?17 million due to Ukio Bankas in January

[jamboinglasgow]

No, the ?12m is still on the accounts and part of our ?30m debt. That is why so many were confused as to why we are still ?30m in debt despite all the cuts and player sales. UBIG in effect bought 34,285,714 shares at 35p each costing ?12m, the cost of which is a debt to Hearts. However as I understand the transaction, that ?12m will not appear on the accounts for year ending 31.7.09. because it was a one off cost.

 

I am bit confused, are you saying that in the next accounts, our debt will be (if there was no other increase or decrease in debt) ?12m less and the reason it didn't happen in the previous accounts was as it was taken as a transaction?

[Jam Tarts 1874]

Jim, it's been in the accounts since 2007, the same accounts published to all shareholders. Irrespective of what Hibs supporters and the media do/think, it's still going to be an issue for HMFC and it concerned me that a sizeable chunk of our support was oblivious to it.

 

I've mentioned the upcoming date for repayment of this debt on here a few times, particularly when posting in response to those who over the past couple of years seemed to think that we could keep on spending money. I continue to be surprised at how many on here make comment on our finances or on what Romanov should or shouldn't spend money on without it seems being in full possession of the facts. Just to remind everyone, it only costs ?1 to download a year's accounts from the Companies House website.

[The Verminator]

Behave!

 

 

Eh?

[crossgates jambo]

Eh?

 

Sorry. I misread your post and thought you were suggesting that Vlad was planning the property sale. I have read it again and I was wrong. Apologies.

[Jam Tarts 1874]

I am bit confused, are you saying that in the next accounts, our debt will be (if there was no other increase or decrease in debt) ?12m less and the reason it didn't happen in the previous accounts was as it was taken as a transaction?

 

No, I'm just telling you that we still have a figure of ?12m (separate from our other debts) in the debt column as a "non cash increase" and it very much makes up part of our ?30m overall debit even after the debt for equity transaction. The ?12m appears to be a one off cost for the issue of the shares, if it is a one-off cost then this ?12m should not be there when the next accounts are published.

 

I am not an accountant, however I do know that you cannot just magic up shares out of thin air, it has to be accounted for somewhere. I am relaying what is in the accounts. If any further questions I would recommend you get your own copy and then direct questions to the Hearts' board or Johnston Carmichael.

[The Verminator]

Sorry. I misread your post and thought you were suggesting that Vlad was planning the property sale. I have read it again and I was wrong. Apologies.

 

Apology accepted

 

I dont believe he will sell up for a property sale,certainly not in the current climate! - that`s a joke btw

[Martin_T]

No, I'm just telling you that we still have a figure of ?12m (separate from our other debts) in the debt column as a "non cash increase" and it very much makes up part of our ?30m overall debit even after the debt for equity transaction. The ?12m appears to be a one off cost for the issue of the shares, if it is a one-off cost then this ?12m should not be there when the next accounts are published.

 

I am not an accountant, however I do know that you cannot just magic up shares out of thin air, it has to be accounted for somewhere. I am relaying what is in the accounts. If any further questions I would recommend you get your own copy and then direct questions to the Hearts' board or Johnston Carmichael.

 

The existing debt was converted into shares, dilluting the existing holding. It may not be pallatable, but the ?30 million includes the equity for debt swap. Companies issue new share capital and change capital structure as part of corporate actions all the time, so strictly speaking shares can come from 'thin air'.

[Phage]

The SMG deal dont look so bad now.... we're doomed! we're all doomed!

[david mcgee]

Could we not just ask Kingston and Pinilla if they would lend us some money?

[jambos are go!]

No, the ?12m is still on the accounts and part of our ?30m debt. That is why so many were confused as to why we are still ?30m in debt despite all the cuts and player sales. UBIG in effect bought 34,285,714 shares at 35p each costing ?12m, the cost of which is a debt to Hearts. However as I understand the transaction, that ?12m will not appear on the accounts for year ending 31.7.09. because it was a one off cost.

 

Sorry but as another poster says that is nonsense. As I'm sick of saying on this board the accounts did show the benefits of the debt for equity scheme. The reason the overall debt did not come down as much as folked hoped for was because we lost another ?11 million+ on normal trading in the year in question. That is laid out in the profit and loss account on page 9 of the accounts. Income of ?9million against outgoings of ?20million. Exact figures can be seen in the accounts or in a previous post of mine. And if you are sticking to your stance on the debt for equity scheme pray inform us where that additional ?11million + of losses is accounted for.

