div Posted December 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 I can't see this being the reason. They haven't got the previous year's loan back and added to it in these accounts. The parachute payments apply over a 2 year period (assuming we stay down more than 1 season. No laughing at the back) I assume a shareholder will ask the question at the AGM and all will become clear then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted December 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 I'm sure the question on the loans will be raised at the AGM. Tomorrow at 6pm I believe. Anyone else going along? Week tomorrow bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorizaar Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 The parachute payments apply over a 2 year period (assuming we stay down more than 1 season. No laughing at the back) I assume a shareholder will ask the question at the AGM and all will become clear then. I'm sure in years gone by, REA's company provided these loans when he was on the board, so they've been ongoing for quite a few years. From memory, it's a December/January cash flow issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 At last the penny, or quarter of a million in loans, plus creditors is starting to drop! Since the consortium put the club up for sale it has been continually run down with budgets slashed, which meant cheaper and less effective players and management spinning through the door. Which shows how false the economy was as revenue (gates) continue to drop. What if??? The magnificent board had allowed Smisa etc to invest in shares years ago that would have funded budgets to bring in/keep hold of some of the real talent we have seen slip through the club's fingers.... It all could have been so different if five people hadn't chosen to shut out nearly half the club's shareholders! We are all reaping the failed harvest of Douglas Street, and we may yet see poorer yields in the months to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad saint 2 Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 (edited) my point is if they drop asking price the difference can be used to invest in team and management get MR T BUTCHER in,and god sake give us a team that fights and is hard to beat murray and gilmour have to GO its cuts off a thousand deaths ,they love the club so much ,they are fans but they are still looking for there pound off flesh soon there will be only bones left Edited December 6, 2015 by mad saint 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 my point is if they drop asking price the difference can be used to invest in team and management get MR T BUTCHER in,and god sake give us a team that fights and is hard to beat murray and gilmour have to GO its cuts off a thousand deaths ,they love the club so much ,they are fans but they are still looking for there pound off flesh soon there will be only bones left exactly how much money are you asking them to walk away from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad saint 2 Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 2 HATS AND A BALLOON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 2 HATS AND A BALLOON well i think we just found our balloon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad saint 2 Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 oh i though u were the one full off hot air . so bye ur reckoning we should stump up million or so for club that needs cash loans every season to break even, how does that work for u then club run well the more they loan .they reduce price but then we pay back loan . so club is not profitable so worth buttons we are the only offer in town or can u see the long line off buyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 my point is if they drop asking price the difference can be used to invest in team and management get MR T BUTCHER in,and god sake give us a team that fights and is hard to beat murray and gilmour have to GO its cuts off a thousand deaths ,they love the club so much ,they are fans but they are still looking for there pound off flesh soon there will be only bones left Butcher? He's just been released by Newport, who've since seen an upturn in results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 oh i though u were the one full off hot air . so bye ur reckoning we should stump up million or so for club that needs cash loans every season to break even, how does that work for u then club run well the more they loan .they reduce price but then we pay back loan . so club is not profitable so worth buttons we are the only offer in town or can u see the long line off buyers Oaksoft is best ignored as he is one of the group of posters, who when you look at their posts see they are entirely based on crticising anyone and every other posters thoughts, ideas, debate etc... Try and find an Oaksoft post that actually suggests a soloution or idea regarding the club! He can dish it out, but is loathed to,put himself up to be shot at! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) Oaksoft is best ignored as he is one of the group of posters, who when you look at their posts see they are entirely based on crticising anyone and every other posters thoughts, ideas, debate etc... Try and find an Oaksoft post that actually suggests a soloution or idea regarding the club! He can dish it out, but is loathed to,put himself up to be shot at! Huh? You've not been reading the right threads. In one thread recently he argued that it made perfect business sense to buy property and to leave it empty for many, many years safe in the knowledge that past history proved that property values always rose. I'm guessing that he's in complete agreement with the current board at St Mirren in their current business plan and that's why he supports the boards new policy of ensuring SMP remains as empty as possible at every home game. Edited December 7, 2015 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original 59er Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 If I put a loan into a company, I would like to think at some point the company is sufficiently liquid that I can then have the loan returned. So if the loan is £245k then the Directors who have loaned that cash will be entitled to extract that when appropriate. The fan's Council would have to come up with a