Hiram Abiff

1. I don’t see the point in you telling me that you don’t see the point in discussing something where I do see the point. 2. Blowing £1 million on a change of manager after 4 league games is not evidence of us being better run than Motherwell. 3. Again, take that up with the others that you mentioned. 4. Take that up with the other contributor.

@FTOF does okay out of it from what I heard

Or a running track?

1. The accounts being released does change things because we didn’t know just how much that change of manager had cost. 2. I didn’t say they were better run. I don’t see any evidence that we are better run is my point. 3. Take that up with others then. 4. No, it probably wouldn’t. I didn’t bring Motherwell into the discussion nor did I state that they were better run.

Why compared over 2 years, why not try over a longer term which would be more accurate. Because they were previously owned by a millionaire who bankrolled them.

That’s because the new board have sold McGinn, Mallan, McAllister and Morgan. And, as a previous poster has pointed out, they’ve borrowed “ring fenced” SMiSA funds. If they hadn’t then they would have to dip into their own pockets. Or kept Alan Stubbs as manager.

Use some of the £1.7 million profit from the previous season? Sell David Turnbull?

1. Its pointless you telling me not to discuss the blowing of a £1 million windfall on a managerial appointment. Its the main issue in the recently published accounts. 2. Yes, common sense says that Motherwell's large income in the previous season was an anomaly. I've already point this out in two previous posts. Its part of my point! 3. I haven't forgotten anything. 4. As I said earlier, how Motherwell were run under previous ownership is irrelevant. The previous owner was a millionaire who bankrolled them. All I've commented on is the last 2 accounts and they do not show that we have been better run than Motherwell.

The magnitude of that mistake in financial terms has only become public knowledge since the accounts were published, ie less than a month ago. I therefore think its perfectly fair to be discussing it. Indeed, its the point of this thread. I think that comparing how Motherwell were run under previous ownership is irrelevant to this discussion. Yes, I know that Motherwell's £1.7 million bucked the trend. It was a windfall. That is my point. They decided to blow a portion of that windfall to subsidise the following season. They didn't blow it all. They have a £1.5 million asset about to return from injury. St. Mirren blew their entire £1 million windfall on a bad managerial appointment within the same season. IMO that doesn't show St Mirren as being better run than Motherwell.

Motherwell blew £460k of a £1.7 million windfall from the previous season. St. Mirren blew £1 million of a £1 million windfall within the same season. I wouldn't class that as us being "better run".

Saints profit was a fraction of the John McGinn windfall. Motherwell's loss was a fraction of their massive profit from the previous season.

I doubt that the entire £1 million John McGinn windfall was in the budget at the start of the year. It was squandered on bad managerial, appointments.

The accounts certainly don't lie. But I don't think you understand them. The "boost" from the previous year has no bearing on the profit or loss made. Its not income!

😂😂😂

I don’t think it is there in black and white. Motherwell made a profit of £1.7 million the previous year. They decided to spend some of that cash boosting their budget last year. That seems reasonable. They also have a highly valued asset about to return from injury. St Mirren on the other hand just wasted around £1 million due to making an arse of managerial appointments.

You start by agreeing that he’s not a permanent signing then state that he signed a 2 year contract. which was it? 😃😜

No, he was a permanent signing