Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


slapsalmon last won the day on July 28 2011

slapsalmon had the most liked content!


About slapsalmon

  • Rank
    First team regular

Recent Profile Visitors

1,163 profile views
  1. Not going to be able to guarantee it, but anyone with any critical thinking ability will be able to look at the wages in thenext accounts and work out if 130k gross could possibly ammount to 10% of the wage budget
  2. He knows because he was active in the thread discussing the accounts when they came out
  3. As lpm said above. Most of that list aren't St mirren staff.
  4. Our wages to turnover was 60% at the last pwc report. Our last accounts showed total wages not including directors of 1.9 million. I'm not trying to change what you believe, but those figures from the last accounts were for a season in the championship so likely lower than this year, but even using those figures would mean the non playing staff cost between 800 and 900k to a playing staff budget of 1-1.1m. Im confident the 10% increase will be shown to be nonsense in the next set of accounts.
  5. The benefit is to take away some of the negativity over the current arrangement. A quick fix to get people off his back. There is a figure above of 130k max if every seat is sold at full price. This doesn't factor any costs or deductions. Do you really believe our playing budget is 1.3 million or less?
  6. I don't buy the 10% increase in budgets. Last set of accounts showed wage spend of just shy of 2 million. That was for a season in the championship so will be lower than this year. That includes non playing staff, but for the 10% being close to accurate we'd need to be spending as much or more on the non playing staff as we are on the playing staff. With the average salary of a player being over 45k (in an article I read on BBC sport I'm sure) that can't be the case. I think it's safe to say when the accounts come out it'll show the 10% increase to be nonsense. I imagine it's hoped that the 10% increase statement will be forgotten about by then.
  7. I don't know why but that's effectively what happened when they grouped together to create the 52% that went up for sale. Potentially leaving GLS shares worthless. IMO buying the 52 to sell on was protecting the value of the shares he already had.
  8. Call me cynical, but he was protecting his investment. Without taking on the 52% his shares were only worth what the owner of the 52 decided really. He was frozen out by the original consortium and potentially stood to make f**k all if whoever bought the 52 didn't want to get to the 75 needed for special resolutions. Shrewd and clever, but certainly not philanthropic IMO
  9. This is a red herring. The 10% isn't a comparison of any allocations of stands. It's a direct comparison of last years playing staff budget compared with this year's. The breakdown of the stands is irrelevant. It doesn't matter wther it's 2 stands 1 stand or 3 stands. The comparison he mentions is playing budget year on year.
  10. Your doing now exactly what you've done all through the thread. I was trying to give you a insight into why there isn't a single poster on this thread agreeing with you. Your points above aren't telling me anything. I'm pointing out from an outsider to the threads point of view what it appears like. Do with that what you will, but I have 0 desire to get into a conversation with you because I've seen 20 odd pages here of how that goes.
  11. I couldn't care less about the numbers etc, I'm only pointing out why this thread is going round in circles. You've painted a lot of your opinion as fact and that is exactly what people are getting at from what I've read. Most of the comments are about you calling the things your having a go at interpreting facts.
  12. Against my better judgement and not getting involved in any of the details of the argument, your top post says the figures(which would be evidence) isn't available, yet you ask for evidence from others. The second post then claims you have shown evidence of the numbers you previously said weren't available, followed by saying there's evidence that numbers "could" be up. Without the numbers it's all speculation. What you have referenced in the second post is an opinion you have formed. Not evidence. If it had been evidence it would show either way and not what the numbers "could" be. Wether your opinion is right or wrong, or based on likely scenarios, it is still just an opinion. A guess, not the evidence you're claiming. Your posting style is very off-putting and you consistently paint opinions as fact. Same on the BtB threads to the point where it out me off wanting anything to do with it. You'd do yourself a lot more favours if you just said that it was your opinion based on likelihood rather than using words like fact or evidence all over the place. This thread would give an aspirin a sore head!
  13. The only times we've looked like creating anything have been with the ball at feet running at them. McAllister for Jackson's shot and nazon just there. It's like were trying to play on the counter but when we break were stopping before the half way line instead of just driving at them.
  14. With those extra dozens of pounds you've swindled in employers N.I contributions
  • Create New...