Should Bennett Go Too??

[CaleyD]

my fear with letting grassa go is a pretty highland league one, he may be very expensive to replace

Not as expensive as you might think.  For the first time that I can remember a ?40,000+ Directors Emolument appeared on the accounts.

I don't grudge anyone payment for services, but since day 1 we have been led to believe that the ICT Directors all worked for free and we should be grateful for their service.  It would seem this is another change that has occurred at the club recently.

[SMEE]

Your not the only person who noticed this ?40000 CaleyD, and there are some worthwhile contributors to the club not very happy about it at all and questioning it ....allegedly.

[gordyfromsneck]

my fear with letting grassa go is a pretty highland league one, he may be very expensive to replace

Not as expensive as you might think.  For the first time that I can remember a ?40,000+ Directors Emolument appeared on the accounts.

I don't grudge anyone payment for services, but since day 1 we have been led to believe that the ICT Directors all worked for free and we should be grateful for their service.  It would seem this is another change that has occurred at the club recently.

Grasser costs ICT ?0. His salary is paid for by Cairngorm Windows who let him work, almost exclusively for ICT, as far as I understand it. Bear that in mind next time you need uPVC windows and doors, built in the HIghlands for the Highlands.

To my mind the Nicolae deal is an excellent piece of work for all concerned, especially the players, and if they cant take it they should seek other employment, elsewhere. Once this machine clicks into place, and I have zero doubt it will, this will all be forgotten.

[CaleyD]

IMO, he may have jeopardised our SPL survival this season, or at the very least cost us a couple of league places....what price would you put on that?

[L_G]

my fear with letting grassa go is a pretty highland league one, he may be very expensive to replace

Not as expensive as you might think.  For the first time that I can remember a ?40,000+ Directors Emolument appeared on the accounts.

I don't grudge anyone payment for services, but since day 1 we have been led to believe that the ICT Directors all worked for free and we should be grateful for their service.  It would seem this is another change that has occurred at the club recently.

Grasser costs ICT ?0. His salary is paid for by Cairngorm Windows who let him work, almost exclusively for ICT, as far as I understand it. Bear that in mind next time you need uPVC windows and doors, built in the HIghlands for the Highlands.

To my mind the Nicolae deal is an excellent piece of work for all concerned, especially the players, and if they cant take it they should seek other employment, elsewhere. Once this machine clicks into place, and I have zero doubt it will, this will all be forgotten.

That was always my thoughts Gordy, but there is aparently a payment in excess of ?40,000 recored in this year's club accounts for directors payments.  I'm not a shareholder so I don't have access to the accounts, but as they say I am reliably informed that this is the case.

[dead_ball_specialist]

Don't forget all of his overseas holidays at the clubs (the paying fans) expense!! Didn't he jet out to Italy to 'sort out' the clubs pre season training? I bet he went along with the players for the ride too. And he also jetted around Eastern Europe recently supposedly to hold talks with Hagi and Popescu. Ever heard of telecommunications?

How many other overseas jollies has he had??? I'd love to see a full list of his expenses!!!  :023:

The club needs a clear out. Grassa, Danny MacDonald and all the other 'jobs for the boys' crew aren't up to it if we want to get to the next level. Charlie would be the only one I'd keep.

[Yngwie]

Some of the nonsense on this thread is just incredible.

[Scotty]

Some of the nonsense on this thread is just incredible.

:clapping03: :clapping03: :clapping03:

Since Grassa is - in so many people's eyes - just pissing around doing very little, I would challenge those who want him out to back up their desire with some viable alternative names to replace him ? Its all very well and good slagging off the man anonymously from behind the sofa but c'mon, lets see some suggestions.

Would a replacement scope out a foreign training base ? would a replacement fly to eastern Europe to try and organise the betterment of our club, would a replacement go with other club officials to club organised trips - be they 'jollies' or otherwise ? Of course they would, the biggest difference is that it would probably cost us 5 times as much !

Lets also not forget that the 40K line item in the accounts is not listed as "expenses for G Bennett" it is listed as Directors Emolument - so unless someone asks and receives an answer at the AGM about this particular line item it is wrong to assume that Grassa got any or all of it. If those "worthy contributors" are also shareholders, I am sure they are welcome to ask the question.

[CaleyD]

I don't for one minute think Grassa is pissing around doing nothing, but I do think he has to put his hands up and accept a large portion of the responsibility for the position we are in at present.

We are just over a week from the close of the Transfer Window and we've lost our manager, a manager who wanted to resign back in January and then again in April, but was convinced by Grassa to stay, despite concerns over his mental state.

