I think to myself that if Macebo with her CV and track record at Blues can still be COO then there's hope for me.
Then again, in the grand scheme of things, Blues is a tiny business with a sub £20m turnover. It's not that big of a job really.
B_C_F_CMozballWasn’t there a thing about Tom Brady not being listed on the website when he should be due to EFL rules, still can’t see him.
Nope
He does not need listing because he is a very very very tiny shareholder. Bit like our own Dan...
I haven’t been a shareholder for nearly 12 months.
aamir gets a lot of stick so i am assuming he has his own 'ticketmaster' side hustle on the go? /quote]
Any proof for your accusations, or is it just the usual witch hunt?
MozballWasn’t there a thing about Tom Brady not being listed on the website when he should be due to EFL rules, still can’t see him.
The shareholder thing is a bit of a red herring, cos as has been mentioned he's a minor shareholder and if you're under a certain percentage - I think 10% - you don't have to be listed.
However... Brady is apparently chairman of the Advisory Board. Nowhere on the website is any mention of this or anyone else who is on it.
Super HansBecause it’s made up bollocks?
Well, that's the question isn't it.
Nikola ZigicI think to myself that if Macebo with her CV and track record at Blues can still be COO then there's hope for me.
Then again, in the grand scheme of things, Blues is a tiny business with a sub £20m turnover. It's not that big of a job really.
Which makes having a CEO, COO and MD seem rather bloated
With regards to Brady. Who cares?
Anyone sensible realises he's not really doing much of anything, beyond being a celebrity spokesperson.
When he turns up he's the mascot for the day. He's pretty much Beau Brummie in a Burberry mac.
It's a bit of fun and his status will presumably be beneficial to the club.
El MayorMozballWasn’t there a thing about Tom Brady not being listed on the website when he should be due to EFL rules, still can’t see him.
The shareholder thing is a bit of a red herring, cos as has been mentioned he's a minor shareholder and if you're under a certain percentage - I think 10% - you don't have to be listed.
However... Brady is apparently chairman of the Advisory Board. Nowhere on the website is any mention of this or anyone else who is on it.
In essence, is the Brady thing some sort of mutual PR backscratch and little more? I always had the feeling he spent more in The Roost than he did on his shareholding.
I am wrong to an almost-professional level though, so feel free to put me right
bluefrankEl MayorMozballWasn’t there a thing about Tom Brady not being listed on the website when he should be due to EFL rules, still can’t see him.
The shareholder thing is a bit of a red herring, cos as has been mentioned he's a minor shareholder and if you're under a certain percentage - I think 10% - you don't have to be listed.
However... Brady is apparently chairman of the Advisory Board. Nowhere on the website is any mention of this or anyone else who is on it.
In essence, is the Brady thing some sort of mutual PR backscratch and little more? I always had the feeling he spent more in The Roost than he did on his shareholding.
I am wrong to an almost-professional level though, so feel free to put me right
It feels like a PR backscratch but the club are at pains to say in public it isn't.
Does it matter? I dunno. To many it won't - it kinda peeves me though, cos I'm a sticky beak.
Macebo must know where some of the skeletons live
El MayorbluefrankEl MayorMozballWasn’t there a thing about Tom Brady not being listed on the website when he should be due to EFL rules, still can’t see him.
The shareholder thing is a bit of a red herring, cos as has been mentioned he's a minor shareholder and if you're under a certain percentage - I think 10% - you don't have to be listed.
However... Brady is apparently chairman of the Advisory Board. Nowhere on the website is any mention of this or anyone else who is on it.
In essence, is the Brady thing some sort of mutual PR backscratch and little more? I always had the feeling he spent more in The Roost than he did on his shareholding.
I am wrong to an almost-professional level though, so feel free to put me right
It feels like a PR backscratch but the club are at pains to say in public it isn't.
Does it matter? I dunno. To many it won't - it kinda peeves me though, cos I'm a sticky beak.
Yeah, same. Can't say I'm truly "bothered", but I look askance at it sometimes
I think to myself that if Macebo with her CV and track record at Blues can still be COO then there's hope for me.
Then again, in the grand scheme of things, Blues is a tiny business with a sub £20m turnover. It's not that big of a job really.
Apologies, but i need to keep correcting this .... Blues have sub £20m revenue.
Turnover v revenue - completely different things .... (pedantic i know but even people i mentor and teach keep forgetting)
ChrisMacebo must know where some of the skeletons live
Pay her off and make her sign an NDA.
As MD/COO are they legal Directors or just job title Directors?
If it's the latter, I can't imagine they're on proper Director salaries.
Cook will be on a good whack.
I know I said the size of the business is small but it's not a normal £18m turnover business given the profile and sector in which it operates, so normal rules don't really apply I guess.
ChrisMacebo must know where some of the skeletons live
Pay her off and make her sign an NDA.
As MD/COO are they legal Directors or just job title Directors?
If it's the latter, I can't imagine they're on proper Director salaries.
Cook will be on a good whack.
I know I said the size of the business is small but it's not a normal £18m turnover business given the profile and sector in which it operates, so normal rules don't really apply I guess.
"£18m turnover business"
£18m revenue business !!
😛😛😛😛😛😛😛
A business can have turnover without generating revenue, and it can bring in revenue without having a turnover.