Soctty Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 So the big issue that some are having a moan about now, in this set of accounts where we turned over £2.8 million, made an increased profit despite investing heavily in the playing squad, and have just banked the best part of a million quid via a sell on fee, is that we are paying a director/directors £35k per annum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 On 11/20/2018 at 8:09 AM, bazil85 said: Income is up, profits are up, the outgoings have went up accordingly. The accounts for next year will include substantial increases in revenue streams from SP football and a tidy wee sum from the McGinn transfer. oh Hello Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 I have no idea if Tony Fitzpatrick is a liability or not. I would like to think that part of the thinking of having him as CEO is he has been a player with a long association with the club, a manager of the club, and involved in youth football as well, and his experience in all these areas can be useful for the board and I think he is the type of character who would make time to have a friendly word or be a listening ear with the manager, backroom team, players, academy players. I think the notion that he is a liability seems to stem from his interviews with the press and the way they are spun. My own opinion is that it is refreshing to have someone being as positive and dreaming big. One reason why he could be deployed to do interviews and make some headlines is to buy some time and take attention away from the manager and players when things aren't going well - he's tended to give interviews when managers have been nearing the end of their time with us, to try and rally the fans and club together, or throw a few crazy quotes to the press while we are recruiting a new manager. For what it's worth I don't think Robbie Neilson pulled out the running because of Tony's positivity... it's more likely to have been down to budget for players, his own salary and the timing coinciding with him still being paid off (on a bigger pay packet than what we are offering). He also seems to be getting it in the neck for Stubbs being appointed - that was a board decision rather than his alone. Ian Maxwell did well as CEO at Partick Thistle before moving to the SFA in the same role.I don't know if he's a liability either. He's always a nice guy though.For what it's worth, Brian Caldwell had none of the attributes that you give Tony in the 2nd paragraph of your post [emoji6] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshire Saints Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 21 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: And what about Bank of Smisa propping them up to the tune of £150k so far? and counting. maybe you arent bothered they just spend all unbudgeted income, and we are left with nothing left to show for it, but others believe that going diwn that route will lead to the club failing sooner, rather than later. FYI, smfc in specific and football clubs in general in Scotland cant borrow a cent from banks. Banks will not even consider a loan as they dont want the fan fury when the administrators step in to recover their debt. As I said no need for bank borrowing as SMISA are a supporters group and not a commercial bank ! What bit don't you get, nothing has changed and the club are running to the same plan (and succeeding to meet it's aims financially) as it has done for some considerable time. There is nothing sensational or new in these accounts it's "as you were" so to speak. Whether anyone thinks it's the correct business plan is a different matter but the club are 100% achieving their intended financial goals and these accounts confirm that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suggestion Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 20 hours ago, oaksoft said: Seriously? That is a ridiculously small salary for an entire board of directors to take for running a multi million pound business. I cant believe this is even being raised. It’s half of the total amount of profit we made so it’s a big sum! Gilmour and Co didn’t take any money out they were all putting there own money in. Every single board member has a full time job bar Gordon Scott as per his last thing saying he wasn’t making any money. Why should they be taking 35k after having there cars paid for, free tickets to games, fancy dinners and events all for free? Its okay though any shortfall can just ask SMISA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Soctty said: So the big issue that some are having a moan about now, in this set of accounts where we turned over £2.8 million, made an increased profit despite investing heavily in the playing squad, and have just banked the best part of a million quid via a sell on fee, is that we are paying a director/directors £35k per annum? No, the big issue is we are running on an unsustainable business model. Question has been raised many times above; what happens the season we don't sell someone? 35k is going to be a drop in the ocean of shit we would be in at that point. I'd be delighted for someone from the club to explain why this is nothing to worry about, and I'll stop worrying about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 31 minutes ago, Suggestion said: It’s half of the total amount of profit we made so it’s a big sum! Gilmour and Co didn’t take any money out they were all putting there own money in. Every single board member has a full time job bar Gordon Scott as per his last thing saying he wasn’t making any money. Why should they be taking 35k after having there cars paid for, free tickets to games, fancy dinners and events all for free? Its okay though any shortfall can just ask SMISA One of the board members full time jobs is working for the club. Where that salary is placed in the accounts will very much be led by the accountants and for very specific reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 3 hours ago, faraway saint said: Really? "Working round the clock"................... It comes across from you that he has no responsibility at all. Some gig that. He took on Brian Caldwell's job and before he left SMFC Caldwell did a video of a typical working day as CEO - lots of background jobs before matchdays which had him working long hours... and then transfer windows are busier as well between dealing with players, agents, other clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 As SMiSA have 34% of shares they can access the accounts. They should do so as they will be running the club very soon. They can do a forensic audit,ie look at the detail of looking where every penny going out of the club goes,why,and where. Your average accountant /auditer only looks at the order/delivery line/invoice, not that the club is buying 100light bulbs for £5 from a directors wife's company!Not that I believe that kind if detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Kemp said: No, the big issue is we are running on an unsustainable business model. Question has been raised many times above; what happens the season we don't sell someone? 35k is going to be a drop in the ocean of shit we would be in at that point. I'd be delighted for someone from the club to explain why this is nothing to worry about, and I'll stop worrying about it. The season we don't sell someone, we have less to spend. Result - we spend less money. Simple. I'd understand your panic if we were in huge debt, or had players on 5 year contracts without any get out clauses, but since that's not the case I'm not concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 3 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said: As I said no need for bank borrowing as SMISA are a supporters group and not a commercial bank ! What bit don't you get, nothing has changed and the club are running to the same plan (and succeeding to meet it's aims financially) as it has done for some considerable time. There is nothing sensational or new in these accounts it's "as you were" so to speak. Whether anyone thinks it's the correct business plan is a different matter but the club are 100% achieving their intended financial goals and these accounts confirm that. Why do you insist on praising the club for not getting something (a bank loan) that no bank would even consider a request for from a scottish football club? Can you name one scottish football club with a current bank loan? Or even an overdraft facility? and if you think blowing all the transfer money to overpower the likes of Brechin and Falkirk (sometimes) is "as you were", then pray tell where the club are going to get the funds to be "as you were" next season, or the season after that? this board are ransacking any additional funds and smisa members ringfenced funds at an eye watering rate, whilst helping themselves to an extra 20% increase in "Expense Claims" of £35k... ffs what expenses are individual board members racking up to justify that? it will all end in tears, in football it always does. You have to get more, the more you spend, and if the team aren't delivering then the downward cycle accelerates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 3 hours ago, WeeBud said: One of the board members full time jobs is working for the club. Where that salary is placed in the accounts will very much be led by the accountants and for very specific reasons. Wrong! two of the board members full time jobs are working for the club. And in the accounts it clearly states the £35k is Directors Expenses, not anyone's wages. Its a feckin gravy (or asst sliders) train! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Wrong! two of the board members full time jobs are working for the club. And in the accounts it clearly states the £35k is Directors Expenses, not anyone's wages. Its a feckin gravy (or asst sliders) train! Pray tell (just before you wank yourself into a total frenzy), where did "I" mention anything different?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, WeeBud said: Pray tell (just before you wank yourself into a total frenzy), where did "I" mention anything different?? Here's a clue, its the difference between one.... and two.... btw? That activity you mention, is that the state you achieve, or aspire to personally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Suggestion said: It’s half of the total amount of profit we made so it’s a big sum! Gilmour and Co didn’t take any money out they were all putting there own money in. Every single board member has a full time job bar Gordon Scott as per his last thing saying he wasn’t making any money. Why should they be taking 35k after having there cars paid for, free tickets to games, fancy dinners and events all for free? Its okay though any shortfall can just ask SMISA You are attempting to use a relative measure to prove that an absolute measure is too high. There is an easier way to win this argument Josh. Go and find another competent board of directors who would do that job for less money or for free and report back to us and we'll take it from there. We have only made £77k of profit because we have substantial outgoings which we would not have been able to support without having sold a couple of players. £35k is nothing in comparison. Ccomplaining about a £35k expense when we would have lost £600k without selling two players is not the action of someone who understands finance. Of course we both know why you are attempting to attack the board over this. Behave yourself. Edited November 21, 2018 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 41 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Why do you insist on praising the club for not getting something (a bank loan) that no bank would even consider a request for from a scottish football club? Can you name one scottish football club with a current bank loan? Or even an overdraft facility? and if you think blowing all the transfer money to overpower the likes of Brechin and Falkirk (sometimes) is "as you were", then pray tell where the club are going to get the funds to be "as you were" next season, or the season after that? this board are ransacking any additional funds and smisa members ringfenced funds at an eye watering rate, whilst helping themselves to an extra 20% increase in "Expense Claims" of £35k... ffs what expenses are individual board members racking up to justify that? it will all end in tears, in football it always does. You have to get more, the more you spend, and if the team aren't delivering then the downward cycle accelerates. Jesus Christ, moaning about £35k a year for the full BOD of a football clubs expenses. If only that was a new low for you but we know you have sunk much lower. Imagine someone praising a club that's turned a healthy profit, a profit up on the previous years profit, how dare he! Your ultimate fantasy of St Mirren getting into financial difficulty remains in your head, no luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 29 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Here's a clue, its the difference between one.... and two.... btw? That activity you mention, is that the state you achieve, or aspire to personally? Just so I know we are on the same page LPM, who are the two board members whose "full-time" jobs are with St Mirren?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 13 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Jesus Christ, moaning about £35k a year for the full BOD of a football clubs expenses. If only that was a new low for you but we know you have sunk much lower. Imagine someone praising a club that's turned a healthy profit, a profit up on the previous years profit, how dare he! Your ultimate fantasy of St Mirren getting into financial difficulty remains in your head, no luck. Exactly. I personally wouldnt touch a job like that for £35k for myself never mind sharing it with the rest of the directors. There is a very good reason why company directors typically earn 6 and 7 figures per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, WeeBud said: Just so I know we are on the same page LPM, who are the two board members whose "full-time" jobs are with St Mirren?? You mean you dont know? We're not in the same library then, never mind the same page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshire Saints Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said: Why do you insist on praising the club for not getting something (a bank loan) that no bank would even consider a request for from a scottish football club? Can you name one scottish football club with a current bank loan? Or even an overdraft facility? and if you think blowing all the transfer money to overpower the likes of Brechin and Falkirk (sometimes) is "as you were", then pray tell where the club are going to get the funds to be "as you were" next season, or the season after that? this board are ransacking any additional funds and smisa members ringfenced funds at an eye watering rate, whilst helping themselves to an extra 20% increase in "Expense Claims" of £35k... ffs what expenses are individual board members racking up to justify that? it will all end in tears, in football it always does. You have to get more, the more you spend, and if the team aren't delivering then the downward cycle accelerates. Praising them ??? where exactly ? I am merely stating they are achieving what they set out to do and I also added the caveat that the policy was open to question but as I also said that is a different thing from questioning the accounts. You don't half hear voices in that head of yours ! Also it's a chicken and egg selling players. You can sell players and spend the money you can't spend the money then hope to recoup that from selling players. We are and always will be a selling club we just need to be better at it imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Ayrshire Saints said: Praising them ??? where exactly ? I am merely stating they are achieving what they set out to do and I also added the caveat that the policy was open to question but as I also said that is a different thing from questioning the accounts. You don't half hear voices in that head of yours ! Also it's a chicken and egg selling players. You can sell players and spend the money you can't spend the money then hope to recoup that from selling players. We are and always will be a selling club we just need to be better at it imo. Amen to the last bit. The rest we have probably gone around in circles with enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: You mean you dont know? We're not in the same library then, never mind the same page. there can’t be many on your page, even if you like to pretend there are with your turning tides... Edited November 21, 2018 by bazil85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 3 hours ago, WeeBud said: Just so I know we are on the same page LPM, who are the two board members whose "full-time" jobs are with St Mirren?? TF & secretary I believe he’s referring to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, bazil85 said: TF & secretary I believe he’s referring to "Chris(Stewart) is a leading litigation partner and solicitor advocate with a major Scottish law practice, holding extended rights of audience in the country’s highest courts; Court of Session, Supreme Court and Privy Council. " I don't think he is a full time employee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 21, 2018 Report Share Posted November 21, 2018 I'm just stunned at the stupidity of people EXPECTING the board to work for no money whatsoever. Not one of the people calling for this would work for free. 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.