I see that the Rangers away league match is being beamed back to Easter Road on the new screens. Well done the Big Ron. 😁👍
Printable View
I see that the Rangers away league match is being beamed back to Easter Road on the new screens. Well done the Big Ron. 😁👍
Does anyone know if the catering staff at half time get paid the same as the guy who sells burgers at music festivals from a van?
If we’re paying less, I’m going to be raging.
They get £9.50 an hour or £11 if supervising from what I remember. That is more than someone working in McDonalds. Judging by how few there are that still isn't enough to attract staff. The infrastructure behind the club is something supporters should care about. Floodlight failure, sub standard pitches etc. My concern is that I want the club I love to be a good employer. I want to be proud of everything the club does and while I have no issue with trying to get supporters in to get seats screwed into place I want the permanent employees paid well and treated well
These jobs will appeal to people for all kinds of reasons, and whoever the succesful applicants are will be happy to have landed the jobs.
I'm not sure, but I imagine that you would have to be self employed or agency work and have to pay full NI contributions which will be why they are paid more. As an employee you'll be paying less contributions, reflected in the salary.
Totally off the top of my head.
Even so, at £25 ph on a minimum 37.5hr contract, that’s circa £50k pa. Even with your NI conts/tax liability/van/tools etc, your still walking out with a chunk more than £24k pa.
I hope the club find someone but it’s not an attractive proposition to a tradesman.
An approved Electrician with no 2391, no Pasma, no IPAF should be getting £15.61 an hour shop rate. And £17 odds travel rate per hour.
Throw in all the extra qualifications and training Hibs are asking for and it’s not even up for debate that they are way out with the salary.
It’s not even close.
If they manage to fill the role then fair play but show me guys with all those qualifications and experience willing to work for 24k a year and I’ll take 2 of them on today.
They’re just not out there in Edinburgh, especially with jobs like St James where labourers are making more than 24k.
I wonder if the right candidate would be able to negotiate a salary of their requirements. Like most jobs these days
Nae wonder McCrorie signed for Aberdeen
Laddie thought it was £24k a month we were offering and was about to sign when he realised it was per year!
At the beginning this thread was quite enlightening, but now it's getting on my globes.
Seen dozens that work for the uni, historic Scotland and Parliament on similar to what hibs are offering. It'll be topped up by overtime, call out ect. The reason they except lower wages is for quality of life.
At the uni they are in back of 8 home before 3, relaxed day never pushed just fixing light's ect, 8 weeks full pay holiday that you need to add in self employed don't get, pension and taxes sorted for you, no finding jobs or dealing with customers really. The saying at historic Scotland from a plumber I knew was I get paid a lot for what I actually do.
They all could go on their own and make much more, but are happy in life. Half day Friday don't think about work until Monday
Under 6 weeks holiday from Hibs and a pension that will not be as good as the Civil Service. Not one positive remark I can see on twitter either. There is also no guarantee that the job will allow hours anything less than what is contracted and given it is an American employer they might expect more for no extra pay.
As they say these days the "Optics" don't look great
Huh?
Think of all the American employers in the UK, thousands of companies, millions of employees. Their staff get paid the same as everyone else in the workplace!!
What an utterly bizarre take on things.
Why should Hibs offer a pension equal to the civil service? Why did you pick that to go by? There's very few companies offer final salary pensions these days, especially to new members.
Nest is fine as a Workplace pension. I get 20 days holidays plus 9 public days.
Don't see any problem with what Hibs are doing here.
Thats because there is no problem. Just a bunch of people moaning about something that has zero impact on their day to day lives. There will be someone out there that will look at that role and think, yeah that works for me. Whether it’s someone older on the wind down or a young guy or girl recently qualified that’ll use it as a stepping stone.
I like football.
Sorry but I don't understand why this ''someone recently qualified'' line keeps being repeated. An electrician just out their time is not an approved electrician. There is a difference. They will not nessessarily have their IPAF or PASMA as well. An older guy winding down would've need to have gone through at least 4 different courses in the previous 4 years to be qualified for this. This job requires someone really at the top of their game, right up to date on everything, likely just been working on big sites where PASMA and IPAF are required.
