Thetownend.com

An honest question here....on a day when the new board are trying to clip the wages of an employee(not knockng that)

Just wondering if the Mercs are still being hired by the club...and if so why.....i use my own car to get to work....as do the players .

I am hoping that someone tells me they are a thing of the past.

If they are it's a little bit rich imo. If their playing the austerity game I wanna see them rock up to the CG in a clamped out Ford Escort or a skateboard as posted on the other thread!!

It's a perfectly good question. Don't expect a straight answer.

They have 2 hire cars apparently.

The other 14 that were being hired by the previous regime have gone back

The happy clappers are truth obfuscators

Every company I know gives company cars to executives, even those that are cost cutting. I really think questioning this is nit picking.
A player at a 3rd division club is on 8k a week (allegedly) but you're looking at company cars? Bit of perspective needed maybe?

The previous board had company cars as well.

Fairly sure I read a tweet from Sam Morshead that they're saving dosh on the new leases anyway

The old regime and management all had big expensive cars. But the previous regime could afford it.

The current one can't so I can't see why they should have them. If you can't afford them don't have them. Also why do they need big expensive merc's? They could've got Micra's instead at less than £200 pm.

If you own a business you buy/lease a car for your use.

Just because it's a football club don't expect the owners to wear hair shirts and cycle to work

To be fair, didn't they cover this off quite adequately clearly at the Trust meeting?

It's 2 fucking cars. Get a grip you soft cunt.

Apparently not...

but how much is a merc leased fester?

A micra is half the price, with better fuel economy...

They could even add those eye lash things.

A lease on a Merc will be £400 to £500 per month. All tax deductible for the club.

It's really no great shakes. People are getting their knickers in a twist over something so trivial.

But Jed in a Micra would be funny though.

The monthly lease of these cars probably barely covers a days wages for some of our squad.

Admittedly, I have given this Board a lot of stick, but they have inherited a ruddy hard situation on their hands, one of which they probably didn't expect to be as bad as once thought. Meaningless abuse over 2 hire cars, in comparison to the many more of the previous board is a tad unfair.

If they were to use these cars to pick me up from home take me to the Merlin then down to the ground at 2.53 I might start going a bit more often.If they dropped me home afterwards and didn't mind dribble on the exec leather seats that'd be the clincher

Why don't you tweet Jed and ask him? You can leave the bit out about dribbling if you want :)

That's capitalism for you, unneccessary decadence.

What's necessary decadence?

When it applies to yourself.

:nod:

Excellent answer. :)

It's probably about £700 a month, not exactly £8k a week is it.

So it's two cars, one for the manager and one for the chief exec. I guess.  Not exactly over the top compared to the Italian regime where they all seemed to have company cars - and don't forget we were renting a fucking great house in Ramsbury for them!!

What you also have to remember is that the likes of any player or exec working for a football club get 'VIP' deals from Mercedes - the leasing on these cars will be peanuts compared to what you or I woould pay... I was shown the VIP deal price list and it is dirt cheap.

One other thing to note is that pound for pound mercedes are the cheapest lease cars you can get due to very slow depreciation...

Kmac drives a beat up old vauxhall( astra i think ) 08 plate, according to him it gets him from a to b & is good on fuel.

Fair play to him if that's what he wants, but not going to be very good if he is scouting in Carlisle on a wet November evening!!

So are you saying then Plea that Jed and Co. have actually made a good and wise decision??  That won't go down well in some quarters!!!!

The Balkans, explained. ;)

Company contract hire leasing is a lot cheaper than personal contract hire. Also Merc Swindon are a sponsor of the club and probably did them a decent deal. It all depends what models they are but id imagine anything between 350-600 per month. Never seen a lease more than that for a merc.

Really ?

Is this keeping you awake at night ?

Jesus fucking Christ

Go back to scrolling through the obituaries

Good lord

Your point is ?

Whilst its far from a big issue to me - why can't they just use their own cars?

Fred Elliot, the angry man of the forum soapy tit wank

3 pages on this topic is a bit embarrasing.

I couldn't really care if they go to work in a gold plated Bugatti Veyron or share a tatty skateboard.

