Accounts

[skinnybob72]

21 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

The goon squad are out in force.

 

If you go out on a Saturday night with £100 then have a great night and wake up with 40p left in your pocket.

 

Or you could tap another £100 of yer mum and go out with £200, same rules apply, have a better night but still wake up with 40p in your pocket.

 

Does that simplify it enough for everyone ?

You’re £100 in debt to yer maw and have 40p to pay her back? 🤔

[Sid]

To all the frothers and Hobos contributing on this. Great set of results. 
profits =tax.  
We continue to increase turnover in key areas and boosted playing staff budget by bulk of potential profit. 
Doesn’t fit the frothers agenda but the “vanity projects” are increasing the player budget. 
Sack the Board 

[Footballfirst]

Just a reminder that the £6.167m of donations from FOH and Benefactors is not included in the Turnover figure.

 

The day to day operating loss was £3.675m, before the donations were taken into account (along with interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation)

[hmfc_liam06]

16 minutes ago, Ivan Drago said:

What are we spending the 4.5 million on?

£3.4m of it is explained above by @Footballfirst

[Bender]

For those commenting on investing in the playing budget, unless I'm reading this wrong we went from spending £408,000 on transfer fees in 2022 to £845,000 in 2023. So the investment has been there. 

 

Whether it's been used to its full potential is another argument.

[Bender]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Just a reminder that the £6.167m of donations from FOH and Benefactors is not included in the Turnover figure.

 

The day to day operating loss was £3.675m, before the donations were taken into account (along with interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation)

 

So, instead of £300k or so in profit, after donations it's actually closer to £3m profit? Am I wildly off with that?

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, Italian Lambretta said:

I assume the increase in playing budget was for the Women's team.

 

Hope so, growing market. Be daft not to invest in it.

 

 

[stirlo]

The figure for gate receipts is around £1m more for 2023 than 2022, which amounts to around a 20% increase. I would have thought that with European group-stage football we would be looking at a bigger increase than that.

I also wonder what is included in 'broadcasting rights' as the figure for that is stated as 374K. Does most of the television income come within the figure for 'Commercial'? 

[Gorgie_Rules]

18 minutes ago, Gorgie_Rules said:

Another set of accounts, another year that the benefactors donations need explained.

 

Take James Anderson as an example, hes not some life long Hearts fan that is deciding to pump the club with cash to keep the club us afloat. He is using the club as a means to be charitable. The most obvious example of this is the MND sponsorship on the front of the strips. Without this we’d have commercial sponsor instead. 
 

Expenditure on the Women's team, innovation centre, links with big Hearts etc, all this would have less expenditure without the donations.

 

Of course indirectly some of this means it can be spent on the playing side, but any notion that the club is reliant upon benefactor (or FoH) donations to stay afloat is incorrect.

 

 

I’d also add to this that James Anderson’s running of Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust has proven him to be one of the most astute fund managers in history (over 18,000%).

 

Every investment he makes is calculated to a tee. Of course his intentions here are different than growth/profit but he is not gung-ho enough to throw money at something he won’t see a return in/long term benefit in. 

[loveofthegame]

42 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

The goon squad are out in force.

 

If you go out on a Saturday night with £100 then have a great night and wake up with 40p left in your pocket.

 

Or you could tap another £100 of yer mum and go out with £200, same rules apply, have a better night but still wake up with 40p in your pocket.

 

Does that simplify it enough for everyone ?

A lot of us aren’t accountants. I still believe we are entitled to question how we’re struggling to turn a profit on our highest ever turnover. It’s not like any of the investment is equating to any kind of success on the pitch which might justify a struggle on the profit front. An unfinished stadium, an unfinished vanity hotel project, an average football side.

 

But according to you we should just baaa at whatever we’re fed by the Board?!

 

Your analogy is also shite as for £200 I’d have expected to have a better night out…

Edited November 14, 2023 by loveofthegame

[dtgj]

21 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

Is this the final set of accounts that will involve Mr Andersons donations? I'm pretty sure this is last year of the 5 years he committed to

Don't think so. The going concern note says that jne factor that lead to the conclusion the company is a going concern is 'the committed long-term support of the company's principal benefactor'. I assume this is James Anderson. 

