bocadillo said:That would depend on how much work it is intended that the chairman does, I suppose.
What is clear is that this is in response to the perceived cock-up a short time ago. Time will tell whether we will see it as an improvement or not.
Foxes_Trust said:Not true, been worked on for months
TD & JB roles still in place
Foxes_Trust said:Not true, been worked on for months
TD & JB roles still in place
bocadillo said:I'm not sure which part of what I wrote that you are saying is untrue. The role of a CEO must surely depend on how much and what kind of work the chairman does. The suggestion was being made that TD's role would be redundant and my answer was "It depends".
Personally I feel that far too much was being expected of TD and that he had become "all things to all men". You say that both TD and JB are still going to be there - I'm pleased about that because it as last seems as though there are enough people to do the job. It must also be true that 'time will tell' whether the new set-up is going to show a real improvement.
PFKAKTF FOX said:If that is the case, how does the trust believe the club can take on the cost of 2 expensive executives in JB and the new chairman and also maintain the services of TD when the club has undertaken massive cost cutting measures on the playing staff. Too many cooks spring to mind, and I fear that they will be unable to justify their positions. Surely if the new chairman is to be salaried, as has been reported, then he must at least replace the role of either / and / or TD and JB.
Foxes_Trust said:The cost of the 2 executives is insignificant in comparison to the players wage bill even now.
Boc is right, no company with the turnover the size of LCFC would try to run itself with one person. There are strengths & weaknessess within LCFC, which we discussed with the club earlier today.
Addressing the weaknesses & turning those areas even into average performers would generate a mixture of additional revenue & cost savings to easily cover the additional salaries
Foxes_Trust said:The cost of the 2 executives is insignificant in comparison to the players wage bill even now.
Boc is right, no company with the turnover the size of LCFC would try to run itself with one person. There are strengths & weaknessess within LCFC, which we discussed with the club earlier today.
Addressing the weaknesses & turning those areas even into average performers would generate a mixture of additional revenue & cost savings to easily cover the additional salaries
Foxes_Trust said:We meant the 2nd part ... due to recent events.... it isn't.
Agree with your observations about too much being asked of one person, far too much ground to cover.
We have now had individual meetings with all 3 of them in recent weeks & our overall impression was positive in all cases
bocadillo said:Thanks for clarifying. I do accept that discussions had been going on over a longer period, but the aforementioned cock-up did seem to galvanise a few minds. I think it could well have dragged on forever had this not happened, possibly even failed to reach fruition. I stand by my statement.
I'm pleased that you have got a favourable impression. I prefer to wait and see how things turn out - the only true test.
PFKAKTF FOX said:Surely the end for TD, a working chairman must mean that Timbo's role becomes redundant ???
Foxes_Trust said:The cost of the 2 executives is insignificant in comparison to the players wage bill even now.
BOB HAZELL said:The writing has been on the wall for some time now for TNBDD........
PFKAKTF FOX said:IMO Tim Davies will carry the can and will not be at the club come the start of next season.
BOB HAZELL said:Expect, within the forthcoming "commercial restructuring", a possible change in title for TNBDD - if he decides he can continue in any capacity at the club.....(not claiming this is factual BTW!!!)
Answers on a postcard please...
PFKAKTF FOX said:these changes are a clear undermining of Tim's position.
BOB HAZELL said:PFKA, both you and I know that he's been continually "undermined" for the last few months (and we're pretty sure why) - I'm merely waiting to hear what the FT are going to say with regard to their "discussions" that they've referred to with the said parties.........
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 21 | 50 |
2 | Arsenal | 22 | 44 |
3 | Nottm F | 22 | 44 |
4 | Manchester C | 22 | 38 |
5 | Newcastle | 22 | 38 |
6 | Chelsea | 21 | 37 |
7 | Bournemouth | 22 | 37 |
8 | Aston Villa | 22 | 36 |
9 | Brighton | 22 | 34 |
10 | Fulham | 22 | 33 |
11 | Brentford | 22 | 28 |
12 | Palace | 22 | 27 |
13 | Manchester U | 22 | 26 |
14 | West Ham | 22 | 26 |
15 | Tottenham | 22 | 24 |
16 | Everton | 21 | 20 |
17 | Wolves | 21 | 16 |
18 | Ipswich | 22 | 16 |
19 | Leicester | 22 | 14 |
20 | Southampton | 22 | 6 |