minimum of re-paying the loan, never mind the value of the shares. The only route for that may well be the Bank, which means a running cost and probably guarantees for the Bank loan. That's the reality of the Fan ownership. It will come down to hard cash and someone footing the bill and the responsibilities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) If I put a loan into a company, I would like to think at some point the company is sufficiently liquid that I can then have the loan returned. So if the loan is £245k then the Directors who have loaned that cash will be entitled to extract that when appropriate. The fan's Council would have to come up with a minimum of re-paying the loan, never mind the value of the shares. The only route for that may well be the Bank, which means a running cost and probably guarantees for the Bank loan. That's the reality of the Fan ownership. It will come down to hard cash and someone footing the bill and the responsibilities! If the budget require loans from the directors then it's too high. Set a budget that can be adhered to without these loans and if this means relegation to Division 1 then so be it. I don't want to see the directors in the poor house but I'm not willing to support a deal paying more than £5 a share, limited to the shares they held in 2008 and this would include GLS and Ken McGeoch - by my reckoning this would be around £600k with costs on top. Also as I've said before there's a time limit on this as far as I am concerned and that's the end of this season. Surely this has to be better for the directors than continuing with the financial drain the club so obviously is to them, to quote an old cliché - the best way to make a small fortune from a football club is to start with a large one. Edited December 7, 2015 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madball Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 If the budget require loans from the directors then it's too high. Set a budget that can be adhered to without these loans and if this means relegation to Division 1 then so be it. I'm not sure that the budget is set too high, rather it's the nature of the cashflow cycle that we take lump sums at the start of season (season tickets) and a lump sum at the end of the season (prize money) and that in between we have limited funding barring cup runs or player sales. Overall the money we spend is pretty much what we take in, just slightly out of kilter to when we take it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 I'm not sure that the budget is set too high, rather it's the nature of the cashflow cycle that we take lump sums at the start of season (season tickets) and a lump sum at the end of the season (prize money) and that in between we have limited funding barring cup runs or player sales. Overall the money we spend is pretty much what we take in, just slightly out of kilter to when we take it in. I've always understood the position is exactly as you've described it. We more or less break even but if that's correct just think how much better the position would be if we never had to pay up contracts to failed managers and players. The 66% of budget we've used up isn't all that much higher than the 60% that's always quoted as the maximum football clubs should pay. It strikes me that January signings are probably out of the question.especially if Ian Murray gets punted. How much realistically would we save if some of the deadwood goes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 I'm not sure that the budget is set too high, rather it's the nature of the cashflow cycle that we take lump sums at the start of season (season tickets) and a lump sum at the end of the season (prize money) and that in between we have limited funding barring cup runs or player sales. Overall the money we spend is pretty much what we take in, just slightly out of kilter to when we take it in. Perhaps contracts should be restructured to reflect this but I'd insist that if annual loans from directors are required to keep the club running then the budget is set too high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 If I put a loan into a company, I would like to think at some point the company is sufficiently liquid that I can then have the loan returned. So if the loan is £245k then the Directors who have loaned that cash will be entitled to extract that when appropriate. The fan's Council would have to come up with a minimum of re-paying the loan, never mind the value of the shares. The only route for that may well be the Bank, which means a running cost and probably guarantees for the Bank loan. That's the reality of the Fan ownership. It will come down to hard cash and someone footing the bill and the responsibilities! If you paid over the odds for your house, then ran through the place with a wrecking ball would you also think that when you put the house back on the market the people buying the house from you should cover the amount you borrowed to buy the house in the first place? This isn't that different. If the club comes with a debt then that should be factored into the price that is paid for the shares as the debt is a deficit on the value of the assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 Perhaps contracts should be restructured to reflect this but I'd insist that if annual loans from directors are required to keep the club running then the budget is set too high. If it's true that the loans are short term to even out cashflow then it's not a big deal. I suppose it remains to be seen. Oaky says he refuses to call putting money into a football club an investment and I think that's correct. An investment is supposed to give a return but in Scottish football there can't be many people making money from their investment. At least,not legally. The only way forward for St.Mirren if we can't find a sugar daddy, seems to be fan ownership but judging by apathy in the past, unless there's a sea change in the attitude of fans to digging into their own pockets, then it's beginning to look like a non starter. Stalemate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original 59er Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 Stuart Dickson Posted Today, 15:52 If you paid over the odds for your house, then ran through the place with a wrecking ball would you also think that when you put the house