Jump to content

div

Accounts to the Year Ended May 2018

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Stop being so bloody stupid. :lol:

We are not Man United with an extended property portfolio and overseas trade FFS. We are not a global conglomerate with multiple subsidiary companies.

Stop pretending things are more complicated than they are. You are making a fool of yourself. Just like dear old baz.

Forgot that it's all so simple - it says so in your Frank Wood 2nd edition.

There's only one fool here, and he's the self-styled jack of all trades... :lol:

Keep going.

Edited by Soctty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Soctty said:

Forgot that it's all so simple - it says so in your Frank Wook 2nd edition.

There's only one fool here, and he's the self-styled jack of all trades... :lol:

Keep going.

Congratulations. Yet another thread without a single constructive post from you.

If you have any analysis to provide on Saints accounts I'll be happy to comment.

Otherwise I'll leave you to play with the other posters with nothing to add but plenty to say. 

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

Congratulations. Yet another thread without a single constructive post from you.

If you have any analysis to provide on Saints accounts I'll be happy to comment.

Otherwise I'll leave you to play with the other posters with nothing to add but plenty to say. 

I find it simplest to say there is nothing, either per the accounts or from looking at post balance sheet events, which is worthy of comment, and certainly not worth worrying your fellow fans about. You really are becoming like Mr Dickson with your pretence of expertise in areas you have none.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Soctty said:

I find it simplest to say there is nothing, either per the accounts or from looking at post balance sheet events, which is worthy of comment,

Then you should have the decency to STFU and leave others who DO have the expertise to talk about them to do so in peace without your pointless snarking from the sidelines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Soctty said:

I find it simplest to say there is nothing, either per the accounts or from looking at post balance sheet events, which is worthy of comment, and certainly not worth worrying your fellow fans about.

:D

If you don't think a wage to turnover ratio of 75% or an operating loss of £640k is even worth mentioning then that's your right. No need to castigate those who raise concerns about both though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Then you should have the decency to STFU and leave others who DO have the expertise to talk about them to do so in peace without your pointless snarking from the sidelines. 

You should take your own advice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Soctty said:

I guarantee that it is.

Looking at a set of accounts and calculating gross profit ratios, roi, debtor days and all the basic analytical stuff is indeed simple stuff, and in the contrived examples you get in a textbook it's easy to think it's all a piece of piss, but there is far more to it than that, especially when looking at the records of a football club. A simple manufacturing company is a lot more simplistic because you have turnover, raw materials used and overheads. Much easier to look at basic gross profit and cost of sales and the like.

Absolutely nobody on this thread is talking about ROI, profit ratios, debtor days or anything else like that.

Just 3 numbers have been discussed.

Net profit of £77k which is positive and good.

Operating loss of £640k which is very large and negative and worthy of at least commenting on. It was worrying enough to force our previous chairman Gilmour to tweet about it.

Wage to turnover ratio which at 75% is worryingly high.

That's it. Just those 3 numbers.

Now if you can tell me why it's OK to pay attention to net profit but there is some complicated technical accounting reason why it is negative and inappropriate to bring up the other two then we'd all be hapy to hear it. I'll pass on your comments to Stewart Gilmour who found it necessary to comment his shock on the scale of the operating loss. Perhaps he is over-reacting too?

I suggest that your ego is driving your personal attacks on fellow supporters rather than you having some insight which eludes the rest of us.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Absolutely nobody on this thread is talking about ROI, profit ratios, debtor days or anything else like that.

Just 3 numbers have been discussed.

Net profit of £77k which is positive and good.

Operating loss of £640k which is very large and negative and worthy of at least commenting on. It was worrying enough to force our previous chairman Gilmour to tweet about it.

Wage to turnover ratio which at 75% is worryingly high.

That's it. Just those 3 numbers.

Now if you can tell me why it's OK to pay attention to net profit but there is some complicated technical accounting reason why it is negative and inappropriate to bring up the other two then we'd all be hapy to hear it. I'll pass on your comments to Stewart Gilmour who found it necessary to comment his shock on the scale of the operating loss. Perhaps he is over-reacting too?

I suggest that your ego is driving your personal attacks on fellow supporters rather than you having some insight which eludes the rest of us.

Outstanding rant. Bravo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

If you don't think a wage to turnover ratio of 75% or an operating loss of £640k is even worth mentioning then that's your right. No need to castigate those who raise concerns about both though.

