| Jenkins and Pearlman 20:00 - Aug 25 with 8275 views | benny67 |
So these 2 parasites are taking over £1m a year out of the club, for what ??? Can anyone answer this, what other Championship club have 2 employees who do absolutely f*-k all for this sort of return? A championship club does not warrant these salaries for non playing staff. As we are in this stage of cutting costs I bet these 2 did not have any relegation clause in there contracts. These scumbags have to go [Post edited 26 Aug 2018 7:59]
|  | | |  |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:30 - Aug 25 with 5421 views | QJumpingJack |
The Trust should ask the club how these sort of salaries can be justified.
Will they be on these salaries if we fell into League 1? | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:41 - Aug 25 with 5354 views | angryjack |
Are you huw Jenkins mush | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:42 - Aug 25 with 5353 views | majorraglan |
Brighton and Fulham were 2clubs on an upward trajectory while Derby have been treading water. Swansea are also paying 2salaries.
I have no issue with paying big money for a top quality Chief Executive who delivers outstanding performance across the board, is the club getting that kind of return? | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:44 - Aug 25 with 5322 views | Loyal |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:42 - Aug 25 by majorraglan |
Brighton and Fulham were 2clubs on an upward trajectory while Derby have been treading water. Swansea are also paying 2salaries.
I have no issue with paying big money for a top quality Chief Executive who delivers outstanding performance across the board, is the club getting that kind of return? |
No, but he Fcking is. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:59 - Aug 25 with 5246 views | owainglyndwr |
We are becoming a sh@t club.
I honestly feel after 40 years of supporting this club i have had enough.
It just another business now Phuk us just about money zero to millions |  | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 21:01 - Aug 25 with 5210 views | awayjack |
Performance related. Our Board performance has / continues to be incompetent. |  | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 08:12 - Aug 26 with 4952 views | benny67 |
With everything these Fu@**%s have and wii take out of our club, everything that is purchased on match day must be extra “gravy” for them. It just infuriates me as to what pearlman actually does as our commercial presence has not really progressed since his inception, classic case advertising in east stand for Cheltenham Races nov 2017 !!! He is just a weasel who is a very expensive eyes and ears for 2 of the biggest slimey devious C@*#s that are doing there utmost best to take us to the so called “next level” take your hot dogs and shove them where the sun don’t shine you bunch of sh#*houses
It’s all getting too much for a lot of people to stomach now !!! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 11:06 - Aug 26 with 4736 views | Nookiejack |
There can only be one reason why Jenkins is still employed and apparently Dineen as consultant- so that they take all the bullets and vile and opprobrium - instead of the Yanks as they bank all the parachute money / asset strip to get their investment back.
If Jenkins and Dineen weren’t around it would be fully directed at them.
No way would a club keep employing Jenkins from a football perspective after his recruitment failures over the last 3 seasons. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 11:15 - Aug 26 with 4715 views | Al_Bundy |
In fairness the wages they are on are not far off par for their positions.
Unfortunately their actions have lost a massive revenue stream for the club and in the real world they would have been sacked or replaced.
Both are in a comfortable position with no KPI's to answer too so failure doesn't have a tipping point. Jenkins is in a good place, he can point to the owners who don't invest and Potter who maybe won't deliver on the pitch which makes him quite untouchable. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 12:02 - Aug 26 with 4631 views | Catullus |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 11:06 - Aug 26 by Nookiejack |
There can only be one reason why Jenkins is still employed and apparently Dineen as consultant- so that they take all the bullets and vile and opprobrium - instead of the Yanks as they bank all the parachute money / asset strip to get their investment back.
If Jenkins and Dineen weren’t around it would be fully directed at them.
No way would a club keep employing Jenkins from a football perspective after his recruitment failures over the last 3 seasons. |
I agree and said elsewhere that HJ has become the focal point for the hate, the Americans are happy for him to face the flak while they stay away from home games, they were at Birmingham but I don't know about other games.
The parachute payments though, it's my understanding they musty be spent on wages and cannot be used for transfers or divivdend payments. I expect that dividends is exactly where the transfer profits will end up though. | |
| |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 12:10 - Aug 26 with 4584 views | awayjack |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 11:15 - Aug 26 by Al_Bundy |
In fairness the wages they are on are not far off par for their positions.
Unfortunately their actions have lost a massive revenue stream for the club and in the real world they would have been sacked or replaced.
Both are in a comfortable position with no KPI's to answer too so failure doesn't have a tipping point. Jenkins is in a good place, he can point to the owners who don't invest and Potter who maybe won't deliver on the pitch which makes him quite untouchable. |
See Burnley and many championship clubs where Board are fans so only take notional payments. Our Board, Consultant and Admin costs are one of highest in the Championship, as are our non-playing operations costs. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 12:21 - Aug 26 with 4565 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 11:06 - Aug 26 by Nookiejack |
There can only be one reason why Jenkins is still employed and apparently Dineen as consultant- so that they take all the bullets and vile and opprobrium - instead of the Yanks as they bank all the parachute money / asset strip to get their investment back.
If Jenkins and Dineen weren’t around it would be fully directed at them.
No way would a club keep employing Jenkins from a football perspective after his recruitment failures over the last 3 seasons. |
Another reason of course could be that when companies are sold it’s not uncommon to see senior management stay on for a period of a few years after the sale. With contracts stating they do so part of the sale process.
