General manager

So the chronicle is reporting the new general manager is to get 35k per year. Point 1... How much is he OR she expected to bring in to justify such a wage. Point 2. How CAN the club pay such a wage WHEN AS a club we don't have a penny to scratch our ass with. Should we not improve things on the pitch first. Let's face it no one wants to invest in a loseing team. Give the new general manager a reasonable chance of bringing some new money in at least. Houses, business, football clubs ARE all build on firm strong foundation and a strong team on the pitch is it....

Interesting points.
Just to make sure I understand....
What would be your starting criteria for the appointment a GM (or a F/T person to oversee all off-field activities)? Would the team have to reach a certain level in the league first or is there a profitability level the club would need to achieve first etc. - i.e. if not now, when?

Putting aside the Chronicle's assertion about the actual salary (I don't know if this is accurate), what would convince you that this was a sensible approach? What if having a GM meant s/he were able to raise more than their salary (directly or indirectly) and fulfilled the stated aims (of the club) of improving the Community engagement? Imagine if they raise more than their salary and the club (and playing side) benefited.

I agree with your premise that we need to improve the playing side. My personal view is that there is clearly a symbiotic relationship between the on and off field activities and we need to create a virtuous circle in which they grow together. They aren't mutually exclusive and we need to break into the cycle somewhere. I would hope that the appointment of a GM would be part of the plan to do that.

I think there is a subtle difference here between price and value.

The general manager should be expected to be of more value to the club as a whole than for their overall cost.

I am quite surprised that the Chronic has got that figure as I have never heard one.

IT's very simple, as SWM says, the value of a GM should be more than the cost. Whether that is a monetary value or otherwise depends on their roles and responsibilities.

The creation and appointment of a general manager is a long-term initiative and nothing to do with the short-term performance on the field.

The finance projections that formed part of the revised prospectus indicated that the loss would increase by £40k in year one due to the increase in costs following the recruitment of the general manage. Can only assume that is why the paper used a figure of £35k if no actual figure has been published.
Surely if we are expecting the new person to increase non football income it would be better if there was a lower basic salary and then pay commission on any extra income generated above the current level we are achieving.

I would imagine that there is as much to be done in making savings through efficiencies as increasing income so it is a tad more complicated than income>salary=success.

As Marc says the Chronic appear to have plucked this figure out of thin air. Personally I would hope that if the right person came along then substantially more than this would be available. 

It is not a job for a simple pen pusher. The successful candidate needs to be dynamic and with a strong track record.

I must be totally out of touch if £35k only gets a "pen pusher" these days.

So what pay level do we need to offer in order to get this proven  dynamic person who can make a real difference?

In response to Marc perhaps we could offer commission on the level of costs saved as well as extra income raised but doubt there would be much scope for the former.

Christ Mark. How on earth can you save money by paying a NEW!!!!!!! general manager when you got PAUL WILLIAMS ANDY WEEKS AND BOB CHESTER to name a few running around on match days AND non match days doing most of the NEW GENERAL MANAGERS jobs for free anyway. Bob might not thank me for saying this but he's out there delivering Christmas cards ON BEHALF of Bath city fc FOR FREE and paying £40 out of his own pocket for stamps. So he's paying to work for nothing.. SAVE MONEY ON THAT!!!!

Firstly, Peter, I am not sure that BenE is saying that £35k only gets you a pen pusher.

Secondly, Daz, I am not implying that the general manager will make up the whole of his salary by making savings through efficiencies - just that that might be a part of it which makes an equation of new income> GM salary=success a tad simplistic. For a start, he may able to take on or find other volunteers to delegate tasks that would free up Paul Williams and Bob Chester's valuable time for their most productive tasks. To be honest, I am not entirely sure what Andy Weeks' current activity at the club is nor nor what it will be post-new Board so can't comment on that. Like I say, making the business more efficient and productive is often as important as bringing in new money so I wouldn't be surprised if there is a benefit there with the right person. I am not going to comment on what you have said about Bob paying for stamps as, as you suggest, I am not sure it is the sort of information that Bob would want commented on in public.

What I do know is that we now have, at the club,  an ex-MD of Hull City who was charged with transforming the off-the-field activities at Hull City and an ex-CEO of Bath Rugby who had a similar role at the Rec. If they consider that a General Manager is going to make the club more financially viable, productive and cost-efficient then I will go with their knowledge and experience informing such a decision than people doing sums on the back of an envelope.

Haven't commented on here for ages but thought I'd just make the point that we now have a democratically run football club.

I've been a city supporter since I was about 7 or 8 but haven't really got as actively involved in the club like others. As a result of not being that actively involved but yet being acutely aware of its history I would say I am in a good position to judge this from a relatively neutral perspective.

I would say that the one thing I've noticed over the years is that there are some very different opinions of how the club should be run and we have to respect that. As an example I couldn't (and still can't) get my head round the apathy of getting relegated from the conference and keeping Britten and Howells as long as we did a few years ago. Other fans however had a much different perspective and felt polar opposite to my views.

The point is there has to be room at football club to be in a position to agree to disagree and this is where the bid takeover has been the best news this club has ever had. The fact that anyone could in theory be chairman has to be celebrated surely? If you strongly disagree with a candidate vote them out or perhaps even stand as a candidate yourself.

Democracy is the perfect compromise. You can get multi billionaires come into a football club and bankrupt it within a few years, you can get a club run solely with an overly non league attitude and get nowhere, you can get fans who want to sack a manager, keep a manager etc. The list is endless of different opinions so how do you deal with that?

I agree with the comment about getting it right on the pitch first and I am a sceptic of a general manager but the process of getting to that decision is one I support. I like the idea of nobody being bigger than the club and that's why I put my £250 in to the bid.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for other forms that have tried and failed"..(or something like that!)

Just thought it was worth emphasising the positivity that the bid can now bring. It's gone a bit quiet lately on that front.

I am talking about the difference between just pootling along as we are or becoming a stronger club. That depends entirely upon recruiting the right person. It is an extremely challenging task. But an exciting opportunity for the person who can fulfil the job description.

I doubt we can improve on the field substantially without getting the right structures in place behind the scenes. I think it is the right way to go to get a full time employed manager.

That does not detract from my admiration for Bob as he does a terrific job and is obviously a talented and generous guy. Nor for the other people who put heart and soul into the club. You know who they are.

BenE wrote:I am talking about the difference between just pootling along as we are or becoming a stronger club. That depends entirely upon recruiting the right person. It is an extremely challenging task. But an exciting opportunity for the person who can fulfil the job description.

I doubt we can improve on the field substantially without getting the right structures in place behind the scenes. I think it is the right way to go to get a full time employed manager.

That does not detract from my admiration for Bob as he does a terrific job and is obviously a talented and generous guy. Nor for the other people who put heart and soul into the club. You know who they are.

And the volunteers are NOT being replaced.

Colin Voutt wrote:

BenE wrote:I am talking about the difference between just pootling along as we are or becoming a stronger club. That depends entirely upon recruiting the right person. It is an extremely challenging task. But an exciting opportunity for the person who can fulfil the job description.

I doubt we can improve on the field substantially without getting the right structures in place behind the scenes. I think it is the right way to go to get a full time employed manager.

That does not detract from my admiration for Bob as he does a terrific job and is obviously a talented and generous guy. Nor for the other people who put heart and soul into the club. You know who they are.

And the volunteers are NOT being replaced.

I'll tell you one thing the new man BETTER NOT stand on the volentears toes as they will walk quicker than quick.

Similarly I would hope the volunteers will recognise that whoever it is has a job to do, and work with him in a spirit of cooperation.

It does sound ungrateful (though not intended to be) but volunteers in the long term future have to be prepared to stand aside for the good of the club itself. If not, then they are clearly doing it in their own interests and not Bath City's.

That said if they are to be replaced, then it has to be done with respect and the only way is through a democratic vote.

If those current volunteers are voted in no problem, if they are voted out no problem.

I totally respect what volunteers have done in the past for this club and I can't in anyway knock them (not even at Whitehawk today myself) but for the benefit of non profit run Bath City, some may have to go in favour of new ideas.

If those volunteers are prepared to stand down for the benefit of Bath City then that's called being a true supporter.

