Accounts to the Year Ended May 2018

[bazil85]

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. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

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.

[bazil85]

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. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Ex chairman's view

[Guest TPAFKATS]

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.

[bazil85]

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 

[St.Ricky]

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 

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

[Guest TPAFKATS]

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 [emoji38]

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.

[bazil85]

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. 

[oaksoft]

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 November 25, 2018 by oaksoft

[David Mc]

Ex chairman's view

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.

[Kemp]

13 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Ex chairman's view

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.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

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.

[bazil85]

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. 

[St.Ricky]

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 

[oaksoft]

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.

[oaksoft]

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.

[St.Ricky]

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. 

 

[Wendy Saintss]

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. 

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Clueless

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

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.

It is splitting hairs, I was clearly talking about the difference in profit year on year. You’ve jumped on the wording similar to how a child might act. 

[melmac]

Be interesting to hear SMiSA's take on it.

[renfrew bud]

On 11/19/2018 at 4:44 PM, div said:

Accounts to year ended May 2018 have been issued to shareholders.

You can download a copy here if you are interested;

https://blackandwhitearmy.com/downloads/accounts-may2018.pdf

I’m a shareholder and I haven’t received accounts and neither have friends. Notice there’s no mention of when AGM is. 

[melmac]

My humble opinion is that this set of accounts is a reason why SMiSA should be employing an accountant, even on a piecemeal basis, to plot some sort of strategy going forward.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

My humble opinion is that this set of accounts is a reason why SMiSA should be employing an accountant, even on a piecemeal basis, to plot some sort of strategy going forward.

Strategy [emoji23]

[shull]

30 minutes ago, renfrew bud said:

I’m a shareholder and I haven’t received accounts and neither have friends. Notice there’s no mention of when AGM is. 

I haven't received Accounts or notice of any AGM for at least 5 years. 

I did go to the front desk at Stadium six months ago to confirm my name and address specifically for the Club Accounts etc. 

The lady did write down my details. 

Still no information though.