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

2 minutes ago, dtgj said:

Don't think so. The going concern note says that jne factor that lead to the conclusion the company is a going concern is 'the committed long-term support of the company's principal benefactor'. I assume this is James Anderson. 

That's very good news 

[Pasquale for King]

46 minutes ago, chrisyboy7 said:

Player sales can change this instantly....watch this space 

Who are we selling like? We only have one saleable asset and he scores more than everyone else put together 🤦🏽. 

[Footballfirst]

14 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

So, instead of £300k or so in profit, after donations it's actually closer to £3m profit? Am I wildly off with that?

You are wildly off. You also have to subtract the interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation from your £3m.

[Pasquale for King]

7 minutes ago, Gorgie_Rules said:

I’d also add to this that James Anderson’s running of Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust has proven him to be one of the most astute fund managers in history (over 18,000%).

 

Every investment he makes is calculated to a tee. Of course his intentions here are different than growth/profit but he is not gung-ho enough to throw money at something he won’t see a return in/long term benefit in. 

Hes a benefactor with us, hes not seeing any return on that money. 
He gave £100m to John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Europe campus in Bologna, not sure what return he would get back on that either?

[Thunder and Lightning]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

You are wildly off. You also have to subtract the interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation from your £3m.

As the establishment club with our own aircraft carrier surely we are exempt from such things? 

[dtgj]

8 minutes ago, loveofthegame said:

A lot of us aren’t accountants. I still believe we are entitled to question how we’re struggling to turn a profit on our highest ever turnover. It’s not like any of the investment is equating to any kind of success on the pitch which might justify a struggle on the profit front. An unfinished stadium, an unfinished vanity hotel project, an average football side.

 

But according to you we should just baaa at whatever we’re fed by the Board?!

Why do you want us to make a bigger profit? Wouldn't it be better to use our income to pay for better players? What exactly would making a bigger profit achieve?

[Sooks]

Three times our turnover from Budges first full season in charge . Three times ………….. Now obviously you have to take the Championship effect in to account , but that is tremendous growth , especially for a club who pays its staff within a budget set to a percentage of turnover . These very healthy results indeed 

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

As the establishment club with our own aircraft carrier surely we are exempt from such things? 

It's similar to what Rangers (and the MSM) reported yesterday.  They said they had made an "operating profit" of £252k, when in fact the bottom line was a loss of £4.144m. 

[Thunder and Lightning]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

It's similar to what Rangers (and the MSM) reported yesterday.  They said they had made an "operating profit" of £252k, when in fact the bottom line was a loss of £4.144m. 

Ah, so like them we can just make it up. 

 

Great news on our £276m profit. 

[Rampant]

12 minutes ago, lou said:

We don't know how that is broken down for football and non football.  The figures don't alarm me, the lack of progress in the football dept does 

 

You can form a better idea though when you consider the staff numbers, which are disclosed.

 

Admin and commerical staff numbers increased by 26.

Playing, coaching, football support staff increased by 13.

Increase in headcount is 39.

 

Isolate staff costs to just wages/salaries, and the increase is about £3.6m (the 400k difference from the 4.1m quoted being the inevitable increase in pension and social security costs too).

 

So just on headcount, the numbers would suggest an average salary for the 39 new staff to be about 94k.  I think it's reasonable to suggest that the 26 new admin and commercial staff are not averaging that though.

 

The average UK salary google tells me is 35k.  I would guess that's generous still for a lot of administrative staff working at Hearts, but there will be various roles and a wide salary range, hence the average.  For the 26 non-playing staff, that would be about 910k extra spent on non-playing staff.

 

So about 2.7m spent on football.  So very crudely, 75% football vs 25% non-football in terms of cost increases.  I suspect it's more heavily weighted to football even, given the average salary point above, though acknowledge some of that increase will be on the women's team. Not sure how to get more of a picture of that tbh, but it will be a minority portion for sure.  Plus there was an increase in spend on player sales which others have noted.

 

You may not be alarmed by the figures, but to say we haven't invested in the playing squad is more than misleading.  And to suggest that you don't think this years accounts look very good because you expect next years accounts to not look as good, make very little sense. 

 

Criticise next years accounts when they're released if qualifying for europe but then not qualifying is a problem - I'll at least agree that failing to clinch 3rd again is obviously a disappointment, but it's not really relevant to these accounts, which are not the worrying set of financials many on here would have us believe.

[Footballfirst]

Just now, Thunder and Lightning said:

Ah, so like them we can just make it up. 

 

Great news on our £276m profit. 

At least the £298k (not £276m 😮) profit and the £4.144m loss are comparing net positions, i.e. like for like.

[Sooks]

Why are people wanting us to make a profit ? Do they want us to spend less on players so we have more taxable cash profit left over 

[indianajones]

Im away to .mutantinbredclowns to see the true financial analysis. 

[Pasquale for King]

Amazing turnover, hopefully a cup final win in May can help us beat that figure next year. 

[Valois No1]

Och the results are a bit meh. We could spend all day questioning this and that and I see all arguments. I am responsible for a P and L of a large company which I shan’t mention so know it’s always under scrutiny with people questioning this and that. 
 

We turned a profit which is always welcome. The next set of results are the ones that will test the metal. 

[Boab]

😂

STV news announced the news while showing footage outside Tynecastle…of the old main stand and social club !

 

[Thunder and Lightning]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

At least the £298k (not £276m 😮) profit and the £4.144m loss are comparing net positions, i.e. like for like.

Of course, but it's just more fun to do a rangers and make the numbers up. 

 

I look forward to signing Kane in January. 

[Taffin]

Both pleased and disappointed by that. My ire was that we'd skin-flinting on the 1st team...this appears to disprove that.

 

It does then make you question how wisely it's being spent as we're no better off for it on the park.

[Ricardo Quaresma]

59 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Rubbish, we're a Supporter owned football club, as long as there isnt a loss then its being run just fine.

 

The profit gets ploughed back into the club so should never show as being massive.

 

That's correct and I think I saw £6.2M donations

 

The Hotel and restaurant are supposed to replace the donations over time

 

Player trading will be better for contributing too, in future, as we aren't doing much of that, but will change I'm sure

[gordon simpson]

1 hour ago, Bull's-eye said:

Sack the board.

Budge oot awebudy oot  cancel the hotel ,shut the skyline ,Naismith oot 

[Gorgie_Rules]

13 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Hes a benefactor with us, hes not seeing any return on that money. 
He gave £100m to John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Europe campus in Bologna, not sure what return he would get back on that either?

I didn’t mention financial return.

[Spellczech]

We'll be in good shape when we start doing better in the transfer arena

[Heart of Darkness]

💰♥️

[Rampant]

11 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Hes a benefactor with us, hes not seeing any return on that money. 
He gave £100m to John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Europe campus in Bologna, not sure what return he would get back on that either?

 

The original poster noted long term benefit alongside "return", so the point is valid.

 

It's more than reasonable to assume James Anderson would not be contributing what he is contributing to Hearts if he didn't see the longer term benefit for Hearts and through Hearts, the local community.  A strong Hearts supports a strong community.  That's the point of his donations. He's not just throwing money at us in hope, or as a funnel for charity.  As you point out directly with John Hopkins, he's more than capable of just pumping money directly to other charities and organisations if that's all he's of a mind to do. But it clearly isn't.  His directorship at Hearts even more so shows his longer term 'investment' in Hearts.

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

8 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Why are people wanting us to make a profit ? Do they want us to spend less on players so we have more taxable cash profit left over 

This

[Nookie Bear]

46 minutes ago, lou said:

We don't know how that is broken down for football and non football.  The figures don't alarm me, the lack of progress in the football dept does 

Harsh, did you not see us win the “Keeping the ball near the corner flag” trophy this week?

[Pasquale for King]

5 minutes ago, Gorgie_Rules said:

I didn’t mention financial return.

What return do you think he will get then?

[cameron79]

Wages are a manageable 57% of our combined turnover and donations. A slight increase on the previous year. We just need a better return on that increased spend.

[Pasquale for King]

5 minutes ago, Rampant said:

 

The original poster noted long term benefit alongside "return", so the point is valid.

 

It's more than reasonable to assume James Anderson would not be contributing what he is contributing to Hearts if he didn't see the longer term benefit for Hearts and through Hearts, the local community.  A strong Hearts supports a strong community.  That's the point of his donations. He's not just throwing money at us in hope, or as a funnel for charity.  As you point out directly with John Hopkins, he's more than capable of just pumping money directly to other charities and organisations if that's all he's of a mind to do. But it clearly isn't.  His directorship at Hearts even more so shows his longer term 'investment' in Hearts.

I know all that, I just wondered what return he thought Anderson would get.

[Pasquale for King]

18 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It's similar to what Rangers (and the MSM) reported yesterday.  They said they had made an "operating profit" of £252k, when in fact the bottom line was a loss of £4.144m. 

Whats your thoughts on this year’s accounts?

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, cameron79 said:

Wages are a manageable 57% of our combined turnover and donations. A slight increase on the previous year. We just need a better return on that increased spend.

problem is .  The increased spend doesn’t necessarily mean better players. 
 

Becuase the football market is getting away from us.

 

e.g Ginelly we couldn’t afford to keep, Souttar we couldn’t afford to keep and a well respected poster on here saying we can’t keep Beni either.

 

bang for buck is reducing year on year

 

 

[gorgierulesapply88]

1 hour ago, EH11 2NL said:

Surely, we'd simply no spend as much. We're hardly ****ed, we were ****ed 10 years ago. 

We were ****ed vlad came along and saved us. Alot longer than 10 years.

[Seymour M Hersh]

26 minutes ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

As the establishment club with our own aircraft carrier surely we are exempt from such things? 

 

[Footballfirst]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

Whats your thoughts on this year’s accounts?

IMO they are a bit meh, given the boost in income from our ECL participation plus slightly increased donations.  I had hoped that more of the debt to AB would have been paid off, but the club appears to have focussed more on off field activities including the hotel and increased non football staff numbers (doing what?).

 

On the football side, staff costs will have increased by bonuses for ECL involvement and the operation of the B Team.

[highlandjambo3]

28 minutes ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

As the establishment club with our own aircraft aircraft carrier surely we are exempt from such things? 

Do we have the co-ordinates of hamdump?

[Thunder and Lightning]

Just now, highlandjambo3 said:

Do we have the co-ordinates of hamdump?

Just sent them to Vlad in his sub mate. He hasn't forgotten how they treated him. 

[Sooks]

I would suggest the ultimate aim is to use the money donated by Anderson and the other benefactors to grow turnover to the point where we turnover what he puts in by investing it . Things like the hotel and restaurant . Once he stops donating we will be generating it through projects that he has spent on to allow us to do so . With us tripling our turnover since 2015 you can see how that is a good strategy . We then spend a percentage of that on wages which is where we can start to make a difference to squad quality compared to the competition . So we need to turnover as much as possible and drive that number up each year so the sum of the percentage rises 

[loveofthegame]

32 minutes ago, dtgj said:

Why do you want us to make a bigger profit? Wouldn't it be better to use our income to pay for better players? What exactly would making a bigger profit achieve?

It’s a fair challenge!! As I mentioned, I’m not an accountant. My concern is simply higher output for immaterial(/zero?) onfield gains.

 

Profit ultimately doesn’t bother me. On field performance does. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by loveofthegame

[briever]

1 hour ago, Bender said:

 

Looks to me like roughly £300,000 profit. A drop from £1.7m the year before.

 

Not so superb then, when you consider we had Euro fitba too.

 

You kind of suspect this when an organisation focuses on turnover in their press release.

 

Still, it's not a loss - onwards and upwards.