Accounts

[soonbe110]

2 hours ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

I'd be very confident to say our playing budget is far bigger than Aberdeen ! Well have far more hospitality staff etc than Aberdeen 

Our football staff is circa 130 theirs is 80.  Yes our budget is bigger but not 60-70% bigger, only 25% bigger. 

[Francis Albert]

21 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Turnover largely meaningless. In the year to June 23 Aberdeens total spend (on everything) was £22m. Ours was £25m. If you back all the non football stuff out of ours ie community stuff, hotel, restaurant, etc together with the extra we spent on uefa compliance and prep, travel etc their like for like spend was probably same as ours or higher. We certainly didn’t have a significantly bigger football budget than they had. This yea’s spending is going to be interesting - they have uefa to compensate for poorer player trading income (January window notwithstanding) , we don’t have the uefa expense but neither do we have the income. It’s nip and tuck imo. 

Analysis in today's papers of Everton's troubles illustrate this, Turnover has stood up pretty well but over a number of years profits have collapsed. 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Francis Albert

[Sooks]

When a clubs player budget is set at a percentage of turnover then I would argue that turnover is far from meaningless 

[JamboAl]

29 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

My post was about spin in the press statement. From.a footballing or indeed financial  angle nothing happened in the accounting year more significant than us blowing what seemed an un unnasailable lead for third which will cost us badly in this financial year.

 But mo mention .

 

Your post appeared to be backing those who disputed the positivity and if it wasn't why did you bother posting at all!

FWIW here is a quote from a respected Scottish football reporter

 

Hearts have just released financial figures which by their standards are exceptional

 

That's not Hearts putting a positive spin on the accounting results.

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, Sooks said:

When a clubs player budget is set at a percentage of turnover then I would argue that turnover is far from meaningless 

Indeed. It is far from meningless if it set on turnover irrespective of whether the turnover is profit or cash flow positive. It may well be disastrous.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Your post appeared to be backing those who disputed the positivity and if it wasn't why did you bother posting at all!

FWIW here is a quote from a respected Scottish football reporter

 

Hearts have just released financial figures which by their standards are exceptional

 

That's not Hearts putting a positive spin on the accounting results.

Well if a Scottish football reporter said so ...

[Bazzas right boot]

28 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

It’s common sense really though easy for folk to get carried away when stories about  making £5/6m from one season in Europe get bandied about. Not sure many have realised just how good a job Aberdeen have done on player trading. It’s quite remarkable really esp when they managed to finish third last season. 

 

Yip, and they've had the best part of 15 years on us in terms of stability,  European football and success. 

 

We closed that gap in one season. 

 

Tbh, Aberdeen blew a great chance to really open up a gap on us and Hibs as we bounced about the divisions for one reason or another. 

 

Ofc, no one likes to discuss other clubs ambition,   money or our history,  especially as recent history doesn't back up their narrative of us racing ahead financially and not delivering on the pitch.

Remember all this  chat about nae youth, unfit players, nae clue, phoodle, board oot, savage oot, Budge  oot etc -  this is on the back of 3rd, 4th and currently 4th....

Sc final and lc sf in there as well.

 

I'm not even a Savage fan and I'm 50/50 on Naismith,  but **** me when you put our current position and recent seasons performances in view to give context- some need to ask themselves wtf is up with them as they moan/ criticise everything.

 

Is it just folk having a tantrum as they honestly " believed" that after Bob was sacked we'd jump up a level or two and now that reality has bit they are just lashng out at everything?

Seems that way for some.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[JamboAl]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Well if a Scottish football reporter said so ...

I'll take that as a cowardly cop out!

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Indeed. It is far from meningless if it set on turnover irrespective of whether the turnover is profit or cash flow positive. It may well be disastrous.

 

You for real?

It's set as a % to avoid disasters or reduce risk.

 

Setting labour to a % of turnover is a tool to help make a profit and reduce losses. Probably the largest cost in every business.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[Bull's-eye]

1 minute ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

You for real?

It's set as a % to avoid disasters or reduce risk.

 

Setting labour to a % of turnover is a tool to help make a profit and reduce losses. Probably the largest cost in every business.

 

 

 

Hes a desperate troll and this forum is much better with his ilk on ignore.

 

Please stop quoting him or you will force me to pop you on the ignore list, if that happens I'll have nothing to read ☹️

[Bazzas right boot]

Just now, Bull's-eye said:

 

Hes a desperate troll and this forum is much better with his ilk on ignore.

 

Please stop quoting him or you will force me to pop you on the ignore list, if that happens I'll have nothing to read ☹️

 

I'm just about there as well.

Putting the goons that talk about hibs sc win on ignore really has increased my list.

 

I'd be better having a " not on ignore" list.

 

 

[JamboAl]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Indeed. It is far from meningless if it set on turnover irrespective of whether the turnover is profit or cash flow positive. It may well be disastrous.

I can't understand why you choose to be so negative towards the club.

You admit weakness in interpreting accounts and yet you appear to question the Board's judgment on business matters - a Board which includes such successful business people as Ann Budge and James Anderson.  FFS give it a rest.

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

You for real?

It's set as a % to avoid disasters or reduce risk.

 

Setting labour to a % of turnover is a tool to help make a profit and reduce losses. Probably the largest cost in every business.

 

 

But if it turnover is not contributing  to positive  cash flow or profit it is not reducing losses. See Everton. See many businesses that have gone bust.

[Sooks]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Indeed. It is far from meningless if it set on turnover irrespective of whether the turnover is profit or cash flow positive. It may well be disastrous.

Good job that is not going to happen with us then eh ? Phew

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

33 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Our football staff is circa 130 theirs is 80.  Yes our budget is bigger but not 60-70% bigger, only 25% bigger. 

They don't have a b team but remember Savage keeps saying quality over quantity 

[Sooks]

You think you have read it all , then you read that Francis Albert post ……….. what a time to be alive

[Bull's-eye]

Just now, Sooks said:

You think you have read it all , then you read that Francis Albert post ……….. what a time to be alive

 

Only ever read it when he's quoted, even then a little bit of me dies inside ☹️

[Sooks]

2 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Only ever read it when he's quoted, even then a little bit of me dies inside ☹️

Reminds me of the scene where the Prison Officer in Shawshank is complaining about being left inheritance  

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

But if it turnover is not contributing  to positive  cash flow or profit it is not reducing losses. See Everton. See many businesses that have gone bust.

I'd put my mortgage on HMFC never going bust along as Mrs Budge and Mr Anderson are involved 

[JamboAl]

33 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

But if it turnover is not contributing  to positive  cash flow or profit it is not reducing losses. See Everton. See many businesses that have gone bust.

For 51 weeks of the year someone may spend all of their income, plus load their plastic, in the full knowledge that in week 52 they will have a policy maturity cheque.

I think Budge and Anderson have an idea what they are doing despite your advice.

[soonbe110]

59 minutes ago, Sooks said:

When a clubs player budget is set at a percentage of turnover then I would argue that turnover is far from meaningless 

Do you think clubs set their wage bill as a % of projected turnover or is that just a metric that people look at after the event? I think the latter  

[soonbe110]

56 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Indeed. It is far from meningless if it set on turnover irrespective of whether the turnover is profit or cash flow positive. It may well be disastrous.

What clubs spend  is the key metric in their financials  when comparing one club with another. Income or turnover isn’t really a comparator 

[soonbe110]

56 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Yip, and they've had the best part of 15 years on us in terms of stability,  European football and success. 

 

We closed that gap in one season. 

 

Tbh, Aberdeen blew a great chance to really open up a gap on us and Hibs as we bounced about the divisions for one reason or another. 

 

Ofc, no one likes to discuss other clubs ambition,   money or our history,  especially as recent history doesn't back up their narrative of us racing ahead financially and not delivering on the pitch.

Remember all this  chat about nae youth, unfit players, nae clue, phoodle, board oot, savage oot, Budge  oot etc -  this is on the back of 3rd, 4th and currently 4th....

Sc final and lc sf in there as well.

 

I'm not even a Savage fan and I'm 50/50 on Naismith,  but **** me when you put our current position and recent seasons performances in view to give context- some need to ask themselves wtf is up with them as they moan/ criticise everything.

 

Is it just folk having a tantrum as they honestly " believed" that after Bob was sacked we'd jump up a level or two and now that reality has bit they are just lashng out at everything?

Seems that way for some.

👍

[Sooks]

2 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Do you think clubs set their wage bill as a % of projected turnover or is that just a metric that people look at after the event? I think the latter  

Definitely the latter . Everything we do is done to that model , like not spending money from Europe until it hits our accounts . You can see this is how we operate as it is obvious in everything we do . We have never been run better and it is funny watching people tying themselves in knots trying to find something to piss their pants about 

[soonbe110]

40 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

They don't have a b team but remember Savage keeps saying quality over quantity 

Just reinforces my point 

[Footballfirst]

18 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Definitely the latter . Everything we do is done to that model , like not spending money from Europe until it hits our accounts . You can see this is how we operate as it is obvious in everything we do . We have never been run better and it is funny watching people tying themselves in knots trying to find something to piss their pants about 

I disagree. Your income (Turnover) is the main driver of what you can spend. It's why you produce budgets and forecasts.

 

If you look at the accounts, there are several references to income/turnover driving investment.

 

The directors list four risks to the business:

 

The Directors believe that the principal risks and market uncertainties associated with running a football club are as
follows:
· A downturn in First Team football performance in the SPFL, particularly a bottom 6 finish. (loss of income)
· The current cost of living crisis impacting the spend capacity of supporters, commercial sponsors, and partners. (loss of income)
· The ability of the football authorities to continue to develop and maintain key revenue streams for
broadcasting rights, league, and cup sponsorship. (maintain/increase income)
· The ability of our own revenue generating teams to maximise non-football opportunities thereby impacting our level of reinvestment in the football side of the business. (maintain/increase income)

Edited November 18, 2023 by Footballfirst

[Unknown user]

4 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

Aberdeens footballing headcount numbers significantly smaller than ours which suggests ours are bloated, maybe unnecessarily.  We have circa 130 to their 80. 

 

130!

Obviously that's support staff too, but **** me that's a lot.

 

1 hour ago, JamboAl said:

Your post appeared to be backing those who disputed the positivity and if it wasn't why did you bother posting at all!

FWIW here is a quote from a respected Scottish football reporter

 

Hearts have just released financial figures which by their standards are exceptional

 

That's not Hearts putting a positive spin on the accounting results.

 

Exceptional isn't necessarily positive, what was the context?

[awadooningorgie2]

Staff numbers could be different due to in house catering for example? 

[soonbe110]

24 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I disagree. Your income (Turnover) is the main driver of what you can spend. It's why you produce budgets and forecasts.

 

If you look at the accounts, there are several references to income/turnover driving investment.

 

The directors list four risks to the business:

 

The Directors believe that the principal risks and market uncertainties associated with running a football club are as
follows:
· A downturn in First Team football performance in the SPFL, particularly a bottom 6 finish. (loss of income)
· The current cost of living crisis impacting the spend capacity of supporters, commercial sponsors, and partners. (loss of income)
· The ability of the football authorities to continue to develop and maintain key revenue streams for
broadcasting rights, league, and cup sponsorship. (maintain/increase income)
· The ability of our own revenue generating teams to maximise non-football opportunities thereby impacting our level of reinvestment in the football side of the business. (maintain/increase income)

Not necessarily FF.  Aberdeen have been spending well behind their turnover for last couple of years or so based on player sales. Income and turnover very different things in football as our and Aberdeens result show. 

[Footballfirst]

3 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Not necessarily FF.  Aberdeen have been spending well behind their turnover for last couple of years or so based on player sales. Income and turnover very different things in football as our and Aberdeens result show. 

There have been plenty references in this thread to Hearts only spending what it has available to it, i.e. if the club didn't receive the level of donations it does, then we wouldn't be spending it.  The same goes for UEFA income.

 

For Aberdeen, their spending has been adapted to the cash they received over the last couple of seasons in transfers for McKenna, Ferguson, McCrorie etc.

 

Those additional income streams, beyond the usual matchday, retail, broadcasting etc, are all factored into setting spending plans for the year or more ahead.  I'd be shocked if Hearts or Aberdeen did not plan their spending using forecast turnover and other income streams for at least a year ahead.

 

Sometimes you will get a windfall, like a large transfer fee, reach a cup final, UEFA group stages, or an assurance of a donation.  In those circumstances, you can then budget to spend what you know you have, or will receive, and adapt your spending or recruitment to suit.

 

Only those with a "speculate to accumulate" mindset would spend the money first then look at the consequences for your turnover/income after the event.

[soonbe110]

34 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There have been plenty references in this thread to Hearts only spending what it has available to it, i.e. if the club didn't receive the level of donations it does, then we wouldn't be spending it.  The same goes for UEFA income.

 

For Aberdeen, their spending has been adapted to the cash they received over the last couple of seasons in transfers for McKenna, Ferguson, McCrorie etc.

 

Those additional income streams, beyond the usual matchday, retail, broadcasting etc, are all factored into setting spending plans for the year or more ahead.  I'd be shocked if Hearts or Aberdeen did not plan their spending using forecast turnover and other income streams for at least a year ahead.

 

Sometimes you will get a windfall, like a large transfer fee, reach a cup final, UEFA group stages, or an assurance of a donation.  In those circumstances, you can then budget to spend what you know you have, or will receive, and adapt your spending or recruitment to suit.

 

Only those with a "speculate to accumulate" mindset would spend the money first then look at the consequences for your turnover/income after the event.

I agree.  Was just pointing out that turnover isn’t the key metric, rather it’s total income especially if the one-off ‘windfalls’ are pretty much in the bag. Hence metrics like payroll as %age of turnover are sometimes not as important in football.  We must be pretty certain of further benefactor donations to come over next few years otherwise we are heavily speculating at the moment with a payroll to turnover %age of circa 75%, whereas payroll to income is at a comfortable 57%. 

[Sooks]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

I disagree. Your income (Turnover) is the main driver of what you can spend. It's why you produce budgets and forecasts.

 

If you look at the accounts, there are several references to income/turnover driving investment.

 

The directors list four risks to the business:

 

The Directors believe that the principal risks and market uncertainties associated with running a football club are as
follows:
· A downturn in First Team football performance in the SPFL, particularly a bottom 6 finish. (loss of income)
· The current cost of living crisis impacting the spend capacity of supporters, commercial sponsors, and partners. (loss of income)
· The ability of the football authorities to continue to develop and maintain key revenue streams for
broadcasting rights, league, and cup sponsorship. (maintain/increase income)
· The ability of our own revenue generating teams to maximise non-football opportunities thereby impacting our level of reinvestment in the football side of the business. (maintain/increase income)

I would expect they forecast for as close to a banker as you can get . Safe low estimates on season ticket sales , and sponsor and TV deal payments . Things like transfer fees and European money I am sure has been stated as not being spent until it hits our accounts . I suspect Anderson and Budge probably insure us for emergencies where a budgeted for payment somehow does not come through . I guess this based on season ticket payments being paid by V12 in tranches . I have no evidence that is how we receive it , but it makes the most sense . I think we are very risk averse but not to the point of craziness . My original point though , is that turnover is very important when talking about a club using percentage of turnover to set player budgets 

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

I agree.  Was just pointing out that turnover isn’t the key metric, rather it’s total income especially if the one-off ‘windfalls’ are pretty much in the bag. Hence metrics like payroll as %age of turnover are sometimes not as important in football.  We must be pretty certain of further benefactor donations to come over next few years otherwise we are heavily speculating at the moment with a payroll to turnover %age of circa 75%, whereas payroll to income is at a comfortable 57%. 

The measure that is normally quoted is the wages to turnover ratio and has been for many years.

 

However, as you point out and, as acknowledged in the accounts, Hearts have used total income to produce the 57% figure.  That is reasonable, as long as you have the assured income streams from FOH and JA.  

 

Most clubs who don't have the benefit of such additional income still use the standard measure.  As Aberdeen stated:

Wages increased by £1.698 million from £10.234 million to £11.932 million as a result of the Club investing in the First Team squad, and the higher bonuses paid to the Men’s First Team for finishing 3rd and guaranteeing UEFA Europa group stage football. This has meant that the wages to turnover ratio has increased from 74% to 76%. Although this ratio is higher than reported last year, we believe that a ratio of 76% still compares well against other clubs. However, in the medium to long term, we would seek to reduce this figure to between 60-70% of turnover in line with industry accepted levels.

[soonbe110]

58 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The measure that is normally quoted is the wages to turnover ratio and has been for many years.

 

However, as you point out and, as acknowledged in the accounts, Hearts have used total income to produce the 57% figure.  That is reasonable, as long as you have the assured income streams from FOH and JA.  

 

Most clubs who don't have the benefit of such additional income still use the standard measure.  As Aberdeen stated:

Wages increased by £1.698 million from £10.234 million to £11.932 million as a result of the Club investing in the First Team squad, and the higher bonuses paid to the Men’s First Team for finishing 3rd and guaranteeing UEFA Europa group stage football. This has meant that the wages to turnover ratio has increased from 74% to 76%. Although this ratio is higher than reported last year, we believe that a ratio of 76% still compares well against other clubs. However, in the medium to long term, we would seek to reduce this figure to between 60-70% of turnover in line with industry accepted levels.

👍

[Carter]

7 hours ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Hes a desperate troll and this forum is much better with his ilk on ignore.

 

Please stop quoting him or you will force me to pop you on the ignore list, if that happens I'll have nothing to read ☹️

 

 

[Carter]

4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The measure that is normally quoted is the wages to turnover ratio and has been for many years.

 

However, as you point out and, as acknowledged in the accounts, Hearts have used total income to produce the 57% figure.  That is reasonable, as long as you have the assured income streams from FOH and JA.  

 

Most clubs who don't have the benefit of such additional income still use the standard measure.  As Aberdeen stated:

Wages increased by £1.698 million from £10.234 million to £11.932 million as a result of the Club investing in the First Team squad, and the higher bonuses paid to the Men’s First Team for finishing 3rd and guaranteeing UEFA Europa group stage football. This has meant that the wages to turnover ratio has increased from 74% to 76%. Although this ratio is higher than reported last year, we believe that a ratio of 76% still compares well against other clubs. However, in the medium to long term, we would seek to reduce this figure to between 60-70% of turnover in line with industry accepted levels.

It's how little tangible benefit we're receiving from additional non earned inflow of c. £6M pa that is getting some people a little bit edgy. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

17 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

Now that Aberdeens financials are out we can revisit your fictitious ‘budget advantage’. We were clearly at a ‘budget disadvantage’ in respect to Aberdeen last season and probably this current season as well. They have been and almost certainly are spending more money on playing staff than we are. Probably a considerable amount more though  there’s not enough detail to be 100% certain. Their total payroll costs last year were £12m for 155 employees, ours was £15m for nearly double the number of employees. 

Er, not sure about the budget disadvantage but I accept Aberdeen were happy to burn money on their playing staff funded by a big transfer (presumably McKenna?). I suppose we should invite Robbie back now too?

[soonbe110]

6 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Er, not sure about the budget disadvantage but I accept Aberdeen were happy to burn money on their playing staff funded by a big transfer (presumably McKenna?). I suppose we should invite Robbie back now too?

Several transfers actually. If Robbie is your preferred option fine. Not mine. 
When you read the Aberdeen reports for last 2/3 years and see the transfers in and out in black and white you get a pretty good picture of a club that has seriously out spent us on players in recent years and almost certainly still are. Probably outspent us on managers as well 

[Hmfc1965]

4 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

Several transfers actually. If Robbie is your preferred option fine. Not mine. 
When you read the Aberdeen reports for last 2/3 years and see the transfers in and out in black and white you get a pretty good picture of a club that has seriously out spent us on players in recent years and almost certainly still are. Probably outspent us on managers as well 

I'm sure they have outspent us on managers.

Most teams probably do given our predilection for one of Levein's cronies.

[mitch41]

Too many wannabe financial experts on here. Try to make posts simple so my wee pal John L can understand what matters. Now the bottom line he wants to know is………..after all the pennies have been counted and has been divided out what is going to be invested in our first team. 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, mitch41 said:

Too many wannabe financial experts on here. Try to make posts simple so my wee pal John L can understand what matters. Now the bottom line he wants to know is………..after all the pennies have been counted and has been divided out what is going to be invested in our first team. 

 

Wtf you on about?

It's the year just  past set of accounts.

 

 

[pettigrewsstylist]

Not qualifying for group stages is going leave a bit of a hole in  this years fin accounts looking at last yrs figures.

Hope Ben E Factor has given comforts that mean we dont need to sell family silver in Jan to cover it. 

[mitch41]

20 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Wtf you on about?

It's the year just  past set of accounts.

 

 

That’s right JUST past. You’d think it was years ago you’re getting all Harry Carry about. That’s Scots for Hari kari…….

Edited November 20, 2023 by mitch41

[kingantti1874]

12 hours ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

Not qualifying for group stages is going leave a bit of a hole in  this years fin accounts looking at last yrs figures.

Hope Ben E Factor has given comforts that mean we dont need to sell family silver in Jan to cover it. 

t/o Will dip back to about 17m. It is what it is

Edited November 20, 2023 by kingantti1874

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, mitch41 said:

That’s right JUST past. You’d think it was years ago you’re getting all Harry Carry about. That’s Scots for Hari kari…….

Your original statement makes no  sense. 

[Luckies1874]

St Mirren announced their accounts yesterday: £5.7 million turnover.

 

 

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

20 minutes ago, Luckies1874 said:

St Mirren announced their accounts yesterday: £5.7 million turnover.

 

 

And they beat us on the park 

[davemclaren]

8 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

And they beat us on the park 

And we got into

 

9 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

And they beat us on the park 

Teams with a lot less money than that have beaten us.    
 

We did finish above them the last two seasons though. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

10 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

And they beat us on the park 

Not aware you get points for turnover. By your reckoning, we will never beat Celtic or Rangers and will be closely matched with Aberdeen. Oh wait, that's what is happening. 

It is called sport and sometimes you lose games to teams with smaller turnovers. I suggest you grow a backbone and stop acting like a spoilt child

 

[damo]

21 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

And they beat us on the park 

Is it fair to say St Mirren have reached their "next level".