| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 09:12 - Sep 14 with 1804 views | NeathJack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 08:54 - Sep 14 by _ |
WTF were you on about last night? |
Have you read it? |  | |  |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 09:22 - Sep 14 with 1782 views | _ |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 09:12 - Sep 14 by NeathJack |
Have you read it? |
No, but what is it? Is it just a thicko fan site? |  |
| |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 09:28 - Sep 14 with 1788 views | Nookiejack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 08:20 - Sep 14 by _ |
Pearlman wouldn't have had the final say and not like you to over think things Stu!? 😉 |
You would assume he put the deal together with the Council and recommended it to Kaplan and Levein - who then signed it off.
So would have accountability.
Otherwise why pay him circa £700k a year.
Unless he put the deal together with the Council but then advised Kaplan and Levein to call it off/put it on hold - because of potential relegation. If Kaplan and Levein then overrode him then they would assume full responsibility.
When we were receiving over £100m in PL - then he probably gets away with people not questioning what he is delivering for his £700k.
Where we are now in Championship with cuts to our revenue - then shouldn’t the amount that executives in the club be challenged, in context of what they are delivering.
We as supporters are paying for tickets - do we want to see that income stream being spent on players or Executive salaries. Fine if the Executives are delivering addditional income/income streams to justify their packages - but is Pearlman really doing this at the moment? |  | | |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 09:42 - Sep 14 with 1767 views | NeathJack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 09:22 - Sep 14 by _ |
No, but what is it? Is it just a thicko fan site? |
Try reading it. | | | |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 10:00 - Sep 14 with 1750 views | longlostjack |
An interesting article. I’ve always thought that the stadium be it a lease purchase or owned could be part of a potential exit strategy involving it being used as security against borrowing . Chaudhari was brought on board at an early stage if I remember correctly. Perhaps the “investors” are not thinking of doing that at all and have perfectly legitimate commercial motives but put me down as cynical. |  |
| |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 10:42 - Sep 14 with 1706 views | _ |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 10:00 - Sep 14 by longlostjack |
An interesting article. I’ve always thought that the stadium be it a lease purchase or owned could be part of a potential exit strategy involving it being used as security against borrowing . Chaudhari was brought on board at an early stage if I remember correctly. Perhaps the “investors” are not thinking of doing that at all and have perfectly legitimate commercial motives but put me down as cynical. |
It's not worth a read.
We don't own the stadium therefore can't use it as security for borrowing.
What was Neath thinking, that the 1bn London stadium that was effectively gifted to West Ham would be sold to finance their cashflow issues?
Seriously? | |
| |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 12:18 - Sep 14 with 1647 views | awayjack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 09:28 - Sep 14 by Nookiejack |
You would assume he put the deal together with the Council and recommended it to Kaplan and Levein - who then signed it off.
So would have accountability.
Otherwise why pay him circa £700k a year.
Unless he put the deal together with the Council but then advised Kaplan and Levein to call it off/put it on hold - because of potential relegation. If Kaplan and Levein then overrode him then they would assume full responsibility.
When we were receiving over £100m in PL - then he probably gets away with people not questioning what he is delivering for his £700k.
Where we are now in Championship with cuts to our revenue - then shouldn’t the amount that executives in the club be challenged, in context of what they are delivering.
We as supporters are paying for tickets - do we want to see that income stream being spent on players or Executive salaries. Fine if the Executives are delivering addditional income/income streams to justify their packages - but is Pearlman really doing this at the moment? |
Average directors basic salary (excluding CEO) is £325k in FTSE 250. They then typcially double that with performance related bonuses. Are we seriously saying someone like Pearlman should have basic salary double FTSE 250 directors that are usually serious experts highly qualified in their sectors / specialist areas. We’re in a sector where performance is everything. If Pearlman and Huw were on say £200k basic - still a very high-end directors salary in Swansea - plus performance bonuses so they could earn £500k+ if they delivered results, I don’t think there’d be much frustration.
That they get paid so much for failure (PL revenues, player firesale, poor commercial deals), and with costs being slashed elsewhere is highly unusual if not incompetent by whoever negotiated their packages. |  | | |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 12:26 - Sep 14 with 1642 views | NeathJack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 10:42 - Sep 14 by _ |
It's not worth a read.
We don't own the stadium therefore can't use it as security for borrowing.
What was Neath thinking, that the 1bn London stadium that was effectively gifted to West Ham would be sold to finance their cashflow issues?
Seriously? |
Did you read it? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 13:01 - Sep 14 with 1604 views | _ |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 12:26 - Sep 14 by NeathJack |
Did you read it? |
Did I read the one (1) article online about 'mortgaging ' the London Stadium? From some sort of blogger, like Jack Swan, or somebody?
I did yeah but I've still no idea what tree you're barking up here? | |
| |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 13:34 - Sep 14 with 1581 views | Nookiejack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 12:18 - Sep 14 by awayjack |
Average directors basic salary (excluding CEO) is £325k in FTSE 250. They then typcially double that with performance related bonuses. Are we seriously saying someone like Pearlman should have basic salary double FTSE 250 directors that are usually serious experts highly qualified in their sectors / specialist areas. We’re in a sector where performance is everything. If Pearlman and Huw were on say £200k basic - still a very high-end directors salary in Swansea - plus performance bonuses so they could earn £500k+ if they delivered results, I don’t think there’d be much frustration.
