Annual report and financials

[Coburg Hearts]

58 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

Nailed it. The majority of football supporters are greedy, ungrateful and ignorant when it comes to things like investment and infrastructure. This place and social media are testament to that.

Not to mention hibs fans withdrawing business from said company (I don't know the type of company, but have an idea), and the awful stories they would make up about that company. You can just imagine Green Ginger stirring up the hoards.

It makes sense to remain anonymous. 

[Sheriffs]

12 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

 I think Icon of Symmetry and I sorted our misunderstanding. 

But for clarity the core football business is IMO what is needed to put a football side on the pitch including players and coaching staff costs and wages necessary ground maintenance subs to the SFA rates stewarding and policing costs etc. and revenue from STs, walk ups cup runs, player sales. Hospitality, suite and exhibition space rentals, the shop, the fans bar, etc are there to subsidise the football business and never the other way round.

Broadly speaking I suppose but a distinction worth making and accounting for.

 

Nonsense, without the Football there is no business model.

The accounts are for one business.

The point stands that we don't require any showing profit and the accounts are extremely favourable. 

 

 

[Beast Boy]

40 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Of course there is no point in the business as a whole generating profits and paying tax and in that sense break even is the objective.

But the non-football side should financially support the football side, as is surely the point of hospitality, conference and meeting room rental etc.

And of course if the non-football side ever became a drain on the football side as did the ill fated social club of the 60s then that would be disastrous, even if we are breaking even overall.

Got you now.

[132goals1958]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

That being normal accounting practice.

 

I understand people not being so aware of that. But an experienced financial expert like Greenginger must know that is simple routine practice actually encouraged. 

 

Just like to reassure him that we still have some juicy prior year losses that we can offset against any small profits in ensuing years. 😀

[SUTOL]

19 hours ago, Castle rock said:

Some imagination the hubz have 😂

 

Reply

greenginger 06:01 PM Today 

Profit of £ 2.9 million and no tax paid.

That’s because they are allowed to use the huge losses sustained during the Vlad years to offset any profit.

Doesn’t seem to matter that the debts created were written off , they can still use those losses to their advantage.
 

Reply

ian

 

He's not even got that right.

 

Never mind paying no tax, we are due a credit/refund of £2,000. 

 

 

 

[SUTOL]

2 hours ago, Sheriffs said:

 

Apart from the odd pop up restaurant and the fans bar being open on non match days I don't know what your on about with regards the non football side of the business.

Care to elaborate?

 

Hire of the various function suites and meeting rooms etc on non-matchdays. Any income from things like the summer concert, weddings, the operation of the catering/hospitality facilities in (at least) a golf club and rugby club and any other functions catered for by Tynecastle Events Ltd. 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, SUTOL said:

 

Hire of the various function suites and meeting rooms etc on non-matchdays. Any income from things like the summer concert, weddings, the operation of the catering/hospitality facilities in (at least) a golf club and rugby club and any other functions catered for by Tynecastle Events Ltd. 

I'd define it wider than that. For example if the hospitality on match days (or some of it)  is not profitable  it is not contributing to the football business and may even be a drain on the latter. . If the hiring of exhibition space is not profitable … ditto. Of course there are cost allocation issues but as a matter of principle that is the case. I am not saying it is the case at present but the focus has to be on the success of the football team.

 

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, Sheriffs said:

 

Nonsense, without the Football there is no business model.

The accounts are for one business.

The point stands that we don't require any showing profit and the accounts are extremely favourable. 

 

 

So if some parts of the non-football operations are not profitable it doesn't matter if the business as a whole breaks even?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

22 hours ago, CJGJ said:

Agreed but to some of the children it seems they linked the two and who knows what they will do the next time...and there will be a next time no matter who gets the job

I donate £10 a month regardless and have no interest in any of your opinions, given how clueless you are.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

22 hours ago, Coburg Hearts said:

Pledging to the Foundation of Hearts should have absolutely nothing to do with whether we have a good or bad manager. Not to me, at any rate.

It’s more to do with the management for the club. It has to deserve our support.

 

For what it’s worth, I’ve never withdrawn my donations and never would.

[CJGJ]

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I donate £10 a month regardless and have no interest in any of your opinions, given how clueless you are.

I understand it must be difficult for you to understand posts but stick with it and one day you will be able to understand and post in an intelligent manner

 

Till then leave it to the experts

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

3 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

I understand it must be difficult for you to understand posts but stick with it and one day you will be able to understand and post in an intelligent manner

 

Till then leave it to the experts

Listen fella, you backed Levein to the hilt. Your credibility on here is shot. Crack on if you want but no-one will take you seriously.

[Famous 1874]

Another good set of results. Well done Budge and co. 

[1971fozzy]

17 minutes ago, Famous 1874 said:

Another good set of results. Well done Budge and co. 

indeed. She has done wonders off the field. Credit where it’s due

[Coburg Hearts]

25 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

indeed. She has done wonders off the field. Credit where it’s due

I could be wrong , and if I am I apologize, but I think he was being sarcastic.

[John Findlay]

10 minutes ago, Coburg Hearts said:

I could be wrong , and if I am I apologize, but I think he was being sarcastic.

I agree with you

[Famous 1874]

1 hour ago, Coburg Hearts said:

I could be wrong , and if I am I apologize, but I think he was being sarcastic.

I was not being sarcastic. Criticise her when she does bad, praise when she does good. 

Fantastic figures by the club yet again and long may it continue. 

[Footballfirst]

I've had another read through the accounts and picked up on a few things I missed on my first skim read.

 

Page 18: Going Concern - Cashflow projections.

* Donations of £500k have already been received in this financial year (2019/20) together with a commitment to further funding.

* FOH funding to pay off Bidco is projected at £0.1m a month.

 

The FOH funding was projected at £120k a month in the previous set of accounts, but ended up with an average of £110k over the full year.  It may be just a matter of rounding that the projected monthly amount is £0.1m rather than "£xxxk", however, I suspect that £100k may be closer to the mark.

 

The amount outstanding on the Bidco loan was £890k at the end of June.  At £100k a month from the year end, then the last loan repayment should be made in March 2020, with the share purchase and transfer occurring the following month, so not a hugely significant delay. That said, each month's delay in the transfer is a month more that the club will be without the FOH funds hitting its own coffers.

 

Page 23: Turnover and other revenue.

There is a note to the effect that a £500k contribution to the stadium redevelopment was included in "other income" within the turnover figure.  This has to be a separate amount from the benefactors cash which is not included in the turnover figure. It could be that the Council provided that sum as a contribution towards funding the nursery.

 

Pages 28 & 29 Tangible Fixed Assets

There is a note that £20.68m has been capitalised thus far as part of the Tynecastle Redevelopment Project (all elements). In addition to that, a further £2.42m remains classified as assets under construction. That would put the cost of the development in excess of £23m, possibly with more to follow for the fitting out of the second floor.

 

Page 30 Loans and Overdrafts

There is an intriguing note that "The Foundation of Hearts Limited will acquire the senior debt from Bidco (1874) Limited, once Bidco (1874) Limited has been repaid in full. Until that time the full amount of the senior loan (£2.4m), remains as a liability due to Bidco (1874) Limited." 

 

I don't understand why the full amount should be a liability to Bidco when FOH has already acquired £1.51m of the loan by year end. 

 

That statement in some ways backs up what Ian Murray alluded to in his book about the terms of the Bidco deal. It was described as akin to a "hostile take over" and as a "take it or leave it" offer. It confirms that FOH was carrying most of the risk should there have been any default on the terms of the agreement, while Bidco was fully protected and retained rights of repayment and first ranking security over the club's assets and also retained the majority shareholding until such time as every penny of the loan was repaid and the shares purchased.  

