Accounts

[soonbe110]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

Latest Turnover figures for the those premiership teams that produce full accounts.

 

Celtic 2023 - £119.9m

Rangers 2023 - £83.8m

Hearts 2023 - £20.8m

Aberdeen 2023 - £15.8m

Hibs 2022 - £11.9m

Dundee United 2022 - £8.3m

Motherwell 2022 - £5.6m

St Mirren 2022 - £4.3m

Ross County 2022 - £4.1m

Unfortunately turnover doesn’t drive the spend at a number of clubs including ours, Aberdeens etc.  Donations, benefactors, player sales, Directors loans are all significant add-ons to turnover for a number of clubs.  Total spend on playing staff is a better number to use when looking for an indicator of return on investment football wise. 

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

8 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Latest Turnover figures for those Premiership teams that produce full accounts.

 

Celtic 2023 - £119.9m

Rangers 2023 - £83.8m

Hearts 2023 - £20.8m

Aberdeen 2023 - £15.8m

Hibs 2022 - £11.9m

Dundee United 2022 - £8.3m

Motherwell 2022 - £5.6m

St Mirren 2022 - £4.3m

Ross County 2022 - £4.1m

Almost double the wee team across the city 

[GinRummy]

18 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Aberdeen and Hibs invest virtually as much as us in their playing squads so not sure we should be guaranteed third. 

Aye not guaranteed. It’s got to be the target though. Fans have backed the club so the club need to produce the goods now imo. Last two seasons were acceptable to me, in different ways, third two seasons ago and then the club tried to change it last season when they saw we were unlikely to get third under Neilson. Standards being set which I’m happy with. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by GinRummy

[132goals1958]

31 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Unfortunately turnover doesn’t drive the spend at a number of clubs including ours, Aberdeens etc.  Donations, benefactors, player sales, Directors loans are all significant add-ons to turnover for a number of clubs.  Total spend on playing staff is a better number to use when looking for an indicator of return on investment football wise. 

 

Directors Loans are not turnover but a Liability in the Balance Sheet which has to be repaid or in Sevcos case ultimately converted to equity. I believe we are going in the right direction by increasing  turnover from different revenue streams. Participation in Europe is  obviously key as is future transfer receipts to steady growth.

[Prehen]

It has probably been noted before in this thread so sorry if the case. The business models now employed by Aberdeen and Hibs is very different to Hearts. Aberdeen and Hibs are now actively looking to sell younger players for huge profits. The Ramsay sale to Liverpool was estimated at £5-6m, and indeed Aberdeen spoke about this strategy when they recently announced their results. Hibs have now employed the same model and Montgomery is holding true to this by having two sixteen year olds in the match day squad every week. Do not be surprised if these young players sell for £2m a pop in a year or so. I agree with quite a few posters on here that the two 16yr olds are first teamers right now, but there transfer values significantly increase with every first team appearance. 

I understand three pts on a Saturday on a Saturday to be the most important metric at a football club. I have been one of the most vocal advocates of playing youth, not least that if this can be accommodated, the club can earn windfalls equivalent to a European run every year.

I worry the club I support is missing out. Increasing turnover, or for that matter net profit (player sales will go straight to the net profit line) by £3-4m is incredibly hard for any business. If you ranked proposals to increase net profit by a significant %, player trading income for a football club would be the easiest to achieve (I am not saying easy, but a lot easier than any other form of income generation). But to do this you need a Board, Director of Football and First Team Manager who work to achieve this goal. You also need fans to understand the dynamic and accommodate one or two younger players in the first team 20 man squad. I want to see the best academy graduate come through every year and be given a chance. Tait (2005), McLuckie (2006), Wilson (2007) and Hogarth (2008) are the names I would like to hear more about. Sadly the B Team thread seems full of news of departures rather than debuts. 

[Bull's-eye]

10 minutes ago, Prehen said:

It has probably been noted before in this thread so sorry if the case. The business models now employed by Aberdeen and Hibs is very different to Hearts. Aberdeen and Hibs are now actively looking to sell younger players for huge profits. The Ramsay sale to Liverpool was estimated at £5-6m, and indeed Aberdeen spoke about this strategy when they recently announced their results. Hibs have now employed the same model and Montgomery is holding true to this by having two sixteen year olds in the match day squad every week. Do not be surprised if these young players sell for £2m a pop in a year or so. I agree with quite a few posters on here that the two 16yr olds are first teamers right now, but there transfer values significantly increase with every first team appearance. 

I understand three pts on a Saturday on a Saturday to be the most important metric at a football club. I have been one of the most vocal advocates of playing youth, not least that if this can be accommodated, the club can earn windfalls equivalent to a European run every year.

I worry the club I support is missing out. Increasing turnover, or for that matter net profit (player sales will go straight to the net profit line) by £3-4m is incredibly hard for any business. If you ranked proposals to increase net profit by a significant %, player trading income for a football club would be the easiest to achieve (I am not saying easy, but a lot easier than any other form of income generation). But to do this you need a Board, Director of Football and First Team Manager who work to achieve this goal. You also need fans to understand the dynamic and accommodate one or two younger players in the first team 20 man squad. I want to see the best academy graduate come through every year and be given a chance. Tait (2005), McLuckie (2006), Wilson (2007) and Hogarth (2008) are the names I would like to hear more about. Sadly the B Team thread seems full of news of departures rather than debuts. 

 

Hibs and Aberdeen are spending more than they earn, they have no option but sell.

 

Good strategy when it works, serious problems when it inevitably fails.

 

Our model is about sustainability and not being reliant on selling for profit and qualifying for Europe.

 

Scottish Football is dying, unappealing and will die soon enough as long as the bigots and the league setup continue to ignore the obvious issues, they've created.

 

Personally i think the standard will only get worse and the selling option to survive will become null and void as no kids or anyone about them will have anything to do with Scottish Football, we're close to that scenario already.

 

 

[Footballfirst]

22 minutes ago, Prehen said:

It has probably been noted before in this thread so sorry if the case. The business models now employed by Aberdeen and Hibs is very different to Hearts. Aberdeen and Hibs are now actively looking to sell younger players for huge profits. The Ramsay sale to Liverpool was estimated at £5-6m, and indeed Aberdeen spoke about this strategy when they recently announced their results. Hibs have now employed the same model and Montgomery is holding true to this by having two sixteen year olds in the match day squad every week. Do not be surprised if these young players sell for £2m a pop in a year or so. I agree with quite a few posters on here that the two 16yr olds are first teamers right now, but there transfer values significantly increase with every first team appearance. 

I understand three pts on a Saturday on a Saturday to be the most important metric at a football club. I have been one of the most vocal advocates of playing youth, not least that if this can be accommodated, the club can earn windfalls equivalent to a European run every year.

I worry the club I support is missing out. Increasing turnover, or for that matter net profit (player sales will go straight to the net profit line) by £3-4m is incredibly hard for any business. If you ranked proposals to increase net profit by a significant %, player trading income for a football club would be the easiest to achieve (I am not saying easy, but a lot easier than any other form of income generation). But to do this you need a Board, Director of Football and First Team Manager who work to achieve this goal. You also need fans to understand the dynamic and accommodate one or two younger players in the first team 20 man squad. I want to see the best academy graduate come through every year and be given a chance. Tait (2005), McLuckie (2006), Wilson (2007) and Hogarth (2008) are the names I would like to hear more about. Sadly the B Team thread seems full of news of departures rather than debuts. 

You make some good points about player trading for youths.

 

There seems to be an acceptance that the club can't do anything about EPL clubs poaching its most talented players as soon as they turn 16.  There is a simple way to do it and that is to make it attractive for them to stay.  The EPL clubs have an agreement that they will limit wages for 16 and 17 year olds to around £750 a week.  It is not beyond Hearts means to make an equivalent offer to its one or two exceptional players as they turn 16. It needn't be necessary to pay the full wages up front, but a proportion could be paid as a loyalty bonus or on reaching milestones playing with the B or 1st teams.

 

Add to that a more assured pathway to first team football (not seemingly on offer at the moment), international age group games, and the value of those players is driven up from £50k as a 16 year old academy player to £100k, £500k, £1m and more. 

 

Some clubs actually operate their academies as profit centres and not as cost centres. They deliberately seek to increase the value of their best talents, giving them opportunities to test themselves at first team level.  Some of them will make the transition while some won't, but if they do make it, you can then be looking at a £5m player and a positive outcome for both the academy and the club. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Footballfirst

[Disco Dave]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

You make some good points about player trading for youths.

 

There seems to be an acceptance that the club can't do anything about EPL clubs poaching its most talented players as soon as they turn 16.  There is a simple way to do it and that is to make it attractive for them to stay.  The EPL clubs have an agreement that they will limit wages for 16 and 17 year olds to around £750 a week.  It is not beyond Hearts means to make an equivalent offer to its one or two exceptional players as they turn 16. It needn't be necessary to pay the full wages up front, but a proportion could be paid as a loyalty bonus or on reaching milestones playing with the B or 1st teams.

 

Add to that a more assured pathway to first team football (not seemingly on offer at the moment), international age group games, and the value of those players is driven up from £50k as a 16 year old academy player to £100k, £500k, £1m and more. 

 

Some clubs actually operate their academies as profit centres and not as cost centres. They deliberately seek to increase the value of their best talents, giving them opportunities to test themselves at first team level.  Some of them will make the transition while some won't, but if they do make it, you can then be looking at a £5m player and a positive outcome for both the academy and the club. 

Presumably this is what we did with James Wilson?

[Chuck Berry]

1 hour ago, Bull's-eye said:

Scottish Football is dying, unappealing and will die soon enough as long as the bigots and the league setup continue to ignore the obvious issues, they've created.

 

Personally i think the standard will only get worse and the selling option to survive will become null and void as no kids or anyone about them will have anything to do with Scottish Football, we're close to that scenario already.

 

Yet we sell out every game and allegedly have a long waiting list.  Average attendances in the Premiership compared to 10 seasons ago are very much up.

 

Strange way to die.

[Footballfirst]

4 minutes ago, Disco Dave said:

Presumably this is what we did with James Wilson?

I don't know anything about what was offered to James, other than that he would do pre season with the first team, then would be part of the B Team squad this season.  While I was aware of the approaches of EPL and OF sides, my impression was that his intention was always to stay at least until 18. 

[Sid]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

You make some good points about player trading for youths.

 

There seems to be an acceptance that the club can't do anything about EPL clubs poaching its most talented players as soon as they turn 16.  There is a simple way to do it and that is to make it attractive for them to stay.  The EPL clubs have an agreement that they will limit wages for 16 and 17 year olds to around £750 a week.  It is not beyond Hearts means to make an equivalent offer to its one or two exceptional players as they turn 16. It needn't be necessary to pay the full wages up front, but a proportion could be paid as a loyalty bonus or on reaching milestones playing with the B or 1st teams.

 

Add to that a more assured pathway to first team football (not seemingly on offer at the moment), international age group games, and the value of those players is driven up from £50k as a 16 year old academy player to £100k, £500k, £1m and more. 

 

Some clubs actually operate their academies as profit centres and not as cost centres. They deliberately seek to increase the value of their best talents, giving them opportunities to test themselves at first team level.  Some of them will make the transition while some won't, but if they do make it, you can then be looking at a £5m player and a positive outcome for both the academy and the club. 

The pitchforks will be out from the owners (Hearts fans) at 4:45 pm this Saturday calling for everyone out if Hearts do not convincingly beat a club with a lower budget than us.  
Is this an environment to encourage longer-term than final whistle planning?  
That means no place for blooding youth if you want to keep your job on Monday.  

We (Hearts fans) are actively discouraging any of these strategies being implemented then moan cos they are not! 

[Prehen]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

You make some good points about player trading for youths.

 

There seems to be an acceptance that the club can't do anything about EPL clubs poaching its most talented players as soon as they turn 16.  There is a simple way to do it and that is to make it attractive for them to stay.  The EPL clubs have an agreement that they will limit wages for 16 and 17 year olds to around £750 a week.  It is not beyond Hearts means to make an equivalent offer to its one or two exceptional players as they turn 16. It needn't be necessary to pay the full wages up front, but a proportion could be paid as a loyalty bonus or on reaching milestones playing with the B or 1st teams.

 

Add to that a more assured pathway to first team football (not seemingly on offer at the moment), international age group games, and the value of those players is driven up from £50k as a 16 year old academy player to £100k, £500k, £1m and more. 

 

Some clubs actually operate their academies as profit centres and not as cost centres. They deliberately seek to increase the value of their best talents, giving them opportunities to test themselves at first team level.  Some of them will make the transition while some won't, but if they do make it, you can then be looking at a £5m player and a positive outcome for both the academy and the club. 

 

1 minute ago, Disco Dave said:

Presumably this is what we did with James Wilson?

Agreed. But I suspect wages for the individual or club do not matter that much in the great scheme of things.  I suspect what excites young guys like Tait, McLuckie or Wilson is first team appearances. Wilson staying could have been a watershed moment. It does not look or feel that is the case, time will tell, but the current inflated squad does not bode well for youth.

I like the idea of the Academy being thought of as a Profit Centre. I think this idea has legs as it means the person in the club with Overall Accountability has responsibility to push this agenda. Unlike comment above, I do believe this is a strategy that can provide healthy returns. It provides a source of additional income, which while comes with a degree of uncertainty, should be taken more seriously.

[chrisyboy7]

The club is doing terrific....But how can we make more.

An increase in capacity and more hospitality is required.

A bar at the wheatfield end would be good too.

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

2 hours ago, Prehen said:

It has probably been noted before in this thread so sorry if the case. The business models now employed by Aberdeen and Hibs is very different to Hearts. Aberdeen and Hibs are now actively looking to sell younger players for huge profits. The Ramsay sale to Liverpool was estimated at £5-6m, and indeed Aberdeen spoke about this strategy when they recently announced their results. Hibs have now employed the same model and Montgomery is holding true to this by having two sixteen year olds in the match day squad every week. Do not be surprised if these young players sell for £2m a pop in a year or so. I agree with quite a few posters on here that the two 16yr olds are first teamers right now, but there transfer values significantly increase with every first team appearance. 

I understand three pts on a Saturday on a Saturday to be the most important metric at a football club. I have been one of the most vocal advocates of playing youth, not least that if this can be accommodated, the club can earn windfalls equivalent to a European run every year.

I worry the club I support is missing out. Increasing turnover, or for that matter net profit (player sales will go straight to the net profit line) by £3-4m is incredibly hard for any business. If you ranked proposals to increase net profit by a significant %, player trading income for a football club would be the easiest to achieve (I am not saying easy, but a lot easier than any other form of income generation). But to do this you need a Board, Director of Football and First Team Manager who work to achieve this goal. You also need fans to understand the dynamic and accommodate one or two younger players in the first team 20 man squad. I want to see the best academy graduate come through every year and be given a chance. Tait (2005), McLuckie (2006), Wilson (2007) and Hogarth (2008) are the names I would like to hear more about. Sadly the B Team thread seems full of news of departures rather than debuts. 

Our model is to sell players aswell but unfortunately we've been rubbish at it 

[soonbe110]

3 hours ago, GinRummy said:

Aye not guaranteed. It’s got to be the target though. Fans have backed the club so the club need to produce the goods now imo. Last two seasons were acceptable to me, in different ways, third two seasons ago and then the club tried to change it last season when they saw we were unlikely to get third under Neilson. Standards being set which I’m happy with. 

Agree third is the target. 

[soonbe110]

2 hours ago, 132goals1958 said:

 

Directors Loans are not turnover but a Liability in the Balance Sheet which has to be repaid or in Sevcos case ultimately converted to equity. I believe we are going in the right direction by increasing  turnover from different revenue streams. Participation in Europe is  obviously key as is future transfer receipts to steady growth.

Correct, that’s what I was saying. All of those items are money clubs can spend that’s not reported as turnover. That’s why Turnover isn’t  a good number to look at when comparing how clubs are doing in comparison to each other. In our case  nearly 25% of our income isn’t reported as turnover. Directors Loans, in football, are just a donation to most clubs nowadays. 

[soonbe110]

2 hours ago, Prehen said:

It has probably been noted before in this thread so sorry if the case. The business models now employed by Aberdeen and Hibs is very different to Hearts. Aberdeen and Hibs are now actively looking to sell younger players for huge profits. The Ramsay sale to Liverpool was estimated at £5-6m, and indeed Aberdeen spoke about this strategy when they recently announced their results. Hibs have now employed the same model and Montgomery is holding true to this by having two sixteen year olds in the match day squad every week. Do not be surprised if these young players sell for £2m a pop in a year or so. I agree with quite a few posters on here that the two 16yr olds are first teamers right now, but there transfer values significantly increase with every first team appearance. 

I understand three pts on a Saturday on a Saturday to be the most important metric at a football club. I have been one of the most vocal advocates of playing youth, not least that if this can be accommodated, the club can earn windfalls equivalent to a European run every year.

I worry the club I support is missing out. Increasing turnover, or for that matter net profit (player sales will go straight to the net profit line) by £3-4m is incredibly hard for any business. If you ranked proposals to increase net profit by a significant %, player trading income for a football club would be the easiest to achieve (I am not saying easy, but a lot easier than any other form of income generation). But to do this you need a Board, Director of Football and First Team Manager who work to achieve this goal. You also need fans to understand the dynamic and accommodate one or two younger players in the first team 20 man squad. I want to see the best academy graduate come through every year and be given a chance. Tait (2005), McLuckie (2006), Wilson (2007) and Hogarth (2008) are the names I would like to hear more about. Sadly the B Team thread seems full of news of departures rather than debuts. 

Good post.   In our case our sole major benefactor is masking the lack of player sales income for the time being. 

[GinRummy]

3 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Agree third is the target. 

What’s the lowest league position you’d accept as a fan? Accept maybe not the right word but with our current finances what position would be too low?

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Sid said:

The pitchforks will be out from the owners (Hearts fans) at 4:45 pm this Saturday calling for everyone out if Hearts do not convincingly beat a club with a lower budget than us.  
Is this an environment to encourage longer-term than final whistle planning?  
That means no place for blooding youth if you want to keep your job on Monday.  

We (Hearts fans) are actively discouraging any of these strategies being implemented then moan cos they are not! 

Great post 

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, soonbe110 said:

Good post.   In our case our sole major benefactor is masking the lack of player sales income for the time being. 

Youth players getting first team games aside @Prehen the club changed its signing policy a few seasons ago to signing younger players with potential to improve. All those players are still here so surely that will bear fruit eventually. Don’t get me wrong, like the situation with Souttar and then Gino, sometimes a players contract will run down and he will leave for free but if we have enough players of value them some of the, will receive bids whole in contract. 

[soonbe110]

2 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

What’s the lowest league position you’d accept as a fan? Accept maybe not the right word but with our current finances what position would be too low?

Probably fourth because any lower would mean finishing below Hibs. There’s nothing between us and Aberdeen in most respects even to the point where we both currently have rookie managers. Both have had significant benefactors in recent times as well and probably will have going forward. If we could match their player development and sales results we would jump well clear of them.  But as another poster said our fans attitude, particularly home games, is such that nothing other than a win is acceptable which creates an atmosphere that makes it difficult to blood kids. 

[soonbe110]

2 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Youth players getting first team games aside @Prehen the club changed its signing policy a few seasons ago to signing younger players with potential to improve. All those players are still here so surely that will bear fruit eventually. Don’t get me wrong, like the situation with Souttar and then Gino, sometimes a players contract will run down and he will leave for free but if we have enough players of value them some of the, will receive bids whole in contract. 

I’m not aware of any of our players being hotly pursued by other clubs with one exception.  And even that one seems to be a one-horse race. 

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, soonbe110 said:

Probably fourth because any lower would mean finishing below Hibs. There’s nothing between us and Aberdeen in most respects even to the point where we both currently have rookie managers. Both have had significant benefactors in recent times as well and probably will have going forward. If we could match their player development and sales results we would jump well clear of them.  But as another poster said our fans attitude, particularly home games, is such that nothing other than a win is acceptable which creates an atmosphere that makes it difficult to blood kids. 

Don’t disagree but even if (see my previous post) the academy kids aren’t making the first team we can bring in youngsters like Oda, Cochrane and Atkinson, who at least have a chance of getting a fee.  It takes time though but we have suffered from Levein’s signing policies. 

[GinRummy]

43 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

I’m not aware of any of our players being hotly pursued by other clubs with one exception.  And even that one seems to be a one-horse race. 
 

No but we are only a couple of seasons into a new signing policy and a new recruitment team and still have plenty of young players in the first team squad with potential. 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by GinRummy

[loveofthegame]

3 hours ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Scottish Football is dying, unappealing and will die soon enough.

 

 

 

 

 

Your post had some fair points but I can't agree with this sentence - in fact, Scottish football is doing pretty well in spite of the OF and those running our game. Crowds remain at European highs per capita - interest in our domestic game remains very high within the confines of our wee country.

 

Yes we need fundamental change - a revolution of sorts. That is going to take the Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeens and other non-OF clubs to put differences aside and come together though. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is a league without the OF but there is no league without everyone outside of the OF. I wish our club and others would realise this and start applying some real pressure for change.

 

We made a little noise around the time of our demotion but this needs to be regular and orchestrated - it won't be easy, but the old saying is that nothing worth having comes easy rings true...

 

Vive la revolution.

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

Don’t disagree but even if (see my previous post) the academy kids aren’t making the first team we can bring in youngsters like Oda, Cochrane and Atkinson, who at least have a chance of getting a fee.  It takes time though but we have suffered from Levein’s signing policies. 

Players should play if good enough.

Age is irrelevant if they are good enough.

 

 

1 hour ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

Our model is to sell players aswell but unfortunately we've been rubbish at it 

 

Aye, selling players really gets the fans going.

Can't wait until Shanks departs. 

 

Why are so many keen to punt players and at the same time using it as a stick to beat the club with?

 

Ideally, we'd sign a bunch of cracking young players that deliver instantly, love the club so sign extensions and we have a host of clubs lining up to buy them for a massive fee.

 

The number of factors outwith and within our control that need to line up are too numerous and I find it hard to get excited about  selling any player, never mind our best players- no matter the fee.

 

I always find it a strange discussion point, especially when used as some kind of stick to beat the club with. 

The lack of youth chat does seem to become very  topical when we are doing better and things are looking more positive.

 

Scraping the barrel for mud to fling springs to mind.

Strange. 

 

 

[Carter]

27 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

Players should play if good enough.

Age is irrelevant if they are good enough.

 

 

 

Aye, selling players really gets the fans going.

Can't wait until Shanks departs. 

 

Why are so many keen to punt players and at the same time using it as a stick to beat the club with?

 

Ideally, we'd sign a bunch of cracking young players that deliver instantly, love the club so sign extensions and we have a host of clubs lining up to buy them for a massive fee.

 

The number of factors outwith and within our control that need to line up are too numerous and I find it hard to get excited about  selling any player, never mind our best players- no matter the fee.

 

I always find it a strange discussion point, especially when used as some kind of stick to beat the club with. 

The lack of youth chat does seem to become very  topical when we are doing better and things are looking more positive.

 

Scraping the barrel for mud to fling springs to mind.

Strange. 

 

 

I think you're missing the point. One of the reasons Celtic have accumulated so much cash, beyond ECL revenue, is a very successful player trading model. 

 

Club hierarchy themselves have already highlighted the need to improve upon player trading. Not sure why you've decided to take aim at a poster for highlighting something that's already been highlighted at Board level that we must improve upon. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Carter

[Carter]

5 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

Unfortunately turnover doesn’t drive the spend at a number of clubs including ours, Aberdeens etc.  Donations, benefactors, player sales, Directors loans are all significant add-ons to turnover for a number of clubs.  Total spend on playing staff is a better number to use when looking for an indicator of return on investment football wise. 

We've also seen our wage bill grow by almost 25% in the space of 12 months. 

[damo]

1 hour ago, soonbe110 said:

Probably fourth because any lower would mean finishing below Hibs. There’s nothing between us and Aberdeen in most respects even to the point where we both currently have rookie managers. Both have had significant benefactors in recent times as well and probably will have going forward. If we could match their player development and sales results we would jump well clear of them.  But as another poster said our fans attitude, particularly home games, is such that nothing other than a win is acceptable which creates an atmosphere that makes it difficult to blood kids. 

This isn't aimed at you soonebe but what frustrates me is that 4th is now deemed acceptable yet our last manager was chased out the door for not securing 3rd. Yes, I know we had a 9 point gap at one stage.

 

Why should 4th be so readily acceptable with no European distraction and where the manager has inherited a squad that finished 4th the previous season. i.e. not a bottom 6 type squad.

 

For what its worth I agree 4th is not a sacking offence given we are simply not much better , if at all than the teams around us. But as is the way, the pitchforks will likely be out if 3rd not achieved. There will be no appreciation that 4th was deemed acceptable at the start of the season (as was the case last season).  In fact, if this season is anything to go by, failure to beat Killie on Saturday and you know the "sack the manager" posts will be out again. 

 

Instant success or yer oot ! 😞

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

13 minutes ago, Carter said:

I think you're missing the point. One of the reasons Celtic have accumulated so much cash, beyond ECL revenue, is a very successful player trading model. 

 

Club hierarchy themselves have already highlighted the need to improve upon player trading. Not sure why you've decided to take aim at a poster for highlighting something that's already been highlighted at Board level that we must improve upon. 

It's obviously something we need to improve on dramatically ! We've wasted some amount of money on shite players

[Bazzas right boot]

25 minutes ago, Carter said:

I think you're missing the point. One of the reasons Celtic have accumulated so much cash, beyond ECL revenue, is a very successful player trading model. 

 

Club hierarchy themselves have already highlighted the need to improve upon player trading. Not sure why you've decided to take aim at a poster for highlighting something that's already been highlighted at Board level that we must improve upon. 

 

We can improve on everything.

That is not for debate.

 

My point is that to achieve an improvement on player trading we are relying on a lot of external factors/ goodwill and luck.

Souttar leaving highlighted this massively  imo.

 

Ultimately the team gets weakened as  well, Aberdeen sold players for high fees and got worse, Hibs sold Miginn and Doig- are they better?

 

Celtic and Rangers sell there's best- are they better?

 

The Money is rarely invested in better players or at all.

