Jump to content

Youth Academy closing ?


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Having gone through it myself last year, there are very tight rules. You need to be notified 90 days in advance to say that you are at risk. There then follows a period of consultation where all other avenues of redeployment are looked at. It is only after this that the role (it is the role, not the person) that is made redundant. Note that the role can still be performed by someone else, if it is decided that 2 or more roles can be absorbed by 1 person. 

Therefore, anyone made redundant yesterday would have known in late February that there would be redundancies and that their role was at risk.

Pretty sure those rules only apply to companies of certain sizes (not an expert though so not 100% on that). And they only apply in general to folk with sufficient service - if you’ve been employed less than two years there’s no redundancy package. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Thistleberight said:

I don't normally side with @Jordanhill Jag but this is just simply bonkers Firhillista. You are suggesting a totalitarian approach that we shouldn't dare to question the all conquering rulers of our club.

They are fair game until they have proven themselves and so far the jury is still considering.........

And could you kindly point out where I've said we shouldn't dare to question the management? "All conquering rulers of our club"? What the hell is that? You don't like them, I get that, you've hardly made a secret of it, but using every issue to paint them as evil, malicious individuals incompetently destroying the club is juvenile. Not everything in life is black and white. Can we stop pretending that the club's management are the baddies? Of course they get things wrong. The handling of Doolan's leaving was a mess, an unnecessary one in my opinion. Stating that the savings made from the office redundancies was another unnecessary cack-handed way of dealing with the issue. But to describe pointing out that maybe they're not purely evil as "totalitarian" is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dark Passenger said:

Relegation from the Premiership got us here.

Yes and that happens to Clubs like Thistle - having a strategy that ensures we don't put our Finances at risk is the responsibility of The Chairman - Directors and Chief Exec 

You cut your Clothe and your overhead to your Income and have Reserves - but we will see what we are left with after the various cuts - that will be the measure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading through this thread confirms one thing for me - I sure don’t envy the challenges faced by anyone running a club our size.

Relying on team success/promotion to ultimately keep staff employed, often not owning your own training ground and having to arrange alternatives, hoping for the right cup tie to squeeze that extra bit of gate cash in, f**king around with your seating arrangements to get every last drop of cash from OF visits, relying on the miracle of EuroMillions winners (not to mention the double miracle of them being THISTLE SUPPORTERS) to help fund a youth academy which we were told was the future (and now may not be?), maybe hoping for that extra bit of sell-on cash for a Liam Lindsay type (sounds like a human rights violation, but Barnsley PLEASE sell Liam Lindsay) to help paper over the funding cracks.  When you think about it, it’s all a little ridiculous.

I’d imagine some on here (including myself) imagine it would be fun having a crack at running the club, but then I remember that livelihoods are at stake for players and staff alike, and it makes me realize you probably have to be a bit mental to take on this job, even if you already know what you’re getting into.

With my American clubs never having to worry about cash flow and my other team being Bolton (why god must you hate me so?), it really puts the challenge of keeping this club going into perspective for me.

I think the fans have every right to judge the decisions being made by/actions taken by the club, but I’d like to take a moment to offer at least a little of my respect to the people who took on the task of keeping this club going.  I hope they have the same end goal we do.

PS  Shi**y decisions notwithstanding.  :lol:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be no redundancy consultation period as for that you need to have a minimum of 20 employee being made redundant , Over that then you have a minimum 30 days and that increases depending on the number of employees. Anyone with less than tow years services woudl not receive Statutory redundancy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Yes and that happens to Clubs like Thistle - having a strategy that ensures we don't put our Finances at risk is the responsibility of The Chairman - Directors and Chief Exec 

You cut your Clothe and your overhead to your Income and have Reserves - but we will see what we are left with after the various cuts - that will be the measure

Is it not a possibility that we had to overspend this year to try and stay in the division after the terrible start we made. Getting relegated to league 1 would undoubtedly have been disastrous. Having overspent we are now probably having to make cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Is it not a possibility that we had to overspend this year to try and stay in the division after the terrible start we made. Getting relegated to league 1 would undoubtedly have been disastrous. Having overspent we are now probably having to make cuts.

Very probable, but our previous managers remit was promotion, he was in 8th when he was fired after 11(?) games for failing to deliver his KPI.

