It makes nothing clear at all.
All he states is It is a bonus not decided on by football results.
"Whilst it is not really for me to comment on my own bonus criteria which as you would expect is set by the Board, what I will say is that it was paid for achieving non-football-related targets and objectives."
Posted By: phrankin on December 9th 2014 at 13:43:55
Message Thread
- The Q&A seemed a bit mild IMO (NCFC) - strap_on sally, Dec 9, 12:42:08
- he only chose to answer mild questions and i see he even (NCFC) - pab, Dec 9, 13:32:54
- Absolutely... someone should have asked McNally (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:23:25
- do you think Hughton was prevented from signing a player or players that would have kept u (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Dec 9, 13:49:00
- do you think any bonus related to finances (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:58:26
- THERE IS A PLAYING BUDGET (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 14:00:28
- He does, yes. (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:52:17
- do you think any bonus related to finances (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:58:26
- i asked that, almost word for word (n/m) (NCFC) - samcd84, Dec 9, 13:27:57
- Why didn't you? (n/m) (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:25:38
- didn't realise it was on till now (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:26:49
- Damn. (n/m) (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:29:43
- Looks like samcd84 did try and ask it anyway (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:36:34
- Well, I imagine the answer would be quite simple (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:38:53
- so.... The Board's decision guaranteed McNally his bonus (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:39:39
- you do understand a budget is just a 'best hope' as to what will happen financially? (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Dec 9, 13:52:25
- absolutely... including player wages and spend (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:55:51
- so what's your point then? McNally got his bonus by preventing the overpsend on the playin (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Dec 9, 14:00:14
- He has chosen to completely ignore logic (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 14:02:21
- good thinking (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Dec 9, 14:04:39
- Go get that bonus. (n/m) (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 14:05:43
- good thinking (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Dec 9, 14:04:39
- McNally has no input in player spend? (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 14:02:04
- He has chosen to completely ignore logic (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 14:02:21
- so what's your point then? McNally got his bonus by preventing the overpsend on the playin (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Dec 9, 14:00:14
- absolutely... including player wages and spend (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:55:51
- This is answered in the Q&A (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:40:45
- It makes nothing clear at all. (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:43:55
- There is just no answer to that really (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:47:42
- Non football related targets = finances = January Spend (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:54:34
- and, wasn't iot reportsed that the AGM he told us it was finance related (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:47:05
- *it reported (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:47:15
- There is just no answer to that really (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:47:42
- It makes nothing clear at all. (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:43:55
- you do understand a budget is just a 'best hope' as to what will happen financially? (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Dec 9, 13:52:25
- so.... The Board's decision guaranteed McNally his bonus (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:39:39
- Well, I imagine the answer would be quite simple (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:38:53
- Looks like samcd84 did try and ask it anyway (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:36:34
- Damn. (n/m) (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:29:43
- didn't realise it was on till now (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:26:49
- do you think Hughton was prevented from signing a player or players that would have kept u (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Dec 9, 13:49:00
- North Korea couldn't have done a better job than our media team (n/m) (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Dec 9, 13:01:05
- I imagine they filtered out the insults and abuse (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:26:29
- He wouldn't have given an honest answer to anything contentious (NCFC) - duke of york, Dec 9, 13:35:07
- So what were the contentious questions then? (n/m) (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:35:47
- Well, I don't know (NCFC) - duke of york, Dec 9, 14:00:32
- So what were the contentious questions then? (n/m) (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:35:47
- The one about Adams. (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Dec 9, 13:29:39
- Well that's a question that wasn't filtered out then (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:32:01
- VMT (NCFC) - CauldRon, Dec 9, 13:41:27
- Surely he could have at least have said something along the lines of (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Dec 9, 13:49:23
- absolutely -I don't expect to find out anything from these things (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 13:45:45
- you don't half talk out of your arse (n/m) (NCFC) - strap_on sally, Dec 9, 14:02:56
- well what do you expect from these things? (NCFC) - phrankin, Dec 9, 14:08:20
- you don't half talk out of your arse (n/m) (NCFC) - strap_on sally, Dec 9, 14:02:56
- VMT (NCFC) - CauldRon, Dec 9, 13:41:27
- Well that's a question that wasn't filtered out then (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:32:01
- He wouldn't have given an honest answer to anything contentious (NCFC) - duke of york, Dec 9, 13:35:07
- I imagine they filtered out the insults and abuse (NCFC) - norway, Dec 9, 13:26:29
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.