Accounts to the Year Ended May 2018

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, shull said:

Three top class posts from Oaksoft .

Surprised you read them, do you not usually lose your concentration after two sentences? 

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Surprised you read them, do you not usually lose your concentration after two sentences? 

TBH two of your sentences is usually enough. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, faraway saint said:

TBH two of your sentences is usually enough. 

I appreciate a lot of people don’t have time on here for posts that aren’t overwhelmingly negative 

[Kemp]

This thread is a testament to the good nature and patience of St Mirren fans! 

 

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Almost 300 posts in and like most social media, views are becoming ever more entrenched.

Many ( myself included) feel we should be saving something from the good times to support us through the lean times.
This has been a good approach not only in business but also for mankind geberally through the centuries.
Our current chairman isn't taking that approach which is I suppose entirely his perogative as he's the "owner" of the club.

I really hope this changes when SMISA /BtB take over.

[shull]

45 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Surprised you read them, do you not usually lose your concentration after two sentences? 

Only your posts and Sleeper07's.

And it's not concentration, it's the fecking will to live. 

[beyond our ken]

13 hours ago, bazil85 said:

‘We will have trouble investing in the acadamey’ will we? Source please or like I say, is it needless and without foundation negativity? 

There IS cause for concern in our recent spending patterns and we have been fortunate to get some windfalls to keep us in the black (just) and anybody who is short of money will have trouble in investing in anything.  That much is inarguable.  For us, we can't really borrow unless it for a venture that has favourable projections of the return on investment.  An academy is not a self-sustaining enterprise for us, it requires money invested that has been generated elsewhere in the business in the belief that it will produce first team players and in the hope that we hit the jackpot with one or two good returns every five years-ish. 

And the academy is just an example, there is the stadium itself and the development and retention of good quality off-field workers to sustain and grow the business and probably several other areas where investment over and above normal running costs is required from time to time.

To be honest, someone advocating a break-even policy even after we benefit from significant exceptional income and purporting to work in the profesion of risk management seems paradoxical to me.  The best way of predicting the future is to review past events and we have had some real financial kicks in the nuts over the years.   And the pish about just cutting things from the budget if SMISA can't or won't pay for it is just daft, if we don't need it why ask for the money?   If we do need it and cant spend then we increase the depreciation of assets, or reduce our capacity to operate from day to day, or more likely both.

 I'm out of this now as it seems you love an argument but lack any inclination to even acknowledge another viewpoint. Nobody is indulging in needless negativit, just expressing their views.

[Soctty]

12 hours 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. 

It's a viscious circle. Of course we will have spent some of the McGinn money, because if we didn't then the board wouldn't have been acting in the best interests of the club. Had the McGinn money not been forthcoming, it is more than likely, in my opinion, we wouldn't have sacked Stubbs when we did. That influx of funds gave us the leeway financially to make an early call on that, and also to hopefully back the new manager in January. I'm don't think we'll spend massively, but I can definitely see us getting a few of higher quality in until the end of the season, thus not having the burden of extra wages going forward unless we stay up, in which case we would be in a position to lengthen any short term deals by a year at least. This should all leave us still in a healthy state of profit.

[billyg]

39 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Many ( myself included) feel we should be saving something from the good times to support us through the lean times.
 

We've never done it that way in my 51 years of supporting the club  , why call anyone out for it now , it's just the way clubs like ours operate ! It's never going to change , fan owned or not !

[Soctty]

16 minutes ago, billyg said:

We've never done it that way in my 51 years of supporting the club  , why call anyone out for it now , it's just the way clubs like ours operate ! It's never going to change , fan owned or not !

It's the way most clubs operate. Football clubs are different from any other business, because the customers are volatile and the product isn't something you can guarantee by putting in the same materials because the materials are intangible.

I would love to see us have a rainy day fund, but when most days are rainy it's difficult to do.

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

There IS cause for concern in our recent spending patterns and we have been fortunate to get some windfalls to keep us in the black (just) and anybody who is short of money will have trouble in investing in anything.  That much is inarguable.  For us, we can't really borrow unless it for a venture that has favourable projections of the return on investment.  An academy is not a self-sustaining enterprise for us, it requires money invested that has been generated elsewhere in the business in the belief that it will produce first team players and in the hope that we hit the jackpot with one or two good returns every five years-ish. 

And the academy is just an example, there is the stadium itself and the development and retention of good quality off-field workers to sustain and grow the business and probably several other areas where investment over and above normal running costs is required from time to time.