 

After transfer income was added and interest and other charges deducted the net loss for the year fell to ?3.5 million. If you then turn to page 12 of the accounts (in front of my eyes as I type) you will see that closing debt is actually ?30.477million instead of the ?36.249million it would have been if the ?12 million had not been injected.

 

In addition may I quote directly from para 4 of the notes to the cash flow statement. 'The shares were issued at 35 pence each as part of a Debt for Equity conversion that reduced the debt owed by the company to UAB Ukio Banko Grupe by ?12million'. Given that the accounts were signed of by the auditors do you stick to your claim.

 

What is true is that club is trading disastarously and its amazing that VR can apparently afford it. For the long term future of HMFC folk need to focus not on who will be playing up front or signed in January but how we get out of this position. The first step IMO is to cut the wage bill by more than 50% and keep it there. And pray we find another Craig Gordon or two.

[shaun.lawson]

Sorry but as another poster says that is nonsense. As I'm sick of saying on this board the accounts did show the benefits of the debt for equity scheme. The reason the overall debt did not come down as much as folked hoped for was because we lost another ?11 million+ on normal trading in the year in question. That is laid out in the profit and loss account on page 9 of the accounts. Income of ?9million against outgoings of ?20million. Exact figures can be seen in the accounts or in a previous post of mine. And if you are sticking to your stance on the debt for equity scheme pray inform us where that additional ?11million + of losses is accounted for.

 

After transfer income was added and interest and other charges deducted the net loss for the year fell to ?3.5 million. If you then turn to page 12 of the accounts (in front of my eyes as I type) you will see that closing debt is actually ?30.477million instead of the ?36.249million it would have been if the ?12 million had not been injected.

 

In addition may I quote directly from para 4 of the notes to the cash flow statement. 'The shares were issued at 35 pence each as part of a Debt for Equity conversion that reduced the debt owed by the company to UAB Ukio Banko Grupe by ?12million'. Given that the accounts were signed of by the auditors do you stick to your claim.

 

What is true is that club is trading disastarously and its amazing that VR can apparently afford it. For the long term future of HMFC folk need to focus not on who will be playing up front or signed in January but how we get out of this position. The first step IMO is to cut the wage bill by more than 50% and keep it there. And pray we find another Craig Gordon or two.

 

Excellent post, with which I agree 100%.

[jamboinglasgow]

Sorry but as another poster says that is nonsense. As I'm sick of saying on this board the accounts did show the benefits of the debt for equity scheme. The reason the overall debt did not come down as much as folked hoped for was because we lost another ?11 million+ on normal trading in the year in question. That is laid out in the profit and loss account on page 9 of the accounts. Income of ?9million against outgoings of ?20million. Exact figures can be seen in the accounts or in a previous post of mine. And if you are sticking to your stance on the debt for equity scheme pray inform us where that additional ?11million + of losses is accounted for.

 

After transfer income was added and interest and other charges deducted the net loss for the year fell to ?3.5 million. If you then turn to page 12 of the accounts (in front of my eyes as I type) you will see that closing debt is actually ?30.477million instead of the ?36.249million it would have been if the ?12 million had not been injected.

 

In addition may I quote directly from para 4 of the notes to the cash flow statement. 'The shares were issued at 35 pence each as part of a Debt for Equity conversion that reduced the debt owed by the company to UAB Ukio Banko Grupe by ?12million'. Given that the accounts were signed of by the auditors do you stick to your claim.

 

What is true is that club is trading disastarously and its amazing that VR can apparently afford it. For the long term future of HMFC folk need to focus not on who will be playing up front or signed in January but how we get out of this position. The first step IMO is to cut the wage bill by more than 50% and keep it there. And pray we find another Craig Gordon or two.

 

 

did anyone ever discover how on earth we lost ?20m in a year when we spent no more than ?1m at the most on transfer fees (I know Nade cost ?500k, was Pinilla bought during that period i.e. we bought out his contract from both clubs who co-owned him.)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I think Jambos are go should stick to posting in the Terrace. His posts are much more sensible than those in The Shed!

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

did anyone ever discover how on earth we lost ?20m in a year when we spent no more than ?1m at the most on transfer fees (I know Nade cost ?500k, was Pinilla bought during that period i.e. we bought out his contract from both clubs who co-owned him.)