Our new manager had the same remit and 24 games and a transfer window to achieve it in. He took us to bottom for several weeks and avoided relegation on the last day of the season after spending considerably more than previous manager in January, yet he’s the savior? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Very probable, but our previous managers remit was promotion, he was in 8th when he was fired after 11(?) games for failing to deliver his KPI.

Our new manager had the same remit and 24 games and a transfer window to achieve it in. He took us to bottom for several weeks and avoided relegation on the last day of the season after spending considerably more than previous manager in January, yet he’s the savior? 

 

 

I think the should he stay or should he go debate has been done to death, Norge. 

From a financial perspective, if he is on a two year contract, getting rid of him wouldn’t have prevented any of yesterday’s redundancies, I don’t think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Very probable, but our previous managers remit was promotion, he was in 8th when he was fired after 11(?) games for failing to deliver his KPI.

Our new manager had the same remit and 24 games and a transfer window to achieve it in. He took us to bottom for several weeks and avoided relegation on the last day of the season after spending considerably more than previous manager in January, yet he’s the savior? 

 

 

Think this has been discussed about a million times- no one is saying he is a saviour- if he gets off badly next season he will be out.

he has been given some leighway because there was so much dross he inherited, possibly more leighway than he should but time will tell

it’s all kind of the Thistle way anyway- Archie’s remit last year was to consolidate top 6 and he didn’t achieve it we were relegated and he wasn’t sacked for that

dick Campbell was appointed to keep us in the first division when he was appointed and failed but wasn’t sacked because of it - so I guess there are precedents 

not that it’s a biggie but pretty sure we couldn’t be automatic relegated before last game of season was it not playoffs and ultimately it’s the position we finished in after last game of season not before it that counts which while not great was an improvement on 8th and was not going to result in him being sacked even if you think it should have 

but as has been said by lenziejag been discussed to death.  Got to be honest I don’t recall any poster anywhere using the words that he is our saviour as you have claimed 

Edited by Third Lanark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Very probable, but our previous managers remit was promotion, he was in 8th when he was fired after 11(?) games for failing to deliver his KPI.

Our new manager had the same remit and 24 games and a transfer window to achieve it in. He took us to bottom for several weeks and avoided relegation on the last day of the season after spending considerably more than previous manager in January, yet he’s the savior? 

 

 

I doubt GC spent more than Archie did in the summer. Caldwell was apparently well under budget I don't remember any claims that Archibald was as prudent...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Is it not a possibility that we had to overspend this year to try and stay in the division after the terrible start we made. Getting relegated to league 1 would undoubtedly have been disastrous. Having overspent we are now probably having to make cuts.

We overspent because we kept a Non Football infrastructure that was geared up for the Premier and we are in the Championship with a vastly Reduced income - now rather than cut with a Scalpel its Cutting with an Axe - this is not how you run a business 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jagfox said:

I doubt GC spent more than Archie did in the summer. Caldwell was apparently well under budget I don't remember any claims that Archibald was as prudent...

From what i can gather we were not planning on going down - and I dont think Archie was planning on staying - that meant recruitment was poor and last minute - which tbh had become the norm in previous Seasons 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Firhillista said:

And could you kindly point out where I've said we shouldn't dare to question the management? "All conquering rulers of our club"? What the hell is that? You don't like them, I get that, you've hardly made a secret of it, but using every issue to paint them as evil, malicious individuals incompetently destroying the club is juvenile. Not everything in life is black and white. Can we stop pretending that the club's management are the baddies? Of course they get things wrong. The handling of Doolan's leaving was a mess, an unnecessary one in my opinion. Stating that the savings made from the office redundancies was another unnecessary cack-handed way of dealing with the issue. But to describe pointing out that maybe they're not purely evil as "totalitarian" is ridiculous.

You're just not getting it. Time will tell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We overspent because we kept a Non Football infrastructure that was geared up for the Premier and we are in the Championship with a vastly Reduced income - now rather than cut with a Scalpel its Cutting with an Axe - this is not how you run a business 

It must be great to be so sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Very probable, but our previous managers remit was promotion, he was in 8th when he was fired after 11(?) games for failing to deliver his KPI.