Had Grassa taken a step back and allowed Charlie to leave on either of those occasions we may still have been sitting bottom of the league after a bad start but we would have had some stability in the team and the new manager would have had a chance to bring in players he wanted.

As it stands, we don't have that luxury and we're now faced with 2 options.

1.  We rush in a new manager to at least give him a chance at signing a player or two at the back.

2.  We take our time over it, risk not bringing in the player/s needed and risk going the first half of the season without sufficient cover at the back.

I'm not looking for him to be sacked, what I am looking for is him to stop hiding, grow some balls, fess up to the fans and admit he is accountable - even more so IF he is now a paid Director.

As has been said by many on this site before - no one man is bigger than the club - and that includes those upstairs.  A player gets pelters for messing up on the park, I don't see why the guys upstairs should be any different.

[reefinweedallday]

Well Said Caley D :clapping03:

I would personally start with what Mike Smith does for his over-inflated salary

[caley100]

:029:

So the club are in a mess 'upstairs' are they? did you not see that accounts published that the club made nearly ?300K profit?  They managed to lure a pretty high class player to this wee team in the highlands, they have started to organise a fourth stand / singing section that we the fans asked for.. so where is your argument?   dont forget we ARE a wee team in a big pond that not that long ago was playing in the highland league/third division.

Have a swig from the reality bottle..

[strathyjags]

1.  We rush in a new manager to at least give him a chance at signing a player or two at the back.

if its brewster then yes he may get a def or 2 in,but if warnock,he doesnt know players up here so well so less chance of getting a player or 2 in a short space of time

[Guest neksor]

Sorry mate but as a shareholder in Inverness Thistle and Caledonian Football Clubs I think I do have a right to know what he earns.

I had actually heard of Niculae before.  And I would love you to be right about the guy's ability.

Because the above "was" a shareholder in two alien former Inverness clubs gives him/her absolutely no rights to demand what players of ICT are being paid!

It is time to get rid of these alien persons who constantly harp back to the Highland League.

They need to move on!

Neksor

[CaleyD]

:029:

So the club are in a mess 'upstairs' are they? did you not see that accounts published that the club made nearly ?300K profit?  They managed to lure a pretty high class player to this wee team in the highlands, they have started to organise a fourth stand / singing section that we the fans asked for.. so where is your argument?  dont forget we ARE a wee team in a big pond that not that long ago was playing in the highland league/third division.

Have a swig from the reality bottle..

No, I said mistakes have been made which need to be acknowledged by those responsible...or should Charlie be left to shoulder all the blame and made the scapegoat?

Only then can they be put to rest and we can move forward a little wiser and less likely to see them repeated.

Accountability has been an issue at ICT for a long time now and in many areas.  Lets not forget that we still haven't had a proper response about the stewarding situation which occurred at the end of last season.  Nobody has been properly held accountable and the people responsible were allowed to take up the reins and make similar mistakes at the first game of this season.  Do you think that is a healthy way to run any business?

We've lived too long on the excuse that everything has been going well on the pitch and ignored what's happening off it.  In order for the club to truly progress everything needs to be working properly.

[Yngwie]

Neksor  - I think you are misunderstanding Alex Mcleod's comment.

Inverness Thistle and Caledonian Football Club Ltd is the company that owns ICTFC. Mr McLeod is rightly pointing out that he is a part-owner of our club.

[Alex MacLeod]

neksor, before rumbling your gums perhaps you should learn some facts. I have never been, nor did I claim to be, a shareholder in either of the two previous clubs. I am a shareholder in the present company registered at company house as 'Inverness Thistle and Caledonian Football Clubs Plc'.

And to correct another point. Ok I overstated about having a right to know who earns what. Shareholders in any company, in order to save hassles and to comply with regulations, vote in an independant auditor to look over the companies accounts. That auditor goes through everything with a fine toothcomb to ensure everything is in order. If shareholders feel the accountant has not done his job properly, or their is suspicion over the figures they can demand to know the breakdown.

[Kind of Blue]

When GB took on the role of Director of Football in 2000 (i think) he did not receive any payment from ICT.  I understand that this situation changed within the last two years and he now receives payment.  This could be a good question for CaleyD to ask at the AGM next week.

[Yngwie]

Only if he's shareholder of course!

There's no reason why our Director of Football, or any other servant of the club, should not get paid for giving their time and doing their job.

[caley100]

Exactly.

[CaleyD]

I have no objection to anyone at the club getting paid, be they a Director or not.  I only mentioned the fact to dispel the myth that our Directors are all working for free, which is a line that has been trotted out on many occasions over the years.

I shall be at the AGM, but I shall not be asking any questions regarding payment of Directors.