 

The notes also suggest that that all borrowing from Bidco, including the loan facility and short term borrowing also falls under Bidco's first ranking security, so will persist until all debts to Bidco are repaid. It's neither an unusual or unexpected situation, but it is useful to be aware of how any securities over the club's assets are applied.    

Edited November 16, 2019 by Footballfirst

[Guest ToqueJambo]

I don't think for one second that any reduction to FoH contributions is down to performance on the pitch or the manager. In fact the opposite. Given FoH has always primarily been all about stabilising the club for the long-term I think a reduction more indicates what a good position we're in off the park at least.

 

They will always go up and down. I've contributed from almost the start but have reduced and upped a couple of times, and cancelled my payments once then restarted, always for cash flow reasons.

 

Anyone who cancelled over the manager as some sort of protest or who uses the threat of stopping payments to force change really doesn't get the point of FoH in the first place. I'd be very surprised if someone cancelled for those reasons.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I'd define it wider than that. For example if the hospitality on match days (or some of it)  is not profitable  it is not contributing to the football business and may even be a drain on the latter. . If the hiring of exhibition space is not profitable … ditto. Of course there are cost allocation issues but as a matter of principle that is the case. I am not saying it is the case at present but the focus has to be on the success of the football team.

 

 

The long-term focus is always on the football team surely? Everything we do in terms of extra revenues, building a new stand and all that is geared towards that. But unless we find a money tree, we might sometimes need to invest in those revenue streams with a long-term objective of improving the team, even though in the short term we might have to live with a more frugal playing budget. That's where smart manager appointments and a successful youth policy come into play.

Edited November 16, 2019 by ToqueJambo

[rick witter]

imagine how much profit we could potentially make if we were actually good at the football!! 

[Kiwidoug]

43 minutes ago, rick witter said:

imagine how much profit we could potentially make if we were actually good at the football!! 

That is what is so frustrating.  There was so much promise after the championship win but only really a handful of compelling performances since.

 

Utterly frustrating but it won't be that way forever.  I'm feeling optimistic again.

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

Poor show on the FOH dropouts IMO. 8.5% is chunky.

[Sheriffs]

16 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

So if some parts of the non-football operations are not profitable it doesn't matter if the business as a whole breaks even?

 

Some parts of the business won't be profitable. In fact in our case, the whole business isn't profitable without the donations, so your constant attempts to argue are really rather pointless.

The point is, IF there wasn't any donations spending would be cut and we'd still be a well run club operating within its means. 

Really rather pleasing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Francis Albert]

If FF's analysis is correct (and it usually is) then a "new stand" project with a budgeted cost of £8m with £1m contingency has morphed into a "stadium redevelopment project " with total cost to date of over £23m with the new stand not yet fully fitted out. 

One question for the AGM is to ask for a scope and cost variation analysis from the "new stand" estimate to the "stadium redevelopment" actual to date and estimated completion.

[DalryJambo]

22 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

As usual with the accounts (any accounts not just ours) first reading is always positive with the the Directors Report providing a coating of gloss. 

Overall still very positive but the reliance on benefactors for profit and cash flow is not healthy except as a temporary measure to get us through the "stadium redevelopment" phase.

I will be interested to se at the AGM or perhaps more likely in next years accounts (once a full year of increased hospitality and facility letting is shown) how profitable these are - increased turnover/revenue is great but only if profitable. Ann has suggested next year's accounts will not be as strong … (less benefactor contributions fewer cup semi/final  bonuses not matched by increase in non-football earnings?)

There is no ‘reliance’. The benefactors allow work on the stand to be completed to a higher finish and at a faster rate than otherwise. They also allow us to increase our playing budget to sign a few players normally outwith reach. 
 

With out the additional funding the player budget would be reduced accordingly and the work on the fit our of the stand would have been  to a lower standard or taken longer. 
 

How people can’t grasp this basic concept baffles me. 
 

FA, that’s not aimed specifically at you, I’m not saying you fall into that group.

