Drew Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 I'm going to say it once more, and I probably won't be popular for doing so, but what must be borne in mind here is the current BoD want out as soon as possible. So, what is likely to be more attractive to them - a relatively modest six figure sum just now, or a reasonable development compensation fee when they might already be offski? Sorry for being a wee bit cynical here, folks, but.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ McG Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 I'm going to say it once more, and I probably won't be popular for doing so, but what must be borne in mind here is the current BoD want out as soon as possible. So, what is likely to be more attractive to them - a relatively modest six figure sum just now, or a reasonable development compensation fee when they might already be offski? Sorry for being a wee bit cynical here, folks, but.... I agree with what you are saying Drew, I think if they were to offer 350k+ our board would probably accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northendsaint Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 I'm going to say it once more, and I probably won't be popular for doing so, but what must be borne in mind here is the current BoD want out as soon as possible. So, what is likely to be more attractive to them - a relatively modest six figure sum just now, or a reasonable development compensation fee when they might already be offski? Sorry for being a wee bit cynical here, folks, but.... It,s a free world Drew.You can say what you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 I agree with what you are saying Drew, I think if they were to offer 350k+ our board would probably accept. Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if they accepted les than that, JJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintargyll Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 not a chance ' drew and jj the board might be wanting to move on but they still have the club at heart and wont sell McGinn or the club down the river seriously??...what kind of SUPPORTER do you think S.Gilmour is? dont forget.....SG is a SUPPORTER as well as our chairman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray7 Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 not a chance ' drew and jj the board might be wanting to move on but they still have the club at heart and wont sell McGinn or the club down the river seriously??...what kind of SUPPORTER do you think S.Gilmour is? dont forget.....SG is a SUPPORTER as well as our chairman Absolutely this. SG and co always acted in the best interests of the club, why would that change now? They've created a legacy and I doubt they'll allow it to come to a bitter end doing something petty like that. It's not like they take the transfer fee themselves anyway. A St Mirren with John McGinn is worth more than a St Mirren without John McGinn, that's where they actually would make extra money from the sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 not a chance ' drew and jj the board might be wanting to move on but they still have the club at heart and wont sell McGinn or the club down the river seriously??...what kind of SUPPORTER do you think S.Gilmour is? dont forget.....SG is a SUPPORTER as well as our chairman What's the weather like in Oz at the moment? Raining gum drops and swizzle sticks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 Knew it wouldn't be popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northendsaint Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 Absolutely this. SG and co always acted in the best interests of the club, why would that change now? They've created a legacy and I doubt they'll allow it to come to a bitter end doing something petty like that. It's not like they take the transfer fee themselves anyway. A St Mirren with John McGinn is worth more than a St Mirren without John McGinn, that's where they actually would make extra money from the sale. I,m reliably informed that our new owners when they eventually come in will be looking to continue nurturing our youth academy to enable us to produce players and sell them on.If fans dont like that idea then look at Motherwell.2nd place in the league,Europe again and still in the brown stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Saint Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 I'm going to say it once more, and I probably won't be popular for doing so, but what must be borne in mind here is the current BoD want out as soon as possible. So, what is likely to be more attractive to them - a relatively modest six figure sum just now, or a reasonable development compensation fee when they might already be offski? Sorry for being a wee bit cynical here, folks, but.... Think you're absolutely right unfortunately. Probably for the same reasons that it's been suggested that Kenny McLean should seek his future in England. By someone who only appears in the media when it suits them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray7 Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) I,m reliably informed that our new owners when they eventually come in will be looking to continue nurturing our youth academy to enable us to produce players and sell them on.If fans dont like that idea then look at Motherwell.2nd place in the league,Europe again and still in the brown stuff. Motherwell are debt free. I'd have no problem with us developing young players and then selling them on, as long as we don't go overboard like Hamilton and Falkirk done, we already have plenty academy players in our first team squad and can't go for any more as far as I'm concerned. I understand that we aren't a big enough club to get the likes of McGinn and McLean to spend their whole careers here but we should not be in a position where we are toying around with the idea of selling one of the finest young talents in the country for a paltry £100k. We'd be as well keeping him on an extra year and taking compensation for him when he leaves. Edited May 22, 2014 by Murray7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintargyll Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 What's the weather like in Oz at the moment? Raining gum drops and swizzle sticks? hope so...when i eventually get there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 I'm going to say it once more, and I probably won't be popular for doing so, but what must be borne in mind here is the current BoD want out as soon as possible. So, what is likely to be more attractive to