outlaw69uk 123 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Um? How would you define a state dependant Scot, and, why is that relevant? If normal business rules apply, then, why are the salaries paid i football completely unrealistic, and out of synch with the "real" world? If you take Rangers, the salaries paid out would be more akin to a company with at least 100 times the number of employess, in fact, I would think far more! £15k a week? In the real world, thats the equivelant of 52 employees in a call centres ANNUAL wages over the piece. Scotland has too many people dependent on the State either for employment or for benefits. It is relevant because most have little or no knowledge of how business works and the grim reality of it. I do not accept that football is immune from the financial realities that other businesses face. We are on our knees because we have thought for too long we are an exception. The only way forward for the Rangers is to be run as a self sufficient business and one that worst case breaks even each season - and Bain's wage, given it is a significant proportion of turnover, is a part of that. Ah, I wondered if it was intended as a slight in my direction, as it would be far removed from reality if it was Oh, its not immune, of course not, but, at the same time, it doesnt follow the "rules" as such. Its a very unique model, not just scotland, but, all throughout the UK. Being self sufficient is obviously key, but, I think that equity funding is the way that will be partially achieved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 There's nothing to suggest that Bain has taken a pay cut. His bonus was probably a lot lower in 2008/9 due to the under-performance of the club so I don't think we should be rushing to congratulate him on this one yet. It's highly possible that his basic wage has not fallen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Boss mentioned the mhanks CEO as a comparable. I just googled him and he joined them in November 2003. Have a look at how they've turned around under his stewardship. www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/sco_celtic.htm Ah, statistics. Doncha just love 'em. Tell me what you want to prove and I'll prove it for you with some damn fine statistics. - Since Liewell was appointed in November 2003 he has received £2.44m from them. In the same period, Bain has received an almost identical £2.47m from us. - If you stick to the years on the link you provided (to 2008) their retained loss was £2.4m and we made a retained profit of £7.7m. --> Bain clearly ahead. - If you add in 2009, they have shown a retained loss of £0.3m and we have shown a retained loss of £4.9m. --> Liewell ahead (But Kaunas apart, the difference would have been £5m in Bain's favour.) - If you add in expected results for 2010, the swing will again be in Bain's favour. --> Bain likely ahead again. What does all this prove? Bain's remuneration is in line with the market rate for the job and it cannot be shown that he is overpaid by comparing his remuneration to Liewell. Lawwell was getting paid far less than Bain, and it appears that Celtic had to increase his package to be on a par with Bain's. Not sure that my conclusion would be that Bain is getting the market rate. More likely that they are both overpaid, and that's due to Murray overpaying Bain initially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamFyfe 1,438 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Half a million a year not bad at all. He seems to becoming a new man Mr.Bain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Boss mentioned the mhanks CEO as a comparable. I just googled him and he joined them in November 2003. Have a look at how they've turned around under his stewardship. www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/sco_celtic.htm Ah, statistics. Doncha just love 'em. Tell me what you want to prove and I'll prove it for you with some damn fine statistics. - Since Liewell was appointed in November 2003 he has received £2.44m from them. In the same period, Bain has received an almost identical £2.47m from us. - If you stick to the years on the link you provided (to 2008) their retained loss was £2.4m and we made a retained profit of £7.7m. --> Bain clearly ahead. - If you add in 2009, they have shown a retained loss of £0.3m and we have shown a retained loss of £4.9m. --> Liewell ahead (But Kaunas apart, the difference would have been £5m in Bain's favour.) - If you add in expected results for 2010, the swing will again be in Bain's favour. --> Bain likely ahead again. What does all this prove? Bain's remuneration is in line with the market rate for the job and it cannot be shown that he is overpaid by comparing his remuneration to Liewell. Lawwell was getting paid far less than Bain, and it appears that Celtic had to increase his package to be on a par with Bain's. Not sure that my conclusion would be that Bain is getting the market rate. More likely that they are both overpaid, and that's due to Murray overpaying Bain initially. Was Lawell not pursued by Arsenal about 18-20 months ago as well? Perhaps that prompted Celtic to increase his pay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC55 109,756 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Boss mentioned the mhanks CEO as a comparable. I just googled him and he joined them in November 2003. Have a look at how they've turned around under his stewardship. www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/sco_celtic.htm Ah, statistics. Doncha just love 'em. Tell me what you want to prove and I'll prove it for you with some damn fine statistics. - Since Liewell was appointed in November 2003 he has received £2.44m from them. In the same period, Bain has received an almost identical £2.47m from us. - If you stick to the years on the link you provided (to 2008) their retained loss was £2.4m and we made a retained profit of £7.7m. --> Bain clearly ahead. - If you add in 2009, they have shown a retained loss of £0.3m and we have shown a retained loss of £4.9m. --> Liewell ahead (But Kaunas apart, the difference would have been £5m in Bain's favour.) - If you add in expected results for 2010, the swing will again be in Bain's