Jump to content

Responses To Brian Caldwell Updates


Recommended Posts

Dilo's contract was on the table long before the end of last season, there was no point on TC hanging about waiting on him. Decent goalkeeper but we can't be held ransom to him.

Maybe he just wanted to wait for the manager to be sorted and get a holiday out the way. No hint anywhere of being held to ransom, but who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Exactly.

How can a club like ours 'penny pinch'?

What goes in goes out. The more that comes in, the more that goes out. Simple economics really.

You clearly have no grasp of modern football if you don't think we're already paying players more than 1k a week.

I have enough of a grasp of basic economics to know that paying players over £1000 a week on a crowd of 4000 is directly contributing to us having a wage to turnover ratio of 70%. Clearly (or maybe not Lex - I never underestimate your ability to misunderstand basic stuff), this is simply unsustainable which is why wages need to be coming down.

By all means enjoy cloud cuckoo land though if you think it should be otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have enough of a grasp of basic economics to know that paying players over £1000 a week on a crowd of 4000 is directly contributing to us having a wage to turnover ratio of 70%. Clearly (or maybe not Lex - I never underestimate your ability to misunderstand basic stuff), this is simply unsustainable which is why wages need to be coming down.

By all means enjoy cloud cuckoo land though if you think it should be otherwise.

It seems to be sustainable as we appear to be balancing the books .If you want a full squad earning less than 1k a week then we will find ourselves in the first division,not the end of the world as far as im concerned,but dont kid yourself that we could maintain premiership status,we struggle to do that with the wages we pay currently

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be sustainable as we appear to be balancing the books .If you want a full squad earning less than 1k a week then we will find ourselves in the first division,not the end of the world as far as im concerned,but dont kid yourself that we could maintain premiership status,we struggle to do that with the wages we pay currently

What if most Clubs in the Premiership were paying similar part time salaries ?

How would we fair ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be sustainable as we appear to be balancing the books .If you want a full squad earning less than 1k a week then we will find ourselves in the first division,not the end of the world as far as im concerned,but dont kid yourself that we could maintain premiership status,we struggle to do that with the wages we pay currently

I agree totally. Reducing the wage bill to much under 70% with turnover of just over £3m will definitely make SPL status virtually impossible to maintain. Can we increase turnover? Difficult to see how. Becoming an out and out selling club could do it if our youth set-up continues to flourish but ideally we want to hold on to our best young players for as long as we can. I'm even beginning to wonder if anyone will be sold this summer. Probably famous last words.

I see Shull's comment about all clubs reducing their wages. Nice idea but we know it ain't gonna happen. I don't want to see a league full of part-timers. There's one over here and it is abysmal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have enough of a grasp of basic economics to know that paying players over £1000 a week on a crowd of 4000 is directly contributing to us having a wage to turnover ratio of 70%. Clearly (or maybe not Lex - I never underestimate your ability to misunderstand basic stuff), this is simply unsustainable which is why wages need to be coming down.

By all means enjoy cloud cuckoo land though if you think it should be otherwise.

Is our only income crowds? No.

Unsustainable? How is it unsustainable? We've been doing it for years and we're still here, and we're debt free.

I don't know what century your head is stuck in, but it's certainly not this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is our only income crowds? No.

Unsustainable? How is it unsustainable? We've been doing it for years and we're still here, and we're debt free.

I don't know what century your head is stuck in, but it's certainly not this one.

I think it's just about sustainable but the worry is that we seem to be having trouble signing players even at the moment. I hope we get a few on board for the coming season but are we struggling? I hope not. I really do believe that cutting the first team pool's wages would mean relegation. Catch 22 stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the wage to turnover ratio is unsustainable - and at 70% it clearly is - then there are two courses of action.

1. Cut wages

2. Increase turnover.

The new stadium was supposed to provide a range of new income generating opportunities. Beyond a modest expansion of match day hospitality it looks from the outside that very little has happened in this area with non match day business looking incredibly poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just about sustainable but the worry is that we seem to be having trouble signing players even at the moment. I hope we get a few on board for the coming season but are we struggling? I hope not. I really do believe that cutting the first team pool's wages would mean relegation. Catch 22 stuff.

It won't matter because we are a cert. to go down this season one way or the other think we will be the whipping boys for this season regardless of who we bring in when you go for the cheap option you eventualy pay the price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the wage to turnover ratio is unsustainable - and at 70% it clearly is - then there are two courses of action.

1. Cut wages

2. Increase turnover.

The new stadium was supposed to provide a range of new income generating opportunities. Beyond a modest expansion of match day hospitality it looks from the outside that very little has happened in this area with non match day business looking incredibly poor.

And therein lies the problem they dont have someone who has a clue about that kind of stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is our only income crowds? No.

Unsustainable? How is it unsustainable? We've been doing it for years and we're still here, and we're debt free.

I don't know what century your head is stuck in, but it's certainly not this one.

