We must be raking it in?

[Rods]

Do we not still have outstanding football debts to pay off?

 

We should be looking to reimburse small buisnesses etc that lost some cash after the CVA.

[Kdy jambo]

 

 

It's all hard to quantify, things like the club shop, food stalls etc are franchised out.

So the tenner you hand over isn't a tenner in Hearts' pocket leaving them to pay the costs, it's a tenner to the franchisee who has god knows what arrangement with the club.

 

While doing things this way means less to worry about for the club logistics wise, it does mean that there's an extra layer of people between the club and you making a profit from your hard earned jambodollars. The profit for the club is never as high as we think it will be.

Surely now it's worth the club having club shop,food kiosks etc in house if possible .

[loveofthegame]

I'm pretty sure that I read something about budgets being calculated on losing in the first round of every cup competition, so even winning one cup game is seen as a bonus

 

Do you mean for the coming season mate?

 

As I said, I hope that is the case.

[malcmac]

 

Do you mean for the coming season mate?

 

As I said, I hope that is the case.

 

Pretty sure that's the case. Also budgeted for two years in the championship.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[loveofthegame]

 

 

Pretty sure that's the case. Also budgeted for two years in the championship.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Cheers.

 

Again, sensible although obviously hopefully don't be the case. The longer we stay down the harder it will be to attract top talent and keep the fans engaged,

 

 

[The Treasurer]

Do you mean for the coming season mate?

 

As I said, I hope that is the case.

Yes and also allowing for 2 seasons in the Championship.

[Strachsuit]

11,500 STs at an average of ?280 each is ?3,450,000. If we have sold say 8,000 tops so far, with a profit of say ?20 per top, that is ?160,000 - when the new order arrives I think that could easily double.

 

So cash-wise without the Man City game, Annan tickets etc we have brought in over ?3.6m in the last month or so! Think that we will be looking at a turnover in excess of ?6m when match day tickets, sponsorship and other revenue streams are taken into account. Going on the 50-50 ratio that FIFA recommend for wages-turnover then we would be looking at a playing budget of just under ?3m. With last year's being just over ?1m that is an incredible difference!

 

I still think we will be on a much lower amount than this but the increased revenue only goes to show the potential we have. It also gives RN room for manoeuvre come January if he wants to bring in one or two more.

 

We look in very rude financial health which is the first time I can say that in about 20 years!

[RobNox]

11,500 STs at an average of ?280 each is ?3,450,000. If we have sold say 8,000 tops so far, with a profit of say ?20 per top, that is ?160,000 - when the new order arrives I think that could easily double.

 

So cash-wise without the Man City game, Annan tickets etc we have brought in over ?3.6m in the last month or so! Think that we will be looking at a turnover in excess of ?6m when match day tickets, sponsorship and other revenue streams are taken into account. Going on the 50-50 ratio that FIFA recommend for wages-turnover then we would be looking at a playing budget of just under ?3m. With last year's being just over ?1m that is an incredible difference!

 

I still think we will be on a much lower amount than this but the increased revenue only goes to show the potential we have. It also gives RN room for manoeuvre come January if he wants to bring in one or two more.

 

We look in very rude financial health which is the first time I can say that in about 20 years!

Is the FIFA quota on playing budget or total footballing budget (i.e. including coaching staff costs)? AT 50-50 I would assume it's just playing budget, so not looking too bad. Any idea how much the parachute payment is, I know that was increased after the SPFL was established? Also possible bonuses in terms of unexpected TV revenues given that Hibs were relegated (we already knew we'd be playing Rangers 4 times, but 4 Edinburgh derbies would not have been anticipated when the original budgets were being set).

[The Broo]

 

11,500 STs at an average of ?280 each is ?3,450,000. If we have sold say 8,000 tops so far, with a profit of say ?20 per top, that is ?160,000 - when the new order arrives I think that could easily double.

 

So cash-wise without the Man City game, Annan tickets etc we have brought in over ?3.6m in the last month or so! Think that we will be looking at a turnover in excess of ?6m when match day tickets, sponsorship and other revenue streams are taken into account. Going on the 50-50 ratio that FIFA recommend for wages-turnover then we would be looking at a playing budget of just under ?3m. With last year's being just over ?1m that is an incredible difference!

 

I still think we will be on a much lower amount than this but the increased revenue only goes to show the potential we have. It also gives RN room for manoeuvre come January if he wants to bring in one or two more.

 

We look in very rude financial health which is the first time I can say that in about 20 years!

 

Remember from the season ticket revenue and shirt revenue 20% goes to the taxman....

[Eckauskas]

11,500 STs at an average of ?280 each is ?3,450,000. If we have sold say 8,000 tops so far, with a profit of say ?20 per top, that is ?160,000 - when the new order arrives I think that could easily double.

 

So cash-wise without the Man City game, Annan tickets etc we have brought in over ?3.6m in the last month or so! Think that we will be looking at a turnover in excess of ?6m when match day tickets, sponsorship and other revenue streams are taken into account. Going on the 50-50 ratio that FIFA recommend for wages-turnover then we would be looking at a playing budget of just under ?3m. With last year's being just over ?1m that is an incredible difference!

 

I still think we will be on a much lower amount than this but the increased revenue only goes to show the potential we have. It also gives RN room for manoeuvre come January if he wants to bring in one or two more.

 

We look in very rude financial health which is the first time I can say that in about 20 years!

 

The interesting thing to look at there is that I would think our average season ticket price would be higher than that.

 

Maybe closer to ?300, with platinum and gold seating.

[RobNox]

Remember from the season ticket revenue and shirt revenue 20% goes to the taxman....

Do we have to pay him? What happens if we just keep it all to ourselves and buy better players and romp the league, then, oh wait, didn't someone try this before?

[RobNox]

The interesting thing to look at there is that I would think our average season ticket price would be higher than that.

 

Maybe closer to ?300, with platinum and gold seating.

Although remember there are concessions to take account of. My eldest daughter has a platinum ST but pays student price, so well below the norm. Also, I still think ?20 per shirt sale is probably optimistic. Regardless, the numbers must be much higher than budgeted for, so all good for the future.

[Paolo]

 

 

We should be looking to reimburse small buisnesses etc that lost some cash after the CVA.

 

As a club/company, we cannot do this, as we would be treating some creditors more favourably than others, which is against the CVA, and could open us up to claims.

 

If a fan or fans wanted to do this, then that would be different.

[Strachsuit]

 

 

 

Remember from the season ticket revenue and shirt revenue 20% goes to the taxman....

 

Indeed but my estimate of a ?6m turnover is still conservative. I would be very disappointed if TV revenue, cup revenue, matchday tickets, hospitality, merchandise, sponsorship, prize money and the SPFL parachute payment didn't add up to over ?3m. (We get ?730k prize money alone based on our 12th place finish last year) see: http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/aberdeen/229106-how-much-money-does-your-club-stand-to-make-from-league-reconstruction/

 

So I think we are at a very exciting point financially. We have much more coming into the club than has been budgeted for which gives us stability and room to add players if necessary.

[DG_HMFC]

I'm pretty sure that I read something about budgets being calculated on losing in the first round of every cup competition, so even winning one cup game is seen as a bonus

In the takeover press conference, Budge said our budgets are based on a worst case scenario. So if we get pumped out the cups or don't get promotion straight back to the Premier League, we'll still be within our budget.

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

If we are budgeted for two years down a division and any cup income is extra, then we should probably try and let some of that roll over to next season if possible. Obviously if we get promoted this season, then it gives us an edge next season too.

[Cliffundo]

what do you get for 100k though bud unless you unearth a gem no one else has cottoned onto?

 

Every club is in the same boat now, certainly at our level, that it's about keeping an eye on players heading out of contract and nabbing them for the following season.

 

January brings a different scenario as players are running down their contracts and therefore you'd have to pay money if you really needed them or of course go for loan signings.

 

If anything I'd like to see us build a pot up for when we return to the Spl.

 

Templeton cost us ?30k so we would still have a ?70k war chest...hypotheticaly

[jambos are go!]

My understanding is that a pushing a couple of million needs to be spent on the stadium pronto.

[loveofthegame]

My understanding is that a pushing a couple of million needs to be spent on the stadium pronto.