favour. --> Bain likely ahead again. What does all this prove? Bain's remuneration is in line with the market rate for the job and it cannot be shown that he is overpaid by comparing his remuneration to Liewell. Boss its posters like you who help the thick bastards like me understand. Thanks mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC55 109,756 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Boss mentioned the mhanks CEO as a comparable. I just googled him and he joined them in November 2003. Have a look at how they've turned around under his stewardship. www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/sco_celtic.htm Ah, statistics. Doncha just love 'em. Tell me what you want to prove and I'll prove it for you with some damn fine statistics. - Since Liewell was appointed in November 2003 he has received £2.44m from them. In the same period, Bain has received an almost identical £2.47m from us. - If you stick to the years on the link you provided (to 2008) their retained loss was £2.4m and we made a retained profit of £7.7m. --> Bain clearly ahead. - If you add in 2009, they have shown a retained loss of £0.3m and we have shown a retained loss of £4.9m. --> Liewell ahead (But Kaunas apart, the difference would have been £5m in Bain's favour.) - If you add in expected results for 2010, the swing will again be in Bain's favour. --> Bain likely ahead again. What does all this prove? Bain's remuneration is in line with the market rate for the job and it cannot be shown that he is overpaid by comparing his remuneration to Liewell. Lawwell was getting paid far less than Bain, and it appears that Celtic had to increase his package to be on a par with Bain's. Not sure that my conclusion would be that Bain is getting the market rate. More likely that they are both overpaid, and that's due to Murray overpaying Bain initially. Was Lawell not pursued by Arsenal about 18-20 months ago as well? Perhaps that prompted Celtic to increase his pay. Papa im not really that great with the ins and outs of all the money aspects etc. But according to a couple of the rags Arsenal wanted to offer him some serious serious money. Not that the rags can be believed, so even with a rise i know that the money Arsenal were offering was dwarfing that, Maybe something like 1.75mil. I cant find the article but it was a large amount mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Lawwell was getting paid far less than Bain, and it appears that Celtic had to increase his package to be on a par with Bain's. Not sure that my conclusion would be that Bain is getting the market rate. More likely that they are both overpaid, and that's due to Murray overpaying Bain initially. The thought of the Celtic remuneration committee basing their decision on Liewell's pay on what Bain was getting is rather naive. They will have considered a report from their advisers on similar salaries throught the UK in both football and outside football. They will have decided on a level that retained Liewell, taking all market considerations into account. In his first full year (2004/05) Liewell received £299k, dwarfing Bain's 235k. So much for increasing Liewell's salary to match Bain's! The following year, Bain received a substantial bonus (we think for the share issue in December 2004, and possibly also the 2005 league win and consequent CL qualification). The year after that, Bain's remuneration was again down below Liewell's. In the most recent year to 2009, Liewell's basic salary was much higher than Bain's. And Liewell's bonuses last year and this year reflect the trading results much more than they reflect Bain's remuneration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSifter 181 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Ah, statistics. Doncha just love 'em. Tell me what you want to prove and I'll prove it for you with some damn fine statistics. - Since Liewell was appointed in November 2003 he has received £2.44m from them. In the same period, Bain has received an almost identical £2.47m from us. - If you stick to the years on the link you provided (to 2008) their retained loss was £2.4m and we made a retained profit of £7.7m. --> Bain clearly ahead. - If you add in 2009, they have shown a retained loss of £0.3m and we have shown a retained loss of £4.9m. --> Liewell ahead (But Kaunas apart, the difference would have been £5m in Bain's favour.) - If you add in expected results for 2010, the swing will again be in Bain's favour. --> Bain likely ahead again. What does all this prove? Bain's remuneration is in line with the market rate for the job and it cannot be shown that he is overpaid by comparing his remuneration to Liewell. You cannot say "Kaunas apart" to suit your agenda. It falls down like a pack of cards at that point. Bain became chief exec in February 2005, what do the figures from then to now state? Likewise using one other person (although I'm not sure a rhat is a person?) as a comparable doesn't wash. Bain is overpaid in comparison to CEOs of companies that perform better than his own, both inside and outside of football. This is all part of the problem and why the Club is financially on it's knees. Don't get me started on who is the most successful at PR and projecting a positive image of their club either... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Bain became chief exec in February 2005, what do the figures from then to now state? The figures from February 2005 until now state that Bain and Liewell were paid almost exactly the same. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC55 109,756 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 £1million a year papa found this article Celtic's chief executive, Peter Lawwell, has emerged as the football man in the running for the £1m-a-year vacancy at Arsenal. The 49-year-old will find out in the next fortnight if he has been selected from the two-man shortlist ahead of Paul Donovan, Vodafone's chief executive for central Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Lawwell is considered a tough transfer negotiator at Celtic and has excellent contacts in European football - not least at Uefa, where his fellow Scot, David Taylor, is general secretary. Having substantially lifted Celtic's turnover during his spell at Parkhead, his CV appears well suited to Arsenal. His background is as an accountant and finance director, having had a spell in the property-development business on the Clydeport authority, fitting in with many of the core skills Arsenal require of their new broom. The club is set to announce a strong set of half-year accounts this week, with further discussion of whom to appoint at a board meeting on Thursday. But balanced against Lawwell's football experience is the FTSE100 profile of the Arsenal season-ticket holder Donovan, whose company is a top-line sponsor of Uefa's Champions League. His experience of and contacts in central European, Middle Eastern and Asian markets might also suit him to dialogue with potential purchasers. Arsenal's board, who engaged the headhunters Spencer Stuart to deliver a £1m-a-year chief executive, insists it has no desire to discuss a takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Forget what Liewellis getting Credit has to go to Bain no matter what the figures are - he is doing his bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
outlaw69uk 123 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Ah, statistics. Doncha just love 'em. Tell me what you want to prove and I'll prove it for you with some damn fine statistics. - Since Liewell was appointed in November 2003 he has received £2.44m from them. In the same period, Bain has received an almost identical £2.47m from us. - If you stick to the years on the link you provided (to 2008) their retained loss was £2.4m and we made a retained profit of £7.7m. --> Bain clearly ahead. - If you add in 2009, they have shown a retained loss of £0.3m and we have shown a retained loss of £4.9m. --> Liewell ahead (But Kaunas apart, the difference would have been £5m in Bain's favour.) - If you add in expected results for 2010, the swing will again be in Bain's favour. --> Bain likely ahead again. What does all this prove? Bain's remuneration is in line with the market rate for the job and it cannot be shown that he is overpaid by comparing his remuneration to Liewell. You cannot say "Kaunas apart" to suit your agenda. It falls down like a pack of cards at that point. Bain became chief exec in February 2005, what do the figures from then to now state? Likewise using one other person (although I'm not sure a rhat is a person?) as a comparable doesn't wash. Bain is overpaid in comparison to CEOs of companies that perform better than his own, both inside and outside of football. This is all part of the problem and why the Club is financially on it's knees. Don't get me started on who is the most successful at PR and projecting a positive image of their club either... So, using an obvious example from his peer group doesnt wash? Why not? because it disproves the opinion? Once again, your second line I highlighted is what drew that response in the first place. As did the link YOU posted? and the fact is, during those, very recent periods, Bain earned less, and, was more successful, which doesnt suit your arguement, which is why you want to ignore them. Add to that, why continue to say "inside and outside of football", yet, dismiss the most obvious comparison? Or, do you just want it to be "outside of football", since, his equivelant in celtic is apparently not a genuine like for like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSifter 181 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Bain became chief exec in February 2005, what do the figures from then to now state? The figures from February 2005 until now state that Bain and Liewell were paid almost exactly the same. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear. The figures for financial performances of the respective clubs since then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSifter 181 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 So, using an obvious example from his peer group doesnt wash? Why not? because it disproves the opinion? Once again, your second line I highlighted is what drew that response in the first place. As did the link YOU posted? and the fact is, during those, very recent periods, Bain earned less, and, was more successful, which doesnt suit your arguement, which is why you want to ignore them. Add to that, why continue to say "inside and outside of football", yet, dismiss the most obvious comparison? Or, do you just want it to be "outside of football", since, his equivelant in celtic is apparently not a genuine like for like? One comparison does not make for an adequate or acceptable benchmarking exercise. Bain is overpaid given the performance of the Club. He is not the only person at the club who is overpaid. I do not accept that he has been a better CEO for us than that rhat has for been them. And that includes not just the financial aspects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
outlaw69uk 123 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 So, using an obvious example from his peer group doesnt wash? Why not? because it disproves the opinion? Once again, your second line I highlighted is what drew that response in the first place. As did the link YOU posted? and the fact is, during those, very recent periods, Bain earned less, and, was more successful, which doesnt suit your arguement, which is why you want to ignore them. Add to that, why continue to say "inside and outside of football", yet, dismiss the most obvious comparison? Or, do you just want it to be "outside of football", since, his equivelant in celtic is apparently not a genuine like for like? One comparison does not make for an adequate or acceptable benchmarking exercise. Bain is overpaid given the performance of the Club. He is not the only person at the club who is overpaid. I do not accept that he has been a better CEO for us than that rhat has for been them. And that includes not just the financial aspects. Well, according to the above, in the financial aspects he has! As for the other aspects of his role, until recently, I agree, he has been awful, especially in the transfer market for me, but, day by day it would appear thats more down to what Murray allowed, rather than Bains ability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts