| CEO relationship with the Board. 09:24 - Jun 4 with 5154 views | AussieDale |
Would somebody with knowledge of how Football boards function in the UK advise whether it is normal to have the CEO on the board. I’ve been on the boards of sporting organisations in Oz of similar size and structure to The Dale and we would never even contemplate having the CEO on the board. Every board I’ve sat on has had an executive remuneration committee. This minimum requirement does not appear to have existed on the Dale board and is yet another shocking indictment of the boards’ performance in recent times. How anybody has had a pay rise, and a
significant one at that, in the current climate, is an absolute disgrace. |  | | |  |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 09:40 - Jun 4 with 5087 views | SuddenLad |
Something I have wondered myself, but a topic about which I am largely unaware. All I can establish from those with business minds is that it is 'bad practice', generally frowned upon in business circles and from one contact I know, who said, 'recipe for disaster'. There we have it, but it's permissible, even if not advisable.
More importantly, it shouldn't ever be repeated. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 09:47 - Jun 4 with 5068 views | BigKindo |
He was a Director before he was CEO.so perhaps interviewed himself for the position. |  | | |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 10:20 - Jun 4 with 4979 views | tony_roch975 |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 09:47 - Jun 4 by BigKindo |
He was a Director before he was CEO.so perhaps interviewed himself for the position. |
That's key - I think in the business world the appointment from outside of a CEO/director or CEO/Chairman is not unusual but it's the lack of effective management / transparent HR processes at the Club which are rightly of concern. Equally I suspect the Club's management systems in the past if put under the current level of scrutiny would have been found wanting - eg the decade without AGMs. A non-voting Board position would seem ok but not a voting 'main Board' position. | |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 10:37 - Jun 4 with 4922 views | oddjob007 |
It’s a strange one in football.
Ordinarily, the board of directors are shareholders and hold the CEO and his team accountable. It’s not unusual to have the CEO, CFO and maybe COO on the board, as they will usually be shareholders themselves, but will not have enough power to make significant decisions - such as awarding payrises to themselves.
However, you have an additional layer in football - fans. Would the AGM and EGM have been called based on the most recently available financial results? Probably not. [Post edited 4 Jun 2021 10:37]
| | | |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 10:50 - Jun 4 with 4859 views | Dalenet |
In business it is very usual to have a Board consisting of non executive directors whose job is to steer the business and direct the strategy to protect the value for shareholders, and a CEO and CFO as paid executives to run the company. Paid executives that sit on the Board are just as accountable to shareholders as the rest of the Board. There is no requirement for anybody to be a shareholder unless that is a requirement within that company's constitution.
Personally I have no problem with the RAFC CEO being on the Board. The other Board directors are not paid and cannot be expected to run the business. But they are responsible for setting the strategy, overseeing governance, and holding the Executive members to account. That is where our Board appear to have failed. I think there is view from some posters that our club should be run by the directors with a proactive Chairman. That would mean an Executive Chairman. Corporate governance guidelines discourage the appointment of Executive Chairmen for larger businesses. I don't think it reasonable for us to expect a younger talented Board, then assume they will find the time to run the club without a salary. | | | |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 10:56 - Jun 4 with 4849 views | electricblue |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 09:47 - Jun 4 by BigKindo |
He was a Director before he was CEO.so perhaps interviewed himself for the position. |
Just imagine DB doing exactly that sat in front of a mirror..
The questions asked and the lies for answers and he still got the job....
Question is did he turn up on time for his interview.. [Post edited 4 Jun 2021 12:19]
|  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 11:32 - Jun 4 with 4733 views | Plattyswrinklynuts |
As I said on page 7 of the agm/egm thread the board of directors should put a mechanism in place to ensure that no future CEO should hold shares in the club & certainly shouldn’t be a director to avoid conflict of interest. |  | | |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 11:36 - Jun 4 with 4711 views | fitzochris |
The CEO can sit in on board meetings and doesn't even need to be a shareholder. The only thing they can't do, if not a director, is vote on boardroom decisions. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 11:37 - Jun 4 with 4709 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 09:47 - Jun 4 by BigKindo |
He was a Director before he was CEO.so perhaps interviewed himself for the position. |
...and then decided that because he was so hardworking and appreciated by himself ,he was easily worth a 30% pay rise.
It's easy this jobby. | | | |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 12:48 - Jun 4 with 4561 views | boromat |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 11:32 - Jun 4 by Plattyswrinklynuts |
As I said on page 7 of the agm/egm thread the board of directors should put a mechanism in place to ensure that no future CEO should hold shares in the club & certainly shouldn’t be a director to avoid conflict of interest. |
Quite happy for a CEO to hold shares in the club as that's more incentive for them to do a good job. But they should never be a director on the board. | |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 16:19 - Jun 4 with 4279 views | James1980 |
Could the situation with DB's pay be as follows?
50% pay cut when the season was suspended
30% rise on 50% of his pre covid pay so he is actually on less than he was pre covid.
Although if that was the case he probably would have said that.
And I'm not trying to defend the bloke if the 50% cut wasn't true and 30% on top of his pre covid salary is true his position is untenable and he must resign. [Post edited 4 Jun 2021 16:21]
| |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 22:11 - Jun 4 with 3849 views | ChaffRAFC |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 16:19 - Jun 4 by James1980 |
Could the situation with DB's pay be as follows?
50% pay cut when the season was suspended
30% rise on 50% of his pre covid pay so he is actually on less than he was pre covid.
Although if that was the case he probably would have said that.
