Chairman’s Statement

[BowenBoys]

26 minutes ago, West of Scotland said:

It's scary to imagine how many hundreds of posts you'll make when you DO have a grievance.

Why did you do that? Just got them to sleep and you come in and wake them up again!

[Norgethistle]

On 5/30/2019 at 11:55 AM, jagfox said:

61% wages to turnover in the relegation season seems prudent on a financial level...

Depends on the rest of our expenses.

If we only spend 34% on staff, Firhill, policing etc then that’s great we made a 5% profit 

If though we spend 44% on staff, Firhill policing etc then that’s more worrying as it’s a 5% loss

More importantly is how the turnover is generated, if it’s purely sponsorship, tickets, hospitality etc then that’s a steady figure and is easier to budget for.

if for example 20% was parachute payments, 10% soft loans (hand outs) then as a business we would be exposed, and that 61%  would equate to a 87% of normal expected income.

 

Assuming we broke even last year.

With an income of £4.5 million including parachute and UEFA cash, our income for next year is down by 25%

Our expenditure on Firhill will be the same or more (Grounds a year older, floodlights need fixing etc)

Our policing costs will be roughly the same (Maybe higher as Dundee replace County)

Stewarding is down by £20 k (0.5%) with close of Colin Weir Stand

Staff down by 6 people say 150k (3%)

Even If season ticket sales, sponsorship and attendances stay static, we will need to cut an additional 20% , unless we get a handout or generate a big revenue stream that cut can only come from one place and that’s Caldwell’s budget.

Obviously if we made a loss last year that cut will be greater and again if we operated at a profit that will be less.

If we operate within our means Caldwell will have a challenge to get a team to win that league or even challenge, but I think we were being prepared for that in the chairman’s statement 

[Lenziejag]

2 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Depends on the rest of our expenses.

If we only spend 34% on staff, Firhill, policing etc then that’s great we made a 5% profit 

If though we spend 44% on staff, Firhill policing etc then that’s more worrying as it’s a 5% loss

More importantly is how the turnover is generated, if it’s purely sponsorship, tickets, hospitality etc then that’s a steady figure and is easier to budget for.

if for example 20% was parachute payments, 10% soft loans (hand outs) then as a business we would be exposed, and that 61%  would equate to a 87% of normal expected income.

 

Assuming we broke even last year.

With an income of £4.5 million including parachute and UEFA cash, our income for next year is down by 25%

Our expenditure on Firhill will be the same or more (Grounds a year older, floodlights need fixing etc)

Our policing costs will be roughly the same (Maybe higher as Dundee replace County)

Stewarding is down by £20 k (0.5%) with close of Colin Weir Stand

Staff down by 6 people say 150k (3%)

Even If season ticket sales, sponsorship and attendances stay static, we will need to cut an additional 20% , unless we get a handout or generate a big revenue stream that cut can only come from one place and that’s Caldwell’s budget.

Obviously if we made a loss last year that cut will be greater and again if we operated at a profit that will be less.

If we operate within our means Caldwell will have a challenge to get a team to win that league or even challenge, but I think we were being prepared for that in the chairman’s statement 

There are quite a few ifs and assumptions in there. I think the one main assumption is that the 61% is playing staff only ?

I haven’t looked at the accounts for any year, but I would think that you could get a decent idea of what those typical on going costs are.

I see you mention handouts. Are you just speculating or have knowledge that this has happened ?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Depends on the rest of our expenses.

If we only spend 34% on staff, Firhill, policing etc then that’s great we made a 5% profit 

If though we spend 44% on staff, Firhill policing etc then that’s more worrying as it’s a 5% loss

More importantly is how the turnover is generated, if it’s purely sponsorship, tickets, hospitality etc then that’s a steady figure and is easier to budget for.

if for example 20% was parachute payments, 10% soft loans (hand outs) then as a business we would be exposed, and that 61%  would equate to a 87% of normal expected income.

 

Assuming we broke even last year.

With an income of £4.5 million including parachute and UEFA cash, our income for next year is down by 25%

Our expenditure on Firhill will be the same or more (Grounds a year older, floodlights need fixing etc)

Our policing costs will be roughly the same (Maybe higher as Dundee replace County)

Stewarding is down by £20 k (0.5%) with close of Colin Weir Stand

Staff down by 6 people say 150k (3%)

Even If season ticket sales, sponsorship and attendances stay static, we will need to cut an additional 20% , unless we get a handout or generate a big revenue stream that cut can only come from one place and that’s Caldwell’s budget.

Obviously if we made a loss last year that cut will be greater and again if we operated at a profit that will be less.

If we operate within our means Caldwell will have a challenge to get a team to win that league or even challenge, but I think we were being prepared for that in the chairman’s statement 

So we are pretty much back where we started under McNamara. Trying to build a champagne squad on a buck fast budget. So it's been done before, the right blend of youth and mid 20's, promise of riches should they get the club promoted again. 

[Norgethistle]

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

There are quite a few ifs and assumptions in there. I think the one main assumption is that the 61% is playing staff only ?

I haven’t looked at the accounts for any year, but I would think that you could get a decent idea of what those typical on going costs are.

I see you mention handouts. Are you just speculating or have knowledge that this has happened ?

Those figures of 61% are for playing staff, the comparative was done for all clubs in the UK, no idea where they got the % from.

The turnover was also stated in same report.

The saving of 20k in Stewarding is also stated by the club.

6 wages is based on a £25k average.

If you read the handouts I’ve stated that if the full income is without handouts then it’s predictable but if not then it’s unpredictable from a financial point of view. The accounts in October will show our income streams, and any soft loans.

The parachute and UEFA money were widely reported.

 

The accounts that will be published in October (unless a delay is sought) will bring more clarity to whether 61% is good or bad.

[jlsarmy]

2 hours ago, Thistleberight said:

So we are pretty much back where we started under McNamara. Trying to build a champagne squad on a buck fast budget. So it's been done before, the right blend of youth and mid 20's, promise of riches should they get the club promoted again. 

The only thing that  is open to debate is whether Gary Caldwell is a good enough coach to improve players , Jackie Mac did it with ATS , Stephen O’Donnell, Balatoni , Muirhead , realised the potential of Paul Paton as a midfield player and that was how he built his team .

Not so sure Caldwell has got that in his locker , time will tell .

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

The only thing that  is open to debate is whether Gary Caldwell is a good enough coach to improve players , Jackie Mac did it with ATS , Stephen O’Donnell, Balatoni , Muirhead , realised the potential of Paul Paton as a midfield player and that was how he built his team .

Not so sure Caldwell has got that in his locker , time will tell .

Agreed. It's one thing knowing what needs to be done and another to actually do it. 

[Jordanhill Jag]

12 hours ago, West of Scotland said:

It's scary to imagine how many hundreds of posts you'll make when you DO have a grievance.

Look go read whats being said regards Weir funding read the second part carefully then read what was said in the first part 

Its carefully worded and you might want to ask yourself why ?

I didnt write the statement 

 

 

[Jaggernaut]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Look go read whats being said regards Weir funding read the second part carefully then read what was said in the first part 

Its carefully worded and you might want to ask yourself why ?

I didnt write the statement 

 

 

Would you prefer a sloppily worded statement?

[Lenziejag]

12 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Those figures of 61% are for playing staff, the comparative was done for all clubs in the UK, no idea where they got the % from.

The turnover was also stated in same report.

The saving of 20k in Stewarding is also stated by the club.

6 wages is based on a £25k average.

If you read the handouts I’ve stated that if the full income is without handouts then it’s predictable but if not then it’s unpredictable from a financial point of view. The accounts in October will show our income streams, and any soft loans.

The parachute and UEFA money were widely reported.

 

The accounts that will be published in October (unless a delay is sought) will bring more clarity to whether 61% is good or bad.

Had a look at the accounts, Norge. 61% is total wages not just playing staff. Wage bill was 2,788K. Turnover was 4,505K.

95 staff- 35 players & development; 60 others.

However, there isn’t much info on what our other costs were, which amounted to approximately 1.4M.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Lenziejag

[Norgethistle]

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

Had a look at the accounts, Norge. 61% is total wages not just playing staff. Wage bill was 2,788K. Turnover was 4,505K.

95 staff- 35 players & development; 60 others.

However, there isn’t much info on what our other costs were, which amounted to approximately 1.4M.

I’ve just had a recheck of the newspaper article, the screenshot on FB and the figures posted on here and these are for the accounts were published on the 21st of November 2018, which were the accounts made up to 31st May 2018 ( When we were relegated from the premiership). Those accounts are for the previous board.

I would expect our turnover to be significantly lower for last year (gates almost halved, no TV deal) sponsorship down, plus we were paying two management teams, had to payoff several players as well.

Would be interesting to see how this years compares, especially as we made £340k profit for that period and had £500k in cash or cash assets.

 

[Lenziejag]

3 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

I’ve just had a recheck of the newspaper article, the screenshot on FB and the figures posted on here and these are for the accounts were published on the 21st of November 2018, which were the accounts made up to 31st May 2018 ( When we were relegated from the premiership). Those accounts are for the previous board.

I would expect our turnover to be significantly lower for last year (gates almost halved, no TV deal) sponsorship down, plus we were paying two management teams, had to payoff several players as well.

Would be interesting to see how this years compares, especially as we made £340k profit for that period and had £500k in cash or cash assets.

 

I agree. Although, I think Jackie low said that they didn’t need to dip into the reserves. We shall see when the accounts are published later in the year.

[Dick Dastardly]

13 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Look go read whats being said regards Weir funding read the second part carefully then read what was said in the first part 

Its carefully worded and you might want to ask yourself why ?

