Accounts to the Year Ended May 2018

[bazil85]

39 minutes ago, Dibbles old paperboy said:

Harry Rednap won a cup with Portsmouth and he also overspent to such a degree that the club was almost liquidated a season after Harry left.

I'm all for having some cover and some squad players, hence why I didn't mention Ross Stewart (goalkeeper) being signed and hardly used. A club like St Mirren will always take a look at players from the lower divisions but I can't think of any Jack Ross lower division punts who turned out to be a Darren McGregor.

The 46% rise in the wage budget and mess of recruitment by Stubbs probably play a big part in why Gus McPherson was brought in as technical director.

He did yeah, what’s your point? We haven’t overspent. We have made a profit two seasons in a row (not checked previous seasons) and almost certainly going to be a third. 

Like I say it sounds like you have an issue with the strategy. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but no one could have predicted who would and wouldn’t be our star players that season. Take Gavin Reilly as an example, he has a very tough time the previous season and then banged in 20 goals. 

Also like I said, the strategy looks to have changed. Gus coming in is a sign of that. It’s not a case of what’s right and what’s wrong, it’s what works. No one can deny JR strategy worked. 

[bazil85]

36 minutes ago, Dibbles old paperboy said:

The profit margin was achieved by selling Kyle McAllister, Steve Mallan and Lewis Morgan within the same 12 months... without those sales we were running at a monumental loss.

My strategy would have been to tell Jack Ross to work to a budget rather than saying yes to every signing he wanted to make.

As for Hippolyte, Mullen, Hill and Donati being signed when we were running away with the Championship I don't know many fans that thought at the time that those were decent signings for a club eyeing a place in the premiership.

Without those sales we wouldn’t have signed the players we did. The event happened after the cause. You can’t switch it around and say ‘we’d of ran at a loss’ there is zero evidence they would have spent the same money. In fact they certainly wouldn’t have. 

The money that came in, they used it to their advantage and it paid off. 

So you'd be happy if we were still in the Championship but posting say six figure profits? Do you realise what it is to be a football fan? It’s about success on the park and we delivered that. 

Again about the players, donate and likely Hill both signed for cover. McGinn or any player could have snapped his leg a day after they were signed. We worked to a budget, a budget that included player sales. 

Mullen is the reason we beat Dundee and has played a lot this season. Stubbs is the reason Hippolyte isn’t here, we have no idea if he’d have done a job. 

[Soctty]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

How long does it take to realise that relying on extraordinary items cannot go on forever?

What happens when we run out of players to sell in the next couple of years? Or are we blindly hoping that St Mirren will somehow be exempt from the swings of the transfer market?

We are covered for next year's accounts thanks to McGinn but what about the following year?

One of two things will happen. We either sell perhaps MacGennis or we will have to slash our playing budget substantially (probably by about 25-30% - more if we are relegated).

Can you imagine how poor our squad would be compared to even this one?

That is why operating profit/loss is so important. It gives you a much fairer summary of the underlying finances of the club when you run out of players to sell.

Yes we made a small profit and we should be glad of that but it is entirely correct to be able to see potential problems in the underlying accounts.

You can be certain that any buying club worth it's salt will know that operating loss by heart the next time we come to sell and will know how desperate we are to get a fee of any size. They will bid appropriately. We might as well put a big banner at the club entrance saying "Please underpay for our players. We'll take anything".

How long does it take to realise that for football clubs, selling players is not an exceptional item. It's listed as such because it's not technically part of our "trade", but football clubs sell players constantly. The likes of ourselves don't buy players very often, but selling players will always be part of our business plan, whether the club admits it or not.

[bazil85]

12 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

The only money the club should predicate their future spend is that which comes from season tickets and that which comes from the lowest available share of that year's prize fund.

If someone else had hit financial problems and failed to pay up for Mcallister or Morgan then where would the shortfall have been covered from?

 

The answer, in my opinion, would have been the SMISA share fund 

 

Mccalister money came in the January before, Morgan the January of the title winning season but was almost guaranteed since early on. We spent money that we had to spend. Football is about taking calculated risks. Yes Morgan could have dipped in form or gotten an injury but you don’t get reward in any business without taking risks. 

People that don’t understand that and don’t appreciate it paid off, don’t understand business 

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

All hogwash, the club has always operated on the basis of debt.  The myth of a new stadium and being debt-free was debunked very shortly after we left Love St.

It's just that now the directors dont lend to the club anymore, they ask SMISA to cover the incidentals and if we hit a cash-flow problem we are sailing WAY to close to the wind to weather it.

Another thing that baffles me, when we are looking at multi-million pound accounts, people can still try and bring the tiny sums related to SMISA in as part of a debate.  SMFC have said on many occasions, anything not funded by SMISA will be taken from budget or won't happen. So it's completely false to think it would be an issue with the budget. 

[Soctty]

9 hours ago, Dibbles old paperboy said:

And how many players did we get transfer fees for from 2010-14?

None. The fact that we didn't bring talent through in that period means that we were always cutting costs, which eventually led to our relegation.

Our modus operandi should be to use the academy as a source of regular income. Maybe not every year, but selling on players is a regular source of income for wise football clubs.

The need to live within our needs doesn't change, but our means are boosted by those sales.

[bazil85]

27 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

And why he got two wage rises following interviews at Dundee, Ipswich and Barnsley.

Club has already said he didn’t sign the second contract. Only wage rise was after Dundee. You’re on fire right now

[Kemp]

3 hours ago, Soctty said:

How long does it take to realise that for football clubs, selling players is not an exceptional item.

1

How much money have clubs of St Mirren's size received in transfer fees over the last decade?

David Longwell's results from the academy is the definition of an exceptional item! That money should have been used to safeguard the future of the club by building up a rainy day fund or invested in alternative revenue streams. To spend so much of it needlessly is very disappointing.  

I notice Bazil has not answered what would happen in the case of another club or payment causing a cash flow crisis when operating at this ridiculous loss. Would we just "print more money?"

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Kemp said:

How much money have clubs of St Mirren's size received in transfer fees over the last decade?

David Longwell's results from the academy is the definition of an exceptional item! That money should have been used to safeguard the future of the club by building up a rainy day fund or invested in alternative revenue streams. To spend so much of it needlessly is very disappointing.  

I notice Bazil has not answered what would happen in the case of another club or payment causing a cash flow crisis when operating at this ridiculous loss. Would we just "print more money?"

So you’d have been happy for us to be sitting mid-table in the championship and sitting on all this transfer money? Even though by doing that it would have cost us million+ in increased revenue being in the SP generates? Yeah that’s really safeguarding the clubs future. 

If another club had a cash flow issue and couldn’t pay us we’d sue them. Out of the uncountable number of transfers in world football, I can maybe think of a handful of cases where a club hasn’t received transfer money. In the unlikely chance that happened,  we should not take any risk at all and be happy being a mid-table (or below) championship club? Absolute madness 

i’ll put it to you. 

- what’s we’re the chances of Celtic not being able to pay for Morgan?

-Derby or Barnsley paying what’s realistically a pretty small sum?  

Id say low to zero, so there isn’t really a great deal of risk. But let’s say one of those deals fell through. What would we have done? How about not sign any players in January/ less in the summer and ride out the difference. Do you think we’d of recorded a bank breaking loss? 

Im sorry but some of these points are beyond laughable. 

[Kemp]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

So you’d have been happy for us to be sitting mid-table in the championship and sitting on all this transfer money? Even though by doing that it would have cost us million+ in increased revenue being in the SP generates? Yeah that’s really safeguarding the clubs future. 

If another club had a cash flow issue and couldn’t pay us we’d sue them. Out of the uncountable number of transfers in world football, I can maybe think of a handful of cases where a club hasn’t received transfer money. In the unlikely chance that happened,  we should not take any risk at all and be happy being a mid-table (or below) championship club? Absolute madness 

i’ll put it to you. 

- what’s we’re the chances of Celtic not being able to pay for Morgan?

-Derby or Barnsley paying what’s realistically a pretty small sum?  

Id say low to zero, so there isn’t really a great deal of risk. But let’s say one of those deals fell through. What would we have done? How about not sign any players in January/ less in the summer and ride out the difference. Do you think we’d of recorded a bank breaking loss? 

Im sorry but some of these points are beyond laughable. 

Your understanding of business is what is beyond laughable here buddie, as has been proven above time and time again. Transfer fees can easily be delayed. All types of revenue is constantly delayed or not paid for any business on the planet, including football clubs. Unexpected costs will appear every year. Who is to the pay wages when this happens next?

It was never a binary choice between winning the league and spending every penny that came in.

The fact we are even talking about how to deal with a financial crisis hitting the club because people like you want to blow every penny that comes in on a bloated reserve squad is frankly unbelievable.