That they get paid so much for failure (PL revenues, player firesale, poor commercial deals), and with costs being slashed elsewhere is highly unusual if not incompetent by whoever negotiated their packages. |
Huw Jenkins package looks like it was negotiated as part of his sale of shares to the Yanks.
He surely wouldn’t still be employed by another football club in respect of his recruitment failures during the last 3 years.
If he did negotiate a guaranteed package with the Yanks before the sale, which the Trust was not aware of, it does look unfairly prejudicial to the Trust - as could be construed in certain scenarios as part of overall proceeds (Guaranteed contract regardless of performance + proceeds for his shares) that he received for his shares.
Alternative scenario is that he is just being used as the scapegoat for the Yanks. Expensive scapegoat though in the Championship. | | | |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 14:03 - Sep 14 with 1560 views | NeathJack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 13:01 - Sep 14 by _ |
Did I read the one (1) article online about 'mortgaging ' the London Stadium? From some sort of blogger, like Jack Swan, or somebody?
I did yeah but I've still no idea what tree you're barking up here? |
It's about WHU borrowing against the lease they hold on the stadium.
But then you knew that. | | | |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 14:30 - Sep 14 with 1539 views | _ |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 14:03 - Sep 14 by NeathJack |
It's about WHU borrowing against the lease they hold on the stadium.
But then you knew that. |
To what extent? | |
| |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 15:21 - Sep 14 with 1503 views | _ |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 14:03 - Sep 14 by NeathJack |
It's about WHU borrowing against the lease they hold on the stadium.
But then you knew that. |
Against the rights from the lease, which is completely different to what dishwater Darren suggested and you backed up.
Pair of clowns  | |
| |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 15:25 - Sep 14 with 1503 views | waynekerr55 |
Back to the discussion - I imagine there would be some sort of clause with the lease. It could possibly be used as an asset to borrow against, but then again it may not. Devil and detail springs to mind! |  |
| |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 15:51 - Sep 14 with 1483 views | NeathJack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 15:21 - Sep 14 by _ |
Against the rights from the lease, which is completely different to what dishwater Darren suggested and you backed up.
Pair of clowns |
"In addition, they have used shop leases at Romford and Lakeside as security as well as the 99-year lease of the London Stadium to get access to the cash.
Effectively they have mortgaged the training grounds and leases."
In sure you can obfuscate further though... | | | |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 15:57 - Sep 14 with 1466 views | _ |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 15:51 - Sep 14 by NeathJack |
"In addition, they have used shop leases at Romford and Lakeside as security as well as the 99-year lease of the London Stadium to get access to the cash.
Effectively they have mortgaged the training grounds and leases."
In sure you can obfuscate further though... |
The rights from the lease though, not the real estate itself, which is what Darren was harping on about. It's hardly worth mentioning let alone looking for some fanzine online to back up your nonsense. You need some time off. | |
| |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 16:13 - Sep 14 with 1465 views | NeathJack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 15:57 - Sep 14 by _ |
The rights from the lease though, not the real estate itself, which is what Darren was harping on about. It's hardly worth mentioning let alone looking for some fanzine online to back up your nonsense. You need some time off. |
The simple point being that unless the council wrote into the lease that it could not be used as collateral, the club can borrow against it.
They don't need to own the stadium to be able to do so.
But then you know that as well.
Little point in discussing further as my point is made has yours is bought and paid for. | | | |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 16:35 - Sep 14 with 1438 views | _ |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 16:13 - Sep 14 by NeathJack |
The simple point being that unless the council wrote into the lease that it could not be used as collateral, the club can borrow against it.
They don't need to own the stadium to be able to do so.
But then you know that as well.
Little point in discussing further as my point is made has yours is bought and paid for. |
They can only borrow against what they own. We don't own the stadium so we can't borrow against it
We do now own the lease, 30 years of it, which will bring some rights, or revenue, we can borrow against that aspect, which you've gone to great pains to tell us all its minimal.
I don't think you understand | |
| |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 17:26 - Sep 14 with 1386 views | awayjack |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 16:13 - Sep 14 by NeathJack |
The simple point being that unless the council wrote into the lease that it could not be used as collateral, the club can borrow against it.
They don't need to own the stadium to be able to do so.
But then you know that as well.
Little point in discussing further as my point is made has yours is bought and paid for. |
I’ve heard the powers are embarrassed by the hopeless job the clowns they’ve employed to fight their corner on social media have done. Axe coming soon. [Post edited 14 Sep 2018 17:27]
| | | |
| Were would we be without Chris Pearlman on 08:39 - Sep 15 with 1259 views | QJumpingJack |
The question is, does Pearlman have any useful business contacts from across the world which can help the club?
He was a high profile appointment in 2016 and on recent performance there must be concerns, especially as the former Commercial Director on twitter claimed to take the credit of the last sponsorship deal. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