I didnt write the statement 

 

 

Or maybe it is being carefully interpreted

[Jordanhill Jag]

4 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Or maybe it is being carefully interpreted

Ok why make a big play about not being funded by a Sugar Daddy but then make a statement which in effect gives you an out for project by project funding - so bottom line is it contradicts the original statement - given our Chairman is a PR Professional it was put there for a reason  

[Norgethistle]

4 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok why make a big play about not being funded by a Sugar Daddy but then make a statement which in effect gives you an out for project by project funding - so bottom line is it contradicts the original statement - given our Chairman is a PR Professional it was put there for a reason  

Someone on here @gerrybritton9 I think stated after meet the manager night they were told by Gerry or Jackie that the Tenerife trip was funded by the Weirs, If that’s true then that alone contradicts the statement put out by our chairman that funding is only for the Weir Academy 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Norgethistle

[javeajag]

4 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok why make a big play about not being funded by a Sugar Daddy but then make a statement which in effect gives you an out for project by project funding - so bottom line is it contradicts the original statement - given our Chairman is a PR Professional it was put there for a reason  

Give it a rest already 

[Fawlty Towers]

14 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Someone on here @gerrybritton9 I think stated after meet the manager night they were told by Gerry or Jackie that the Tenerife trip was funded by the Weirs, If that’s true then that alone contradicts the statement put out by our chairman that funding is only for the Weir Academy 

I would, respectfully, disagree with that.

The statement refers to "ongoing financial support" and if Mr Weir did pay for the Tenerife trip then I personally would not class that as ongoing support.

If I set up a standing order to give you £1,000 each month that would be me providing you with ongoing support. If however I heard you were having a tough time and came along with £10,000 and said spend that on what you want that would be different.

[javeajag]

23 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Someone on here @gerrybritton9 I think stated after meet the manager night they were told by Gerry or Jackie that the Tenerife trip was funded by the Weirs, If that’s true then that alone contradicts the statement put out by our chairman that funding is only for the Weir Academy 

If true but let’s imagine it was correct and he did pay for it and apart from the academy that was all he did ....feel better ?

[KemoAvdiu]

1 hour ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I would, respectfully, disagree with that.

The statement refers to "ongoing financial support" and if Mr Weir did pay for the Tenerife trip then I personally would not class that as ongoing support.

If I set up a standing order to give you £1,000 each month that would be me providing you with ongoing support. If however I heard you were having a tough time and came along with £10,000 and said spend that on what you want that would be different.

Isn’t that the point that’s being made? The use of “ongoing support” excludes the point that Weir may well be writing big cheques whenever required, e.g. for occasions like Tenerife or occasions when our cash flow isn’t very healthy. 

[jlsarmy]

2 hours ago, KemoAvdiu said:

Isn’t that the point that’s being made? The use of “ongoing support” excludes the point that Weir may well be writing big cheques whenever required, e.g. for occasions like Tenerife or occasions when our cash flow isn’t very healthy. 

Can’t see Colin Weir funding us apart from the Academy which I thinks he sees as his legacy as a PTFC supporter , if there were Cash flow problems it’s more likely to be soft loans to get by , maybe till the next parachute payment came in etc.

Caldwell came out at the ‘ Meet the Manager ‘ night and said they had only spent a 1/3 of the budget so there was no need to go cap in hand to Colin Weir to get funds for the ‘ Tenerife trip ‘

Don’t think Colin Weir is so wreckless to just let his money disappear down a black hole , even the Training Ground he’s came out publicly and said it’s an investment, 

If there were any funds given to the Club it would have to be shown in the Accounts, I’d be surprised if that were the case .

[Jordanhill Jag]

11 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I would, respectfully, disagree with that.

The statement refers to "ongoing financial support" and if Mr Weir did pay for the Tenerife trip then I personally would not class that as ongoing support.

If I set up a standing order to give you £1,000 each month that would be me providing you with ongoing support. If however I heard you were having a tough time and came along with £10,000 and said spend that on what you want that would be different.

You are of course correct - however the clear impression given by the statement is that we don't get funding from Mr Weir  - ad hoc funding as you suggest is well funding - we dont know if it could be the Tenerife Trip - Mcdonalds -wages - new pitch - work done at the stadium - but it is funding ? 

[Dark Passenger]

17 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok why make a big play about not being funded by a Sugar Daddy

Because you and a few of your mates are pushing that narrative?

[Dark Passenger]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

ad hoc funding as you suggest is well funding - we dont know if it could be...Mcdonalds wages...

Are you just tossing speculative grenades around now or do you know something the rest of us don't?

[Auld Jag]

I get it that, we do not want to become dependant on somebody always giving us hand outs. But if that person/family who has more money than most of us, wants to help us out, is that really such a bad thing. Should we not just say thanks.? If they are helping us out.

[Norgethistle]

1 hour ago, Auld Jag said:

I get it that, we do not want to become dependant on somebody always giving us hand outs. But if that person/family who has more money than most of us, wants to help us out, is that really such a bad thing. Should we not just say thanks.? If they are helping us out.

This is the crux of the matter, if we get wee bonuses we don’t budget for or rely on that’s fine, (Fund a loan deal etc)  the issue that can come for clubs is when the start to rely on these ad-hoc payments or support. Football is littered with clubs having issues when they have become reliant on an individual to fund and balance the books (Gretna, Morton, Rangers, County, Dumbarton, Sunderland to name a few), and the destruction it causes to clubs when the individual no longer want to or are able to.