Francis Albert Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 ....and how nice would it be to get to a point whereby that was our only concern, the footballing performance or lack of from the club. Many on here have made the point that the club needs us more than ever etc, but if all income generated by the club is being poured into a blackhole of debt interest repayments then what is the point? Ultimately as fans, our only interest should be that the team on the park is reflective of the time and effort spent on it, why should we as supporters fork out to pay back some of the negligent financial management inflicted on the club over the past 20 or so years? The black hole was I referred to was down to spending being about twice income, not interest on debt. Suspect we're still not meeting Mr Micawber's recipe for happiness ie simply spending a little less than income. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livi Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 On a seperate subject but still related to the OP, did we really need Jankauskas as Assistant Manager at a time when as you say we are not signing any players and are cutting our costs. What was wrong with Gary Locke getting the Assistant Managers job if we are bringing through youngsters on the playing side, why not promote youngsters at management level too. ie saving costs What does Jankauskas bring to the coaching table when we don't have more than 2 forwards being considered for 1st team selection. I know I would rather Rudi had got the wage Jankauskas is getting as he would have made a difference on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 On a seperate subject but still related to the OP, did we really need Jankauskas as Assistant Manager at a time when as you say we are not signing any players and are cutting our costs. What was wrong with Gary Locke getting the Assistant Managers job if we are bringing through youngsters on the playing side, why not promote youngsters at management level too. ie saving costs What does Jankauskas bring to the coaching table when we don't have more than 2 forwards being considered for 1st team selection. I know I would rather Rudi had got the wage Jankauskas is getting as he would have made a difference on Sunday. A fair point, although you could argue our forwards do need a bit of coaching. But I do struggle to understand the scale of backroom staff football clubs need these days - it's not as if there is much evidence on the pitch of progressive improvement in most players or indeed in team organisation or even basics like how to retain possession at throw-ins or deliver decent free kicks and corners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haarpbeam Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Screw the debt! Just get Skacel signed FFS this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Jambo Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 the best chance ever of making a serious challenge to Celtic. I've seen this kind of claim numerous times and I just don't get it. We finished 41 points behind them last season so obviously didn't have a squad that just needed a little way off there's. Are Celtic weaker than normal? Well their points total last year was as high as any since 2003-04 which suggests not. The assumption seems to be that Rangers demise weakens Celtic, I'd love someone to explain that to me. Just shows that Vlad is still involved when he wants to be. The picking and choosing man. So not only is he not meant to have any say in players, he is also not meant to have a say in picking the management team? (Apologies if you weren't be serious). Not sure that Jankaukas will be on a massive wage. He was an experienced player but is an inexperienced coach. He may have approached Vlad looking for the opportunity to get experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 ....and how nice would it be to get to a point whereby that was our only concern, the footballing performance or lack of from the club. Many on here have made the point that the club needs us more than ever etc, but if all income generated by the club is being poured into a blackhole of debt interest repayments then what is the point? Ultimately as fans, our only interest should be that the team on the park is reflective of the time and effort spent on it, why should we as supporters fork out to pay back some of the negligent financial management inflicted on the club over the past 20 or so years? You've had the benefit of that spending already ... Intergenerational transfer of costs in order to enjoy benefits today is always unfair and rather nasty (such as Gordon Brown's Chancellorship/Prime Ministership). That is why net spending should only be for investment - i.e. something with a potential future return - rather than for consumption. It is the nature of football of course that much of the spending is for consumption - such as the spend on Maybury, Stamp etc which caused the Pieman to try to sell the ground or the overspend in recent years which is likely to see another attempt to sell the ground. Mixed in is the complication that some of the spend on players is actually an attempt at investment (the likes of Pinilla or the youth academy investment) but for the most part the overspend has been on consumption (player wages). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Beni of Gorgie Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 You need to give fans some hope and quality. The kids I suspect are ok, but no better than that. The squad has gone from one extreme to the other and if more go next summer next season could be extreme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 ....and how nice would it be to get to a point whereby that was our only concern, the footballing performance or lack of from the club. Many on here have made the point that the club needs us more than ever etc, but if all income generated by the club is being poured into a blackhole of debt interest repayments then what is the point? Ultimately as fans, our only interest should be that the team on the park is reflective of the time and effort spent on it, why should we as supporters fork out to pay back some of the negligent financial management inflicted on the club over the past 20 or so years? I'm not an accountant, but as far as I can see from the last few years of accounts Hearts have not paid a penny back in interest. It has all been rolled up and accumulated onto existing debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Gin Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I've seen this kind of claim numerous times and I just don't get it. All you need to get is that some people on here are living in cloud cuckoo land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audrey65 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Vlad has written off ?30m of debt without a penny contribution from fans. ?38.706m for all those looking in from Lochend awaiting our demise. Hardly the actions of a man who is not going to settle the PAYE bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 You've had the benefit of that spending already ... Intergenerational transfer of costs in order to enjoy benefits today is always unfair and rather nasty (such as Gordon Brown's Chancellorship/Prime Ministership). That is why net spending should only be for investment - i.e. something with a potential future return - rather than for consumption. It is the nature of football of course that much of the spending is for consumption - such as the spend on Maybury, Stamp etc which caused the Pieman to try to sell the ground or the overspend in recent years which is likely to see another attempt to sell the ground. Mixed in is the complication that some of the spend on players is actually an attempt at investment (the likes of Pinilla or the youth academy investment) but for the most part the overspend has been on consumption (player wages). I think any attempt to trade out of debt is doomed to failure, as income will quickly drop below the static costs if there continues to be no investment in the team. So either the club goes bust or VR writes off enough debt to find a buyer (if one exists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
63,977
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.