Ceo

[Corner Flag]

Originally Posted by International

The salary of a CEO is usually based on the turnover of the company. So if our turnover was 2million salary would be 92,000. Peter Lawell was actually underpaid...101.6 million turnover, so his salary should have been 4.6million. Huw Jenkins, one could say he was playing the long game, he made 13million on the sale of Swansea. The Swansea role was essentially "part-time" for him.
The figure you mention is probably what we are looking at, revenues will increase next season whether we are back in the league or still down here.

No sensible company pays a CEO based on turnover ( revenue) only, its got to be based on a variety of items including net profits, turnover, growth etc

[International]

Originally Posted by Corner Flag

No sensible company pays a CEO based on turnover ( revenue) only, its got to be based on a variety of items including net profits, turnover, growth etc

https://ceoupdate.com/articles/compe...ercent-revenue

I don't talk about "package" I said salary. Initial salary is based on turnover, the bonuses (cash or share options) is based on the profit/ growth etc...Unless you're not going to pay the guy for a year and then see how he's done after 12 months

[Omni]

Originally Posted by International

The salary of a CEO is usually based on the turnover of the company. So if our turnover was 2million salary would be 92,000. Peter Lawell was actually underpaid...101.6 million turnover, so his salary should have been 4.6million. Huw Jenkins, one could say he was playing the long game, he made 13million on the sale of Swansea. The Swansea role was essentially "part-time" for him.
The figure you mention is probably what we are looking at, revenues will increase next season whether we are back in the league or still down here.

The problem with this is that you're basing these figures on an average from a study of what happens in the real world. Football is a completely different kettle of fish and stands alone with its ratio of salaries to turnover.

There are clubs in League 1 and 2 who have CEOs on circa 700k although the League 2 average is approx 80k. That maybe down to the fact that some clubs don't have an active CEO though and have reported the expense as nil.

There really is no correlation between turnover and salary at the highest level of the game. Liverpool's CEO is on just over £1.2m whilst Daniel Levy brought home circa £7m in 2020.

The point I was trying to make initially was that if we're hoping for a high level CEO to be appointed, then realistically they're going to cost a lot more than has been mentioned.

[krux]

Originally Posted by Omni

Some of the figures bandied about for a high level CEO are absolutely miles off. For example, using a couple of names mentioned recently on here, Huw Jenkins was on approx. 500k pa at Swansea whilst Peter Lawell, soon to leave Celtic earned 3.5m in 2019.

I think we're looking at £150k minimum before bonuses etc.

We don't need a £150k CEO, I'm sure we could get one for much less, but you are right, we may want one at that salary.,

[International]

Originally Posted by Omni

The problem with this is that you're basing these figures on an average from a study of what happens in the real world. Football is a completely different kettle of fish and stands alone with its ratio of salaries to turnover.

There are clubs in League 1 and 2 who have CEOs on circa 700k although the League 2 average is approx 80k. That maybe down to the fact that some clubs don't have an active CEO though and have reported the expense as nil.

There really is no correlation between turnover and salary at the highest level of the game. Liverpool's CEO is on just over £1.2m whilst Daniel Levy brought home circa £7m in 2020.

The point I was trying to make initially was that if we're hoping for a high level CEO to be appointed, then realistically they're going to cost a lot more than has been mentioned.

Omni I was essentially agreeing with you. That what we will eventually pay is more than the 90-100k benchmark.
The big difference between Daniel Levy and Liverpools CEO is Daniel Levy is a shareholder (ENIC own 85.5% of Tottenham and Levy owns 24.9% of ENIC) hence the higher pay package. His salary is actually closer to 3m. The rest being bonuses, for meeting targets.

[Omni]

Originally Posted by International

Omni I was essentially agreeing with you. That what we will eventually pay is more than the 90-100k benchmark.
The big difference between Daniel Levy and Liverpools CEO is Daniel Levy is a shareholder (ENIC own 85.5% of Tottenham and Levy owns 24.9% of ENIC) hence the higher pay package. His salary is actually closer to 3m. The rest being bonuses, for meeting targets.

Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick. Essentially a good CEO should generate more than they cost so whatever we end up paying, hopefully we'll get a good return on the investment.

[redtilidie]

Originally Posted by krux

We don't need a £150k CEO, I'm sure we could get one for much less, but you are right, we may want one at that salary.,

You can, but you get what you pay for. We should be aiming higher

[eosceiriog]

The salary is none of our business. The product provided to customers is what matters. One of the drawbacks of fan ownership was it did not see fans as customers but members that put up and stumped up despite the dismal offerings.

The new owners will not have that confusion but the lines between supplier and customer will be crystal clear and a failure to deliver will impact their financing and reputations negatively. Under WST ownership, the worse the situation the more fans pulled together.

I do not see there is any limit to the salary other than there being a fit with the plans of the new owners objectives and plans.

I cannot see that they are not going to make a serious effort for this to be a successful venture off and in that context they will pay whatever it takes
to get what they want.

[sparky]

Not really bothered what the new guy or woman gets, as ever, it's all about the return on investment.

With a blank canvas and huge potential, it's a massive opportunity for someone.