CEO and Board ... you haven't been forgotten

[JWM]

Freddie Burns has been an absolute diamond on field and off throughout this season. He has remained professional in the best sense of the word.

Contrast this with the CEO and Board, who seem only to be professional in the worst sense of the word. In the curious swap arrangement with Bath for Ford imposed on Burns, our CEO & Board have once again demonstrated their ineptitude. I wouldn't ask them to make the arrangements for the proverbial in a brewery.

Coming to the end of the sorry mess of the 2016-17 Season, we must remember that it is the CEO and Board who have held and pulled the strings, THROUGHOUT, not Cockers, not Mage. Both of whom have been made into scapegoats to try to cover the CEO and Board's tracks, and the behind the scenes toxic atmosphere, and man handling (one can't say man management).

If there has been a problem with the playing side of things (the raison d'être, surely?), it is at least 3 or 4 years old. The CEO and Board, with their self-proclaimed level of expertise, applied a 'plaster' of a bargain basement policy of recruitment and retention.

If (in CEO's recent words to BBCRLeic) a "successful season" is winning then Prem, then I dare say that winning the AWCup and getting to the Prem.SF and just losing out by 1pt to the table toppers will be labelled "progress", and will doubtless be used as a catalyst for further stagnation, not for real organic change where it is needed, at the top.

Tigers plc keeps saying how proud we are of 'not having a sugar daddy', yet there are those at the top who have become rather accustomed to acting as if they were.

If it has not been a 'successful season' on field, there are those who could act and now make it a 'successful season' off field.

[Noggs]

Wish I had your clear insight and knowledge of what goes on behind the sceens

[tigerburnie]

There are some who appear in the stands and on my screen and I find myself asking, what do they actually do for the club?
I defend their actions and say I support them,(I do as there's little I can do about them until my lotto numbers come up tomorrow, note to self, buy a ticket), but there does seem to be a lot of 'em.
Are they all pulling a salary?

[Noggs]

In a nutshell they're running a £20+ business.

[jgriffin]

£20 business. I've £30 in my wallet, can I buy the club?

[JWM]

Noggs, if you're suggesting that I 'run a £20 business', the answer is no. My business foundation was in the City of London, and I was quite used to dealing with businesses worth hundreds of millions.

I accept the difficulty of keeping the ship afloat, but also the concept of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The reductio ad absurdum of your comment would seem to be that no-one would ever be able to make any value judgement about any organisation ever.

I do know about business psychology and dealing with people, the difference between man management and manhandling, and reading between the lines of business psychobabble - the what, how, and when, as well as what isn't said, and body language.

I do understand that the ethos and wellbeing of any organisation starts at the top, and how to spot the telltale signs of those who 'know the price of everything and the value of nothing' (Oscar Wilde).

There are also comments that are in the public domain, comments which don't add up, and I have also been made party to some privileged conversations.

Whereas there are some people who wouldn't know if their backside was on fire.

[johnthegriff]

Tigers have a relatively small board of directors and only three of them draw a salary from the club, in each case they were employed by the club in a non director roll prior to being elevated to the board. In the case of Andrea and Ian they were employed for many years before promotion to board level.
Many posters on this forum were demanding change and now some complain when change takes place.
Those wishing for a sugar daddy type owner should note that with Saracens, Bath and Wasps the sugar daddies acquired clubs with little or no assets and frankly although Saracens are moving in the right direction and are developing their own ground its limited capacity means they can never be self sufficient, Bath and Wasps are still tenants of stadia they do not own and in Wasps case seem to have an increasing and unsustainable debt level.
I doubt there is anyone out there willing to invest the £100,000,000 that might be necessary to acquire and run Leicester Tigers.

[tigercaspian]

Tigers have a relatively small board of directors and only three of them draw a salary from the club, in each case they were employed by the club in a non director roll prior to being elevated to the board. In the case of Andrea and Ian they were employed for many years before promotion to board level.
Many posters on this forum were demanding change and now some complain when change takes place.
Those wishing for a sugar daddy type owner should note that with Saracens, Bath and Wasps the sugar daddies acquired clubs with little or no assets and frankly although Saracens are moving in the right direction and are developing their own ground its limited capacity means they can never be self sufficient, Bath and Wasps are still tenants of stadia they do not own and in Wasps case seem to have an increasing and unsustainable debt level.
I doubt there is anyone out there willing to invest the £100,000,000 that might be necessary to acquire and run Leicester Tigers.

Employing facts johnthegriff ? How unfair............

[tigerburnie]

Running a sports team is not quite like running a business, take an example over the road. When Shipman ran the "City" it was oft said that they "never will win anything, but they'd never go bust either". Move forward after his tenure and bankruptcy and eventually champions, not a business model we'd like to follow. It does however offer a subject for debate, we carry on and remain self sufficient to a point(money is invested by wealthy individuals) and accept we cannot compete in terms of salary spend(yes we know there's a salary cap). Or we accept that things will have to change if we are to go back to our former dominance on the field. Follow the football comparison I started with and Tigers becomes a commodity and the ticket prices reach Man U or Chelsea levels. Paying punters choice?