As long as they do a good job in the long term and my club is run well, isn't that all that really matters?

This car hire thing is all a bit petty really isn't it?

I like Fred, every forum needs a nutter or two and in him and the Dosser we have two people who always seem on the brink of a meltdown.

That those moaning about a couple of company cars on the books should do the world a favour and top themselves

What even those who were thretend with redundancy? Imagine how they felt!!!!! Twat.

I am quite certain that a couple of company cars would not have had any bearing on that.

A couple of Mercs costing a few thousand a year is not going to really affect the playing budget. Besides, things like mileage allowance (at HMRC approved rates) can cost just as much.

A wider issue is whether the directors are working full time, taking a commercial salary/remuneration package and how much consultancy fees they’re taking.

They might not have a bearing on the redundancy, but the club are looking to cut out goings and make redundancy, how would you feel? "Sory were makeing you redundant but were going to hire acouple  of company cars with your wages

Correct! This was all covered off back in April at the Trust meeting...

"Murrall said that company cars - Mercedes - had been hired to replace the previous company cars at what he claimed to be a lower cost. The Advertiser understands the monthly lease of the cars to be £370 and that two have been hired by Town."
http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/10377334.McCrory_and_Murrall_meet_fans/


"More than one Mercedes has been leased by the club, but at rates Steve was keen to point out were very favourable."
http://www.truststfc.com/2013/04/trust-stfc-swindon-supporters-club-meeting-with-jed-mccrory/

So £740 pcm on 2 mercs, which is costing no more than they were spending out before anyway. It's pittance compared to the budget and other costs etc.

They must be laughing at us (or at the very least surprised!) for focussing so much on such a trivial issue.

To be honest I couldn't give a monkeys, I'm more likely to be the one driving the Merc than the janitor being fucked off out the back door :)

This.

It's a very good deal if it's £370 per month each and of course 2 company cars on their own isn't going to send us spiralling into admin; the concern is that they are the thin end of the wedge. The real issue is that 5 Directors have been appointed with no clear roles, little relevant business or football experience and, apparently, not a pot to piss in between them (dependent on whether you accept a letter from Jedders Mum as proof of funds!). They are all taking out and surely it's understandable and perfectly reasonable to question what exactly they are putting in in return for their remuneration packages.

A lot has been made about what their 'intentions' are. I'm still undecided on that and my views change almost by the day. But regardless of their intentions you can be sure that whether they succeed or fuck it up they'll eventually walk away having done quite well out of it.

Yep.  Five directors who, between them, seem to be doing the job that Nick Watkins used to do on his own.  Do each of these guys have their own office, and how much time do they spend at their desks?

Exactly and I think that is really what needs to be addressed. They are all taking a wage too I understand whereas only Nick Watkins took a wage previous. Where the mercs things come from is people are concerned that while they are rightfully making the club sustainable on a player budget front, they're taking the piss with what they're taking out of it.

but two Mercs on a cheap lease is hardly taking the piss, is it? The real issue is consultancy fees, salaries and such.

Fuck me.

Read the thread.
- We're leasing considerably fewer cars now than we did under the last board
- We're paying less for them
- Mercs are probably the most financially efficient lease cars available, and we get a deal on them as the dealer is a club sponsor

As for who's taking salary out of the club - well what do you understand, and what do you base that understanding on? Internet rumour / slander / libel?

The only firm information we have on this is the response to the question asked at the meeting with the Trust and SC, which was that "those directors with executive roles  were paid a salary".

When I look at the clubs site there seem to be two directors with named executive functions:
- Steve Murrell is the General Manager
- Gary Hooper is Commercial Director

To me that looks like we've gone from one CE to having two posts. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps not if you want to actually focus on developing other income streams for the club.

And can we not get all worked up because "5 Directors have been appointed with no clear roles" because it makes us look like twats. Being a director doesn't mean you're an exec director and draw a salary, so you really don't need a "clear role".

The last board had, guess what, 5 directors  - Russell Backhouse, Andrew Black, Andrew Fitton, Nicholas Watkins, and Jeremy Wray. Only two of them, the Chairman and CE, had "clear roles". The new board are up to 3 with "clear roles", Chairman, GM and CD.

All of this bollocks comes back to a few anonymous posters stirring up shit about money being taken out of the club and offering no fucking evidence for it.

All the board draw salaries do they? Really? Well the person that's been telling us all that also told us all that EVERYONE was swanning around in brand new Merc's a few weeks ago, and it we've seen the truth of that haven't we.

WOOOOOOSH!!!

The point I was making is the real issue is that people think they're taking the piss which is why they're so jumpy about a few Mercs despite when you dig a little deeper I realise that it's less than the previous board did.

The real accusation is the rumours of consultancy fees and 5 directors taking a wage (Do we know only 2 are? Again no clarification) when no one knows if they even do fuck all considering 5 people seem to be doing the job Nick Watkins managed on it's own. Jed has done nothing to deny any of this, only that there were no salaries of "that amount" that was rumoured, so it's reasonable to think until Jed actually comes out and says something with some substance instead of given a politicians answer, that there is some truth to it.

The way you've flown of the handle, got hugely defensive, ranted about slander and libel and generally acted like a bit of a cunt, I'm guessing you're Steve Murrell. Hi Steve.

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Superb put down!

Is it reading or adding up you have problems with? How are five people doing Nick Watkins job?

There were five directors before the takeover - There are five directors now.
One director, Nick Watkins, had an Exec role (CE) before the takeover - Two,  Steve Murrell as General Manager, and  Gary Hooper as Commercial Director do now.

That's not five people doing one mans job is it. That's an identically sized board of directors as before deciding they need two exec roles at the club, one focused on maximising commercial income, and one focused on the day to day business of running the club and stadium. Not exactly excessive for a company with Swindon's turnover.

If you've got other information about directors taking salary, fees or any other income from the then lets hear it or see it. You haven't have you? All you've got is Fredi's bullshit. Who's so in the know that he's on the Adver forum today slagging off the Board for reneging on Rooney's "contract", despite it now being pretty clear that no such contract exists.

And grow the fuck up. Assuming everyone that says "hold on a lot of this is groundless bollocks" is a stooge of the board is fucking childish.

(Oh and you should know that people that post allegations on the internet of criminal activity when they have no evidence to back it up can and do get sued. Even when they're simply repeating, or hinting at, rumours previously circulated by others, as a certain stupid tart married to the speaker of the house of commons recently found out)

Saying that 2 directors have a full time role and could be drawing a salary is just as presumptuous as saying the same for all 5 directors.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The whole point made was about the accusations that 5 people are taking a salary now when only Nick Watkins did previously and therefore the new board are taking the piss, which is why people have scrutinised then further with expenses despite the fact it appears to be fairly valid to lease a couple of cars.

I do not have proof that they're taking the piss but what I tried to explain was it's a rumour Jed and his band of merry men have had several chances to deny and have chosen not to. That would mean it's reasonable to believe the accusations......

Now if you don't understand the point being made after that second clarification and write back another senseless rant about legalities of slander and other nonsense about people being sued, I cannot help you further as you will clearly never understand.

Exactly and Jed has had plenty of chances to clarify this but chose not to, which leads to further doubt and distrust from fans.

I don't have the accounts in front of me to prove it. But I know that they will be published eventually and Director's remuneration will be in them.

So, when the Board say in response to a question "Directors with an exec role receive salary" and list two directors with exec roles on their website, I tend to believe them more than some bloke posting rumours on the internet.

They could be lying, but they know they'll have to publish evidence that will expose those lies eventually, so why would they?

Fredi on the other hand never has to back up his allegations with anything at all, and never has. But for some reason people seem to think he's an equally credible source of information.

Fuck knows why.

This time 20 years ago, we were about to settle down for the second half at Wembley.  Buzzing after Hoddle's goal.  Craig Maskell's glorious second was minutes away.  And 20 years on, there's an argument raging on the TEF about directors' salaries.  It's all going down hill.

Not necessarily. You often don't have to disclose this sort of detail if you don't want to.

Level of detail is one thing, but if you pay it out it's got to be in your P&L somewhere.

I would be extremely surprised if the non-exec directors are salaried. It's not the 'norm'.

What about the hired mercenaries and what exactly are their roles?

You will have no idea, from a published P&L of a company this size, what the Directors have taken out of the club. Especially as it can be taken out as salary, consulting fees and dividends or a mix of all three. That's before you get to any balance sheet stuff, like secured loans and convertible notes. And things can also happen in related entities that might have even less disclosure. There might also be contract mechanisms covering future awards and bonuses not recognised in the year.

But yeah, wait for the P&L, knock yourself out.

As I see it, you're normally a non-exec if 1) you represent "the money" or 2) you can open doors to contacts to grow the business or 3) it's an enormous company and shareholders (pension funds) want oversight and adult supervision of the board.

In the grand scheme of things, STFC is a tiny business so it doesn't need (3). The guys we have don't seem that well connected, which rules out (2).

So either they're representing the money, or they're keeping the seats warm on behalf the money. If the latter, you might expect them to be doing it for a fee.

Or they are exec directors, which means they've got jobs and are doing stuff, which would be fair enough.

But it's not a normal situation.

Samdy?

Well, I think Callum Rice is a 2 as he's the concert guy by all accounts. The others, who knows?

Wray, Backhouse and Black were all non-exec directors, doesn't mean they didn't have a hands on role at the club.

But they were the investing consortium. It was their money. It feels like we've a got a Wray and Backhouse without knowing who Black is. Or worse, there is no Black and they are scratching around looking for one.

Not that much, the fans were pretty anti board at that time, Hardman taking a lot of flack about not spending any money.  At the civic reception he was greeted with choruses of get your cheque book out, to which he actually got one out.  This was following the sale of Kerslake earlier on to pay a tax bill.  From memory we made a loss that season, or close to one.  Think we might have broken even in 1994/95, but it too far back in time to remember properly.

I hear this said alot.I don't think people realise just how much of that was luck in the end.If this lot had not of taken over then make no bones about it Black would of let us go under.I may be naive but it just seems that this lot are clearing up alot of shit they have inherited yet getting the finger pointed at them more than the people who were happy to throw everything at it with no exit strategy.

The level of detail they put into the accounts is, as you say, within limits pretty much up to them.

But, if, as many seem to believe, the club is being "bled dry" by the board, it's going to show.

Maybe not salaried but are paid fees.

So when you wrote:


that was wrong.

And when you wrote:


That was wrong, too.

Ask fans of Rangers, Portsmouth and Leeds about their accounts. It's easy to hide and if it shows, it only shows when its too late. I have no idea one or way or another about the state of the club's finances, nor the board's intentions but to put any faith in the published accounts revealing everything is wrong. As you wrote yourself in that last post.

The last set of filed accounts didn't even include a profit and loss account and even full accounts would just say the total of directors' salaries but not what was paid to each director.

Technically the club could pay non-execs a salary, the articles of association were changed to allow this when Patey boy became our chairman.

So the Washbag say Rice and Hooper are no longer directors. Did I miss this news on the TEF?

You can hide one hell of a lot of shit in accounts. Remember Rikki Cunt sending employees including players on courses run by his own company. Consultancy fees are easily to hide.

Was announced in April i thought

I thought the names were removed from the program, then Jed said there may be movement, but never anything official from the club or via Companies House. I assumed the Washbag were saying its now officially been lodged with CH?

Just to say i have the original statement of accounts from 1952!

Four pages...

Current liabilities...Barclays Bank...£4579
Accrued Expenses...£2161.

Wages to Management and staff(1951)..£2957
Players...£12659
Ground Staff..£557
Accountants.....£39!!! :D

I will try and download some pics of the statement.

Back to 1951...

Directors expenses..£85 :eek:

Sale of 354 Ferndale Road..£250.

Signing on fees...£90

Rent and Rates..£812.

Transfer fees paid..£1875.

Floodlight instalation..£856

There is lots more....a very interesting document.

 :zzz:

Grow up.

Go back to watching reruns of Pathe News

 :D...Touche.