| Hammers in for Hogan 11:55 - Jan 1 with 120859 views | hitman |
Just reading West Ham are about to put in a 10 million
Bid for Scott hogan due to a medical
With Dale getting 20%
Interesting reading |  | | |  |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:42 - Jan 9 with 5455 views | fitzochris |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:33 - Jan 9 by Shun |
I don't know much about the job, but surely the hyphen is correct? |
Both ways are correct, but my style book has it without and that's what I'm sticking to. |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:57 - Jan 9 with 5302 views | Shun |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:42 - Jan 9 by fitzochris |
Both ways are correct, but my style book has it without and that's what I'm sticking to. |
Fair enough! |  | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:09 - Jan 9 with 5202 views | fitzochris |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:57 - Jan 9 by Shun |
Fair enough! |
Let's not get started on exclamation marks. | |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:49 - Jan 9 with 5011 views | judd |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:09 - Jan 9 by fitzochris |
Let's not get started on exclamation marks. |
Why-Not! ? |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:01 - Jan 9 with 4962 views | pioneer |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:37 - Jan 9 by BlueMessiah |
It's 25% then Hilly gets his cut of that which is 5% . Still sees us netting just short of £3m even if the fee is "only" £12.5m. Hogan went for £750k. |
I still have trouble with these sorts of incentives and it is nothing against KH - he deserves to be well paid (whatever that means these days in football). The idea that one person gets the 'reward' while everybody else at the club gets nothing doesn't seem to fit the Team Rochdale notion. Hogan's growth and success at the club was presumably not down to only the manager, yet he is the only person to directly cash in on any such transfer. |  | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:04 - Jan 9 with 4933 views | nordenblue |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:01 - Jan 9 by pioneer |
I still have trouble with these sorts of incentives and it is nothing against KH - he deserves to be well paid (whatever that means these days in football). The idea that one person gets the 'reward' while everybody else at the club gets nothing doesn't seem to fit the Team Rochdale notion. Hogan's growth and success at the club was presumably not down to only the manager, yet he is the only person to directly cash in on any such transfer. |
Get your tin hat on,prepare for backlash..... | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:39 - Jan 9 with 4755 views | D_Dale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:37 - Jan 9 by BlueMessiah |
It's 25% then Hilly gets his cut of that which is 5% . Still sees us netting just short of £3m even if the fee is "only" £12.5m. Hogan went for £750k. |
I'd be fascinated to know how BM is so well informed about Keith Hill's contract. Does it include a wardrobe allowance, I wonder.
But assuming he's right, it would appear to be the case that if the total fee is £12m, Dale 's share will be 25%, which is £3m. Hill's cut is then 5% of that, £150,000. Not a bad sum, and presumably more than his basic annual salary.
But at least it might help to keep him at Spotland for a while longer. | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:51 - Jan 9 with 4671 views | SuddenLad |
Whether the stories are true or not, I have no idea - but - I don't have the slightest problem with any kind of deal that rewards KH for his work. If he can produce, coach and develop players who go on to bigger and better things, which in turn leads to massive financial benefits to Rochdale AFC, then he has done his job and done it well.
He is increasing the value and reputation of the club and his own esteem within the game. Win-Win for everyone. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:56 - Jan 9 with 4628 views | scooby |
I have no issues with KH having a clause like that. I would actually encourage it if we were clever enough to have a 12mth exit clause, so that if KH leaves within that period of his own accord or poor results etc then he pays back the payment and it decreases by 1/12th per month.
Easy enough to agree, and would mean he cant get a pile of cash and run at the first opportunity penalty free. | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:37 - Jan 9 with 4433 views | ColDale |
Yellow ticker on Sky saying that a 3rd bid has been made (up to £12 million). Suggests that Sam Winnall will be his replacement. Sounds like the deal very close to completion. |  | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:52 - Jan 9 with 7538 views | RespectTheChemistry |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 23:19 - Jan 8 by SaxonDale |
Time to get excited,
[Post edited 8 Jan 2017 23:20]
|
Was this tweet premature? If not, I'd have thought he'd have had medical by now. | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 23:19 - Jan 9 with 7435 views | dingdangblue |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:52 - Jan 9 by RespectTheChemistry |
Was this tweet premature? If not, I'd have thought he'd have had medical by now. |
Its not an official west ham site. Just rumours and speculation. |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 00:26 - Jan 10 with 7304 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 23:19 - Jan 9 by dingdangblue |
Its not an official west ham site. Just rumours and speculation. |
Where's Karen Brady in all this.......she is the voice of reason.
Come on Kaz show us your money. | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 12:05 - Jan 10 with 6769 views | DaleiLama |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:01 - Jan 9 by pioneer |
I still have trouble with these sorts of incentives and it is nothing against KH - he deserves to be well paid (whatever that means these days in football). The idea that one person gets the 'reward' while everybody else at the club gets nothing doesn't seem to fit the Team Rochdale notion. Hogan's growth and success at the club was presumably not down to only the manager, yet he is the only person to directly cash in on any such transfer. |
I also have a problem with this type of scheme in terms of potential conflict of interest but there is no such thing as the perfect scheme (that I've heard of at least).
There are employee profit share scheme, whereby each employee gets a share of a pot of profits. Firstly that requires CD to put a sizeable pot on the table if we make a sizeable profit (WHU sale etc.) and secondly, for that to be distributed to all.
Obviously, KH, RG and FF are going to be the biggest drivers of income and hopefully profit and a fair appraisal system has to be worked out so that everyone is rewarded accordingly. Such incentive schemes can, however, be counter-productive, since politics comes into both the setting and achievement of targets (what would the target be for Jack the kitman?) and I've heard of ill-will and conflict of interest arising in this area too.
Look at 1/2 price season tickets. As an example only: RG is put on a profit-share incentive based on tickets sold, but the office manager has a target incentive to reduce staff = lower cost and higher profitability for that department. Result, fewer people to sell season tickets on match-day and potential business lost, which could have fed back into profits. I have been told of companies cancelling their schemes based on such issues.
Bit of a minefield this. |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 12:35 - Jan 10 with 6570 views | ColDale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 12:05 - Jan 10 by DaleiLama |
I also have a problem with this type of scheme in terms of potential conflict of interest but there is no such thing as the perfect scheme (that I've heard of at least).
There are employee profit share scheme, whereby each employee gets a share of a pot of profits. Firstly that requires CD to put a sizeable pot on the table if we make a sizeable profit (WHU sale etc.) and secondly, for that to be distributed to all.
Obviously, KH, RG and FF are going to be the biggest drivers of income and hopefully profit and a fair appraisal system has to be worked out so that everyone is rewarded accordingly. Such incentive schemes can, however, be counter-productive, since politics comes into both the setting and achievement of targets (what would the target be for Jack the kitman?) and I've heard of ill-will and conflict of interest arising in this area too.
Look at 1/2 price season tickets. As an example only: RG is put on a profit-share incentive based on tickets sold, but the office manager has a target incentive to reduce staff = lower cost and higher profitability for that department. Result, fewer people to sell season tickets on match-day and potential business lost, which could have fed back into profits. I have been told of companies cancelling their schemes based on such issues.
Bit of a minefield this. |
There's two other key factors - one is a level of trust that Hill has built up over time - it would be foolish to give a replacement a like for like contract from day one. Hill has shown a long term desire to keep a squad together irrespective of whether he may personally gain from it. Also the board have the final say on all transfers preventing any cash in scenario. | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 13:02 - Jan 10 with 6408 views | DaleiLama |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 12:35 - Jan 10 by ColDale |
There's two other key factors - one is a level of trust that Hill has built up over time - it would be foolish to give a replacement a like for like contract from day one. Hill has shown a long term desire to keep a squad together irrespective of whether he may personally gain from it. Also the board have the final say on all transfers preventing any cash in scenario. |
Indeed - and he even said he wants to keep this squad together until the end of the season if at all possible. All good.
Another factor, regardless of trust, is how many other managers could actually do what KH is doing on a consistent basis? I remember at the start of the season (admittedly when results weren't going well) a lot of folk were saying this squad was weak and we needed to spend more money. In fact, it has proven to be a very strong squad with a good mix of promising youngsters knocking on the door. Not many people could come in and do a job like that in terms of results and development, but I suppose any incumbent would inherit all KH's good work were he to one day leave, which could be open to abuse. [Post edited 10 Jan 2017 13:09]
| |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 13:28 - Jan 10 with 6259 views | Scunnydale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 13:02 - Jan 10 by DaleiLama |
Indeed - and he even said he wants to keep this squad together until the end of the season if at all possible. All good.
Another factor, regardless of trust, is how many other managers could actually do what KH is doing on a consistent basis? I remember at the start of the season (admittedly when results weren't going well) a lot of folk were saying this squad was weak and we needed to spend more money. In fact, it has proven to be a very strong squad with a good mix of promising youngsters knocking on the door. Not many people could come in and do a job like that in terms of results and development, but I suppose any incumbent would inherit all KH's good work were he to one day leave, which could be open to abuse. [Post edited 10 Jan 2017 13:09]
|
I think this season more than most has taught us to keep the faith in Hilly. The loan signing of Keith Keane was understandably met with cynicism by a fair few of us, even if we didn't voice our concerns at the time. How could we expect someone who wasn't getting in to Cambridge's team to pull up roots in League One? We'd also signed some no-mark kid from Man Utd's youth team, and how is he supposed to cut it in a "man's league". As for Hendo...he was too busy with his HerbalLife shenanigans and was possibly past it. Don't even get me started on that useless streak of p*** that is Joe Bunney.
We were all frustrated with our start to the season and I'm sure many reasonable people were starting to have doubts. But, as he has done before, Hilly changed it.
And here we are in January, sitting in the play-off positions of League One and a FA Cup fourth-round tie to look forward to, with Keane, Rathbone, Hendo and Bunney being among our many star players.
(For balance, I feel I should also mention RNL to prove that Hilly doesn't possess the managerial version of Gray's Sports Almanac!) |  | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 13:45 - Jan 10 with 6181 views | SteTsGoldenBoot |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 12:05 - Jan 10 by DaleiLama |
I also have a problem with this type of scheme in terms of potential conflict of interest but there is no such thing as the perfect scheme (that I've heard of at least).
There are employee profit share scheme, whereby each employee gets a share of a pot of profits. Firstly that requires CD to put a sizeable pot on the table if we make a sizeable profit (WHU sale etc.) and secondly, for that to be distributed to all.
Obviously, KH, RG and FF are going to be the biggest drivers of income and hopefully profit and a fair appraisal system has to be worked out so that everyone is rewarded accordingly. Such incentive schemes can, however, be counter-productive, since politics comes into both the setting and achievement of targets (what would the target be for Jack the kitman?) and I've heard of ill-will and conflict of interest arising in this area too.
Look at 1/2 price season tickets. As an example only: RG is put on a profit-share incentive based on tickets sold, but the office manager has a target incentive to reduce staff = lower cost and higher profitability for that department. Result, fewer people to sell season tickets on match-day and potential business lost, which could have fed back into profits. I have been told of companies cancelling their schemes based on such issues.
Bit of a minefield this. |
It was probably the cleverest business the club has ever done.
Hill was reported to be on £5K/week at Barnsley, yes he got sacked, but I am sure someone would have paid him around that figure again. I would imagine at the time he came back to us he was on less than half of that.
Paying him £2K/week plus incentives was a win/win situation, if he came back and it didn't work out we weren't tied in to some mega bucks deal.
The work KH has done has secured our future, so he deserves every penny he gets and probably a statue outside the ground. Begrudging him any money that is in the terms of his contract is just plain mean! |  |
| Everything thats been, has past. The answers in the looking glass! |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 13:50 - Jan 10 with 6149 views | D_Alien |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 13:45 - Jan 10 by SteTsGoldenBoot |
It was probably the cleverest business the club has ever done.
Hill was reported to be on £5K/week at Barnsley, yes he got sacked, but I am sure someone would have paid him around that figure again. I would imagine at the time he came back to us he was on less than half of that.
Paying him £2K/week plus incentives was a win/win situation, if he came back and it didn't work out we weren't tied in to some mega bucks deal.
The work KH has done has secured our future, so he deserves every penny he gets and probably a statue outside the ground. Begrudging him any money that is in the terms of his contract is just plain mean! |
Agree with this; it's a no-brainer in terms of creating the best possible conditions for Hilly to keep on doing what he's doing
Dale's success feeds through to everyone at the club - or at least I don't hear anyone complaining |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 14:44 - Jan 10 with 5947 views | DaleiLama |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 13:45 - Jan 10 by SteTsGoldenBoot |
It was probably the cleverest business the club has ever done.
Hill was reported to be on £5K/week at Barnsley, yes he got sacked, but I am sure someone would have paid him around that figure again. I would imagine at the time he came back to us he was on less than half of that.
Paying him £2K/week plus incentives was a win/win situation, if he came back and it didn't work out we weren't tied in to some mega bucks deal.
The work KH has done has secured our future, so he deserves every penny he gets and probably a statue outside the ground. Begrudging him any money that is in the terms of his contract is just plain mean! |
I wasn't begrudging him a penny of the contract money he is earning or will earn.
My comment was about a reward system which rewards a manager for weakening the team. I know there is an inevitability that players will leave on merit for greater rewards elsewhere, but if KH is part of that process, it is open to abuse.
I am not accusing KH of abusing the system and as Col pointed out, there are checks and balances in place to prevent this. We are making it work at present and have survived and thrived despite selling Scotty and Done, so everything is rosy in the garden at present. Long may it continue.
None of that, however, prevents the concept from sitting happily with me. Does Beechy get a slice of the action? And our other coaches? I still think the concept of a profit share scheme is fairer. It doesn't preclude KH being very well rewarded through such a scheme based on his considerable contribution to profits but allows others to be similarly rewarded. I have no delusions whatsoever that we are where we are because of foundations set previously, but built up from the ground by Keith who has transformed the football we play and has us in our best position ever. It would be beyond mean to begrudge him any kind of reward for that, because we aren't going to replace him with anything like the same calibre of manager, as we saw when he left for Barnsley! Clear? [Post edited 10 Jan 2017 14:47]
| |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 15:00 - Jan 10 with 5879 views | SuddenLad |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 14:44 - Jan 10 by DaleiLama |
I wasn't begrudging him a penny of the contract money he is earning or will earn.
My comment was about a reward system which rewards a manager for weakening the team. I know there is an inevitability that players will leave on merit for greater rewards elsewhere, but if KH is part of that process, it is open to abuse.
I am not accusing KH of abusing the system and as Col pointed out, there are checks and balances in place to prevent this. We are making it work at present and have survived and thrived despite selling Scotty and Done, so everything is rosy in the garden at present. Long may it continue.
None of that, however, prevents the concept from sitting happily with me. Does Beechy get a slice of the action? And our other coaches? I still think the concept of a profit share scheme is fairer. It doesn't preclude KH being very well rewarded through such a scheme based on his considerable contribution to profits but allows others to be similarly rewarded. I have no delusions whatsoever that we are where we are because of foundations set previously, but built up from the ground by Keith who has transformed the football we play and has us in our best position ever. It would be beyond mean to begrudge him any kind of reward for that, because we aren't going to replace him with anything like the same calibre of manager, as we saw when he left for Barnsley! Clear? [Post edited 10 Jan 2017 14:47]
|
Is there not an equal argument to say that rather than weakening the team, he is strengthening and securing the future of the club and putting them in a better position to compete and progress ?
As regards any 'rewards' (true or otherwise) it is surely a matter for each individual to negotiate the terms of his employment contract and reach a mutual agreement with the employer. Whatever the small print says, it has been properly agreed between both relevant parties, so it's a matter for them alone. It is what it is.
As regards 'other employees' the same criteria applies. Negotiate the T's and C's until all parties agree and then sign on the dotted line. I'm sure there will be 'bonuses' due for performance related criteria, leagus position, points totals or whatever, so no doubt all will benefit in some way, commensurate with their position/input. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 15:16 - Jan 10 with 5794 views | DaleiLama |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 15:00 - Jan 10 by SuddenLad |
Is there not an equal argument to say that rather than weakening the team, he is strengthening and securing the future of the club and putting them in a better position to compete and progress ?
As regards any 'rewards' (true or otherwise) it is surely a matter for each individual to negotiate the terms of his employment contract and reach a mutual agreement with the employer. Whatever the small print says, it has been properly agreed between both relevant parties, so it's a matter for them alone. It is what it is.
As regards 'other employees' the same criteria applies. Negotiate the T's and C's until all parties agree and then sign on the dotted line. I'm sure there will be 'bonuses' due for performance related criteria, leagus position, points totals or whatever, so no doubt all will benefit in some way, commensurate with their position/input. |
Absolutely the club is strengthened and secured as a result (and ftr, I was pro the sale of SH and MD), but that, imho is the job of the Board and not the Manager . Of course they can't and don't operate in isolation, but I were an owner, I wouldn't want a manager of my club to personally profit from the sale of players, as it may affect their decision making in too many ways.
You are entirely correct in terms of rewards and it's hypothetical anyway as everything is already in place. I have worked with companies both with PRP schemes and without and if designed well can work well to incentivise. As you say, it is what it is. [Post edited 10 Jan 2017 15:31]
| |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 15:31 - Jan 10 with 5708 views | rochdaleriddler |
if brentford dont do the deal, everyone will be getting nowt |  |
| |
| |
) and waiting until the end of the January sales to get the best bang for his buck! 
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.