[ourla]

Freddie Burns has been an absolute diamond on field and off throughout this season. He has remained professional in the best sense of the word.

Contrast this with the CEO and Board, who seem only to be professional in the worst sense of the word. In the curious swap arrangement with Bath for Ford imposed on Burns, our CEO & Board have once again demonstrated their ineptitude. I wouldn't ask them to make the arrangements for the proverbial in a brewery.

Coming to the end of the sorry mess of the 2016-17 Season, we must remember that it is the CEO and Board who have held and pulled the strings, THROUGHOUT, not Cockers, not Mage. Both of whom have been made into scapegoats to try to cover the CEO and Board's tracks, and the behind the scenes toxic atmosphere, and man handling (one can't say man management).

If there has been a problem with the playing side of things (the raison d'être, surely?), it is at least 3 or 4 years old. The CEO and Board, with their self-proclaimed level of expertise, applied a 'plaster' of a bargain basement policy of recruitment and retention.

If (in CEO's recent words to BBCRLeic) a "successful season" is winning then Prem, then I dare say that winning the AWCup and getting to the Prem.SF and just losing out by 1pt to the table toppers will be labelled "progress", and will doubtless be used as a catalyst for further stagnation, not for real organic change where it is needed, at the top.

Tigers plc keeps saying how proud we are of 'not having a sugar daddy', yet there are those at the top who have become rather accustomed to acting as if they were.

If it has not been a 'successful season' on field, there are those who could act and now make it a 'successful season' off field.

What a strange post.

As there has been a lot of focus on what Burns as being saying there was one sentence that struck me:

“I don’t think I will play at another club like Leicester where the demand for success is so high,”

I like that and perhaps the board can be contragulated for maintaining that ethos.

[fleabane]

I think that " contragulated " just about sums up the board. Confused, strangled and wrong.

Anyone who thinks that the "Ford for Burns" deal was a good one, should watch how each play under pressure, and when they know they are leaving at the end of the season. A shabby deal which does not reflect well on either club.

[Roly]

Freddie Burns has been an absolute diamond on field and off throughout this season. He has remained professional in the best sense of the word.

Contrast this with the CEO and Board, who seem only to be professional in the worst sense of the word. In the curious swap arrangement with Bath for Ford imposed on Burns, our CEO & Board have once again demonstrated their ineptitude. I wouldn't ask them to make the arrangements for the proverbial in a brewery.

Coming to the end of the sorry mess of the 2016-17 Season, we must remember that it is the CEO and Board who have held and pulled the strings, THROUGHOUT, not Cockers, not Mage. Both of whom have been made into scapegoats to try to cover the CEO and Board's tracks, and the behind the scenes toxic atmosphere, and man handling (one can't say man management).

If there has been a problem with the playing side of things (the raison d'être, surely?), it is at least 3 or 4 years old. The CEO and Board, with their self-proclaimed level of expertise, applied a 'plaster' of a bargain basement policy of recruitment and retention.

If (in CEO's recent words to BBCRLeic) a "successful season" is winning then Prem, then I dare say that winning the AWCup and getting to the Prem.SF and just losing out by 1pt to the table toppers will be labelled "progress", and will doubtless be used as a catalyst for further stagnation, not for real organic change where it is needed, at the top.

Tigers plc keeps saying how proud we are of 'not having a sugar daddy', yet there are those at the top who have become rather accustomed to acting as if they were.

If it has not been a 'successful season' on field, there are those who could act and now make it a 'successful season' off field.

I'm not quite sure how swapping Burns (admittedly a good player)for the England No10 could be considered regressive, particularly since none of us have seen George play for Tigers in the forthcoming season yet.

So, if George steps up, has a good season and gives all and more that Burns did, will the Board gain your endorsement for the brewery party?

[Roly]

Tigers have a relatively small board of directors and only three of them draw a salary from the club, in each case they were employed by the club in a non director roll prior to being elevated to the board. In the case of Andrea and Ian they were employed for many years before promotion to board level.
Many posters on this forum were demanding change and now some complain when change takes place.
Those wishing for a sugar daddy type owner should note that with Saracens, Bath and Wasps the sugar daddies acquired clubs with little or no assets and frankly although Saracens are moving in the right direction and are developing their own ground its limited capacity means they can never be self sufficient, Bath and Wasps are still tenants of stadia they do not own and in Wasps case seem to have an increasing and unsustainable debt level.
I doubt there is anyone out there willing to invest the £100,000,000 that might be necessary to acquire and run Leicester Tigers.

Apparently, Wasps do own the Ricoh...

[ourla]

I think that " contragulated " just about sums up the board. Confused, strangled and wrong.

??????

Anyone who thinks that the "Ford for Burns" deal was a good one, should watch how each play under pressure, and when they know they are leaving at the end of the season.

One thing is for sure Burns will be under very little pressure at Bath where the bar has reverted to very low. Whilst Ford knows that winning the Prem and or ERC is the target. Let's see how they get on.

A shabby deal which does not reflect well on either club.

Define "shabby".

[fleabane]

Look it up. (said in the old BJ spirit).