Jump to content

div

Latest Accounts To May 2015

Recommended Posts

Oaksoft keep murray and the fans will not bother renewing their tickets or attend games. He is making is a laughing stock in the championship!!! Saints should be a premier team and with him in charge you'll lose fans and money

Like I said, football fans are obsessed about symptoms rather than root causes.

Beautifully illustrated norrie. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paying 66% of Turnover to shite players will finish us especially if they are getting similar money from us in League One next Season.

Not one player this Season has earned their wages apart from Goodwin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That rainy day fund would have to come from an across the board cut on expenses and a rapid expansion of commercial opportunities.

Relying on anything else just builds up debts and problems for the future.

The lack of a rainy day fund is at the root of many of our problems but we are saddled with a "spend every penny" mentality which has consistently left us struggling to recover in difficult times.

IMO we should be aiming to save at least £100k per year over the next 10 to 20 years.

That's the equivalent of perhaps two or three players?

We can't be overly worrying about performances until we get a strong and robust financial platform in place.

Football fans always seem to have a tendency to focus on the symptom (poor form) rather than the actual root problem (lack of a solid financial platform).

What the BOD have done is basically live by the seat of their pants. Until now, it's almost worked perfectly.

Now we're in the shit and have no financial leeway to get out of it easily.

It could cost us big time.

I agree to a point but we did have a rainy day fund of close on £1m left when we moved stadium and the board took the long term view of investing that in Ralston rather than splurging it on players (although our wage budget the first couple of seasons after moving suggests we did spend more than we should have done on wages).

It's hard to argue with that longer term aim when you look at the likes of Hamilton who are thriving both on and off the pitch on the back of their hugely successful academy and the big fees that has generated.

Some of that comes down to luck of course, McCarthy and McArthur both came along at the same time and are both superb players but the conveyor belt continues to produce there and that isn't down to luck, it's down to a sound structure and good commercial nous to tie down the better players quickly on good contracts.

We let McLean and McGinn go for next to nothing, but aside from them the academy has not produced the real "stars" that I guess the board would have hoped for.

Punting just one player for £1 million would have created the fund on which the club could have relied on in dark times like these.

7 years on from moving, we're really not seeing Ralston producing like I think it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go Part Time and we live forever.

As long as those in charge dinnae pay oot more than is coming in.

It is so simple.

Bus fares only if we can afford them.

And I agree with Oaky.

Percentage put aside in Rainy Day Fund.

It certainly is simple as you say but the problem is that we have too many fans like norrie who are only interested in the symptoms of our problem and have absolutely no tolerance or respect for the boring necessity to fix the core issue.

That would take a BOD with a lot of balls because these fans need to be told in no uncertain terms exactly what the situation is.

The fans behaviour over this is inexplicable.

It's like worrying about blinging up your car to keep up with the neighbours whilst completely ignoring the huge credit card debt needed to finance it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would we Kendo?

In my wee World, every other Club would be Part Time, so we would be more or less in the same shitey position.

I explain this scenario everytime, so why can't you understand this?

I am not advocating that we will be the only Part Time Club alongside 41 FULL TIME CLUBS.

FFS, SOBER UP AND READ IT PROPERLY.

So how do you intend to get every club to go part time, may I ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've mixed up this sentence a bit but I think I know what you meant to say.

If that's true (and I have no reason to doubt it) then it doesn't sound like it to me either.

2 or 3 hours a day is not full time. It's barely part time TBH and frankly it's unacceptable if true.

It's unprofessional as well and almost certainly is contributing to our form.

It's the norm in football though Oaksoft and it has been for a lot of years. Full time footballers expect to be home by 2pm on non match days. I dare say that there may be some - if not at St Mirren currently, certainly within "full time" football clubs in Scotland where they NEED to be home to take over the after school child minding duties.

I can't remember what programme it was I was watching but it was talking about mental illness within football and one of the factors they said attributed to the problem was exactly that early finish every day. They talked about, in particular, young players who were perhaps living away from home and the fact that once training has ended, and they've gone home they've often got a huge void which they need to fill to stop them from feeling lonely, or from being homesick. That's where alcohol, gambling, drug abuse or getting involved with the "wrong crowd" starts to happen.

I know you can't expect humans to run around a football pitch for 8 hours a day no matter how easy the drill, and I know that a manager isn't going to hold a players interest for a 6 hour tactic talk every day of the week, but I've long argued that this is where "full time" clubs should be insisting that players get involved in community projects whether its in school or hospital visits, whether it's in terms of furthering their education - either academically or in terms of getting coaching qualifications, or whether it's in helping out with the coaching at juvenile clubs.

In terms of a club like St Mirren though, I honestly can't see what advantage being "full time" is giving the club. A quick look at the league shows that Dumbarton, probably the best paying part time club in a central Scotland location, is only one point short of where St Mirren are. Being able to supplement your regular employment income with a good wage for kicking a football around a couple of nights a week and once at the weekend suits plenty of good footballers in this country who would never move to a club like St Mirren for the kind of "full time" wages on offer there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a point but we did have a rainy day fund of close on £1m left when we moved stadium and the board took the long term view of investing that in Ralston rather than splurging it on players (although our wage budget the first couple of seasons after moving suggests we did spend more than we should have done on wages).

It's hard to argue with that longer term aim when you look at the likes of Hamilton who are thriving both on and off the pitch on the back of their huely successful academy and the huge fees that has generated.

Some of that comes down to luck of course, McCarthy and McArthur both came along at the same time and are both superb players but the conveyor belt continues to produce there and that isn't down to luck, it's down to a sound structure and good commercial nous to tie down the better players quickly on good contracts.

We let McLean and McGinn go for next to nothing, but aside from them the academy has not produced the real "stars" that I guess the board would have hoped for.

Punting one player for £1 million would have created the fund on which the club could have relied on in dark times like these.

7 years on from moving, we're really not seeing Ralston producing like I think it should.

That bit in bold suggests you've undermined your own point there but the part about investing in Ralston was an excellent idea. I'd have done the same.

I wouldn't have spent all of it though. I'd have kept 10% back. I think that would have been more prudent.

I really don't know why Ralston isn't producing in the way you describe but in fairness for every Hamilton there are plenty of other clubs not producing sellable talent either. I'm not sure this should be the only goal of Ralston though or even the ultimate measure of its success. Simply providing a stream of decent 1st team players would be a good place to be in.

That in itself is worthwhile because you can have players growing up through the ranks all playing and being coached in a cohesive manner meaning they'd be more likely to succeed when they did hit the 1st team. I think we have that right now. It's not perfect but we certainly have it. I'd call that a success.

Would be nice to be able to produce the odd £1 million player though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The club really need a qualified marketing person / people to get things done, its the usual story of peanuts n monkeys. Why are they not offering internships to marketing students to get experience?

As an BA Business (Hons) final year student, I'd be right behind this.

Plus I'd be free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a point but we did have a rainy day fund of close on £1m left when we moved stadium and the board took the long term view of investing that in Ralston rather than splurging it on players (although our wage budget the first couple of seasons after moving suggests we did spend more than we should have done on wages).

It's hard to argue with that longer term aim when you look at the likes of Hamilton who are thriving both on and off the pitch on the back of their hugely successful academy and the big fees that has generated.

Some of that comes down to luck of course, McCarthy and McArthur both came along at the same time and are both superb players but the conveyor belt continues to produce there and that isn't down to luck, it's down to a sound structure and good commercial nous to tie down the better players quickly on good contracts.

We let McLean and McGinn go for next to nothing, but aside from them the academy has not produced the real "stars" that I guess the board would have hoped for.

Punting just one player for £1 million would have created the fund on which the club could have relied on in dark times like these.

7 years on from moving, we're really not seeing Ralston producing like I think it should.

Hamilton didn't saddle themselves with an expensive second property to host their academy though Div. Instead they put down a 3g pitch that could be used by all of their players, and could also be rented out to the public. Ralston is nice as a vanity project, but it's really not delivered any real benefits that couldn't have been gotten by laying a plastic playing surface at SMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the norm in football though Oaksoft and it has been for a lot of years. Full time footballers expect to be home by 2pm on non match days. I dare say that there may be some - if not at St Mirren currently, certainly within "full time" football clubs in Scotland where they NEED to be home to take over the after school child minding duties.

I can't remember what programme it was I was watching but it was talking about mental illness within football and one of the factors they said attributed to the problem was exactly that early finish every day. They talked about, in particular, young players who were perhaps living away from home and the fact that once training has ended, and they've gone home they've often got a huge void which they need to fill to stop them from feeling lonely, or from being homesick. That's where alcohol, gambling, drug abuse or getting involved with the "wrong crowd" starts to happen.

I know you can't expect humans to run around a football pitch for 8 hours a day no matter how easy the drill, and I know that a manager isn't going to hold a players interest for a 6 hour tactic talk every day of the week, but I've long argued that this is where "full time" clubs should be insisting that players get involved in community projects whether its in school or hospital visits, whether it's in terms of furthering their education - either academically or in terms of getting coaching qualifications, or whether it's in helping out with the coaching at juvenile clubs.

I'm not suggesting 8 hours of training either but I agree with most of what you are saying here.

Full time should mean full time.

You simply cannot become an EPL player training for 2 hours a day.

Personally I'd go out of my mind with boredom if I was doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamilton didn't saddle themselves with an expensive second property to host their academy though Div. Instead they put down a 3g pitch that could be used by all of their players, and could also be rented out to the public. Ralston is nice as a vanity project, but it's really not delivered any real benefits that couldn't have been gotten by laying a plastic playing surface at SMP

When you are not acting like a twat you are capable of coming up with good stuff sometimes you know.

It's hard to argue with this.

At all in fact.

I've changed my mind about investing in Ralston.

We should have done this instead and made full use of the stadium.

At less than £500k it would have been a no-brainer.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOLZ

Swing and a miss there champ.

The club has no ability whatsoever to borrow money so any new owner of our club would need to put their own money in from time to time to smooth cashflow bumps. Exactly as the current board have been doing pretty much every year since they got rid of the bank debt.

If the fans take ownership of the club, they too will need a rainy day fund to cover the same. Where will that money come from? The fans. The "owners".

Aye you'll need your Sugar Daddy to fix the roof on those "Rainy Days"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the norm in football though Oaksoft and it has been for a lot of years. Full time footballers expect to be home by 2pm on non match days. I dare say that there may be some - if not at St Mirren currently, certainly within "full time" football clubs in Scotland where they NEED to be home to take over the after school child minding duties.

I can't remember what programme it was I was watching but it was talking about mental illness within football and one of the factors they said attributed to the problem was exactly that early finish every day. They talked about, in particular, young players who were perhaps living away from home and the fact that once training has ended, and they've gone home they've often got a huge void which they need to fill to stop them from feeling lonely, or from being homesick. That's where alcohol, gambling, drug abuse or getting involved with the "wrong crowd" starts to happen.

I know you can't expect humans to run around a football pitch for 8 hours a day no matter how easy the drill, and I know that a manager isn't going to hold a players interest for a 6 hour tactic talk every day of the week, but I've long argued that this is where "full time" clubs should be insisting that players get involved in community projects whether its in school or hospital visits, whether it's in terms of furthering their education - either academically or in terms of getting coaching qualifications, or whether it's in helping out with the coaching at juvenile clubs.

In terms of a club like St Mirren though, I honestly can't see what advantage being "full time" is giving the club. A quick look at the league shows that Dumbarton, probably the best paying part time club in a central Scotland location, is only one point short of where St Mirren are. Being able to supplement your regular employment income with a good wage for kicking a football around a couple of nights a week and once at the weekend suits plenty of good footballers in this country who would never move to a club like St Mirren for the kind of "full time" wages on offer there.

You'll find the advantage when you work out how many times the bit in Bold has been true in the last thirty years!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That rainy day fund would have to come from an across the board cut on expenses and a rapid expansion of commercial opportunities.

Relying on anything else just builds up debts and problems for the future.

The lack of a rainy day fund is at the root of many of our problems but we are saddled with a "spend every penny" mentality which has consistently left us struggling to recover in difficult times.

IMO we should be aiming to save at least £100k per year over the next 10 to 20 years.

That's the equivalent of perhaps two or three players?

We can't be overly worrying about performances until we get a strong and robust financial platform in place.

Football fans always seem to have a tendency to focus on the symptom (poor form) rather than the actual root problem (lack of a solid financial platform).

What the BOD have done is basically live by the seat of their pants. Until now, it's almost worked perfectly.

Now we're in the shit and have no financial leeway to get out of it easily.

It could cost us big time.

It appears that what was "directors Loans" to get the Club over 3-4month cash flow issues....this required £100K per year when i was involved and was only needed to bridge the gap between Christmas and the SPFL payment which arrived in March/April or may and so was fully paid back by the year end accounts, as you will see noted in the previous accounts, has now changed to an accumulating rolling debt and a requirement of £100k has now grown to nearly £250K

(there may be some other issues here also perhaps SMISA can confirm if their debt was paid back early, thus moving the SMISA debt onto part of this Dir Loan instead, which would make the Directors loan account seem a bit bigger than it actually really is)

but in as much as you can read anything much into this form of accounts, a regular Cash flow need to cover an annual blip of £100K PA appears to have changed into an ongoing and growing funding need...

Well done to the board for indeed putting their hand in their pockets, they have done it for many years and continue to, however i ask this question, when you have SMISA who have cash and are willing to invest it in new shares (which would mean no liabilty on the Club to pay it back) would it be better for this to be allowed by the board to happen (however it changed the %age ownership) rather than the directors loaning money in, in expectation of it getting paid back.

nothing in the results makes me think that a FO model would not work, but it does need the cash flow backing similar to what 10000Hours had, so that a temp cash flow issue can be easily resolved.

of course these account are just a snap shot from a point in time in May 2015 the position could now be different, the loans could now have been repaid or they could have grown further, the growth in debt could purely have been a phasing issue as the year end is very close to spfl monies being paid...a delay in that payment could have made a big diff which will now be caught up, certainly we are coming to the time of year when any number of clubs have cash flow pressure so i guess it is watch this space, certainly any sale now would need to take into account the £200K + and there is the continuing issue of no build up of cash reserves for a depreciating asset.....at some point capital is going to have to be spent on the stadium, the carpets are going to wear, the air con need replace on the undersoil heating break down, and no maintenance reserve is being made for this, which is really (in the case) what depreciation is all about

Edited by rea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points to pick up on various responses to the thread to date

I'm not sure that we should be expecteding Ralston to have turned out much prior to now. The recruitment of many of the players on the fringes of the first team would have been undertaken prior to Ralston, and it's that area where we needed to be smarter in. If anything Ralston and possibility of first team football down the line should make it easier to sell the club to prospective players and families. I reckon in the next 2 years it will be the time to review success or otherwise of Ralston. If nothing else our "home grown"players certainly seem much better technically in recent years.

On the issue of the 66% of turnover I would be interested to know how much of this included pay-offs for management and players, and how much was spent on recruiting extra players (2 sets of sign-on fees etc). I know this won't be broken down in the accounts, but would be good to see just how close to the 60% we would've been without wasting funds.

Similarly on the wasting funds part, I think that the board on the whole do a very good job at managing to more or less keep the club ticking over on a cost zero basis. However each year we go through a series of bad decisions around recruitment of management and players that ultimately cost the club money and throttle the cash flow of the club. The board show no appetite or ability to have learned from these mistakes and we have missed the opportunity to build up surplus cash as a result (and no doubt preserve or inflate the value of the club).

Commercially we are atrocious and need to find ways of commercialising the assets we own as the income from outside of football activities is very poor given the opportunities we have. The naming of the stadium recently was a good idea (though I personally think that the club should've perhaps taken the money this time and donated it to charity), although it's years to late...surely there must have been the opportunity to at least raise some money in previous years. The function suite is nice, but rarely used to the extent it should be, so perhaps we need to look at getting people to use it with low profit to the club (raising the profile) and then truly look to maximise income down the line. I'm not a fan of artifical surfaces, but if there is a business case whereby it would return money to the club it's got to be worthwhile looking at. The void is moving forward although the proposition is not to everyone's taste, but it shouldnt have taken 7 years to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That bit in bold suggests you've undermined your own point there but the part about investing in Ralston was an excellent idea. I'd have done the same.

I wouldn't have spent all of it though. I'd have kept 10% back. I think that would have been more prudent.

I really don't know why Ralston isn't producing in the way you describe but in fairness for every Hamilton there are plenty of other clubs not producing sellable talent either. I'm not sure this should be the only goal of Ralston though or even the ultimate measure of its success. Simply providing a stream of decent 1st team players would be a good place to be in.

That in itself is worthwhile because you can have players growing up through the ranks all playing and being coached in a cohesive manner meaning they'd be more likely to succeed when they did hit the 1st team. I think we have that right now. It's not perfect but we certainly have it. I'd call that a success.

Would be nice to be able to produce the odd £1 million player though.

I think we already have produced two in McLean and Mcginn if they had been at any other club you can bet your boots they would have went for a million but we needed money so bad we sold them for a pittance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points to pick up on various responses to the thread to date

I'm not sure that we should be expecteding Ralston to have turned out much prior to now. The recruitment of many of the players on the fringes of the first team would have been undertaken prior to Ralston, and it's that area where we needed to be smarter in. If anything Ralston and possibility of first team football down the line should make it easier to sell the club to prospective players and families. I reckon in the next 2 years it will be the time to review success or otherwise of Ralston. If nothing else our "home grown"players certainly seem much better technically in recent years.

On the issue of the 66% of turnover I would be interested to know how much of this included pay-offs for management and players, and how much was spent on recruiting extra players (2 sets of sign-on fees etc). I know this won't be broken down in the accounts, but would be good to see just how close to the 60% we would've been without wasting funds.

Similarly on the wasting funds part, I think that the board on the whole do a very good job at managing to more or less keep the club ticking over on a cost zero basis. However each year we go through a series of bad decisions around recruitment of management and players that ultimately cost the club money and throttle the cash flow of the club. The board show no appetite or ability to have learned from these mistakes and we have missed the opportunity to build up surplus cash as a result (and no doubt preserve or inflate the value of the club).

Commercially we are atrocious and need to find ways of commercialising the assets we own as the income from outside of football activities is very poor given the opportunities we have. The naming of the stadium recently was a good idea (though I personally think that the club should've perhaps taken the money this time and donated it to charity), although it's years to late...surely there must have been the opportunity to at least raise some money in previous years. The function suite is nice, but rarely used to the extent it should be, so perhaps we need to look at getting people to use it with low profit to the club (raising the profile) and then truly look to maximise income down the line. I'm not a fan of artifical surfaces, but if there is a business case whereby it would return money to the club it's got to be worthwhile looking at. The void is moving forward although the proposition is not to everyone's taste, but it shouldnt have taken 7 years to get there.

Cast your mind back to the time before Gilmour at St Mirren. There was a regular production line of young players that would break into the St Mirren first team that would subsequently be moved on for a great deal of money. All had signed for St Mirren without an impressive training academy to entice them in. Think back to guys like Tony Fitzpatrick, Frank McGarvey, Stevie Clarke, Frank McAvennie, Peter Weir, Ian Cameron, David Winnie, Brian Hamilton, Paul Lambert, Ricky Gillies, Barry Lavety, Burton O'Brien and David McNamee and no doubt many others that simply played an important role in the team and it's clear it was about the superb scouting that was going on at that time, combined with the fact that St Mirren really were a club where kids would be promoted and given plenty of first team experience before being allowed to move on.

Hamilton Accies have benefited in the same way more recently. No parent walking round New Douglas Park is going to be particularly impressed with the facilities there but they'll know that at Hamilton Accies they are at a club that actively promotes kids who are good enough, and they know that once their son is established and receiving offers Hamilton will not be unreasonable to deal with when moving players on.

The academy at Ralston isn't going to function to full capacity at all if the scouting network isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are St Mirren not a club that " actively promotes kids " ?

Just look at the first team squad .

In fact , if it wasn't for these home grown kids that have come through over the last few seasons ,

We would be in a far worse state than we are just now .

Our academy is one of the few positives right now .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are St Mirren not a club that " actively promotes kids " ?

Just look at the first team squad .

In fact , if it wasn't for these home grown kids that have come through over the last few seasons ,

We would be in a far worse state than we are just now .

Our academy is one of the few positives right now .

That depends what you would call a worse state. our academy kids are in the SPFL Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are St Mirren not a club that " actively promotes kids " ?

Just look at the first team squad .

In fact , if it wasn't for these home grown kids that have come through over the last few seasons ,

We would be in a far worse state than we are just now .

Our academy is one of the few positives right now .

I think the amount of kids in the first team squad is encouraging and it is a tangible sign that Ralston will work out longer term but I'd also contend that some of the kids in the first team squad probably aren't quite ready for it and are there through necessity.

Two seasons ago Kelly & Naismith coming into the team saved Danny's bacon, and it's fair to say that McGinn & McLean are top class products and Mallan looks like being another.

I would say though that likes of Baird, Cuddihy and Stewart have been thrown in at the deep end a bit, I'm not convinced any of them are really "ready" to be playing week in week out in the Championship. Morgan & McLear look promising but again, I think it's a bit unfair to be asking those lads to lead the line at Ibrox !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the amount of kids in the first team squad is encouraging and it is a tangible sign that Ralston will work out longer term but I'd also contend that some of the kids in the first team squad probably aren't quite ready for it and are there through necessity.

Two seasons ago Kelly & Naismith coming into the team saved Danny's bacon, and it's fair to say that McGinn & McLean are top class products and Mallan looks like being another.

I would say though that likes of Baird, Cuddihy and Stewart have been thrown in at the deep end a bit, I'm not convinced any of them are really "ready" to be playing week in week out in the Championship. Morgan & McLear look promising but again, I think it's a bit unfair to be asking those lads to lead the line at Ibrox !

The 4 you mentioned went out on loan to toughen them up well apart from McGinn

Morgan and McLear are standouts in the U/20s but it's shown it's a big jump from there to first team

There's a problem now as we can't send promising players out on loan as they are needed to make up the first team squad

In the case of Morgan and McLear i would like Thommo to play beside them in a few U/20s games to pass his know how during game time

He's been playing as a sub recently and it would be good to use his vast experience to the full

Share this post


Link to post
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...