Unfussed about this.
We are solvent not because of some financial genius but because a) the fans stayed with the club during the bad times and the managers put together multiple promotion achieving squads for 3/6d and b ) when times were good we kept spending under control (and ultimately paid the price).
I'm not sure what great achievements there were beyond the balance sheet. I think he put 1000 chairs in but that is about it unless the academy pays off in future years.
I don't see that there is necessarily causation between his tenure and the clubs rise
Actually I think McNally and Bowkett were instrumental in negotiating a payment holiday with our banks soon after relegation, including one for whom a seven figure debt was due which we couldn't afford to settle? It was later confirmed that we were close to administration that season. Don't forget that Foulger also matched every penny waived by the fans under the season ticket relegation refund promise. Didn't we face a £4m shortfall that season, which these two things closed, enabling us to have some sort of playing budget?
Had that not been sorted out we wouldn't have had the money to sign the players who you wholly credit with our success, including Grant Holt. Gaffer above said that Grant Holt claimed that some had built their reputations on the backs of what others had achieved. Well Grant Holt may have been a great number 9, but assuming that was a dig at McNally:
- Grant Holt is not the sharpest knife in the kitchen, he may know how to change a tire but he can barely construct a sentence in writing. I wouldn't expect him to be financially literate enough to run a pub without a lot of help, yet alone understand what a Chief Executive does.
- He had a grudge against McNally for not giving an extra year on his contract. He was sold with one year left on his deal. Do we think that he showed on the pitch in the two years after he was sold that he was good enough for us? 5 goals in the Championship in two seasons after leaving. McNally got this spot on, and Wigan fans were gutted to be stuck with him. Presumably people at the club saw that he was deteriorating rapidly, we basically mugged Wigan, it didn't feel like it at the time but it does feel like it in hindsight.
- Was McNally not instrumental in the sacking of Bryan Gunn and appointment of Paul Lambert? What does Holt think that he would have achieved in the sport had we not sacked Gunn and appointed Lambert? I think he'd potentially have never made it back to the Championship, yet alone the Premier League.
As for those managers, well the best of them all (Paul Lambert) already personally knew David McNally from his time at Celtic, so presumably he was the one who put him to the board for consideration.
I'm not particularly fussed about him leaving either because we could probably do with some fresh ideas and whilst he has been good Chief Executive for us he has also been handsomely remunerated in recent years and as long as we don't attempt to replace him on the cheap I'm sure we can and will hire somebody of similar calibre, but lets not write off his achievements or fail to acknowledge them, he did an excellent job in turning this club around and deserves a lot of credit and respect for that. I'm sure he'll get another job in football in the near future.
I also found his remuneration package a little strange, when he got a bonus for making £6m in profit in a relegation season it smelt bad, it was a little like Tory MP's voting to give themselves a pay rise whilst making the poorest in society worse off. It didn't go down very well.
I hope that this is refined for the next CEO, how about a bonus based entirely on footballing performance, with a penalty which is subtracted from that bonus if minimum financial targets are not met. That would make more sense, McNally has always said that we are run on a profit neutral basis, in which case it makes no sense to be rewarded for profits. Would make more sense to be penalised for losses.
What I'm actually a little worried about now however is that there is a bit more to this resignation than meets the eye. Are we going to be finding out that we've added a hell of a lot of debt this season? Didn't we effectively finance player acquisitions against future Sky TV revenues? About £20m in fees in January, borrowed against Sky revenues that we may now not be receiving unless we bounce back quickly?
He came in when we were £23m in debt, and perhaps he'll be leaving us with a similar amount of debt. The board has unanimously accepted his resignation, so clearly they blame him for something. I am a bit worried to be honest. He felt that it was appropriate to offer his resignation, and all other directors felt it appropriate he resign despite his attempt to retract. So what has happened? Has he left us in the sh*t financially for next season? What else could it be?
Do we now need to recoup in excess of £20m in transfer fees in the summer to repay the debt we took on in January? What did that financing agreement say about relegation? We've borrowed it against something we simply no longer have, or what? All needs answers. I'm not going to blindly say that it is a disaster to lose McNally, it is entirely possible that he's really f*cked things up.
