Moneyball and Performance Related Pay
- Thread starter Frogfish
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
No. It is a Public listed Company. The government owns a lot of the shares but they don't own the Company as such. But that is just an example. Youll struggle to find a CEO on 1 mill pounds here. And to be fair, Ayre is not Worth a million pounds a year.
Is it? I very much doubt that, anyways if you think he's worth it fair enough, I don't and I believe he is extremely fortunate to be earning as much irrespective of what his peers earn. Our financial performance certainly doesn't warrant such remuneration as far as I can see
For those with turnovers in the hundreds of millions, yes. There's nothing wrong with our financial performance, it's very strong, it's just cool to hate on Ayre for some reason.
It is not a governmental Company. it is a Public listed Company where the state owns 67% of the shares and hence have a majority stake. But it is managed by a Board of Directors. The state owns other Companies 100% (not Public listed) but Statoil is controlled by the State. Having said that the CEO is making an ok yearly salary for Norway. However when the previous CEO moved to BG in UK his salary was going through the roof. He prob make 5 Mill pounds a year, so it is obv a difference on poor old Norway and UK.
No one can ride a Fowler like he can
No likes Ayre cos he's more up himself than Lovren
That's almost enough for a few pints at the weekend.
2011-12: Daniel Levy, the Tottenham Hotspur chairman, was paid £2.2m, while Arsenal paid their chief executive, Ivan Gazidis, a gross £2.05m.
Stoke City's highest paid director, who was not named, received £517,000; Wolverhampton Wanderers' and West Bromwich Albion's highest, also unnamed, were paid £1.2m and £1.1m respectively.
Source:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-directors-earnings
I guess when you have staff earning more than 5m a year, it gets easier to justify enormous salaries for directors.
Stoke City's highest paid director, who was not named, received £517,000; Wolverhampton Wanderers' and West Bromwich Albion's highest, also unnamed, were paid £1.2m and £1.1m respectively.
Source:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-directors-earnings
I guess when you have staff earning more than 5m a year, it gets easier to justify enormous salaries for directors.
But thats ridicoulous. The Revenue comes from People paying to see the players. Noone wants to see a director.
Mostly due to the last television deal which Ayre had absolutely nothing to do with !! Actually I don't hate Ayre but you are heavily overstating his performance. A 5% increase in commercial income is hardly impressive. I'm not saying the club is badly run, just that Ayre is overpaid, probably by a factor of 5.
We are the ninth richest club on the planet despite having no champions league football (at that point), that's nothing but outstanding, but of course you're right, as CEO of the company, Ian Ayre would in no way be responsible for that, it's all just a coincidence he's riding on, so lets all just assume he's dreadful, and despite Mammia Mia's list three posts ago showing that the director of a championship club, and various premier league clubs, earn more than he does, he's clearly overpaid.
Interesting - I've had a few clients who are similar sized revenue wise to LFC and their CEO salaries were £150k - £250k
I would have expected Ayre's salary to be much higher though having seen some of the more junior jobs at the club advertised at £90k - £110k.
I presume the big increase in media revenue is entirely down to a new PL deal, right? I lose track of them but I think that's when the current one would've started.
So basically we're looking at analysing the commercial figure - up 5%. That's not particularly impressive, really, is it? Perhaps previous progress has meant we're starting to max out our potential there. Anyone know how our growth in commercial revenue compares to the other top clubs?
So basically we're looking at analysing the commercial figure - up 5%. That's not particularly impressive, really, is it? Perhaps previous progress has meant we're starting to max out our potential there. Anyone know how our growth in commercial revenue compares to the other top clubs?
FFS Mystic we were the eighth richest club in 2007 when Ayre joined us - thats real progress for you then!!!!!
.I never said he was a buffoon, imho he is competent but I don't think it is unreasonable to call him grossly overpaid. Using other grossly overpaid guys, some of who are shareholders, as a benchmark has nothing to do with it.
I'm sure that's right. Wages will go up cos revenues are still increasing so much, but overall the amounts we're paying seem a lot more sensible these days. Once Gerrard and Johnson leave in the summer we should be left with a wage bill largely proportionate to the quality of our squad, because I can't think of too many who'll be on grossly more than what they're worth.