Selling players for high fees is not something that gets me excited.

Ofc, it's a good  strategy to try and  maximise all income streams so the board should be trying to maximise player sales, but as a fan of the team on the park it really doesn't connect with me.

If we sell Shanks for £1m or £8m it will be shite either way for the team as we'll be weaker.

Selling is part of the game, I just find it difficult to have a go if things don't work out or get happy at thought of selling players.

 

The age of the team is also irelevant to me as is their origins,  home grown or genetically grown in a lab I don't care.

 

I'm not sold on our youth potential either, picking up players from other academies in the 18-22 category imo would beni-fit 👌the team and the selling potential imo.

Any good youth player will **** of reallu early or refuse to sign an extension if they are playing well in the team- see Hickey.

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[Bazzas right boot]

8 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

It's obviously something we need to improve on dramatically ! We've wasted some amount of money on shite players

 

Every club wastes money on shite "players" at every level.

Unless captain hindsight is a club scout then it will happen.

 

Last season we were told by many we had the best squad in years and the manager was holding us back. 

 

The same posters have change to the players are shite narrative.

 

It's mind boggling trying to keep track.

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[Prehen]

@Bazzas right boot I do have a serious problem with  "Players should play if good enough / Age is irrelevant if they are good enough" and it is this - I would not expect a 16yr old player to be as good as an experienced pro. He is certainly not going to be as quick or strong, nor do I expect him to be as consistent in performance. But a young player whose potential is deemed very high needs to be developed, be that training with first team, progressing to the bench and then eventually to getting some first time minutes. The adage that age is irrelevant if they are good enough is thrown around by some to mean until they are as good or better than the current first team player then they should get no First Team minutes. That is simply not true but appears how Hearts currently operate.

 

The last academy players to get debuts were Muzz and Kirky - Mak Kirk made his SPL debut in 02 Apr 22.  He has not seen first team action since Apr 22. Tait is next in line  - he must be sick of his bench appearance stat. Currently at over 20 and zip minutes played.

 

Maybe there is no elite youth (16-18 yr olds) at Hearts. But if there is, there must be a way to get them some first time minutes. If properly managed, I see it as a Win Win Win for Club / Player / Fans

[pettigrewsstylist]

29 minutes ago, damo said:

This isn't aimed at you soonebe but what frustrates me is that 4th is now deemed acceptable yet our last manager was chased out the door for not securing 3rd. Yes, I know we had a 9 point gap at one stage.

 

Why should 4th be so readily acceptable with no European distraction and where the manager has inherited a squad that finished 4th the previous season. i.e. not a bottom 6 type squad.

 

For what its worth I agree 4th is not a sacking offence given we are simply not much better , if at all than the teams around us. But as is the way, the pitchforks will likely be out if 3rd not achieved. There will be no appreciation that 4th was deemed acceptable at the start of the season (as was the case last season).  In fact, if this season is anything to go by, failure to beat Killie on Saturday and you know the "sack the manager" posts will be out again. 

 

Instant success or yer oot ! 😞

He was relieved of duties because we were in freefall and he couldnt fix it, week after week and nobody knew where we were going to end up. They rescued 4th and got some euro income and co efficient points this season. 

Not because he didnt achieve "target" of 3rd.

 

[Sooks]

13 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

He was relieved of duties because we were in freefall and he couldnt fix it, week after week and nobody knew where we were going to end up. They rescued 4th and got some euro income and co efficient points this season. 

Not because he didnt achieve "target" of 3rd.

 

Exactly , let us not rewrite history . His stubborn refusal to switch from his busted flush system with Snodgrass in the ‘ Pirlo ‘ as we got beaten by every meh team in the league was why he was fired out a canon 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, Prehen said:

@Bazzas right boot I do have a serious problem with  "Players should play if good enough / Age is irrelevant if they are good enough" and it is this - I would not expect a 16yr old player to be as good as an experienced pro. He is certainly not going to be as quick or strong, nor do I expect him to be as consistent in performance. But a young player whose potential is deemed very high needs to be developed, be that training with first team, progressing to the bench and then eventually to getting some first time minutes. The adage that age is irrelevant if they are good enough is thrown around by some to mean until they are as good or better than the current first team player then they should get no First Team minutes. That is simply not true but appears how Hearts currently operate.

 

The last academy players to get debuts were Muzz and Kirky - Mak Kirk made his SPL debut in 02 Apr 22.  He has not seen first team action since Apr 22. Tait is next in line  - he must be sick of his bench appearance stat. Currently at over 20 and zip minutes played.

 

Maybe there is no elite youth (16-18 yr olds) at Hearts. But if there is, there must be a way to get them some first time minutes. If properly managed, I see it as a Win Win Win for Club / Player / Fans

 

Not for me.

 

Any player, regardless of age should not play if they aren't adding something to the team and helping us try to achieve 3rd.

 

I don't care how we Win cups or finish high in the league. 

 

If we can do that by  developing players, play them and then sell them for money then great, if not and we need older player's from various backgrounds- then equally great.

 

If there is elite at Hearts they’ll likley go before they are 18 to another club or like Hickey,  refuse to extend and leave for nothing.

Most others will need to drop down a level before maybe coming back up the leagues,  but we can't persist with projects between the ages  of 18-26 in the hope enough become good enough. 

 

If some youth develop and add to the squad- great, if we get a gem- brilliant.