The ratio is high, but as the majority of these contracts were 1 or 2 year deals, with a good deal ending last summer, the figures are already out of date. The club spent what it had to to get out of the Championship.

The nightmare scenario being wheeled out by some doesn't account for a substantial increase in commercial and TV revenue, not to mention a noticable uplift in matchday income, through gate receipts and increased sponsorship revenue. That's before we look at another big cash influx from the McGinn deal - this is somehow being spun as some sort of negative.

What you and others have done is to assume that those on the board have no business acumen, and are naive. You've made huge assumptions with very little if any inside knowledge on the workings of the club, the contracts given to players - including any relegation clauses and getouts, which a club in our position would almost certainly include in deals we are doing.

You need to look beyond the numbers, but I get that it's easier to plug in your figures and panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Soctty said:

The ratio is high, but as the majority of these contracts were 1 or 2 year deals, with a good deal ending last summer, the figures are already out of date. The club spent what it had to to get out of the Championship.

The nightmare scenario being wheeled out by some doesn't account for a substantial increase in commercial and TV revenue, not to mention a noticable uplift in matchday income, through gate receipts and increased sponsorship revenue. That's before we look at another big cash influx from the McGinn deal - this is somehow being spun as some sort of negative.

What you and others have done is to assume that those on the board have no business acumen, and are naive. You've made huge assumptions with very little if any inside knowledge on the workings of the club, the contracts given to players - including any relegation clauses and getouts, which a club in our position would almost certainly include in deals we are doing.

You need to look beyond the numbers, but I get that it's easier to plug in your figures and panic.

And there is your ignorance exposed.

These account numbers we are discussing are for LAST year. Everything in your second paragraph is part of NEXT year's accounts. You cannot compare them with outgoings from LAST years accounts which is what you are insinuating.  The stuff in your second paragraph will be compared against the corresponding increases in wages etc for THIS year and will include the Stubbs, Jackson payoffs etc. Anything left over (if there is anything) will be spent on further wages as bazil keeps reminding us. NOBODY has said next year is going to be the problem. It's when we run out of players to sell that we'll see trouble because we need to move from a position of paying £640k (or equivalent by the time we run out) more than we can afford to zero balance overnight. You don't seem to understand this. That's fine but there's no need for personal attacks on those who can see it and think it's worth mentioning.

That bit underlined? Not a single poster has said this. Not one. Except perhaps LPM and he's not to be trusted with sharp things.

Your last sentence makes no sense. Accounts is all about numbers and you mention them in your own argument.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 

There is much of this that isn't true or just not relevant. If you think the accounts of a football club that is not run to deliver a profit to an owner/ Shareholders (no one taking a cut off profits at this club) can be scrutinised the same as a company designed to make and retain profits, it's simply wrong. That isn't saying using accounting practices is wrong, it's saying you can't interpret like for like and completely ignore the emotive nature of a football club. The aim of SMFC is to deliver a product on the park. 

No one is saying, it wouldn't be good to have bigger profit margins or in hindsight JR likely wouldn't have signed a number of players but that is the strategy that has returned profit and increased profit margins for this season. 

Your next post is again a lot of nonsense to put it frankly. before SG came in the club was ran very poorly and it took a lot of fixing to sort out (including selling the ground) since then we have been ran very prudently in comparison to a lot of our competitors around us. We did get lucky with the stadium sale but how you can accompany that to what we've done since, I don't know. Your point about relying on transfer income to keep us on an even keel is also simply not true. I'm really not sure what you don't get about us spending money we brought in. Had we not sold a single player, do you know for a fact we would have still spent all the same money and recorded a loss? Because we didn't in the previous spell of our history, so why would we have done it now? Our budget was designed previously based on not selling players and finishing bottom of leagues. We still managed nine seasons in the SP. 

Bar the situation we were in when SG came in after very poor club management and having to sell the stadium (partly down to the league bosses shafting us over building a new stand and USH, rules they changed in following seasons, not sure why you haven't mentioned that as 'bad luck' when you speak about us being 'lucky' in selling the stadium) when else could we have went into administration? Unless you have  evidence the club would have spent outwith their means if we weren't selling players, it is a completely negative and unfounded perspective. 

This is total denial Baz and I'm not getting into it with you.