I initially thought that as well, but then remembered that the main drivers for commercial income are the kit and shirt sponsorships (i.e. Warriors and Stanchart). I think those two account for almost half of our annual commercial revenue, and with them being existing deals, the bulk of the 5% growth had to come from signing on minor sponsorships, shirt sales and pre-season games. There was a 5m to 6m upswing here.
How does this compare to our rivals?
ARSENAL
In their latest results (year ended 31 May 2014), they reported an almost-15m increase in commercial & retail revenues. However, in their own statement:
The value of that contract reported in the press:
So, we can guess that they recognized an additional 15m compared to the previous year... which is basically their entire commercial and retail revenue growth. Take that major sponsorship growth away, and that's zero growth.
MAN UNITED
Commercial revenues 2014 vs 2013: 189.3m -vs- 152.4m (+37m)
Looks fantastic. Digging deeper:
2014 2013 2012
Sponsorship 135.8m 90.9m 63.1m
Retail, merchandising, 37.5m 38.6m 33.8m
apparel & licensing
Mobile & content 16.0m 23.0m 20.7m
Unlike Arsenal, they didn't benefit from a new sponsorship deal (they will for the 2015 financial year), so the global sponsorship growth was impressive (almost 45m). This was on the back of Ferguson's final title season, so it remains to be seen where they're headed in this area if they continue to fall short in the league and in European competitions - if they're in it (HA!).
So, is 5% a good number in a financial year without a major deal renewal? We've got contrasting comparisons here, one showing zero growth if you factor out a major deal renewal bumper, and another showing tremendous growth without the same, but on the back of a title-winning season (2012/13).
We can try and do better and emulate the Mancs in the ability to pull in new global sponsorships, but ultimately, that job is made a lot easier if you win titles, play more games, and get more exposure. We might have one of the largest fanbases in the world, but sponsors want to be associated with a winner, not just a popular club.
There's no way you can explain away those Utd figures as a result of winning the 2013 title. They've been winning titles for 20 years - it's priced in.
Well, perhaps I didn't word it correctly, but winning that title definitely built on the image that the gravy train was still going to keep running despite the riches City and Chelsea were pouring into their clubs. The winning margin - 11 points - was just after losing a season before that on goal difference on the final day. If you're signing on a new global sponsor or renewing an existing one, you'd definitely be able to make a good song and dance about that.
Of course, that and the fact their negotiators are top class devils, what with the new deals they were able to snag with Nike and Chevrolet the following season.
That probably is the case but this is what I was talking about that's not what the article said.
I can't copy and paste on my phone for some reason - it's a this is Anfield article claiming we shed half a million a week from the wage bill
W
We had been in multiple Champions League finals, and were a heavy weight in Europe in 2007, at the time of those last accounts, we'd barely been in it for 5 years, its not a fair comparison. My point is simple, people attack Ayre all the time without really having a clue what he actually does, just because he rides a Harley and Robbie Fowlers shoulders people assume everything bad at the club is his fault. Yes he earns a shit load of money, but all CEO's do, and in relation to other similar sized companies CEO's its pretty in line with the market (I'm assuming his figure includes bonus). Now if you're saying CEO's in general are grossly overpaid, I couldn't agree with you more. I'll never know how they're justified to be earning millions of pounds in fixed salary plus bonus, madness.
Performance related pay is the way forward, but I can see us losing out on lots of good players by trying to implement it. The mercenary bastards would rather take guaranteed big money than have the belief in themselves to earn even more if they perform. Wouldn't surprise me if this is one of the sticking points on Sterling's new deal.
Whether or not performance related pay is good surely depends how you judge the performance?
For example do you want a striker thinking if I don't pass I give myself a better opportunity to make more money?
Bayerns head of analysis was at Sloan this week describing Opta's stats as useless when it comes to judging the performance of their team, they collect their own data instead.
I'd like to think we're doing something similar and rewarding players for doing what we think is important rather than what's easily counted
For example do you want a striker thinking if I don't pass I give myself a better opportunity to make more money?
Bayerns head of analysis was at Sloan this week describing Opta's stats as useless when it comes to judging the performance of their team, they collect their own data instead.
I'd like to think we're doing something similar and rewarding players for doing what we think is important rather than what's easily counted
Well if it's performance based pay using Rodgers judgement on what is important it would certainly explain why every player on the pitch seems to favour passing it back to Mignolet or sideways.
Congrats to Ayre if he's managed to wangle himself a mill in pay.
- Status