My guess though is that many of the volunteers will stay in their roles anyway because not many have the same energy to commit.

That is a fair point but I do not see that there should be any reason for anyone to stand aside. The managers job is completely different to what is currently being done.

cbtroman wrote:Just thought it was worth emphasising the positivity that the bid can now bring. It's gone a bit quiet lately on that front.

Quiet on the specific Bid or activities by the Bid team? I assume that the bid is going through the legal i-dotting and t-crossing that these sorts of things have to.

There has been a fair few activities from the Bid team (so, of course, just to be the team). The Students' match was one. There has been a lot going on increasing and making publicity of the club more efficient. The GM role itself is a product of the Bid team, of course.

daz wrote:
I'll tell you one thing the new man BETTER NOT stand on the volentears toes as they will walk quicker than quick.

Are you a volunteer, daz? I only ask as you seem to be speaking a lot on behalf of volunteers. I am a volunteer (although nowhere near in the same league as Bob, Bas and Marton) and you certainly don't speak for me. Of course, everyone involved in the Bid, the Supporters' Society and the incoming Directors are all volunteers as well.

At the top of the agenda about the Bid has been attracting, along with funding and new supporters, more volunteers not less and, to this end, there has always been a priority of forming volunteer working groups so that existing and new volunteers' efforts will be made easier. The General Manager's role will with sit on top or alongside of these. What would be the point of paying someone just to come in and do what is being done already? A GM role has to add some value to the club not just replace what is being done already. I would have thought that volunteers give up their time and energy to help the club progress so it would be odd if people walked as soon as there was a move to do this. I certainly can't see the people that I see volunteering doing that and I haven't yet seen anyone that does complaining about the GM's role (unless, as I say, you volunteer regularly).

Am I a volunteer!! No I'm not!!! But for your information I've been a city fan since 77-78 season. I've been putting my money through the turnstiles for alost 40 years ranging from 25p as a kid to £13 now. I've put thounds of pounds behind the bar and tea huts. I sponsor games in my name and with others. I raised with help from a good mate almost  £4,500 through a sponsored walk. I also attend most function at the club ie sportsman's dinners legends evening ect. So am I a volunteer NO!! but I've done my bit so keep your mouth shut and don't ask stupid questions. As was said of me before " we all know how forcefully I make my point" for christ sake DON'T turn into Martin powell.

As for my initial post I done my homework by first speaking to said volunteers AND SOME ARE WORRIED about what MIGHT happen when the new person comes in. And no I don't talk for you as you seem to have ENOUGH MOUTH ANYWAY.

Moderator - we will not allow personal abuse in posts. Posters will be banned from the site.

So you're not a volunteer (which was the question I asked politely) but you are an unpleasant man who seems to be able to start an argument in an empty room.

As was said of me before " we all know how forcefully I make my point" for christ sake DON'T turn into Martin powell.

No, I have had a couple of goes at this. It contains words of English in there but I have no idea what they mean in the order you have presented them. Do you want to have another go?

I feel the need to point out that the successful candidate could be a woman.

Lots of references to 'he'

This is a vital step forward for the Club.

Re the costs - surely it's obvious the new board would have budgeted for it, and given their combined business experience must think we need it?

Whoever gets the job will need the support of everyone to make it a success so rather than writing off someone who hasn't even got the job yet why don't we see who it is and give them a chance?

We won today, it's Christmas, let's just be happy for a change eh

pete mac wrote:I feel the need to point out that the successful candidate could be a woman.

Lots of references to 'he'

Good point. The other thing that should be pointed out is that the General Manager could come from the current group of volunteers.

I am not sure you are right there, Beau. The performances of the football team, any football team, are too inconsistent to rely on. Off field revenue streams on matchdays (and, especially, on non-matchdays) are important to bring in consistent and year round money. The General Manager will be involved in this.

The marketing and publicity side can help bring in more people through the gate and, to an extent, through the 1000BC group, this has already started to happen and will increasingly do so as the Board changes go through.

As far as performances on the pitch go, that is up to Gary, Jimmer and the players and, of course, to an extent, the Board members, just as always. Nothing will change that.