To be honest, someone advocating a break-even policy even after we benefit from significant exceptional income and purporting to work in the profesion of risk management seems paradoxical to me.  The best way of predicting the future is to review past events and we have had some real financial kicks in the nuts over the years.   And the pish about just cutting things from the budget if SMISA can't or won't pay for it is just daft, if we don't need it why ask for the money?   If we do need it and cant spend then we increase the depreciation of assets, or reduce our capacity to operate from day to day, or more likely both.

 I'm out of this now as it seems you love an argument but lack any inclination to even acknowledge another viewpoint. Nobody is indulging in needless negativit, just expressing their views.

The windfalls did not come after the spend so there was no fortune involved, again we spent what we had. We didn’t spend then hope we can make it up. 

The academy has been pretty self sufficient, we have now brought in roughly double the original cost to set it up  it sounds like people want to imagine the very worst happening where we never sell another player and never get a single other significant cost. That might happen but it’s much more likely it won’t.  if it didn’t happen, we survived for nine years in the SP previously during an unprecedented poor time for selling players for a club at our level ,with our standard of academy. So to suggest there could be worrying times if this happened again, is only speculation and without evidence we don’t have a contingency plan, is without foundation  

the other areas you’ve mentioned face every club at our level. it’s part of being a football club, yet clubs hitting financial problems is still the exception to the norm  we are not overspending and gambling with credit, both usually/ if not always exist when a club hits problems  

as for your risk management assessment, it is completely invalid. Again see my comment regarding us spending money because we had it. If we didn’t have it or we have levied costs higher than the finance we had, that would be the risk. Yet again, us spending money we have is spending within our means. 

Asfor the SMISA comment, SMFC ask because they can and the majority of SMISA voting members do because they want to save the club they support money. It’s exceptionally simple to understand. SMISA fund a cost = SMFC save that cost and can put it towards something else. Can you not see how that might be appealing to say... a St Mirren fan? You can say it’s ‘pish’ but that’s you calling the person that quoted the clubs stance a liar. 

I’m more than happy  that people have the viewpoint that we should have saved money. This has all escalated from me asking to clarify one point, that I’ve either had no answer for or an answer that would cost us more income and see us playing at a lower level. 

1. The strategy worked, what would be an alternative to getting us SP football, increased income streams involved in SP football and recorded a bigger profit margin? 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by bazil85

[DumboBud]

There does seem to be an obsession by some with the increased income from being in the top league without recognising that money also flows outwards.

As a wise man once said turnover is vanity profit is sanity. 

[DougJamie]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 10:42 PM, faraway saint said:

Isn't Tony a liability? 

No denying his credibility as a former player, although never nothing much else outside the club, but, what else does he bring for the cash we pay him? 

Well according to Tony, a  Premiership League Title and Champions League 

 

Keep Up

[faraway saint]

6 minutes ago, DougJamie said:

Well according to Tony, a  Premiership League Title and Champions League 

 

Keep Up

That's in the same world that PRicky lives in, meanwhile in the real world............

[DougJamie]

Just now, faraway saint said:

That's in the same world that PRicky lives in, meanwhile in the real world............

Now now FAS, you will break up the pub team  

[WeeBud]

1 hour ago, DumboBud said:

There does seem to be an obsession by some with the increased income from being in the top league without recognising that money also flows outwards.

As a wise man once said turnover is vanity profit is sanity. 

Aye but is the profit "nett" or "operating" ??

[Gunni Thorfason]

There have been many decent posts written here,and oaksoft has eloquently raised the correct rational that should be adopted by us.But this should also been the mantra of every club in the world. We have the cautionary tales of how financial problems ruined teams for long spells after they chased success.Many in England,Leeds being a standout,in Italy Parma in Scotland Rangers all had vast amounts of generated money misspent. Then we have the prudent teams like many in our lower divisions which don’t move up leagues or have cup runs.They sustain themselves with no other remit than provide senior football for their respective local community.
Football business is like no other business as we all know there is no formula to base the growth on (we sold X last year so we know we will get that and try to reach Y this year). It is too fluid to determine. We might have three U16s right now that might bring in £3m in years to come it’s an unknown quantity.
I would like to think we have always been one of Scotland’s bigger sides so with this comes the dilemma for each of our chairmen how much to spend to achieve what we deem as success a difficult job I really wish I had the equation for them but that is very elusiveI only ask that they match the financial commitment every st.mirren fan gives each year no more no less COYS

[oaksoft]

7 hours ago, Yflab said:

Has anyone worked out what our wage to turnover ratio was for the last two years? That is usually a good indication of how well the business is being run.

75% by the looks of it.

2.1 million on wages for a turnover of 2.8 million.

That's exceptionally high.

[munoz]

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

75% by the looks of it.

2.1 million on wages for a turnover of 2.8 million.

That's exceptionally high.

Is that just wages or does that include pay offs and transfer fees? 

