Our Next CEO

[Footballfirst]

4 minutes ago, 132goals1958 said:

With Land and Buildings and presumably our stand. revaluation is likely. as value generally increases over time.If we make a profit we could also utilise some capital annual investment allowances although  the profile of the business probably means they would be immaterial.

From the accounts

 

Tangible fixed assets
Tangible fixed assets are initially measured at cost and subsequently measured at cost or valuation, net of depreciation and any impairment losses.
Under FRS102 Section 35, the company has elected to freeze the previous GAAP revaluation of freehold land and buildings and memorabilia and treat it as deemed cost as at the revaluation date. Freehold land and property is depreciated from the valuation date, memorabilia and assets in the course of construction are not depreciated.
Depreciation is provided at rates calculated to write off the cost or valuation less estimated residual value of each asset over its expected useful life, as follows:
Land and buildings freehold  -   Depreciated over a period of 50 years

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, Fort Vallance said:

You don't think the Celtic CEO is doing a good job for them ? Doesn't give a toss about anyone else but surely can't argue what he's done for them. 

 

Ofc he is, as did Fergus. 

 

None had a football background tho.. 

[132goals1958]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

From the accounts

 

Tangible fixed assets
Tangible fixed assets are initially measured at cost and subsequently measured at cost or valuation, net of depreciation and any impairment losses.
Under FRS102 Section 35, the company has elected to freeze the previous GAAP revaluation of freehold land and buildings and memorabilia and treat it as deemed cost as at the revaluation date. Freehold land and property is depreciated from the valuation date, memorabilia and assets in the course of construction are not depreciated.
Depreciation is provided at rates calculated to write off the cost or valuation less estimated residual value of each asset over its expected useful life, as follows:
Land and buildings freehold  -   Depreciated over a period of 50 years

 

 

Thanks for that.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

 

AB herself has acknowledged that it is not good governance for the major shareholder to also be the chairman, to also be the chief exec.

 

I agree with her.

Yeah. 

 

How easily we can forget how it came about,  however with the growth,  perhaps should have been redressed by this juncture. 

 

Would like to believe the forthcoming opportunity will be one to build a company that is robust 

[Spellczech]

Me

[portobellojambo1]

9 hours ago, Smith's right boot said:

Are there any football savvy ceo's or owners. 

 

Looking, even in Scotland 

 

Aberdeen, no

Celtic no

Rangers no

Hibs no

 

In England, Liverpool, man City, arsenal, man Utd, no, no and nope. 

 

There will be some, I'm sure but money, leadership and common sense are far more important. 

 

This thing that our owner / ceo needs to be football savvy needs to go to the myth thread. 

 

Big Vlad..... Mercer, nope, nope. 

 

 

Hopefully Ann stays on, backs Stendel, gets a dof in place if that's our way and has learned from giving 1 person too much responsibility. 

 

 

 

 

I think the best sort of board any club could get would include people with a strong interest in/support of the relevant club, but the CEO themselves doesn't have to fall into that category. I think in Ann's case, at the outset, there was nobody else on the board she could really turn to for football input or such like. She effectively appointed 1 person with total a control over the football side of the business and that was how problems unfolded. I'm really not sure if she will now want to do another spell in the position, I had heard that she may well be consdiernig leaving as early as next month, once the final loan repayment amount has been made. If she were to leave I wouldn't have a clue who I'd consider as a good replacement.

[JohnB]

41 minutes ago, portobellojambo1 said:

 

I think the best sort of board any club could get would include people with a strong interest in/support of the relevant club, but the CEO themselves doesn't have to fall into that category. I think in Ann's case, at the outset, there was nobody else on the board she could really turn to for football input or such like. She effectively appointed 1 person with total a control over the football side of the business and that was how problems unfolded. I'm really not sure if she will now want to do another spell in the position, I had heard that she may well be considering leaving as early as next month, once the final loan repayment amount has been made. If she were to leave I wouldn't have a clue who I'd consider as a good replacement.

