridiculous that our manager
Gets to know his player budget 4 days before the
transfer window closes?
How can he identify targets if he doesn't know if he can afford them?
Only a Yam wouldn't find it ridiculous!!

Drama queen it is, even more so now. :-). First of all, the only person saying it was the player budget is the guy in the Daily ******. That covers all your points apart from the last. That does not even deserve a reply, unless of course you are one?

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 08:49 AM
Did she actually say that the club had knocked back her proposals several times? If so did anyone ask why?

Tyler Durden
06-09-2014, 08:51 AM
The problems is, it's not clear, open to interpretation. When the board are trying to get fans onside they don't want things like this where fans are again questioning them. This could all be quickly cleared up by the club, they just need to make a statement as to what the comments actually meant.

I was under the impression the meetings were being recorded and a summary will be communicated.

I wouldn't agree if you're suggesting Hibs respond to claims made by a blogger in the Record though. Where does it end?

Caversham Green
06-09-2014, 08:52 AM
If you can interpret what she said in 2 different ways by 2 different groups, each group with no hard evidence as to which is correct then it does create a concern that maybe they didn't explain things fully as they should and make it clear. This is where, IMO, the club should come out and explain things regarding the article. Silence will only lead to more questions and concerns.

You mention the vast majority came out feeling more positive than they went it. Given that the people tha attended were a very small % of the actual hibs support, if they could convince them it filters through the whole support as the knew it would be shared on these forums.

This is where a transcript or video of the Q&A would have helped and let the support decide themselves.

People will often interpret statements in the way that suits their preconceived views, or the way that suits the article they want to write - you only have to look at the way the simplest of statements is analysed to death on here. However, when you talk about groups, as far as I can see one of those groups that attended the meetings consists of one Daily Record writer and no-one else that posts on here apart from one strange person who barged in half way through and left a few minutes later.

I agree that some overview of the meetings on the club website together with follow up comments would be useful but I think responding to every article and event would not be a productive use of the CEO or anyone else's time.

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 08:59 AM
People will often interpret statements in the way that suits their preconceived views, or the way that suits the article they want to write - you only have to look at the way the simplest of statements is analysed to death on here. However, when you talk about groups, as far as I can see one of those groups that attended the meetings consists of one Daily Record writer and no-one else that posts on here apart from one strange person who barged in half way through and left a few minutes later.

I agree that some overview of the meetings on the club website together with follow up comments would be useful but I think responding to every article and event would not be a productive use of the CEO or anyone else's time.


He actually said that the board knocked back her proposals several times. Did she actually say that or is he lying? If she did say that, surely a folow up question around what was knocked back and the outcome? Did the budget go up or down, if I am honest, if the budget went up I think she would have been shouting about it. 'The board knocked back my proposals and made more funds available' sounds a lot better than ' the board knocked back my proposals on several occasions' You have to consider the immediate situation as well, a shocking TDD had just occurred, if anything you need to be crystal clear on, it's player budgets.

Jack
06-09-2014, 09:00 AM
I'm not entirely convince by Jamie's interpretation of this. If it had been said as clearly as is being suggested then someone else who attended the meeting would have raised it on here on Monday night, but no-one did.

It's FACT now though :greengrin

Not just FACT but END HAVE too!

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 09:02 AM
I was under the impression the meetings were being recorded and a summary will be communicated.

I wouldn't agree if you're suggesting Hibs respond to claims made by a blogger in the Record though. Where does it end?

It won't end, that's the point. The fans will continue to question things and the papers will continue to sew seeds of doubt. The board need to earn the trust of the fans, in the short term at least when they are trying to do it they should be doing everything to stop fans concerns.

if I was LD and I read the paper and what he is saying is completely false I would be raging and would want to set the 'record' straight!

Ronniekirk
06-09-2014, 09:05 AM
I remember one of her first comments when she took over was that she would be looking to see what Budgets could be cut so that that money could be redirected to Player Transfer Budget . This was in context of pushing for Promotion to get back up at first time of asking. I would imagine that talkes time and has to eventually be rubber stamped by Board .So maybe she ruffled a few feathers and met resistance along the way with some of her suggestions .
Also the Backroom changes have taken time and we don't know what changes were in pipeline before she came and what further changes she may have pushed for and got but at a price .
Season tickets seemed to be static for a period then we shifted more than us supporters thought we would .So would assume some suggestions did have to get discussed and agreed and others knocked back but she maybe persisted or had to compromise and go away and come back with new proposal .
Who knows ,but I think we are seeing she is driven and won't be afraid to push for what she wants .so this date might have been final budget getting agreed ,but along the way there would have been indicative budgets that were being worked to .
But I am sure she would off gone through the roof when she saw Rodders contracts and amounts we have been and are still paying out ( did she mention Gardening Leave ) Thats why I am confident she is now in charge of contract negotiation and this will in itself save us money in long term
I just wish she had been brought in a year ago and I honestly don't think we would be in the mess we are in .
But she is only one person trying to change things ,and she will know herself now how the Conduit works to S T F ,that's why it's important she confirmed she can go direct to S T F as if she wasn't able to do that I would be more concerned .
I also think she will have been surprised at things she has found and I think she will be shaking up the Boardroom ,it's one big task she has taken on ,at probably the worst time .its really early days so think we need to back her .
Whether she can influence S T F in terms of future sale of club and what direction that goes in is another issue altogether .

Caversham Green
06-09-2014, 09:06 AM
He actually said that the board knocked back her proposals several times. Did she actually say that or is he lying? If she did say that, surely a folow up question around what was knocked back and the outcome? Did the budget go up or down, if I am honest, if the budget went up I think she would have been shouting about it. 'The board knocked back my proposals and made more funds available' sounds a lot better than ' the board knocked back my proposals on several occasions' You have to consider the immediate situation as well, a shocking TDD had just occurred, if anything you need to be crystal clear on, it's player budgets.

Other posts on this thread suggest that he's lying about it being the playing budget, while I don't think the matter is even mentioned in the other threads about the meetings, which in other respects contain fairly comprehensive and impartial details about what was said. That suggests to me that few attendees aside from Jamie were as alarmed about the matter as he claims to be.

jax67
06-09-2014, 09:07 AM
Well another way to interpret the comment is that Stubbs was advised at the outset of a £1.5m budget, for example.

We manage to move some players on, get some additional revenue from sponsorship or something and Dempster proposes the budget increases to £1.75m. Board signs off late in August. Whats the problem?

Problem is still the same, 4 days before the transfer window closes is ridiculous. Most other clubs have almost finished doing their business and some of our targets could have gone elsewhere.

Mikey
06-09-2014, 09:09 AM
Not just FACT but END HAVE too!

:tee hee:

Danderhall Hibs
06-09-2014, 09:13 AM
I was there on Monday and she did not say it was playing budgets that were only agreed a few days before. She only said budgets. I didn't take this to mean playing budgets and I guess others didn't either, otherwise there was plenty time to question this further.

The blogger is trying to add colour to the comment to make it controversial, IMHO.

Did anyone question the "budget" or was it clearly not playing budget?

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 09:13 AM
I think Leeann would do a great job under owners who actually cared for our club. A winning team makes fans easy to deal with.

She's still working for farmer and Rod whether folk like it or not. I hope if we do sell she keeps her job and is able to speak more freely.

greenpaper55
06-09-2014, 09:15 AM
She never mentioned any of this at the Tuesday meeting, how was it the budget was agreed after we had signed players ?.

jax67
06-09-2014, 09:16 AM
Drama queen it is, even more so now. :-). First of all, the only person saying it was the player budget is the guy in the Daily ******. That covers all your points apart from the last. That does not even deserve a reply, unless of course you are one?

Ridiculous!!

flash
06-09-2014, 09:17 AM
Ridiculous!!

Ooh you seem angry.

Lucius Apuleius
06-09-2014, 09:22 AM
Ridiculous!!

What is ridiculous??

blackpoolhibs
06-09-2014, 09:24 AM
Are coaches, Physio's, kit man and the likes lumped in with the 'playing budget'?

Hibbyradge
06-09-2014, 09:24 AM
Ridiculous!!

Good point, well made.

I'm convinced.

Onion
06-09-2014, 09:25 AM
Well another way to interpret the comment is that Stubbs was advised at the outset of a £1.5m budget, for example.

We manage to move some players on, get some additional revenue from sponsorship or something and Dempster proposes the budget increases to £1.75m. Board signs off late in August. Whats the problem?

If more money did become available late in the window (increasing the budget) you'd think LD would have just said that. She's a smart operator and would not have left it open to interpretation. Sounds more like LD was exasperated by the process ?

steakbake
06-09-2014, 09:26 AM
I think Leeann would do a great job under owners who actually cared for our club. A winning team makes fans easy to deal with.

She's still working for farmer and Rod whether folk like it or not. I hope if we do sell she keeps her job and is able to speak more freely.

She has to ask for a budget and who, I wonder, approves it? Is it just the money side that she has to run past 'someone'?

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 09:32 AM
She has to ask for a budget and who, I wonder, approves it? Is it just the money side that she has to run past 'someone'?

Petrie and Farmer approves everything. Petrie is still heavily involved in transfers as well.

Phil D. Rolls
06-09-2014, 09:34 AM
Petrie and Farmer approves everything. Petrie is still heavily involved in transfers as well.

How do you know that?

Pretty Boy
06-09-2014, 09:34 AM
She has to ask for a budget and who, I wonder, approves it? Is it just the money side that she has to run past 'someone'?

The budget will have to be voted on by the board, same as any other proposal I would think.

If the board is tied then Rod has the casting vote.

jacomo
06-09-2014, 09:35 AM
If you take the Farid/Dom thing then its more than likely the budget was reassessed when it became clear how serious the injury was. In that respect I suppose the 'final' budget wasn't known till then.

I also suspect our bad start to the season has exposed holes in the squad which may be why we're seemingly still looking at players, again that wouldn't be clear till after the season started.

If Hibs genuinely thought the squad was strong enough to win this Division then that just strengthens the case for the prosecution.

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 09:36 AM
How do you know that?

Don't worry you will soon know it too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spike Mandela
06-09-2014, 09:39 AM
Don't worry you will soon know it too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ooooh do we have a whistleblower?:greengrin

Phil D. Rolls
06-09-2014, 09:43 AM
Don't worry you will soon know it too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you ITK?

flash
06-09-2014, 09:50 AM
Are you ITK?

He is. The Griffiths deal is done.

Tom Hart RIP
06-09-2014, 09:54 AM
Did she actually say that the club had knocked back her proposals several times? If so did anyone ask why?

On Monday she said that she and Jamie (Marwick) worked in the budget and presented it to the board and were sent away to amend it. They did this and presented a second draft which was also rejected. They presented their 3rd effort 4 days before the meeting and it was signed off then.
She said this in the middle of her opening statement and none of is interrupted her to ask about this. When she finished several hands went up but none of those chosen asked about the lateness if the budget sign off.
Personally I left the meeting neither more or less confident about our future.
Bruce Langham was also there. He has held high positions on the board of Fulham and Aston villa and any time I have met him I have found him to be knowledgeable and approachable.
He is not paid and said he questioned his own position after relegation but decided he has things to offer. He got angry at the suggestion that the board don't care and said being a hibs director was not an enjoyable thing to do.

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 09:57 AM
He is. The Griffiths deal is done.

It was until Celtic pulled the plug. Have sly digs all you like pal, doesn't bother me. Who broke the Liam Fontaine story on here??

Anyway I've never said I'm ITK, I pass info that I get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 09:58 AM
Are you ITK?

Can you define what makes someone ITK?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IanM
06-09-2014, 10:00 AM
It was until Celtic pulled the plug. Have sly digs all you like pal, doesn't bother me. Who broke the Liam Fontaine story on here??

Anyway I've never said I'm ITK, I pass info that I get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's the newest info? Or too early to tell?

Jonnyboy
06-09-2014, 10:00 AM
I don't know Jamie or what his username is on here but it doesn't take any great powers of detection to work out that his blog is written from his own perspective and that he is disenchanted with the way his club is run. I don't see many facts, just his interpretation of what was said. I'm guessing that if someone wrote a blog, highlighting the positives from the meetings, the DR wouldn't want to know because it wouldn't 'sell' papers

Phil D. Rolls
06-09-2014, 10:09 AM
Can you define what makes someone ITK?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Id have thought it was somebody who has sources very close to the club. It's a good way of deciding whether to take what someone reports seriously, or not.

HUTCHYHIBBY
06-09-2014, 10:26 AM
That should HAVE at least proofread before putting to print

You should've followed your own advice. :-)

portycabbage
06-09-2014, 10:33 AM
Deary me.

That's just the way it is now though - there'll be folk reading your post that of no idea what you're on about.

Fixed that for you!:greengrin:wink:

PatHead
06-09-2014, 10:35 AM
Wonder when the press will ever write a positive story about Hibs.