 

I think it's a mystery that will never be solved, tbh. I find it amazing it's not more of a big deal. Where the hell did we spend ?20m in one year?!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I think it's a mystery that will never be solved, tbh. I find it amazing it's not more of a big deal. Where the hell did we spend ?20m in one year?!

 

The supposition was a combination of player wages and squaring up Kaunas. However, we'll probably never know without a forensic audit (and the chances of that...)

[jlo2]

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/debtequityswap.asp

 

Not as I understand it. Equity for debt involves debt being removed from the balance sheet in exchange for a shareholding.

It will still appear on the 'wrong side' of the balance sheet as debit owed to UBIG.

[Therapist]

Is everyone aware of this? It came up in a discussion with a few other fans I had on Saturday and none of them were aware of it. According to the current accounts, Hearts are due to repay ?17 million worth of a loan to Ukio Bankas. It is no exaggeration to say that one scenario for this is that it could put the club into liquidation. In the the starkest terms, no Heart of Midlothian football club from January 2010.

 

The current downturn in form of the first team is almost irrelevant in the face of this, yet it is barely discussed. There is of course a potential positive outcome of the loan being capitalised through another debt for equity swap, which remove another ?17 million worth of debt from the HMFC balance sheet.

 

The ?17 million is absolutely nothing to worry about. If you click the link you'll see that a self-proclaimed financial wizard has assured me and others that this is just "paper debt" which is apparently different to, and much less damaging than, any other type of debt.

 

 

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1303265#post1303265

[audrey65]

Sorry but as another poster says that is nonsense. As I'm sick of saying on this board the accounts did show the benefits of the debt for equity scheme. The reason the overall debt did not come down as much as folked hoped for was because we lost another ?11 million+ on normal trading in the year in question. That is laid out in the profit and loss account on page 9 of the accounts. Income of ?9million against outgoings of ?20million. Exact figures can be seen in the accounts or in a previous post of mine. And if you are sticking to your stance on the debt for equity scheme pray inform us where that additional ?11million + of losses is accounted for.

 

After transfer income was added and interest and other charges deducted the net loss for the year fell to ?3.5 million. If you then turn to page 12 of the accounts (in front of my eyes as I type) you will see that closing debt is actually ?30.477million instead of the ?36.249million it would have been if the ?12 million had not been injected.

 

In addition may I quote directly from para 4 of the notes to the cash flow statement. 'The shares were issued at 35 pence each as part of a Debt for Equity conversion that reduced the debt owed by the company to UAB Ukio Banko Grupe by ?12million'. Given that the accounts were signed of by the auditors do you stick to your claim.

 

What is true is that club is trading disastarously and its amazing that VR can apparently afford it. For the long term future of HMFC folk need to focus not on who will be playing up front or signed in January but how we get out of this position. The first step IMO is to cut the wage bill by more than 50% and keep it there. And pray we find another Craig Gordon or two.

 

This is my take on things but was afraid to put my head above the parapet for obvious reasons.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

This thread is now reeking of hobo!

[Nookie Bear]

What happens to us if Vlad 'disappears'?

[Pistol1874]

The main benefit, as I understand it, of the debt for equity swap was the saving of a significant amount of interest payable on the debt in its previous form.

Otherwise, we are as beholden to UBIG as ever we were.

[TheBigO]

The main benefit, as I understand it, of the debt for equity swap was the saving of a significant amount of interest payable on the debt in its previous form.

Otherwise, we are as beholden to UBIG as ever we were.

 

Yep, we're saving something like ?500k per year on interest, plus the ?12M was wiped from the debt or because the ?12M was wiped from the debt.

 

I'd think that this year's accounts will be a bit better in that we no way will have outgoings of ?20M as we've not spent any money on players and many of our big earners have gone to be replaced by lower earners or not replaced at all, reducing squad size.

 

Only thing is, I can't think we've sold anyone other than Berra??

 

Can't comment on the ?17M due in Feb as I don't have enough knowledge on that kind of thing and frankly won't pretend to as some like to do!

[Colonel Kurtz]

The companies could be restructured with Hearts becoming tenants at Tynecastle.

And there will be some on here who will welcome this

[Therapist]

What happens to us if Vlad 'disappears'?

 

We will have a "Private Frazer experience" - we're doomed, doomed.

 

Unless of course the sellik loving plumber from Gilmerton steps in....

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Yep, we're saving something like ?500k per year on interest, plus the ?12M was wiped from the debt or because the ?12M was wiped from the debt.