back on the market the people buying the house from you should cover the amount you borrowed to buy the house in the first place? This isn't that different. If the club comes with a debt then that should be factored into the price that is paid for the shares as the debt is a deficit on the value of the assets. There is a difference between the value of the shares and the loans made to the company. Yes loans as such affect the value of the company, but on the basis you have lent to the company the first tranche of money you take out will be the return of the loan. So no matter how you look at it, the Directors will attempt to extract their loans before any tax implications kick in on their share value. To say they have paid over the odds for the club is an interesting thought process. They oversaw the Tesco deal which I admit was lucky, but it saved the club and gave us new facilities. That goodwill is now drying up (or has already dried up!). But the value they have in their shares is worth what someone will pay for them. All I'm saying in my post is that they will take the loans out first and if there is any value or cost implications in buying their shares then that will add to the £245k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 If I put a loan into a company, I would like to think at some point the company is sufficiently liquid that I can then have the loan returned. So if the loan is £245k then the Directors who have loaned that cash will be entitled to extract that when appropriate. The fan's Council would have to come up with a minimum of re-paying the loan, never mind the value of the shares. The only route for that may well be the Bank, which means a running cost and probably guarantees for the Bank loan. That's the reality of the Fan ownership. It will come down to hard cash and someone footing the bill and the responsibilities! The directors certainly appear to be extracting something! My reading of this, and I am only going on the information written on this thread, is that the loans are for two years in succession so I would assume that the club didn't make enough to pay the previous years. That being the case how can it be said we broke even? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 The loans from last year, or at least £100k worth of them have been rolled over into the accounts published here. So a considerable debt has been rolled forward, but since it isnt bank debt the board are trying to claim all is well and the club is living within its means. If you roll debt forward that so obviously indicates that you arent living within your means, as what was seen as a short term loan hasnt been paid back in the timeframe set. It is part and parcel of the decline this board have created throughout the club. But still some posters cling to the "aye but they saved the club" line...! They are doing a piss poor job of saving it now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 If you paid over the odds for your house, then ran through the place with a wrecking ball would you also think that when you put the house back on the market the people buying the house from you should cover the amount you borrowed to buy the house in the first place? This isn't that different. If the club comes with a debt then that should be factored into the price that is paid for the shares as the debt is a deficit on the value of the assets. What utter codswallop !! What has a wrecking ball go to do with St Mirren. Also you last point re share value and debt.I am sure that when the current shareholders took control of the club in 1998 the club was in significantly more debt that it is now. Does that mean their shares by default should be worth more today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original 59er Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 Lord Pityme Posted Yesterday, 17:41 If you roll debt forward that so obviously indicates that you arent living within your means, as what was seen as a short term loan hasnt been paid back in the timeframe set. It is quite clear the club aren't breaking even, and it is only a cup run or some league success that will bring income into the club which will then allow the club to pay back the loans. I'll bet that there is no bank facility to obtain a loan of any substantial amount, or certainly not one that will allow the Club to become indebted to the Bank to such a degree that will bring back the bad old days. So where does that leave the BoD's? Basically to meet the cost of the current running costs of the club, including salaries, VAT, the training and stadium costs etc they have to provide a loan out of their own pockets, because (and here's the rub) they have no asset as they did when we played at Love Street to put up as surety for any loan provided by the Bank. Historically we sold players to pay off debts, then we sold the land (luckily) to Tesco, but now the only asset is in theory the playing staff )- but you could argue at present they are more of a liability than an asset!). You can't treat the stadium as an asset as outside of Saints playing there, what else could it have a value for? So we have the consequences of a Board who want out, have loans granted to the Club and can't demonstrate that the club is truly viable. Reluctantly I'm coming more and more round to Shull's argument that football in Scotland is shot and basically we should go part time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted December 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 If you paid over the odds for your house, then ran through the place with a wrecking ball would you also think that when you put the house back on the market the people buying the house from you should cover the amount you borrowed to buy the house in the first place? This isn't that different. If the club comes with a debt then that should be factored into the price that is paid for the shares as the debt is a deficit on the value of the assets. What about if you paid for the house, which came with a £2m debt tied around it's neck, and it was badly in need of repair, so much so that it was about to be demolished. You painstakingly rebuilt that house, and after 17 years of effort the house is now brand new and yet there is no debt. Would you still not expect to get anything back? 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.