If that gem comes from another team or abroad and is older- also great.

I don't care.

 

I have no vested interest in Kirky or Muzz careers, my interest is Hearts and our success we have Shankland and Boyce, before that add  Gino and Simms.

 

Do/ did I want Kirky to play ahead of them just so we can tick a box?

No.

If he's as good or better- yes I hope he plays.

 

It's a hard thing to balance, but playing poorer players in front of better ones shouldn't be on the agenda,  so any youth policy has to work around that or we're harming the team.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Carter said:

We've also seen our wage bill grow by almost 25% in the space of 12 months. 

Yep, and almost certainly in terms of average first team squad player it’s still a bit behind Aberdeen.  We are coming from a low point after demotion. 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, damo said:

This isn't aimed at you soonebe but what frustrates me is that 4th is now deemed acceptable yet our last manager was chased out the door for not securing 3rd. Yes, I know we had a 9 point gap at one stage.

 

Why should 4th be so readily acceptable with no European distraction and where the manager has inherited a squad that finished 4th the previous season. i.e. not a bottom 6 type squad.

 

For what its worth I agree 4th is not a sacking offence given we are simply not much better , if at all than the teams around us. But as is the way, the pitchforks will likely be out if 3rd not achieved. There will be no appreciation that 4th was deemed acceptable at the start of the season (as was the case last season).  In fact, if this season is anything to go by, failure to beat Killie on Saturday and you know the "sack the manager" posts will be out again. 

 

Instant success or yer oot ! 😞

I pretty much agree.  It’s a bit odd.  Anderson last week saying that sacking the manager is rarely the right answer yet that’s what we did last season because we were in danger of missing third place.  Putting those two things together suggests that third isn’t a must do for Naismith this season in terms of job retention. Fourth probably is though. If our current good run against non-OF teams continues until the break we will likely be close to 9 ahead again. It will be interesting to see if the language around third changes any. 

[Bazzas right boot]

14 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Yep, and almost certainly in terms of average first team squad player it’s still a bit behind Aberdeen.  We are coming from a low point after demotion. 

 

Folk really disregard that as well, we were playing catch up on Aberdeen from a very low starting point,  twice.

 

Turnover imo is more an indication of success when it's averages out over a longer period,  say 5 or 10 years and it's projection or trend.

 

1 good or 1 bad year may be an outlier.

 

Spend is also important when discussing when using  output ( football team) as a measure.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Bazzas right boot

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

We can improve on everything.

That is not for debate.

 

My point is that to achieve an improvement on player trading we are relying on a lot of external factors/ goodwill and luck.

Souttar leaving highlighted this massively  imo.

 

Ultimately the team gets weakened as  well, Aberdeen sold players for high fees and got worse, Hibs sold Miginn and Doig- are they better?

 

Celtic and Rangers sell there's best- are they better?

 

The Money is rarely invested in better players or at all.

Selling players for high fees is not something that gets me excited.

Ofc, it's a good  strategy to try and  maximise all income streams so the board should be trying to maximise player sales, but as a fan of the team on the park it really doesn't connect with me.

If we sell Shanks for £1m or £8m it will be shite either way for the team as we'll be weaker.

Selling is part of the game, I just find it difficult to have a go if things don't work out or get happy at thought of selling players.

 

The age of the team is also irelevant to me as is their origins,  home grown or genetically grown in a lab I don't care.

 

I'm not sold on our youth potential either, picking up players from other academies in the 18-22 category imo would beni-fit 👌the team and the selling potential imo.

Any good youth player will **** of reallu early or refuse to sign an extension if they are playing well in the team- see Hickey.

 

Good post.  The age thing is irrelevant imo unless we are looking to cash in on promising young players. If we had a 20 man squad of 28 year olds of Shanklands standard currently we would be skooshing third. Would anyone be concerned about the age of the squad? 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Prehen said:

@Bazzas right boot I do have a serious problem with  "Players should play if good enough / Age is irrelevant if they are good enough" and it is this - I would not expect a 16yr old player to be as good as an experienced pro. He is certainly not going to be as quick or strong, nor do I expect him to be as consistent in performance. But a young player whose potential is deemed very high needs to be developed, be that training with first team, progressing to the bench and then eventually to getting some first time minutes. The adage that age is irrelevant if they are good enough is thrown around by some to mean until they are as good or better than the current first team player then they should get no First Team minutes. That is simply not true but appears how Hearts currently operate.

 

The last academy players to get debuts were Muzz and Kirky - Mak Kirk made his SPL debut in 02 Apr 22.  He has not seen first team action since Apr 22. Tait is next in line  - he must be sick of his bench appearance stat. Currently at over 20 and zip minutes played.

 

Maybe there is no elite youth (16-18 yr olds) at Hearts. But if there is, there must be a way to get them some first time minutes. If properly managed, I see it as a Win Win Win for Club / Player / Fans

Lack of a proper reserve league is a major factor in player development. That’s how young players used to gain experience of playing against seasoned pro’s outwith the first team.  It’s a serious flaw in the Scottish pyramid and as long as we keep playing foreigners (dual nationality) in the national team we won’t see the problem tackled. 

[Chuck Berry]

1 hour ago, soonbe110 said:

Lack of a proper reserve league is a major factor in player development. That’s how young players used to gain experience of playing against seasoned pro’s outwith the first team.  It’s a serious flaw in the Scottish pyramid and as long as we keep playing foreigners (dual nationality) in the national team we won’t see the problem tackled. 

 

We don't have foreigners in the national team, we have Scots, and how is that related to a reserve league?

[soonbe110]

53 minutes ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

We don't have foreigners in the national team, we have Scots, and how is that related to a reserve league?

We do.  And by summer there could be a few more.  No-one will ever convince me that the likes of Barnes, Anderson etc are Scots. It’s related by the belief that if we had a proper reserve league more home grown kids would make the transition to first team football then international football. If you look at our current u21 squad for instance very few play first team football in the top league. 

[Luckies1874]

9 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Latest Turnover figures for those Premiership teams that produce full accounts.

 

Celtic 2023 - £119.9m

Rangers 2023 - £83.8m

Hearts 2023 - £20.8m

Aberdeen 2023 - £15.8m

Hibs 2022 - £11.9m

Dundee United 2022 - £8.3m

Motherwell 2022 - £5.6m

St Mirren 2022 - £4.3m

Ross County 2022 - £4.1m

 

St Mirren announced 2023 numbers a couple of days ago. Increased to £5.7 million.

[CornhillHearts]

Looks like Aberedeen's spend might be going up... 

 

 

[Smithian]

9 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Latest Turnover figures for those Premiership teams that produce full accounts.

 

Celtic 2023 - £119.9m

Rangers 2023 - £83.8m

Hearts 2023 - £20.8m

Aberdeen 2023 - £15.8m

Hibs 2022 - £11.9m

Dundee United 2022 - £8.3m

Motherwell 2022 - £5.6m

St Mirren 2022 - £4.3m

Ross County 2022 - £4.1m

Motherwell is a good and established Premiership side. Have to think they eye roll every time Hearts, Aberdeen, and Hibs complain about gulf between our finances and the OF.

 

Good reminder Hearts are a big club. Unfortunate we are in a duopoly league

[Drumjambo]

3 hours ago, Sooks said:

Exactly , let us not rewrite history . His stubborn refusal to switch from his busted flush system with Snodgrass in the ‘ Pirlo ‘ as we got beaten by every meh team in the league was why he was fired out a canon 

 

Beautifully put

[Sid]

4 hours ago, Prehen said:

@Bazzas right boot I do have a serious problem with  "Players should play if good enough / Age is irrelevant if they are good enough" and it is this - I would not expect a 16yr old player to be as good as an experienced pro. He is certainly not going to be as quick or strong, nor do I expect him to be as consistent in performance. But a young player whose potential is deemed very high needs to be developed, be that training with first team, progressing to the bench and then eventually to getting some first time minutes. The adage that age is irrelevant if they are good enough is thrown around by some to mean until they are as good or better than the current first team player then they should get no First Team minutes. That is simply not true but appears how Hearts currently operate.

 

The last academy players to get debuts were Muzz and Kirky - Mak Kirk made his SPL debut in 02 Apr 22.  He has not seen first team action since Apr 22. Tait is next in line  - he must be sick of his bench appearance stat. Currently at over 20 and zip minutes played.

 

Maybe there is no elite youth (16-18 yr olds) at Hearts. But if there is, there must be a way to get them some first time minutes. If properly managed, I see it as a Win Win Win for Club / Player / Fans

Loss for manager if young player doesn’t perform out his skin and we drop a point and pitchforks get him sacked. 

[Chuck Berry]

1 hour ago, soonbe110 said:

We do.  And by summer there could be a few more.  No-one will ever convince me that the likes of Barnes, Anderson etc are Scots. It’s related by the belief that if we had a proper reserve league more home grown kids would make the transition to first team football then international football. If you look at our current u21 squad for instance very few play first team football in the top league. 

 

Barnes, Anderson? not sure I've seen them in a Scotland shirt. Every national team in the world has players not born in that country, but then International football never has been about where you were born, it's whether you're a citizen of that nation or not.

 

In the UK we have a unique situation where 4 footballing nations share the same passport/nationality, so we have to have some "gentlemans agreements" with FIFA's blessing to regulate what goes on, however elsewhere in the world it's your passport that counts, not where you were born.  If Scotland was independent we would be granting our own citizenships/passports.

 

So yes, if you play for Scotland you're Scottish.

 

Re reserve football, agree, we would benefit from having a proper reserve league like the old days, where youngsters play against - and just as importantly - with older heads.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Chuck Berry

[soonbe110]

8 minutes ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

Barnes, Anderson? not sure I've seen them in a Scotland shirt. Every national team in the world has players not born in that country, but then International football never has been about where you were born, it's whether you're a citizen of that nation or not.

 

In the UK we have a unique situation where 4 footballing nations share the same passport/nationality, so we have to have some "gentlemans agreements" with FIFA's blessing to regulate what goes on, however elsewhere in the world it's your passport that counts, not where you were born.  If Scotland was independent we would be granting our own citizenships/passports.

 

So yes, if you play for Scotland you're Scottish.

 

Re reserve football, agree, we would benefit from having a proper reserve league like the old days, where youngsters play against - and just as importantly - with older heads.

If Scotland was independent how would Angus Gunn gain his citizenship? Same for McTominay, Dykes, Brown, et al 

Yes, proper reserve football is a huge void.  Unfortunately the GFA don’t think it is.  Have had the discussion with Maxwell and he doesn’t think it’s sustainable or worthwhile.  Much better if our top clubs youngsters play bounce games against their euro equivalents.  All about money.