• We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here

Tisdale to MK Dons

malcolms

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
10,483
Will the sad passing of Peter Winkelman yesterday have any impact on Tisdale and this new role?

A joke in very bad taste.......
 
Last edited:

Exe on Valdez

Active member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
1,515
Location
Aubrey St Quinton Gideon Farquhar
Tisdale will have plenty of opportunity to big up MKD as a unique club and a challenging project etc. It looks now as if the most important thing to him was maintaining a rolling contract - its almost as if he can‘t work without one. More fool Winkleman for buying that argument. Still, its his money and he will spend a lot more of it when he wants Tis out.

After his 12 years at City I suspect we will have an eye on his exploits at his new club for quite a while. That‘s a shame and I hope that when the season starts we can concentrate on our new manager instead, especially for the two times we face our old one. Bring on those fixtures.
 

CREDYGRECIAN

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
34,905
Location
Loving the free flowing entertaining football at S
Don’t be stupid long term contract.
Long term contracts me nothing
 

Terryhall

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
4,725
Location
You go me on the alarm clock
So we are a dictatorship?
No more or less than any other club. Imagine the scenario

Antonio Conte at a press conference talking about Abramovich - "Honestly I've been hurt by the whole thing. It's surreal to me that one man can decide to give notice on my contract and its something the club needs to address"
Or Neil Warnock at a press conference talking about Vincent Tan - or, on point, maybe even Paul Tisdale to Winkleman at some point in the future.

The majority shareholder of any business has an obligation to ensure that the business is being run in a sustainable way. Specific to this scenario, the majority shareholder of ECFC democratically decided that a 2 year rolling deal for the first team manager was not sustainable, instructed the club to serve notice on that rolling deal, and instructed the club to make efforts to negotiate a new deal on more appropriate terms. The majority shareholder of MK Dons has seemingly decided that, actually, a long term rolling deal is sustainable for MK Dons.

More generally to your dictatorship question, I would say that any employee of any company who publicly criticises the majority shareholder of that company could expect to have to explain themselves.
 

elginCity

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
12,988
Location
Swindon
The majority shareholder of MK Dons has seemingly decided that, actually, a long term rolling deal is sustainable for MK Dons..
In their case the majority shareholder would be aware of all the facts i.e contractual terms and financial details in order to make the judgement call on what is, or is not, sustainable.
 

andrew p long

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
12,662
Location
Hagley, Stourbridge
If he loses his first 10 games his "long term contract" won't save him....
Indeed. Was it Frank de Boer...highly regarded coach,exciting appointment etc etc.

Then sacked after losing his first four games
 

Pete Martin (CTID)

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,398
Location
Here and there
The majority shareholder of any business has an obligation to ensure that the business is being run in a sustainable way. Specific to this scenario, the majority shareholder of ECFC democratically decided that a 2 year rolling deal for the first team manager was not sustainable, instructed the club to serve notice on that rolling deal, and instructed the club to make efforts to negotiate a new deal on more appropriate terms. The majority shareholder of MK Dons has seemingly decided that, actually, a long term rolling deal is sustainable for MK Dons.
A 100% correct and insightful response imo.
 

grecIAN Harris

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
28,116
Location
Back home in the village
There are still a significant number of supporters who are not Trust members and, seemingly, do not support the Trust model.
I wonder why that might be?
 

John William

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
9,944
Location
Undisclosed
There are still a significant number of supporters who are not Trust members and, seemingly, do not support the Trust model.
I don't think the second necessarily follows from the first. Depends on what you mean by "don't support".

A lot don't care, it's true, but I suspect the number of people who *oppose* the Trust model on principle is small, though we all know there are some who argue that being a devoted supporter (ST, regular away traveller, etc.) ought to make them automatically equivalent to a Trust member. I respect that view, but disagree.

I reckon 8,000 plus individuals (not counting away fans) attend one or more games each season. The Trust has never been able to get the long term membership much above 3K, but that's better than most similar organisations, I'd say.
 

Oliver

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
625
Location
EXETER
A good up to date read if you are still interested in what Tiz is saying...or going to do !!

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/League+One/MK+Dons
 
Top