Which muppet can we appoint next?

[thebish]

Interesting that it stipulates "football operations". Might imply that it won't be a widespread culling of non-core staff. Depends how you parse it: "football operations and [football] staff" or "football operations and [general] staff"?

Indeed. I just don't see how getting shot of any of the club shop staff et al amounts to anything whatsoever when compared to shaking off the emolument of Spearing, Wheater, Davies and so on.

The last accounts had us with 338 staff on the books 64 of whom were allegedly football players. Given we've not submitted any Accounts for a while, that number is now 2 years old, but still a fairly sizable number of non footballers @ 274...

And that 247 earn what exactly? The numbers game here is purely fiscal, as well you know.

I dunno what it is "exactly" - but guesswork ball-park? they'll be a range of wage-rates, presumably across a range of jobs... so - being as the current average UK wage is a shade over £26,000ish - then 247x£26,000 would be

£6,422,000 / annum

getting rid of players is a faster/bigger saving - but less easy to do in some cases - and we would replace them with other players (albeit cheaper ones - but not free ones!) - whereas I suspect this review might result in some job losses without replacements... I doubt it's an either/or scenario, though - I think it will be both/and.

the BWFC chaplain is full time - so, yes, I suspect he is paid - I don't know this for sure, but he has to make a living somehow...

[officer_dibble]

Fck me this has to be the longest next manager thread ever!

[thebish]

Fck me this has to be the longest next manager thread ever!

just 48 hours to go... or summat!

[BWFC_Insane]

This situation sucks for the staff at the club. I really feel for them. It is horrible.

But this is the fault of the previous owner and board. They let this situation escalate to a point where layoffs were always going to happen. At least the takeover afforded them a few months protection and pay.

As others have said whilst they may be "small fry" wages wise compared to players, if we shed 100 staff that could make a massive difference in terms of cashflow. We have to become far leaner sadly and whilst that could end some of the good work the club does the most important thing is to try and start doing well on the field again. If we can become more successful as a football team other things can follow including extra jobs around the club and further community work.

[Worthy4England]

This situation sucks for the staff at the club. I really feel for them. It is horrible.

But this is the fault of the previous owner and board. They let this situation escalate to a point where layoffs were always going to happen. At least the takeover afforded them a few months protection and pay.

As others have said whilst they may be "small fry" wages wise compared to players, if we shed 100 staff that could make a massive difference in terms of cashflow. We have to become far leaner sadly and whilst that could end some of the good work the club does the most important thing is to try and start doing well on the field again. If we can become more successful as a football team other things can follow including extra jobs around the club and further community work.

I get that it's little to do with this Board - situation they inherited and all that, so not blaming Anderson/Holdsworth they have to cut the cloth to fit.

You do make it sound rather like there's a magic way of plugging a £44m revenue hole caused by disappearing TV Revenues. The situation was always going to escalate. as you put it, pretty much irregardless without a £44m magic wand...

[BWFC_Insane]

This situation sucks for the staff at the club. I really feel for them. It is horrible.

But this is the fault of the previous owner and board. They let this situation escalate to a point where layoffs were always going to happen. At least the takeover afforded them a few months protection and pay.

As others have said whilst they may be "small fry" wages wise compared to players, if we shed 100 staff that could make a massive difference in terms of cashflow. We have to become far leaner sadly and whilst that could end some of the good work the club does the most important thing is to try and start doing well on the field again. If we can become more successful as a football team other things can follow including extra jobs around the club and further community work.

I get that it's little to do with this Board - situation they inherited and all that, so not blaming Anderson/Holdsworth they have to cut the cloth to fit.

You do make it sound rather like there's a magic way of plugging a £44m revenue hole caused by disappearing TV Revenues. The situation was always going to escalate. as you put it, pretty much irregardless without a £44m magic wand...

Perhaps. But relegation this year is a further £5M drop in income. Ultimately the staff are at mercy to the football income broadly and that has dropped over the past 5 years. The decline that was not halted is a major contributor to the situation the staff at the club find themselves in.

[Bruce Rioja]

Interesting that it stipulates "football operations". Might imply that it won't be a widespread culling of non-core staff. Depends how you parse it: "football operations and [football] staff" or "football operations and [general] staff"?

Indeed. I just don't see how getting shot of any of the club shop staff et al amounts to anything whatsoever when compared to shaking off the emolument of Spearing, Wheater, Davies and so on.

The last accounts had us with 338 staff on the books 64 of whom were allegedly football players. Given we've not submitted any Accounts for a while, that number is now 2 years old, but still a fairly sizable number of non footballers @ 274...

