Jump to content

Would You Want To Sell St Mirren?


bazil85
 Share

Recommended Posts

So our brilliant club has been for sale for what seems like forever my thinking is, with some very promising young players secured to long term contracts, with the club starting to perform well in the SPFL, with no debt, with great facilities, great fans, a major cup win..... Would you want to sell St Mirren?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So our brilliant club has been for sale for what seems like forever my thinking is, with some very promising young players secured to long term contracts, with the club starting to perform well in the SPFL, with no debt, with great facilities, great fans, a major cup win..... Would you want to sell St Mirren?

No debt?

Bud the Baker (I think) is talking about net debt of £400k on another thread.

BTW if that's true that we've had to lose our ground to clear the debt and within a few years we're back in nearly half a million of debt then it's a disgrace.

Does anyone on here actually know?

As for the club?

Not in a million years would I buy the club let alone sell it.

Not under any circumstances.

You couldn't pay me enough to get me involved.

TBH I'm not sure what pleasure you could get from running a football club.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my ridiculous asking price was met I wouldn't hesitate. Man City apart, who in their right mind would want to continually pour money into a black hole and see little or no return on their "Investment" even if there was sentiment involved?

As mentioned in a previous above post, Sir David Murray was one of the few successes as was Fergus McCann at the green vermin who left with more than a decent return!

Edited by gudmunder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No debt?

Bud the Baker (I think) is talking about net debt of £400k on another thread.

BTW if that's true that we've had to lose our ground to clear the debt and within a few years we're back in nearly half a million of debt then it's a disgrace.

Does anyone on here actually know?

As for the club?

Not in a million years would I buy the club let alone sell it.

Not under any circumstances.

You couldn't pay me enough to get me involved.

TBH I'm not sure what pleasure you could get from running a football club.

It's available via the link on the Accounts & AGM thread in General Discussion which I've posted again below - I don't have the computer knowhow to lift from the Adobe file but it's on Page 7. The club kinda lost control of finances during the last coupla seasons of GM's tenure when wages IIRC were well above 70% of the clubs income.

https://dl.dropboxus...A5peDzKkKK_NM4w

***************************

The current BoD have done their time before the mast and at various points gone beyond the call of duty (if I may be permitted to pile on the clichés) and I don't begrudge them a chance to get their money back although the CIC deal was a poor deal once the initial chance of it being part-funded by grants fell through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

It's available via the link on the Accounts & AGM thread in General Discussion which I've posted again below - I don't have the computer knowhow to lift from the Adobe file but it's on Page 7. The club kinda lost control of finances during the last coupla seasons of GM's tenure when wages IIRC were well above 70% of the clubs income.

https://dl.dropboxus...A5peDzKkKK_NM4w

***************************

The current BoD have done their time before the mast and at various points gone beyond the call of duty (if I may be permitted to pile on the clichés) and I don't begrudge them a chance to get their money back although the CIC deal was a poor deal once the initial chance of it being part-funded by grants fell through.

This in bold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No debt?

Bud the Baker (I think) is talking about net debt of £400k on another thread.

BTW if that's true that we've had to lose our ground to clear the debt and within a few years we're back in nearly half a million of debt then it's a disgrace.

Does anyone on here actually know?

As for the club?

Not in a million years would I buy the club let alone sell it.

Not under any circumstances.

You couldn't pay me enough to get me involved.

TBH I'm not sure what pleasure you could get from running a football club.

I can't for some reason download the accounts- stupidity probably. But I think the £300K depreciation is probably what makes the deficit appear to be £400K. In addition, the accounts are normally several months out of date by the time they are published and if I recall correctly the SPL were a bit late shelling out cash to the clubs. If I'm wrong and there is in fact a £400K debt, it has to be a worry. Can the club still be bought for £1-5m and the new owners take on the debt? Or can the club be bought for £1-1m? Or, who are we trying to sell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't for some reason download the accounts- stupidity probably. But I think the £300K depreciation is probably what makes the deficit appear to be £400K. In addition, the accounts are normally several months out of date by the time they are published and if I recall correctly the SPL were a bit late shelling out cash to the clubs. If I'm wrong and there is in fact a £400K debt, it has to be a worry. Can the club still be bought for £1-5m and the new owners take on the debt? Or can the club be bought for £1-1m? Or, who are we trying to sell?

The £300k depreciation is an accounting gambit it gives us a net annual loss but it is a paper loss IIRC the purpose is to offset against tax should we sell one of our players and make a profit.

The £400k debt is real and like I said stems from the 2008-2010 period when wage costs were allowed to reach approximately 75% of our income.

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The £300k depreciation is an accounting gambit it gives us a net annual loss but it is a paper loss IIRC the purpose is to offset against tax should we sell one of our players and make a profit. The £400k debt is real and like I said stems from the 2008-2010 period when wage costs were allowed to reach approximately 75% of our income.

I don't doubt you but something does seem a bit odd. Over the past couple of years it appeared to have been confirmed that St.Mirren had no debt. i'm sure that was repeated many times when 10,000 hours was being pushed. Was there misinformation then because that doesn't square with debt going back to the Gus McPherson era? With turnover of over £3m. a debt of £400K is not the end of the world but neither is it desirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The £300k depreciation is an accounting gambit it gives us a net annual loss but it is a paper loss IIRC the purpose is to offset against tax should we sell one of our players and make a profit. The £400k debt is real and like I said stems from the 2008-2010 period when wage costs were allowed to reach approximately 75% of our income.

The debt has nothing to do with that. The actual money owed at 31st May was over £700k. This is broken down near the end of the report, page 18 or 19, I think.

There is nothing wrong with a business having debt, it's perfectly normal. It's only a problem if you can't manage it.

If you look at the breakdown, there is nothing alarming there and the liklihood is most of it will be gone by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt you but something does seem a bit odd. Over the past couple of years it appeared to have been confirmed that St.Mirren had no debt. i'm sure that was repeated many times when 10,000 hours was being pushed. Was there misinformation then because that doesn't square with debt going back to the Gus McPherson era? With turnover of over £3m. a debt of £400K is not the end of the world but neither is it desirable.

During the CIC takeover 10000hours informed us that we had debt but that it did not matter as it was not "bank debt" - where have we heard that before? ph34r.pngIt wasn't so much misinformation as glossed over.

The debt has nothing to do with that. The actual money owed at 31st May was over £700k. This is broken down near the end of the report, page 18 or 19, I think.

There is nothing wrong with a business having debt, it's perfectly normal. It's only a problem if you can't manage it.

If you look at the breakdown, there is nothing alarming there and the liklihood is most of it will be gone by now.

We owe £700k or so but are owed about £300k leaving a net debt of £400k.

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the CIC takeover 10000hours informed us that we had debt but that it did not matter as it was not "bank debt" - where have we heard that before? ph34r.png

I know, but the items we owe are nothing to be alarmed about.

We owe £700k or so but are owed about £300k leaving a net debt of £400k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

I don't doubt you but something does seem a bit odd. Over the past couple of years it appeared to have been confirmed that St.Mirren had no debt. i'm sure that was repeated many times when 10,000 hours was being pushed. Was there misinformation then because that doesn't square with debt going back to the Gus McPherson era? With turnover of over £3m. a debt of £400K is not the end of the world but neither is it desirable.

This in bold highlights why 10000 hours was a car crash looking for a place to happen. Had that attempt moved forward the fans (as they were the only people putting up money) would have had the one and a half million debt for the shares to service on top of a rolling £400k debt on the books. and nothing, absolutely nothing to improve playing budget etc.... and if you recall 10000 hours wanted to 'Giveaway' the chance of a revenue stream from the bar to Kibble and the church...