I think the point has been well made above, it would seem the board were so scared to lose Jack Ross they sanctioned every signing he requested, even when it got to the point of absurdity with the likes of Duffy and Donati. The board then bought in to Allan Stubbs "I need to be backed" shite, and allowed him to waste even more money on transfer fees, compensation, and wages for guys who will never make it. The club would now be in serious financial trouble had Hibs not raised that fee for McGinn. Hopefully Gus MacPherson coming in shows that lessons are being learned.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

Your understanding of business is what is beyond laughable here buddie, as has been proven above time and time again. Transfer fees can easily be delayed. All types of revenue is constantly delayed or not paid for any business on the planet, including football clubs. Unexpected costs will appear every year. Who is to the pay wages when this happens next?

It was never a binary choice between winning the league and spending every penny that came in.

The fact we are even talking about how to deal with a financial crisis hitting the club because people like you want to blow every penny that comes in on a bloated reserve squad is frankly unbelievable.

I think the point has been well made above, it would seem the board were so scared to lose Jack Ross they sanctioned every signing he requested, even when it got to the point of absurdity with the likes of Duffy and Donati. The board then bought in to Allan Stubbs "I need to be backed" shite, and allowed him to waste even more money on transfer fees, compensation, and wages for guys who will never make it. The club would now be in serious financial trouble had Hibs not raised that fee for McGinn. Hopefully Gus MacPherson coming in shows that lessons are being learned.

I think you'll find my understanding of the business that is SMFC is perfectly fine. We are a football club and as such our primary aim is to have the best footballing product possible. Our business model is to spend what we earn in order to deliver that. 

Transfer fees could be delayed but it's by far and above an exception as opposed to the norm. There have been 58 fee paying transfers in Scottish football (in or out) over the last two season. Can you name one that has been delayed due to issues with the club paying? Your argument (and to question my business understanding wit this argument is the beyond laughable part) is 'we should hang off on signing players because there's a chance some of the transfer money might get delayed' Or on the off chance other income streams get delayed. Are you serious? 

I'd also put it to you, what do you think would happen if one of our income streams was delayed? Do you think banks just foreclose on football clubs instantly or administration happens without a long process to repay sums owed? That's not how things work, not in football clubs not in other businesses. In saying all this, there is no evidence at all that we spent money before we got it and even if we did it would take a massive amount of bad luck, delays and other events to get us even close to trouble. 

We also never spent every penny we had, we made a profit both years. Yet I'll pander to you some more, please indulge me in what 'financial crisis' could have hit our club? Please remember that sums of these transfers would have been paid up front before we started spending last summer and the money we got for Morgan was from a club that raked in an eight figure sum in Europe. Also please let me know what your alternative plan is that would also gain us promotion and record a profit last year? 

I'm sorry are you the one with the crystal ball that knew for fact the players that didn't contribute would be duds and the ones that did would be worthwhile?  Another fan taking issue with a strategy that's worked. Now that is absurd. 

[Soctty]

49 minutes ago, Kemp said:

How much money have clubs of St Mirren's size received in transfer fees over the last decade?

David Longwell's results from the academy is the definition of an exceptional item! That money should have been used to safeguard the future of the club by building up a rainy day fund or invested in alternative revenue streams. To spend so much of it needlessly is very disappointing.  

I notice Bazil has not answered what would happen in the case of another club or payment causing a cash flow crisis when operating at this ridiculous loss. Would we just "print more money?"

Being cut adrift at the bottom of the championship was surely the very definition of a "rainy day", and hence funds were used to get us out of that situation. The board than showed ambition to back our manager to get us out of the championship.

In doing all of that, we remained in profit. People are getting overexcited about something that hasn't happened, won't happen in this current financial period and beyond that people are making wild guesses of our demise it seems.

I agree in the idea of developing alternative revenue streams - wasn't that something that was mooted in relation to the McGinn money? Or is that too close to giving the current board credit for not being naive and clueless custodians?

[Kemp]

We shall need to agree to disagree on this one gents.

My only final points;

Basil - You don't need a crystal ball, you just need to look at the past and various crisis that have hit St Mirren and various (almost every!) other clubs in Scottish football. We are sailing way too close to the wind and given the output of the academy in recent years there is no need for it at all.

Soctty - Yes, I'd agree getting off the foot of the championship was a rainy day and it was correct to spend then. Subsequently money has been wasted time and again though, that could be cut out. To go back to the very first post on the thread, the number of admin staff seems excessive as well. And a board does not get credit for "mooting alternative revenue streams with the McGinn money". They get it for running the club prudently and implementing a strategy to bring in alternative revenue streams. One of my mates often talks about shagging Michelle Keegan...there hasn't been much activity on that front either.