 

Source: hibs.net ....

[tartofmidlothian]

In the takeover press conference, Budge said our budgets are based on a worst case scenario. So if we get pumped out the cups or don't get promotion straight back to the Premier League, we'll still be within our budget.

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

IIRC did the last regime at the end not budget for a quarter final in each cup and at least a top six finish? Then when we didn't get them (aside from the LC final) the black hole got even bigger.

[DG_HMFC]

 

IIRC did the last regime at the end not budget for a quarter final in each cup and at least a top six finish? Then when we didn't get them (aside from the LC final) the black hole got even bigger.

Yep, complete madness!

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

 

[jambos are go!]

 

 

 

Source: hibs.net ....

Source pretty good. Where do you think the money is going given the likely surplus? Anyone formally asked FOH.

[Strachsuit]

Source pretty good. Where do you think the money is going given the likely surplus? Anyone formally asked FOH.

 

How do people still not get this? It has nothing to do with FOH. They don't run the club! It is up to AB and her team to decide what they do with any surplus cash. In fact, it's up to AB and her team for any decision the club has to make right now and that will be the case for the next 3/4 years. FOH have a representative on the board and that is all.

[FarmerTweedy]

Do we not still have outstanding football debts to pay off?

 

We should be looking to reimburse small buisnesses etc that lost some cash after the CVA.

 

No, we really shouldn't.

 

Apart from anything else, I'm fairly sure it would be illegal.

[FarmerTweedy]

Remember from the season ticket revenue and shirt revenue 20% goes to the taxman....

 

16.67% actually. And I'm sure I read somewhere that football shirts are exempt from VAT, although I'm not sure if that's the case.

[RobNox]

No, we really shouldn't.

 

Apart from anything else, I'm fairly sure it would be illegal.

We do have to settle outstanding football debts, which is a condition of the SFA that we must meet regardless of having agreed a CVA (similar to the fact they insisted that Newco met the outstanding football debts of old Rangers as a condition of getting back into the SFL). I believe our football debts are in the region of ?500k, so not too onerous.

 

We can't however choose to settle other debts, that would indeed be illegal as we would be seen to be favouring certain former creditors over others and the other creditors would have the right to claim a pro-rata share of any money we decided to repay voluntarily. However, I have heard that JKB and possibly other bodies have raised funds independently from HMFC to repay debts owed, specifically to charitable organisations and my understanding is that no charitable organisation is now out of pocket as a result of our administration. There would be nothing stop JKB raising additional funds to reimburse small businesses who may have taken a hit, but the club itself cannot be seen to be doing this.

[Unknown user]

 

We do have to settle outstanding football debts, which is a condition of the SFA that we must meet regardless of having agreed a CVA (similar to the fact they insisted that Newco met the outstanding football debts of old Rangers as a condition of getting back into the SFL). I believe our football debts are in the region of ?500k, so not too onerous.

 

We can't however choose to settle other debts, that would indeed be illegal as we would be seen to be favouring certain former creditors over others and the other creditors would have the right to claim a pro-rata share of any money we decided to repay voluntarily. However, I have heard that JKB and possibly other bodies have raised funds independently from HMFC to repay debts owed, specifically to charitable organisations and my understanding is that no charitable organisation is now out of pocket as a result of our administration. There would be nothing stop JKB raising additional funds to reimburse small businesses who may have taken a hit, but the club itself cannot be seen to be doing this.

Is this definitely the case?

 

I know that during administration we weren't allowed to pay any creditors but all debts are now considered settled.

 

That surely means that we as a club can make voluntary payments to whoever we choose- the other former creditors are, unfortunately for them, no longer creditors and no longer have any claim over Hearts' money.

 

Can someone who genuinely understands the legalities comment on this?

[Paolo]

 

Is this definitely the case?

 

I know that during administration we weren't allowed to pay any creditors but all debts are now considered settled.

 

That surely means that we as a club can make voluntary payments to whoever we choose- the other former creditors are, unfortunately for them, no longer creditors and no longer have any claim over Hearts' money.

 

Can someone who genuinely understands the legalities comment on this?

 

I am not an expert, bit it is illegal. The CVA terms still apply, even when the CVA is complete.

 

The football debt is different due to SFA rules. There is a similar rule in England, but this is being challenged by HMRC, correctly in my opinion.

[Unknown user]

I am not an expert, bit it is illegal. The CVA terms still apply, even when the CVA is complete.

 

The football debt is different due to SFA rules. There is a similar rule in England, but this is being challenged by HMRC, correctly in my opinion.

I just can't see how it's legally enforceable outside the administration period.

 

If it was against the law to pay off creditors outside a CVA, the football creditors' rule wouldn't exist - the SFA's rules will never supercede the law of the land

[tynietigers]

 

 

 

Surely now it's worth the club having club shop,food kiosks etc in house if possible .

The good thing about the food side of things now is that Hearts do get all the money on any profit made after getting rid of Saltire so it is all good to bye as many pies you can at a game.

[Paolo]

 

I just can't see how it's legally enforceable outside the administration period.

 

If it was against the law to pay off creditors outside a CVA, the football creditors' rule wouldn't exist - the SFA's rules will never supercede the law of the land

 

Strangely enough, until someone legally challenges football rules (as HMRC are doing with the English FA, and as Bosman done with regards to players contracts and transfer fees), then it does seem to do that. The very fact football creditors are entitled to the debt in full, unless they agree otherwise, is itself going against the 'law of the land' - which is why HMRC are challenging it.

 

Even if it was legal, I would say we should not do it anyway. Unfortunately it is a risk when doing business, as companies go into administration every day. It is quite likely we have lost out ourselves as a result.

 

Indeed, when Fly Globespan went belly up, it was not because of their own financial mess, but if was because their credit card merchant/service provider went bust, before they transferred the money due to Globespan to them. It is not very nice, but it is a business risk you take, when giving credit to win the business or contract.

 

Also, how much of a smaller business or creditor are we talking about?

[Unknown user]

I am not an expert, bit it is illegal. The CVA terms still apply, even when the CVA is complete.

 

The football debt is different due to SFA rules. There is a similar rule in England, but this is being challenged by HMRC, correctly in my opinion.

I just can't see how it's legally enforceable outside the administration period.

 

If it was against the law to pay off creditors outside a CVA, the football creditors' rule wouldn't exist - the SFA's rules will never supercede the law of the land

This was bugging me so I went and had a quick word with a tax lawyer I found available online - she says that you're right enough, the company can't make extra payments. Any other 3rd party can on the company's behalf of course, so nothing to stop FoH for example.

I've asked her how the football creditors rule trumps this legality out of interest, should be interesting.

[Unknown user]

Strangely enough, until someone legally challenges football rules (as HMRC are doing with the English FA, and as Bosman done with regards to players contracts and transfer fees), then it does seem to do that. The very fact football creditors are entitled to the debt in full, unless they agree otherwise, is itself going against the 'law of the land' - which is why HMRC are challenging it.

 

Even if it was legal, I would say we should not do it anyway. Unfortunately it is a risk when doing business, as companies go into administration every day. It is quite likely we have lost out ourselves as a result.

 

Indeed, when Fly Globespan went belly up, it was not because of their own financial mess, but if was because their credit card merchant/service provider went bust, before they transferred the money due to Globespan to them. It is not very nice, but it is a business risk you take, when giving credit to win the business or contract.

 

Also, how much of a smaller business or creditor are we talking about?

To be clear, I'm not saying the club should be doing this or anything, just interested in the legalities of the situation. I'm very dull.

[Unknown user]

This was bugging me so I went and had a quick word with a tax lawyer I found available online - she says that you're right enough, the company can't make extra payments. Any other 3rd party can on the company's behalf of course, so nothing to stop FoH for example.

I've asked her how the football creditors rule trumps this legality out of interest, should be interesting.

OK my last word on this and apologies for boring people that aren't interested.

 

In short, when the CVA proposal is put together, the football creditors are presented as preferred creditors, meaning that they will get the full money due to them while other unsecured creditors may get nothing.

The creditors then vote and, if they don't like this, they vote against it and the CVA fails.

 

So again, you're absolutely right Simon Says, the club itself can't legally make payments to the unsecured creditors who lost out