Update from Ann

[socrates82]

5 minutes ago, magicTs said:

 

The boy is absolutely hilarious!!! He’s on another thread using words including “perfect” to describe our player recruitment. And no, I’m not joking. It’s truly phenomenal the way he tries to spin literally everything!  

 

I said perfect in the championship season or did we not romp it by 20 points and score a record number of goals, while also having one of the best defensive records? "Near perfect" better? It was certainly perfect given that the squad put together more than did the job required.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, socrates82 said:

 

What is it? I'm genuinely interested as that average figure doesn't say how many players it covers or whether it includes youngsters or what. If you look at Hibs squad you can see how it would cost a fair bit more when this season started.

I've no intention of looking at the vermin squad. All you are doing is trying to find a way to spin how the vermin could be spending more than us, which is just nuts.

 

PS Who are the vermin paying that is contemporate to the money we are paying for Berra and Lafferty?

[socrates82]

4 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I've no intention of looking at the vermin squad. All you are doing is trying to find a way to spin how the vermin could be spending more than us, which is just nuts.

 

PS Who are the vermin paying that is contemporate to the money we are paying for Berra and Lafferty?

 

I'm spinning nothing! I genuinely don't know but my view (is it OK to have a view?) is that only now might we have drawn level with them. Obviously the total wage budget is what matters when comparing playing budgets! Whether or not we pay more for a couple of players means nothing if we pay peanuts to a bunch of youth players who make up a greater % of our squad than at Hibs. Sure Lafferty, Berra and Naismith no doubt cost a lot, but then so would Stokes, Whittaker, Allan and Ambrose.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, socrates82 said:

 

I'm spinning nothing! Obviously the total wage budget is what matters when comparing playing budgets! Whether or not we pay more for a couple of players means nothing if we pay peanuts to a bunch of youth players who make up a greater % of our squad than at Hibs. Sure Lafferty, Berra and Naismith no doubt cost a lot, but then so would Stokes, Whittaker, Allan and Ambrose.

The point is that Levein has said himself he would rather pay more for quality players and run a smaller squad in numbers. Christ, our problem has been paying high wages to a few rubbish players which reduces our ability to bring in new bodies (Oshaniwa, Sammon and Martin).

[magicTs]

15 minutes ago, socrates82 said:

 

I said perfect in the championship season or did we not romp it by 20 points and score a record number of goals?

 

We are talking about now, nobody should be living on the Championship season anymore, not even delusional excuse makers like you. 

 

 

 

[JamboAl]

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

The point is that Levein has said himself he would rather pay more for quality players and run a smaller squad in numbers. Christ, our problem has been paying high wages to a few rubbish players which reduces our ability to bring in new bodies (Oshaniwa, Sammon and Martin).

That may or may not be true but we are talking about this season.  Osh has now gone, I'd be surprised if we were paying anywhere near Sammon's full wage while Martin is fair enough - although I do not know if he is highly paid or not.

[socrates82]

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

The point is that Levein has said himself he would rather pay more for quality players and run a smaller squad in numbers. Christ, our problem has been paying high wages to a few rubbish players which reduces our ability to bring in new bodies (Oshaniwa, Sammon and Martin).

 

I agree, although it's a risky strategy as we've seen this season with our injuries. That's different from being interested in how our total wage bill compares to our competitors. None of us know exactly who gets paid what so the total is really the only measure we have. Then we can have good guesses as to how it is distributed amongst the squad.

[socrates82]

4 minutes ago, magicTs said:

 

We are talking about now, nobody should be living on the Championship season anymore, bot even delusional excuse makers like you. 

 

Footballfirst gave the Hearts staff cost figures for last year, £5.9 million. I provided Hibs staff cost figure which was £4.5 million. FF says Hearts was set to rise to £6.3 million this year. It is very very very safe to say Hibs staff costs will not have closed that gap on ours. Even if we are paying more people and better salaries to our non playing members of staff it is self evident Hearts player costs are higher than Hibernian’s. Only a fool would argue that. You have also been provided articles showing Hearts have the 4th biggest player budget but nothing is enough! Hilarious. You’d be better sticking to defending Robbie Neilson! 

 

I was talking about all of our seasons transfer activity - you were the one who focused on the championship one.

