Jump to content

Accounts to May 31 2016


div

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, davidg said:

I agree with this. 

I've never suggested handing over cash and not looking for it back.

Yeah that is spot on.

SMiSA are banking at least £13K a month towards the repayment. It won't take long until there is a significant amount of money in there, depending on how they have agreed to repay the initial £380K.

Important that money remains ring-fenced and used solely for the purpose on which it is being raised.

If the club needed short term cash then that should come out of the members "extra £2" pot which must be banking around £2.6K a month if not a bit more. Anything that comes out of that pot to the club in terms of cash should strictly be a loan. I do agree that building that pot up would be a good idea rather than just spending every quarter just for the sake of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, div said:

The accounts on there own are fine, it's what's coming next that is concerning.

Our "Prize Money" for finishing last in the Premiership would have been around £750K. This is (obviously) paid at the end of the season as it is dependent on where you finish, although I guess some percentage of it might be paid in advance during the season as there is a baseline that it you can't finish any worse than last!

I'm not sure if that would have made it into the 2014-2015 accounts or into these ones as there is no breakdown of where the turnover comes from.

The parachute money in the first season we were down was £300K.

So that equates to just over £1M in "central" income before the clubs own income generated through sponsorship, gate receipts, commercial etc....

 

Last season we would have got around £200K prize money for finishing 6th in the Championship plus the last parachute payment of £125K.

So, income from prize money & parachute in 1st season after relegation, £1M. Income second season for the same, £325K.

A difference of almost £700K in income.

That would pretty much explain the dropping of the wage bill which went from £2m in 2015 to £1.25m in 2016.

 

On the upside last season we also sold John McGinn, we rented the stadium out to Celtic, and we sold out our home end to Rangers on the final day of the season. All extraordinary items which seem unlikely to happen this current season.

We also paid back £250K of directors loans though which we won't need to do this season. So perhaps these two more or less nett out.

 

We are now looking at financing major repairs at Ralston, fixing the USH, paying off yet another management team and replacing the Astroturf at Ralston.

Throw another wee relegation into the mix, and the potential for the JD Sports deal coming to an end and you can see why there is reasonable cause for concern!
 

 

Thats a coincidence eh?

in the season we sell out and kick families and children out of their seats to accomodate two truly bigoted supports, we raise a chunk of extra income, and thanking god manage to pay off the previous directors loans.

aye they did a lot for the club those gents, only stopping short of singing the sash to welcome our opponents on the last home game of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Thats a coincidence eh?

in the season we sell out and kick families and children out of their seats to accomodate two truly bigoted supports, we raise a chunk of extra income, and thanking god manage to pay off the previous directors loans.

aye they did a lot for the club those gents, only stopping short of singing the sash to welcome our opponents on the last home game of the season.

 

Are you suggesting that they did not deserve to have their interest free loans paid off?

Or are you saying you would rather their loans were paid off using the existing income? If so, that would leave the club in a worse position.

With people like you around I certainly wouldn't be loaning any money to the club and wouldn't advise anyone else to either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, civilsaint said:

 

Are you suggesting that they did not deserve to have their interest free loans paid off?

Or are you saying you would rather their loans were paid off using the existing income? If so, that would leave the club in a worse position.

With people like you around I certainly wouldn't be loaning any money to the club and wouldn't advise anyone else to either.

Ha, ha that's funny. Shame the previous board couldnt make us smile and leave the clubs infrastructure being bought by the fans in good working order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Ha, ha that's funny. Shame the previous board couldnt make us smile and leave the clubs infrastructure being bought by the fans in good working order. 

To be fair they handed over a much better infrastructure than the one that they inherited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club does need to be self sufficient, it should only ever spend what it brings in.



It should spend what it brings in, but not 100% of it. There needs to be float/a reserve/risk pot, however you want to tag it. With USH and even Ralston it's really not even either as both should have had maintenance and finance plans for their whole life cycle.

Also, I noticed the debate around the additional £2 being considered as loans to the club. I'll ask the question about that tomorrow as I've never seen it or heard it described as being a loan agreement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider myself a St Mirren fan but I could never imagine the situation where I'd give the club a loan of £10,000 or more even if I was almost guaranteed it was paid back. 

 

For this reason I find it very difficult to criticise any director that has done this. I couldn't imagine having the conversation with my wife that would lead to this happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, div said:

Yeah that is spot on.

SMiSA are banking at least £13K a month towards the repayment. It won't take long until there is a significant amount of money in there, depending on how they have agreed to repay the initial £380K.

Important that money remains ring-fenced and used solely for the purpose on which it is being raised.

If the club needed short term cash then that should come out of the members "extra £2" pot which must be banking around £2.6K a month if not a bit more. Anything that comes out of that pot to the club in terms of cash should strictly be a loan. I do agree that building that pot up would be a good idea rather than just spending every quarter just for the sake of it.

 

There are other alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Debaser said:

I consider myself a St Mirren fan but I could never imagine the situation where I'd give the club a loan of £10,000 or more even if I was almost guaranteed it was paid back. 

 

For this reason I find it very difficult to criticise any director that has done this. I couldn't imagine having the conversation with my wife that would lead to this happening. 

It's not unusual for Directors to do this in companies where they are also significant shareholders.

They are often given in such a way that they rank before other creditors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

It's not unusual for Directors to do this in companies where they are also significant shareholders.

They are often given in such a way that they rank before other creditors.

I fully realise this but even so it isn't a conversation that I could envisage having with my wife, and I think most St Mirren if they are being honest would be similar. 

But when they want to critise I think it is something easily forgotten. 

Edited by Debaser
Edited due to the Sunday bottle of red.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

Also, I noticed the debate around the additional £2 being considered as loans to the club. I'll ask the question about that tomorrow as I've never seen it or heard it described as being a loan agreement.

Point was that potentially if the £2 pot was saved up it could in theory be used as a loan fund if the club had cashflow issues.

I think the whole point of the £2 contribution was to improve the facilities around the club, but if we had a large lump sum sitting there waiting to reach a specific target for something then personally I wouldn't mind it being used as a loan facility IF the club was in desperate straits.

Reckon we must save £7.5K per quarter or there abouts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, div said:

Point was that potentially if the £2 pot was saved up it could in theory be used as a loan fund if the club had cashflow issues.

I think the whole point of the £2 contribution was to improve the facilities around the club, but if we had a large lump sum sitting there waiting to reach a specific target for something then personally I wouldn't mind it being used as a loan facility IF the club was in desperate straits.

Reckon we must save £7.5K per quarter or there abouts?

Div - Welcome but, and no offence meant, insignificant in a business with a £2.4m turnover.

What seems to have happened is that there was next to nil working capital left after the previous directors loans were repaid.

My understanding, but I may be wrong, that previous directors loans had been repaid when the old stadium was sold.

In other words the £257k had been needed as working capital in recent times.

That begs the question - Has Gordon Scott personally injected any working capital into the club from any sourse?

Nuying the shares of the previous directors brought no money into the club

Edited by St.Ricky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Div - Welcome but, and no offence meant, insignificant in a business with a £2.4m turnover.

What seems to have happened is that there was next to nil working capital left after the previous directors loans were repaid.

My understanding, but I may be wrong, that previous directors loans had been repaid when the old stadium was sold.

In other words the £257k had been needed as working capital in recent times.

That begs the question - Has Gordon Scott personally injected any working capital into the club from any sourse?

Nuying the shares of the previous directors brought no money into the club


There has been for at least the last 7 years (including when GS was last on the board) a working capital need or circa 100k per annum. I am sure Gordon will have taken this into account in his plans. It is normally between Christmas and April that the cash is most needed...though that was in prem div so might be a bit different now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I think the whole point of the £2 contribution was to improve the facilities around the club



The SMISA site states that the £2 goes into a pot for members to spend on the club as they see best.

I fully understand saving up and also the potential of loans, especially as we're not actually in ownership yet. The next spending vote is an important one, various things being mentioned on here after the accounts statement and obviously the "put money in for players" debate that has died down slightly since the USH and Ralston became the hot topics.

I can only assume that the SMISA members on here at the very least want more than one option in the next vote, obviously. Simplest format being transfer kitty or save towards a reserve fund.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TsuMirren said:

I can only assume that the SMISA members on here at the very least want more than one option in the next vote, obviously. Simplest format being transfer kitty or save towards a reserve fund.

Don't think £8K is going to make much difference in a transfer kitty, and I think the works at Ralston and with the USH are both in the realm of tens of thousands each.

The USH issue isn't one that needs fixed right now, it should be way down the bottom of the list as far as I am concerned.

I'm sure the club will come forward with areas they need help with the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, rebella15 said:

The £2 a month is to be spent where the members want it to be spent not where the club wants it to be spent ie maybe some kid needs to go to the USA for an operation , we could spend it there.

GS needs to convince us he is going to generate some additional income asap

The SMiSA website says that the £2 "goes into a pot for members to spend on the club as they see best".

Seems fairly sensible to me that they ask the club where they need help though, so that at least some of the clubs requests can make it into the vote. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, div said:

The SMiSA website says that the £2 "goes into a pot for members to spend on the club as they see best".

Seems fairly sensible to me that they ask the club where they need help though, so that at least some of the clubs requests can make it into the vote. No?

No it does not  say the club .When you go to sign up it mentions the £2 is to go where the members choose.

It does not mention the club, try signing up again Div and see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rea said:


There has been for at least the last 7 years (including when GS was last on the board) a working capital need or circa 100k per annum. I am sure Gordon will have taken this into account in his plans. It is normally between Christmas and April that the cash is most needed...though that was in prem div so might be a bit different now.

Thanks Rea - More like what I had in mind.

I am not yet a member of SMiSA so have no say there but if I were then I would be reluctant to fund cash flow.

i do agree with the board that the club needs to boost its revenue sources.

To do so it might need a capital injection to bring some of these forward.

That I would advocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Smisa membership can vote to spend the society funds on whatever they choose in the "community". There was a general assumption that this would mainly go towards projects at the club, but in reality it is a democratic organisation, and its members decide how to allocate, reserve or invest its funds.

that is the strength of its independence, being a check, balance and infuence on the club's board and their actions. Now is probably a good time for members to appraise themselves of its constitution. This is the Link  http://www.smisa.net/images/docs/2016Constitution.pdf on the website on the 'Who we are' page.

Edited by Lord Pityme
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...