 

And when that moment arrives as surely it will at some point, there will be a lot of people who will maybe swallow hard realising that their "be careful what you wish for" moment has arrived. Hope they'll be happy with it. I for one won't. 

[jimbo99]

4 hours ago, Gershwin said:

A CEO that realises we’re a football club would help.

[spacerjoe]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

From the accounts

 

Tangible fixed assets
Tangible fixed assets are initially measured at cost and subsequently measured at cost or valuation, net of depreciation and any impairment losses.
Under FRS102 Section 35, the company has elected to freeze the previous GAAP revaluation of freehold land and buildings and memorabilia and treat it as deemed cost as at the revaluation date. Freehold land and property is depreciated from the valuation date, memorabilia and assets in the course of construction are not depreciated.
Depreciation is provided at rates calculated to write off the cost or valuation less estimated residual value of each asset over its expected useful life, as follows:
Land and buildings freehold  -   Depreciated over a period of 50 years

 

Sounds about right. Thanks for the info.

[o1djambo]

42 minutes ago, JohnB said:

 ..

And when that moment arrives as surely it will at some point, there will be a lot of people who will maybe swallow hard realising that their "be careful what you wish for" moment has arrived. Hope they'll be happy with it. I for one won't. 

When I asked herself a direct question at the FOH / AGM  l got the impression that she has plans for Hearts and has only started far less finished.  Remember the benefactors may go if she goes.  Best take advantage because their might not be another chance. Do not kill the Goose that layed the golden egg.

[jr ewing]

Leave it until this season is over. 

[Taffin]

5 hours ago, spacerjoe said:

 

If you decide to amortize the cost of a tangible asset, you can split that cost on your books over a number of years. That number of years is normally dictated by the usefulness lifespan of the asset. I don't know about stadiums, but with buildings that can be between 15 and 20 years.

 

Therefore, yes, you can make a return on the investment almost immediately, in terms of a balance sheet, if your new revenue exceeds costs.

 

In this case, you also have to look at the fact that a lot of the payment here was made through benefactors; cash that ordinarily would not have been available otherwise, so even if we decided not to amortize anything, you can remove a fair chunk from the equation. Its not like that cash would have gone into the business regardless.

 

 

 

Thank you. I apologize if my questions seemed either stupid, flippant or bullish (or all of them). I genuinely don't understand how it works or how something that cost £22m quid could be deemed to have made a profit when our revenue had barely exceeded that since it opened. Until now nobody had explained it or quantified it when I'd asked before. 

 

To my thinking, if you buy something (say stock) for 100k, it's not made any profit until you've sold more thank 100k of it. Or if it's an investment to generate revenue then I'd view any additional revenue it brings in as not profit until it had broken even and was then generating a surplus. I appreciate that's a simplistic way of looking at it though given your explanation above.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Taffin

[davemclaren]

I think it hangs on the rest of this season. It’s hard to see how she will, or can, stay if we go down. 

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Thank you. I apologize if my questions seemed either stupid, flippant or bullish. I genuinely don't understand how it works or how something that cost £22m quid could be deemed to have made a profit when our revenue had barely exceeded that since it opened. Until now nobody had explained it or quantified it when I'd asked before. 

 

To my thinking, if you buy something (say stock) for 100k, it's not made any profit until you've sold more thank 100k of it. Or if it's an investment to generate revenue then I'd view any additional revenue it brings in as not profit until it had broken even and was then generating a surplus. I appreciate that's a simplistic way of looking at it though given your explanation above.

 

 

 

Stock, you would view it like that. 

We'll view the commercial side a bit like that, like our strips, catering etc 

 

Buy x amount of stock, need to sell y amount to make x amount of profit. 

 

A fixed asset like a building. You wouldn't. 

 

If everyone did look it like that, nothing would get built as buildings and such  (and stands) cost a lot. 