them - a relatively modest six figure sum just now, or a reasonable development compensation fee when they might already be offski? Sorry for being a wee bit cynical here, folks, but.... If your trying to sell a club you don't dispose of your assets. That's what makes it attractive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 I,m reliably informed that our new owners when they eventually come in will be looking to continue nurturing our youth academy to enable us to produce players and sell them on.If fans dont like that idea then look at Motherwell.2nd place in the league,Europe again and still in the brown stuff. As your so reliably informed, what's the delay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 If your trying to sell a club you don't dispose of your assets. That's what makes it attractive Attractive to asset strippers, perhaps. No-one will buy SMFC on the basis of the notional value of a couple of players. That would be business suicide, not least as a player can pick up a bad injury at any time, seeing his perceived value disintegrate. A football club is bought because someone either wants it as a plaything, reckons there is attractive revenue potential, or is mentally disordered - NOT because it has has a couple of decent players. The current BoD are likely to want to demonstrate that home grown players can realise a return, as this is something that could be attractive. Hence my hunch (and that is all it is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorizaar Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 If your trying to sell a club you don't dispose of your assets. That's what makes it attractive.Players aren't assets to the business. They have no value on the balance sheet. Selling McGinn for about £300k would however turn the club's current losses to a break even or small profit which would make it more attractive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Players aren't assets to the business. They have no value on the balance sheet. Selling McGinn for about £300k would however turn the club's current losses to a break even or small profit which would make it more attractive. This is a considerably more succint version of what I was trying to say. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Attractive to asset strippers, perhaps. No-one will buy SMFC on the basis of the notional value of a couple of players. That would be business suicide, not least as a player can pick up a bad injury at any time, seeing his perceived value disintegrate. A football club is bought because someone either wants it as a plaything, reckons there is attractive revenue potential, or is mentally disordered - NOT because it has has a couple of decent players. The current BoD are likely to want to demonstrate that home grown players can realise a return, as this is something that could be attractive. Hence my hunch (and that is all it is). So their only decent players now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 So their only decent players now. In a market where numerous football clubs at all levels would be looking for someone to invest or even buy them, of course they are. Anyway, that is semantics. Hopefully you get my main point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray7 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Hmm, seems my business & honours business degree hasn't taught me anything then. McGinn and every single quality youth player that is coming through with actual value like Naismith, Kelly & Hughes are genuine, albeit intangible, assets and add to the quality of what the potential buyers of the club are purchasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Hmm, seems my business & honours business degree hasn't taught me anything then. McGinn and every single quality youth player that is coming through with actual value like Naismith, Kelly & Hughes are genuine, albeit intangible, assets and add to the quality of what the potential buyers of the club are purchasing. They are evidence of a successful youth development system, and that is an asset of far higher value. Selling McGinn would be a tangible demonstration of this. They are not viable assets in and of themselves, and are therefore of limited vlaue to any potential owner. PS - I know many people who have completed psychology, law or history degrees. This does not make them psychologists, lawyers, or historians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Hmm, seems my business & honours business degree hasn't taught me anything then. McGinn and every single quality youth player that is coming through with actual value like Naismith, Kelly & Hughes are genuine, albeit intangible, assets and add to the quality of what the potential buyers of the club are purchasing. Don't tell Oakey. Oh, wait....................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 They are evidence of a successful youth development system, and that is an asset of far higher value. Selling McGinn would be a tangible demonstration of this. They are not viable assets in and of themselves, and are therefore of limited vlaue to any potential owner. PS - I know many people who have completed psychology, law or history degrees. This does not make them psychologists, lawyers, or historians. Don't tell Oakey. Oh, wait........................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Cost of players registrations are assets. Unfortunately the market value of players is not an asset on the balance sheet, as it's subjective and can vary wildly in a short space of time. If we were to sign a player for £1 million, that would be the value of his registration. We don't spend any money on players so the value of their registrations is nominal, given the fact that most of the players are on 1 or 2 year deals, with any value of registrations being amortised over the length of their contract. That's the way I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted May 23, 2014 Report Share Posted May 23, 2014 Cost of players registrations are assets. Unfortunately the market value of players is not an asset on the balance sheet, as it's subjective and can vary wildly in a short space of time. If we were to sign a player for £1 million, that would be the value of his registration. We don't spend any money on players so the value of their registrations is nominal, given the fact that most of the players are on 1 or 2 year deals, with any value of registrations being amortised over the length of their contract. That's the way I see it. What degree do you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.