I agree that the most important thing is the team on the park but there are many good things happening which never get reported. FFS Hearts paint stairs and it is presented as good news. The Scotman, that wnak Bathgate to be precise wrote a story this week celebrating 10 years since Vlad walked in the door and highlighted it as overall a success.

Once we start winning games things might change but even when Hearts are losing games they are brave young boys etc. Hate the press.

BTW parts of the bonus can be agreed with other bits sorted in the overall budget. Maybe the budget was altered to accommodate Leigh and then reduced back down once it was apparent he wasn't coming?

This guy should have had the decency to make himself known and maybe clarify the budget question with Leeann at the end of the meeting rather than make assumptions.

Beefster
06-09-2014, 10:35 AM
Have sly digs all you like pal, doesn't bother me.

If that really is the case TC, you should probably stop replying to digs.

FranckSuzy
06-09-2014, 10:36 AM
I don't know Jamie or what his username is on here but it doesn't take any great powers of detection to work out that his blog is written from his own perspective and that he is disenchanted with the way his club is run. I don't see many facts, just his interpretation of what was said. I'm guessing that if someone wrote a blog, highlighting the positives from the meetings, the DR wouldn't want to know because it wouldn't 'sell' papers

:agree: :top marks

Or 'papers' :wink:

grunt
06-09-2014, 10:40 AM
Assuming there's only one that goes by that name then I know him.
Does post on here but not going to say who it is as he's got the right to keep it private the same as everyone else.That's a fair comment. I didn't mean that he should be identified - I was just wondering.

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 10:43 AM
On Monday she said that she and Jamie (Marwick) worked in the budget and presented it to the board and were sent away to amend it. They did this and presented a second draft which was also rejected. They presented their 3rd effort 4 days before the meeting and it was signed off then.
She said this in the middle of her opening statement and none of is interrupted her to ask about this. When she finished several hands went up but none of those chosen asked about the lateness if the budget sign off.
Personally I left the meeting neither more or less confident about our future.
Bruce Langham was also there. He has held high positions on the board of Fulham and Aston villa and any time I have met him I have found him to be knowledgeable and approachable.
He is not paid and said he questioned his own position after relegation but decided he has things to offer. He got angry at the suggestion that the board don't care and said being a hibs director was not an enjoyable thing to do.

Interesting that no one asked the question then. I see no problem with the record piece picking that point up, as IMO, in needs answered. It seems the question needed to be asked whether having to present 4 budgets to the board before signed office taking them days away from the window effected their efforts to sign players and if it didn't, how it didn't.

Perhaps he should have written a less negative piece but there are definately questions in there that should have been asked. Could it be, that people want to see the positives in everything and fail to see the negatives in the same way that the media see only the negatives?

grunt
06-09-2014, 10:43 AM
Bruce Langham ... said being a hibs director was not an enjoyable thing to do.Oh dear! That's not good to hear.

Iain G
06-09-2014, 10:53 AM
How do you know that?

Its a Hibs.net fact don't ya know :greengrin

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 11:26 AM
Id have thought it was somebody who has sources very close to the club. It's a good way of deciding whether to take what someone reports seriously, or not.

If it's to have contacts at the club I do. If it's to know agents who have couple of players on the books at Hibs then I do.

The info given to me by agent was Petrie oversaw everything before giving it the go ahead. As I said it's all going to come out soon enough. If people don't want to believe it then I've no problem with that.

When it does come out though I feel the people who have been taken in by this whole "wind of change" will be sadly disappointed. Management has changed been a slight reshuffle but when major decisions are made on players it's Farmer and Petrie who give the final day not Leeann.

grunt
06-09-2014, 11:37 AM
As I said it's all going to come out soon enough. If people don't want to believe it then I've no problem with that.
When it does come out though I feel the people who have been taken in by this whole "wind of change" will be sadly disappointed. That sounds as if more bad news is coming.

HappyAsHellas
06-09-2014, 11:41 AM
Is it not the case that every clubs owner, or backer has the final say? If they're putting up the funds, I'd think they would definitely want a say in matters. LD said on Tuesday that there was a footballing budget which incorporated the players budget. If this is the case, what budget was only sanctioned at a later date? Was the injury to Farid the cause of the budget being increased? He doesn't answer his own question, but leaves the negative content hanging like a bad smell. No proof, only supposition, typical Daily ******.

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 11:45 AM
That sounds as if more bad news is coming.

It's nothing major, just that things haven't really changed mate. But hopefully will soon. :)

ekhibee
06-09-2014, 11:48 AM
If it's to have contacts at the club I do. If it's to know agents who have couple of players on the books at Hibs then I do.

The info given to me by agent was Petrie oversaw everything before giving it the go ahead. As I said it's all going to come out soon enough. If people don't want to believe it then I've no problem with that.

When it does come out though I feel the people who have been taken in by this whole "wind of change" will be sadly disappointed. Management has changed been a slight reshuffle but when major decisions are made on players it's Farmer and Petrie who give the final day not Leeann.
I for one appreciate your post. Before this I had actually got really sick of all this 'in the know' stuff that gets churned out regularly, I've never believed it and at least half the time the information is absolute nonsense which just builds up expectations and a few days later is shown up for what it is. Half the time I've often suspected Hearts fans with a twisted sense of humour creating an account on here and doing stuff like that. But you've been very straight about this, and I have no doubt whatsoever that you're correct. I quite believe that Petrie is still overseeing matters whatever people think. I would still ask though, when our top priority is meant to be promotion this season, why did Leeann Dempster bring in all these backroom staff at this stage, when we have a reduced budget as it is? Surely that was her​ choice, not anybody elses?

matty_f
06-09-2014, 12:05 PM
The budget will have to be voted on by the board, same as any other proposal I would think.

If the board is tied then Rod has the casting vote.

:agree: Rod can't knock something back on his own.

snooky
06-09-2014, 12:05 PM
Not just FACT but END HAVE too!

Took me a minute but .... :greengrin :aok:

sleeping giant
06-09-2014, 12:08 PM
IF nothing has changed at Hibs , I can see her walking out.

Baldy Foghorn
06-09-2014, 12:12 PM
I was there on Monday night and LD definitely said that it took her 3 attempts to get her budget through and it was only agreed a few days ago.
She also got frustrated when a guy asked how much STF wanted for the club so I think the article is accurate.
She did say however that this budget will result in a substantial loss as the club are spending more than we bring in to try and get promoted and the injury to Farid meant we needed to find a like for like replacement which presumably wasn't in the agreed budget??
I had no idea that the Record had a Hibs blogger and never heard of Jamie Montgomery but will be following him from now on.

It was me that asked that question

Baldy Foghorn
06-09-2014, 12:13 PM
IF nothing has changed at Hibs , I can see her walking out.

If LD walked that would be a damning indictment of Hibernian

Phil D. Rolls
06-09-2014, 12:18 PM
If LD walked that would be a damning indictment of Hibernian

And LD, to be fair.

Baldy Foghorn
06-09-2014, 12:19 PM
Don't worry you will soon know it too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How will it come out Cat?

Baldy Foghorn
06-09-2014, 12:20 PM
And LD, to be fair.

She did say at one meeting that she would not tolerate any meddling from within. She is a strong character.

Stevie Reid
06-09-2014, 12:29 PM
I find it strange that he starts off outraged at finding out that the transfer budget was only agreed on 28 August (which would be an astonishingly candid statement from LD, if true) - before then bemoaning a lack of transparency from the club.

Not well written, and learned nothing from reading it.

silverhibee
06-09-2014, 12:34 PM
I'm not entirely convince by Jamie's interpretation of this. If it had been said as clearly as is being suggested then someone else who attended the meeting would have raised it on here on Monday night, but no-one did.

It's FACT now though :greengrin

OfficialHFC could clarify things by using the account they have on here or the bounce.

Holmesdale Hibs
06-09-2014, 12:40 PM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/record-fc-hibs-fans-easter-4169012

Strangely, I'm not dubious about something written in the record and worrying stuff if this is true. Sounds like an absolute shambles and more bureaucratic than Edinburgh council. Hopefully LD can sort us out.

The girlfriend analogy is also spot on.

Eyrie
06-09-2014, 01:05 PM
It's pretty standard for budgets to be drafted, discussed, revised, reviewed and amended before being agreed so the story here, assuming that there is a story rather than simply one person's interpretation, is how late it took to agree the budget.

And I'd be dubious about anything in the Daily Record. I have no intention of boosting their views though by looking at the article.

The Green Goblin
06-09-2014, 01:05 PM
You should've followed your own advice. :-)

(I think he was joking HH)

matty_f
06-09-2014, 01:15 PM
It's pretty standard for budgets to be drafted, discussed, revised, reviewed and amended before being agreed so the story here, assuming that there is a story rather than simply one person's interpretation, is how late it took to agree the budget.

And I'd be dubious about anything in the Daily Record. I have no intention of boosting their views though by looking at the article.

:agree: Without wanting to sound overly unfair or harsh on the boy that wrote the piece, it does read like the over the top reaction that you'd expect to hear from someone that doesn't quite understand how these things work, and/or the context in which it was said.

Spike Mandela
06-09-2014, 01:17 PM
:agree: Without wanting to sound overly unfair or harsh on the boy that wrote the piece, it does read like the over the top reaction that you'd expect to hear from someone that doesn't quite understand how these things work, and/or the context in which it was said.

A bit like how the board clearly don't know how these football things work.:cb

matty_f
06-09-2014, 01:19 PM
A bit like how the board clearly don't know how these football things work.:cb

Quite.:greengrin

blackpoolhibs
06-09-2014, 01:38 PM
We are getting little snippets from LD on just how badly the club has been run over the last few years, and she obviously thinks the football side needs more funds now.

I wonder if she's getting as frustrated as the fans?

matty_f
06-09-2014, 01:59 PM
We are getting little snippets from LD on just how badly the club has been run over the last few years, and she obviously thinks the football side needs more funds now.

I wonder if she's getting as frustrated as the fans?

If she is then she needs to come out and say it.

Give us the whole picture, if she's done everything she can and gone as far as the money can go then she needs to get that out there.

If it's a case of having the ducks in a row and now just needing time and effort to show real progress then the only way she's going to get the support to buy into what she's doing is to detail it.

I think she's gone some of the way to doing that, but not far enough.

She's mentioned running at a loss this season, is that because we've pushed the boat out bringing players in? Is it because we've kept the playing budget as it was in the SPFL but we've got to pay Butcher, Malpas, and Marsella? Is it just a drop in income.

Would we see the transfer window differently if we knew that Stubbs' budget had increased significantly from what was originally planned? If we knew that we were at the absolute limit of what we could spend would we cut them some slack?

We were told the transfer policy had changed, yet on the face of it we're seeing exactly what we've seen in the last few years, where we're behind everyone else in getting our act together, and looking at the market of unattached players to fill key positions. If we're aware of what changes have been made or are being made, is it easier to accept that we're not just making the same mistakes?

One of Dempster's big ticket items was in communication, that she'd get on the forums and engage with us, but every day there are pertinent and important questions being asked on here that go unanswered. We can't all make it to meetings, so why not deliver on what was promised and give us some answers here?

macd123
06-09-2014, 02:01 PM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/record-fc-hibs-fans-easter-4169012

The article is definitely misleading. Saying the club has rejected fan ownership is bs. The whole meeting was about fan ownership and how it could work.

I think it's pretty clear STF is trying to get some kind of fan ownership \ involvement in place before he moves his shareholding on. Hence "it's not about the money".

HUTCHYHIBBY
06-09-2014, 02:21 PM
(I think he was joking HH)

With which part?

blackpoolhibs
06-09-2014, 02:24 PM
If she is then she needs to come out and say it.

Give us the whole picture, if she's done everything she can and gone as far as the money can go then she needs to get that out there.

If it's a case of having the ducks in a row and now just needing time and effort to show real progress then the only way she's going to get the support to buy into what she's doing is to detail it.

I think she's gone some of the way to doing that, but not far enough.

She's mentioned running at a loss this season, is that because we've pushed the boat out bringing players in? Is it because we've kept the playing budget as it was in the SPFL but we've got to pay Butcher, Malpas, and Marsella? Is it just a drop in income.

Would we see the transfer window differently if we knew that Stubbs' budget had increased significantly from what was originally planned? If we knew that we were at the absolute limit of what we could spend would we cut them some slack?

We were told the transfer policy had changed, yet on the face of it we're seeing exactly what we've seen in the last few years, where we're behind everyone else in getting our act together, and looking at the market of unattached players to fill key positions. If we're aware of what changes have been made or are being made, is it easier to accept that we're not just making the same mistakes?

One of Dempster's big ticket items was in communication, that she'd get on the forums and engage with us, but every day there are pertinent and important questions being asked on here that go unanswered. We can't all make it to meetings, so why not deliver on what was promised and give us some answers here?

:agree: I agree with this 100% Matty. :top marks

--------
06-09-2014, 02:31 PM
If she is then she needs to come out and say it.

Give us the whole picture, if she's done everything she can and gone as far as the money can go then she needs to get that out there.

If it's a case of having the ducks in a row and now just needing time and effort to show real progress then the only way she's going to get the support to buy into what she's doing is to detail it.

I think she's gone some of the way to doing that, but not far enough.

She's mentioned running at a loss this season, is that because we've pushed the boat out bringing players in? Is it because we've kept the playing budget as it was in the SPFL but we've got to pay Butcher, Malpas, and Marsella? Is it just a drop in income.

Would we see the transfer window differently if we knew that Stubbs' budget had increased significantly from what was originally planned? If we knew that we were at the absolute limit of what we could spend would we cut them some slack?

We were told the transfer policy had changed, yet on the face of it we're seeing exactly what we've seen in the last few years, where we're behind everyone else in getting our act together, and looking at the market of unattached players to fill key positions. If we're aware of what changes have been made or are being made, is it easier to accept that we're not just making the same mistakes?

One of Dempster's big ticket items was in communication, that she'd get on the forums and engage with us, but every day there are pertinent and important questions being asked on here that go unanswered. We can't all make it to meetings, so why not deliver on what was promised and give us some answers here?


Absolutely. The one bright spot in the mess last season was LD's arrival.

Hibs can't afford for her credibility with the fans to go the way of STF's and RP's. This apparently is already beginning to happen.

Farmer and Petrie OUT NOW.

ancient hibee
06-09-2014, 02:38 PM
Given that staff costs are roughly half of all operational expenses it's more than likely that she was referring to total budget.

brog
06-09-2014, 02:58 PM
It's pretty standard for budgets to be drafted, discussed, revised, reviewed and amended before being agreed so the story here, assuming that there is a story rather than simply one person's interpretation, is how late it took to agree the budget.

And I'd be dubious about anything in the Daily Record. I have no intention of boosting their views though by looking at the article.


Absolutely! I've lost count of the number of times budgets have been submitted, changed, resubmitted etc etc during my working career. As for the DR, for the last year they've done nothing but lavish praise on our neighbours who stiffed all of us for millions, while taking every opportunity to put the boot into Hibs. Now here's the question, if Jamie was contracted by the DR to write a blog on LD's meetings & he was genuinely confused as to club & playing budget then why didn't he ask LD those questions? I suspect the answer may not have suited the article he intended to write.

Ronniekirk
06-09-2014, 03:01 PM
If it's to have contacts at the club I do. If it's to know agents who have couple of players on the books at Hibs then I do.

The info given to me by agent was Petrie oversaw everything before giving it the go ahead. As I said it's all going to come out soon enough. If people don't want to believe it then I've no problem with that.

When it does come out though I feel the people who have been taken in by this whole "wind of change" will be sadly disappointed. Management has changed been a slight reshuffle but when major decisions are made on players it's Farmer and Petrie who give the final day not Leeann.
Your disillusioning me .Leeann was so convincing that she had put a process in place to vet players and she would have final say ,can understand if we had needed to sanction spending money on a Transfer fee for a Griffiths type deal that would have to be sanctioned by Board .
So I have been Duped again .Am beginning to loose Faith in all things Hibs this really isn't good news .

The Green Goblin
06-09-2014, 03:59 PM
With which part?

Not making a point or anything HH... You replied to his post in a way that suggested you thought he had made the same mistake he had just criticised, but I was pretty sure the mistake was deliberate and he was joking. That`s it. No big deal. :wink:

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 04:08 PM
:agree: Without wanting to sound overly unfair or harsh on the boy that wrote the piece, it does read like the over the top reaction that you'd expect to hear from someone that doesn't quite understand how these things work, and/or the context in which it was said.

I think he does know how these work, the issue isn't that the budget had to go back and forth it's when it was finally agreed. Potentially we could have been speaking to players but we wouldn't have been able to agree terms if we didn't know the budget. If you look at the lack of activity in the window it would be fair to say that having your budget agreed so late on that it may well have effected things.

Ad to this it may be coming out that Petrie is still heavily involved then it casts major doubts.

I think there is a clear case of journalists making it worse than it is, but also people not wanting to believe things can still be bad and we are making it hard for ourselves. As I have said before, it would be easy for the club to clear things up, they could easily speak to the press, or, use the account they have on here.

Deansy
06-09-2014, 04:14 PM
If you can interpret what she said in 2 different ways by 2 different groups, each group with no hard evidence as to which is correct then it does create a concern that maybe they didn't explain things fully as they should and make it clear. This is where, IMO, the club should come out and explain things regarding the article. Silence will only lead to more questions and concerns.

You mention the vast majority came out feeling more positive than they went it. Given that the people tha attended were a very small % of the actual hibs support, if they could convince them it filters through the whole support as the knew it would be shared on these forums.

This is where a transcript or video of the Q&A would have helped and let the support decide themselves.


Great idea - preferably video as transcripts can be altered - my mistrust of this board/RP is total (excluding LD).

matty_f
06-09-2014, 04:39 PM
I think he does know how these work, the issue isn't that the budget had to go back and forth it's when it was finally agreed. Potentially we could have been speaking to players but we wouldn't have been able to agree terms if we didn't know the budget. If you look at the lack of activity in the window it would be fair to say that having your budget agreed so late on that it may well have effected things.

Ad to this it may be coming out that Petrie is still heavily involved then it casts major doubts.

I think there is a clear case of journalists making it worse than it is, but also people not wanting to believe things can still be bad and we are making it hard for ourselves. As I have said before, it would be easy for the club to clear things up, they could easily speak to the press, or, use the account they have on here.

I would expect them to work on the basis that the budget would be approved and be ready to complete deals as and when the budget is signed off. In that respect the date of sign off is almost irrelevant.

BSEJVT
06-09-2014, 05:01 PM
I haven't read all this thread as sometimes Hibs Net just sucks the energy out of me but a few points.

Someone said they wouldn't have a budget if they were planning on making a loss. Even losses are budgeted for, if you don't have a target how will you know if you hit it?

CEO's in every business submit budgets to the board and these are regularly knocked back, for a variety of reasons

I am not surprised the budget was signed off so late, how could they possibly complete a budget with everything so uncertain, season ticket numbers, walk ups, who staying, whose going.

The board will have determined how much of a loss they were prepared to sanction, I don't see anything strange about LD's early comments or the board's reaction to them.

If well respected posters are to be believed that budget included acquiring Griffiths, for a number of reasons that didn't happen, but this would be a complete non story if it had.

The club aren't perfect, there is a lot to criticise, I have done so regularly, but its getting really tiresome folk queuing up to put the boot in over things they don't understand and the witch burners with even less understanding jumping on the bus with them.

The whole dialogue around the club gets more hysterical daily, FFS lets grow a set, man up and calm down and let them get on with it.

I for one and really glad that LD doesn't post on here, or jump up to defend every slight levelled at the club, I sincerely hope she has far more important things to do and is completely focussed on them

Jack
06-09-2014, 05:09 PM
Witches don't need busses.

HUTCHYHIBBY
06-09-2014, 05:11 PM
No big deal. :wink:

I concur. You might be giving him too much credit though! (I enjoy folk making mistakes like the one that appeared in the post). :-)

snooky
06-09-2014, 05:13 PM
I haven't read all this thread as sometimes Hibs Net just sucks the energy out of me but a few points.

Someone said they wouldn't have a budget if they were planning on making a loss. Even losses are budgeted for, if you don't have a target how will you know if you hit it?

CEO's in every business submit budgets to the board and these are regularly knocked back, for a variety of reasons

I am not surprised the budget was signed off so late, how could they possibly complete a budget with everything so uncertain, season ticket numbers, walk ups, who staying, whose going.

The board will have determined how much of a loss they were prepared to sanction, I don't see anything strange about LD's early comments or the board's reaction to them.

If well respected posters are to be believed that budget included acquiring Griffiths, for a number of reasons that didn't happen, but this would be a complete non story if it had.

The club aren't perfect, there is a lot to criticise, I have done so regularly, but its getting really tiresome folk queuing up to put the boot in over things they don't understand and the witch burners with even less understanding jumping on the bus with them.

The whole dialogue around the club gets more hysterical daily, FFS lets grow a set, man up and calm down and let them get on with it.

I for one and really glad that LD doesn't post on here, or jump up to defend every slight levelled at the club, I sincerely hope she has far more important things to do and is completely focussed on them

I think most of us realise that posts on this board (and other similar sites) are the written equivalent of conversations between a bunch of guys in a pub.
The majority of it is idle gossip/chat and should be taken lightly and with a pinch of salt.
Unfortunately, even with smileys to set the tone, some of it can come over as heavy sh...ugar.

Alas, that's one of the downfalls we have to live with in this new age of electronic communications.

Personally, I preferred the old pub version. :wink:

PatHead
06-09-2014, 05:14 PM
I think he does know how these work, the issue isn't that the budget had to go back and forth it's when it was finally agreed. Potentially we could have been speaking to players but we wouldn't have been able to agree terms if we didn't know the budget. If you look at the lack of activity in the window it would be fair to say that having your budget agreed so late on that it may well have effected things.

Ad to this it may be coming out that Petrie is still heavily involved then it casts major doubts.

I think there is a clear case of journalists making it worse than it is, but also people not wanting to believe things can still be bad and we are making it hard for ourselves. As I have said before, it would be easy for the club to clear things up, they could easily speak to the press, or, use the account they have on here.

How many times does LD have to say she has complete control at the club before you choose to believe her?

Billy Whizz
06-09-2014, 05:19 PM
Petrie and Farmer approves everything. Petrie is still heavily involved in transfers as well.

Is he meddling in things?
Malpas said last night on Soortsound that it was Petrie that sacked him, quite correct, as he hired him and Terry in the 1st place. Petrie also recruited George Craig, although Leeann I presume endorsed him for the his role

The Green Goblin
06-09-2014, 05:26 PM
I concur. You might be giving him too much credit though! (I enjoy folk making mistakes like the one that appeared in the post). :-)

haha. Maybe I am! I enjoy those too :greengrin

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 05:34 PM
I would expect them to work on the basis that the budget would be approved and be ready to complete deals as and when the budget is signed off. In that respect the date of sign off is almost irrelevant.

That couldn't happen. How could you sign someone if the budget hadn't been approved? The budget had been back and forth 4 times, you wouldn't do business if you didn't know what you had to play with. Maybe you are tight and they did business early on leaving the budget with nothing which meant they couldn't do any more signings. Either way it shows how much of a mess we are in. Besides, info on this thread suggests that all transfers need to go via Petrie.

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 05:43 PM
How many times does LD have to say she has complete control at the club before you choose to believe her?

What are you talking about? She said she had to go back and forth to get the budget agreed! Now there are people on this thread saying that the signings need vetted by Petrie!

Out of interest do you believe something just because they tell you it? Remember Petrie wasn't involved in the hiring of managers?

matty_f
06-09-2014, 05:48 PM
That couldn't happen. How could you sign someone if the budget hadn't been approved? The budget had been back and forth 4 times, you wouldn't do business if you didn't know what you had to play with. Maybe you are tight and they did business early on leaving the budget with nothing which meant they couldn't do any more signings. Either way it shows how much of a mess we are in. Besides, info on this thread suggests that all transfers need to go via Petrie.

You wouldn't complete the signing but you'd be ready to complete as soon as the budget was signed off, and you should have a contingency if it's not.

The club will be lining up next season's signings before they know what next summer's transfer budget is going to be. Butcher had signings ready to come in at the start of the transfer window and there will be flexibility if the right players come up or, in our case, we need emergency cover for an injury. That's when the revised budget proposal goes to the board for sign off.

I don't think that the info suggests that the transfers need to go through Petrie at all, we already know that he has no power of veto and only carries one vote on the board. The only way he'd be able to pie a signing is if the board were split on whether or not to sign the player in which case he has a casting vote.

I don't think that the signings get approved in the board room at any rate. I think that work is now done between Stubbs, George Craig, and Dempster.

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 05:59 PM
You wouldn't complete the signing but you'd be ready to complete as soon as the budget was signed off, and you should have a contingency if it's not.

The club will be lining up next season's signings before they know what next summer's transfer budget is going to be. Butcher had signings ready to come in at the start of the transfer window and there will be flexibility if the right players come up or, in our case, we need emergency cover for an injury. That's when the revised budget proposal goes to the board for sign off.

I don't think that the info suggests that the transfers need to go through Petrie at all, we already know that he has no power of veto and only carries one vote on the board. The only way he'd be able to pie a signing is if the board were split on whether or not to sign the player in which case he has a casting vote.

