oaksoft Posted December 8, 2015 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. yes its EXACTLY the same thing LOL. I near pissed myself laughing at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) the club is worth both whatever a buyer is prepared to pay and whatever the seller is prepared to accept. as owners the bod are perfectly entitled to hold out for whatever amount they want. i can cry all i like about the price of a can of coke but unless i pay what the shop asks for i will go thirsty. what LPM and Dickson seem to be advocating is that a reasonable alternative is to stand outside Tesco and wail at the moon about how they have enough profits already and should just GIFT me the can of coke because I have shopped there all my life. It is pathetic and more than a little cringeworthy. Edited December 8, 2015 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad saint 2 Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 the board always said we spend what we bring in all i can says they better have deep pockets for more personal loans .because the way they are running club .income must be going down but expense are not,with the cash the got for leasing ground ,and , 2 players being sold ,the must save this cash . but i bet you the haven't,next year will be worse , fans who go and pay at the gate at home must be going down , worse cash flow over festive period ,,,,,,,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 the board always said we spend what we bring in all i can says they better have deep pockets for more personal loans .because the way they are running club .income must be going down but expense are not,with the cash the got for leasing ground ,and , 2 players being sold ,the must save this cash . but i bet you the haven't,next year will be worse , fans who go and pay at the gate at home must be going down , worse cash flow over festive period ,,,,,,,,, this is why we should ban folk from posting from their phones lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted December 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 fans who go and pay at the gate at home must be going down ,worse cash flow over festive period ,,,,,,,,, Average home gate 2012-2013; 4389 Average home gate 2013-2014; 4545 Average home gate 2014-2015; 3883 Average home gate 2015-2016; 3678 Away fans propping it up so far. Morton, Hibs, Rangers all been to the 2021 recently and all bringing decent supports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad saint 2 Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 Average home gate 2012-2013; 4389 Average home gate 2013-2014; 4545 Average home gate 2014-2015; 3883 Average home gate 2015-2016; 3678 Away fans propping it up so far. Morton, Hibs, Rangers all been to the 2021 recently and all bringing decent supports. yes but when rest off teams in league come a visiting who do they bring our support will be mostly st holders whos cash we have already spent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 yes but when rest off teams in league come a visiting who do they bring our support will be mostly st holders whos cash we have already spent That's how it works every season. ST cash keeps the lights on in the summer months when there's no other income. Club survives on gate/TV money during the season. We have played everyone at home once apart from QOTS due to postponement. We will play everyone at home again before the season ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 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? Something back? Aye. Everything I'd spent and more? That would depend on how well I'd built everything, the current market value, and whether I could find a buyer willing to pay that price for my work. In this case they've taken the beautiful old club with all its charm and flaws, demolished it and in its place they've built a charmless unprofitable box with a tent in the front lawn and an expensive white elephant out the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaside Nipper Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 Tents? Elephants? It's clear Gilmour and co are running a circus as we have had plenty of clowns managing the team over the last few years. Unfortunately, the circus isn't touring , its staying put for now.................how long that is, anyone's guess tbh. Where's Billy Smart when you need him............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mykey Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 Average home gate 2012-2013; 4389 Average home gate 2013-2014; 4545 Average home gate 2014-2015; 3883 Average home gate 2015-2016; 3678 Away fans propping it up so far. Morton, Hibs, Rangers all been to the 2021 recently and all bringing decent supports. See Div - Danny was best for crowds too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted December 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 Something back? Aye. Everything I'd spent and more? That would depend on how well I'd built everything, the current market value, and whether I could find a buyer willing to pay that price for my work. In this case they've taken the beautiful old club with all its charm and flaws, demolished it and in its place they've built a charmless unprofitable box with a tent in the front lawn and an expensive white elephant out the back. So your suggestion is that by removing the club from £2m of debt and a run down stadium, to one having no debt and a purpose built modern stadium (one that the national u-21s and Scottish Womens National Team have used so impressed are they with the facilities) with a dedicated training complex and a community football facility, and virtually no debt, that the board have taken the club backwards ?? Erm, aye, ok then. I suspect your blind hatred of the board renders any notion of a sensible debate on the subject as being highly remote. The current board have made mistakes during their time in charge, most recently ones that have had a negative effect on the performance of the first team but they have also performed near miracles in delivering an infrastructure that is the envy of many clubs across the country. Once we get coaching staff that could can realise the potential of this infrastructure our fortunes on the field will improve once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 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! Sorry, but the club DOES break even and the loans were to cover cash flow issues and have probably already been paid back. Extra money from success in league and cups gets cancelled out by player bonuses and new players! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 So your suggestion is that by removing the club from £2m of debt and a run down stadium, to one having no debt and a purpose built modern stadium (one that the national u-21s and Scottish Womens National Team have used so impressed are they with the facilities) with a dedicated training complex and a community football facility, and virtually no debt, that the board have taken the club backwards ?? Erm, aye, ok then. I suspect your blind hatred of the board renders any notion of a sensible debate on the subject as being highly remote. The current board have made mistakes during their time in charge, most recently ones that have had a negative effect on the performance of the first team but they have also performed near miracles in delivering an infrastructure that is the envy of many clubs across the country. Once we get coaching staff that could can realise the potential of this infrastructure our fortunes on the field will improve once again. The good work on the new facilities has been undone by the lack of a running track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original 59er Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 nosferatu Posted Yesterday, 13:54 Sorry, but the club DOES break even and the loans were to cover cash flow issues and have probably already been paid back. Extra money from success in league and cups gets cancelled out by player bonuses and new players! Either you have inside knowledge that the loans have been paid back, or you are surmising that position. The posted Accounts say otherwise. "the loans were to cover cash flow issues" Suggests that your statement that the Club "does break even", doesn't exactly hold water, if it does break even, then why the need for a loan, and then roll it over into the next year? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the BoD's are trying to live within their income constraints. The main point is that it is very marginal and as others have suggested, the income is dropping due to the performances on the park. What's more, it doesn't make that strong an argument for an easy sale because who would want it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) So your suggestion is that by removing the club from £2m of debt and a run down stadium, to one having no debt and a purpose built modern stadium (one that the national u-21s and Scottish Womens National Team have used so impressed are they with the facilities) with a dedicated training complex and a community football facility, and virtually no debt, that the board have taken the club backwards ?? Erm, aye, ok then. I suspect your blind hatred of the board renders any notion of a sensible debate on the subject as being highly remote. The current board have made mistakes during their time in charge, most recently ones that have had a negative effect on the performance of the first team but they have also performed near miracles in delivering an infrastructure that is the envy of many clubs across the country. Once we get coaching staff that could can realise the potential of this infrastructure our fortunes on the field will improve once again. It is much simpler than that. At Love Street the land was an asset. They clearly realised that asset when they successfully sold the land to Tesco. The land the new stadium sits on is of far lower value. If you like what the board did is they moved out of a fixer upper in Knightsbridge and in to a gleaming new Barratt Box in Brixton. That's fine so long the money realised from the effective downsizing is carefully invested which it clearly hasn't been. St Mirren don't even own the land the academy sits on in Ralston. Ofcourse the club has gone backwards since they took over. What could they possibly sell today that would raise the reported £15m that they got for Love Street. Edited December 10, 2015 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Either you have inside knowledge that the loans have been paid back, or you are surmising that position. The posted Accounts say otherwise. "the loans were to cover cash flow issues" Suggests that your statement that the Club "does break even", doesn't exactly hold water, if it does break even, then why the need for a loan, and then roll it over into the next year? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the BoD's are trying to live within their income constraints. The main point is that it is very marginal and as others have suggested, the income is dropping due to the performances on the park. What's more, it doesn't make that strong an argument for an easy sale because who would want it? It will not be disclosed that the loans are repaid or not until the accounts next year, the fact they have not been listed as repaid means the club did not break even in the 2014/2015 tax period or indeed in the previous one, it reads to me that the club are in debt of £245k to directors loans and because these loans have not been repaid they don't show as a loss, i could be wrong though as i am not trained as an accountant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) "the loans were to cover cash flow issues" Suggests that your statement that the Club "does break even", doesn't exactly hold water, if it does break even, then why the need for a loan, and then roll it over into the next year? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the BoD's are trying to live within their income constraints. The main point is that it is very marginal and as others have suggested, the income is dropping due to the performances on the park. What's more, it doesn't make that strong an argument for an easy sale because who would want it? The profit and loss account tells you that the Club was better run last year than the previous year. On paper it made a loss as a result of depreciation on the stadium value (equals zero corporation tax) In reality when the depreciation is taken off it made a slight profit The balance sheet is a snapshot on time. It tells you that at some point in time in the last year the club had £250k of Directors money put in to it. This may have been to deal with a short term cashflow or maybe the Directors agreed to pay the loan back at a rate of 500% and saw it as a way of fleecing the club of some money. Having Director Loans in a business assists a business in more than dealing with cashflow issues To many so google accountants on this thread trying to decipher a set of accounts that are only accurate for the day they were made. Edited December 10, 2015 by Gruffalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 It is much simpler than that. At Love Street the land was an asset. They clearly realised that asset when they successfully sold the land to Tesco. The land the new stadium sits on is of far lower value. If you like what the board did is they moved out of a fixer upper in Knightsbridge and in to a gleaming new Barratt Box in Brixton. That's fine so long the money realised from the effective downsizing is carefully invested which it clearly hasn't been. St Mirren don't even own the land the academy sits on in Ralston. Ofcourse the club has gone backwards since they took over. What could they possibly sell today that would raise the reported £15m that they got for Love Street. More Dickson propaganda The Love Street is such prime land that no one has built on it. Tesco sold it for buttons a few months ago. Credit/Luck where it is due we sold the asset to pay off debt and secure new facilities. Tesco should never have bought the land in the first place The ground that the current land sits in has an asset value as a stadium, potential residential or industrial ground. this depends on how well it could be marketed and how much any purchaser is willing to pay for it . I would reckon taking the Tesco deal out of the equation that the land is equal to that of the old Love Street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 The deal for love street was worth only 8 million the new ground cost 5 million I know this because my neighbour is a tesco store manager who was showing the details of the deal along with other deals they had done around the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) The deal for love street was worth only 8 million the new ground cost 5 million I know this because my neighbour is a tesco store manager who was showing the details of the deal along with other deals they had done around the country. No it wasn't. Edited December 10, 2015 by FTOF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 £15M? Where was that "reported"? Shortroods is the Paisley equivalent of Knightsbridge. Feckin hell - do you script write for The Comedy Club? Naw it wasnie, it was £25 million. The guy that sweeps up in Tesco's telt me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) Either you have inside knowledge that the loans have been paid back, or you are surmising that position. The posted Accounts say otherwise. "the loans were to cover cash flow issues" Suggests that your statement that the Club "does break even", doesn't exactly hold water, if it does break even, then why the need for a loan, and then roll it over into the next year? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the BoD's are trying to live within their income constraints. The main point is that it is very marginal and as others have suggested, the income is dropping due to the performances on the park. What's more, it doesn't make that strong an argument for an easy sale because who would want it? A builder agrees a job for £10k. He gets £5k now and £5k when he finishes.It will cost him £5k in wages and £5k in materials. If he does his accounts before he gets the £10k then may show him breaking even... But having a cash flow issue... Edited December 10, 2015 by nosferatu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 A builder agrees a job for £10k. He gets £5k now and £5k when he finishes. It will cost him £5k in wages and £5k in materials. If he does his accounts before he gets the £10k then may show him breaking even... But having a cash flow issue... That builder is doing as good a job as our BoDs then. All that time and effort with no profit margin? Thank feck I don't ask you to price my work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 A builder agrees a job for £10k. He gets £5k now and £5k when he finishes. It will cost him £5k in wages and £5k in materials. If he does his accounts before he gets the £10k then may show him breaking even... But having a cash flow issue... Depends on the type of accountancy he's using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 No it wasn't.Correct.The was the £2m Cheesy bonus structured into the deal. 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.