Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Another motivational masterstroke from Mr Romanov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 And hence why Romanov is the biggest disappointment. All those resources and only two cups to show for it. While acting like a **** throughout. You'd rather he follow David Murray's example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 You'd rather he follow David Murray's example? Any decent business owner would do, with a proper plan in place to make the business successful. Do you think he is running the club well? Do you think the club will improve or are we status quo from now until he goes? Do you think he will treat the club well at this point or take whatever offer is available to recoup him the most money? What happens if that offer involves selling the ground without the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audrey65 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Turnover of ?7m (an improvement on the last accounts) Operating charges of ?3.2m (which would be lower than at any other point in romanov's time in charge) Interest Charges of ?1.5m And ?1m In terms of depreciation. Even removing the depreciation aspect, that leaves ?2.3m and any profit in player trading. Where do you get these figures and what do they relate to? Are you including our wage bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I like the man, hope he stays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I like the man, hope he stays. With you on this Hail King Vlad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Where do you get these figures and what do they relate to? Are you including our wage bill? From the published accounts. And no, i didnt include the wage bill as I was indicating what would be left to spend on wages. FYI, last years wage bill was over ?8m (with turnover of less than ?7m) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audrey65 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 From the published accounts. And no, i didnt include the wage bill as I was indicating what would be left to spend on wages. FYI, last years wage bill was over ?8m (with turnover of less than ?7m) Last published accounts showed a drop in income from ?7.9m to ?6.9m, although last published accounts are for a period of 11 months as opposed to a year. Wages previously were ?9.1m and dropped to ?8.1m although, again, it needs to be factored that this was over 11 months and not the usual year. I dont think anybody has the 2011-2012 accounts yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Last published accounts showed a drop in income from ?7.9m to ?6.9m, although last published accounts are for a period of 11 months as opposed to a year. Wages previously were ?9.1m and dropped to ?8.1m although, again, it needs to be factored that this was over 11 months and not the usual year. I dont think anybody has the 2011-2012 accounts yet? Indeed. The accounts show an operational loss of ?8.3m. so actually, going by them if everything else stayed exactly the same, we would make a loss of ?200k even if we had a wage bill of ?0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldcastlerock2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Last published accounts showed a drop in income from ?7.9m to ?6.9m, although last published accounts are for a period of 11 months as opposed to a year. Wages previously were ?9.1m and dropped to ?8.1m although, again, it needs to be factored that this was over 11 months and not the usual year. I dont think anybody has the 2011-2012 accounts yet? The wages for the 2011/12 accounts will be much lower - in 2010 we were still paying the likes of Nade and Kingston. The 2012/13 wage bill will be much, much lower - I'm guessing down to around 4m or less? This season will be a real test of whether it's possible to cut wages so drastically and still be competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The wages for the 2011/12 accounts will be much lower - in 2010 we were still paying the likes of Nade and Kingston. The 2012/13 wage bill will be much, much lower - I'm guessing down to around 4m or less? This season will be a real test of whether it's possible to cut wages so drastically and still be competitive. But, thats partly my point, even at ?4m we will still be losing huge amounts of money. And if Romanov has cut funding, then we are going bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldcastlerock2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 But, thats partly my point, even at ?4m we will still be losing huge amounts of money. And if Romanov has cut funding, then we are going bust. We've been going bust for over 7 years apparently. At least just now our main creditor is our owner which provides protection against administration. We (or rather Romanov) will be losing less money than before which I guess is the idea. The debt is another issue altogether - we're never going to trade out of that. Even selling Tynecastle and all of our players won't cover it so it'll either need to be written off or someone else will have to take it over. The way we're going, we may well end up at the end of next season with the same debt as when Romanov took over. The main difference will be that our main asset Tynecastle is worth much less than it was then so we'd be worse off on paper. Personally if Romanov really is fed up and genuinely wants out, finding a buyer for a realistic amount and renting Tynecastle to the new owner (or selling Tynie and building a new ground and renting it out) seems to be the most realistic alternative to writing all the debt off. Even then I would think it'll take a long time to get his money back. Either way, this is what the money men at football clubs are paid to work out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 We've been going bust for over 7 years apparently. At least just now our main creditor is our owner which provides protection against administration. We (or rather Romanov) will be losing less money than before which I guess is the idea. The debt is another issue altogether - we're never going to trade out of that. Even selling Tynecastle and all of our players won't cover it so it'll either need to be written off or someone else will have to take it over. The way we're going, we may well end up at the end of next season with the same debt as when Romanov took over. The main difference will be that our main asset Tynecastle is worth much less than it was then so we'd be worse off on paper. Personally if Romanov really is fed up and genuinely wants out, finding a buyer for a realistic amount and renting Tynecastle to the new owner (or selling Tynie and building a new ground and renting it out) seems to be the most realistic alternative to writing all the debt off. Even then I would think it'll take a long time to get his money back. Either way, this is what the money men at football clubs are paid to work out! Or, flog the stadium. get some of his money back. I go back to my point about the current situation of the other 2 clubs he has owned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.