[oaksoft]

7 hours ago, bazil85 said:

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 

OK Baz, we are done discussing this. It's pretty clear that you are not interested in reading what others have taken time to post. My comments come from more than 14 years of running my various businesses and filing my own accounts for those companies. In not one of those years did I report an operating loss or borrow money so I am happy with my accounting credentials.

You have no accountancy experience whatsoever. Nothing wrong with this but you are far too arrogant for someone with so little understanding. I have no problem helping people understand things but I'm wasting no further time with you on this issue.

If you want to tone things down then I would be happy to re-engage but you are not up to speed at the moment.

Edited November 28, 2018 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, DumboBud said:

There does seem to be an obsession by some with the increased income from being in the top league without recognising that money also flows outwards.

As a wise man once said turnover is vanity profit is sanity. 

This is genuinely staggering. What is worse is people with no understanding of accounts taking such hardline positions as Baz and a couple of others.

[bazil85]

37 minutes ago, Gunni Thorfason said:

There have been many decent posts written here,and oaksoft has eloquently raised the correct rational that should be adopted by us.But this should also been the mantra of every club in the world. We have the cautionary tales of how financial problems ruined teams for long spells after they chased success.Many in England,Leeds being a standout,in Italy Parma in Scotland Rangers all had vast amounts of generated money misspent. Then we have the prudent teams like many in our lower divisions which don’t move up leagues or have cup runs.They sustain themselves with no other remit than provide senior football for their respective local community.
Football business is like no other business as we all know there is no formula to base the growth on (we sold X last year so we know we will get that and try to reach Y this year). It is too fluid to determine. We might have three U16s right now that might bring in £3m in years to come it’s an unknown quantity.
I would like to think we have always been one of Scotland’s bigger sides so with this comes the dilemma for each of our chairmen how much to spend to achieve what we deem as success a difficult job I really wish I had the equation for them but that is very elusiveI only ask that they match the financial commitment every st.mirren fan gives each year no more no less COYS

One thing all the clubs you mention have in common (and in no way have in common with SMFC over recent years) is they spent money they don't have. Every club (that I can think of) that has gotten into financial difficulty has been the result of borrowing and spending money in the hope of recouping it (money they didn't already have). This again is not relevant in the slightest to our club, fortunately.

I get that a number of fans on here are very, very risk adverse but in all honesty, the approach we have taken over the last two years is also pretty risk adverse. 

[oaksoft]

36 minutes ago, munoz said:

Is that just wages or does that include pay offs and transfer fees? 

It's everything to do with wages, details of which are provided in the accompanying notes.

Transfer fees are exceptional items so wouldnt be in this section. Payoffs would also be exceptioanl items I would have thought. The thing to watch out for is that a lot of details are missing in published accounts with a variety of things lumped under general headings. There are good reasons for this but a bit of caution is needed.

ETA. Just had another look and payoffs are not listed separately. They will be included somewhere but without access to the day ledgers you can't tell. I would expect that they are included as wages but I genuinely don't know.

Edited November 28, 2018 by oaksoft

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

OK Baz, we are done discussing this. It's pretty clear that you are not interested in reading what others have taken time to post. My comments come from more than 14 years of running my various businesses and filing my own accounts for those companies. In not one of those years did I report an operating loss or borrow money so I am happy with my accounting credentials.

You have no accountancy experience whatsoever. Nothing wrong with this but you are far too arrogant for someone with so little understanding. I have no problem helping people understand things but I'm wasting no further time with you on this issue.

If you want to tone things down then I would be happy to re-engage but you are not up to speed at the moment.

Same as St Mirren in the last two years then? 

I actually do, not that you asked or bothered to look further than one comment three days ago. Part of my qualification required for my current job relates to credit and lending and isheavily weighted towards accounting,. Credit risk also requires a good level of knowledge and CPD in accounting but I'm sure you know that.

Me actually basing on your previous messages, where you have suggested a strategy that would have cost the club likely a seven figure sum, you don't seem even remotely equipped to help me 'understand' accounting. And as for toning down, maybe you should look back at some of your disrespectful, petty and unfounded wording (just a thought) 

I'm perfectly comfortable that my stance is in line with practically every football club at our level that has brought in transfer sums,. That  of using those funds to push the club forward is not a bad thing. That opinion shared by a self-made millionaire in GLS, I imagine he has a decent business brain as well. 

[bazil85]

18 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

This is genuinely staggering. What is worse is people with no understanding of accounts taking such hardline positions as Baz and a couple of others.

Winning that league title this year must have been such an upsetting time for you. Imagine a football club spending the money it has to win silverware.

‘We will really be focusing only on maximising profits with no concern at all for the product on the park’

said no one running a football club, ever. (Apart from maybe Mike Ashley)