 

Is staff all staff, including coaches and DoF for example, or playing staff? As I understand it our overall football department is considerably bigger. I am interested in total playing budget. I don't know what I've done to upset you to be honest. Funnily enough I lean towards giving my own club the benefit of the doubt on these things.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, socrates82 said:

 

I agree, although it's a risky strategy as we've seen this season with our injuries. That's different from being interested in how our total wage bill compares to our competitors. None of us know exactly who gets paid what so the total is really the only measure we have. Then we can have good guesses as to how it is distributed amongst the squad.

Well, when the accounts are published we can recall this thread and you can be as wrong as you were claiming Dundee United were paying more than us under Neilson.

[socrates82]

8 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Well, when the accounts are published we can recall this thread and you can be as wrong as you were claiming Dundee United were paying more than us under Neilson.

 

According to this we started that season well behind D Utd.

 

https://www.globalsportssalaries.com/GSSS 2015.pdf

 

If you can prove we then jumped an extra 40-odd grand a player during that season go for it. Note how much ground we had to make up to catch Hibs too. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, socrates82 said:

 

According to this we started that season well behind D Utd.

 

https://www.globalsportssalaries.com/GSSS 2015.pdf

 

If you can prove we then jumped an extra 40-odd grand a player during that season go for it. Note how much ground we had to make up to catch Hibs too. 

They were the numbers from the previous year. We happened to be a tier lower then.

[Pasquale for King]

31 minutes ago, socrates82 said:

 

What's the total wage budget of both clubs?

We won’t know this seasons budget until the accounts are out, they don’t announce it.  

[socrates82]

5 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

They were the numbers from the previous year. We happened to be a tier lower then.

 

Mate, it clearly states summer 2014. That means players from the previous season and the upcoming. Didn; we release almost everyone in May 2014, ie before summer?

 

Hibs £102,199/player

D Utd £91,538/player

Hearts £63,999/player

 

Again we may have started paying 40 grand or so more per player or Hibs 40 grand less... can you prove that?

[JamboAl]

3 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

We won’t know this seasons budget until the accounts are out, they don’t announce it.  

Which was why I asked how Hendricks could justify his claim.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

6 minutes ago, socrates82 said:

 

Mate, it clearly states summer 2014. That means players from the previous season and the upcoming. Didn; we release almost everyone in May 2014, ie before summer?

 

Hibs £102,199/player

D Utd £91,538/player

Hearts £63,999/player

 

Again we may have started paying 40 grand or so more per player or Hibs 40 grand less... can you prove that?

Maybe you should look at FF's numbers first.

[socrates82]

3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Maybe you should look at FF's numbers first.

 I have. It's really not a stretch to say we had a lower budget than Hibs and Rangers in the Championship season!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

4 minutes ago, socrates82 said:

 I have. It's really not a stretch to say we had a lower budget than Hibs and Rangers in the Championship season!

I never argued that. Ironically, that was probably to our advantage in the sense we had no player hangover that we needed rid of.

[Footballfirst]

In our Championship season (2014/15), Hearts total wage costs were £3.798m. The corresponding figure for Hibs was £3.427m.

 

It's the best measure we have when both sides were in the Championship.  I'm pretty sure that Hearts staff costs did not include retail staff as they hadn't been brought in house at that stage, and catering was only brought in part way through the season, so the bulk of Hearts wage costs would have gone on the playing side.

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, socrates82 said:

 

Mate, it clearly states summer 2014. That means players from the previous season and the upcoming. Didn; we release almost everyone in May 2014, ie before summer?

 

Hibs £102,199/player

D Utd £91,538/player

Hearts £63,999/player

 

Again we may have started paying 40 grand or so more per player or Hibs 40 grand less... can you prove that?

That was skewed because we only had 3 senior pros. As I’ve said Hibs players wages would’ve dropped in the Championship. No wonder Dundee Utd were in financial trouble, Leveins fault probably ???.

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, socrates82 said:

 

I'm spinning nothing! I genuinely don't know but my view (is it OK to have a view?) is that only now might we have drawn level with them. Obviously the total wage budget is what matters when comparing playing budgets! Whether or not we pay more for a couple of players means nothing if we pay peanuts to a bunch of youth players who make up a greater % of our squad than at Hibs. Sure Lafferty, Berra and Naismith no doubt cost a lot, but then so would Stokes, Whittaker, Allan and Ambrose.

Drawn level mate? We’ve been up three years and your saying they’re still paying more than us even though there’s evidence that they’re not? We have the 4th biggest turnover and the 4th highest wage budget, have done since before we went into then came out of admin.  

[thewiseone]

2 hours ago, socrates82 said:

 

I'm spinning nothing! I genuinely don't know but my view (is it OK to have a view?) is that only now might we have drawn level with them. Obviously the total wage budget is what matters when comparing playing budgets! Whether or not we pay more for a couple of players means nothing if we pay peanuts to a bunch of youth players who make up a greater % of our squad than at Hibs. Sure Lafferty, Berra and Naismith no doubt cost a lot, but then so would Stokes, Whittaker, Allan and Ambrose.

Pot, kettle 

[Big Slim Stylee]

3 hours ago, Ryder said:

 

It’s almost like some folk talk utter pish.

 

Shocking omission from Budge. There were at least several courteous emails sent from the one solid member on here. All correctly spelled.

[Beast Boy]

4 minutes ago, Big Slim Stylee said:

 

Glad we're on the same page. Sometimes the attitude of the powers that be just beggars belief, tbh. Completely out of touch with the real fans.

 

Totally. These fine upstanding fans just want clarification.

[Spencer]

14 minutes ago, Ryder said:

 

At least have ovaries to admit what you were insinuating with your snide post Spencer. 

No thoughts on £15M+ being highlighted back in October or the related party transaction subsequently addressed in the A/A's Mothy?

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, Spencer said:

No thoughts on £15M+ being highlighted back in October or the related party transaction subsequently addressed in the A/A's Mothy?

 

Don’t give a ****. Not interested. It is a job that needed doing. I accept that. No sleep lost.

 

That other comment though... **** me... insinuating that Budge and Levein are having some kind of secret relationship different to that which is public knowledge... VERY snide stuff.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Spencer said:

In response to their cup runs generating much needed revenue whilst they were in Championship. You are spot on. 

 

Feel free to pour over my posts sport 

Patronise me all you like, I've been trying to keep out if this but I cannot stand blatant bullshit.

[Nookie Bear]

9 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Didn't you bring up tosh's alleged wanting hibs to win the cup in an irrelevant thread only today? Apologies if I'm wrong, pretty sure I saw it though. 

 

In fairness, Kickback Law dictates Tosh needs to be reminded of that at least once per day. 

[Francis Albert]

I think.the increasigly shambolic nature of the new stand development deserves a bit more attention. What is the cost over-run and why? What is the schedule for completion?  As contributors of most of the funding so.far i think foh members and indeed other fans funding the club deserve a bit more open-ness.

 

[JamboAl]

25 minutes ago, Spencer said:

In response to their cup runs generating much needed revenue whilst they were in Championship. You are spot on. 

 

Feel free to pour over my posts sport 

I thought you were educated.  Do you mean pore over?

[JamboAl]

22 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I think.the increasigly shambolic nature of the new stand development deserves a bit more attention. What is the cost over-run and why? What is the schedule for completion?  As contributors of most of the funding so.far i think foh members and indeed other fans funding the club deserve a bit more open-ness.

 

Quite right Frank.

 

Let's have another 500 club or 6% interest.

[wavydavy]

5 hours ago, JamboAl said:

I do remember and we have no evidence that the playing budget has been affected.

 

I have explained to you before - and I took it quite slowly - that when a business formulates its spending plans for the season/year ahead they allocate budgets to the various heads of expected expenditure.  Our playing budget would have been lower this year than it would if we had had no stand expenditure.  If we assume (for illustration purposes only) the playing budget was say 40% of total expenditure and the stand allocation was 30%, what she is saying is that if the stand costs overrun she will not take anything from the playing budget but will find the shortfall some other way.  Is that too hard to understand?

 

Using these fictitious figures if we had no material stand costs this year, the player budget might have been around 70% of our total expenditure which could be the case in a couple of years' time.  I re-iterate these are fictitious figures used for illustration purposes only so don't come back next season and say there is only 45% or 50% in the playing budget.

 

 

I know that you explained your take on how budgets are allocated and I fail to see what relevance there is in saying that you "took it quite slowly" other than to try and be condescending and make out as if I had some sort of inferior thinking to you.

 

We are all entitled to have our opinions and there is no need to resort to that type of tactic.

 

I happen to have a different take on things to you and read and believed the owner when she said that the playing budget for this season would not be affected by the building of our new stand.

 

She also said that other funding had been sourced to cover the overspend on the said stand and given that she is prone to giving honest and quite detailed statements about all aspects of the business I have never yet read any suggestion that the playing budget has been affected.

 

You seem eager for others to justify their view on things financial with factual budgets, numbers etc although it would appear that this is something you are exempt from.

 

Have you had a read at FootballFirst's post on Wage costs etc it makes interesting reading although of course as he points out we don't know actual figures yet.

[Francis Albert]

38 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Quite right Frank.

 

Let's have another 500 club or 6% interest.

My.idea was both not either..and specifally about funding a new hybrid pitch. Which seems to be on anyway so.good.

 

 

 

[Beast Boy]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

My.idea was both not either..and specifally about funding a new hybrid pitch. Which seems to be on anyway so.good.

 

 

 

 

Nice that we can do it without years of lost income from giving the 500 club discounts though.

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, wavydavy said:

 

I know that you explained your take on how budgets are allocated and I fail to see what relevance there is in saying that you "took it quite slowly" other than to try and be condescending and make out as if I had some sort of inferior thinking to you.

 

We are all entitled to have our opinions and there is no need to resort to that type of tactic.

 

I happen to have a different take on things to you and read and believed the owner when she said that the playing budget for this season would not be affected by the building of our new stand.

 

She also said that other funding had been sourced to cover the overspend on the said stand and given that she is prone to giving honest and quite detailed statements about all aspects of the business I have never yet read any suggestion that the playing budget has been affected.

 

You seem eager for others to justify their view on things financial with factual budgets, numbers etc although it would appear that this is something you are exempt from.

 

Have you had a read at FootballFirst's post on Wage costs etc it makes interesting reading although of course as he points out we don't know actual figures yet.

I have and it says

 

At the AGM in December, total staff costs were forecast to go up from £5.9m last year to £6.3m (6.8%) this year, but we don't know for certain how much was earmarked for the playing squad. Ann's reported £1m increase in turnover this year represents an increase of 8.9%.

 

Do you have definite figures ahead of the accounts?

[wavydavy]

8 hours ago, JamboAl said:

I have and it says

 

At the AGM in December, total staff costs were forecast to go up from £5.9m last year to £6.3m (6.8%) this year, but we don't know for certain how much was earmarked for the playing squad. Ann's reported £1m increase in turnover this year represents an increase of 8.9%.

 

Do you have definite figures ahead of the accounts?

Do you have definite figures? Do you disbelieve what AB says?

 

Regarding how a club arrives at it's playing budget it has to take account of the players ans staff contracts already in existance and ensure that enough funds are available to meet them. So that part is already decided and that leaves the part of the budget to be decided for new contracts and new players and staff wages.

 

This is related usually as a percentage of turnover and there are guidelines set out but as our turnover seems to be increasing year on year it would make perfect sense to expect player wages to increase.

 

I notice that you ignore large parts of points put to you and only answer certain points. Your favourite seems to be asking for actual figures from others although you never do the same yourself.

[JamboAl]

5 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

Do you have definite figures? Do you disbelieve what AB says?

 

Regarding how a club arrives at it's playing budget it has to take account of the players ans staff contracts already in existance and ensure that enough funds are available to meet them. So that part is already decided and that leaves the part of the budget to be decided for new contracts and new players and staff wages.

 

This is related usually as a percentage of turnover and there are guidelines set out but as our turnover seems to be increasing year on year it would make perfect sense to expect player wages to increase.

 

I notice that you ignore large parts of points put to you and only answer certain points. Your favourite seems to be asking for actual figures from others although you never do the same yourself.

I don't have definite figures but I'm not the one who's shouting the odds.

And yes when setting the player budget they will have to take account of existing contracts but that is so elementary that it is not worth mentioning.  This is usually related as a percentage of turnover, you say.  Firstly I suspect you mean "as a percentage of estimated expenditure" and secondly with the new stand and extra costs like the rent of Murrayfield. this is hardly a "usual" season. which emphasises the need for actual figures rather than the back of a fag packet calculations.

[wavydavy]

38 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

I don't have definite figures but I'm not the one who's shouting the odds.