 

Spurs just spent £600m or whatever it was , they won't get that back immediately. 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Smith's right boot

[Jambo-Fox]

Ann Budge 12 more months as chairperson ..... with CEO Bryan (administrator) Jackson .... why not?

[Frank Sidebottom]

What ever became of Firework Phil? 

[Taffin]

23 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

Stock, you would view it like that. 

We'll view the commercial side a bit like that, like our strips, catering etc 

 

Buy x amount of stock, need to sell y amount to make x amount of profit. 

 

A fixed asset like a building. You wouldn't. 

 

If everyone did look it like that, nothing would get built as buildings and such  (and stands) cost a lot. 

 

Spurs just spent £600m or whatever it was , they won't get that back immediately. 

 

 

 

I do get that we won't get it back immediately. It's just an awful lot of money to see it pay that back many times over during the duration of its lifetime imo (evidently a not clued up opinion on this kind of thing) I absolutely hope it will but equally I'd be happy enough for it to just break even. As I've said before, whether it does or doesn't it was still the right decision as the old stand actively cost us money. 

 

Thanks for your answer and apologies for snapping at your response before. I just get sick of questions being seen as suggesting I'm saying we shouldn't have done it or whatever; I'm just nervous of people blindly stating things like 'it doesn't matter the cost as it will pay for itself many times over' but then seemingly having based that on very little when asked to quantify it.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Taffin

[spacerjoe]

32 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Thank you. I apologize if my questions seemed either stupid, flippant or bullish (or all of them). I genuinely don't understand how it works or how something that cost £22m quid could be deemed to have made a profit when our revenue had barely exceeded that since it opened. Until now nobody had explained it or quantified it when I'd asked before. 

 

To my thinking, if you buy something (say stock) for 100k, it's not made any profit until you've sold more thank 100k of it. Or if it's an investment to generate revenue then I'd view any additional revenue it brings in as not profit until it had broken even and was then generating a surplus. I appreciate that's a simplistic way of looking at it though given your explanation above.

 

No worries. No questions are stupid if you dont already know the answer.

 

Cash in the bank and declared returns are often very different things. I'm not an accountant though, so will leave the details to others!

Edited January 21, 2020 by spacerjoe

[Bazzas right boot]

40 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I do get that we won't get it back immediately. It's just an awful lot of money to see it pay that back many times over during the duration of its lifetime imo (evidently a not clued up opinion on this kind of thing) I absolutely hope it will but equally I'd be happy enough for it to just break even. As I've said before, whether it does or doesn't it was still the right decision as the old stand actively cost us money. 

 

Thanks for your answer and apologies for snapping at your response before. I just get sick of questions being seen as suggesting I'm saying we shouldn't have done it or whatever; I'm just nervous of people blindly stating things like 'it doesn't matter the cost as it will pay for itself many times over' but then seemingly having based that on very little when asked to quantify it.

No bother 

 

I'm no accountant. 

 

But there will be a depreciation period. 

 

Think of a car.  Easy example 

 

You buy it new for £20k. 

You plan to sell it for 10k in 5 years. 

 

You depreciate it two years by £2k every year, you include that in your balance. 

 

 

Why did you buy a car as it cost you so much?

 

Well it replaced the banger that was costing more in petrol like for like  and maintenance and you need it for work, life etc. 

Might be a shite example, I dunno. 

 

Pay back periods I've experienced are between 3-5 years. 

The stand will be longer I'd think. 

 

Remember the bigger and more premium capacity as well of the new stand v the old. 

 

Potential 2000 punters is a decent wad straight away. 

 

 

 

[Coburg Hearts]

13 hours ago, Meadows said:

David Southern suit anyone ? 

Don't know what he is doing now, but I would have no problem with that. 

[martoon]

6 hours ago, Boris said:

And you know that Levein will advise, how?

 

Also, post sale, any CEO will have a stricter governance (for want of a word) due to FoH ownership.