Suffice to say that if you check previous years accounts just before Gordon came on board yo'll see that the directors were ploughing 6 figures into the club to plug the net losses.

If you think this is either desirable, normal, OK or irrelevant then that is your call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

This is total denial Baz and I'm not getting into it with you.

Suffice to say that if you check previous years accounts just before Gordon came on board yo'll see that the directors were ploughing 6 figures into the club to plug the net losses.

If you think this is either desirable, normal, OK or irrelevant then that is your call.

If it's denial please evidence:

- SMFC would have spent money they didn't have in the event of no transfer money to a point of risking the clubs future

- SMFC actively spent money before reasonable knowledge the funds would be available to them risking the clubs future

- SMFC have taken risks in their business model that put the business in real financial danger. 

I'm fully aware we went through a poor spell as a club and that we don't record big (or any) profits every year but SMFC are not out of line with other clubs of similar level. In fact if anything we are in a more secure financial position than most. This is where you're clearly naive in reviewing a football clubs accounts to  only other businesses and not to it's peer clubs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

And there is your ignorance exposed.

These account numbers we are discussing are for LAST year. Everything in your second paragraph is part of NEXT year's accounts. You cannot compare them with outgoings from LAST years accounts which is what you are insinuating.  The stuff in your second paragraph will be compared against the corresponding increases in wages etc for THIS year and will include the Stubbs, Jackson payoffs etc. Anything left over (if there is anything) will be spent on further wages as bazil keeps reminding us. NOBODY has said next year is going to be the problem. It's when we run out of players to sell that we'll see trouble because we need to move from a position of paying £640k (or equivalent by the time we run out) more than we can afford to zero balance overnight. You don't seem to understand this. That's fine but there's no need for personal attacks on those who can see it and think it's worth mentioning.

That bit underlined? Not a single poster has said this. Not one. Except perhaps LPM and he's not to be trusted with sharp things.

Your last sentence makes no sense. Accounts is all about numbers and you mention them in your own argument.

If I'm ignorant when it comes to accounts, I'm in the wrong job...

We made a profit last year. You seem to think because an exceptional item is in the accounts it shouldn't be counted. It's exceptional in this case mainly due to the amount of money involved, rather than for the rarity of the transaction. Football clubs sell players almost every year. The worry of us running out of players to sell is a valid concern, but at the moment we have two who will be prized assets, and as time goes by our track record is one of giving talent a chance - often after taking it from one of the bigger clubs. Our problem in the early part of this decade was that we didn't cash in on players, which led to us having to cut costs and panic selling the likes of McLean, which led eventually to our relegation. 

I think you will find that we'll make a significant profit in the current year - probably not if you discount the exceptional item of the McGinn money, but that's because that is there to use, so we will use a portion of it - it would be silly not to. We'll gamble a bit of money in January to give us a chance of staying in the league, but I can guarantee that anyone signed in January will be on a short term deal, so their cost will disappear if we go down, along with a fair amount of those currently on the wage bill. 

The worrying being done by yourself and other comes across as an assumption of at least partial naivity on the part of the current board. The guy pulling the strings is an experienced and hard-nosed operator. He didn't get to where he is by taking huge, unfounded risks.

Edited by Soctty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you should have the decency to STFU and leave others who DO have the expertise to talk about them to do so in peace without your pointless snarking from the sidelines. 
I've just counted the money in my piggy bank and divided it up into different denominations. By your logic I could run SMFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

I've just counted the money in my piggy bank and divided it up into different denominations. By your logic I could run SMFC. emoji23.png

Mind and not even think about spending the money though to make more money. That’s bad business apparently...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cockles1987 said:

It's for my son's driving lessons. When he passes his test it will save me on taxi fares that have increased again. emoji6.png

Our Fares increased today.

Up to one mile was £3.40

Now £3.50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, shull said:

Our Fares increased today.

Up to one mile was £3.40

Now £3.50.

Do you not think all taxi drivers should be part-time, All fairs should be £1 a mile and every year they should give all customers free journeys as a thank you? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

I've just counted the money in my piggy bank and divided it up into different denominations. By your logic I could run SMFC. emoji23.png

 

10 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Mind and not even think about spending the money though to make more money. That’s bad business apparently...

If someone gave you a fiver to put in the bank you can't spend that as it would be classed as extraordinary income.

Share this post


Link to post
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...