Jump to content

div

Accounts to the Year Ended May 2018

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We only really have one extra background staff member from when Stubbs was here and it’s someone who’s main task is to sort out what was potentially the worst transfer window in our clubs history. 

Doesn't change my opinion that we were already top heavy in background staff, then there’s Jimmy Nicholl lurking…………...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We only really have one extra background staff member from when Stubbs was here and it’s someone who’s main task is to sort out what was potentially the worst transfer window in our clubs history. 

Is that not only true if and when Jimmy Nicholl actually joins up...…..Stubbs, Jackson and Sports Scientist left and Kearney, McPherson and Mendes have joined us so in actual number terms to date it is one in and one out. I may of course be mistaken and missed somebody out, have to admit to a liquid lunch today and maybe my memory is somewhat distorted!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Doesn't change my opinion that we were already top heavy in background staff, then there’s Jimmy Nicholl lurking…………...

To compare ourselves with the likes of Hamilton - a club we should be looking to compete with - they have a similar number of coaching/support staff than we do. They have two sports scientists, two physios and a strikers coach to name a few of their extravagances. Livingston also have a similar number.  In fact most clubs have managers, assistants, and then first team coach and or goalkeeping coach. A good number have strikers coaches. Clubs employ whatever they think they need.

We are nothing out of the ordinary in my opinion. I'd actually be pretty disappointed if we were to scrimp on the support the manager gets by getting rid of staff he relies on. Appreciate you think differently, but I'm happy we're giving ourselves a chance, in terms of coaching at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Doesn't change my opinion that we were already top heavy in background staff, then there’s Jimmy Nicholl lurking…………...

Did you think we were top heavy when JR was in charge? Because again it's pretty much like for like with the exception of Gus.

I'd think a team going from Championship level to SP level could be forgiven for having 1 or 2 extra staff but that's just me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Is that not only true if and when Jimmy Nicholl actually joins up...…..Stubbs, Jackson and Sports Scientist left and Kearney, McPherson and Mendes have joined us so in actual number terms to date it is one in and one out. I may of course be mistaken and missed somebody out, have to admit to a liquid lunch today and maybe my memory is somewhat distorted!!

Yeah it's only if Nicholl comes in. Going back an extra step (like I just mentioned) Stubbs, Jackson and Rice coming in was three in and two out regarding JR but I think it's harsh to say that's really all that bad going from CH to SP level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bazil85 said:

Did you think we were top heavy when JR was in charge? Because again it's pretty much like for like with the exception of Gus.

I'd think a team going from Championship level to SP level could be forgiven for having 1 or 2 extra staff but that's just me. 

I've said before that I don't see why we need extra coaching staff just because were in the top flight - so yes. 

As a matter of principal I think the BoD  should be challenged on all aspects of running the club at the AGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I've said before that I don't see why we need extra coaching staff just because were in the top flight - so yes. 

As a matter of principal I think the BoD  should be challenged on all aspects of running the club at the AGM.

I'd potentially agree with you if we hadn't just turned such a significant increase in profits. In saying that, it is very much the way of modern football. Sports Scientists, analysts add value. Also the way OK spoke about GM role at the SMISA event, filled me with plenty confidence about what he'll be doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd potentially agree with you if we hadn't just turned such a significant increase in profits. In saying that, it is very much the way of modern football. Sports Scientists, analysts add value. Also the way OK spoke about GM role at the SMISA event, filled me with plenty confidence about what he'll be doing. 
15k isn't a significant increase in profit on a multimillion pound turnover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 8:09 PM, TPAFKATS said:
On 11/23/2018 at 4:38 PM, bazil85 said:
I'd potentially agree with you if we hadn't just turned such a significant increase in profits. In saying that, it is very much the way of modern football. Sports Scientists, analysts add value. Also the way OK spoke about GM role at the SMISA event, filled me with plenty confidence about what he'll be doing. 

15k isn't a significant increase in profit on a multimillion pound turnover.

It is for a football club at our level. We’ll always need to spend what we earn to compete in Scottish football. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
It is for a football club at our level. We’ll always need to spend what we earn to compete in Scottish football. 

No, it's not. It's 0.5% of our turnover. Our level is irrelevant.

Would you have sacrificed promotion if we had taken off two or three key players salaries to have a healthier profit? Only that wouldn’t work because a successful season would have equalled increased revenue. 

I genuinely don’t understand some fans that are never happy regardless. 

- title winning season 

- club in the black 

- profit up 

- income since likely to mean we continue in the black 

still not happy :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Would you have sacrificed promotion if we had taken off two or three key players salaries to have a healthier profit? Only that wouldn’t work because a successful season would have equalled increased revenue. 

I genuinely don’t understand some fans that are never happy regardless. 

- title winning season 

- club in the black 

- profit up 

- income since likely to mean we continue in the black 

still not happy :lol:

I'm happy.  See Aberdeen made profit.. I Think 85000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you have sacrificed promotion if we had taken off two or three key players salaries to have a healthier profit? Only that wouldn’t work because a successful season would have equalled increased revenue. 
I genuinely don’t understand some fans that are never happy regardless. 
- title winning season 
- club in the black 
- profit up 
- income since likely to mean we continue in the black 
still not happy 
You certainly don't understand me.
I only responded to correct your assertion regarding significant increase in profits.
The rest of your original post is irrelevant because it is based on that falsehood.
The rest of this post that I've quoted is also irrelevant.

Share this post


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

You certainly don't understand me.
I only responded to correct your assertion regarding significant increase in profits.
The rest of your original post is irrelevant because it is based on that falsehood.
The rest of this post that I've quoted is also irrelevant.

I certainly don’t understand you. Our operational profits went up more than four fold unless I’m reading the figures incorrectly? If that isn’t significant, I’m not sure what is. 

Share this post


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

I certainly don’t understand you. Our operational profits went up more than four fold unless I’m reading the figures incorrectly? If that isn’t significant, I’m not sure what is. 

That's not true.

Operating profits don't include one-off player sales because it's a measure of the underlying performance of the business. Exceptional items are excluded - or SHOULD be.

We made an operating loss of £600k+.

The board gambled on getting promotion based on getting the money from those player sales and it worked so everything is fine for this year and probably next but like I said earlier, we have a problem in a couple of years time when the player sales dry up. You are either in denial about this or you don't understand how to analyse accounts. This year we can relax though.

The point is that the current business model is not sustainable in the medium term without something drastic happening.

That I believe is why Stewart Gilmour made his comments earlier today.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ex chairman's view
Screenshot_20181124-202420.thumb.jpeg.e6800fdff394b70caf1022cd0e949771.jpeg

I suppose there three important aspects for next season here leaving aside any potential transfer income. How much additional income from playing in the Premiership will we generate if we stay up, will salaries, etc. remain similar if we stay up and how much can we reduce our outgoings by if we are relegated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Ex chairman's view
Screenshot_20181124-202420.jpeg

Genuinely amazed more on here don't see it that way.

It's not being anti-St Mirren or "never being happy" to point out we are being run with an unsustainable business plan. It is a lot easier to increase your operating expenses by 46% than it is to bring them back down quickly.  An operating loss of 648k is massive, and enough for anyone who cares about the club to worry about. I can only assume we have quite a lot of Labour voters on the forum who don't understand how money works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Genuinely amazed more on here don't see it that way.
It's not being anti-St Mirren or "never being happy" to point out we are being run with an unsustainable business plan. It is a lot easier to increase your operating expenses by 46% than it is to bring them back down quickly.  An operating loss of 648k is massive, and enough for anyone who cares about the club to worry about. I can only assume we have quite a lot of Labour voters on the forum who don't understand how money works.
I think a lot of the operating loss came about on the back of transfer income or expected transfer income in the case of Morgan.
Personally, I'd like to see us roughly break even or generate some profit every year with the transfer income being mainly kept for the rainy days.

My view is probably skewed by previously seeing us spend the surplus and have the long rainy days last years.

Share this post


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

That's not true.

Operating profits don't include one-off player sales because it's a measure of the underlying performance of the business. Exceptional items are excluded - or SHOULD be.

We made an operating loss of £600k+.

The board gambled on getting promotion based on getting the money from those player sales and it worked so everything is fine for this year and probably next but like I said earlier, we have a problem in a couple of years time when the player sales dry up. You are either in denial about this or you don't understand how to analyse accounts. This year we can relax though.

The point is that the current business model is not sustainable in the medium term without something drastic happening.

That I believe is why Stewart Gilmour made his comments earlier today.

Splitting hairs on wording, profits are up this year. They’re not only up they pretty much quadrupled on the previous season. 

As they said, they took educated risks and it paid off. How people can somehow turn increased profits, promotion and a solid financial foundation into the coming year into a negative is beyond me. Maybe we should take zero risk and just be happy with a mid-table championship or lower team. 

How is the current model not sustainable? You need to take risks in any business to move forward and as a football club that’s what we’ll continue to do. No risk they’ve taken would cause the business model to collapse. Like you said They spent money that had came from transfer income, there is nothing at all to suggest they would spend the same money in the future if the transfer income wasn’t there. If they were saying they’ll do that, then yes that wouldn’t be sustainable. 

The aim is to stay in the SP, with that comes other incomes other than transfers to keep pushing the club forward. I have no doubt they have planned for relegation though and unless you can show me otherwise the ‘not sustainable business model’ is just an unfounded theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Splitting hairs on wording, profits are up this year. They’re not only up they pretty much quadrupled on the previous season. 

As they said, they took educated risks and it paid off. How people can somehow turn increased profits, promotion and a solid financial foundation into the coming year into a negative is beyond me. Maybe we should take zero risk and just be happy with a mid-table championship or lower team. 

How is the current model not sustainable? You need to take risks in any business to move forward and as a football club that’s what we’ll continue to do. No risk they’ve taken would cause the business model to collapse. Like you said They spent money that had came from transfer income, there is nothing at all to suggest they would spend the same money in the future if the transfer income wasn’t there. If they were saying they’ll do that, then yes that wouldn’t be sustainable. 

The aim is to stay in the SP, with that comes other incomes other than transfers to keep pushing the club forward. I have no doubt they have planned for relegation though and unless you can show me otherwise the ‘not sustainable business model’ is just an unfounded theory. 

Actually... you are both correct when viewed from your separate standpoints IMO. 

What you are discussing is your relative attitudes to risk. 

For businesses looking for steady,  organic growth funded from revenue and generated profits then the approach Oaksoft suggests would be appropriate and safe. 

The other model is inherently more risky but not overly when increased revenues can be projected over 2 years.  Transfers provided capital to allow the investment made in players 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Splitting hairs on wording, profits are up this year. They’re not only up they pretty much quadrupled on the previous season. 

As they said, they took educated risks and it paid off. How people can somehow turn increased profits, promotion and a solid financial foundation into the coming year into a negative is beyond me. Maybe we should take zero risk and just be happy with a mid-table championship or lower team. 

How is the current model not sustainable? You need to take risks in any business to move forward and as a football club that’s what we’ll continue to do. No risk they’ve taken would cause the business model to collapse. Like you said They spent money that had came from transfer income, there is nothing at all to suggest they would spend the same money in the future if the transfer income wasn’t there. If they were saying they’ll do that, then yes that wouldn’t be sustainable. 

The aim is to stay in the SP, with that comes other incomes other than transfers to keep pushing the club forward. I have no doubt they have planned for relegation though and unless you can show me otherwise the ‘not sustainable business model’ is just an unfounded theory. 

It is not splitting hairs at all. What counts as Operating profit or loss is not negotiable in accounting systems. You are simply wrong.

The underlying business operation ran at a loss of £640k. Period.

You need to understand accounting. Please do your homework and stop criticising those who understand this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Actually... you are both correct when viewed from your separate standpoints IMO. 

What you are discussing is your relative attitudes to risk. 

For businesses looking for steady,  organic growth funded from revenue and generated profits then the approach Oaksoft suggests would be appropriate and safe. 

The other model is inherently more risky but not overly when increased revenues can be projected over 2 years.  Transfers provided capital to allow the investment made in players 

Ricky, the discussion between me and bazil concerns his use of the phrase "operating profit". He is wrong to use that phrase in the context in which he uses it.

Share this post


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

Ricky, the discussion between me and bazil concerns his use of the phrase "operating profit". He is wrong to use that phrase in the context in which he uses it.

In that you are correct. Agree that in most businesses excptional income would often be treated differently. 

 

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...