 

The 12M that Vlads incompetent spending added to the debt.

 

I give him credit for paying it off - he took responsibility for his incompetence.

 

But don't go pretending he're saving us dosh cause he wiped 12M off.

 

He only wiped off the 12M that he himself put on with his stupid spending on diddies.

 

I'd think that this year's accounts will be a bit better in that we no way will have outgoings of ?20M as we've not spent any money on players and many of our big earners have gone to be replaced by lower earners or not replaced at all, reducing squad size.

 

Only thing is, I can't think we've sold anyone other than Berra??

 

Have been hearing the same for 2 or 3 years now. I hope our speding is finally under control, but I fear that once again, we've have lost about 10M quid AGAIN this year.....

[TheBigO]

The 12M that Vlads incompetent spending added to the debt.

 

I give him credit for paying it off - he took responsibility for his incompetence.

 

But don't go pretending he're saving us dosh cause he wiped 12M off.

 

He only wiped off the 12M that he himself put on with his stupid spending on diddies.

 

 

 

Have been hearing the same for 2 or 3 years now. I hope our speding is finally under control, but I fear that once again, we've have lost about 10M quid AGAIN this year.....

 

Don't see anything in my post lauding VR. Look for what you want in what I write though if that helps you through the day

 

Agree with the second part, we've been hearing it for a while, but we really have reduced the wage-bill now, haven't we. Jose, Larry and Nade are the only ones left from that era. Maybe Stewart and Driver are on decent money too, but the squa has vastly reduced in size and the Makelas et al have gone.

 

Not saying that means the debt is gone, but only you could find negatives in Hearts reducing the wagebill at this time

[Drylaw Hearts]

The companies could be restructured with Hearts becoming tenants at Tynecastle.

And there will be some on here who will welcome this

 

I'd welcome it.

[Pistol1874]

Yep, we're saving something like ?500k per year on interest, plus the ?12M was wiped from the debt or because the ?12M was wiped from the debt.

 

I'd think that this year's accounts will be a bit better in that we no way will have outgoings of ?20M as we've not spent any money on players and many of our big earners have gone to be replaced by lower earners or not replaced at all, reducing squad size.

 

Only thing is, I can't think we've sold anyone other than Berra??

 

Can't comment on the ?17M due in Feb as I don't have enough knowledge on that kind of thing and frankly won't pretend to as some like to do!

Again, just my understanding, but UBIG only wrote off the right to the interest whilst the debt was in the shape of a loan, the capital value of what they are owned from Hearts remains.

We lost ?12m from one part of the balance sheet covering mid to long term liabilities, but the share capital part of the balance sheet increased by ?12m to account for this which, theoretically at least, has not made Hearts more affordable for anyone to acquire.

My simple understanding would be that before the debt/equity swap, you would have to buy the shares from Romanov at, for example, ?1m but you would also have had to put in place a guarantee, with some form of security behind it, in order to takeover the debt of say ?30m (not to mention working capital facilities like an overdraft)with another Bank. As the stadium is not currently sufficient security by itself to guarantee the debt, a bank would likely be looking for a 100% guarantee for the difference between value of the stadium and the facilities required.

All that has happened with the debt/equity swap is that you would now have to pay ?13m for the shares and you would need to guarantee debt of ?18m, plus overdraft.

Still a minimum ?31m commitment using the example above!

As for the ?17m, God knows.

[TheBigO]

I'd welcome it.

 

May I ask why?

 

I'm no financial expert, but not owning Tynecastle seems a bit too precarious to me

[tartofmidlothian]

For the long term future of HMFC folk need to focus not on who will be playing up front or signed in January but how we get out of this position. The first step IMO is to cut the wage bill by more than 50% and keep it there. And pray we find another Craig Gordon or two.

 

Absolutely right. I think the wage bill's already a good distance there since Bruno, Robbie etc left, and will get even closer when Larry, Nade, Jose (sadly) and probably Stewart leave next summer.

 

The fact is, the Craig Gordon money's gone. Now we need to turn a profit before the debt goes down, and that has to happen by cutting the squad if we aren't competing in the league, both cups and filling Tynecastle every time we play. I think the 0-4 against Zagreb was probably our most important result of the season. If we'd clawed our way to the Europa groups, the added income would have been very handy.

 

did anyone ever discover how on earth we lost ?20m in a year when we spent no more than ?1m at the most on transfer fees

 

Wages, wages and more wages.

 

I'd think that this year's accounts will be a bit better in that we no way will have outgoings of ?20M as we've not spent any money on players and many of our big earners have gone to be replaced by lower earners or not replaced at all, reducing squad size.

 

Only thing is, I can't think we've sold anyone other than Berra??

 

Yep, which is where I think the eventual transfer of guys like Driver, Wallace and Craig Thomson will come in over the next couple of seasons. If only we had a manager who was good at not just motivating, but finding suitable replacements for half the expenditure... come back Craig Levein, all is forgiven!

[TheBigO]

Yep, which is where I think the eventual transfer of guys like Driver, Wallace and Craig Thomson will come in over the next couple of seasons. If only we had a manager who was good at not just motivating, but finding suitable replacements for half the expenditure... come back Craig Levein, all is forgiven!

 

No problem with that at all. What we need to ensure is that we have the replacements.

 

Driver goes, Novikovas or Visconte comes in ready to roll

Wallace goes, Jonny Brown or Matty Park is in waiting

Thomson goes (further off), I think the lads name is Fraser Mullen who is tipped to be good too.

 

We seem to have a set-up where we can do this now, for the first time in a while. I'm hoping that's how it goes and it's not unhealthy, it really isn't, you just have to have the conveyor belt ready.

 

Look at the thread which i think was entitled Spl Clubs, what's the plan? or somehting like that. There's a bit of discussion about Uruguyan football which runs like that. Clubs finance themselves through sales of players abroad, but always have young lads ready to be the next asset. It's the sensible and maybe only approach for Scottish clubs. Just don't sell to the OF is the only thing - encourage boys further afield. Make a name as a breeding ground and European teams will look at your players and offer good money.

[tartofmidlothian]

Just don't sell to the OF is the only thing

 

This is absolutely key, I think, for the sake of competition and so the rest of us stop getting ripped off. Although to be fair, Vlad's policy on not cooperating with them has been spot on.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

No problem with that at all. What we need to ensure is that we have the replacements.

 

Driver goes, Novikovas or Visconte comes in ready to roll

Wallace goes, Jonny Brown or Matty Park is in waiting

Thomson goes (further off), I think the lads name is Fraser Mullen who is tipped to be good too.

 

We seem to have a set-up where we can do this now, for the first time in a while. I'm hoping that's how it goes and it's not unhealthy, it really isn't, you just have to have the conveyor belt ready.

 

Look at the thread which i think was entitled Spl Clubs, what's the plan? or somehting like that. There's a bit of discussion about Uruguyan football which runs like that. Clubs finance themselves through sales of players abroad, but always have young lads ready to be the next asset. It's the sensible and maybe only approach for Scottish clubs. Just don't sell to the OF is the only thing - encourage boys further afield. Make a name as a breeding ground and European teams will look at your players and offer good money.

 

Er, I think that has just been halved!

[TheBigO]

This is absolutely key, I think, for the sake of competition and so the rest of us stop getting ripped off. Although to be fair, Vlad's policy on not cooperating with them has been spot on.

 

Yep, i'm torn on Vlad, but this is one thing I like about him. More chairmen need to do this. Thing is, if the players go to the OF, they need to be made to pay through the nose and I applaud Hibs for this in their last couple of dealings. Most clubs think only in the short-term though.

 

Still would be better if noone sold to them at all, though. Stephen Fletcher was pining for a move to Celtic, Hibs refused and he's now playing and doing pretty well in the EPL. Has to be used as a prototype.

[jamboinglasgow]

Wages, wages and more wages.

 

just had a trot up. If (and i know wont be) ?20m was all spent on wages. Then if it was weekly wages (forgetting bonuses) that would be equivalent to 32 players on ?12k a week. Say it was ?15m wages (of which ?12m was weekly wage and ?3m bonuses.) Then that would be equivalent to 32 players on ?7k a week. Plus each player getting an extra ?93,750 on bonuses a year. So i doubt it would just be wages alone.

 

There must be something else in there that is not right.

[jamboinglasgow]

Yep, i'm torn on Vlad, but this is one thing I like about him. More chairmen need to do this. Thing is, if the players go to the OF, they need to be made to pay through the nose and I applaud Hibs for this in their last couple of dealings. Most clubs think only in the short-term though.

 

Still would be better if noone sold to them at all, though. Stephen Fletcher was pining for a move to Celtic, Hibs refused and he's now playing and doing pretty well in the EPL. Has to be used as a prototype.

 

I would say that is my posistion on Vlad too. I am in between. Some ways he is good such as his emphsis on youth, stopping us going down the pan, winning us the Scottish cup. But then there is the murkier side, he isn't really reducing the debt, his interfernce in managers picking teams (though the are exceptions I agree with i.e. making Csaba play youngsters.)

 

If Vlad ever truelly wants to be loved by all the fans I feel would need to rip up all the debt Hearts owe, sell it to someone with financial sense and some wealth.

 

Though I also think if we brought in a manager who had a real emphasis on playing youngsters, like Jim Gannon and played a team with most players under 23 then Vlad would not interefere.

[TheBigO]

just had a trot up. If (and i know wont be) ?20m was all spent on wages. Then if it was weekly wages (forgetting bonuses) that would be equivalent to 32 players on ?12k a week. Say it was ?15m wages (of which ?12m was weekly wage and ?3m bonuses.) Then that would be equivalent to 32 players on ?7k a week. Plus each player getting an extra ?93,750 on bonuses a year. So i doubt it would just be wages alone.

 

There must be something else in there that is not right.

 

Doubt it was all wages mate. The accounts will show exactly how much of it was wages. Remember a club, or any business, has many overheads. We pay the police, taxes, electricity, blah blah blah and etc.... We also have non-footballing staff.

 

Not saying it should all add up to ?20M! but your sums probably don't quite take into account the obvious overheads.

 

I don't have them, but get yourself a copy of the accounts from companies house.

[JamboAl]

This is absolutely key, I think, for the sake of competition and so the rest of us stop getting ripped off. Although to be fair, Vlad's policy on not cooperating with them has been spot on.

 

I agree.

In days gone by we would have sold Gordon to Rangers for ?2m and they would have sold him on to England for the ?9m we got.

Same with Berra who might have been bought by the Huns for ?1m and sold on for a much higher price.

End product: we are even worse off while they soldier on as they always did.

If anyone doubts this, think of the machinations with Webster.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Don't see anything in my post lauding VR. Look for what you want in what I write though if that helps you through the day

 

You're saying it wiped 500k off our payments. It didn't. It kept our payments where they are. It stopped them increasing by 500k. Not sure what part of that you don't get.

 

Agree with the second part, we've been hearing it for a while, but we really have reduced the wage-bill now, haven't we.

 

I don't know. Thats what I'm told year after year. Then the accounts come in and show wages between 10-12M again.

 

The wages used to be about 5M pre Vlad, and most other SPL teams spend <5M to give you an idea of what budget we should be working to.

 

Jose, Larry and Nade are the only ones left from that era. Maybe Stewart and Driver are on decent money too, but the squa has vastly reduced in size and the Makelas et al have gone.

 

Not saying that means the debt is gone, but only you could find negatives in Hearts reducing the wagebill at this time

 

As I said, I keep reading stories like this each year and expect the wage bill to go down to a sensible level. Lets see if it actually does go down this time.

[tartofmidlothian]

just had a trot up. If (and i know wont be) ?20m was all spent on wages. Then if it was weekly wages (forgetting bonuses) that would be equivalent to 32 players on ?12k a week. Say it was ?15m wages (of which ?12m was weekly wage and ?3m bonuses.) Then that would be equivalent to 32 players on ?7k a week. Plus each player getting an extra ?93,750 on bonuses a year. So i doubt it would just be wages alone.

 

There must be something else in there that is not right.

 

I know what you're saying, but if you tot up the frankly exhorbitant wages we were paying last season, all the overheads Ianbaird'shair mentioned earlier and a few other reasonable bits and pieces (any players paid off? stadium planning costs?) you're probably not a kick in the **** off ?20m.

 

What is it they say, for a football club to be viable and safe as a business, wages shouldn't add up to more than about 50-60% of profit (or is it turnover)? Weren't ours running at around 100% for a while, just about the highest in Scotland?

[JCumming]

I ain't no hobo-nomic but I'd imagine

 

a) the loan will be refinanced / rolled over, but at a higher margin, and maybe even a hefty admin fee. This will lead to a further tightening of belts to make (New Hearts or whatever our subsiduary element of UBIG is called) ends meet or

 

A portion of any players sales not required for day to day expenses will be used to reduce (minimally) the ?17m, again at a higher rate of interest and admin fee.

 

thats the way I see it. Either way, its going to be an interesting couple of months after as more wage crises threaten and the vermin get all excited.

 

To be honest though, Im not convinced that VR will keep this charade up much longer

[Tasavallan]

No problem with that at all. What we need to ensure is that we have the replacements.

 

Driver goes, Novikovas or Visconte comes in ready to roll

Wallace goes, Jonny Brown or Matty Park is in waiting

Thomson goes (further off), I think the lads name is Fraser Mullen who is tipped to be good too.

 

We seem to have a set-up where we can do this now, for the first time in a while. I'm hoping that's how it goes and it's not unhealthy, it really isn't, you just have to have the conveyor belt ready.

 

May I ask do we have a sturdy enough conveyor belt for Sade?

[Jarhead]

I know what you're saying, but if you tot up the frankly exhorbitant wages we were paying last season, all the overheads Ianbaird'shair mentioned earlier and a few other reasonable bits and pieces (any players paid off? stadium planning costs?) you're probably not a kick in the **** off ?20m.

 

What is it they say, for a football club to be viable and safe as a business, wages shouldn't add up to more than about 50-60% of profit (or is it turnover)? Weren't ours running at around 100% for a while, just about the highest in Scotland?

 

It's 60% of turnover. If it was 60% of profit the players would owe us money.

Although, now I come to think of it, that's maybe not a bad idea.

[jlo2]

No problem with that at all. What we need to ensure is that we have the replacements.

 

Driver goes, Novikovas or Visconte comes in ready to roll

Wallace goes, Jonny Brown or Matty Park is in waiting

Thomson goes (further off), I think the lads name is Fraser Mullen who is tipped to be good too.

 

We seem to have a set-up where we can do this now, for the first time in a while. I'm hoping that's how it goes and it's not unhealthy, it really isn't, you just have to have the conveyor belt ready.

You are 100% correct. It has to be the way forward.

 

Dare I say it but Hibs have been doing that for years.

[jambos are go!]

just had a trot up. If (and i know wont be) ?20m was all spent on wages. Then if it was weekly wages (forgetting bonuses) that would be equivalent to 32 players on ?12k a week. Say it was ?15m wages (of which ?12m was weekly wage and ?3m bonuses.) Then that would be equivalent to 32 players on ?7k a week. Plus each player getting an extra ?93,750 on bonuses a year. So i doubt it would just be wages alone.

 

There must be something else in there that is not right.

 

Staff costs accounted for ?11.3 million. Other operating charges accounted for?6.2 million and depreciation mainly on past player purchases ?2.2 million. That will bring your estimate on average wages tumbling and more like reality.

 

 

So with a turnover of ?9.1 million and wages of ?11.3 million we are looking at a ratio of over 120% which is absolutely unsustainable. Wages must be at least halved and other cuts implemented if we are to turn round losses and start reducing the debt unless we make huge surpluses in the transfer market year on year.

 

 

So folks dont go looking for big signings and accept the likely reality that we will be trading down. Unless VR continues to throw money at the club that he is unlikely to get back when he sells up. It is incredible to realize that losses of ?11+ million a year means that roughly a million a month has been injected to cover losses.

[Therapist]

Dare I say it but Hibs have been doing that for years.

 

The other thing they've been doing for years is failing to win the Scottish Cup.

[Guest jambomickey]

The other thing they've been doing for years is failing to win the Scottish Cup.

 

[rudi]

I agree.

In days gone by we would have sold Gordon to Rangers for ?2m and they would have sold him on to England for the ?9m we got.

Same with Berra who might have been bought by the Huns for ?1m and sold on for a much higher price.

End product: we are even worse off while they soldier on as they always did.

If anyone doubts this, think of the machinations with Webster.

 

Can I ask what players have been sold on the cheap to the OF in the past,remembering we stole Niemi for ?400'000 and sold him for almost ?2m.

[Charlie-Brown]

Can I ask what players have been sold on the cheap to the OF in the past,remembering we stole Niemi for ?400'000 and sold him for almost ?2m.

 

Willie Wallace? they also found a way to get Andy Webster & Paul Ritchie out of contracts without paying us what they were worth.

[rudi]

Willie Wallace? they also found a way to get Andy Webster & Paul Ritchie out of contracts without paying us what they were worth.

 

So what you are saying that in over 100 years Rangers have managed to steal one player from Hearts and another two who were brought in from different clubs,man those horrible weegie toerags.