Mowbray's initial demands (1 Viewer)

Huckerby · Dec 24, 2015

Back when negotiations between Mowbray and CCFC owners were dragging on for a couple of weeks, it came out that it was because Mowbray wanted complete control of the budget and not split pots for different runnings costs.

Now, I don't know any of this and it's just speculation, but I would bet that he also wanted to final say on players being signed etc. So, with all the Maddison hype at the moment, I see some people saying "well if we got £5million we wouldn't see any of that anyway it would be Wilson all over again" etc.

Does anyone think that Mowbray would be naive enough to have not addressed that in his contract negotiations after seeing what happened with Wilson (rightly or wrongly)? I'm pretty sure with all his experience he would say something like I want X amount of any transfer fees available for the budget.

Relax

Otis · Dec 24, 2015

Huckerby said:
Back when negotiations between Mowbray and CCFC owners were dragging on for a couple of weeks, it came out that it was because Mowbray wanted complete control of the budget and not split pots for different runnings costs.

Now, I don't know any of this and it's just speculation, but I would bet that he also wanted to final say on players being signed etc. So, with all the Maddison hype at the moment, I see some people saying "well if we got £5million we wouldn't see any of that anyway it would be Wilson all over again" etc.

Does anyone think that Mowbray would be naive enough to have not addressed that in his contract negotiations after seeing what happened with Wilson (rightly or wrongly)? I'm pretty sure with all his experience he would say something like I want X amount of any transfer fees available for the budget.

Relax

Yep, agree. TM WOULD see some of the money, I am convinced of it.

As you say, all hammered out in the contract talks. The board renege on that then TM could easily threaten to walk and he's the best thing to happen to this club in years.

Paxman II · Dec 24, 2015

This is why I said elsewhere that the majority would be reinvested by the owners. Or at least a substantial amount that TM may have insisted upon at the outset. Not so sure though TM would have quite got such a concrete promise in his contract as you suggest here. But the pressure would certainly be on SISU to make available much more than 10% of any fee that materialized.

Skyblueweeman · Dec 24, 2015

Huckerby said:
Back when negotiations between Mowbray and CCFC owners were dragging on for a couple of weeks, it came out that it was because Mowbray wanted complete control of the budget and not split pots for different runnings costs.

Now, I don't know any of this and it's just speculation, but I would bet that he also wanted to final say on players being signed etc. So, with all the Maddison hype at the moment, I see some people saying "well if we got £5million we wouldn't see any of that anyway it would be Wilson all over again" etc.

Does anyone think that Mowbray would be naive enough to have not addressed that in his contract negotiations after seeing what happened with Wilson (rightly or wrongly)? I'm pretty sure with all his experience he would say something like I want X amount of any transfer fees available for the budget.

Relax

Good post that Huckerby. Nice to see something other than our off the field problems.

I reckon you're right...I think he'll have addressed that in his negotiations. He's not stupid.

stupot07 · Dec 24, 2015

Yes, I'm sure Mowbray would get a % of the money, I'd expect the rest to support operating costs for the next 2-3 years. I doubt any deal would be £10m up front.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Sbarcher · Dec 24, 2015

TM - hope he gets both of them.

Huckerby · Dec 25, 2015

Paxman II said:
This is why I said elsewhere that the majority would be reinvested by the owners. Or at least a substantial amount that TM may have insisted upon at the outset. Not so sure though TM would have quite got such a concrete promise in his contract as you suggest here. But the pressure would certainly be on SISU to make available much more than 10% of any fee that materialized.

Wouldn't surprise me if it was concrete. After all it looks like the rest of the requirements regarding the management of the budget we're concrete hence the delay in signing. I hope it was anyway

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

stevefloyd · Dec 25, 2015

Why do we need concrete ? not for the new stadium because there isnt one

Otis · Dec 25, 2015

stevefloyd said:
Why do we need concrete ? not for the new stadium because there isnt one

If we needed a big thick slab we would have kept Andy Webster.

honestken · Dec 25, 2015

with Sisus track record we would be lucky If 10% of the transfer fee was re invested in the team!!

Sick Boy · Dec 25, 2015

honestken said:
with Sisus track record we would be lucky If 10% of the transfer fee was re invested in the team!!

Let's just pump all the money into the transfer kitty and not bother about paying wages and operating costs.

Moron.

Samo · Dec 25, 2015

Sick Boy said:
Let's just pump all the money into the transfer kitty and not bother about paying wages and operating costs.

Moron.

Not very Chritmasy but fair.

Gazolba · Dec 25, 2015

Well since TM has said publicly (at least CT reported he did) "do not sell Maddison", that leads me to believe it is not his decision to make. I'd be surprised if he has any say over how much we get or where the money goes, surely that's up to the people who have the full picture of our financial situation.

Huckerby · Dec 26, 2015

Gazolba said:
Well since TM has said publicly (at least CT reported he did) "do not sell Maddison", that leads me to believe it is not his decision to make. I'd be surprised if he has any say over how much we get or where the money goes, surely that's up to the people who have the full picture of our financial situation.

Right. Like he probably has no control over the general money pot or where that's spent right?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

honestken · Dec 26, 2015

Sick Boy said:
Let's just pump all the money into the transfer kitty and not bother about paying wages and operating costs.

Moron.

which is more than being coverd currently with the 11,000 break even crowd target.

1940oldfive · Dec 26, 2015

to put tiny tims feet in before he is thrown in the cut

stevefloyd said:
Why do we need concrete ? not for the new stadium because there isnt one

Huckerby · Dec 26, 2015

honestken said:
with Sisus track record we would be lucky If 10% of the transfer fee was re invested in the team!!

Did you even read the OP?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

ollyservetta · Dec 26, 2015

Understand what your saying but what ever has been said id hav thought the investers ,pull / hold all the strings . Id imagine if any sizeable wind falls come in , they would want money out. Saying that, we are in a position new to us of late and with the prospect of promotion , as ive said in the other thread ,extra money I believe is needed to complete this season , and more for next if promoted .could we replace maddison and his potential with what we would see of the money. If we go up we need to be competitive , it would do us more harm than good if we struggle and come straight down , or fight a relegation battle .I hope TM has the say and believe he knows whats best for the team , then the club ,but feel that at the end of the day ,not even sisu have the say

Otis · Dec 26, 2015

The Christmas spirit didn't last long did it.

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk

Irish Sky Blue · Dec 26, 2015

If, as Sisu say, the club now is standing on it's own two feet, receive no financial help from the parent company, and either sink or swim on the money they generate themselves, then shouldn't any transfer fees received go entirely to the club?

st john · Dec 26, 2015

I honestly believe this is "operation premiership" and one last go at getting access to the money just one season would generate. That's why I think our budget this season is higher than stated, and it also fits in with the 2 year extension to the Ricoh. Most if not all of any money we receive for Maddison will go towards this objective in my opinion

Mowbray's initial demands (1 Viewer)

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency