Jump to content

Accounts to the Year Ended May 2018


div

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

The windfall from Morgan and others has basically gone into players pockets and as has been ably demonstrated by many reasonable posters above a number  of these players did nothing to add any value to a squad that won the championship. 

Budgeting in any business has to look towards the long term, boom and bust budgeting eventually leads to bust and bust outcomes  

It would appear that one off income peaks coming from transfer fees have been used to budget on an annual basis for recurring costs with more players now on 2/3 year deals. 

An increase in wage costs is inevitable when strengthening a squad but it is the size of the increase and the length of the clubs commitment to these contracts that does give concern. 

The current board appear to have been slow at getting the hang of looking to the long term during the good times, hopefully they realise the warning that this set of figures flags up and we can cut our cloth accordingly going forward. 

The figures are by no means a disaster but the underlying tone is something that should give us all something to think. 

And as has also been asked, who has the crystal ball that tells us which players would have added value and which wouldn’t? Yet again, people seem to have an issue with a strategy that has worked and return top flight football to Paisley and a profit. 

I’ll ask again (never received an answer to this) regarding looking at the long-term for SMFC, what should we be saving for to target that’s higher than SP football? Should we be saving for a title challenge? If someone could please tell me what strategy is better and more profitable than the current one where we have gotten into the SP and making much more money that if we were still in the Championship sitting looking at our pretty bank balance from a few good transfers, fighting Morton and Dunfermline for a play-off place. 

Im 100% sure if we were fannying about mid-table in the championship and announced a large six figure profit, we’d have fans moaning on here ‘why aren’t we investing in the player squad?’ 

As for it being boom and bust, I’m also still waiting for a shred of evidence we have spent outside budget and not money that was available to us. Happy to proven wrong on this but I’ve seen nothing so far that suggests the money we have spent risks a ‘bust’

Last part is catch 22. You’ll get fans that moan we don’t get enough money for key assets then the fans that’ll moan that we give players 2-3 year deals that turn out not to be good enough. See crystal ball comment above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

And as has also been asked, who has the crystal ball that tells us which players would have added value and which wouldn’t? Yet again, people seem to have an issue with a strategy that has worked and return top flight football to Paisley and a profit. 

I’ll ask again (never received an answer to this) regarding looking at the long-term for SMFC, what should we be saving for to target that’s higher than SP football? Should we be saving for a title challenge? If someone could please tell me what strategy is better and more profitable than the current one where we have gotten into the SP and making much more money that if we were still in the Championship sitting looking at our pretty bank balance from a few good transfers, fighting Morton and Dunfermline for a play-off place. 

Im 100% sure if we were fannying about mid-table in the championship and announced a large six figure profit, we’d have fans moaning on here ‘why aren’t we investing in the player squad?’ 

As for it being boom and bust, I’m also still waiting for a shred of evidence we have spent outside budget and not money that was available to us. Happy to proven wrong on this but I’ve seen nothing so far that suggests the money we have spent risks a ‘bust’

Last part is catch 22. You’ll get fans that moan we don’t get enough money for key assets then the fans that’ll moan that we give players 2-3 year deals that turn out not to be good enough. See crystal ball comment above. 

Just because you keep droning on with the same stuff doesn’t make you right. 

You claim never to receive answers but that is only because you read posts to reply rather than to understand.

I would rather we planned for a long term stay in the top flight than plan based on receiving substantial transfer fees every year and come close to spending every penny. 

Who knows with a bit of financial common sense we might not need to chase families away to pay for stars like Heston, King, Kellermann etc and resort to SMISA raiding future funds to bail is out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

And as has also been asked, who has the crystal ball that tells us which players would have added value and which wouldn’t? Yet again, people seem to have an issue with a strategy that has worked and return top flight football to Paisley and a profit. 

I’ll ask again (never received an answer to this) regarding looking at the long-term for SMFC, what should we be saving for to target that’s higher than SP football? Should we be saving for a title challenge? If someone could please tell me what strategy is better and more profitable than the current one where we have gotten into the SP and making much more money that if we were still in the Championship sitting looking at our pretty bank balance from a few good transfers, fighting Morton and Dunfermline for a play-off place. 

Im 100% sure if we were fannying about mid-table in the championship and announced a large six figure profit, we’d have fans moaning on here ‘why aren’t we investing in the player squad?’ 

As for it being boom and bust, I’m also still waiting for a shred of evidence we have spent outside budget and not money that was available to us. Happy to proven wrong on this but I’ve seen nothing so far that suggests the money we have spent risks a ‘bust’

Last part is catch 22. You’ll get fans that moan we don’t get enough money for key assets then the fans that’ll moan that we give players 2-3 year deals that turn out not to be good enough. See crystal ball comment above. 

Personally, I am happy with the current strategy but we did get our tactics wrong in appointing AS and bringing in a number of players.  These tactics have been addressed and we look to be backing track.  No sign of boom and bust in the current plans. Strategy and Tactics are different things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

Just because you keep droning on with the same stuff doesn’t make you right

You claim never to receive answers but that is only because you read posts to reply rather than to understand.

I would rather we planned for a long term stay in the top flight than plan based on receiving substantial transfer fees every year and come close to spending every penny. 

Who knows with a bit of financial common sense we might not need to chase families away to pay for stars like Heston, King, Kellermann etc and resort to SMISA raiding future funds to bail is out. 

That's one glasshouse requiring a glazier............................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

Just because you keep droning on with the same stuff doesn’t make you right. 

You claim never to receive answers but that is only because you read posts to reply rather than to understand.

I would rather we planned for a long term stay in the top flight than plan based on receiving substantial transfer fees every year and come close to spending every penny. 

Who knows with a bit of financial common sense we might not need to chase families away to pay for stars like Heston, King, Kellermann etc and resort to SMISA raiding future funds to bail is out. 

And that’s your opinion, that’s not what I asked. I asked what should the strategy be? How would you have gotten SMFC, SP football this season, turned a bigger profit and given us access to all the additional income that comes with being an SP club this year?

Or do you think it would be a better plan to save last season, not get promoted and only be getting championship income again this season? You realise that would have cost us money right? 

My point is I can’t get my head around people being critical of a strategy that has clearly worked. 

If you noticed earlier Billy shared a post showing we pay the second lowest wage budget (after Livi) in the league this season. So again it baffles me people coming up with these (IMO) complete myths about better plans to have us either where we are already or further up the league. 

If you knew what players would clearly be a success and clearly wouldn’t better than JR and AS, shame we didn’t approach you to be the manager for last/ this season.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Personally, I am happy with the current strategy but we did get our tactics wrong in appointing AS and bringing in a number of players.  These tactics have been addressed and we look to be backing track.  No sign of boom and bust in the current plans. Strategy and Tactics are different things. 

Agreed fully. We got AS completely wrong, if anything it’s proof the board have a strategy in place that prevents against major financial events (which the wrong appointment of AS has become) 

in January we should run some of the new signings past the fortune tellers on here just to be sure though :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

And that’s your opinion, that’s not what I asked. I asked what should the strategy be? How would you have gotten SMFC, SP football this season, turned a bigger profit and given us access to all the additional income that comes with being an SP club this year?

Or do you think it would be a better plan to save last season, not get promoted and only be getting championship income again this season? You realise that would have cost us money right? 

My point is I can’t get my head around people being critical of a strategy that has clearly worked. 

If you noticed earlier Billy shared a post showing we pay the second lowest wage budget (after Livi) in the league this season. So again it baffles me people coming up with these (IMO) complete myths about better plans to have us either where we are already or further up the league. 

If you knew what players would clearly be a success and clearly wouldn’t better than JR and AS, shame we didn’t approach you to be the manager for last/ this season.  

It doesn’t show the second lowest wage budget.... it shows the second lowest average wage which is a function of expenditure divided by number of players, demonstrating the point that many have made, we had too many players that didn’t contribute last season costing us unnecessary money that could have been put to better use, either last year or at some point in the future. We appear to be repeating the same mistake this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Agreed fully. We got AS completely wrong, if anything it’s proof the board have a strategy in place that prevents against major financial events (which the wrong appointment of AS has become) 

in January we should run some of the new signings past the fortune tellers on here just to be sure though :rolleyes:

So the fact that AS happened shows that the board have a strategy to prevent an event like the appointment of AS happening. 

Did you just jump the shark?

Edited by DumboBud
Edited due to fat fingers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

It doesn’t show the second lowest wage budget.... it shows the second lowest average wage which is a function of expenditure divided by number of players, demonstrating the point that many have made, we had too many players that didn’t contribute last season costing us unnecessary money that could have been put to better use, either last year or at some point in the future. We appear to be repeating the same mistake this year. 

Yet again i’ll ask, who has the crystal ball for what players would have been successful? That was the strategy used last season and it worked. Tried it again this season and it hasn’t worked, that has been down to the person signing the players this season more than anything else. 

It sounds like OK prefers a smaller targeted squad from the Q&A but it doesn’t mean one strategy is always right and one is always wrong. 

We could have signed fewer players last season and maybe he wouldn’t have picked up Hilson or Stewart but equally he might not have picked up David or Reilly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

So the fact that AS happened shows that the board have a strategy to prevent an event like the appointment of AS happening. 

Did you just jump the shark?

The fact we can pick up and move on from AS shows it. If we had put all our eggs in the one basket and had no money at all left, we potentially couldn’t have sacked him, hired OK and allowed him to sign three players with more expected. 

Evidence that the board had a contingency plan surely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The fact we can pick up and move on from AS shows it. If we had put all our eggs in the one basket and had no money at all left, we potentially couldn’t have sacked him, hired OK and allowed him to sign three players with more expected. 

Evidence that the board had a contingency plan surely. 

Next years accounts will show whether there was a real contingency or whether the contingency was actually Hibs selling McGinn. 

I certainly have a feeling which is the more likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

Next years accounts will show whether there was a real contingency or whether the contingency was actually Hibs selling McGinn. 

I certainly have a feeling which is the more likely. 

Course it was. As a club (like probably all clubs at our level) we spend what we bring in. Still waiting for an answer what we should be saving for that’s over and above been a Scottish Premier league team? 

People are saying we should be saving money to build for the future, I’m not getting what this magic future target is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

It is called sustainability, not spending every windfall as soon as you get it when you have long term commitments. 

I have neither the patience nor the crayons to help you out here. 

Don’t worry about it. You couldn’t possibly muster any sort of argument that it would be more financially viable to our football clubs long-term future, to still be in the championship. cheering away that we have the £300k in the bank  from the Morgan sale and how that is so much better than having all the extra revenue that comes from being in a higher league. 

You could put that in crayon, pen, pencil or scroll it in your own dribble, it still wouldn’t make much sense to anyone with half a business brain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Don’t worry about it. You couldn’t possibly muster any sort of argument that it would be more financially viable to our football clubs long-term future, to still be in the championship. cheering away that we have the £300k in the bank  from the Morgan sale and how that is so much better than having all the extra revenue that comes from being in a higher league. 
You could put that in crayon, pen, pencil or scroll it in your own dribble, it still wouldn’t make much sense to anyone with half a business brain. 
That's a f**king belter of a post, even by the standards bazil85 has already set, especially on this thread [emoji23]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bazil85 said:

We budget in advance every season, if player sales aren't coming in for the next couple of years (which is no guarantee) a proportion of the money will be offset by being in the Scottish Premier. If we get relegated, we will  downsize. I have no doubt wage cuts will be in a number of players contracts and we also always have half or more of the squad who's contracts expire. 

Billy shared the wage budgets for this year and you can clearly see we are one of the lowest, yet we don't have the lowest crowds and potential for income. We spend what we earn, as we have practically all of our history. Having more money to spend due to transfer income right now, does no mean we'll have a disaster if that doesn't come in. We survived nine seasons recently in the top flight with little transfer income. 

In giving examples of previous situations the club has been in, in detailing we only spend what we have, coupled with the profits we've recorded and the increased revenue that comes with being an SP club, I feel I should have adequately passed your test. 

Now feel free to enlighten me to how you would have gotten us promoted and saved more budget?

You haven't shown any understanding of any of the points I raised but I will answer your question.

I'll do it in two parts.

The first part, I'll summarise the discussion we have had on here.

Secondly I'll talk about the problem with the current business model.

In the third I'll explain what I think the strategy should be.

First part.

You seem like a decent enough person baz so I don't really want to tears strips out of you as I would do to someone like Dickson. However, let me start by summarising my opinion of your understanding.

1) You show no understanding at all of the vital importance of considering operating profit as at least as important as net profit. You either genuinely don't understand or you are spinning like mad to hide it. Either way I don't care. That's your issue not mine.

2) You confused operating profit with net profit and took nearly 3 pages to realise or admit your mistake.

3) You seem confused about why player sales would be classified as an exceptional item despite the fact that we have had significant income in only about 6 sales in the last 20 years.

4) You have a casual disregard for the practicalities of having to cut costs when we run out of players to sell.

5) You have berated several other people on here who have demonstrated a clear understanding of the accounting principles being discussed.

6) You confused running the club properly with achieving success on the pitch. The two are completely different objectives.

7) You seem unaware of your limitations in regard to the above.

If you are in a position of financial authority anywhere within the club or SMISA and I was in charge of either, I would have your desk cleared by the end of the day. The combination of all of these 7 points is disastrous in anyone with any financial responsibility in any organisation.

I'm not really interesting in discussing this part further because you are going round in circles with me and other people.

You are making a bit of a fool of yourself.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part two.

The problem with the current business model can be summarised quite easily.

Firstly, we spend whatever we bring in and aim to break even.

The problem is obvious.

During good times (i.e. selling a player) we spunk the money within a couple of months of getting it like a National Lottery winner who takes home £5m and is back on benefits within 6 months having blown the lot on hookers and coke. It's as though the money is burning a hole in the pocket of the board and the thought of actually keeping it causes sleepless nights and stress palpitations.

What that means is we have no rainy day fund for when we have no players left to sell and have to slash the playing budget to avoid a massive operating loss.

So we get boom and bust. We win a Cup and then within a year or two we are relegated. It happened in the 80's and it happened again this decade.

That is one of the reasons why IMO we are a yo-yo club and cannot establish any signficant period of sustained success.

Gordon and the previous board have done a great job keeping us afloat but they are making the same mistake.

Neither of them can separate the football results side of the club (which involves emotion) from the strategic running of the business itself (which requires cold numbers and good financial analysis). To compare with a "normal" company, Saints are being run for the benefits of their customers. This is a terrible way to run a business IMO because you make bad decision repeatedly which successful businessmen (like Scott and Gilmour before him) would never normally do with their other companies. One former BOD member re-mortgaged his house at one point. Insane! Absolutely insane!

A business should be run to make profit, not to win Cups and promotion. Of course we want to eventually see success on the pitch but it should not be the day to day driver for the board. They are in place to make a profit and keep the company afloat and financially stable during periods of great instability in the game in general. That is their legal duty and it's why we probably shouldn't have die-hard fans on the board. Of course net profit is great but not if the underlying operating profit shows a massive club-threatening loss which is only reversed due to one-off exceptional items. If you don't at the very least understand the difference highlighted here then IMO you have no business being anywhere near the boardroom.

So in summary, the current business model causes boom and bust financial performance for the club. This should not really cause debate. We have seen it and are experiencing it again and the root cause of that is a board who are making business decisions which focus way too much on the club's performance on the pitch rather than the boring mundane task of doing what is best for the company. They appear to frequently confuse the two by assuming that running a sound ship wil remove any chance of success on the pitch. That, IMO is the key message to come out from these accounts. We should enjoy another year of profit but it is correct to be concerned when a modicum of financial analysis is applied to the financial results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part Three.

IMO we need to stop the boom and bust.

1) We need to budget for only the income we can be pretty certain of without including exceptional items. This is called living within our means and requires a longer term vision to see it work.

2) Income from exceptional items should be properly invested in any necessary work on the stadium and the training ground and all other administrative areas we have responsibility for. The rest should be properly invested for growth for the future. None of it should be spent on players. This is our rainy day fund.

3) The effect of the above is that we can ride out any financial storms in the medium to longer term including a major, unbudgeted and unavoidable capital outlay. The idea is to always return a profit both at the operating profit level and the net profit level and return a stable set of accounts from one year to the next where the underlying business shows stable performance ignoring exceptional items. This is regardless of whether we are relegated or not. Having this boring longer term stability strategy ironically allows for longer term planning and strategies to be developed because we largely know what we are doing and where we are going. A stable financial platform allows us the starting point from which to start reaching out for success on the park. Currently we are trying to put curtains on the windows before the foundations of the building have been laid.

4) A necessary risk of all of this is relegation and/or failure to gain promotion. If that happens, then it happens and we need, as fans to accept it as part and parcel of sport. What is unacceptable is a board making headless chicken decisions for the short term which risk the stability of the club a couple of years down the line. A few managerial appointments have clearly fallen into that headless chicken category over the last 4 years.

Buy the Buds scares the crap out of me because we are going to see even wilder swings in our finances when Gordon hands over. I have absolutely no idea who amongst us is competent enough to actually run the club like a proper business. And apparently without taking a salary as well according to guys like Josh. :huh:

I presume someone running the BTB campaign has plans in place for this. They'd better. Time is marching on.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, oaksoft said:

You haven't shown any understanding of any of the points I raised but I will answer your question.

I'll do it in two parts.

The first part, I'll summarise the discussion we have had on here.

Secondly I'll talk about the problem with the current business model.

In the third I'll explain what I think the strategy should be.

First part.

You seem like a decent enough person baz so I don't really want to tears strips out of you as I would do to someone like Dickson. However, let me start by summarising my opinion of your understanding.

1) You show no understanding at all of the vital importance of considering operating profit as at least as important as net profit. You either genuinely don't understand or you are spinning like mad to hide it. Either way I don't care. That's your issue not mine.

2) You confused operating profit with net profit and took nearly 3 pages to realise or admit your mistake.

3) You seem confused about why player sales would be classified as an exceptional item despite the fact that we have had significant income in only about 6 sales in the last 20 years.

4) You have a casual disregard for the practicalities of having to cut costs when we run out of players to sell.

5) You have berated several other people on here who have demonstrated a clear understanding of the accounting principles being discussed.

6) You confused running the club properly with achieving success on the pitch. The two are completely different objectives.

7) You seem unaware of your limitations in regard to the above.

If you are in a position of financial authority anywhere within the club or SMISA and I was in charge of either, I would have your desk cleared by the end of the day. The combination of all of these 7 points is disastrous in anyone with any financial responsibility in any organisation.

I'm not really interesting in discussing this part further because you are going round in circles with me and other people.

You are making a bit of a fool of yourself.

We’ll ignore you breaking two parts into three. If I was being as petty as you regarding holding onto a single use of a term and that showing a lack of ‘understanding’ on my part I might have used it. 

1. I fully understand the importance in generating income and not being reliant on transfer income to move the club forward. It has nothing to do with our strategy of spending money that’s available to us to increase other revenue streams. That’s exactly what has happened. We’ve spent transfer income and we now generate SP level income as opposed to championship level income. 

2.  I clarified what I meant in my second post. You are the one that as above was so petty you wouldn’t let it go for about three pages. As was previously mentioned, terms were changed and it was an honest mistake, you have latched onto it as something more than it was now for the best part of three days

3.  I am not confused in the slightest and the point is completely irrelevant to the strategy st Mirren use. A strategy that as above has been a success. If you think the strategy is we should sit on money and be happy in the Championship, fine. It would not be as financially beneficial as this strategy has proven to be so far. 

4. I haven’t at all, you have casually ignored that this could be a completely reletatice term due to other income streams we now have from being an SP club. St Johnstone/ Hamilton two established SP clubs with similar/ lower income opportunities to St Mirren can currently afford to pay players more and survive at this level with their strategy. Strategies that also include spending money they have from whatever source. Neither have particularly large cash reserves 

5. I have shown a frustration to the negativity that is systemic on here. Pointing out my belief we would have equal/ more negativity if we had recorded massive profits while languishing mid-table in the Championship 

6. Again no confusion in the slightest. Running the club properly is prudent and can’t be denied given our profits and the fact no one at the club or on here has been able to evidence and of these potential disaster scenarios that we’re apparently so close to (if some posters are to be believed) the goal of SMFC will always be to deliver the best product on the park. I have simply pointed out us being in the SP is part of that. Something the current running of the club has achieved (plus profits and plus increased revenue opportunities) 

7. Hopefully the above has clarified my understanding for you. I would be disappointed if you yet again return and jump on the single miscommunication which I’ve put my hands up to me quoting the wrong term. It is very much splitting hairs and petty. 

As I read your next paragraph it’s clear my point 7 should more or less be removed as you’ve continued with your childlike approach to this conversation. As I have pointed out many times I am in no way linked to the club bar season ticket and SMISA membership but I do work in conduct and compliance risk. If my boss or other colleagues acted in the manner you have over a strategy I support that’s been proved a success, they wouldn’t be asked to clear out their desk but there would certainly be raised eyebrows. To elude to tha tbeing fullish says more about your business acrimony than mine 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Part two.

The problem with the current business model can be summarised quite easily.

Firstly, we spend whatever we bring in and aim to break even.

The problem is obvious.

During good times (i.e. selling a player) we spunk the money within a couple of months of getting it like a National Lottery winner who takes home £5m and is back on benefits within 6 months having blown the lot on hookers and coke. It's as though the money is burning a hole in the pocket of the board and the thought of actually keeping it causes sleepless nights and stress palpitations.

What that means is we have no rainy day fund for when we have no players left to sell and have to slash the playing budget to avoid a massive operating loss.

So we get boom and bust. We win a Cup and then within a year or two we are relegated. It happened in the 80's and it happened again this decade.

That is one of the reasons why IMO we are a yo-yo club and cannot establish any signficant period of sustained success.

Gordon and the previous board have done a great job keeping us afloat but they are making the same mistake.

Neither of them can separate the football results side of the club (which involves emotion) from the strategic running of the business itself (which requires cold numbers and good financial analysis). To compare with a "normal" company, Saints are being run for the benefits of their customers. This is a terrible way to run a business IMO because you make bad decision repeatedly which successful businessmen (like Scott and Gilmour before him) would never normally do with their other companies. One former BOD member re-mortgaged his house at one point. Insane! Absolutely insane!

A business should be run to make profit, not to win Cups and promotion. Of course we want to eventually see success on the pitch but it should not be the day to day driver for the board. They are in place to make a profit and keep the company afloat and financially stable during periods of great instability in the game in general. That is their legal duty and it's why we probably shouldn't have die-hard fans on the board. Of course net profit is great but not if the underlying operating profit shows a massive club-threatening loss which is only reversed due to one-off exceptional items. If you don't at the very least understand the difference highlighted here then IMO you have no business being anywhere near the boardroom.

So in summary, the current business model causes boom and bust financial performance for the club. This should not really cause debate. We have seen it and are experiencing it again and the root cause of that is a board who are making business decisions which focus way too much on the club's performance on the pitch rather than the boring mundane task of doing what is best for the company. They appear to frequently confuse the two by assuming that running a sound ship wil remove any chance of success on the pitch. That, IMO is the key message to come out from these accounts. We should enjoy another year of profit but it is correct to be concerned when a modicum of financial analysis is applied to the financial results.

The naivety in your post really is something to behold here. It would be like blowing a lottery win on hookers and coke if the hookers and coke started generating you even more money. Exactly what the spend has done for SMFC in getting us into the SP 

I gave you the example of nine years in the SP with next to no player sales. You are talking about doomsday events that recent history has shown, hasn’t happened. If you think we don’t have a strategy for relegation (for probably the first time in our recent history) please feel free to show evidence of this. IMO two things will happen this season. We stay up and have another year of SP income to play with, or we go down and implement a relegation strategy. 

You seem to be confusing our financial situation with club success now. We are a yo-yo club, our support level means it’s very predictable. Over the last 18 years we’ve been relegated twice, had good times and bad the difference in the second time was the financial situation we were in. It was much healthier. You are now suggesting that might not be the case now and if we get relegated this season it could potentially mean a financial bust, is that right? If so, again feel free to evidence. Because we were spending what came in, in 2014/15 as well.

you say a business should be run to make a profit. The reality of SMFC making profit the last two years (when many of our rivals haven’t) set to make it this year, increased revenue income AND delivered on the football side, that being lost on you is really staggering. If you think football can be lumped together with other businesses and doesn’t have a lot more of an emotional element than others, then I’m equally glad you’re not part of our business decision making. You’ve also ignored we don’t have shareholders that take profits as their income. 

Another thing you are really struggling to grasp is the money was spent because it was there. Unless you have evidence we’d have/ will spend money that’s not there, it isn’t an issue. You’re talking about a doomsday that isn’t there and it is really baffling. 

To summarise, the board strategy has worked two years in a row resulting in profits, it is likely to result in another profit this year. This working strategy has resulted in not only profit but increased revenue streams that will mean should one off incomes not happen again, we are in a position to financially adjust.

You are creating boom and bust financial fantasies by using an argument of the football bust that happens with relegation. Hopefully me pointing out the sound financial footing we were on with our last relegation may be a better indicator than what happened 18/30+ years ago is a better stat. Although feel free to show evidence that there is no plan for relegation in place or we’ll not be able to adjust our budget in the SP if we don’t sell players (like we recently did for nine seasons) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Part Three.

IMO we need to stop the boom and bust.

1) We need to budget for only the income we can be pretty certain of without including exceptional items. This is called living within our means and requires a longer term vision to see it work.

2) Income from exceptional items should be properly invested in any necessary work on the stadium and the training ground and all other administrative areas we have responsibility for. The rest should be properly invested for growth for the future. None of it should be spent on players. This is our rainy day fund.

3) The effect of the above is that we can ride out any financial storms in the medium to longer term including a major, unbudgeted and unavoidable capital outlay. The idea is to always return a profit both at the operating profit level and the net profit level and return a stable set of accounts from one year to the next where the underlying business shows stable performance ignoring exceptional items. This is regardless of whether we are relegated or not. Having this boring longer term stability strategy ironically allows for longer term planning and strategies to be developed because we largely know what we are doing and where we are going. A stable financial platform allows us the starting point from which to start reaching out for success on the park. Currently we are trying to put curtains on the windows before the foundations of the building have been laid.

4) A necessary risk of all of this is relegation and/or failure to gain promotion. If that happens, then it happens and we need, as fans to accept it as part and parcel of sport. What is unacceptable is a board making headless chicken decisions for the short term which risk the stability of the club a couple of years down the line. A few managerial appointments have clearly fallen into that headless chicken category over the last 4 years.

Buy the Buds scares the crap out of me because we are going to see even wilder swings in our finances when Gordon hands over. I have absolutely no idea who amongst us is competent enough to actually run the club like a proper business. And apparently without taking a salary as well according to guys like Josh. :huh:

I presume someone running the BTB campaign has plans in place for this. They'd better. Time is marching on.

We have a winner with this post, surely 

1. Okay so we budget for only income we can guarantee, why bother even selling players then if we aren’t going to use the income to get the club further forward? The money was there we have made it work for us and now have much more income this season given we’ve been promoted. You realise spending funds that come in (one off income or otherwise) and not more, is still living within our means?  

2. So the stadium doesn’t really need big improvements, we have spent some money on it and volunteer groups have done some great work. Ralston has been improved over last couple seasons. We save money for a rainy day fund and stay in the Championship because we hvent invested in the player squad. So ultimately that rainy day fund is much less than the income that SP football can generate. Brutal business model so far and likely not one used by a single football club that has generated significant transfer income. But I’m sure you’re right and they’re all wrong... 

3. What financial storm? This still remains a fantasy in your head and until you can evidence we’re going to have ongoing operational costs above our income over the coming seasons it remains a fantasy. Again what’s the long-term plan? Is it higher than the current plan to establish ourself as an SP team. How is staying in the Championship and looking at money sitting in the bank going to generate us more income to implement your strategy than the sponsor, tv, crowd, etc extra income that comes from being in a higher league? 

4. So let me get this straight, you’d be happy with relegation and big cuts to our income stream as long as the board aren’t taking all these unnecessary risks that put out club in danger? All these risks that you haven’t been able to identify and certainly not evidence? You are saying our stability is at risk when we’re going to announce three years profit and increased our revenue. You’re saying that without a shred of evidence that we will have unaffordable operational costs going forward. Just think on that for a second. 

As for BTB fan ownership has not only worked for many clubs, it’s been a great success. This is yet more fairytale worry from you without foundation IMO 

well that was a fun read this morning, covered my train journey nicely. 

I think we can summarise by saying the strategy has worked, we’ve made profits and you’ve shared no evidence of a lurking financial ‘bust’ good job 

Edited by bazil85
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...