Edited November 17, 2019 by DalryJambo

[Francis Albert]

34 minutes ago, DalryJambo said:

There is no ‘reliance’. The benefactors allow work on the stand to be completed to a higher finish and at a faster rate than otherwise. They also allow us to increase our playing budget to sign a few players normally outwith reach. 
 

With out the additional funding the player budget would be reduced accordingly and the work on the fit our of the stand would have been  to a lower standard or taken longer. 
 

How people can’t grasp this basic concept baffles me. 
 

FA, that’s not aimed specifically at you, I’m not saying you fall into that group.

To do the things we have done we have been reliant on benefactor contributions. The profit and cash flows reflected in the Accounts would be different without the benefactors contributions. In a parallel universe this would not be the case but in this one it is.

This is not aimed specifically at you!

[Jambo dans les Pyrenees]

Apologies if it has been covered already on this thread, but would I be correct that the benefactors contributions also cover the sponsorship deal with Save the Children? 

 

If so, while the generosity of funding this deal is to be admired, if the benefactor chose not to do this we would presumably replace some of this with a normal commercial deal to whichever sponsor is wiling to pay?

[Jamboelite]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

If FF's analysis is correct (and it usually is) then a "new stand" project with a budgeted cost of £8m with £1m contingency has morphed into a "stadium redevelopment project " with total cost to date of over £23m with the new stand not yet fully fitted out. 

One question for the AGM is to ask for a scope and cost variation analysis from the "new stand" estimate to the "stadium redevelopment" actual to date and estimated completion.

I would agree the expansion of the development against original stadium costs is worthy of scrutiny.

[DalryJambo]

26 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

To do the things we have done we have been reliant on benefactor contributions. The profit and cash flows reflected in the Accounts would be different without the benefactors contributions. In a parallel universe this would not be the case but in this one it is.

This is not aimed specifically at you!

Maybe we are talking semantics here but there’s a difference between spending the money made available at the start of a budgeting cycle and needing someone to provide you with a top up at the end of the financial year to make the books balance.
 

I think when the new stand and renovation to existing infrastructure is complete all our regular income will be available for wages etc. At the moment the benefactors are allowing us to fund the work and run with a higher wage structure.  Maybe the plan is for this to stop once the stand improvements are completed.

 

Longer term if Benefactors continue to provide funds we just need to ensure the money doesn’t just stop prior to longer term contracts being signed outwith the standard wage structure. 

[Beast Boy]

34 minutes ago, Queensland Jambo said:

Apologies if it has been covered already on this thread, but would I be correct that the benefactors contributions also cover the sponsorship deal with Save the Children? 

 

If so, while the generosity of funding this deal is to be admired, if the benefactor chose not to do this we would presumably replace some of this with a normal commercial deal to whichever sponsor is wiling to pay?

Yes, that is correct. They wanted to give money to Hearts, and Budge asked them to give the same amount to StC and we would put their logo on our shirts. Presumably when that deal ends, we will be accepting offers from commercial partners. Although we will be looking to try and force that sponsorship funding up on pre-StC amounts. Wonga for example was a much smaller sponsorship deal than the StC set-up. We need to not sell ourselves short.

[TheOak88]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

If FF's analysis is correct (and it usually is) then a "new stand" project with a budgeted cost of £8m with £1m contingency has morphed into a "stadium redevelopment project " with total cost to date of over £23m with the new stand not yet fully fitted out. 

One question for the AGM is to ask for a scope and cost variation analysis from the "new stand" estimate to the "stadium redevelopment" actual to date and estimated completion.

 

Would definitely be interested to see a cost variation analysis with regard to stadium redevelopment. The cost just seems to get bigger and bigger.  

[annushorribilis III]

14 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

I don't think for one second that any reduction to FoH contributions is down to performance on the pitch or the manager. In fact the opposite. Given FoH has always primarily been all about stabilising the club for the long-term I think a reduction more indicates what a good position we're in off the park at least.