I don't think that the signings get approved in the board room at any rate. I think that work is now done between Stubbs, George Craig, and Dempster.

re the part in bold, that is a stupid way to run things and may be a good reason why we never done enough business early on! You line up a potential player on the 1st of August or earlier but you can't compete that until 28th august when the budget is approved. Players will find other clubs, why would a player hang on for so long, almost up to the deadline, not knowing whether they will be able to sign or not.

re the bit about Petrie and farmer, if they hold the cards to the budget they essentially say who can sign or not. Can farmer, as owner, pie a deal at any time because he is owner? The cat, who usually has good info seems to think so.

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 06:00 PM
Is he meddling in things?
Malpas said last night on Soortsound that it was Petrie that sacked him, quite correct, as he hired him and Terry in the 1st place. Petrie also recruited George Craig, although Leeann I presume endorsed him for the his role

He's just doing what he's always done. Ran the show! Leeann does have many roles but when it come to hiring and firing there is only one man that does this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

matty_f
06-09-2014, 06:06 PM
re the part in bold, that is a stupid way to run things and may be a good reason why we never done enough business early on! You line up a potential player on the 1st of August or earlier but you can't compete that until 28th august when the budget is approved. Players will find other clubs, why would a player hang on for so long, almost up to the deadline, not knowing whether they will be able to sign or not.

re the bit about Petrie and farmer, if they hold the cards to the budget they essentially say who can sign or not. Can farmer, as owner, pie a deal at any time because he is owner? The cat, who usually has good info seems to think so.

I don't think you're getting what I'm meaning :greengrin.

The budget that Dempster has taken to the board for sign off at the arse end of August is going to be a revised one - we'd already signed players but results (and injuries) showed that we needed to adjust to bring in more players than anticipated. In that sense the club would be looking at potential targets and sounding them out, speaking to agents about likely wages/conditions, seeing if they'd be willing to come in principle, maybe showing them around the training centre and stadium, or getting them in on trial. If the player's keen they'll see it through, and when the budget is signed off then the deal can complete.

Clearly, we've had a budget in mind when we've signed the likes of Allan, El Alagui and Gray, and when we've offered a 4 year deal to Handling.

Edit - re the point about Petrie and Farmer. Dempster explained that, in theory, Farmer could decide it's his ball and he wasnae playing any time he wanted, but if he was going against the wishes of the board then he'd need to sack the existing board and replace them.

Petrie has one vote, the only way that he can knock back anything is if the board are split, and he has a casting vote. I think the board would approve an overall budget, but not who that was spent on. The board aren't (AFAIK) a signing committee.

greenlex
06-09-2014, 06:13 PM
I wonder how all this budget malarkey works at other clubs?:confused:

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 06:17 PM
I don't think you're getting what I'm meaning :greengrin.

The budget that Dempster has taken to the board for sign off at the arse end of August is going to be a revised one - we'd already signed players but results (and injuries) showed that we needed to adjust to bring in more players than anticipated. In that sense the club would be looking at potential targets and sounding them out, speaking to agents about likely wages/conditions, seeing if they'd be willing to come in principle, maybe showing them around the training centre and stadium, or getting them in on trial. If the player's keen they'll see it through, and when the budget is signed off then the deal can complete.

Clearly, we've had a budget in mind when we've signed the likes of Allan, El Alagui and Gray, and when we've offered a 4 year deal to Handling.

Edit - re the point about Petrie and Farmer. Dempster explained that, in theory, Farmer could decide it's his ball and he wasnae playing any time he wanted, but if he was going against the wishes of the board then he'd need to sack the existing board and replace them.

Petrie has one vote, the only way that he can knock back anything is if the board are split, and he has a casting vote. I think the board would approve an overall budget, but not who that was spent on. The board aren't (AFAIK) a signing committee.

Fair enough, I still think there is something iffy about this budget thing. I want to trust hibs and LD but we have been told things in the past which hadn't been wholeheartedly accurate or it's been misleading. What's your take on the other info then?

If the club wants to make things clear, that's exactly what they should do. Come out and explain exactly what happened with the budget etc. not explaining just adds fuel to the fire IMO.

Re the point about farmer sacking the board, he wouldn't have to do that, that's only one possible conclusion, the board could accept farmers decision, especially if the budget hadn't been approved!!!! If you think about it, if there is no budget in place LD would need to go to farmer for approval. So until the budget is approved LD would need to go to farmer for every signing or contract extension.

Mikey
06-09-2014, 06:23 PM
He's just doing what he's always done. Ran the show! Leeann does have many roles but when it come to hiring and firing there is only one man that does this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't you put some meat on the bones and tell us what happened? All you've really done so far is tell us that RP poked his nose in, but that's it.

matty_f
06-09-2014, 06:25 PM
Fair enough, I still think there is something iffy about this budget thing. I want to trust hibs and LD but we have been told things in the past which hadn't been wholeheartedly accurate or it's been misleading. What's your take on the other info then?

If the club wants to make things clear, that's exactly what they should do. Come out and explain exactly what happened with the budget etc. not explaining just adds fuel to the fire IMO.

Re the point about farmer sacking the board, he wouldn't have to do that, that's only one possible conclusion, the board could accept farmers decision, especially if the budget hadn't been approved!!!! If you think about it, if there is no budget in place LD would need to go to farmer for approval. So until the budget is approved LD would need to go to farmer for every signing or contract extension.

The implication of an owner over-ruling the board is that he has no trust in them, which is why it would lead to a point where the board's positions were untenable.

I agree about explaining what happened with the budget, I posted at length about that earlier today. :agree:

LD wouldn't have been going to Farmer for approval, if that was the case she'd need to be given the nod by Sir Tom if she wanted to buy a stapler, never mind a player.

As for the other info, personally I think it's inaccurate. I would just suggest sense-checking it. Let's say that we accept that Petrie is still running the show. For that to happen, we need to also accept that LD is just a patsy, and is happy to see her decisions overturned while publicly putting on a brave face. We'd also need to accept that both Stubbs and George Craig were happy that any work that they were putting into identifying and courting players could be undone on the whim of Petrie. We also need to accept that the rest of the board, having seen the calamitous handling of the club over the last few years, and having witnessed the depth of feeling against Petrie from the support, are happy to sit back and let him run roughshod over any changes that are being implimented.

It also means we need to accept that Rod Petrie, despite identifying and headhunting Dempster at significant cost to the club, has no faith in her to carry out her duties.

And we also need to accept that every single person at the club is lying to us.

Personally, I feel that scenario is significantly more far fetched than the one that has Dempster doing what she needs to do at the club, which includes handling the signings.

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 06:33 PM
Can't you put some meat on the bones and tell us what happened? All you've really done so far is tell us that RP poked his nose in, but that's it.

I'll PM you Mikey shortly, I'm off for some food. The good lady is getting on at me for being on here while on hol 😄


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mikey
06-09-2014, 06:35 PM
I'll PM you Mikey shortly, I'm off for some food. The good lady is getting on at me for being on here while on hol 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aye, bog off and get some beer. And none of that girly lager pish mind :tsk tsk:

And I don't want a PM coz I'll just get pestered :greengrin

Pretty Boy
06-09-2014, 06:37 PM
How many times does LD have to say she has complete control at the club before you choose to believe her?

And therein lies the problem.

This is why I have maintained for months that Rod has to go. Whether he has no power or otherwise a large number simply won't believe anything that comes out of the club whilst he stays.

His presence is toxic and will continue to be.

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 06:37 PM
Aye, bog off and get some beer. And none of that girly lager pish mind :tsk tsk:

And I don't want a PM coz I'll just get pestered :greengrin

Can you believe I haven't had more than 3 beers and been here nearly a week!! Even she's taking the crap out me. Trying to detox!!

Anyway back on topic, ok I won't send you one. Actually I might but no one will know if I have now 😄

Peace out!!

Ps... It's 30 over here 😎


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mikey
06-09-2014, 06:40 PM
Ps... It's 30 over here 




What? 30p? For a lager?

Still too much :greengrin

CropleyWasGod
06-09-2014, 06:40 PM
Fair enough, I still think there is something iffy about this budget thing. I want to trust hibs and LD but we have been told things in the past which hadn't been wholeheartedly accurate or it's been misleading. What's your take on the other info then?

If the club wants to make things clear, that's exactly what they should do. Come out and explain exactly what happened with the budget etc. not explaining just adds fuel to the fire IMO.

Re the point about farmer sacking the board, he wouldn't have to do that, that's only one possible conclusion, the board could accept farmers decision, especially if the budget hadn't been approved!!!! If you think about it, if there is no budget in place LD would need to go to farmer for approval. So until the budget is approved LD would need to go to farmer for every signing or contract extension.

In that scenario, ie the Board being undermined by the owner, I would expect a few resignations.

theonlywayisup
06-09-2014, 06:50 PM
What? 30p? For a lager?

Still too much :greengrin

:tsk tsk: keep the social stuff to your PM. There are :rules: you know!












:greengrin

Tyler Durden
06-09-2014, 07:03 PM
I think he does know how these work, the issue isn't that the budget had to go back and forth it's when it was finally agreed. Potentially we could have been speaking to players but we wouldn't have been able to agree terms if we didn't know the budget. If you look at the lack of activity in the window it would be fair to say that having your budget agreed so late on that it may well have effected things.

Ad to this it may be coming out that Petrie is still heavily involved then it casts major doubts.

I think there is a clear case of journalists making it worse than it is, but also people not wanting to believe things can still be bad and we are making it hard for ourselves. As I have said before, it would be easy for the club to clear things up, they could easily speak to the press, or, use the account they have on here.

To pick up on your first sentence, he doesn't know how these things work, he has interpreted a comment by LD.

And he is not a journalist, it's a blog for their website, it holds no more credibility than any post on this board.

HFC 0-7
06-09-2014, 07:06 PM
In that scenario, ie the Board being undermined by the owner, I would expect a few resignations.


Not being undermined though. If the budget wasn't approved until the 28th, how could they sign players....... Surely the only way would be to go to the people that agree the budget and ask if it's ok. They say yes, or they say no, wait until we approve the budget.

Eyrie
06-09-2014, 07:07 PM
Not being undermined though. If the budget wasn't approved until the 28th, how could they sign players....... Surely the only way would be to go to the people that agree the budget and ask if it's ok. They say yes, or they say no, wait until we approve the budget.

But we did sign players before the 28th .....

CropleyWasGod
06-09-2014, 07:10 PM
Not being undermined though. If the budget wasn't approved until the 28th, how could they sign players....... Surely the only way would be to go to the people that agree the budget and ask if it's ok. They say yes, or they say no, wait until we approve the budget.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you then.

If the Board say "wait", LD goes to STF. Yeah?

In that scenario, she is going over their heads. That's possibly misconduct on her part, or else seen by the rest of the Board as undermining them.

Jonnyboy
06-09-2014, 07:11 PM
To pick up on your first sentence, he doesn't know how these things work, he has interpreted a comment by LD.

And he is not a journalist, it's a blog for their website, it holds no more credibility than any post on this board.

:agree:

The Falcon
06-09-2014, 08:07 PM
He's just doing what he's always done. Ran the show! Leeann does have many roles but when it come to hiring and firing there is only one man that does this.


Who decided that Butcher and his team should go? I know it was Petrie who ultimately told them (described as a "courtesy" at the time as it was Petrie who hired them) but LD said it was her decision. :confused:

Iain G
06-09-2014, 08:08 PM
Ahhhh the Rod Petrie/Tom Farmer conspiracy theories that even Fox Mulder wouldn't believe in ;-)

Ronniekirk
06-09-2014, 08:38 PM
Ahhhh the Rod Petrie/Tom Farmer conspiracy theories that even Fox Mulder wouldn't believe in ;-)
But Scully would

PatHead
06-09-2014, 08:41 PM
Not being undermined though. If the budget wasn't approved until the 28th, how could they sign players....... Surely the only way would be to go to the people that agree the budget and ask if it's ok. They say yes, or they say no, wait until we approve the budget.

Parts of the budget could be approved but maybe non transfer parts were not such as employing an U20 coach.

However you seem determined to believe the worst so on you go.

Hibeesforever
06-09-2014, 08:43 PM
It wasn't mentioned at the Wednesday meeting and regarding the cost to buy the club, she did say it is not all about money and that seems to be true, Sir Tom has no intention of selling up unless the proposal looks after the interests of Hibernian football club as well as the correct price, so a bit of journalistic licence employed by the Record . Surprise surprise. .

Thank goodness the Daily Record is standing up for the community of Leith and Hibernian Football Club. It is time for the owner and Chairman to step aside. The telling point was that Sir Tom's own words are haunting him now because it turns out HE is not in the clubs interests now! A more benevolent owner would have sunk a few million into the club to bounce back quickly. Alas, his mantra is be aloof at a time of need and pretent that football doesn't interest him....well that is not good for the success of the club. I am trying desperately to encourage my two kids to use their season tickets but find them saying to me-"Hibs are rubbish Dad, we don't want to go"...well done Sir Tom for producing, and being ultimately responsible for, a community club that is an embarrassment to its community!

