If (when) we lose tomorrow

[Red Bill]

Yes, I am saying exactly that - but we are in a better position than we were before the AGM (which already happened, 3 weeks ago) when exactly the same was true (and has been since he signed the contract in 2008) - however we have now at least started the process of changing that, it just won't happen overnight is all.

What Terry is saying here is the reality of the situation. Tisdale has been practically unsackable since he was given this contract, we all understand why its because we simply couldn't afford to pay him off. Regardless of what some may have deduced from the accounts statement presented at the AGM, this is still the case IMO. The AGM motion therefore represented the most effective way to address this problem and make it easier and more realistic for us to part ways with him.

Personally I think the word 'renegotiate', which wasn't actually used in the wording of the motion, is perhaps a little misleading and suggests it merely seeks to make adjustments to his current contract. I don't personally see it that way, I see it as we have simply given him his notice, giving us the chance to 'negotiate' a new one should we feel disposed to do so when his current contract ends. However neither party is going to be obliged to offer or accept a new contract, and if we don't feel disposed to offer him one if we're not happy with the job he's done, as far as I'm aware at that point we can wave him goodbye. This isn't ideal and as the OP suggests, if we don't win tomorrow, we really should be handing him his P45, but we're in the position we're in, and I think stuck with it.

Personally if we don't win tomorrow I think he should to the honourable thing and resign but as Terry said he'd be mad to do that now. Watching his interview after the Swindon game, I felt I saw for the first time a man genuinely seriously worried about his job, who realises that his record over the last few years has removed any certainty of finding a new one Now without trying to make anyone feel sorry for him, that's a daunting prospect for anyone, particularly if you've built your lifestyle around the assumption of receiving a £135k salary, so I really don't believe he'll walk.

Assuming notice has been given, and IMO the signs are there that it has, every day that passes he does become cheaper to sack, but realistically I'd be amazed if that happened any time before the end of next season. So whilst I think he should go, my head tells me that we stuck with him until his contract is up and we just have to hope and pray we're still in the football league when that happens!

 

[Terryhall]

Correct. If the figures reported are accurate then under the terms of the current deal, Tisdale is due a significant pay off that would be more than the club can afford.

To address this, the solution is to change the terms of the deal.

The reality of that is, that is a contract between ECFC and Paul Tisdale, so they are the only two parties that can actually do anything about it - Tisdale has zero incentive to change it, so that means the club has to.

Luckily for us as fans of the club, we are able to become members of a supporters trust which is the majority shareholder of the club, and therefore we are able to follow the correct legal and democratic mechanism to instruct the club to do this.

To some it may sound like needless bureaucracy but

1. This is the only legal means to actually do what we want to do without incurring a (probably, almost definitely) six-figure cost to the club that we can likely not afford,
2. This is more than fans of other clubs can actually do where they do not have the same influence at the shareholder and boardroom level, lets not forget that, and
3. For all the gnashing and wailing of teeth, we are in a better position for it now than we were before

Could/should this have happened years ago? Arguably yes, but unless someone out there has a time machine tucked away somewhere, then I think this is the best realistic outcome we could hope for.

 

[Grecian2K]

The way things are continuing to disintegrate under the present regime it more like Carry On Up The Khyber.

 

[Banksy]

The way things are continuing to disintegrate under the present regime it more like Carry On Up The Khyber.

Or Carry on at your Convenience.Love Red Bill's final para 'pray we're still in the Football League when that happens' !
Talk about a wing and a prayer , what a bleddy state we've got in .
By the time we get rid we'll be talking excitedly about the coming derby game against the Gulls , assuming any supporters are left by then.

 

[bflockha]

Wonder if anyone in the club has worked out if cheaper to keep him and get relegated or sack and stay in Div2? City in National League near top will get similar gates as Div2 near bottom but not sure of other increments for being in Div2; anyone got an algorithm to work this out?;-)

 

[Red Bill]

Or Carry on at your Convenience.Love Red Bill's final para 'pray we're still in the Football League when that happens' !
Talk about a wing and a prayer , what a bleddy state we've got in .
By the time we get rid we'll be talking excitedly about the coming derby game against the Gulls , assuming any supporters are left by then.

Trouble is Banksy, not nearly enough people are actually prepared to act. Its not been just the club board but the trust board, trust members, the fans, the media, pretty much everyone has been more prepared to sit back and hope it all goes away than actually do something about it.

You may remember 18 months a go I tried to force a members ballot on Tisdale's future, the support I got on that was absolutely carp. Despite all the moaning and discontent and despite advertising my proposal on every fans forum, sending it out to all the supporters' group and taking my time to actually talk face to face with members, I had all of about 50 replies and only just over half in support, when I went to the TB meeting with the proposal I had so little backing to show I was almost bound to fail.
Someone recently organised a protest in Red square all of about 10 people turned up. Someone else tried to organise a protest in the ground and about a dozen people shouted Tisdale out and held up red cards. I've seen no sign of boycotts being particularly well supported. Its generally been hopeless.

Doug's motion was the first action to actually have any success, and was probably the only option left to us, and for that he deserves all our support and thanks but like everything else there ends up with more people putting it down and saying its pointless than are ever prepared to stand up and be counted. If all we have left is as I said to hope and pray we're still in the league when Doug's action comes to fruition, we've only got ourselves to blame!

 

[Edward]

Correct. If the figures reported are accurate then under the terms of the current deal, Tisdale is due a significant pay off that would be more than the club can afford.

Wouldn’t much depend upon the nature of any pay-off?

If there was a contractual obligation to offer a lump sum on termination which, let's say, is equivalent to two years’ salary, that might be too onerous. But if there was the opportunity to continue paying the contracted monthly salary across the two years (or, better still, until such time that alternative employment has been found), it may well be realistic to terminate Tisdale tomorrow.

You could probably argue that doing so would not necessarily place the club at any greater financial risk.

The additional cost of a new manager – let’s say a total cost of £75k per annum – could be recouped via a modest increase in home crowds which might just be possible if they managed to win the odd game. If you assume just £12 ticket revenue per head (nett of VAT), and 25 home games in a year, you would need to find another 250 fans per game. In reality, if you started to win cup games, you would generate prize money and the possibility of additional revenue-generating games so you wouldn’t even need an extra 250. And if you assumed those extra fans would buy the odd programme, beer, or pasty, your break-even figure would be even lower.

Of course, the new manager might be crap but it is hard to imagine anybody us overseeing a less convincing run of home form! Am I the only one thinking that the 11 players might actually be more effective if the manager wasn't there?

 

[tonykellowfan]

Let's just pay off his contract, **** it get rid of him.

If he's on £100k a year it costs £200k to get rid of him.

 

[Terryhall]

Personally I agree absolutely with your last sentence, my posts aren't in any way intended to disagree with that sentiment. I've posted elsewhere that I think if we were to recruit a new manager, we'd get some very strong candidates interested in taking over.

The first point is where I then start playing devils advocate - all we can really do is speculate on the specifics of the contract - and you are dead right that the actual outcome will depend on those specifics which are unknown. Equally, we can't really speculate on what wage any new incoming manager might be paid (although I think we can all hope it would be more in line with the current market we find ourselves in.)

This is of course without the issue that many would fundamentally disagree in principle with paying two managers (one to get a handsome salary for two years to do nothing, the other to be paid considerably less to try and undo the percieved damage caused by the first). In that circumstance, better to make a clean break (and we come back to the burden of making a one-off severance payment, the exact details of which are unknown)

(edit - this was replying to Edward above)

 

[manc grecian]

Thoroughly depressed reading all this. It appears the result of the football is of little significance so what's the point in paying monet to watch?