And that 247 earn what exactly? The numbers game here is purely fiscal, as well you know.

I dunno what it is "exactly" - but guesswork ball-park? they'll be a range of wage-rates, presumably across a range of jobs... so - being as the current average UK wage is a shade over £26,000ish - then 247x£26,000 would be

£6,422,000 / annum

getting rid of players is a faster/bigger saving - but less easy to do in some cases - and we would replace them with other players (albeit cheaper ones - but not free ones!) - whereas I suspect this review might result in some job losses without replacements... I doubt it's an either/or scenario, though - I think it will be both/and.

the BWFC chaplain is full time - so, yes, I suspect he is paid - I don't know this for sure, but he has to make a living somehow...

But as I said earlier, we need to look at the macroeconomics. Looking at staff = cost is abhorrently short sited. Efficiency is what the club needs to look at. I can name away games that I haven't gone to simply because of the shortcomings of our ticket office. I rarely if ever buy food or drink at the ground due to the indolence of those serving it.

[Worthy4England]

This situation sucks for the staff at the club. I really feel for them. It is horrible.

But this is the fault of the previous owner and board. They let this situation escalate to a point where layoffs were always going to happen. At least the takeover afforded them a few months protection and pay.

As others have said whilst they may be "small fry" wages wise compared to players, if we shed 100 staff that could make a massive difference in terms of cashflow. We have to become far leaner sadly and whilst that could end some of the good work the club does the most important thing is to try and start doing well on the field again. If we can become more successful as a football team other things can follow including extra jobs around the club and further community work.

I get that it's little to do with this Board - situation they inherited and all that, so not blaming Anderson/Holdsworth they have to cut the cloth to fit.

You do make it sound rather like there's a magic way of plugging a £44m revenue hole caused by disappearing TV Revenues. The situation was always going to escalate. as you put it, pretty much irregardless without a £44m magic wand...

Perhaps. But relegation this year is a further £5M drop in income. Ultimately the staff are at mercy to the football income broadly and that has dropped over the past 5 years. The decline that was not halted is a major contributor to the situation the staff at the club find themselves in.

I agree in part, I'm just saying that there isn't a particularly neat way around it. Realistically, the staff should have been cut the year to match the TV Revenue drops (so much earlier).

[BWFC_Insane]

But as I said earlier, we need to look at the macroeconomics. Looking at staff = cost is abhorrently short sited. Efficiency is what the club needs to look at. I can name away games that I haven't gone to simply because of the shortcomings of our ticket office. I rarely if ever buy food or drink at the ground due to the indolence of those serving it.

That is true, but I suspect you're dealing with fairly small amount of financial leeway at the minute. The business is losing £1m a month and the owners are absorbing this via their investment. But that can't be allowed to continue very long or we'll not be able to pay staff again.

So you're basically in a situation where there is a necessity to reduce costs. I'm sure they'd prefer to bin off the overpaid players but sadly that won't always be possible.

[thebish]

But as I said earlier, we need to look at the macroeconomics. Looking at staff = cost is abhorrently short sited. Efficiency is what the club needs to look at. I can name away games that I haven't gone to simply because of the shortcomings of our ticket office. I rarely if ever buy food or drink at the ground due to the indolence of those serving it.

aye - 'appen as there is truth in that - but, then, the statement doesn't say we are just looking at staff = cost, it says the club is undertaking a "consultation process with a view to restructuring its footballing operations and staff" - which could mean a wide range of things including staff cuts...

[enrdentw]

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/14 ... ly/?ref=ar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Wanderers are being as thorough as possible in their search and, thus far, only one candidate has met directly with both Ken Anderson and Dean Holdsworth – described to The Bolton News yesterday as “a potential coup” to the club. "

How exciting...

[thebish]

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/14 ... ly/?ref=ar

"Wanderers are being as thorough as possible in their search and, thus far, only one candidate has met directly with both Ken Anderson and Dean Holdsworth – described to The Bolton News yesterday as “a potential coup” to the club. "

How exciting...

ooooooohh!

[Gary the Enfield]

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/14 ... ly/?ref=ar

"Wanderers are being as thorough as possible in their search and, thus far, only one candidate has met directly with both Ken Anderson and Dean Holdsworth – described to The Bolton News yesterday as “a potential coup” to the club. "

How exciting...

ooooooohh!

No. Coup!

[Bruce Rioja]

the statement doesn't say we are just looking at staff = cost, it says the club is undertaking a "consultation process with a view to restructuring its footballing operations and staff"

Which is exactly what they're saying.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/14 ... ly/?ref=ar

"Wanderers are being as thorough as possible in their search and, thus far, only one candidate has met directly with both Ken Anderson and Dean Holdsworth – described to The Bolton News yesterday as “a potential coup” to the club. "

How exciting...

It's Pellegrini. Mrs P didn't want to leave the area - she'd just paid her years' subs at Miles Platting Bowls Club.

(Interestingly, the word 'coup' is usually used in conjunction with a messy, forceful, not entirely consensual takeover of a failing state, often by overly ambitious empire-builders whose ability is dwarfed by their self-esteem.)

[thebish]

(Interestingly, the word 'coup' is usually used in conjunction with a messy, forceful, not entirely consensual takeover of a failing state, often by overly ambitious empire-builders whose ability is dwarfed by their self-esteem.)

or maybe it's a coup de grâce - a mercifully delivered swift end!

[Worthy4England]

But as I said earlier, we need to look at the macroeconomics. Looking at staff = cost is abhorrently short sited. Efficiency is what the club needs to look at. I can name away games that I haven't gone to simply because of the shortcomings of our ticket office. I rarely if ever buy food or drink at the ground due to the indolence of those serving it.

aye - 'appen as there is truth in that - but, then, the statement doesn't say we are just looking at staff = cost, it says the club is undertaking a "consultation process with a view to restructuring its footballing operations and staff" - which could mean a wide range of things including staff cuts...

"Consultation process" generally refers to the statutory consultation process in relation to redundancy - 30/45 days depending on the number of people involved.

[Bruce Rioja]

But as I said earlier, we need to look at the macroeconomics. Looking at staff = cost is abhorrently short sited. Efficiency is what the club needs to look at. I can name away games that I haven't gone to simply because of the shortcomings of our ticket office. I rarely if ever buy food or drink at the ground due to the indolence of those serving it.

aye - 'appen as there is truth in that - but, then, the statement doesn't say we are just looking at staff = cost, it says the club is undertaking a "consultation process with a view to restructuring its footballing operations and staff" - which could mean a wide range of things including staff cuts...

"Consultation process" generally refers to the statutory consultation process in relation to redundancy - 30/45 days depending on the number of people involved.

Yes, I know what a consultation process is, thanks. It's a waste of every 4ucker's time ahead of delivering the final blow.

[Worthy4England]

But as I said earlier, we need to look at the macroeconomics. Looking at staff = cost is abhorrently short sited. Efficiency is what the club needs to look at. I can name away games that I haven't gone to simply because of the shortcomings of our ticket office. I rarely if ever buy food or drink at the ground due to the indolence of those serving it.

aye - 'appen as there is truth in that - but, then, the statement doesn't say we are just looking at staff = cost, it says the club is undertaking a "consultation process with a view to restructuring its footballing operations and staff" - which could mean a wide range of things including staff cuts...

"Consultation process" generally refers to the statutory consultation process in relation to redundancy - 30/45 days depending on the number of people involved.

Yes, I know what a consultation process is, thanks. It's a waste of every 4ucker's time ahead of delivering the final blow.

Thanks for your thanks - I was responding to thebish. who seems to think it could be something different. It could but probably isn't.

You're Fired.

[thebish]

But as I said earlier, we need to look at the macroeconomics. Looking at staff = cost is abhorrently short sited. Efficiency is what the club needs to look at. I can name away games that I haven't gone to simply because of the shortcomings of our ticket office. I rarely if ever buy food or drink at the ground due to the indolence of those serving it.

aye - 'appen as there is truth in that - but, then, the statement doesn't say we are just looking at staff = cost, it says the club is undertaking a "consultation process with a view to restructuring its footballing operations and staff" - which could mean a wide range of things including staff cuts...

"Consultation process" generally refers to the statutory consultation process in relation to redundancy - 30/45 days depending on the number of people involved.

Yes, I know what a consultation process is, thanks. It's a waste of every 4ucker's time ahead of delivering the final blow.

Thanks for your thanks - I was responding to thebish. who seems to think it could be something different. It could but probably isn't.

You're Fired.

what thebish thinks is that it might be more than one thing! consultation on redundancies, yes, PLUS reorganisation - working in a different way...

either way - there will be some hardship for folks out of work...

(I doubt we'll ever get a totally clear answer about what has changed... but I am sure it will be outrageous and summat to beat the new owners with!)