And yes when setting the player budget they will have to take account of existing contracts but that is so elementary that it is not worth mentioning.  This is usually related as a percentage of turnover, you say.  Firstly I suspect you mean "as a percentage of estimated expenditure" and secondly with the new stand and extra costs like the rent of Murrayfield. this is hardly a "usual" season. which emphasises the need for actual figures rather than the back of a fag packet calculations.

 

Regarding  taking into account existing contracts and you saying it's not worth mentioning sums up how little you really know when in fact the existing contracts will take up a very large chunk of the total player and staff budget. It is what is left that will determine how much CL will have to bring in new players excluding of course any possible sales of players and income from loan deals and any players he can move on and remove from the wage costs.

 

Who's shouting? This is the point I am making about your posts you think that your argument is always the right one and ask fro proof  from others but never produce any to back up your own statements.

 

Because I have a different point of view to you and take the trouble to debate it you say I am "shouting the odds".

 

You then revert to "nit picking" about the terminology I used in my point and I am fairly sure that you knew exactly what my point was but you rather pick up on that and suggest the use of the "back of a fag " packet.

 

I note you still never answered my question relating to whether you believe AB? I would suggest you do which of course  would end your argument.

 

[JamboAl]

51 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

Regarding  taking into account existing contracts and you saying it's not worth mentioning sums up how little you really know when in fact the existing contracts will take up a very large chunk of the total player and staff budget. It is what is left that will determine how much CL will have to bring in new players excluding of course any possible sales of players and income from loan deals and any players he can move on and remove from the wage costs.

 

Who's shouting? This is the point I am making about your posts you think that your argument is always the right one and ask fro proof  from others but never produce any to back up your own statements.

 

Because I have a different point of view to you and take the trouble to debate it you say I am "shouting the odds".

 

You then revert to "nit picking" about the terminology I used in my point and I am fairly sure that you knew exactly what my point was but you rather pick up on that and suggest the use of the "back of a fag " packet.

 

I note you still never answered my question relating to whether you believe AB? I would suggest you do which of course  would end your argument.

 

I think the question you want answered is "Do I believe Ann Budge?"

The answer is YES and the main reason, which should be the same as yours, is that I do not have sufficient knowledge and data. to question her.  She has been a successful businesswoman and will be in possession of all the CURRENT facts and projections.  I don't and until you do it seems a bit premature to be coming to negative conclusions.

When the next accounts come out is the time to question her and if you are a shareholder, Davy, you'll be able to do it personally.

[Bazzas right boot]

12 hours ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

In fairness, Kickback Law dictates Tosh needs to be reminded of that at least once per day. 

 

It also makes our rangers sympathisers cry, silver lining n' all 

 

I vote for a change in jkb law...?

[Bazzas right boot]

12 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I think.the increasigly shambolic nature of the new stand development deserves a bit more attention. What is the cost over-run and why? What is the schedule for completion?  As contributors of most of the funding so.far i think foh members and indeed other fans funding the club deserve a bit more open-ness.

 

 

 

Ffs 

[wavydavy]

19 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

I think the question you want answered is "Do I believe Ann Budge?"

The answer is YES and the main reason, which should be the same as yours, is that I do not have sufficient knowledge and data. to question her.  She has been a successful businesswoman and will be in possession of all the CURRENT facts and projections.  I don't and until you do it seems a bit premature to be coming to negative conclusions.

When the next accounts come out is the time to question her and if you are a shareholder, Davy, you'll be able to do it personally.

 

My argument all along has been that Ann Budge said our playing budget would not be affected by the new stand costs. If you say that you believe what she says then you will agree with my argument.

 

Where do you get the "negative conclusions" from? I am the one who is believing our Chairwoman and Owner when she states that our playing budget has not been affected. On the other hand it seems as if you are saying you believe her but surely that negates your stance.

 

You are correct in saying that AB will be in possession of all the current facts and projections so it is impossible for any of us on here to know what the actual figures are and yet you presist in asking for proof.

 

We can only take what she says in the interim until the next set of accounts are available for us to view which makes it futile for you to have asked in the first place to produce figures to back up the argument.

 

I am not questioning her I am believing her and I am also well aware of the entitlement of shareholders to ask questions. Will you be asking any?

[Mikey1874]

"We're only going to spend the money we have"

 

So aiming not to use loan facility and confirms timing of season ticket sales.

 

Pitch last time was £120,000. Plus bought lamps. Comfirmed will be hybrid. Negotiating on cost. 

 

Re questions about results, squad, Ian Cathro, recruitment Ann is never the best person to answer them. She always seems a bit uncomfortable with these things which is down to her having difficulty with it not being her areas of expertise. As well as results leaving us vulnerable to these questions. She is just fronting. Fans entitled to question this. 

 

Craig still in charge of recruitment and academy as before. 

 

Control of the finances and getting things done behind scenes is the major achievement. Plus new main stand was never the plan. Thought was going to leave having made a recommendation. Never expected to be building it. 

 

Couldn't do more at SPFL/ SFA. Doesn't have the time. Maybe that could change I suppose. 

[PTBCAL]

Just listened.

 

Very encouraged by Ann's honesty. Easy to forget where we were in 2013 and where we are now.

 

Also I am very positive we will get things right.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The interesting thing about our wage bill is Ann's comment about a hard salary cap, meaning that mistakes like Martin truly cost us as we will not bring in a direct replacement until we get him off the wage bill. Which makes sense but is a sore one for fans.

[davemclaren]

13 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I think.the increasigly shambolic nature of the new stand development deserves a bit more attention. What is the cost over-run and why? What is the schedule for completion?  As contributors of most of the funding so.far i think foh members and indeed other fans funding the club deserve a bit more open-ness.

 

Shouldn’t FoH be communicating that info to its members rather than the Hearts board?

[Footballfirst]

9 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Shouldn’t FoH be communicating that info to its members rather than the Hearts board?

 

The new stand is the club's project so it is down to the club board to communicate as they see fit.

 

Obviously FOH has two people on the club board, but I suspect that they won't say anything that hasn't been sanctioned by Ann.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

 

The new stand is the club's project so it is down to the club board to communicate as they see fit.

 

Obviously FOH has two people on the club board, but I suspect that they won't say anything that hasn't been sanctioned by Ann.

Why do you suspect that?

[Footballfirst]

16 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Why do you suspect that?

 

Everything in the FOH Governance proposals, and other communications I have had with Stuart Wallace, suggest that the FOH Board has no desire to involve itself in what it sees as club matters.  I therefore suspect that FOH's current presence on the club's board in little more than window dressing, and that all meaningful decisions are made by Ann and her inner circle.

 

Can you recall either Stuart Wallace or Donald Cumming ever coming out with new information about the club that hadn't previously come from an official club source? 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

13 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

Everything in the FOH Governance proposals, and other communications I have had with Stuart Wallace, suggest that the FOH Board has no desire to involve itself in what it sees as club matters.  I therefore suspect that FOH's current presence on the club's board in little more than window dressing, and that all meaningful decisions are made by Ann and her inner circle.

 

Can you recall either Stuart Wallace or Donald Cumming ever coming out with new information about the club that hadn't previously come from an official club source? 

I haven't been looking for them to share info to be perfectly honest but I also think no one has asked them about the stand in the fashion you state.

[portobellojambo1]

29 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

The new stand is the club's project so it is down to the club board to communicate as they see fit.

 

Obviously FOH has two people on the club board, but I suspect that they won't say anything that hasn't been sanctioned by Ann.

 

I agree with this FF and it would be interesting to read some comments on why everything effectively appeared to slow down, maybe even halt, in the early months of this year. Were the actual problems with the build down to what the club told the architect they wanted, the architect putting these down in drawings incorrectly or the builders misinterpreting those drawings. I know that when the new architect was appointed further drawings were required, which again would have involved additional costs. I believe the bogs have turned out to be a bit of a disaster by all accounts. Also be interesting to know if her brother's company really were the best choice of builders. Also some information on outstanding costs. I know, through asking, that it was hoped that the second floor of the new main stand facilities would all be in place by now, this then was given a revised date of June and from what I read somewhere last night the hope is it could be finished by December if there is sufficient money in place. Has the cost spiralled even further than we have been told, were there mistakes made in appointments and is anyone willing to accept responsibility, how much money is the club losing through the suites and top level restaurant possibly not being in place for at least another 9 months. The one thing the club have to make sure they don't do is continually go to the fans and ask for more money, because eventually the fans are going to say enough is enough, not because they want to deny the club money but because they have to just to survive on a daily basis.