CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Is making a loss of £1.9 million last year not a fair judgement on whether the CEO is doing a good job?
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
The Premiership Clubs may as well pack up and call it a day.....majority of the Premiership Clubs reported losses and Tigers were not the largest.
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk
www.matthampson.co.uk
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Well someone must think he is doing a good job, he received a 6% pay rise last year taking his total remuneration to £234k, a 26% increase since he took the job in 2011.
For someone very keen on wage restraint from players he does not appear to be so keen to practice it on himself.
Goooooodeeeeeyyyyy!
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
So this is getting clearer.
1) Performance Objective 1. To ensure that Tigers do not record the worst financial loss in the premiership for 2018-2019. PO achieved. A £1.9m loss was not the worst. EXCELLENT
2) Performance Objective 2. Where the core activity of the business is concerned i.e. playing rugby to ensure that Tigers are not relegated during the 2018-2019 season. OBJECTIVE DISPUTED. The CEO of a rugby club does not accept that he has any responsibility for the rugby. Although he did claim some credit when the club was winning.
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Sports clubs are a little different from other businesses. It's unusual to have someone who has the business experience and the sporting knowledge. Therefore, the CEO is often responsible for the business side of things (this means making it sustainable long term and able reinvest in the core activity and purpose of the club, not necessarily making profit or breaking even in the short term) and will work with the board to appoint the right person to run the sporting side of things - the board or a committee within the board will usually have the final say in this.
To summarise, the CEO may have little responsibility for sporting success.
To summarise, the CEO may have little responsibility for sporting success.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 896
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:56 am
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
I my honest opinion
The board is all powerful and at the same time presiding over a farcical demise of a once proud club.
The investors are happy with their return - so allegedly no action .
Will the board members fall on their sword? "We are steering the club through challenging times"!.
Selling the club/Not selling the club?
Scouting the world for top coach/ Sacking said coach appointing an untested coach. Bringing in "Mentors"
Not a plan - a knee reaction.
The board is all powerful and at the same time presiding over a farcical demise of a once proud club.
The investors are happy with their return - so allegedly no action .
Will the board members fall on their sword? "We are steering the club through challenging times"!.
Selling the club/Not selling the club?
Scouting the world for top coach/ Sacking said coach appointing an untested coach. Bringing in "Mentors"
Not a plan - a knee reaction.
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
A CEO has responsibility over his business, if the board is the problem, Cohen should tell them to go. If he is the problem, Cohen should himself go. All this squad and staff turnover with no avail, proves the problem is at the highest echelon.
Formerly of Burbaaage (not Inkleh), now up north at uni
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
It depends on the details of the company's governance, but generally the CEO reports to the board not the other way around.
The CEO can be removed by the board and the board can be removed by the shareholders. The CEO has no power over the board.
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
The thing I can't seem to get my head around is the fact the shareholders don't get rid of the board, especially the fan shareholders. Although they make perhaps a small percentage of the overall share, I'm still certain they make more than 1% that reportedly voted against Peter Tom. My theory is few actually vote.
Formerly of Burbaaage (not Inkleh), now up north at uni
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
As far as we know the club remains unsold at its present valuation of £60m (I thought it originally £80m). This suggests that the valuation is too high and that the value of the brand is falling. I would have thought a major objective for a CEO would be the maintenance and enhancement of the brand value. As the main brand value is in the excellence of its on-field activities for the CEO to suggest that he has no responsibility for the playing side is a bit of shoulder sloping. I cannot believe that the CEO does not have an involvement in the hiring of senior coaching and playing staff. Business performance is nothing exceptional (1.9m loss) not sure how the hotel is going.
I'm not cynical just experienced
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
I have seen and heard Mr Cohen talk at numerous supporters events and I must say he is a very skilled orator and shrewd operator. Indeed, if you knew nothing about our club he would have convinced you that everything is hunky dory and the future under Murphy is rosy and assured.