 

They will always go up and down. I've contributed from almost the start but have reduced and upped a couple of times, and cancelled my payments once then restarted, always for cash flow reasons.

 

Anyone who cancelled over the manager as some sort of protest or who uses the threat of stopping payments to force change really doesn't get the point of FoH in the first place. I'd be very surprised if someone cancelled for those reasons.i

I can tell you categorically I know several people who stopped their FOH subs quite a while ago over this very point. No one expected it to force any kind of change, in fact they stopped paying simply because of apathy at the poor football and lack of progress - some have stopped attending completely - but they're not ST holders so it won't have any great impact.

 There is also some unhappiness with the massive overspend on the stand/"stadium redevelopment" which some guys I know thought was utter madness. In fact there was some surprise that the people who committed the club to this massive overspend weren't held accountable for it.

 

[HMFC 86]

19 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Listen fella, you backed Levein to the hilt. Your credibility on here is shot. Crack on if you want but no-one will take you seriously.

 

Agreed. He’s from the wee gang on here who were insulting and patronising, in turns, defending Levein. Even now they continue on with the same arrogance of opinion. Brass neck doesn’t cover it

[SUTOL]

1 hour ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Would definitely be interested to see a cost variation analysis with regard to stadium redevelopment. The cost just seems to get bigger and bigger.  

 

The costs may be getting or have gotten, bigger, but so has the project.

It's changed from a budget for construction/redevelopment of the main stand to some redevelopment/works in the other stands, a new pitch and alterations or variations to the original plans for the stand.

 

But further investigation would do no harm, especially for any future developments.

[TheOak88]

50 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

The costs may be getting or have gotten, bigger, but so has the project.

It's changed from a budget for construction/redevelopment of the main stand to some redevelopment/works in the other stands, a new pitch and alterations or variations to the original plans for the stand.

 

But further investigation would do no harm, especially for any future developments.

 

Significant project overspend and a contract relating to the project was handed out to a family member. Transparency really needs to be 100% when you put the above factors together. 

[Famous 1874]

1 minute ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Significant project overspend and a contract relating to the project was handed out to a family member. Transparency really needs to be 100% when you put the above factors together. 

You talking about Budge’s Hibee brother being involved in the new stand? Or her Hibee nephew who runs the fans bar 

[Francis Albert]

18 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

I don't think for one second that any reduction to FoH contributions is down to performance on the pitch or the manager. In fact the opposite. Given FoH has always primarily been all about stabilising the club for the long-term I think a reduction more indicates what a good position we're in off the park at least.

 

They will always go up and down. I've contributed from almost the start but have reduced and upped a couple of times, and cancelled my payments once then restarted, always for cash flow reasons.

 

Anyone who cancelled over the manager as some sort of protest or who uses the threat of stopping payments to force change really doesn't get the point of FoH in the first place. I'd be very surprised if someone cancelled for those reasons.

I agree there will be a mixture of reasons for the drop. One factor may be the feeling that the job of achieving fan ownership is almost done, a feeling that is likely to grow and, obviously become stronger when it is done. Most  of us didn't "pledge for life" but for a specific objective, subsequently extended to helping to fund the new stand. Annual  funding thereafter of say £1m a year is not going to make a big difference to how competitive we are on the field - as has recently been shown the quality of recruitment and management of the football team are far more significant. I think FoH still has a job to do to persuade us or at least some us of the "pledge for life" concept. 

[johnking123]

The stadium is getting more whistles and bells in it. It's costing more , but will all help us improve match day and non match day experience.

[Nookie Bear]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I agree there will be a mixture of reasons for the drop. One factor may be the feeling that the job of achieving fan ownership is almost done, a feeling that is likely to grow and, obviously become stronger when it is done. Most  of us didn't "pledge for life" but for a specific objective, subsequently extended to helping to fund the new stand. Annual  funding thereafter of say £1m a year is not going to make a big difference to how competitive we are on the field - as has recently been shown the quality of recruitment and management of the football team are far more significant. I think FoH still has a job to do to persuade us or at least some us of the "pledge for life" concept. 