 

She relies on him (her words), takes his advice, won't sack him, invents jobs for him such as tour guide, medicine man...I believe I'm on pretty safe ground with this one, Boris. 

 

While Ms. Budge is calling the shots, Levein will have an influence.

 

That is not acceptable to me.

 

 

 

 

 

[rudi must stay]

Rino Gattuso or Leonardo (Leonardo did well at PSG)

Edited January 22, 2020 by rudi must stay

[annushorribilis III]

2 hours ago, o1djambo said:

When I asked herself a direct question at the FOH / AGM  l got the impression that she has plans for Hearts and has only started far less finished.  Remember the benefactors may go if she goes.  Best take advantage because their might not be another chance. Do not kill the Goose that layed the golden egg.

Well let's hope that includes a board worthy of the name and no more ridiculous capital spending for which she is not accountable. 

 

Or the goose that racked up a £22m spend on a runaway infrastructure project - which she isn't out of pocket for.

 

 

 

 

.

[Maple Leaf]

34 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

Well let's hope that includes a board worthy of the name and no more ridiculous capital spending for which she is not accountable. 

 

Or the goose that racked up a £22m spend on a runaway infrastructure project - which she isn't out of pocket for.

 

.

 

OK, genuine question. Who is out of pocket for the runaway project?  You? Me? FoH? The benefactors?   I don't know the answer to that.

[graygo]

18 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

OK, genuine question. Who is out of pocket for the runaway project?  You? Me? FoH? The benefactors?   I don't know the answer to that.

 

It's mental, as far as I can see when she leaves she leaves us with a £22m shiny stand and relatively no debt.

[Maple Leaf]

5 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

It's mental, as far as I can see when she leaves she leaves us with a £22m shiny stand and relatively no debt.

 

That's the way I see it too. 

 

If "somebody's" money has been squandered, and "somebody" isn't complaining, why should anyone else complain?

[WageThief]

12 hours ago, Sir Gio said:

Personally surprised it went to that cost.

 

Apparently we score low on corporate governance which surprised me,  however commercially we are very good and the best in the country engaged with stakeholders 

 

I suppose all we can say,  the investment surely sets up the best business opportunities moving forward. 

 

How much it then makes will depend on its keeper 

 

Lets hope we've got one decent keeper then!

[Dalstonjambo]

6 hours ago, rudi must stay said:

Rino Gattuso or Leonardo (Leonardo did well at PSG)

Leonardo is the current sporting director of PSG and probably on about 10 million a year.

I'd be interested to know your logic on what would make Rino Gattuso a good CEO. As I presume you meant the ex Rangers player? The same Rino Gattuso who currently manages Napoli. Napoli in Serie A

[Poseidon]

21 hours ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

Ann Budge got the stand built. 

Job done 👍

All I care about. 

It's magnificent and will serve us for decades. 

 

I have no technical expertise on building a stand, the costs involved or the contract negotiations, so I'll defer to your intimate knowledge and skill set on that matter. 

 

That's the kind of thinking that got us into trouble with Robinson 

[Saint Jambo]

My question would be what makes a CEO "football savvy"? If that means having played football then I don't care. If it means having demonstrated the right skill set to manage a football club then I think it's really important. People (including on this thread) talk about business experience as if businesses are all the same and all require the same skills. Maybe they'll make a distinction for the size of business (in turnover or staff) but not what it does.

 

My view is within different businesses CEOs undertake different tasks and face different challenges so need different skills. For example there is a significant difference between a business that is mainly selling to the public and one that is mainly supplying to other businesses. Difference between businesses that provide services/ products, that are/aren't under significant public scrutiny, do/ don't operate in a highly governed sector, or have lots of low paid low skilled workers or a small number of high skilled high paid workers. The idea that there is a set of leadership skills that some people have that is all that is required to move successfully between CEO in these different businesses is a myth perpetuated by CEOs who often fail at one business before moving on to another well paid job in another business.

 

Within a single business the ideal skill set for the CEO may vary over time. The skills required to restructure a football club coming out of administration is probably different from a club undertaking a major capital project costing more than a year's turnover, and differ again when the club is stable and trying to makes relatively smaller improvements.

 

It appears to me that Budge came from a sector where businesses operate in a quite different way to football clubs and at times that has shown. At other times and in other ways she probably has had the right skills. Few if any of us are likely to have the insight into the operations of the club to really say how good a job the CEO is doing.

 

If Budge goes, I hope the club will focus on the role of the CEO and the skills required given the particular structure of Hearts, rather than prioritising a football background or evidence that they are successful in just generating profits at a random business.

[Footballfirst]

7 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

OK, genuine question. Who is out of pocket for the runaway project?  You? Me? FoH? The benefactors?   I don't know the answer to that.

Investment in the 1st team squad.

 

7 hours ago, graygo said:

 

It's mental, as far as I can see when she leaves she leaves us with a £22m shiny stand and relatively no debt.

........ and possibly in the Championship with future income reduced by several £m.

[Boab]

2 hours ago, Dalstonjambo said:

Leonardo is the current sporting director of PSG and probably on about 10 million a year.

I'd be interested to know your logic on what would make Rino Gattuso a good CEO. As I presume you meant the ex Rangers player? The same Rino Gattuso who currently manages Napoli. Napoli in Serie A

Aye, it was a bit left field that post !

Where the hell did Rino come from ?

[ollie2004]

A bit surprised nobody has mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeann_Dempster. She has done a good job at Motherwell then our neighbours from Lochend!

[Dalstonjambo]

22 minutes ago, Boab said:

Aye, it was a bit left field that post !

Where the hell did Rino come from ?

Was a strange one to post with nothing to back it up. literally no evidence i've seen to suggest he would have the skillset to do the job, and is currently a manager of one of europe's biggest clubs.

[graygo]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Investment in the 1st team squad.

 

........ and possibly in the Championship with future income reduced by several £m.

 

How much was spent on the stand that was diverted from the playing budget?

 

[richierich]

I reckon Bryan Jackson would do a good job as well, I'm another one who welcome him

[Footballfirst]

51 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

How much was spent on the stand that was diverted from the playing budget?

 

At the 2018 AGM the amount coming from "club resources" was stated as £6.7m.  The club didn't show a similar slide at the 2019 AGM.

[Boab]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

At the 2018 AGM the amount coming from "club resources" was stated as £6.7m.  The club didn't show a similar slide at the 2019 AGM.

So, I suppose the answer is we don’t know.

[Maple Leaf]

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Investment in the 1st team squad.

 

........ and possibly in the Championship with future income reduced by several £m.

 

1. You know better than me, but isn't the players' budget set at a % of revenue, and we've been meeting that. If the overspend on the stand came from benefactors, that money would not have gone on players' salaries.  I might be wrong.

 

2. She gets a lot of justified criticism for what has happened in the past 2-3 years.  Let's not extend that criticism to what might happen.

[sadj]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

How much was spent on the stand that was diverted from the playing budget?

 

All of it.... every penny!!!!! Surely the largest percentage of overspend was benefactors. She delayed getting her own payment to divert some also (i believe) then there is the fact the wages are set at a percentage of turnover aren’t they. Therefore nothing spent outwith that would have gone on players wages etc anyway? 

Edited January 22, 2020 by sadj

[jr ewing]

4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Investment in the 1st team squad.

 

........ and possibly in the Championship with future income reduced by several £m.

Swings and roundabouts. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

It’s similar to the Levein head coach situation. I can’t really suggest a good option as CEO but what I can say on the evidence of the past 18 months is that Budge isn’t up to it.

[Footballfirst]

44 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

1. You know better than me, but isn't the players' budget set at a % of revenue, and we've been meeting that. If the overspend on the stand came from benefactors, that money would not have gone on players' salaries.  I might be wrong.

 

2. She gets a lot of justified criticism for what has happened in the past 2-3 years.  Let's not extend that criticism to what might happen.

The wages/turnover ratio is as good a guideline as any. The club tries to keep it below 60% as being a sustainable figure.

 

The ratios for the last 5 years under AB have been (2015-2019) 54%, 55%, 52%, 58% and 55%. All very laudable and sustainable figures. However, the last two years paying budgets have  each been boosted by £1m from benefactors, otherwise they would have been down at 50% and 48% respectively, i.e. squeezed.

 

The original redevelopment budget forecast required £3m from club resources as at the 2016 AGM (based on a £12m spend), with a hope that a further £1m would be realised by the additional stand capacity. That figure went up to £4.75, then £6.7m at the next two AGMs. I don't know how much it has gone up since the 2018 AGM, although I would guess that it is at least £1m more, based on the repayment of £1m of the loan facility provided by AB (per the 2019 accounts).

 

While the redevelopment programme remains incomplete and related debts have still to be paid off, then it is inevitable that the potential playing budget will be constrained.

 

.

 

[DETTY29]

On 21/01/2020 at 13:38, Footballfirst said:

I'd expect that AB will nominate someone she knows to take over, possibly someone who is already on the Board such as Jacqui Duncan.

Hi FF,

 

Bit of a thought and I am being lazy and prob could find out.

 

We are still a plc so therefore all directors remunerations should be in the accounts.

 

Jacqui Duncan, I think started off as our 'Legal Head' then had a widened remit of Finance Director, but not necessarily a director of the company, but is now.

 

Therefore the directors remunerations in the accounts should include what has been paid to both her and Levein ergo, isn't paid anything like what has been assumed?

 

Or JD isn't being renumerated or being funded by some other vehicle?  Which I'd have thought still needed to be recognised in the accounts as some form of service agreement?

 

Any thoughts?

[Guest ToqueJambo]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The wages/turnover ratio is as good a guideline as any. The club tries to keep it below 60% as being a sustainable figure.

 

The ratios for the last 5 years under AB have been (2015-2019) 54%, 55%, 52%, 58% and 55%. All very laudable and sustainable figures. However, the last two years paying budgets have  each been boosted by £1m from benefactors, otherwise they would have been down at 50% and 48% respectively, i.e. squeezed.

 

The original redevelopment budget forecast required £3m from club resources as at the 2016 AGM (based on a £12m spend), with a hope that a further £1m would be realised by the additional stand capacity. That figure went up to £4.75, then £6.7m at the next two AGMs. I don't know how much it has gone up since the 2018 AGM, although I would guess that it is at least £1m more, based on the repayment of £1m of the loan facility provided by AB (per the 2019 accounts).

 

While the redevelopment programme remains incomplete and related debts have still to be paid off, then it is inevitable that the potential playing budget will be constrained.

 

.

 

 

 

I don't think Budge gets nearly enough credit for bringing in the "benefactors". It's even almost presented as a negative sometimes, as if we're somehow reliant in them rather than using them strategically to do things we wouldn't otherwise do.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Investment in the 1st team squad.

 

........ and possibly in the Championship with future income reduced by several £m.

 

OK, the wheels came off when the injuries put the squad under huge pressure and we couldn't afford to splash cash to rectify it soon enough. However, I think we've invested quite well in the first team squad under Budge. 

 

It's really not Budge's fault that we had the injuries or that the manager we had in place at the time of the injuries (the one who settled the playing side down after the Cathro debacle then had us top of the league the start of the following season) turned out to be incapable of getting results out of such an injury-hit squad. Did she take too long to replace him. Yes. Did she act decisively to get the right man (hopefully) in. Yes and seems to be backing him to the hilt.

 

I don't think we'll get relegated. With even just 70% of the inured players back we have enough to make up 5 or 6 points on Hamilton and co. If we go down we'll deserve to go down because the players, under two managers with decent resources, simply didn't do the business.

Edited January 22, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Footballfirst]

7 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Hi FF,

 

Bit of a thought and I am being lazy and prob could find out.

 

We are still a plc so therefore all directors remunerations should be in the accounts.

 

Jacqui Duncan, I think started off as our 'Legal Head' then had a widened remit of Finance Director, but not necessarily a director of the company, but is now.

 

Therefore the directors remunerations in the accounts should include what has been paid to both her and Levein ergo, isn't paid anything like what has been assumed?

 

Or JD isn't being renumerated or being funded by some other vehicle?  Which I'd have thought still needed to be recognised in the accounts as some form of service agreement?

 

Any thoughts?

According to the last accounts, the club paid £260k (2018 £221k) to its directors.  The highest paid director (almost certainly CL) received £178k (£141k).

 

I don't know how many directors receive remuneration, or how much each received, but last year a total of £82k was shared among the other directors.

[Footballfirst]

4 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

OK, the wheels came off when the injuries put the squad under huge pressure and we couldn't afford to splash cash to rectify it soon enough. However, I think we've invested quite well in the first team squad under Budge. 

 

It's really not Budge's fault that we had the injuries or that the manager we had in place at the time of the injuries (the one who settled the playing side down after the Cathro debacle then had us top of the league the start of the following season) turned out to be incapable of getting results out of such an injury-hit squad. Did she take too long to replace him. Yes. Did she act decisively to get the right man (hopefully) in. Yes and seems to be backing him to the hilt.

 

I don't think we'll get relegated. With even just 70% of the inured players back we have enough to make up 5 or 6 points on Hamilton and co. If we go down we'll deserve to go down because the players, under two managers with decent resources, simply didn't do the business.

AB has done well to be able to invest as much as she has given the ongoing capital spending. The question is whether or not the club got value for money from that investment. Ultimately AB is responsible for all the club's spending and needs to hold those, who actually spent the money, accountable for their purchases.

 

You then say that she acted decisively in getting the right man in, when it was her indecisiveness, or stubbornness,  that delayed dispensing with the services of the person most responsible for the progressive decline in team performance since finishing 3rd in 2016.   

 

Like you I'm hopeful that it won't come to relegation, but I'd suggest that AB is partly responsible for the team's current predicament and the knock on impact on revenue from match day sales. 

[Boab]

Just now, ToqueJambo said:

 

OK, the wheels came off when the injuries put the squad under huge pressure and we couldn't afford to splash cash to rectify it soon enough. However, I think we've invested quite well in the first team squad under Budge. 

 

It's really not Budge's fault that we had the injuries or that the manager we had in place at the time of the injuries (the one who settled the playing side down after the Cathro debacle then had us top of the league the start of the following season) turned out to be incapable of getting results out of such an injury-hit squad. Did she take too long to replace him. Yes. Did she act decisively to get the right man (hopefully) in. Yes and seems to be backing him to the hilt.

 

I don't think we'll get relegated. With even just 70% of the inured players back we have enough to make up 5 or 6 points on Hamilton and co. If we go down we'll deserve to go down because the players, under two managers with decent resources, simply didn't do the business.

Craig Levein is the reason we are where we are. That, and a CEO’s mistake in letting him continue for as long as he did. 
We’ve been over this many times so the reasons for it...injuries etc...will just divide posters into two, predictable, sides.

At least we agree that CL should have been sacked long before he was. That’s, potentially, the biggest mistake made.

[DETTY29]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

According to the last accounts, the club paid £260k (2018 £221k) to its directors.  The highest paid director (almost certainly CL) received £178k (£141k).

 

I don't know how many directors receive remuneration, or how much each received, but last year a total of £82k was shared among the other directors.

Thanks,

 

I'd missed that £260k figure.