I can see why this is causing some ill feeling from some SMISA members. I'm all for using available money to help the club out, but that money should only be used on the conditon that the club is being run prudently and the supporters will inherit a profitable club with savings in the bank.

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, Kemp said:

We shall need to agree to disagree on this one gents.

My only final points;

Basil - You don't need a crystal ball, you just need to look at the past and various crisis that have hit St Mirren and various (almost every!) other clubs in Scottish football. We are sailing way too close to the wind and given the output of the academy in recent years there is no need for it at all.

Soctty - Yes, I'd agree getting off the foot of the championship was a rainy day and it was correct to spend then. Subsequently money has been wasted time and again though, that could be cut out. To go back to the very first post on the thread, the number of admin staff seems excessive as well. And a board does not get credit for "mooting alternative revenue streams with the McGinn money". They get it for running the club prudently and implementing a strategy to bring in alternative revenue streams. One of my mates often talks about shagging Michelle Keegan...there hasn't been much activity on that front either.

I can see why this is causing some ill feeling from some SMISA members. I'm all for using available money to help the club out, but that money should only be used on the conditon that the club is being run prudently and the supporters will inherit a profitable club with savings in the bank.

I just don’t understand how you can think we’re ‘sailing too close’ we’re a club making profit and we’re in the SP. we are also agile enough that if things went wrong we could adjust so very easily. There are many clubs in Scotland in much worse situations, with expensive, older stadiums, borrowing and in less favourable league positions than us. 

If that’s you done then fine but I’m still wondering what possible event could happen? Nothing likely (never mind something that we’re running dangerously close to as you’ve eluded to)  from where I can see. It would have to be an extraordinary event and we wouldn’t be safe from such events even if we had banked the transfer money and sat battling it out with Morton for 4th place in the Championship. 

We’ve put the outputs from the academy to good use and got us into the SP. which is pretty much the optimum position for our club (bar maybe the odd occasion) so again I don’t see what more benefit you’d be hoping for from banking money. A title challenge perhaps or a European trophy... 

i’ll leave You with this, what would be your end goal in prudently looking after the money and would it be a higher aspiration that being in the Scottish Premier league recording profit for soon to be the third season in a row? 

[beyond our ken]

28 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I just don’t understand how you can think we’re ‘sailing too close’ we’re a club making profit and we’re in the SP. we are also agile enough that if things went wrong we could adjust so very easily. There are many clubs in Scotland in much worse situations, with expensive, older stadiums, borrowing and in less favourable league positions than us. 

If that’s you done then fine but I’m still wondering what possible event could happen? Nothing likely (never mind something that we’re running dangerously close to as you’ve eluded to)  from where I can see. It would have to be an extraordinary event and we wouldn’t be safe from such events even if we had banked the transfer money and sat battling it out with Morton for 4th place in the Championship. 

We’ve put the outputs from the academy to good use and got us into the SP. which is pretty much the optimum position for our club (bar maybe the odd occasion) so again I don’t see what more benefit you’d be hoping for from banking money. A title challenge perhaps or a European trophy... 

i’ll leave You with this, what would be your end goal in prudently looking after the money and would it be a higher aspiration that being in the Scottish Premier league recording profit for soon to be the third season in a row? 

He said "final points"

What will be achieved by prompting further discussion when the views are so entrenched?

Please don't feel obliged to answer

[Soctty]

53 minutes ago, Kemp said:

We shall need to agree to disagree on this one gents.

My only final points;

Basil - You don't need a crystal ball, you just need to look at the past and various crisis that have hit St Mirren and various (almost every!) other clubs in Scottish football. We are sailing way too close to the wind and given the output of the academy in recent years there is no need for it at all.

Soctty - Yes, I'd agree getting off the foot of the championship was a rainy day and it was correct to spend then. Subsequently money has been wasted time and again though, that could be cut out. To go back to the very first post on the thread, the number of admin staff seems excessive as well. And a board does not get credit for "mooting alternative revenue streams with the McGinn money". They get it for running the club prudently and implementing a strategy to bring in alternative revenue streams. One of my mates often talks about shagging Michelle Keegan...there hasn't been much activity on that front either.

I can see why this is causing some ill feeling from some SMISA members. I'm all for using available money to help the club out, but that money should only be used on the conditon that the club is being run prudently and the supporters will inherit a profitable club with savings in the bank.

Getting back to the point on admin staff, I disagree. Should we have less admin staff than other clubs of our standing? Or clubs in lower leagues? If so, why? What are the admin staff that we should be doing without? What is the relative financial cost of the admin staff measured against the playing staff? How does this compare to the industry norm, and to teams of our size and stature?

I can understand people worrying for the financial health of the club, but on the back of two years where we posted profits while performing well on the pitch, I think it's worrying unduly. This time next year we will have 2018/19 accounts in front of us, and then we'll know what damage the Stubbs episode has made, what level this season's wage bill is at against this season't profit - before and after "exceptional items" and we can argue again about figures without the knowledge of the inner workings of the boardroom or the timing of decisions made on spending.

It passes the time between games, especially when the team have performed too well for us to moan about them this week... 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Soctty

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

Your understanding of business is what is beyond laughable here buddie, as has been proven above time and time again. Transfer fees can easily be delayed. All types of revenue is constantly delayed or not paid for any business on the planet, including football clubs. Unexpected costs will appear every year. Who is to the pay wages when this happens next?

It was never a binary choice between winning the league and spending every penny that came in.

The fact we are even talking about how to deal with a financial crisis hitting the club because people like you want to blow every penny that comes in on a bloated reserve squad is frankly unbelievable.

I think the point has been well made above, it would seem the board were so scared to lose Jack Ross they sanctioned every signing he requested, even when it got to the point of absurdity with the likes of Duffy and Donati. The board then bought in to Allan Stubbs "I need to be backed" shite, and allowed him to waste even more money on transfer fees, compensation, and wages for guys who will never make it. The club would now be in serious financial trouble had Hibs not raised that fee for McGinn. Hopefully Gus MacPherson coming in shows that lessons are being learned.

You have a very valid point, the idea of living within your means can only be based on predictable and (near) guaranteed future income).  There are only two streams of that available to Saints.  if we spend all but a few grand from what we collected in a very good year then we will have trouble in investing in the the academy-the very thing that has generated our emergency funds.  I dont just mean ticking it over either.    Not only will we not attract the youth talent, we won't retain the staff ifwe don't grow that side of the business.

[bazil85]

12 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

He said "final points"

What will be achieved by prompting further discussion when the views are so entrenched?

Please don't feel obliged to answer

Obliged I do feel to ask you for a set of rules I should be following regarding an internet forum. 

[bazil85]

24 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

You have a very valid point, the idea of living within your means can only be based on predictable and (near) guaranteed future income).  There are only two streams of that available to Saints.  if we spend all but a few grand from what we collected in a very good year then we will have trouble in investing in the the academy-the very thing that has generated our emergency funds.  I dont just mean ticking it over either.    Not only will we not attract the youth talent, we won't retain the staff ifwe don't grow that side of the business.

Great insider knowledge there. Can you show us your source where investing in the youth team was not part of last years budget?  We can ignore the £150k new pitch that the club has just put down in Ralston that youth players will use to train. 

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Obliged I do feel to ask you for a set of rules I should be following regarding an internet forum. 

Sigh!

a person so lacking in subtlety that they can’t see a joke about their own glaring  and rampant need to answer EVERY post about running the club

please don’t feel obliged to.....

on second thoughts. Forget it

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Great insider knowledge there. Can you show us your source where investing in the youth team was not part of last years budget?  We can ignore the £150k new pitch that the club has just put down in Ralston that youth players will use to train. 

Where do I claim insider knowledge?  It seems to be your thing to attribute comments to people who never made them and then have a go at them for what they never said.

its not so long since one of the buildings at Ralston needed major repairs, the place is made up of temporary modular units and could do with a good few bob being spent

 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

Where do I claim insider knowledge?  It seems to be your thing to attribute comments to people who never made them and then have a go at them for what they never said.

its not so long since one of the buildings at Ralston needed major repairs, the place is made up of temporary modular units and could do with a good few bob being spent

 

Well where were you getting the stuff about not investing in the youth academy? Was it more needless negative assumptions than actually based on anything? 

Again, please feel free to share your source where we are not spending/ planning to spend money on Ralston?  

[beyond our ken]

43 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Well where were you getting the stuff about not investing in the youth academy? Was it more needless negative assumptions than actually based on anything? 

Again, please feel free to share your source where we are not spending/ planning to spend money on Ralston?  

I refer you to my last post

i never said that the club never invested in the academy

quite frankly, if you can only argue in points never raised there really is no point in discussing anything with you

[DumboBud]

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. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

I refer you to my last post

i never said that the club never invested in the academy

quite frankly, if you can only argue in points never raised there really is no point in discussing anything with you

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