Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
div

Accounts to Year Ended May 31st 2019

Recommended Posts

So in a nutshell, regardless lets not sack Goody, lets keep playing and developing our kids, lets keep supporting our club by attendance, and under Scott I am right in saying we have increased our turnover by around 60 % ………...

I could not give a flyer what any other club does 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget, before the club was taken over, there were occasions when the old board members had to top-up club funds from their own pockets (soft-loans)? This is something that has not been required under the new board. 

Share this post


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

The magnitude of that mistake in financial terms has only become public knowledge since the accounts were published, ie less than a month ago. I therefore think its perfectly fair to be discussing it. Indeed, its the point of this thread.

I don't think that came as a big surprise to anyone, certainly no one that's been on here to witness the conversations & snipping for what feels like forever. Regardless, I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss the accounts. I'm saying it's pointless people continuing to have a go at a managerial appointment mistake, which we have seen. It's done, lessons learned and they acted very fast to damage control it. Indeed if they hadn't it could have been a very different picture was us in the Championship this season. 

I think that comparing how Motherwell were run under previous ownership is irrelevant to this discussion.

I agree to an extent but we only have a short window to review regarding Motherwell. I think how they previously functioned has more relevance, than people referencing the first year when they got income from two cup final runs. Common sense says that will be an anomaly. The expenses and budgeting won't be polar different now under new ownership to it was under old. 

Yes, I know that Motherwell's £1.7 million bucked the trend. It was a windfall. That is my point.

They decided to blow a portion of that windfall to subsidise the following season. They didn't blow it all. They have a £1.5 million asset about to return from injury.

St. Mirren blew their entire £1 million windfall on a bad managerial appointment within the same season.

Back to the first point, it is massively unfortunate the Stubbs appointment, we all know that, it's been getting said in various forms for over 15 months. We were in the situation, no amount of going over old ground will change that. We had to rectify the mistake and that was costly. Continuing to finger point won't move us anywhere and it won't give anyone any new information. The new BOD have done far more good than they've done bad in recent years. That income aside, we've went from 7th in Championship to an SP team, some have been quick enough to forget that. 

IMO that doesn't show St Mirren as being better run than Motherwell.

IMO it shows we made a very costly mistake. I think if we look at that in isolation, fine I can see your point. I think if we look at how the accounts for Motherwell and St Mirren have been over the last few seasons, difference surrounding events & the scenario proofing, it's very clear we've been better run.

But just different opinions. 

1. Its pointless you telling me not to discuss the blowing of a £1 million windfall on a managerial appointment. Its the main issue in the recently published accounts.

2. Yes, common sense says that Motherwell's large income in the previous season was an anomaly. I've already point this out in two previous posts. Its part of my point!

3. I haven't forgotten anything.

4. As I said earlier, how Motherwell were run under previous ownership is irrelevant. The previous owner was a millionaire who bankrolled them. All I've commented on is the last 2 accounts and they do not show that we have been better run than Motherwell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

1. Its pointless you telling me not to discuss the blowing of a £1 million windfall on a managerial appointment. Its the main issue in the recently published accounts.

Not telling you anything, you're welcome to. Just my observation that we're about 18 months after the appointment and people are still going on about the BOD making a mistake in appointing Stubbs. Personally think it's just old ground. No one is saying anything new that hasn't been said before. The accounts being released doesn't really change that IMO.

2. Yes, common sense says that Motherwell's large income in the previous season was an anomaly. I've already point this out in two previous posts. Its part of my point!

I know you have, I'm only saying when we factor that in as why they looked very rosy last year, I don't see much that suggests they're better run. 

3. I haven't forgotten anything.

Some have and it's certainly not brought up close to as much as the Stubbs situation has been 

4. As I said earlier, how Motherwell were run under previous ownership is irrelevant. The previous owner was a millionaire who bankrolled them. All I've commented on is the last 2 accounts and they do not show that we have been better run than Motherwell.

Like I say, I disagree. Not trying to change your opinion, just giving mine & what I'm basing it on. Purely speculation but I wonder if this conversation would be happening if they didn't have that one anomaly cup run season. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

As a business person I would take Motherwell's accounts over ours in a heartbeat.
 

Unfortunately that £430k loss needs to be funded somehow.

It's not just an inconvenient number on a spreadsheet.

How would you cover it?

Rob a bank?

Offer blowjobs to drunk revellers on the High Street on a Friday night?

Start up a human trafficking side hustle?

Pray to the cash pixie to sort it for you?

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately that £430k loss needs to be funded somehow.
It's not just an inconvenient number on a spreadsheet.
How would you cover it?
Rob a bank?
Offer blowjobs to drunk revellers on the High Street on a Friday night?
Start up a human trafficking side hustle?
Pray to the cash pixie to sort it for you?
He would steal some of the Labour or Tory party money trees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Motherwell blew £460k of a £1.7 million windfall from the previous season.
St. Mirren blew £1 million of a £1 million windfall within the same season.
I wouldn't class that as us being "better run".
Why compared over 2 years, why not try over a longer term which would be more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's not forget, before the club was taken over, there were occasions when the old board members had to top-up club funds from their own pockets (soft-loans)? This is something that has not been required under the new board. 
No you are quite right they haven't put a penny into the club. They have lived off the transfer fees gained from McGinn, McAllister etc and Smisa members ring fenced funds. And that well is almost dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately that £430k loss needs to be funded somehow.
It's not just an inconvenient number on a spreadsheet.
How would you cover it?
Rob a bank?
Offer blowjobs to drunk revellers on the High Street on a Friday night?
Start up a human trafficking side hustle?
Pray to the cash pixie to sort it for you?
Sell their asset when he's fit?
I doubt you would bring in much offering Blow Jobs.

Share this post


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

Unfortunately that £430k loss needs to be funded somehow.

It's not just an inconvenient number on a spreadsheet.

How would you cover it?

Rob a bank?

Offer blowjobs to drunk revellers on the High Street on a Friday night?

Start up a human trafficking side hustle?

Pray to the cash pixie to sort it for you?

Use some of the £1.7 million profit from the previous season?

Sell David Turnbull?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kevo_smfc said:

Let's not forget, before the club was taken over, there were occasions when the old board members had to top-up club funds from their own pockets (soft-loans)? This is something that has not been required under the new board. 

That’s because the new board have sold McGinn, Mallan, McAllister and Morgan. 

And, as a previous poster has pointed out, they’ve borrowed “ring fenced” SMiSA funds.

If they hadn’t then they would have to dip into their own pockets.

Or kept Alan Stubbs as manager.

 

Edited by Hiram Abiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Tommy said:
2 hours ago, Hiram Abiff said:
Motherwell blew £460k of a £1.7 million windfall from the previous season.
St. Mirren blew £1 million of a £1 million windfall within the same season.
I wouldn't class that as us being "better run".

Why compared over 2 years, why not try over a longer term which would be more accurate.

Because they were previously owned by a millionaire who bankrolled them.

 

Share this post


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

What a novel idea!
Instead of spaffing hundreds of thousands paying for bad decisions I suppose the board could have created a brand new revenue stream?
Nah..! That's too much like actually working and building the club.
Thanks for your OG lol

Amazing how some people think they just know better on brand new revenue streams. A coffee shop down in Feegie, aye it would have brought in £100s of thousands with no risk 🤣

They have built the club up from where it was when they started, whether you like it or not. As I've said, says more about the individual than anyone else when they just can't let go of these points. 

Share this post


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

 

1. The accounts being released does change things because we didn’t know just how much that change of manager had cost.

2. I didn’t say they were better run. I don’t see any evidence that we are better run is my point.

3. Take that up with others then.

4. No, it probably wouldn’t. I didn’t bring Motherwell into the discussion nor did I state that they were better run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

1. The accounts being released does change things because we didn’t know just how much that change of manager had cost.

As I have said, I'm not stopping and don't wish for people to stop discussing the accounts. The Stubbs debate is done, BOD made a mistake in appointment, they sacked him, it cost us, we move on. That's my view and I won't change it. Others having the view we should be opening up old wounds because of the accounts is fine, I just don't agree with it, don't see the benefit and don't see the point. 

2. I didn’t say they were better run. I don’t see any evidence that we are better run is my point.

That's fine, I do and it's four years of profit in a row and the clear ability to future proof and work within available funds. 

3. Take that up with others then.

Was just pointing it out. Human nature, more likely to focus on the bad than the good. Nothing wrong with bucking that trend. 

4. No, it probably wouldn’t. I didn’t bring Motherwell into the discussion nor did I state that they were better run. 

That's just where the discussion is. Them being brought in is fine, I don't think it has escaped anyone's notice, one of the contributors on here will always focus on the absolute worst to try and make SMFC/ GLS look back. Very well known for it.  

He's made the ridiculous claim that amount of profit correlates exactly to how much better run a club is... But that only works for clubs that have made more than SMFC, not less. His absurd negativity is what's fulled this part of the debate. 

 

Share this post


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

 

1. I don’t see the point in you telling me that you don’t see the point in discussing something where I do see the point.

2. Blowing £1 million on a change of manager after 4 league games is not evidence of us being better run than Motherwell. 

3. Again, take that up with the others that you mentioned.

4. Take that up with the other contributor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

1. I don’t see the point in you telling me that you don’t see the point in discussing something where I do see the point.

it's a discussion forum, you'll generally find discussion is what happens newbie. 

2. Blowing £1 million on a change of manager after 4 league games is not evidence of us being better run than Motherwell. 

It's evidence of the wrong managerial decision, again you can keep holding that against them for as long as you want. Only one of those two clubs have recorded four years of profit in a row. The other has lost money three of the last four seasons. 

3. Again, take that up with the others that you mentioned.

Again was just pointing it out. 

4. Take that up with the other contributor. 

As above, pointing out that's where the topic has went. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

Because they were previously owned by a millionaire who bankrolled them.

 

Any money he put in had been repaid to him, so maybe the £1.7 Million profit from the year before doesn't exist any more.

If they are so rich, why do they still own 80K to 5 of their fans ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tommy said:

1. Any money he put in had been repaid to him, so maybe the £1.7 Million profit from the year before doesn't exist any more.

2. If they are so rich,

3. why do they still own 80K to 5 of their fans ?

1. I never said it did still exist

2. I never said they were

3. I give in, tell me

Edited by Hiram Abiff

Share this post


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

1. I don’t see the point in you telling me that you don’t see the point in discussing something where I do see the point.

it's a discussion forum, you'll generally find discussion is what happens newbie. 

2. Blowing £1 million on a change of manager after 4 league games is not evidence of us being better run than Motherwell. 

It's evidence of the wrong managerial decision, again you can keep holding that against them for as long as you want. Only one of those two clubs have recorded four years of profit in a row. The other has lost money three of the last four seasons. 

3. Again, take that up with the others that you mentioned.

Again was just pointing it out. 

4. Take that up with the other contributor. 

As above, pointing out that's where the topic has went. 

1. You're contradicting yourself now

2. Agree with all of your first sentence. Your last 2 sentences are of no relevance to my any points I've made.

3. Point it out to the others.

4. Not with me it didn't.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...