SFA considering salary cap

[Zappa 0]

Maybe we should advise Gordon Smith what he and George Peat are worth?

Aye & the rest of the 'executive' staff at the SFA whose combined yearly salaries could end world hunger.

[maineflyer 0]

Aye & the rest of the 'executive' staff at the SFA whose combined yearly salaries could end world hunger.

 

Do you have any idea what these people are paid? I imagine it's way more than they're worth.

[Super_Ally 0]

Aye & the rest of the 'executive' staff at the SFA whose combined yearly salaries could end world hunger.

 

The famine's over? The SFA would never allow such a sectarian happenstance.

[Zappa 0]

Do you have any idea what these people are paid? I imagine it's way more than they're worth.

Nah, I don't know at all, but the senior management & executives at the SFA are no small group. Their combined annual salaries will be well into the millions. But there's no money in Scottish football.

[maineflyer 0]

Nah, I don't know at all, but the senior management & executives at the SFA are no small group. Their combined annual salaries will be well into the millions. But there's no money in Scottish football.

 

The SFA annual report is deliberately obscure about personnel costs but a wee bit of digging shows that the annual accounts filed for the year to 31 December 2008, wages and salaries come to �£5,075,854 including director emoluments. Which is a hell of a figure considering the size of the operation and the work they actually have to do - and the fact that a great deal of other personnel costs will be hidden away under cost of sales.

 

The sheer number of people involved in the SFA council and the board of directors is staggering. And that's not including the office and other

staff employed at Hampden.

 

By comparison, the SPL wages and salaries for the same period came to only �£470,000 although much of the cost here is probably borne by the member clubs.

[Zappa 0]

The SFA annual report is deliberately obscure about personnel costs but a wee bit of digging shows that the annual accounts filed for the year to 31 December 2008, wages and salaries come to �£5,075,854 including director emoluments. Which is a hell of a figure considering the size of the operation and the work they actually have to do - and the fact that a great deal of other personnel costs will be hidden away under cost of sales.

Not sure whether to think that figure is high or low actually, but it probably won't include personal expense accounts or any other financial benefits for employees. Wouldn't surprise me if their yearly payments for 'expenses' were absolutely massive.

[maineflyer 0]

Not sure whether to think that figure is high or low actually, but it probably won't include personal expense accounts or any other financial benefits for employees. Wouldn't surprise me if their yearly payments for 'expenses' were absolutely massive.

 

You could bet on it........... travel, accommodation, meals, entertaining, "sundry expenses".

[calscot 0]

I meant it was another example of the culture of governmental interference in the life of the individual in this country. You know, the "we know what's good for you" syndrome. It doesn't make much difference whether you consider that to be Britain or Scotland but the latter seems particularly reluctant to allow people or companies to seek their own direction. Personally, I could do with less authoritarian guidance and a lot more untrammelled capitalism.

 

You have to wonder what makes Gordon Smith think he or any other football administrator is best placed to pronounce on what players should earn, or what clubs should decide to pay them. Socialist twaddle. Maybe we should advise Gordon Smith what he and George Peat are worth?

 

So the government should have let the banks go bankrupt then? I think the credit crunch has shown how pathetically stupid "untrammelled capitalism" is and how much we NEED government interference.

 

There is very little good in the economic world that wasn't the result of government interference. Some seem to prefer to give free reign to tabacco companies, manufacturers, oil companies and car makers to do what they like.

 

It the government that brought us smoke free buildings, stopped the dumping of pollution and dramatically brought down emissions in cars and improved safety features.

 

Pure capitalism would NEVER have brought any of this. Has anyone been to the US and actually thought it was a great way to run a country?

 

The only people who seem to want "untrammelled capitalism" seem to be the arrogant, the greedy and the selfish.

[maineflyer 0]

So the government should have let the banks go bankrupt then? I think the credit crunch has shown how pathetically stupid "untrammelled capitalism" is and how much we NEED government interference.

 

There is very little good in the economic world that wasn't the result of government interference. Some seem to prefer to give free reign to tabacco companies, manufacturers, oil companies and car makers to do what they like.

 

It the government that brought us smoke free buildings, stopped the dumping of pollution and dramatically brought down emissions in cars and improved safety features.

 

Pure capitalism would NEVER have brought any of this. Has anyone been to the US and actually thought it was a great way to run a country?

 

The only people who seem to want "untrammelled capitalism" seem to be the arrogant, the greedy and the selfish.

 

You're joking about the US surely. I've had a business there for a number of years and regularly travel widely in that country. I can tell you that, for all its faults and obvious diversity, I've usually found it to be a more civilised, caring and concerned society than this one. On many of the social issues you mention, the US was actually well ahead of us and hardly deserves the tabloid image so many here are keen to foster with words like greedy, arrogant and selfish. Of course you may know more than I do about it.

[bmck 117]

You're joking about the US surely. I've had a business there for a number of years and regularly travel widely in that country. I can tell you that, for all its faults and obvious diversity, I've usually found it to be a more civilised, caring and concerned society than this one. On many of the social issues you mention, the US was actually well ahead of us and hardly deserves the tabloid image so many here are keen to foster with words like greedy, arrogant and selfish. Of course you may know more than I do about it.

 

i agree. a large part of america understands, still, citizenry. calling them arrogant because they are the best at almost everything is just jealousy. i like america; i would rather they were the most powerful nation on earth than any of the other contenders.