70% wage to turnover ratio is disastrous for a business. There are good sound economic reasons for that and you'll struggle to find reputable sources who will claim otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a question for our GM...

"Brian... I' ve searched all the usual suppliers (m&s, co-op, McKays etc) and some of the charity shops....

To no avail...

Could you ask Tommy who stocks Farah these days..?

Is his nephew bulk buying online for him?"

Steven allen menswear.They will deliver in the uk and Ireland.hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be sustainable as we appear to be balancing the books .If you want a full squad earning less than 1k a week then we will find ourselves in the first division,not the end of the world as far as im concerned,but dont kid yourself that we could maintain premiership status,we struggle to do that with the wages we pay currently

I agree totally. Reducing the wage bill to much under 70% with turnover of just over £3m will definitely make SPL status virtually impossible to maintain. Can we increase turnover? Difficult to see how. Becoming an out and out selling club could do it if our youth set-up continues to flourish but ideally we want to hold on to our best young players for as long as we can. I'm even beginning to wonder if anyone will be sold this summer. Probably famous last words.

I see Shull's comment about all clubs reducing their wages. Nice idea but we know it ain't gonna happen. I don't want to see a league full of part-timers. There's one over here and it is abysmal.

Is our only income crowds? No.

Unsustainable? How is it unsustainable? We've been doing it for years and we're still here, and we're debt free.

I don't know what century your head is stuck in, but it's certainly not this one.

The above comments are a combination of total denial and ostrich behaviour about the situation we are in.

If we can't afford Premiership status then spending money we can't afford to stay there is utter lunacy.

Even Dicko knows 70% is unsustainable.

You'd have to think about what is NOT being done at the club due to lack of money because we are at this level of ratio.

70% is preventing us doing other stuff. An inability to build a safety net fund is just one obvious example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just about sustainable but the worry is that we seem to be having trouble signing players even at the moment. I hope we get a few on board for the coming season but are we struggling? I hope not. I really do believe that cutting the first team pool's wages would mean relegation. Catch 22 stuff.

Why are we struggling exactly? Have Killie or St Johnstone signed anyone yet? Nope. I doubt they're panicking yet. I believe we offered contracts to two Scottish based players, Ridgers and Stevenson.

Ridgers joined, Stevenson signed a 2 year deal with Thistle instead of a 1 year deal with us. Dundee and Hamilton have signed a couple of crocks and a couple of first division players. Should we be concerned by that?

As TC said, contracts of English players typically expire at the end of June. I expect the majority of our signings will be players who played in England last season along with a couple of loans. Therefore expect the first couple of weeks in July to be our busiest time with regards to incoming players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the wage to turnover ratio is unsustainable - and at 70% it clearly is - then there are two courses of action.

1. Cut wages

2. Increase turnover.

The new stadium was supposed to provide a range of new income generating opportunities. Beyond a modest expansion of match day hospitality it looks from the outside that very little has happened in this area with non match day business looking incredibly poor.

Um perhaps you could explain why our current wage/turnover ratio is clearly unsustainable.

St Mirren

St Mirren posted another £0.3m loss before tax (2010: £0.3m) due to the fall in revenue being almost exactly offset by the fall in wage costs giving a minimal net impact on the club’s bottom line. All other operating expenses remained reasonably stable with the exception of the amortisation of player registrations, which increased by c£50k. Despite this bottom line accounting loss, should depreciation be stripped out, St Mirren achieved their objective of breaking even on a net cash basis during the year.

Every club has it's own special set of circumstances, now we're not going to sell the ground at any time in the near future and we have been able to fund a 70% wage/turnover ratio for a number of seasons now while breaking even on a net cash basis as long as we continue to do so why should the club panic just because we are over a generalized industry average for this figure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And therein lies the problem they dont have someone who has a clue about that kind of stuff.

That's certainly how it looks. There's five modestly successful business people on the board of directors. There is a Commercial Manager at the club, and a General Manager as well. Then out with that there are two supporter groups - The St Mirren Council, and SMiSA. They've also had recent input from Richard Atkinson and from Alan Provan who are also businessmen in different fields. Looking in from the outside I would have assumed that there would at least be some idea's floating around as to how to use the facilities to increase turnover and that if there wasn't there might be someone with a bit of ability in working Google and a telephone to find out what has worked for other football clubs in Scotland and England.

If I were a supporter of the club it would be my main source of frustration with the people running the club. Again from the outside it looks like their only idea for generating income is to go back to the same sponsors, advertisers and supporters and to squeeze more money from them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um perhaps you could explain why our current wage/turnover ratio is clearly unsustainable.

Every club has it's own special set of circumstances, now we're not going to sell the ground at any time in the near future and we have been able to fund a 70% wage/turnover ratio for a number of seasons now while breaking even on a net cash basis as long as we continue to do so why should the club panic just because we are over a generalized industry average for this figure?

As Oaksoft has outlined it's unsustainable because there is no contingency.