And I'm not trying to defend the bloke if the 50% cut wasn't true and 30% on top of his pre covid salary is true his position is untenable and he must resign. [Post edited 4 Jun 2021 16:21]
|
If that was the case, they'd have said so because it's a valid argument against it but they didn't. |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 22:17 - Jun 4 with 3840 views | EllDale |
Or they weren’t aware of it? | | | |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 22:22 - Jun 4 with 3837 views | RAFCBLUE |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 16:19 - Jun 4 by James1980 |
Could the situation with DB's pay be as follows?
50% pay cut when the season was suspended
30% rise on 50% of his pre covid pay so he is actually on less than he was pre covid.
Although if that was the case he probably would have said that.
And I'm not trying to defend the bloke if the 50% cut wasn't true and 30% on top of his pre covid salary is true his position is untenable and he must resign. [Post edited 4 Jun 2021 16:21]
|
No chance.
It's either that failed logic or that the answer the the Director's gave to why there was a £103k increase in non-playing wages in 2020/21 was complete rubbish and false.
The thought proposed was that James Mason had only been part time and that the current incumbent was full time.
The £103k increase was a real cost increase looking at the numbers. |  |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 22:32 - Jun 4 with 3812 views | judd |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 22:22 - Jun 4 by RAFCBLUE |
No chance.
It's either that failed logic or that the answer the the Director's gave to why there was a £103k increase in non-playing wages in 2020/21 was complete rubbish and false.
The thought proposed was that James Mason had only been part time and that the current incumbent was full time.
The £103k increase was a real cost increase looking at the numbers. |
£103k increase and 1 less employee.
James Mason was not an employee, he was a consultant so I wonder where his brief costs are accounted? |  |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 22:34 - Jun 4 with 3811 views | RAFCBLUE |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 09:40 - Jun 4 by SuddenLad |
Something I have wondered myself, but a topic about which I am largely unaware. All I can establish from those with business minds is that it is 'bad practice', generally frowned upon in business circles and from one contact I know, who said, 'recipe for disaster'. There we have it, but it's permissible, even if not advisable.
More importantly, it shouldn't ever be repeated. |
The Chairman usually appoints and dismisses the CEO.
The CEO can be part of the Board or a simply an employee. Both are valid options.
Our issue here is that we have had two consecutive Chairman (Mr Kilpatrick and Mr Kelly) who have managed their CEO in absentia.
Stripping out the one off windfalls of cup runs and transfers fees, which good or bad are absolutely nothing to do with a CEO the business otherwise is being run into rough waters.
The Directors disclosed at the AGM that changing management team in 2019/20 had led to an outflow of club resources equivalent to circa 1,250 season ticket holders funds being put into the club for one season.
Its ok pleading poverty if that's true, but when you are choosing to be spending good club money on compromise agreements and then bleating about not having that money to invest, well you are a foolish management team as it was your choice of how you spent it.
The events of Tuesday have had national publicity. That is good in some ways and bad in others, particularly players and sponsors looking at a tarnished CEO and complicit Board and warily steering clear until there is change. [Post edited 4 Jun 2021 22:36]
| |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 22:40 - Jun 4 with 3784 views | judd |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 22:34 - Jun 4 by RAFCBLUE |
The Chairman usually appoints and dismisses the CEO.
The CEO can be part of the Board or a simply an employee. Both are valid options.
Our issue here is that we have had two consecutive Chairman (Mr Kilpatrick and Mr Kelly) who have managed their CEO in absentia.
Stripping out the one off windfalls of cup runs and transfers fees, which good or bad are absolutely nothing to do with a CEO the business otherwise is being run into rough waters.
The Directors disclosed at the AGM that changing management team in 2019/20 had led to an outflow of club resources equivalent to circa 1,250 season ticket holders funds being put into the club for one season.
Its ok pleading poverty if that's true, but when you are choosing to be spending good club money on compromise agreements and then bleating about not having that money to invest, well you are a foolish management team as it was your choice of how you spent it.
The events of Tuesday have had national publicity. That is good in some ways and bad in others, particularly players and sponsors looking at a tarnished CEO and complicit Board and warily steering clear until there is change. [Post edited 4 Jun 2021 22:36]
|
The profitability was said to have been the result of the prudent decision to not seek contract extensions for higher paid players - a post balance sheet event that had no place in the accounts whatsoever and only served to obfuscate the luck of cup draws and Dawson's sell on.
10% of a small number is a small number, said the finance director when justifying the CEs desperately obscured pay award. | |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 05:28 - Jun 5 with 3629 views | James1980 |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 22:22 - Jun 4 by RAFCBLUE |
No chance.
It's either that failed logic or that the answer the the Director's gave to why there was a £103k increase in non-playing wages in 2020/21 was complete rubbish and false.
The thought proposed was that James Mason had only been part time and that the current incumbent was full time.
The £103k increase was a real cost increase looking at the numbers. |
Is that in the recent accounts?
Edited well deleted due to me being idiot [Post edited 5 Jun 2021 15:49]
| |
| |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 10:56 - Jun 6 with 3139 views | RAFCBLUE |
| CEO relationship with the Board. on 05:28 - Jun 5 by James1980 |
Is that in the recent accounts?
Edited well deleted due to me being idiot [Post edited 5 Jun 2021 15:49]
|
It was the 2019/20 accounts (year ending 31 May 2020).
Non-player wages increased from £403,959 in 2018/19 to £507,910 in 2019/20 - an increase of £103,951.
Non-playing employees decreased from 18 in 2018/19 to 17 in 2019/20.
Government grants received increased from £0 in 2018/19 to £305,164 in 2019/20. This would have predominantly been government furlough money.
So year on year for non-playing headcount:
1. Headcount reduced
2. Club receives a large furlough grant and furloughs everyone apart from 3 staff who run the club.
3. The wages bill for non-playing staff (most of whom were on furlough) goes up 25%! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