Disagree with that. I reckon most are contributing for the long term and want the additional income used to strengthen the team in years to come. 
 

And £1m/annum is not to be sniffed at. It must be more than our TV income, for starters. 
 

I suspect the issue may be the difficulty in attracting new pledgers. Not sure how we do that tbh 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Nookie Bear

[Mikey1874]

15 hours ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

Poor show on the FOH dropouts IMO. 8.5% is chunky.

 

I've been both impressed and surprised that FoH subs stayed so high for so long. 

 

Maybe the drop off is most about Levein etc. But FoH was about saving the club and we are well on the way to a lot more than that. 

 

Ownership transferring will be a key turning point. Maybe subs will increase then. But a drop off will just be a natural change. 

[Francis Albert]

26 minutes ago, johnking123 said:

The stadium is getting more whistles and bells in it. It's costing more , but will all help us improve match day and non match day experience.

Since I bought an ST in the main stand I have only ventured into the other stands for the occasional cup tie and a few hospitality events in the Gorgie Suite. For more regular visitors what have been the redevelopment features in those stands... not maintenance like repainting or replacement of non-slip covering on stairs but capital expenditure. What whistles and bells outside the main stand are we talking about?

I suspect the switch from "new stand projject" to "stadium redevelopment" is about disguising the scale of the  loverspend on the new stand.

[Mikey1874]

19 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I've had another read through the accounts and picked up on a few things I missed on my first skim read.

 

Page 18: Going Concern - Cashflow projections.

* Donations of £500k have already been received in this financial year (2019/20) together with a commitment to further funding.

 

Benefactors in it for the long term it may be

[Norm]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I agree there will be a mixture of reasons for the drop. One factor may be the feeling that the job of achieving fan ownership is almost done, a feeling that is likely to grow and, obviously become stronger when it is done. Most  of us didn't "pledge for life" but for a specific objective, subsequently extended to helping to fund the new stand. Annual  funding thereafter of say £1m a year is not going to make a big difference to how competitive we are on the field - as has recently been shown the quality of recruitment and management of the football team are far more significant. I think FoH still has a job to do to persuade us or at least some us of the "pledge for life" concept. 

An extra 1 million pounds a season is more than the prize money earned finishing 2nd in the league compared to 8th. Basically, as long as we finish 8th or above, we'll have taken in more cash than the 2nd place team, all other things being equal. 

 

In Scottish football terms, a million is a lot of money. 

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

19 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I've been both impressed and surprised that FoH subs stayed so high for so long. 

 

Maybe the drop off is most about Levein etc. But FoH was about saving the club and we are well on the way to a lot more than that. 

 

Ownership transferring will be a key turning point. Maybe subs will increase then. But a drop off will just be a natural change. 

we are the one constant mate - fans shouldn’t be petty when it comes to ups and downs that we will always have

 

stopping FOH payment more likely to make things worse in the medium term

 

short sighted 

[Footballfirst]

5 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Benefactors in it for the long term it may be

 

2017 - £2.5m

2018 - £2m plus £1m towards the playing budget

2019 - £2.25m plus £1m towards the playing budget

2020 - £0.5m so far

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

9 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Benefactors in it for the long term it may be

not if they are chased out the club one way or another by the fans

[Cruyff Turn]

Any links to the balance sheets for the last three years? 

[Phil Dunphy]

On 16/11/2019 at 17:54, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Listen fella, you backed Levein to the hilt. Your credibility on here is shot. Crack on if you want but no-one will take you seriously.

 

As if anyone did previously.

[Nookie Bear]

24 minutes ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

not if they are chased out the club one way or another by the fans

Why would they be? Who is proposing they be chased out?

 

Leave the Hearts fan hating vibe to the likes of Jammy T and Mothy, yeah?

Edited November 17, 2019 by Nookie Bear