Slash has already posted on the subject and I agree with much of what he was saying. Gilmour made it clear at the Armageddon meeting that if the TV deals were cut in value it would mean job losses and possible administration within a matter of weeks. This season viewing figures in the Scottish Premiership were so poor that the SPFL had to refund money to the TV companies. Do you see all of that as sustainable?

The only thing that Slash said in his post that I didn't get from that meeting was the suggestion that all players have relegation release clauses in their contract. I don't remember Gilmour and Campbell saying that. The way I remember it was that they were stressing that it was difficult to get players and agents to agree to a relegation release clause in players contracts with it often been thrown back at them that if the board believed the club could be relegated then their client wouldn't want to sign for St Mirren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

70% wage to turnover ratio is disastrous for a business. There are good sound economic reasons for that and you'll struggle to find reputable sources who will claim otherwise.

How is that St. Mirren have managed to substain a 70%+ wages to turnover ratio whilst breaking even for a number of seasons?

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that we can't live outwith our means. Indeed, it would be impossible to live outwith our means as we have no borrowing facilities.

However, just wondering why you believe that 70% is "disasterous" for St. Mirren when its clearly being done without losing money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Oaksoft has outlined it's unsustainable because there is no contingency.

Slash has already posted on the subject and I agree with much of what he was saying. Gilmour made it clear at the Armageddon meeting that if the TV deals were cut in value it would mean job losses and possible administration within a matter of weeks. This season viewing figures in the Scottish Premiership were so poor that the SPFL had to refund money to the TV companies. Do you see all of that as sustainable?

But there IS contingency.

The contracts are written based on the known income. Relegation sees contract terms reduced accordingly.

What wasn't planned for was Rangers going bust. There was no contingency for that... and I can't see how anyone could possibly have planned contingency for such an event.

Other than slashing current spending and ending up with en enormous surplus, the only other way would be to build up a contingency over many years - something which would probably be quite sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Oaksoft has outlined it's unsustainable because there is no contingency.

Slash has already posted on the subject and I agree with much of what he was saying. Gilmour made it clear at the Armageddon meeting that if the TV deals were cut in value it would mean job losses and possible administration within a matter of weeks. This season viewing figures in the Scottish Premiership were so poor that the SPFL had to refund money to the TV companies. Do you see all of that as sustainable?

The only thing that Slash said in his post that I didn't get from that meeting was the suggestion that all players have relegation release clauses in their contract. I don't remember Gilmour and Campbell saying that. The way I remember it was that they were stressing that it was difficult to get players and agents to agree to a relegation release clause in players contracts with it often been thrown back at them that if the board believed the club could be relegated then their client wouldn't want to sign for St Mirren.

.............and yet we managed to come through the Armageddon situation with a 70% wage/turnover ratio while breaking even - it certainly wasn't Gilmour's greatest moment but I doubt he'll be so easily panicked again. As for how we'd cope with reduced TV money, probably just like we did when the Setanta deal collapsed a couple of seasons ago - the current BoD have coped in the past why do you think they wouldn't in the future? They BoD clearly have contingency plans with relegation clauses built into contracts and with parachute payments in place why do you think they wouldn't be able to drop a division and still make a profit like we did in 2001/02?

Rather than drooling over worst case scenarios that have been coped with in the past perhaps you could answer the question I posed - why is a 70% wage/turnover clearly unsustainable when it clearly has been sustained over the past few seasons?

I look forward to the day you will answer the question asked! rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there IS contingency.

The contracts are written based on the known income. Relegation sees contract terms reduced accordingly.

What wasn't planned for was Rangers going bust. There was no contingency for that... and I can't see how anyone could possibly have planned contingency for such an event.

Other than slashing current spending and ending up with en enormous surplus, the only other way would be to build up a contingency over many years - something which would probably be quite sensible.

At the "Armageddon" meeting Stewart Gilmour claimed that if the club had known that Rangers would be liquidated in March the club would have been a better position to deal with it. I was puzzled at that statement at the time and I queried it on the internet with SGG that night. I couldn't understand why, when Rangers had gone into Administration on the 14th of February 2012, reports had already been published about the Ticketus situation with Craig Whyte borrowing against all of Rangers season ticket money for the following season, and that at that time they were facing an HMRC court case for a massive amount of money, that no-one in football had expected the events that followed. Gilmour claimed that the club were acting on the advice of Harper McLeod which is fair enough but surely he must have seen some urgency in putting a contingency into place.

There are other events though that will harm the clubs cash flow. You say that the contracts were written on known income - but did the club know that if viewing figure targets weren't achieved that the SPFL would have to refund money to the TV companies? For next season the loss of Hibs and Hearts from the division will affect cash flow as will the fall in viewing figures that will happen with the loss of the Edinburgh derby to the top flight.

You'll remember that you told me that the stadium move would allow for more income raising projects on the new site Captain - any idea where they all went?

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...
×
×
  • Create New...