[Alex MacLeod]

Payments made to any directors are published in the annual statement and very transparent. And to put another myth to bed. GB went to italy to make arrangements for the summer camp, he done the same last year and he went to Denmark the year before that for the same reasons. In previous years he did not accompany the team on the actual camp and I dont believe he did so this time.

Things like training camp organisation are his job as DoF and I wouldn't for one minute expect him to have to pay for such trips out of his own pocket.

[CaleyD]

Alex, expenses do not come under "Emoluments" and would be covered elsewhere on the accounts.

[Alex MacLeod]

Alex, expenses do not come under "Emoluments" and would be covered elsewhere on the accounts.

Yeah and, if memory serves correct, ?40,000 in expenses payments is a pretty small drop in the ocean if you ask me. That would likely include the office afternoon teacakes, entertainment of potential sponsors and loads of other things sundries. Not much left for GB to live the high life

[CaleyD]

Think you misunderstood Alex.

Emoluments = Payment for holding an office or employment (i.e. Salary).  It would not include expenses which are not subject to UK Income Tax such as travel, accommodation, wining and dining which is undertaken as part of the job.

SCHEDULE 4 Disclosure of Information: Emoluments and Other Benefits of Directors and Others

1 Schedule 6 to the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 is amended as follows.

2 For the heading substitute?

?Disclosure of information: emoluments and other benefits of directors and others?.

3 Insert the following provisions (which reproduce, with amendments, the former Part V of Schedule 5 to that Act) as Part I?

?Part I Chairman?s and Directors' Emoluments, Pensions and Compensation for Loss of Office

Aggregate amount of directors' emoluments

1 (1) The aggregate amount of directors' emoluments shall be shown.

(2) This means the emoluments paid to or receivable by any person in respect of?

(a) his services as a director of the company, or

(b) his services while director of the company?

(i) as director of any of its subsidiary undertakings, or

(ii) otherwise in connection with the management of the affairs of the company or any of its subsidiary undertakings.

(3) There shall also be shown, separately, the aggregate amount within sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b)(i) and the aggregate amount within sub-paragraph (2)(b)(ii).

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph the ?emoluments? of a person include?

(a) fees and percentages,

(b) sums paid by way of expenses allowance (so far as those sums are chargeable to United Kingdom income tax),

© contributions paid in respect of him under any pension scheme, and

(d) the estimated money value of any other benefits received by him otherwise than in cash,

and emoluments in respect of a person?s accepting office as director shall be treated as emoluments in respect of his services as director.

Details of chairman?s and directors' emoluments

2 Where the company is a parent company or a subsidiary undertaking, or where the amount shown in compliance with paragraph 1(1) is ?60,000 or more, the information required by paragraphs 3 to 6 shall be given with respect to the emoluments of the chairman and directors, and emoluments waived.

3 (1) The emoluments of the chairman shall be shown.

(2) The ?chairman? means the person elected by the directors to be chairman of their meetings, and includes a person who, though not so elected, holds an office (however designated) which in accordance with the company?s constitution carries with it functions substantially similar to those discharged by a person so elected.

(3) Where there has been more than one chairman during the year, the emoluments of each shall be stated so far as attributable to the period during which he was chairman.

(4) The emoluments of a person need not be shown if his duties as chairman were wholly or mainly discharged outside the United Kingdom.

4 (1) The following information shall be given with respect to the emoluments of directors.

(2) There shall be shown the number of directors whose emoluments fell within each of the following bands?

    *

      not more than ?5,000,

    *

      more than ?5,000 but not more than ?10,000,

    *

      more than ?10,000 but not more than ?15,000,

    *

      and so on.

(3) If the emoluments of any of the directors exceeded that of the chairman, there shall be shown the greatest amount of emoluments of any director.

(4) Where more than one person has been chairman during the year, the reference in sub-paragraph (3) to the emoluments of the chairman is to the aggregate of the emoluments of each person who has been chairman, so far as attributable to the period during which he was chairman.

(5) The information required by sub-paragraph (2) need not be given in respect of a director who discharged his duties as such wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom; and any such director shall be left out of account for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3).

5 In paragraphs 3 and 4 ?emoluments? has the same meaning as in paragraph 1, except that it does not include contributions paid in respect of a person under a pension scheme.

Emoluments waived

6 (1) There shall be shown?

(a) the number of directors who have waived rights to receive emoluments which, but for the waiver, would have fallen to be included in the amount shown under paragraph 1(1), and

(b) the aggregate amount of those emoluments.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph it shall be assumed that a sum not receivable in respect of a period would have been paid at the time at which it was due, and if such a sum was payable only on demand, it shall be deemed to have been due at the time of the waiver.

[tm4tj]

It's not a tin of paint then :029: