Charles Bannerman

05: Full Members
  • Content count

    5,250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Charles Bannerman last won the day on May 9

Charles Bannerman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

474 Excellent

About Charles Bannerman

  • Rank
    International Player

Recent Profile Visitors

4,644 profile views
  1. The sentiments expressed in this thread are very laudable indeed, but I can't help feeling that they are based on a bit of an irony. What the well intentioned OP suggests is that fans should donate from their own funds, effectively to allow football players, most of whom earn far more than they do, to enjoy levels of pay which are way above the market value of what they do. One of the reasons that most football clubs struggle for cash and depend on donations from the wealthy (and indeed not so wealthy) is that they are trying to find wages which are considerably higher than their players' effective earning power. Now, I can't see a way out of this for as long as it is driven from the top by remunerating idiots well enough for them to blow half a million on a night's gambling and sustained below that by attempts to retain full time playing staff who arguably aren't actually good enough to deserve that status. These attempts also include sugar daddies allowing economic nonsense to prevail and there is something fundamentally wrong with football's relationship with money. I don't want to knock Elgin 1's good intentions, but what he has said raises a number of questions. Firstly, he says he is a teacher, in which case he would need to be fairly highly promoted if his earnings even match those of the players who have just failed to maintain Premiership status and there will be very many fans less well paid than E1. In ballpark figures, I think it's completely unjust to look to the bottom 90% or more of the earnings range to contribute towards sustaining the top 10% or less. It reminds me of an organisation which used to be called "The Society for the Relief of Indigent Gentlewomen of Scotland" whose business used to be to collect money from the public so that well heeled women who considered it below their status to work could be kept in luxury. It was utterly immoral! Then there's the irony that fans - justifiably - complain about ticket prices (which in turn are largely dictated by the need to pay these wage levels.) That being so, then where is the case for voluntarily coughing up even more to sustain these wage levels? The other consideration is that football simply tries, or in some cases needs, to ignore economic realities. If any normal business is unable to balance its books it either cuts costs, goes into liquidation.... or allows itself to merge or be taken over. The problem with this last one is that there will be few instances in football where this is practicable. I don't actually believe that the inner Moray Firth is capable of sustaining long term two Premiership football clubs - even when one is heavily subsidised by a benefactor. An economist landing on a space ship from another planet would propose a merger but we all know that, in a football environment, this is a total non starter. (It was barely feasible 20 odd years ago within the same, very local community, which Dingwall - Inverness isn't. But PLEASE nobody go "there" again!!) So, as a result of not subscribing to basic economic principles such as mergers, takeovers and wage restraint, football leaves itself with very few options and I don't think fan subsidy over and above ticket charges is realistic. On the other hand maximising sales of tickets by convincing people that purchase is worthwhile is another matter. Remember also that so-called "investment" in a football club is simply the making of non-returnable donations, either large ones from wealthy people or the smaller ones such as many of us made 20 years ago with our share purchases of £250 or whatever. A final word on the hotel proposal. Apart from wondering where these premises would be located, I must query Northern_jaggie's estimates where he appears to balance the capital cost of 20 bedrooms with gross earnings based on a number of projected outcomes (and about £80 a night). I don't see any provision in there for operating costs such as business rates, wages, food, energy, maintenance, VAT etc etc.
  2. Matchday Thread

    Agreed. However this doesn't seem to have prevented certain HL club whose benefactors have far more money than sense from continuing to pay ridiculous weekly wages and absurd signing on fees for training a couple of times a week and playing a poor standard of football in front of a couple of hundred people.
  3. In that case, let me indulge in a bit of Devil's Advocacy. The scenario you have just described is that of a customer of a business. What would normally then happen is that a dissatisfied customer would take his custom elsewhere... but I have a feeling you won't be pitching up at the Global Energy Stadium next season. You do seem to be looking for the best of both worlds - leave the sorting of the business to other people, don't participate as a shareholder (even though that entitles you to attend and speak at the AGM), but retain the right to complain. Is that not a bit like looking for influence without responsibility?
  4. , . F ' . , f . S m . There you go. I've even put all eleven of them in the correct order for you. All you need to do is to put them in the correct places and then head off to your anger management class!
  5. This probably isn't the right moment to split hairs but, whilst I do agree that realistically only two of nine possible result permutations will do, the likelihood of reaching the playoffs now = (probability of ICT beating Motherwell) x (probability of Hamilton failing to beat Dundee).
  6. If you speak really nicely to the Minister, Kenny, I'm sure he would make an exception
  7. BUMP!
  8. Yngwie... is it possible that any "windfalls" from the previous season weren't paid until the current accounting period so may lighten the load? Just a thought. Also, your remark about win bonuses may well come into the "many a true word spoken in jest" category.
  9. BUMP!!! Best post of the night.
  10. I'm still unclear as to what exactly is meant by the directors having to "accept the financial consequences" of any "losses" and how such a process was likely to be implemented.
  11. The last (and indeed only) ICT director that I am aware of having received remuneration as a director is Graeme Bennett. The company is owned by the shareholders who in turn approve the appointment of (most of?) the directors to run its affairs on their behalf. By losses, and this MAY answer Snorbens' question, I am guessing you may be referring to any excess of expenditure over income in the financial year ending a fortnight Wednesday and/or any drop in income in the event of relegation. While there is still a chance of Premiership survival, I am very reluctant to become embroiled in any discussion of "blame" which does occur to me as a rather divisive distraction while there is any remaining chance of staying up. I am also not certain that this forum would be where my eventual viewpoint would emerge first. On the subject of any "anti board" sentiment, that is simply my ongoing perception. If you are a shareholder, and I have a hunch that you may be, you presumably have the right to place a motion of no confidence in the Board before the next AGM should you wish. I am not fully conversant with the Articles of Association, but I would guess that there may well also be the means of assembling an earlier Special General Meeting of the Company for the same purpose. In both instances, I would imagine that it would be advisable to have in place the means of quickly assembling a new board should any motion succeed.
  12. One major flaw there would appear to be that these are volunteer directors who receive no remuneration for what they do on the club's behalf and you also appear to want to make them financially responsible for losses incurred - in a business which doesn't follow the basic rules of economics in the first place. Jam on both sides and butter round the edges comes to mind. Any profit they make goes into funding a player pool which already has costs way out of proportion with what the customers pay for the product. Any loss in what is an extremely high risk business and you expect these volunteers to be personally responsible. I wonder how many volunteers there would be to become directors if these were the rules? And what precisely is meant by "fund the losses"? How would you propose they do this? In advance of a definitive outcome to the current situation, I'm not going to attribute blame publicly although I generally take the view that, in an environment where room for manoeuvre has always been extremely limited, the Board have made mistakes which must also be viewed alongside the successes of their watch. I am prepared to say as much, and elaborate on it objectively when things become clearer... all under my own name. On the other hand, I can't help but feel that caleyboy has a preconceived "anti-board" agenda which he is content to express from behind a mask of anonymity.
  13. I always like to revisit pre-match comments post-match!
  14. Time to "get your boiler suit on and get your sleeves rolled up"?
  15. That's how many?