Our new manager had the same remit and 24 games and a transfer window to achieve it in. He took us to bottom for several weeks and avoided relegation on the last day of the season after spending considerably more than previous manager in January, yet he’s the savior? 

 

 

The source of our financial issues now is relegation from the premiership for which Archie and Beattie are responsible 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We overspent because we kept a Non Football infrastructure that was geared up for the Premier and we are in the Championship with a vastly Reduced income - now rather than cut with a Scalpel its Cutting with an Axe - this is not how you run a business 

Correct.....we did the often tried football disaster strategy for a club like us we tried to invest for success which if course failed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, javeajag said:

Correct.....we did the often tried football disaster strategy for a club like us we tried to invest for success which if course failed 

Sorry but have to disagree - you can invest for Success on the Park - thats fair enough -nothing wrong with it -but there is no reason on any level to keep an infrastructure off it -which isnt reflected on income or Crowd numbers - thats madness 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, javeajag said:

Correct.....we did the often tried football disaster strategy for a club like us we tried to invest for success which if course failed 

What exactly did we invest in ?

Better Players?

Upgrading the Stadium ?

Youth Development ?

Any business works off the same principle, your outgoings shouldn’t supersede any income coming in .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, javeajag said:

Correct.....we did the often tried football disaster strategy for a club like us we tried to invest for success which if course failed 

I am not sure that “of course” is the correct phrase. County invested and got promoted. Utd invested are in the playoff final. 

The strategy isn’t necessarily wrong, unfortunately our application of it didn’t work the way we wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

What exactly did we invest in ?

Better Players?

Upgrading the Stadium ?

Youth Development ?

Any business works off the same principle, your outgoings shouldn’t supersede any income coming in .

I think lots of businesses can accept short term losses as long as a change is just around the corner.

I assume that when the budget was done last year that the club were forecasting a profit that they were comfortable with. Is it not commendable that they were willing to maintain the back room staff for another year ? 

I can imagine the stick they would have got then if they had made the cuts. “Not trying to get promoted” “accepting life in the 2nd tier”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Sorry but have to disagree - you can invest for Success on the Park - thats fair enough -nothing wrong with it -but there is no reason on any level to keep an infrastructure off it -which isnt reflected on income or Crowd numbers - thats madness 

I think your being slightly contrary ....we invested in not changing on or off field infrastructure hoping we wouldn’t have to change anything because we would be promoted .....wrong strategy imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:

What exactly did we invest in ?

Better Players?

Upgrading the Stadium ?

Youth Development ?

Any business works off the same principle, your outgoings shouldn’t supersede any income coming in .

Ask Archie he spent it plus not cutting back the off field infrastructure to championship levels 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I think lots of businesses can accept short term losses as long as a change is just around the corner.

I assume that when the budget was done last year that the club were forecasting a profit that they were comfortable with. Is it not commendable that they were willing to maintain the back room staff for another year ? 

I can imagine the stick they would have got then if they had made the cuts. “Not trying to get promoted” “accepting life in the 2nd tier”

I really disagree .....we made a virtue last season of not making any cuts either to say the sports science team or the backroom staff so we had a premiership infrastructure on championship income ....if we had been promoted we could have got by maybe but we didn’t and now we have no option but to cut back ....the budget is cushioned by the parachute payment which Archie and the board have really mismanaged 

if you look at the numbers and history then statistically it was unlikely we would get promoted and if we had planned on that basis  we would now be in s better financial position 

I’ll just reference the non playing infrastructure of Ayr or Alloa since they seem to be in vogue 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

I really disagree .....we made a virtue last season of not making any cuts either to say the sports science team or the backroom staff so we had a premiership infrastructure on championship income ....if we had been promoted we could have got by maybe but we didn’t and now we have no option but to cut back ....the budget is cushioned by the parachute payment which Archie and the board have really mismanaged 

if you look at the numbers and history then statistically it was unlikely we would get promoted and if we had planned on that basis  we would now be in s better financial position 

I’ll just reference the non playing infrastructure of Ayr or Alloa since they seem to be in vogue 

I see where you disagree. I meant to type that when the budget was done, they had forecast a loss that they were comfortable with.

i don’t know what Alloa and Ayr’s infrastructure is ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...