What does it really matter? You don’t think Hibs are offering a fair wage, that’s fine, don’t apply for it.
If someone who does have the qualifications and wants to apply then ultimately that’s up to them. If nobody wants the job at that level of pay then Hibs will have to re-advertise and offer more.
Nobody is being disadvantaged, nobody is being taken advantage of, it’s a job that’s an option for anyone who wants to go for it.
It seems people can’t make a distinction between a spark working on short term contracts via agencies and a spark who has a full time permanent contract. My pal works as a spark for a large utilities supplier. The salary is well under £30,000/ year. Yes, there is no doubt decent money to be working on sites, but some people prefer a secure job, access to a pension and decent holidays and sick pay.
You get the facts pointing out to you, which contradict your reasons for this being a lower wage, and this is what you reply with? I'm not upset. I just cannot understand why people are trying to justify this from Hibs. Hibs are trying to fill what is, lets face it, an important position in the operations team, with a wage much lower than the average for that position. All the facts point to this? Why is it so difficult to accept. Absolute RAGE on here if this happens for a first team player, but the ''we're not a charity'' line comes out when its a stadium operations position.
The work they do is a world away. As I say dozens of tradesmen at my work get paid similar to what hibs are offering and their is always a queue for the jobs. They say they get paid well for what they actually do and fair play to them. Quality of life is worth thousands
It's not world's away.. Plenty of big sjib companies do maintenance work on things like uni buildings, pub chains, estate agents etc. I know guys who daily do all the things Hibs are wanting here.
It's a subjective thing if someone wants this job of course. I hope someone takes it and does a great job. It is still well under the average wage for someone with those qualifications.
The thread title should be positive, but the last few days it has all been folks arguing over the wages offered for tradesmen. Is there seriously nothing positive to say about how the club are progressing, or is everything negative.
Remember the old saying, if you have nothing good to say, say nothing!
And if you don't, you must unconditionally criticise the club for everything.
Hibs wouldn't have advertised the job at that salary if they didn't think there would be interest. You've explained why you think a higher salary should be appropriate, but you don't need to keep explaining it over and over.
Our sponsorship deals certainly seem to have expanded quite a bit and by the sounds of it, in Rons interview, we are just beginning to increase our revenue. Don’t think I’ve ever felt so positive about the direction in which our club is going, exciting times being a Hibby just now 💚
The salaries are very poor. No doubting that. You get what you pay for though.
Oscar Wilde was right :wink:
Quote:
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Quote:
Today, many of us confuse the meaning of the word “value” with the word “price”. Or maybe the word “cost.” However such terms mean very different things. Especially in business.
Speak to a group of marketing people (even if it may be something I wouldn’t wish my worst enemy). Ask them what, in their opinion, would be the criteria for something to be perceived by potential buyers as having a high “value for money” rating.
I’d bet most of them would tell you that the product in question needs to either be either:
- Cheaper than the competition’s offering
- Offering “more” than the competition
Of course in the real world the perception of what constitutes “value” is more subtle, and a lot more subjective. Just by pricing your widgets 25% cheaper than the ones sold by the guy down the street doesn’t mean that everyone’s going to buy your widgets and no-one’s going to buy his.
Why not? Because some customers will have their own rationale why they will continue buy from him and not from you. Perhaps some people value the fact he offers online ordering, or free delivery. Perhaps he puts his widgets in a nicer-looking package than yours.
Quote:
Price is not the same as value
Whatever the reason, some buyers prefer to buy from him, even if he’s more expensive than you. The reason doesn’t have to make sense to you, as long as it makes sense to them. They’re buying for reasons other just just price. They see ‘value’, over and above what is being sold.
The fact is, nobody would buy any product or service – at whatever price it was sold at, from whatever business – if they didn’t see the ‘value’ being demonstrated as part of the transaction. Price may be one thing, but value is everything.