Thecat23
06-09-2014, 09:27 PM
Who decided that Butcher and his team should go? I know it was Petrie who ultimately told them (described as a "courtesy" at the time as it was Petrie who hired them) but LD said it was her decision. :confused:

I asked that very question myself. Petrie I was told let them know they were going, before Leeann then went public.

As I've said, I think LD would be better off working with more freedom than she gets. There is no doubt in my mind Hibs as a club will not move forward now with Farmer and Petrie here. The evidence is two relegations and years of dross!

To now bring the club back to where it belongs Hibs need new owners with a vision that the fans can relate too, and one that can balance the books but also have enough to buy players that need to get us back in top flight and back competing for a European place.

We all after all want the best for our club but enough is enough. Folk seem to still think we are alright. We're in the championship and not even second fav to win. That's how bad this is!!

I'm sure once a bid is accepted and both are long gone Hibs will then finally be a club with Football as it's main priority and bringing the fans back.

Deansy
06-09-2014, 10:05 PM
Wonder if Rod Petrie, on assessing whichever of the budgets he ko'd, felt any shame/regret knowing his presence alone has had a major negative-impact on it ?.

Peevemor
06-09-2014, 11:40 PM
Wonder if Rod Petrie, on assessing whichever of the budgets he ko'd, felt any shame/regret knowing his presence alone has had a major negative-impact on it ?.

Keep spouting that stuff if you want. 7,200 STs sold suggest otherwise.

CropleyWasGod
06-09-2014, 11:43 PM
Wonder if Rod Petrie, on assessing whichever of the budgets he ko'd, felt any shame/regret knowing his presence alone has had a major negative-impact on it ?.
Did Rod review the budgets and reject them on behalf of the whole Board?

Peevemor
06-09-2014, 11:50 PM
Did Rod review the budgets and reject them on behalf of the whole Board?

Stuff like that doesn't matter to some. Anything good that happens is thanks to LD. Anything bad (even if only rumours) is down to Rod "still pulling the strings". Get used to it.

jacomo
07-09-2014, 12:09 AM
Stuff like that doesn't matter to some. Anything good that happens is thanks to LD. Anything bad (even if only rumours) is down to Rod "still pulling the strings". Get used to it.

I agree with you that picking over the bones of everything that comes of the club is pointless.

Doesn't change the fact that Rod should go. It's not his court anymore.

Peevemor
07-09-2014, 12:17 AM
I agree with you that picking over the bones of everything that comes of the club is pointless.

Doesn't change the fact that Rod should go. It's not his court anymore.

Fair enough, but as long as the man with the real power wants him there I don't see the point going on and on and on and on about it.

Iain G
07-09-2014, 12:17 AM
Thank goodness the Daily Record is standing up for the community of Leith and Hibernian Football Club. It is time for the owner and Chairman to step aside. The telling point was that Sir Tom's own words are haunting him now because it turns out HE is not in the clubs interests now! A more benevolent owner would have sunk a few million into the club to bounce back quickly. Alas, his mantra is be aloof at a time of need and pretent that football doesn't interest him....well that is not good for the success of the club. I am trying desperately to encourage my two kids to use their season tickets but find them saying to me-"Hibs are rubbish Dad, we don't want to go"...well done Sir Tom for producing, and being ultimately responsible for, a community club that is an embarrassment to its community!

Maybe its time he just wound the club up, I mean, really if he read half of the stuff on here he'd be wondering what the hell the point is anymore. Would give the Hibs support some stress relief at least :greengrin

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 12:44 AM
How many times does LD have to say she has complete control at the club before you choose to believe her?This goes right to the heart of the problem.

LD has never claimed to have "complete control at the club". That would be an absurd thing to say. No CEO has "complete control" over any business that they don't own.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that the vast majority of the fans know little or nothing about business management and corporate practice, and the other side of that problem is the sleekit way that the club takes advantage of that to mislead the fans.

Classic example: the Butcher 'sacking'. The wording of the club's statement was very specific. He had been "relieved of his duties". And the fans are all dancing and cheering because the guy has been 'sacked'. Except that anybody who understands business knows exactly what that phrase means and doesn't mean. It means "He won't resign, we don't have grounds to sack him, he's still on the payroll." A fact that in due course became public. Why the deception? To keep the heat off The Great Helmsman's bottom orifice for as long as possible.

LD's appointment is exactly the same. The official announcement stated that she would have "full control of the day to day running of the club". Cue fans clapping and cheering! The Great Helmsman has finally been given the elbow! LD is in full control! Again, deliberate deception. That was what they intended the fans to believe. And it has obviously worked with you, and with many other fans. (One poster rather touchingly believes that Petrie was "effectively sacked".) Again, the objective was the same - to take the heat of The Great Helmsman's bottom orifice.

But "the day to day running of the club" has no formal or official meaning in business. It could be anything, or nothing. There will be very specific limits on LD's authority. She certainly won't be (and clearly isn't) allowed to set the budget. There will almost certainly be a specific limit on the amount of expenditure she is allowed to authorise. It's very unlikely that she will be allowed to engage in financial transactions that involve increasing the club's overdraft. It's possible that she doesn't have the authority to approve new signings, or hire management level staff, on her own. She will know very precisely what the limits of her authority are, because they will be specified in the contract she signed. And as long as these conditions are respected, she will have no reason to start a fight with Petrie, or the Board, or anybody else. She will know exactly what "the day to day running of the club" means.

And that's where clarity is required. Instead of running around shouting about liars or patsies, and dreaming up implausible scenarios to prove our viewpoint, we just need to know what the limits of "the day to day running of the club" are. Because then we will know very clearly to what extent The Great Helmsman is still involved in the stuff that isn't "the day to day running of the club".

Which is why I have absolutely no expectation that we will ever be told.

Iain G
07-09-2014, 12:54 AM
This goes right to the heart of the problem.

LD has never claimed to have "complete control at the club". That would be an absurd thing to say. No CEO has "complete control" over any business that they don't own.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that the vast majority of the fans know little or nothing about business management and corporate practice, and the other side of that problem is the sleekit way that the club takes advantage of that to mislead the fans.

Classic example: the Butcher 'sacking'. The wording of the club's statement was very specific. He had been "relieved of his duties". And the fans are all dancing and cheering because the guy has been 'sacked'. Except that anybody who understands business knows exactly what that phrase means and doesn't mean. It means "He won't resign, we don't have grounds to sack him, he's still on the payroll." A fact that in due course became public. Why the deception? To keep the heat of The Great Helmsman's bottom orifice for as long as possible.

LD's appointment is exactly the same. The official announcement stated that she would have "full control of the day to day running of the club". Cue fans clapping and cheering! The Great Helmsman has finally been given the elbow! LD is in full control! Again, deliberate deception. That was what they intended the fans to believe. And it has obviously worked with you, and with many other fans. (One poster rather touchingly believes that Petrie was "effectively sacked".) Again, the objective was the same - to take the heat of The Great Helmsman's bottom orifice.

But "the day to day running of the club" has no formal or official meaning in business. It could be anything, or nothing. There will be very specific limits on LD's authority. She certainly won't be allowed to set the budget. There will almost certainly be a specific limit on the amount of expenditure she is allowed to authorise. It's very unlikely that she will be allowed to engage in financial transactions that involve increasing the club's overdraft. It's possible that she doesn't have the authority to approve new signings, or hire management level staff, on her own. She will know very precisely what the limits of her authority are, because they will be specified in the contract she signed. And as long as these conditions are respected, she will have no reason to start a fight with Petrie, or the Board, or anybody else.

And that's where clarity is required. Instead of running around shouting about liars or patsies, and dreaming up implausible scenarios to prove our viewpoint, we just need to know what the limits of "the day to day running of the club" are. Because then we will know very clearly to what extent The Great Helmsman is still involved in the stuff that isn't "the day to day running of the club".

Which is why I have absolutely no expectation that we will ever be told.

She is the CEO of the club, and like any CEO they do have control of the day to day ongoing running of the club. And like any business that has a board and a CEO there will be certain decisions that need to be presented to and ratified by the board, especially anything involving major financial implications, such as budgets. Not ratified or signed off by just Rod Petrie, but by the board of Hibernian Football Club.

Hibs have never stated, as far as I am aware, that Butcher was sacked only that he had been relieved of his duties as club manager, seems clear enough to me that they are both different things?!

I think, as per your usual MO, that you are trying to spin that this is some kind of unusual or odd behaviour and doing a number of Hibs fans a disservice by suggesting that they don't have a grasp on the reality of the CEO role or of her range of powers.

Leeann is pushing change at the club, lots of change, in a short period of time. She has the power to do her job and to make things work better at Hibs, can we just let her get on with it?

Peevemor
07-09-2014, 12:59 AM
This goes right to the heart of the problem.

LD has never claimed to have "complete control at the club". That would be an absurd thing to say. No CEO has "complete control" over any business that they don't own.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that the vast majority of the fans know little or nothing about business management and corporate practice, and the other side of that problem is the sleekit way that the club takes advantage of that to mislead the fans.

Classic example: the Butcher 'sacking'. The wording of the club's statement was very specific. He had been "relieved of his duties". And the fans are all dancing and cheering because the guy has been 'sacked'. Except that anybody who understands business knows exactly what that phrase means and doesn't mean. It means "He won't resign, we don't have grounds to sack him, he's still on the payroll." A fact that in due course became public. Why the deception? To keep the heat off The Great Helmsman's bottom orifice for as long as possible.

LD's appointment is exactly the same. The official announcement stated that she would have "full control of the day to day running of the club". Cue fans clapping and cheering! The Great Helmsman has finally been given the elbow! LD is in full control! Again, deliberate deception. That was what they intended the fans to believe. And it has obviously worked with you, and with many other fans. (One poster rather touchingly believes that Petrie was "effectively sacked".) Again, the objective was the same - to take the heat of The Great Helmsman's bottom orifice.

But "the day to day running of the club" has no formal or official meaning in business. It could be anything, or nothing. There will be very specific limits on LD's authority. She certainly won't be allowed to set the budget. There will almost certainly be a specific limit on the amount of expenditure she is allowed to authorise. It's very unlikely that she will be allowed to engage in financial transactions that involve increasing the club's overdraft. It's possible that she doesn't have the authority to approve new signings, or hire management level staff, on her own. She will know very precisely what the limits of her authority are, because they will be specified in the contract she signed. And as long as these conditions are respected, she will have no reason to start a fight with Petrie, or the Board, or anybody else.

And that's where clarity is required. Instead of running around shouting about liars or patsies, and dreaming up implausible scenarios to prove our viewpoint, we just need to know what the limits of "the day to day running of the club" are. Because then we will know very clearly to what extent The Great Helmsman is still involved in the stuff that isn't "the day to day running of the club".

Which is why I have absolutely no expectation that we will ever be told.

Nice wee dig there. You really are a smart guy!

Before relegation, when LD's appointment was announced we were promised major changes. Before trying to impress us with your business insight, how about simplifying things.

Has there been change?

Who is behind these changes?

LD has confirmed that the board have budgeted to make a loss this season. What more can they do?

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 01:10 AM
Nice wee dig there. You really are a smart guy!
Before relegation, when LD's appointment was announced we were promised major changes. Before trying to impress us with your business insight, how about simplifying things.
Has there been change?
Who is behind these changes?

LD has confirmed that the board have budgeted to make a loss this season. What more can they do?I'm not trying to impress anyone with my business insight. I'm just stating two facts:

1. A large number of fans were misled by the club - deliberately, in my view - into thinking Butcher had been sacked. They had no idea that he was still on the payroll, collecting thousands of pounds every month for doing nothing. Did you?

2. No fans have any idea at all what the limits of Leeann Dempster's authority are. Therefore we have absolutely no idea to what extent she is in control of events at the club.

And change is a constant in business, Peevemor. Changes are always happening. One of the changes that has happened this season is that instead of being at the erse end of the SPL getting pumped by the likes of St Mirren (and Hearts), we're now at the erse end of the Championship getting pumped by the likes of Alloa (and Hearts).

Peevemor
07-09-2014, 01:34 AM
I'm not trying to impress anyone with my business insight. I'm just stating two facts:

1. A large number of fans were misled by the club - deliberately, in my view - into thinking Butcher had been sacked. They had no idea that he was still on the payroll, collecting thousands of pounds every month for doing nothing. Did you?

2. No fans have any idea at all what the limits of Leeann Dempster's authority are. Therefore we have absolutely no idea to what extent she is in control of events at the club.

And change is a constant in business, Peevemor. Changes are always happening. One of the changes that has happened this season is that instead of being at the erse end of the SPL getting pumped by the likes of St Mirren (and Hearts), we're now at the erse end of the Championship getting pumped by the likes of Alloa (and Hearts).

The club said that TB had been relieved of his duties, which is true. If he had been sacked then he would have had the remainder of his contract paid up (or whatever other severance arrangement had been included in his contract). If the club has dealt with him in a specific way, then it'll be the way that is best (cheapest) for Hibs. I've no idea why the club should publish details of dealings with employees, unless it's to stop folk like you shouting and bawling.

As for LD's remit, again why should the club tell us every detail? She's met with various groups of supporters often enough and has answered questions about whether or not specific decisions had been her's to make. As football fans, I don't see the need for us to know the minutiae of the CEO's job description.

And yes, change happens all the time in business, but not often to the extent of this summer's goings-on at ER/EM. The entire organisation has been changed from top to bottom and it doesn't take a genius like yourself to suss who's behind it.

grunt
07-09-2014, 06:21 AM
Classic example: the Butcher 'sacking'. The wording of the club's statement was very specific. He had been "relieved of his duties". And the fans are all dancing and cheering because the guy has been 'sacked'. Except that anybody who understands business knows exactly what that phrase means and doesn't mean.

LD's appointment is exactly the same. The official announcement stated that she would have "full control of the day to day running of the club". Cue fans clapping and cheering! The Great Helmsman has finally been given the elbow! LD is in full control! Again, deliberate deception.

Not sure I understand your point here. You state that in both these cases the club has been very specific in the wording of their statements, yet because the fans misinterpret these statements this means the club is practising deception?

Lucius Apuleius
07-09-2014, 07:37 AM
Not sure I understand your point here. You state that in both these cases the club has been very specific in the wording of their statements, yet because the fans misinterpret these statements this means the club is practising deception?

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Tyler Durden
07-09-2014, 07:57 AM
Fair enough, but as long as the man with the real power wants him there I don't see the point going on and on and on and on about it.

And yet that's exactly what you do

Peevemor
07-09-2014, 08:10 AM
And yet that's exactly what you do

Aye right.

Caversham Green
07-09-2014, 08:21 AM
I'm not trying to impress anyone with my business insight. I'm just stating two facts:

1. A large number of fans were misled by the club - deliberately, in my view - into thinking Butcher had been sacked. They had no idea that he was still on the payroll, collecting thousands of pounds every month for doing nothing. Did you?

2. No fans have any idea at all what the limits of Leeann Dempster's authority are. Therefore we have absolutely no idea to what extent she is in control of events at the club.

And change is a constant in business, Peevemor. Changes are always happening. One of the changes that has happened this season is that instead of being at the erse end of the SPL getting pumped by the likes of St Mirren (and Hearts), we're now at the erse end of the Championship getting pumped by the likes of Alloa (and Hearts).

I imagine most fans would have understood that Butcher's dismissal involved a financial settlement - I don't see why it's important for them to know that it was being paid monthly rather than in a lump sum. There's also a confidentiality issue - it's very rare for a private employer to publish details of an individual employee's dismissal package. Of all the football managers that are sacked each year I don't remember any where the club has stated how compensation has been dealt with.

The Falcon
07-09-2014, 08:23 AM
I asked that very question myself. Petrie I was told let them know they were going, before Leeann then went public.


Without trying to appear pedantic that still doesn't really answer who made the decision. Leannn said at the time that Petrie was only at the discussion with TB as a matter of courtesy as it was he who gave TB (and his team) the gig. Same applies to who did the firing even though LD said that it was her decision to let them all go.

Letting senior figures know they are being booted before going public is pretty standard.

I recall we had a bit of a discussion on Butcher's merits on his appointment and that while none of us were totally convinced we both agreed that we could have done worse and that TB and his team should be given time to sort it out. No one could have envisaged the free fall that took place. Hindsight eh!?

FWIW if I was owner, or had the full authority of the owner, and as out of pocket as it would seem likely that STF will be, you would need a hand grenade to stop me getting involved.

Hibbyradge
07-09-2014, 08:30 AM
1. A large number of fans were misled by the club - deliberately, in my view - into thinking Butcher had been sacked. They had no idea that he was still on the payroll, collecting thousands of pounds every month for doing nothing. Did you?



It would suit you if that was the case, but on this occassion, it's you that's telling porkies, "deliberately in my view".


"Hibs announced Butcher had been “relieved of his duties” two weeks after Hamilton beat them in the Premiership play-off and condemned them to the drop."


"...a recommendation by Dempster to the board that the manager be relieved of his duties, which was unanimously agreed yesterday."

http://www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2014/06/terry-butcher-relieved-of-his-duties/

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11792/9344421/spfl

http://edinburgh.stv.tv/120543/

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-hibs-boss-terry-butcher-says-3841851

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/terry-butcher-sacked-as-hibs-look-to-win-title-1-3439263

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/kane-petrie-still-had-say-in-butcher-dismissal.24457821

I'll stop there, but it was even reported as such on this messageboard. The official site used that exact phrase, but the article is now archived with the old site. I'm sure someone could dig it up for you.

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?285407-Terry-Butcher-relieved-of-duties

edit: I've just seen this has already been discussed.

Jack
07-09-2014, 08:43 AM
Not sure I understand your point here. You state that in both these cases the club has been very specific in the wording of their statements, yet because the fans misinterpret these statements this means the club is practising deception?

Yup! Me too.

The club say it how it is yet somehow its the clubs fault the thick supporters don't understand. Personally I did understand and I think most did, the few who didn't being put right fairly quickly on here.

Ronniekirk
07-09-2014, 08:44 AM
I thought back at the time it happened Leeann made it clear that when she talked to T B about her vision for taking the club forward she didn't see him as the man for the job as he wanted to bring in the players he had already identified which presumably we could no longer afford ,and she made it clear she needed someone to bridge the Disconnect between the Academy and the first team and someone that could nurture and develop young players . She then went on record as saying she recommended to the Board TB should be relieved of his duties The Board accepted and ratified her decision .She didn't clarify if it was unanimous backing .At that point you would assume she was aware of finer detail of his contract and the commitment the club would have to make to honour it and the potential impact this would have on finances given we had just been relegated ,and potentially this would be another factor why the club didn't want to reduce season ticket prices as it's us that's bloody paying for his gardening leave.

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 08:52 AM
Hibs have never stated, as far as I am aware, that Butcher was sacked only that he had been relieved of his duties as club manager, seems clear enough to me that they are both different things?!

Really? Well it's a shame you don't work as a sports journalist for the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Record, the Daily Express, the Scotsman, the Evening News, the Herald, the Daily Mail, Sky Sport, the Guardian, and Talksport.com, all of whom lazily, sloppily, and inaccurately reported that Butcher had been "sacked" at the time of the event. (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hibs.net+butcher+sacked&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=GxAMVIHAO6OA0AXx0YDAAQ#q=hibs+butcher+sacked&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&start=0)

And as far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what the club knew would happen, intended to happen, and planned for. The club had no desire at that point in time that the fans should be aware that Hibs were unable to sack Butcher, that he was still on the payroll, and that he was still being paid thousands of pounds a month for doing nothing. It might be a little inconvenient for The Great Helmsman, don't ye see, if it was clear to the fans that his blithering idiocy on the managerial front had once more cost the club hundred of thousands of pounds, right at the very moment when we could least afford it.


Leeann is pushing change at the club, lots of change, in a short period of time. She has the power to do her job and to make things work better at Hibs, can we just let her get on with it?Why do people like you keep repeating this as if it was some kind of religious mantra? Is your need to believe it so great that you simply can't acknowledge the fact that you have absolutely no idea what is the extent of the power she exercises, because the club has not revealed that information?

The difference between us appears to be that you are happy to carry on in your state of ignorance, whereas I am not. I have every confidence in Leeann Dempster, and absolutely no confidence at all in Rod Petrie. And therefore I would like very much to know exactly what are the limits of Leeann Dempster's authority at ER.

Peevemor
07-09-2014, 09:32 AM
Really? Well it's a shame you don't work as a sports journalist for the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Record, the Daily Express, the Scotsman, the Evening News, the Herald, the Daily Mail, Sky Sport, the Guardian, and Talksport.com, all of whom lazily, sloppily, and inaccurately reported that Butcher had been "sacked" at the time of the event. (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hibs.net+butcher+sacked&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=GxAMVIHAO6OA0AXx0YDAAQ#q=hibs+butcher+sacked&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&start=0)

And as far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what the club knew would happen, intended to happen, and planned for. The club had no desire at that point in time that the fans should be aware that Hibs were unable to sack Butcher, that he was still on the payroll, and that he was still being paid thousands of pounds a month for doing nothing. It might be a little inconvenient for The Great Helmsman, don't ye see, if it was clear to the fans that his blithering idiocy on the managerial front had once more cost the club hundred of thousands of pounds, right at the very moment when we could least afford it.

Why do people like you keep repeating this as if it was some kind of religious mantra? Is your need to believe it so great that you simply can't acknowledge the fact that you have absolutely no idea what is the extent of the power she exercises, because the club has not revealed that information?

The difference between us appears to be that you are happy to carry on in your state of ignorance, whereas I am not. I have every confidence in Leeann Dempster, and absolutely no confidence at all in Rod Petrie. And therefore I would like very much to know exactly what are the limits of Leeann Dempster's authority at ER.

OK. Do you agree that everyone was aware that there would be a financial settlement involved when getting rid of TB & co.? How many times has it been mentioned on here with regard to the possible effect on the playing budget? Why are you getting your knickers in a twist about the way the pay off is being made?

Maybe this method will work out cheaper for Hibs (especially if he gets another job)?

Maybe it's due to cash-flow considerations, ie. keeping the cash in hand for bringing people in?

And what's with the "Great Helmsman" patter? It's nearly as crap as the "KING ROD" stuff that your wee pal trots out.

Stop trying so hard!

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 09:38 AM
It would suit you if that was the case, but on this occasion, it's you that's telling porkies, "deliberately in my view".I have already provided a link to stories from almost every mainstream media outlet in the UK that were headlined "Butcher sacked", and contained that claim in the introductory paragraph. Like er... the Scotsman story to which you link in your post. And the Sky Sports story to which you link has a TV screenshot that contains only two words: "Butcher Sacked".

If the club had wanted matters to be clear to their much-abused support, then they could very easily have issued a statement of clarification the following day. Something along the lines of:

"Contrary to what has been widely reported in the media, Mr Butcher has not been sacked. He will remain an employee of the club until a long-term solution can be found."

I wonder why they didn't do that... :hmmm:

Hibbyradge
07-09-2014, 09:40 AM
Really? Well it's a shame you don't work as a sports journalist for the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Record, the Daily Express, the Scotsman, the Evening News, the Herald, the Daily Mail, Sky Sport, the Guardian, and Talksport.com, all of whom lazily, sloppily, and inaccurately reported that Butcher had been "sacked" at the time of the event. (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hibs.net+butcher+sacked&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=GxAMVIHAO6OA0AXx0YDAAQ#q=hibs+butcher+sacked&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&start=0)

And as far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what the club knew would happen, intended to happen, and planned for.


:faf:

You've conveniently ignored all the links I posted which use the expression "Relieved of" either in the headline or in the text.

The idea that Hibs should be criticised for telling the truth because they secretly hoped journalists wouldn't report it correctly is the best yet. Paranoia in the extreme.




The difference between us appears to be that you are happy to carry on in your state of ignorance, whereas I am not. I have every confidence in Leeann Dempster, and absolutely no confidence at all in Rod Petrie. And therefore I would like very much to know exactly what are the limits of Leeann Dempster's authority at ER.

That bit genuinely interests me. What steps have you taken to find out?

If you haven't done anything, then I suggest you are perfectly happy not to know as it gives you plenty opportunity to make stuff up.

If you have taken steps to know, please share.

"Nailrodders". Your posts certainly won't be accused of excess balance and objectivity with a username like that.

blackpoolhibs
07-09-2014, 09:42 AM
When Butcher was sent on gardening leave, i certainly knew we'd have to pay him off or keep paying him. It has been the case with every manager we've punted, and adds to the long list of mistake the board made in the past.

And each cock up appointment has also added another wage or two or maybe 3 onto the following years wage budget that the new manager has had to deal with, leaving them less money to sort out the mess the team have been left in.

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 09:52 AM
OK. Do you agree that everyone was aware that there would be a financial settlement involved when getting rid of TB & co.? No I don't. I think there were plenty of people who believed, at them time the "sacking" was announced, that Butcher had been dismissed for incompetence, and that no compensation would be payable.

Others made up even more outlandish fantasies for themselves. I recall one poster breathlessly informing us that STF had personally paid Butcher's severance of a quarter of a million pounds out of his own pocket. God only knows where he got that.


And what's with the "Great Helmsman" patter? It's nearly as crap as the "KING ROD" stuff that your wee pal trots out. I have a perfect right to call the fat useless smugturd whatever I choose, with or without your permission. Just as you and your wee pals have a perfect right to defend him to the very death.

Peevemor
07-09-2014, 10:11 AM
No I don't. I think there were plenty of people who believed, at them time the "sacking" was announced, that Butcher had been dismissed for incompetence, and that no compensation would be payable.

Others made up even more outlandish fantasies for themselves. I recall one poster breathlessly informing us that STF had personally paid Butcher's severance of a quarter of a million pounds out of his own pocket. God only knows where he got that.

I have a perfect right to call the fat useless smugturd whatever I choose, with or without your permission. Just as you and your wee pals have a perfect right to defend him to the very death.

You're making stuff up now. Who believed there was no severance payment when TB was emptied? Nobody on here that I can recall.

And yes, you can call RP what you want, but would you do it to his face I wonder?

Hibbyradge
07-09-2014, 10:13 AM
No I don't. I think there were plenty of people who believed, at them time the "sacking" was announced, that Butcher had been dismissed for incompetence, and that no compensation would be payable.


Being unaware of what happens when a football manager is sacked or relieved of their duties, does nothing to improve your credibility.

Has there ever been a football manager who received no compensation when they were sacked?



Others made up even more outlandish fantasies for themselves. I recall one poster breathlessly informing us that STF had personally paid Butcher's severance of a quarter of a million pounds out of his own pocket. God only knows where he got that.


So someone raised the possibility that compensation might be paid, but you chose not to question that at the time? You missed a chance there. You could have been outraged for even longer.



I have a perfect right to call the fat useless smugturd whatever I choose, with or without your permission. Just as you and your wee pals have a perfect right to defend him to the very death.

People are defending the entire board from your ludicrous and hateful accusations. With or without your permission.

Hibbyradge
07-09-2014, 10:14 AM
You're making stuff up now.

Now?

The whole lot has been fiction.

cabbageandribs1875
07-09-2014, 10:20 AM
No I don't. I think there were plenty of people who believed, at them time the "sacking" was announced, that Butcher had been dismissed for incompetence, and that no compensation would be payable.

Others made up even more outlandish fantasies for themselves. I recall one poster breathlessly informing us that STF had personally paid Butcher's severance of a quarter of a million pounds out of his own pocket. God only knows where he got that.

I have a perfect right to call the fat useless smugturd whatever I choose, with or without your permission. Just as you and your wee pals have a perfect right to defend him to the very death.



name one manager in modern day football that has been sacked and NOT received a compensation package :dunno:

Iain G
07-09-2014, 10:22 AM
Really? Well it's a shame you don't work as a sports journalist for the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Record, the Daily Express, the Scotsman, the Evening News, the Herald, the Daily Mail, Sky Sport, the Guardian, and Talksport.com, all of whom lazily, sloppily, and inaccurately reported that Butcher had been "sacked" at the time of the event. (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hibs.net+butcher+sacked&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=GxAMVIHAO6OA0AXx0YDAAQ#q=hibs+butcher+sacked&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&start=0)

And as far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what the club knew would happen, intended to happen, and planned for. The club had no desire at that point in time that the fans should be aware that Hibs were unable to sack Butcher, that he was still on the payroll, and that he was still being paid thousands of pounds a month for doing nothing. It might be a little inconvenient for The Great Helmsman, don't ye see, if it was clear to the fans that his blithering idiocy on the managerial front had once more cost the club hundred of thousands of pounds, right at the very moment when we could least afford it.

Why do people like you keep repeating this as if it was some kind of religious mantra? Is your need to believe it so great that you simply can't acknowledge the fact that you have absolutely no idea what is the extent of the power she exercises, because the club has not revealed that information?

The difference between us appears to be that you are happy to carry on in your state of ignorance, whereas I am not. I have every confidence in Leeann Dempster, and absolutely no confidence at all in Rod Petrie. And therefore I would like very much to know exactly what are the limits of Leeann Dempster's authority at ER.

Can you supply some suitable contacts to send my CV to at these illustrious, if slightly misunderstanding, organs? :greengrin

In all honesty, I don't give a flying **** about whether Leeann has the ability to buy new tea bags on her on authority or if it has to be ratified by the board, as long as she has the ability to do the job she was employed to do.

You say she has your every confidence? Do you not trust her to speak out or put an ultimatum to the board if she is not getting the authority she was promised, or do you think she is just another of RP/STFs patsies? Sounds like you are giving her nothing more than backhanded compliments.

You are attempting to spin a yarn out of nothing to suit your Anti-Rod viewpoint as you have been for months. At least now you have dropped any pretence by correcting your username to suit.

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 10:24 AM
:faf:
You've conveniently ignored all the links I posted which use the expression "Relieved of" either in the headline or in the text.I "conveniently ignored" your links because they're irrelevant. Apart from anything else, only two of them - one being that mighty organ "The Edinburgh Reporter" - had the words in their headline. In contrast, the whole of the mainstream UK media was, literally, plastered with headlines announcing that Butcher had been "sacked".

If I told a hundred people that I had been sacked, ninety-nine of them would quite legitimately and understandably conclude that my contract of employment had been terminated.


The idea that Hibs should be criticised for telling the truth because they secretly hoped journalists wouldn't report it correctly is the best yet. Paranoia in the extreme.:ostrich:


That bit genuinely interests me. What steps have you taken to find out? If you haven't done anything, then I suggest you are perfectly happy not to know as it gives you plenty opportunity to make stuff up... If you have taken steps to know, please share.In the immediate aftermath of the Butcher "sacking" I emailed the club and asked them to confirm my belief that this situation was being widely misreported, that Butcher had not been "sacked", that he remained an employee of the club, and that he was still on the payroll. My email was ignored.

How often do you think I'm going to waste my time writing to the club to ask for information that they don't want the fans to have? If the club wanted the fans to know what are the limits of Leeann Dempster's authority, then they could tell us without waiting to be asked.

BSEJVT
07-09-2014, 10:31 AM
No I don't. I think there were plenty of people who believed, at them time the "sacking" was announced, that Butcher had been dismissed for incompetence, and that no compensation would be payable.

Others made up even more outlandish fantasies for themselves. I recall one poster breathlessly informing us that STF had personally paid Butcher's severance of a quarter of a million pounds out of his own pocket. God only knows where he got that.

I have a perfect right to call the fat useless smugturd whatever I choose, with or without your permission. Just as you and your wee pals have a perfect right to defend him to the very death.

Quite honestly that's horse****, made up by someone (you) who has backed themselves it into a corner and wont admit they were in a minority of 1 thinking you could pay someone of in any walk of life without having to agree a severance package, unless they were being sacked for gross misconduct or something similar.

Give it a rest man you are boring the tits of folk!

Hibbyradge
07-09-2014, 10:34 AM
I "conveniently ignored" your links because they're inconvenient.

I've fixed that for you


I "conveniently ignored" your links because they're irrelevant. Apart from anything else, only two of them - one being that mighty organ "The Edinburgh Reporter" - had the words in their headline. In contrast, the whole of the mainstream UK media was, literally, plastered with headlines announcing that Butcher had been "sacked".


As I pointed out, the accurate phrase was either in the headline or the text. Shall I find other inconvenient examples for you?




:ostrich:



Convincing argument. I'm wavering...




In the immediate aftermath of the Butcher "sacking" I emailed the club and asked them to confirm my belief that this situation was being widely misreported, that Butcher had not been "sacked", that he remained an employee of the club, and that he was still on the payroll. My email was ignored.



So you did think that Butcher was getting a severance payment? I thought you said you didn't?




How often do you think I'm going to waste my time writing to the club to ask for information that they don't want the fans to have? If the club wanted the fans to know what are the limits of Leeann Dempster's authority, then they could tell us without waiting to be asked.

Well, you're like a dog with a bone on here, posting as much made up rubbish as you can. Maybe you should address some of that energy in a better direction?

You said that you weren't happy to carry on in a state of ignorance. That's exactly what you are doing.

Unless you've swapped ignorance for fantasy? :dunno:

HNA12
07-09-2014, 10:35 AM
No I don't. I think there were plenty of people who believed, at them time the "sacking" was announced, that Butcher had been dismissed for incompetence, and that no compensation would be payable.

Others made up even more outlandish fantasies for themselves. I recall one poster breathlessly informing us that STF had personally paid Butcher's severance of a quarter of a million pounds out of his own pocket. God only knows where he got that.

I have a perfect right to call the fat useless smugturd whatever I choose, with or without your permission. Just as you and your wee pals have a perfect right to defend him to the very death.

The only reason you would post something like that is to antagonise, much like the regular snidey digs you make towards this place and other users in general. There are plenty here who agree with you so there really is no need. Please cut it out.

Peevemor
07-09-2014, 11:03 AM
Give it a rest man you are boring the tits of folk!


Well said sir.

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 11:04 AM
So you did think that Butcher was getting a severance payment? I thought you said you didn't?
:dunno:Let me try to spell this out for you again:

The answer to your question is NO. I did NOT think that Butcher was getting a severance payment. I thought EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

You only get a "severance payment" when your connection with an organisation has been "severed". That is, when you have been sacked. I was certain (quite rightly) that Butcher had not been sacked, because I was certain (quite rightly) that Hibs could not afford to sack him. I was certain (quite rightly) that Hibs could not afford to sack him, because I was certain (quite rightly) that when the Great Helmsman had hired Butcher, he had been offered a very high salary, with no get-out clause.

I was certain of all of this specifically because of the wording of the announcement. If Butcher had been sacked and given a severance payment, then the wording would not have been that he had been "relieved of his duties". It would have been something along the lines of "His contract has been terminated, and he has severed all connection with the club".

Are we clear now?

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 11:08 AM
The only reason you would post something like that is to antagonise, much like the regular snidey digs you make towards this place and other users in general. There are plenty here who agree with you so there really is no need. Please cut it out.Excuse me. Did you bother to read the post from Peevemor to which I was replying? If you did, you might just have noted a reference to me, and to my "wee pal".

I consider this to be a "snidey little dig". As do you, apparently. So maybe you could rewrite your post, only this time you can address it to Peevemor, the originator of the "your wee pal" comment.

Peevemor
07-09-2014, 11:09 AM
Let me try to spell this out for you again:

The answer to your question is NO. I did NOT think that Butcher was getting a severance payment. I thought EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

You only get a "severance payment" when your connection with an organisation has been "severed". That is, when you have been sacked. I was certain that Butcher had not been sacked, because I was certain that Hibs could not afford to sack him. I was certain that Hibs could not afford to sack him, because I was certain that when the Great Helmsman had hired Butcher, he had been offered a very high salary, with no get-out clause.

I was certain of all of this specifically because of the wording of the announcement. If Butcher had been sacked and given a severance payment, then the wording would not have been that he had been "relieved of his duties". It would have been something along the lines of "His contract has been terminated, and he has severed all connection with the club".

Are we clear now?

:coffee:

Hibbyradge
07-09-2014, 11:19 AM
Let me try to spell this out for you again:

The answer to your question is NO. I did NOT think that Butcher was getting a severance payment. I thought EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

You only get a "severance payment" when your connection with an organisation has been "severed". That is, when you have been sacked. I was certain that Butcher had not been sacked, because I was certain that Hibs could not afford to sack him. I was certain that Hibs could not afford to sack him, because I was certain that when the Great Helmsman had hired Butcher, he had been offered a very high salary, with no get-out clause.

I was certain of all of this specifically because of the wording of the announcement. If Butcher had been sacked and given a severance payment, then the wording would not have been that he had been "relieved of his duties". It would have been something along the lines of "His contract has been terminated, and he has severed all connection with the club".

Are we clear now?

I think I get it now.

Hibs released a press statement which said that TB had been relieved of his duties. They also posted it on the official site for all to see.

You astutely interpreted this as meaning that he was still being paid, but you think you're the only person who understood that because a few lazy journalists used the word "sacked".

You're also raging, because you knew that Hibs couldn't afford to sack him...which they didn't.

The bit I'm still confused about is whether you think Hibs should have paid the extra so they could have accurately said that he had been sacked? Personally, I think that would have been a poor use of our limited funds.

After all, to all practical ends, Butcher has been sacked. The good news is, that if he takes another job, we'll save even more money.

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 11:20 AM
:coffee:Last time I posted a comment at you that contained nothing but an insulting smiley, I had at least three admins on my back and was publicly threatened with a banning. I'll be contacting them to see if "same rules apply".

Hibbyradge
07-09-2014, 11:22 AM
Last time I posted this kind of **** at you I had at least three admins on my back and was threatened with a banning. I'll be contacting them to see if "same rules apply".

Oi. What about some congratulations for me not reporting your **** ostrich smiley?

Iain G
07-09-2014, 11:29 AM
My email was ignored.



Can't think why... :wink:

matty_f
07-09-2014, 11:30 AM
Can we get this back on topic please.

Iain G
07-09-2014, 11:32 AM
Can we get this back on topic please.

Isn't the thread about the misinterpretation of some information from Hibs to suit an individuals pre-determined point of view? :greengrin

HNA12
07-09-2014, 11:33 AM
Excuse me. Did you bother to read the post from Peevemor to which I was replying? If you did, you might just have noted a reference to me, and to my "wee pal".

I consider this to be a "snidey little dig". As do you, apparently. So maybe you could rewrite your post, only this time you can address it to Peevemor, the originator of the "your wee pal" comment.

One last time. Pease get back on topic and debate in a reasonable manner.

Peevemor
07-09-2014, 11:33 AM
Last time I posted this kind of **** at you I had at least three admins on my back and was threatened with a banning. I'll be contacting them to see if "same rules apply".

Look, when you're in a hole it's best to stop digging. You're going round in circles with your daft non argument and, as someone else said so eloquently, you're boring the tits off us in the process.

Why don't you give it a rest?

jdships
07-09-2014, 11:41 AM
Well done to all concerned : you have racked up 200 posts and the arguments are as inconclusive as they were when the thread started :rolleyes:
Given it is a lovely day outside why don't you all take some " gardening leave " ( like Butcher !!! )

BIG :greengrin
BIG :wink:
:sairhead:

cabbageandribs1875
07-09-2014, 12:05 PM
In the immediate aftermath of the Butcher "sacking" I emailed the club and asked them to confirm my belief that this situation was being widely misreported, that Butcher had not been "sacked", that he remained an employee of the club, and that he was still on the payroll. My email was ignored.
.



it's terrible being ignored...isn't it

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 12:07 PM
The bit I'm still confused about is whether you think Hibs should have paid the extra so they could have accurately said that he had been sacked? Personally, I think that would have been a poor use of our limited funds.No I don't think that. I do not think there is any way that we could have then, or can now, afford to sack Butcher and pay him off.

What I think "should" have happened is that The Great Helmsman should have sold his shareholding in Hibs (for which he himself paid nothing) and used the proceeds to pay up Butcher's contract, making up any deficit from his own pocket. He should then have gone to STF and explained that he had made yet another in a long series of catastrophic blunders, which had cost the club hundreds of thousands of pounds at a time when we could least afford it. He should then have told STF that it was imperative that STF find another candidate to chair the club whom he could trust to look after his investment. He should then have resigned, with some shreds of integrity intact.

After all, to all practical ends, Butcher has been sacked. The good news is, that if he takes another job, we'll save even more money.I think the fans are going to have to front up to the fact that after his performance last season, even if Butcher is ever offered another job the chances of it having anything like the status of Hibs or the salary he is getting from ER are zero. Therefore, to give him any incentive to accept the job, we will very probably have to pay him a lump sum or continue to pay him monthly increments. But we will, as you say, save some money in comparison with paying up the full cost of his contract last June.

CropleyWasGod
07-09-2014, 12:20 PM
No I don't think that. I do not think there is any way that we could have then, or can now, afford to sack Butcher and pay him off.

What I think "should" have happened is that The Great Helmsman should have sold his shareholding in Hibs (for which he himself paid nothing) and used the proceeds to pay up Butcher's contract, making up any deficit from his own pocket. He should then have gone to STF and explained that he had made yet another in a long series of catastrophic blunders, which had cost the club hundreds of thousands of pounds at a time when we could least afford it. He should then have told STF that it was imperative that STF find another candidate to chair the club whom he could trust to look after his investment. He should then have resigned, with some shreds of integrity intact.
I think the fans are going to have to front up to the fact that after his performance last season, even if Butcher is ever offered another job the chances of it having anything like the status of Hibs or the salary he is getting from ER are zero. Therefore, to give him any incentive to accept the job, we will very probably have to pay him a lump sum or continue to pay him monthly increments. But we will, as you say, save some money in comparison with paying up the full cost of his contract last June.
He doesn't have any shareholding in Hibs AFAIK.

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 12:28 PM
it's terrible being ignored...isn't itIn this case, no. I never expected that I would get an answer to my email. Getting no answer told me everything I wanted to know anyway.

Did you have a point to make?

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 12:34 PM
He doesn't have any shareholding in Hibs AFAIK.AFAIK there's no such business entity as "Hibs". I was using it as shorthand for HFC Holdings Ltd, of which he owns 10%. I didn't think I had to spell that out.

CropleyWasGod
07-09-2014, 12:39 PM
AFAIK there's no such business entity as "Hibs". I was using it as shorthand for HFC Holdings Ltd, of which he owns 10%. I didn't think I had to spell that out.
There is, actually.

However, given that you mean HFC Holdings and not the football club, to whom would he sell a minority interest in a company which had little prospect of paying a dividend?

matty_f
07-09-2014, 12:46 PM
AFAIK there's no such business entity as "Hibs". I was using it as shorthand for HFC Holdings Ltd, of which he owns 10%. I didn't think I had to spell that out.

Have you considered the possibility that if you stopped replying to people in a condescending manner as if they were idiots, you might find people stop treating you like one?

I'm sure somewhere you must make some valid points, however I struggle to give any of your posts a modicum of credibility because of the contempt in which you hold other users.

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 01:06 PM
There is, actually.

However, given that you mean HFC Holdings and not the football club, to whom would he sell a minority interest in a company which had little prospect of paying a dividend?Why should I know or care? It's not my job to protect The Great Helmsman from the consequences of his own incompetence. If he couldn't find a buyer he could have returned the shares to STF, who gave them to him in the first place, to be gifted to his successor as Chairman. And he could have paid the whole of Butcher's severance out of his own pocket.

Malthibby
07-09-2014, 01:35 PM
This is tremendously tedious - any chance of moving most of the recent posts to a 'Nailrodders vents his spleen' thread?
It would do what it says on the tin & we could get back to reading something more constructive.

Nailrodders
07-09-2014, 02:03 PM
Have you considered the possibility that if you stopped replying to people in a condescending manner as if they were idiots, you might find people stop treating you like one?CWG understands accounts, finance, and corporate structures. I know that he does.

He knew perfectly well that I was referring to Petrie's 10% share in HFC Holdings Ltd. That being the case, what on earth was the point of this post:
He doesn't have any shareholding in Hibs AFAIK.

He could just as easily have made the actual substantive point he wanted to make, which was that Petrie might struggle to sell his shareholding.

So instead of badgering me about my shortcomings, why don't you ask CWG what the point of his post was? I would be interested to see what his answer is.

matty_f
07-09-2014, 02:10 PM
CWG understands accounts, finance, and corporate structures. I know that he does.

He knew perfectly well that I was referring to Petrie's 10% share in HFC Holdings Ltd. That being the case, what on earth was the point of this post:

He could just as easily have made the actual substantive point he wanted to make, which was that Petrie might struggle to sell his shareholding.

So instead of badgering me about my shortcomings, why don't you ask CWG what the point of his post was? I would be interested to see what his answer is.

I think the answer is in the first point I made, which is basically if you start showing others some respect, you might just find that they afford you the same courtesy. In which case, CWG probably wouldn't have felt the need to correct you.

Of course, I can't speak for CWG, so as a result I should point out that the above is just speculation on my part, and further removes my ability to answer on CWG's behalf as to what the point of his post was (other than to correct your initial mistake, which I'm sure you'll be annoyed with yourself about given it was an assumption that others would know what you meant - something you criticised Hibs for with their choice of wording over Butcher being relieved of his duties.)

Lucius Apuleius
07-09-2014, 05:21 PM
Of course, I can't speak for CWG, so as a result I should point out that the above is just speculation on my part, and further removes my ability to answer on CWG's behalf as to what the point of his post was (other than to correct your initial mistake, which I'm sure you'll be annoyed with yourself about given it was an assumption that others would know what you meant - something you criticised Hibs for with their choice of wording over Butcher being relieved of his duties.)

Kinda just what I was going to say, but better. :agree:

CropleyWasGod
07-09-2014, 06:58 PM
CWG understands accounts, finance, and corporate structures. I know that he does.

He knew perfectly well that I was referring to Petrie's 10% share in HFC Holdings Ltd. That being the case, what on earth was the point of this post:

He could just as easily have made the actual substantive point he wanted to make, which was that Petrie might struggle to sell his shareholding.

So instead of badgering me about my shortcomings, why don't you ask CWG what the point of his post was? I would be interested to see what his answer is.

The point of my post was to remind you (and others) of the truth about RP's shareholding.

"He knew perfectly well that I was referring to Petrie's 10% share in HFC Holdings Ltd" How would I? I'm an accountant, not a mindreader. I have no idea that, when you posted one thing, you actually meant another. I tend not to make assumptions about people I don't know, and tend to take them (and their statements) at face value, until proven otherwise. Which, to be fair, is part of the argument over the past few pages, is it not?


Why should I know or care? It's not my job to protect The Great Helmsman from the consequences of his own incompetence. If he couldn't find a buyer he could have returned the shares to STF, who gave them to him in the first place, to be gifted to his successor as Chairman. And he could have paid the whole of Butcher's severance out of his own pocket.

Wasn't it you who said what RP should have done? I was merely pointing out the irrationality in your argument.

Iain G
07-09-2014, 07:01 PM
And the great Helmsman is Mr Sulu, oh my!

MrRobot
08-09-2014, 10:11 AM
Out of interest, does anybody know just how much or even roughly we are paying for Butcher, Malpas and Marsella?

Not to be nosey and know their exact wage, a combined figure for all 3 is fine. Purely just want to know to see just how much it may have affected transfers.

Iain G
08-09-2014, 10:21 AM
Out of interest, does anybody know just how much or even roughly we are paying for Butcher, Malpas and Marsella?

Not to be nosey and know their exact wage, a combined figure for all 3 is fine. Purely just want to know to see just how much it may have affected transfers.

I thought Marsella was still doing scouting for the club?

Oh wait he's gone: http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/4788

MrRobot
08-09-2014, 10:59 AM
I thought Marsella was still doing scouting for the club?

Oh wait he's gone: http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/4788

I actually thought the same but then somebody said he had actually left a while ago, then just saw this on twitter.

WeeRussell
08-09-2014, 11:27 AM
This is tremendously tedious - any chance of moving most of the recent posts to a 'Nailrodders vents his spleen' thread?
It would do what it says on the tin & we could get back to reading something more constructive.



Spoil sport... I wanted him to say "The Great Helmsman" one more time! :hi:

Lucius Apuleius
09-09-2014, 04:35 PM
This is tremendously tedious - any chance of moving most of the recent posts to a 'Nailrodders vents his spleen' thread?
It would do what it says on the tin & we could get back to reading something more constructive.

Gie him a break. He was sacked from Cruiky's foundry in Denny. First person I have ever heard of managing this. 😋

Nailrodders
09-09-2014, 11:16 PM
Gie him a break. He was sacked from Cruiky's foundry in Denny. First person I have ever heard of managing this. 
Ultimately everybody was sacked from Cruiky's in Denny.

Nailrodders
09-09-2014, 11:25 PM
Out of interest, does anybody know just how much or even roughly we are paying for Butcher, Malpas and Marsella?

Not to be nosey and know their exact wage, a combined figure for all 3 is fine. Purely just want to know to see just how much it may have affected transfers.I recall one of the ITK guys suggesting he knew the figure, although he wouldn't give it. He said it would make our eyes water.

My guess is that if you add up compensation to ICT, golden handshakes, salaries already paid, possible comp to Marsella (presumably the lowest-paid of the three), and payments remaining due to Butcher and Malpas, we'd see no change out of half a million.

What a coup for The Great Helmsman, after all his other successes. :not worth

Iain G
10-09-2014, 12:20 AM
I recall one of the ITK guys suggesting he knew the figure, although he wouldn't give it. He said it would make our eyes water.

My guess is that if you add up compensation to ICT, golden handshakes, salaries already paid, possible comp to Marsella (presumably the lowest-paid of the three), and payments remaining due to Butcher and Malpas, we'd see no change out of half a million.

What a coup for The Great Helmsman, after all his other successes. :not worth

I do think The Great Helmsman is a lovely term of endearment and you secretly have a penchant for fiscally prudent men with moustaches....only saying! :greengrin

Lucius Apuleius
10-09-2014, 10:08 AM
Ultimately everybody was sacked from Cruiky's in Denny.

Wee bit difference in being sacked and the foundry closing down mate. :wink: Nice Sainsburys and Iceland there now.

Danderhall Hibs
10-09-2014, 07:38 PM
Are we finished recruiting now or have we hit the bottom of the bargain basement?

Ronniekirk
10-09-2014, 07:46 PM
Are we finished recruiting now or have we hit the bottom of the bargain basement?
Papers still saying Stubbs is still weighing up whether to offer a contract to Toshney so clearly there is budget for one more .