You could have Lowes back in exchange for your pre-game entertainment!
That singer is great!

what?

Agree totally with your second point. Don't agree that the first point necessarily follows at all though - see below.



Evidence? Or opinion? And even if it did, it would hardly happen overnight. Personally I do not think you would see anything like that increase (although you would surely arrest the decline and expect some more to return). You'll only get a big increase by attracting new fans, and that basically means the kids and the families again. The marketing, in fact. Would all take time to have any significant effect.



Is it? What matters is the incremental contribution (call it "gross profit" for on here), and that would be far less than the figure you quote. People always forget the VAT too... At least one other regular contributor on here was in the meeting when a chief exec told us the figure, which I think we need to keep to ourselves obviously.



Except, how much would that payoff need to be? I've said before it would likley be rather more than many people assume. And see my comments above regarding how long it would take to increase the crowds, and why your figure is anyway far too high. My guess is you'd be lucky to recover the termination costs over the full season, if that, even with a very decent crowd increase.



Ill leave others to debate those choices from a coaching perspctive. But I just wonder if you appreciate just how much more than our existing coaching team that lot would cost, if indeed you were able to entice them - remember you'd have to settle with clubs for existing contracts. I'd guess at at at least double, plus compensation, but that's speculation. So that's even bigger gates again that you'd need.



I'm sure your suggestions are genuine and well-meaning, but I just can't see how the numbers will ever add up.

All that said, something needs to change - and if we cannot afford to do anything at all to change the status quo then we really are fekked.

That was a great pre-match band IMO - amidst all the rest of the crapness I think recognition of that got lost. The guy in front of me sings and plays in a similar band, and he was well impressed with them.

We had all this out on a thread a bit back - I guess I could go find the link.

It anyway depends on whether he is contracted to end 2009 (as most people think/thought) or 2010 (as Hood suggested in an interview with Sledger a few weeks ago.

I'm not really in a position to speculate on exactly how much his package is worth - not least cos I really have no specific idea! But remember to add in the car (no doubt part of the JCT600 sponsorship?) and other benefits to whatever the salary is. And is it conceivable that a SL Head Coach would be on, lets say £50k pa? Or would people expect rather more than that? And then its a question of whether his contract gives specific rights in event of termination, and whether a compromise agreement would be likely (I assume so) in which case that would cost the club. There are loads of factors which could affect the amount - including employee duty to mitigate the loss, tax treatment and avoiding enrichment. I've always assumed any settlement would have to run well into six figures, but I'm really only speculating. Remember also you'd likely have a chunk of Employers' NIC to pay as well.

Thanks. A lot then potentially!! Makes you wonder why it seems to happen so regularly then with some teams.

Sorry, missed the previous thread.

Ok, genuine question...

...do coaches have some kind of performance expectation in their contract? For example, the contract is null and void if the team don't achieve..such and such?

In my job, as in most I should imagine, I have regular performance reviews and if I don't perform to expected standards, I could be sacked. I wouldn't get a big pay off because I'm being made jobless before the end of my contract.

So why is a coach or a player exempt? If you don't perform, why should they expect to be retained or paid off?

Potentially yes COULD be a lot. But it COULD be a lot less too, in fairness. In what I do for a living, prudence is drilled into you, mind!

A team with a rich benefactor will likely find it much easier to find the funds necessary, I guess.

I don't know a great deal on this but the word of sporting contracts is very different to other areas of employment. Being able to sack purely on the basis of performance really would open up a can of worms - we'd probably only have Morrison, Menzies, Burgess, Lynch and Nero turning up each day knowing they'd still have a job at the end of the day right now as everyone else would be in breach.

Like I have said previously we are a club in transition. There is no short term solution, all the best players are already at clubs and will not be enticed away to Bulls. We are in for the long haul, while relegation is not an issue we have time to rebuild, lets take the nettle by the hand as painful as it would be to languish in the bottom of SL. Sack the "superstars" who have no pride in pulling a Bulls shirt on clear the decks and start the rebuild, to challenge for honours come 2012/3. All else is delusion and pie in the sky. Support the Head Coach and stop booing guys on the pitch who bodies are on the line.

Also, you've only got to look at this forum to see how difficult it is to nail responsibility for team performance on the coach. That said, it's pretty much beyond doubt now.

Yes I see that, but a coach? It would not be unreasonable to have it in a coaches contract before he (or she!) signed:

We are giving you these players, this much money, etc and in return the minimum we expect would be....

If they didn't like it they would not have to sign it!