Hired Mercs.

[dalumpimunki]

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.

[Samdy Gray]

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

[sonicyouth]

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

[iffy]

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

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.

[iffy]

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

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?

[Nemo]

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

[Samdy Gray]

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

[iffy]

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.

[RobertT]

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 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.

[DRS]

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.

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.

[dalumpimunki]

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.

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.

[chalkies_shorts]

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

Maybe not salaried but are paid fees.

[iffy]

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

So when you wrote:

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.

that was wrong.

And when you wrote:

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

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.

[Simon Pieman]

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.

[Batch]

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