However, that said, it strikes me that he is not the sort of person that would ever fall on his sword. Additionally, I have never heard or read any admission that his or indeed the boards decisions or actions have in any way contributed to our demise.
I believe that this attitude is at the heart of the rot in the club, because if you cannot accept and/or recognise the mistakes you and/or the board have made then you are incapable of learning from and correcting them.
Furthermore, the need for and appointment of Pat Howard as a mentor to Murphy, perfectly illustrates why the board is incapable of any semblance of sound decision making.
Lastly I deplore any personal abuse of Mr Cohen and/or his family, its inexcusable, inappropriate and unjustifiable however much we are all totally frustrated and upset by our continuing demise.
However, that said, it strikes me that he is not the sort of person that would ever fall on his sword. Additionally, I have never heard or read any admission that his or indeed the boards decisions or actions have in any way contributed to our demise.
I believe that this attitude is at the heart of the rot in the club, because if you cannot accept and/or recognise the mistakes you and/or the board have made then you are incapable of learning from and correcting them.
Furthermore, the need for and appointment of Pat Howard as a mentor to Murphy, perfectly illustrates why the board is incapable of any semblance of sound decision making.
Lastly I deplore any personal abuse of Mr Cohen and/or his family, its inexcusable, inappropriate and unjustifiable however much we are all totally frustrated and upset by our continuing demise.
Without hope we are nothing, keep the faith, a Tiger for eternity
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Business performance was actually profit of £4m. The £1.9m is actually operating profit which is before things like the Pemership windfall last season, but does include things like depreciation.
Why would you want a CEO to have control of a £20m turnover business and the appointment of coaches and players? Where would you find anyone with the relevant experience for both aspects of that?
Isn't there a committee of board members who take responsibility for the rugby side of things?
If so, is it Mr Cohen who is most responsible for the on field failures, or the members of that committee?
Why would you want a CEO to have control of a £20m turnover business and the appointment of coaches and players? Where would you find anyone with the relevant experience for both aspects of that?
Isn't there a committee of board members who take responsibility for the rugby side of things?
If so, is it Mr Cohen who is most responsible for the on field failures, or the members of that committee?
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Indeed yes there is a committee of board members (Rugby Board) who take responsibility for the rugby side of things. It comprises Ben Kay, Rory Underwood and I believe one other ?Tiglon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:34 am Business performance was actually profit of £4m. The £1.9m is actually operating profit which is before things like the Pemership windfall last season, but does include things like depreciation.
Why would you want a CEO to have control of a £20m turnover business and the appointment of coaches and players? Where would you find anyone with the relevant experience for both aspects of that?
Isn't there a committee of board members who take responsibility for the rugby side of things?
If so, is it Mr Cohen who is most responsible for the on field failures, or the members of that committee?
I agree Mr Cohen is not uniquely responsible for the on field failures but like every senior manager he is accountable.
Without hope we are nothing, keep the faith, a Tiger for eternity
-
- Super User
- Posts: 13211
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:54 pm
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Rugby committee comprises of well it did at the last fans forum.
Tom
Glynn
Kay
Underwood
Cohen
DOR/Head of Rugby.
would imagine McGinty is now on that.
Will also add that till recently Cohen was also the top brass in terms of contracts negotiations, him along with Glynn was the final say on player retention and recruitment. Cordero being the recent example of a player a coach wanted but was messed about with from those up above.
Tom
Glynn
Kay
Underwood
Cohen
DOR/Head of Rugby.
would imagine McGinty is now on that.
Will also add that till recently Cohen was also the top brass in terms of contracts negotiations, him along with Glynn was the final say on player retention and recruitment. Cordero being the recent example of a player a coach wanted but was messed about with from those up above.
Re: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Thank you for this list as I for one clearly had no idea of all its members! As Mr Cohen is also a Rugby Board member then he is also responsible for Rugby matters.
Without hope we are nothing, keep the faith, a Tiger for eternity