That my friends was the current day version of 'Reg Brierley-gate', thank f**k the consortium realised it was an impending clusterf**k from which i doubt we would have been saved!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im no expert on accounts, but one figure looked unusual to me. I could be reading it incorrectly, but it looks as though our non playing staff numbers increased 50% from 2012. How would that happen when there was big concerns about the wage bills, both players and staff, following the r*ngers collapse? Anyone spot this or can shed any light?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im no expert on accounts, but one figure looked unusual to me. I could be reading it incorrectly, but it looks as though our non playing staff numbers increased 50% from 2012. How would that happen when there was big concerns about the wage bills, both players and staff, following the r*ngers collapse? Anyone spot this or can shed any light?

Additional staff employed to work in the dome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't for some reason download the accounts- stupidity probably. But I think the £300K depreciation is probably what makes the deficit appear to be £400K. In addition, the accounts are normally several months out of date by the time they are published and if I recall correctly the SPL were a bit late shelling out cash to the clubs. If I'm wrong and there is in fact a £400K debt, it has to be a worry. Can the club still be bought for £1-5m and the new owners take on the debt? Or can the club be bought for £1-1m? Or, who are we trying to sell?

Yes it does look like that's the case in which case it's an accounting loss rather than an actual loss as such.

In other words we haven't overspent by £400k which is what I was worried about.

Interesting that we have almost no cash in the bank for a rainy day. and we're still spending almost £2.5 million on wages!!!

Presumably the bulk of this is for players of which there are 40.

So much for financial problems.

BTW did you notice the clause on page 5 talking about a "material uncertainty which may cast the company's ability to continue as a going concern"?

WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The £300k depreciation is an accounting gambit it gives us a net annual loss but it is a paper loss IIRC the purpose is to offset against tax should we sell one of our players and make a profit. The £400k debt is real and like I said stems from the 2008-2010 period when wage costs were allowed to reach approximately 75% of our income.

I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

The £400k includes £300k of depreciation of assets which means we don't owe £400k at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="oaksoft" post="1139051" timestamp="1388424651"

BTW did you notice the clause on page 5 talking about a "material uncertainty which may cast the company's ability to continue as a going concern"?

WTF?The auditor explained this at the AGM as being a new statement required by be auditing standards. He said it was there as he has no way to predict what income would be in the next year, eg what if attendances were to fall to 100. He said that was the reason for having to make a statement of uncertainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

The £400k includes £300k of depreciation of assets which means we don't owe £400k at all.

No the depreciation of the value of the ground/stadium leads to a reduction in the value of overall assets which is then reported as a loss, however it doesn't really matter whether the ground is valued at £10.5M or £10.2M as we ain't going anywhere.

The net debt of £400k has remained fairly constant for a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that makes sense to me.

The £400k includes £300k of depreciation of assets which means we don't owe £400k at all.

Depreciation isn't included in debt. All debt is itemised in the report. It is all day to day and month to month running costs which happened to be outstanding as at 31st May. Nothing to be concerned about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The £300k depreciation is an accounting gambit it gives us a net annual loss but it is a paper loss IIRC the purpose is to offset against tax should we sell one of our players and make a profit.

The £400k debt is real and like I said stems from the 2008-2010 period when wage costs were allowed to reach approximately 75% of our income.

well it was worth it for the roller coaster ride and the pile of trophy's we amassed under wee gus as he wisely spent every penny of our biggest ever budget. i that not right, isabella?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

well it was worth it for the roller coaster ride and the pile of trophy's we amassed under wee gus as he wisely spent every penny of our biggest ever budget. i that not right, isabella?

come to think of it Gus could have fielded a team of goats and paid for us all to go to the pictures, he'd still have had money left over to spunk on Dargo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

come to think of it Gus could have fielded a team of goats and paid for us all to go to the pictures, he'd still have had money left over to spunk on Dargo?

I think to be fair to Gus I would have taken Craig Dargo on as well at that time, he was a great wee player and was very unfotunate he got injured and was never the same. He was a proven goal scorer at ICT and came with a big reputation, I remember a lot of people being really happy that he signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...