They can’t ‘bank parachute money’ btw - stop being ridiculous. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 13:00 - Aug 26 with 4482 views | BillyChong |
They are a joke. As above the adverts in the stadium are still for long gone racing events. Downstairs from their offices. Over paid monkeys. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 18:19 - Aug 26 with 4273 views | Nookiejack |
Question is with Jenkins, Pearlman’s salaries plus allegedly consultancy fees being paid to Dineen - would you risk McBurnie against Palace.
If not is it worth trying Tom Carroll as striker or Naughton? Start with Carroll then if it doesn’t work try Naughton.
At least the money we have saved will allow us to pay for all these Administrators’ salaries. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 18:25 - Aug 26 with 4241 views | LeonWasGod |
Let’s be fair to Pearlman here. He has just negotiated a long-term lease for a stadium that has since been shown to be structurally defective 😂 |  | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 18:32 - Aug 26 with 4219 views | thornabyswan |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 12:21 - Aug 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Another reason of course could be that when companies are sold it’s not uncommon to see senior management stay on for a period of a few years after the sale. With contracts stating they do so part of the sale process.
They can’t ‘bank parachute money’ btw - stop being ridiculous. |
Yes all this asset stripping talk is getting tedious now Sky revenue has dropped by 50 million quid.
The wage bill has been reduced significantly transfer fees about 42 million profit.
No money has been taken out of the club.
We needed to get our house in order and we have but I don't think it's to much to expect a midfielder with some presence and a striker in this week. [Post edited 26 Aug 2018 18:34]
| |
| |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 19:00 - Aug 26 with 4122 views | dobjack2 |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 18:32 - Aug 26 by thornabyswan |
Yes all this asset stripping talk is getting tedious now Sky revenue has dropped by 50 million quid.
The wage bill has been reduced significantly transfer fees about 42 million profit.
No money has been taken out of the club.
We needed to get our house in order and we have but I don't think it's to much to expect a midfielder with some presence and a striker in this week. [Post edited 26 Aug 2018 18:34]
|
I thought the point of 3 seasons of parachute payments was so that a club didn’t have to gut its playing staff immediately on relegation but had time to bring down playing and non playing costs in a controlled way. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 19:14 - Aug 26 with 4090 views | jasper_T |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 19:00 - Aug 26 by dobjack2 |
I thought the point of 3 seasons of parachute payments was so that a club didn’t have to gut its playing staff immediately on relegation but had time to bring down playing and non playing costs in a controlled way. |
Not really. Some gutting is still expected if a club is to avoid making staggering losses (like Newcastle did). They're not intended to allow a club to weird a Premier League wage bill in pursuit of first time promotion. The first year of payments is only 55% the previous year's TV income. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 19:15 - Aug 26 with 4085 views | Flashberryjack |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:59 - Aug 25 by owainglyndwr |
We are becoming a sh@t club.
I honestly feel after 40 years of supporting this club i have had enough.
It just another business now Phuk us just about money zero to millions |
I hate to admit this, but I'm beginning to feel the very same. |  |
| |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:02 - Aug 26 with 3974 views | dobjack2 |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 19:14 - Aug 26 by jasper_T |
Not really. Some gutting is still expected if a club is to avoid making staggering losses (like Newcastle did). They're not intended to allow a club to weird a Premier League wage bill in pursuit of first time promotion. The first year of payments is only 55% the previous year's TV income. |
Badly worded on my part.
By gutting I meant having to sell almost everyone and playing a bunch of youngsters with insufficient experienced players to support them so that clubs are in danger of dropping like a stone.
I didn’t mean what you posted which we agree the payments are not intended for. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:13 - Aug 26 with 3941 views | jasper_T |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:02 - Aug 26 by dobjack2 |
Badly worded on my part.
By gutting I meant having to sell almost everyone and playing a bunch of youngsters with insufficient experienced players to support them so that clubs are in danger of dropping like a stone.
I didn’t mean what you posted which we agree the payments are not intended for. |
Clubs like Newcastle and Stoke still have a lot more leeway than we do in dealing with relegation because they've got independent backers capable of putting in £15m (in Mike Ashley's case) to keep things ticking over through short term difficulties, and willing to wager tens of millions in gambling on promotion.
And in Newcastle's case their starting wage bill was £20-30m less than ours, and their non-TV income was orders of magnitude larger. We've been cutting too close to the bone for a very long time.
Our owners have to satisfy too many shareholders to take risks. Even before thoughts of asset stripping there would have been massive pressure to get the club on an even keel asap. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:16 - Aug 26 with 3931 views | QJumpingJack |
It seems that they are earning more than FTSE 100 Chief Execs (basic)
It is just bizarre for a Championship club. | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:30 - Aug 26 with 3873 views | IAN05 |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:13 - Aug 26 by jasper_T |
Clubs like Newcastle and Stoke still have a lot more leeway than we do in dealing with relegation because they've got independent backers capable of putting in £15m (in Mike Ashley's case) to keep things ticking over through short term difficulties, and willing to wager tens of millions in gambling on promotion.
And in Newcastle's case their starting wage bill was £20-30m less than ours, and their non-TV income was orders of magnitude larger. We've been cutting too close to the bone for a very long time.
Our owners have to satisfy too many shareholders to take risks. Even before thoughts of asset stripping there would have been massive pressure to get the club on an even keel asap. |
Ah but we had relegation clauses in place to cover us for relegation, Jenkins bragged about it enough | | | |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:50 - Aug 26 with 3796 views | dobjack2 |
| Jenkins and Pearlman on 20:30 - Aug 26 by IAN05 |
Ah but we had relegation clauses in place to cover us for relegation, Jenkins bragged about it enough |
And weren’t Steve and Jase going to be able to get better deals to cover any short term deficits. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