Value has little to do with price. A corkscrew is inexpensive to buy, but if you’re trying to get into a bottle of wine it has immense value. Similarly just because something costs more than its peers doesn’t mean it’s poor value. If it did, nobody would buy an Apple computer, or a BMW automobile, or an IWC watch. Every brand that exists today has ‘value’ to someone. Otherwise the brand would not exist.
The only reason that a product or service absolutely needs to be cheaper, or offer more for less, is when it is deemed to be a commodity. An item can be considered a commodity when it has no other inherent communicable “value” that its market would pay for, other than its price in relation to the competition.
Quote:
Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.
For example, I don’t care what brand of paperclips I buy. I’m guessing you probably don’t care much either. If I’m in the market to buy paperclips, I’m simply looking for the best deal. If you make paperclips and want me to buy from you, you need to communicate your value. You need to show me how your paperclips are ‘better’ than the ones I’d otherwise buy. If you can’t, then you need to price them cheaper if you’re to get my business.
But the problem with selling a commodity is that there’s always someone, somewhere, who’s prepared to sell it cheaper. With price as your biggest differentiator, you’re in a race to the bottom.
Supermarkets, for example, often work on the loss-leader principle. They’ll sell daily staples, such as milk or bread, for less than it costs to buy them. The goal is to use such low pricing as an enticement to get more customers through the door. Once they’re in, the supermarket is gambling on these customers buying other stuff while they’re in the store. The profits made for the other items offsets the losses made on the bread and milk, evening-out the profit-per-customer statistics.
Another thread ruined by the usual suspect.
Why does everything have to be framed as positive v negative?
I think it's been a fairly interesting discussion and I would say I've learned a lot from it. Admittedly it has suffered from the online phenomenon that sees the requirement to have the last word ensure it becomes endlessly cyclical but that's a given now.
I haven't seen many people be unduly critical of the club, and of those who have questioned the salary at least a couple are usually relentlessly positive. Likewise I haven't see many blindly defend the club either.
As I said earlier in the thread I'm not much of a fan of the 'if you don' t like the salary, don't apply for the job' argument. It stifles genuine conversation around what is a real living wage, paints such concerns as an individual issue rather than a societal one and allows the chronic exploitative underpayment of certain sectors, care as one example, to continue. Equally though I stand by the point that that doesn't apply in this instance. A spark that has all the qualifications Hibs want could command a higher wage elsewhere if they wanted it, of course that may require making other sacrifices though. If they are applying for the job it is because they want to rather than out of desperation as can be the case in other sectors with horrendous wages on offer. That seems fair enough to me.
I think it might be the case that there are 2 or 3 different arguments getting conflated on this thread and that always spells trouble.
Could it be Hibs are banking on a fan wanting to work for the club they will accept a lower salary?
I know personally I'd probably accept being paid a bit less if it meant working for Hibs.
I would play for HIBS for nothing 😂
Who actually cares what Hibs are or are not looking to pay an electrician!
I can’t believe some of the threads on here at the moment.
Ron obviously runs a tight ship. Hopefully every penny saved on ancillary staff goes towards the team.
- Undefeated domestically
- 2nd in the League
- Semi Final of League Cup
- Above Hearts
- New Screens
- New Kiosks and menu
- Dozens of new sponsors
- Players tied up for longer / not lost key players, whilst bringing others in
- Ross tied up for another 2 years
- Continuing to look at transfer targets with 1 already joining us in January
- Change in direction on recruitment front
- Stadium seats being put in
- Support for Hibernian Women's team (derby game this week at ER)
- Oh... and still that potential £2m payout from the "loss of earnings insurance" Ron took out when he bought the club.
If you can't see the positives of what Ron is doing and can only moan about some wages etc then you need to rethink your outlook
:flag::flag:
Not really relevant to this thread but didn’t want to start a new one.
James Anderson’s donation to Scottish youth football…..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58717270
No need to be so vocal and volatile about something so minute in the grand scheme of things. Keep the thread on track and appropriate
Very selective but I agree everything is looking good and everything is moving forward but most stuff is on the launch pad awaiting launch. I reckon the whole picture will start to be revealed in 11 months time.
The big pluses are:
- Players tied up for longer / not lost key players
- Ross tied up for another 2 years
I think the bigger pluses are we are no longer sheite, and look to be a club who can now compete regularly for Europe through our league position, and for cups by making the later stages most seasons.
And under the new owner, i feel this much more than i ever did under the last one.
Everything else is just white noise to me, nice to hear about but ultimately the team are my major focus. If they do well, i feel good about the club.
There's no point having big screens if we are playing poor and fighting relegation, i dont feel we will be doing that anytime soon. :top marks:hibees
I think the list of positives is fair in it’s selection, and my personal history of supporting Hibs (for over 50 years) tells me that it’s much better now than most of that time … some exceptions of course perhaps,, maybe in the 70s, Sauzee and Latapy times, and of course May 2016. But all in all, on and off the field feels like it has grown since the thankful demise of Butcher, and off the field feels as strong as it ever has in my time … stronger perhaps.
Club feels like it's getting bigger and growing which is what we have all wanted for years.
We are by a distance ahead of the rest and in the tier of clubs just behind Rangers and Celtic on the field now.
Looking like a top 4 of Glasgow and Edinburgh this season with some pundits thinking the Edinburgh clubs could even challenge for the title.
I wouldn't say Mikey Stewart is an idiot. Easily the best and most honest pundit up here. He was talking a lot of sense before the 3pm games on Sportsound on Saturday when they were discussing Ron Gordon's interview and why change is needed, granted Willie Miller was tying himself in knots and was sceptical.
More pundits should be following Mikey Stewart lead and calling Rangers out for what they are.
I sort of agree with you both. I would be amazed if either Edinburgh club was within 10 points of the old firm by the end of the season, but it’s also really refreshing to have one of the countries most high profile pundits not connected to the old firm and happy to “talk up” the importance of Hibs and Hearts. If he really thinks we are likely to properly compete with the old firm this season then I’m afraid he’s probably wide of the mark, but I love the fact he is positive about teams outside of Glasgow. :agree:
I heard M Stewart on Saturday and agree he’s generally decent. However, on Saturday he called out Sky for only covering Celtic/Huns away games.
It was a bit hypocritical in my view. Last Thursday BBC Scotland opted to pick Celtic v Raith over Dundee Utd v hibs, Saturday the live game was Dundee v Rangers as opposed to Hearts v Livi, and Sunday it was Celtic v Dundee Utd over Hibs v St Johnstone.
The BBC are every bit as bad as Sky when favouring Glasgow clubs over the rest of Scottish football but Mikey Stewart conveniently doesn’t mention that.
That's a fair point, I think I saw someone else mention BBC stating they have to remain impartial on five live. Mark Chapman is always saying they have to remain impartial when he's on five live before they discuss something or head somewhere.
Why is that not the case on BBC Radio Scotland? I heard Richard Gordon say something which was a clear breach of impartiality. And then you have their favourites always discussing the Old Firm. It needs to change.
Last Thursday stuck in my throat. Celtic v Raith over Utd v Hibs. I mean seriously!
It’s pandering to the masses. Most conversations end up discussing the Ugly sisters.
I used to enjoy it when Craig Paterson and Tam McManus had a slot but you’ve not Rly got anyone with Hibs connections.
Bonner for Celtic, Miller for Dons, Levein/Stewart Hearts, Hateley/Ferguson for the Huns.
Yogi is ok but always feel like he’s touting himself for a managers job.
Agreed, it can be painful at times with Tom English, Bonner, Ferguson and even Miller who is stuck in a different era. It is still generally decent though, especially open all mics which is a very good show.
I remember back in the day Gordon Smith and Murdo McLeod were on it and don't recall them being as Old Firm biased as it is now.
I think as fans it's OK to dream about winning the league, it's OK to talk it up even if we don't really believe it and if we win at the weekend it's OK to get a bit excited about it.
The Scottish Premiership in it's various incarnations has been so dull in terms of a title challenge from outside Glasgow for so long that I can't get on board with this grounded realism. If we are within touching distance at the top, no matter how early then I'm going to big it up and enjoy it.
I think were we have to be realistic is if/when we fall away. You have to have the smarts to realise that finishing 3rd or 4th is still a good season. Of course if someone like Motherwell or, God forbid, Hearts go on to win it then you can ask why not us? If, as we all expect if we are being honest it ends up being Rangers, Celtic...............the rest then going nuts because we bottled it or whatever is just daft.
Maybe Celtic pay their electricians more money and therefore get priority on Sportsound. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by loanheadhibby;[URL="tel:6708430"
It was but Michael Stewarts general comment is that our game will never grow as Sky continually cover all Celtic/Huns away games and since Sky are only permitted to visit a stadium 4 times a season, it limits their coverage of other games.
If Sky go to ER 4 times a season for 2 derbies and a Celtic & Rangers game, it means that Sky can't cover Hibs V Dons, Hibs v Dundee utd etc. So Sky viewers only ever getting to see Celtic V Rangers most weekends.
I should add that this was in the context that Ron Gordon wants to grow the game in Scotland (as well as growing Hibs). Mikey Stewarts point was that it will never grow whilst it is truncated to rest of world only seeing the ugly sisters post weeks.
I thought Stewart spoke well about that. It is absolutely ridiculous that the The Thes and Celtc fans can pretty much watch every away game on TV. I agreed with his thinking that, particularly late in the season, games should be chosen that will promote the product. I think Ron is going at this from a USA perspective where they try and grow the sport not focus on growing the best sides and indeed their whole recruitment of new players is done so that there is some equalisation to the playing squads which means different winners and more interest.
Yes, exactly this. Just look at the NFL, it is a totally socialist league model they have so it will always be competitive.
How the TV games are picked is very interesting too with CBS generally showing AFC away games, FOX NFC away games with these networks showing the national big game late on Sunday, with NBC and ESPN able to choose the games of the week essentially and then NBC able to flex their choice to a better game depending on scenarios.
The league has a model that guarantees it will remain competitive, whilst the TV deals fund it, the TV companies have the choice of games to show.
In Scotland everything remains fixed and can't be changed, not least by the absurd 11-1 voting model.
From what I remember that 11-1 rule could have changed but Aberdeen voted against as they happened to be in second place at the time. So we had 10 clubs out of 12 wanting change and because of a ridiculous rule brought in solely, imo, to safeguard the interest of the Uglies the vote was lost. I'm old fashioned so I do like that we have so many teams with such rich history. However, you only have to look at how some junior clubs have grown to know that in time this will change and getting a model where clubs that are trying to increase support and improve have a good chance and being rewarded. The one thing I think America has wrong is the closed shop but in some ways that is why they can vote for the good of the game as they are safe in the knowledge they are in the exclusive club and will benefit equally with other franchises. I think there have been some additions to the NFL over the years so there is some flexibility but I would want a bit more opportunity for teams outside the chosen few(if that is where this is heading)
Why?
If Scotland are playing Russia in a qualifier, you want our commentators and pundits to remain impartial? Why not just bring in some Russian dudes to do the job alongside just to make everything even?!
Bollocks to that.
What’s wrong with Richard Gordon bigging up his team a bit, he’s a football fan. I’d far rather that than a grey suit who just talked cliches to try and avoid offending anyone.
We’re adults. Surely we can all cope with hearing things about other clubs without greeting our eyes out?
I know there’s a few on here that get really upset by Sportsound on a weekly basis but the vast majority of us get by just fine.
Not a problem with pundits rooting for their club. It's when they do other clubs down, with no reason or for a reason they ignore when it's their club. They come across as petty and bias. Hard to juggle for some and its beyond the staff at Sportsound.
Using the National teams fixtures as an example is just strawman daft.
Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk