PDA

View Full Version : £3m in, £0 out, and the most expensive Board in the league...



new malkyhib
02-08-2009, 10:21 PM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.

bingo70
02-08-2009, 10:25 PM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.

the transfer windows doesn't slam shut till the end of august, the season is still 2 weeks away and Yogi has said there's some money there for him when he finds the right person.

BoltonHibee
02-08-2009, 10:28 PM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.

Do you know what the breakdown of the £400k is?

sleeping giant
02-08-2009, 10:28 PM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.
Alright Malky ?:greengrin

mentalhibee
02-08-2009, 10:40 PM
Poor show from the board we've sold about 15million worth of talent over the last few years and spent next to nothing! Hopefully yogi gets some cash to spend on a few quality players that will make our team a cut above the rest of the mediocre teams in the spl but i cant see it. Yogi's got the passion for hibs but he needs some financial backing if we wont to progress, it seems to me that the board are happy to be a mid-table club and hope that the promising youngsters go on to make them even more money! If we sign a good centre half and striker before the season starts i'll be pretty happy.

bingo70
02-08-2009, 10:46 PM
Poor show from the board we've sold about 15million worth of talent over the last few years and spent next to nothing! Hopefully yogi gets some cash to spend on a few quality players that will make our team a cut above the rest of the mediocre teams in the spl but i cant see it. Yogi's got the passion for hibs but he needs some financial backing if we wont to progress, it seems to me that the board are happy to be a mid-table club and hope that the promising youngsters go on to make them even more money! If we sign a good centre half and striker before the season starts i'll be pretty happy.

We had already spent it building up massive debts which had to be paid back, we've also built a training centre as well as increasing the budget every year on the playing side.

Money has been spent by the board, it's just it's gone on the long term benefit of the club rather than some short term risks on players we couldn't have afforded once the transfer money had run out.

snooky
02-08-2009, 11:19 PM
Given the choice, I'd rather have a rich board than watch decent football every time.

:ostrich::angeldevi::stirrer::offski:

ScottB
02-08-2009, 11:33 PM
Give them a chance. And remember Mixu spent his way through a good million during his time, indeed we probably spent the most of all non Old Firm teams on new players last season.

Hibbyradge
02-08-2009, 11:38 PM
Like it's not been "discussed" before. :rolleyes:

However, where do you think the £3m is going?

IWasThere2016
02-08-2009, 11:47 PM
Like it's not been "discussed" before. :rolleyes:

However, where do you think the £3m is going?

On bottom line .. and therefore also part of the Board's PRP :devil:

jgl07
03-08-2009, 12:58 AM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.
Give it a rest and get back to kickback.

:jamboclow

:ostrich:

Mikey
03-08-2009, 07:00 AM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.

You never got round to answering this question........

http://www.hibs.net/message/showpost.php?p=2093622&postcount=22

Any chance you can do so now?

Woody1985
03-08-2009, 07:04 AM
:yawn:

Hibby 2005
03-08-2009, 08:16 AM
Building and maintaining East Mains, new stands built/being built to make the ground complete, they are the priorities, throwing money at players is not. It's a long-term game Hibs are playing therefore we have to wait patiently to reap the benefits.

Thank-you and good day, RP.

hibees_green
03-08-2009, 08:33 AM
However, where do you think the £3m is going?

It's paying for our lack of success on the park.

scott7_0(Prague)
03-08-2009, 09:02 AM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.

How long you been a Hibby?:confused:

Speedway
03-08-2009, 09:12 AM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.

It's not though, is it?

blackpoolhibs
03-08-2009, 09:15 AM
Do you know what the breakdown of the £400k is?

£300k for Rod, and the rest is in a high interest account for Deeks fines.:wink:

banarc7062
03-08-2009, 12:47 PM
Given the choice, I'd rather have a rich board than watch decent football every time.

:ostrich::angeldevi::stirrer::offski:

Too true. Who wants to watch entertaining football with the occasional win thrown in for good measure. We must have the best Board in the country, envy of all Scottish Football 'Mon the Board:greengrin

smurf
03-08-2009, 01:25 PM
I do think it's a legitimate question to ask on why we do have such an expensive board of directors.

When their remuneration is taken out i wonder how our wage bill compares with other clubs we're supposed to be competing with?

Leith Green
03-08-2009, 01:30 PM
Give it a rest and get back to kickback.

:jamboclow

:ostrich:




Why are you so obssesed with calling people Yams for voicing an opinion different to yours? Grow up and get a grip , thats what football forums are for, to discuss different opinions..:grr:

matty_f
03-08-2009, 01:39 PM
I do think it's a legitimate question to ask on why we do have such an expensive board of directors.

When their remuneration is taken out i wonder how our wage bill compares with other clubs we're supposed to be competing with?

you need to compare their salaries against directors in edinburgh companies, rather than against other clubs because we've recruited from outside football to get the people most likely to be best suited to the jobs. if we didn't say the going rate we wouldn't be able to get them.

RIP
03-08-2009, 01:43 PM
I do think it's a legitimate question to ask on why we do have such an expensive board of directors.

When their remuneration is taken out i wonder how our wage bill compares with other clubs we're supposed to be competing with?

It may also be a legitimate question why we need three accountants; three experts in business financials; belt braces and extra buttons to make the books balance

If our player budget is now being cut from £1.6 million to £1.2 million due to the economic downturn - what sacrifices are being made at board level?

Craig_in_Prague
03-08-2009, 01:46 PM
It may also be a legitimate question why we need three accountants; three experts in business financials; belt braces and extra buttons to make the books balance

If our player budget is now being cut from £1.6 million to £1.2 million due to the economic downturn - what sacrifices are being made at board level?

I can't reveal my source, but I do believe Petrie has cut down with his 'tache grooming, during this global crisis. Give the guy a break FFS :grr:

Whether he had the costs going through the books or paid personally, only 1 of the other 2 accountants could answer that.

smurf
03-08-2009, 02:58 PM
I can't reveal my source, but I do believe Petrie has cut down with his 'tache grooming, during this global crisis. Give the guy a break FFS :grr:

Whether he had the costs going through the books or paid personally, only 1 of the other 2 accountants could answer that.

What do you mean "Give the guy a break FFS"?

Are we now in an era where we just can't as a support ask questions anymore? We'll just all shut up, smile and be happy regardless?

It's not about just having a pop at the board. It's absolutely about wanting to see every single damned available penny we can generate spent on the park.

Because the signs are it's maybe needed.

The facts are that this board is presiding over underachievement year in and year out.:grr:

RIP
03-08-2009, 03:03 PM
I can't reveal my source, but I do believe Petrie has cut down with his 'tache grooming, during this global crisis. Give the guy a break FFS :grr:
Whether he had the costs going through the books or paid personally, only 1 of the other 2 accountants could answer that.


What do you mean "Give the guy a break FFS"?

Are we now in an era where we just can't as a support ask questions anymore? We'll just all shut up, smile and be happy regardless?


Smurf - please read CFP's post again and I think you'll cotton on to the possibility that his tongue was very firmly in his cheek :wink:

hibees_green
03-08-2009, 03:17 PM
..we've recruited from outside football to get the people...

That explains a lot on the playing front:greengrin

smurf
03-08-2009, 03:21 PM
Smurf - please read CFP's post again and I think you'll cotton on to the possibility that his tongue was very firmly in his cheek :wink:

Oops!!

Ozyhibby
03-08-2009, 03:35 PM
If our player budget is now being cut from £1.6 million to £1.2 million due to the economic downturn - what sacrifices are being made at board level?

Where do these figures come from?

From what i remember our turnover is around £8m and our salary ratio around 50% of that, which would put our wage bill at around £4m.

I know we are tight but those figure seem to be totally unrealistic?

jgl07
03-08-2009, 03:42 PM
Where do these figures come from?

From what i remember our turnover is around £8m and our salary ratio around 50% of that, which would put our wage bill at around £4m.

I know we are tight but those figure seem to be totally unrealistic?
They are just plucked out of the air by the D&G brigade and the Jam inflitrators.

Hibs wage bill for 2007-2008 was £4.6 million.

This was around 60% of the £8.1 million turnover.

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/hibs/

Part/Time Supporter
03-08-2009, 03:52 PM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.

Martin Bain and Peter Lawell (Rantic chief executives) earn more than that by themselves.

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/rangers/Directors.htm

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/celtic/Directors.htm

Speedway
03-08-2009, 03:55 PM
It may also be a legitimate question why we need three accountants; three experts in business financials; belt braces and extra buttons to make the books balance

If our player budget is now being cut from £1.6 million to £1.2 million due to the economic downturn - what sacrifices are being made at board level?

IIRC Petrie took a cut a few years back and then froze his own remuneration for a couple of years beyond that. His motivation, of course, is 10% of the whole because there's no doubt he could double his money in the merchant banking world from whence he came.

Petrie is employed by Hibs as an overlord these days. His value is his knowledge and experience in player negotiations and SFA links. Only Lindsay reports to him as I understand it.

Lindsay is the day to day MD. He has at least 7 reports as far as I know and Tim is the company accountant. So whther they are paid too much or too little, they are very differing roles and neither Gardner nor Lindsay could do RP's job.

Looking at the budget. Has anyone realised how little Yogi's got to work with at £1.2m?

This equates to £23,076.93 per week for playing staff. How many players are we currently paying?

Speedway
03-08-2009, 03:56 PM
Where do these figures come from?

From what i remember our turnover is around £8m and our salary ratio around 50% of that, which would put our wage bill at around £4m.

I know we are tight but those figure seem to be totally unrealistic?

You're quoting total company wage bill instead of players wage bill.

basehibby
03-08-2009, 04:09 PM
IIRC Petrie took a cut a few years back and then froze his own remuneration for a couple of years beyond that. His motivation, of course, is 10% of the whole because there's no doubt he could double his money in the merchant banking world from whence he came.

Petrie is employed by Hibs as an overlord these days. His value is his knowledge and experience in player negotiations and SFA links. Only Lindsay reports to him as I understand it.

Lindsay is the day to day MD. He has at least 7 reports as far as I know and Tim is the company accountant. So whther they are paid too much or too little, they are very differing roles and neither Gardner nor Lindsay could do RP's job.

Looking at the budget. Has anyone realised how little Yogi's got to work with at £1.2m?

This equates to £23,076.93 per week for playing staff. How many players are we currently paying?

I believe this figure to be a misrepresentation sourced from some cock-eyed journo who must have failed their CSE arithmetic looking to make a headline splash.

If I understand correctly - the 1.2M will be for player compensation/signing on fees - the wage bill will be around the 4M mark.

I draw my conclusions from the following:
HIBERNIAN
Turnover: £9.85m
Wages: £4.06m
Wages/Turnover Ratio: 41%
Debt:£2.88m
• Source: Price Waterhouse Coopers Annual Review 2008 (Figures from accounts for 2006-07 season)

Since 06/07 the wage bill went up for a couple of seasons and they may now be looking to trim it back a bit - but NOT all the way to 1.2M! Anyone stating this as fact is talking oot their erchie!

sesoim
03-08-2009, 04:16 PM
It may also be a legitimate question why we need three accountants; three experts in business financials; belt braces and extra buttons to make the books balance

If our player budget is now being cut from £1.6 million to £1.2 million due to the economic downturn - what sacrifices are being made at board level?


I can't believe for a minute that out of a likely gross income of £7 or £8 million we can only afford to pay £1.2M in wages to our players. If that was true, the board would have some serious explaining to do when it comes to what the rest of the money is being spent on. It's not like we have a huge mortgaage or giant debt that we have to pay £3 or £4M towards each season (unlike some teams :wink:).

Seriously, if £4M isn't going towards the playing side in the form of wages/bonuses/signing on fees etc then Petrie is neglecting the playing side of this club and conning the fans. I really can't see what why we'd need to spend £6M+ on other things each season when most other SPL sides get by on gross incomes of £3 or £4M, and yet aren't far behind us on the pitch.

Ozyhibby
03-08-2009, 04:17 PM
So out of a wage bill of £4.6m only £1.2m is for playing staff? That leaves £3.4m to pay around about 50 people? Thats an average wage of about £68k.
Not bad work if you can get it. It you wonder if some of the players should apply for a job as a sales assistant in the club store as they appear to be better payed than them.

Dashing Bob S
03-08-2009, 04:49 PM
I can't reveal my source, but I do believe Petrie has cut down with his 'tache grooming, during this global crisis. Give the guy a break FFS :grr:

Whether he had the costs going through the books or paid personally, only 1 of the other 2 accountants could answer that.

To my untrained eye the tache looks as perfectly groomed as ever. What I've heard is that Petrie is now doing it himself three times instead of twice a week, thus cutting back on expensive barber outsourcing.

jabis
03-08-2009, 04:55 PM
I believe this figure to be a misrepresentation sourced from some cock-eyed journo who must have failed their CSE arithmetic looking to make a headline splash.

If I understand correctly - the 1.2M will be for player compensation/signing on fees - the wage bill will be around the 4M mark.

I draw my conclusions from the following:
HIBERNIAN
Turnover: £9.85m
Wages: £4.06m
Wages/Turnover Ratio: 41%
Debt:£2.88m
• Source: Price Waterhouse Coopers Annual Review 2008 (Figures from accounts for 2006-07 season)

Since 06/07 the wage bill went up for a couple of seasons and they may now be looking to trim it back a bit - but NOT all the way to 1.2M! Anyone stating this as fact is talking oot their erchie!

well said that man !

ancient hibee
03-08-2009, 05:00 PM
So out of a wage bill of £4.6m only £1.2m is for playing staff? That leaves £3.4m to pay around about 50 people? Thats an average wage of about £68k.
Not bad work if you can get it. It you wonder if some of the players should apply for a job as a sales assistant in the club store as they appear to be better payed than them.

Yeh it's what is known in accounting terms as a load of tosh.

sesoim
03-08-2009, 05:39 PM
I believe this figure to be a misrepresentation sourced from some cock-eyed journo who must have failed their CSE arithmetic looking to make a headline splash.

If I understand correctly - the 1.2M will be for player compensation/signing on fees - the wage bill will be around the 4M mark.

I draw my conclusions from the following:
HIBERNIAN
Turnover: £9.85m
Wages: £4.06m
Wages/Turnover Ratio: 41%
Debt:£2.88m
• Source: Price Waterhouse Coopers Annual Review 2008 (Figures from accounts for 2006-07 season)

Since 06/07 the wage bill went up for a couple of seasons and they may now be looking to trim it back a bit - but NOT all the way to 1.2M! Anyone stating this as fact is talking oot their erchie!


That makes a lot more sense to me! Otherwise, we either have hundreds of unacccounted for employees earning the rest of the wages, or a few guys earning an absolute fortune.

Woody1985
03-08-2009, 06:30 PM
I believe this figure to be a misrepresentation sourced from some cock-eyed journo who must have failed their CSE arithmetic looking to make a headline splash.

If I understand correctly - the 1.2M will be for player compensation/signing on fees - the wage bill will be around the 4M mark.

I draw my conclusions from the following:
HIBERNIAN
Turnover: £9.85m
Wages: £4.06m
Wages/Turnover Ratio: 41%
Debt:£2.88m
• Source: Price Waterhouse Coopers Annual Review 2008 (Figures from accounts for 2006-07 season)

Since 06/07 the wage bill went up for a couple of seasons and they may now be looking to trim it back a bit - but NOT all the way to 1.2M! Anyone stating this as fact is talking oot their erchie!

How dare you use audited accounts by a respected company like PWC to back up your point. Tut tut.

Vini1875
03-08-2009, 06:32 PM
The money we have managed to pull in for Fletcher and Jones will be split between the new stand and the shortfall in income from last season, which makes pefect sense to me.

We do need to strengthen our squad but we have to off load some of the dead wood first. I think Yogi is in the process of that. Don't forget that TV money is also going to be reduced for the coming season.

I don't see the rest of the SPL teams going out and buying lots of new players. I think there will be some juggling to be done before the end of the transfer window, but first I expect more players to be leaving.

I'm also fed up with the constant reference to the money we have pulled in over the last few years. It has been spent and we have to cut our cloth accordingly at the moment. However if in the next couple of seasons we build and pay for a new east stand and rake in millions then we will have grounds to complain.

WindyMiller
03-08-2009, 07:06 PM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.


:I'm waiti

smurf
03-08-2009, 07:49 PM
Don't forget that TV money is also going to be reduced for the coming season.

No it's not. It's as it was.:wink:

ancient hibee
03-08-2009, 08:54 PM
No it's not. It's as it was.:wink:

Correct.

BEEJ
03-08-2009, 08:58 PM
We do need to strengthen our squad but we have to off load some of the dead wood first. I think Yogi is in the process of that.
Vini, I asked this question of another poster yesterday; of the players remaining after the weekend departures of Cropley and Campbell (and the knowledge now that Keenan will be away by the end of the window) who in your opinion is expendable?


Don't forget that TV money is also going to be reduced for the coming season.
No, this is becoming a common fallacy. The TV money will be roughly the same during this season as last. It will, however, be a lot less than was expected from Setanta under what was to be their new contract.

degenerated
03-08-2009, 08:58 PM
You never got round to answering this question........

http://www.hibs.net/message/showpost.php?p=2093622&postcount=22

Any chance you can do so now?

:tumble:

don't be holding your breath on that one.

RIP
04-08-2009, 07:36 AM
If I understand correctly - the 1.2M will be for player compensation/signing on fees - the wage bill will be around the 4M mark.

No - our total wage bill for all staff including players will be in the £3 - 3.5 million mark of which £1.2 million will be playing staff


I draw my conclusions from the following:HIBERNIAN Turnover: £9.85m Wages: £4.06m Wages/Turnover Ratio: 41% Source: Price PWC Annual Review Figures from 2006-07 season) Since 06/07 the wage bill went up for a couple of seasons and they may now be looking to trim it back a bit - but NOT all the way to 1.2M! Anyone stating this as fact is talking oot their erchie!

Our turnover has dropped substantially since then. Our total wage bill for this season will be no higher than £3.5 million based on a 25% drop in ST sales since 06/07 and lower medium-term projections for TV income. This is my guess on how it is split - gross salaries including employer NI, pension & benefits

Executives / Directors £650K
Coaching, medical, technical, maintenance, ground staff £500K
Business Managers, Marketing, PR, Key operations staff £400K
Commercial, Retail, Hospitality, Catering, Ticketing £350K
Back office, accounting, administration, reception £300K
Additional matchday personnel £100K
Sub-Total £2.3m
Playing staff £1.2m
Grand Total £3.5m

Conjecture I know but start counting staff you know or have seen and it's amazing how it quickly adds up

Phil D. Rolls
04-08-2009, 07:53 AM
Usual knee jerk reaction to a disappointing result. I think the answer to the OP's question has been discussed time and time again. The club seems to be about keeping itself financially stable, whilst maintaining medium to long term growth.

If we hadn't built the training ground, didn't have genuine plans for a new stand, and the balance sheet looked dodgy, I could see how people would be concerned. The problem is that the board's priorities are different from some fans who turn up and immediately spit the dummy when things don't go their way.

I would love to see a winning team, and I have to say that we are two or three players off that. I'll be very disappointed if we can't get someone in before the window closes.

However, pitiful whinges about a board that seems to be doing pretty well in maintaing the club and building for the future, are an indication that people can't step back and take an objective view of the situation.

Craig_in_Prague
04-08-2009, 08:01 AM
Oops!!

Apology accepted :greengrin

Caversham Green
04-08-2009, 09:40 AM
No - our total wage bill for all staff including players will be in the £3 - 3.5 million mark of which £1.2 million will be playing staff



Our turnover has dropped substantially since then. Our total wage bill for this season will be no higher than £3.5 million based on a 25% drop in ST sales since 06/07 and lower medium-term projections for TV income. This is my guess on how it is split - gross salaries including employer NI, pension & benefits

Executives / Directors £650K
Coaching, medical, technical, maintenance, ground staff £500K
Business Managers, Marketing, PR, Key operations staff £400K
Commercial, Retail, Hospitality, Catering, Ticketing £350K
Back office, accounting, administration, reception £300K
Additional matchday personnel £100K
Sub-Total £2.3m
Playing staff £1.2m
Grand Total £3.5m

Conjecture I know but start counting staff you know or have seen and it's amazing how it quickly adds up

I would suggest there is a fair amount of double counting in the highlighted areas. The additional matchday personnel cost of around £5,000 per match also seems rather high given that stewarding is outsourced.

Your assumption seems to be that all the savings (£1.1m since 2008) will come from playing staff cuts, but I can't see how we would have managed to nearly halve our playing budget in the last season.

According to the accounts the club employed 37 commercial and admin staff and 74 playing and management staff. If you move the £500k you've allocated to coaching, medical etc to the playing side, the average annual salary of admin etc is just under £50k - that include secretaries, cleaners, the girls in the ticket office etc - while the average annual salary of players, coaches etc is less than £23k (£440 per week).

Do you have any factual basis for the figures?

brog
04-08-2009, 09:51 AM
[QUOTE=Filled Rolls;2118304]Usual knee jerk reaction to a disappointing result. I think the answer to the OP's question has been discussed time and time again. The club seems to be about keeping itself financially stable, whilst maintaining medium to long term growth.

If we hadn't built the training ground, didn't have genuine plans for a new stand, and the balance sheet looked dodgy, I could see how people would be concerned. The problem is that the board's priorities are different from some fans who turn up and immediately spit the dummy when things don't go their way.

I would love to see a winning team, and I have to say that we are two or three players off that. I'll be very disappointed if we can't get someone in before the window closes.

However, pitiful whinges about a board that seems to be doing pretty well in maintaing the club and building for the future, are an indication that people can't step back and take an objective view of the situation.

I largely agree but it's frustrating to see a club like Hamilton at least trying to reinvest their transfer income on signing new players while our track record over the years is pitiful. No club in Scotland has received more in transfer fees than Hibs over the last few years & by my reckoning no club has reinvested less in the playing staff. ( Cue the usual posters talking about AOB etc.) I also recognise the stadium improvements & of course the Training facilities are a big plus but every time a poster here suggests we should spend some money on players, even only 25% of transfer fees received, it seems we're into the Yam's Titanic scenario. The fact is 1,000 extra season tickets sold = approx £250k extra income. Sometimes we need to buy the player first to get the fans to buy the tickets!
Show faith Rob, trust Yogi!

Caversham Green
04-08-2009, 10:15 AM
[QUOTE=Filled Rolls;2118304]Usual knee jerk reaction to a disappointing result. I think the answer to the OP's question has been discussed time and time again. The club seems to be about keeping itself financially stable, whilst maintaining medium to long term growth.

If we hadn't built the training ground, didn't have genuine plans for a new stand, and the balance sheet looked dodgy, I could see how people would be concerned. The problem is that the board's priorities are different from some fans who turn up and immediately spit the dummy when things don't go their way.

I would love to see a winning team, and I have to say that we are two or three players off that. I'll be very disappointed if we can't get someone in before the window closes.

However, pitiful whinges about a board that seems to be doing pretty well in maintaing the club and building for the future, are an indication that people can't step back and take an objective view of the situation.

I largely agree but it's frustrating to see a club like Hamilton at least trying to reinvest their transfer income on signing new players while our track record over the years is pitiful. No club in Scotland has received more in transfer fees than Hibs over the last few years & by my reckoning no club has reinvested less in the playing staff. ( Cue the usual posters talking about AOB etc.) I also recognise the stadium improvements & of course the Training facilities are a big plus but every time a poster here suggests we should spend some money on players, even only 25% of transfer fees received, it seems we're into the Yam's Titanic scenario. The fact is 1,000 extra season tickets sold = approx £250k extra income. Sometimes we need to buy the player first to get the fans to buy the tickets!
Show faith Rob, trust Yogi!

AOB is precisely the point though. Aside from the OF and Hearts, Hibs spent more in transfer fees than any other Scottish club in the 2007 and 2008 seasons (and probably last season as well, but those figures aren't available yet). The problem is that they didn't spend it wisely and that is presumably down to management and scouting.

Yogi had a good record at Falkirk in this respect and I hope the board will back him now and in January at least to the same extent that they backed JC and Mixu.

Phil D. Rolls
04-08-2009, 10:26 AM
[QUOTE=Filled Rolls;2118304]Usual knee jerk reaction to a disappointing result. I think the answer to the OP's question has been discussed time and time again. The club seems to be about keeping itself financially stable, whilst maintaining medium to long term growth.

If we hadn't built the training ground, didn't have genuine plans for a new stand, and the balance sheet looked dodgy, I could see how people would be concerned. The problem is that the board's priorities are different from some fans who turn up and immediately spit the dummy when things don't go their way.

I would love to see a winning team, and I have to say that we are two or three players off that. I'll be very disappointed if we can't get someone in before the window closes.

However, pitiful whinges about a board that seems to be doing pretty well in maintaing the club and building for the future, are an indication that people can't step back and take an objective view of the situation.

I largely agree but it's frustrating to see a club like Hamilton at least trying to reinvest their transfer income on signing new players while our track record over the years is pitiful. No club in Scotland has received more in transfer fees than Hibs over the last few years & by my reckoning no club has reinvested less in the playing staff. ( Cue the usual posters talking about AOB etc.) I also recognise the stadium improvements & of course the Training facilities are a big plus but every time a poster here suggests we should spend some money on players, even only 25% of transfer fees received, it seems we're into the Yam's Titanic scenario. The fact is 1,000 extra season tickets sold = approx £250k extra income. Sometimes we need to buy the player first to get the fans to buy the tickets!
Show faith Rob, trust Yogi!

It was frustrating to see Livingston spending money, it was frustrating to see the Pars spending money, Dundee were ambitious and spent money, Gretna paid wages they couldn't afford - where are they all now?

Hamilton have a choice - use the money to finish off their joke stadium, and probably get relegated, or strengthen the sqaud so that the joke stadium features in the SPL for another season or two.

We don't have to worry about relegation, and given that we could double our expenditure and not finish any higher, we might as well do something about the infrastructure.

I'd have more time for those who want to splash the cash, if it guaranteed an improvement in league position and winning cups, but it doesn't. There is one team I can think off sitting on £30 million debt, at great risk of insolvency, probably going to lose their stadium, and what do they have to show for it?

Answers on the back of a Malone's pie to:

Ocean Finance
Gorgie Business Park
MacLeod Street
EDINBURGH

RIP
04-08-2009, 10:37 AM
I would suggest there is a fair amount of double counting in the highlighted areas.

According to the accounts the club employed 37 commercial and admin staff and 74 playing and management staff. If you move the £500k you've allocated to coaching, medical etc to the playing side, the average annual salary of admin etc is just under £50k - that include secretaries, cleaners, the girls in the ticket office etc - while the average annual salary of players, coaches etc is less than £23k (£440 per week).

Do you have any factual basis for the figures?

As I said absolutely conjecture - i.e. no factual basis.

I based it entirely on the staff I had seen working at ER and assumptions about admin required to support our core functions. Non-exec management roles include Amanda Vettesse, Anna Devine, John Nicol, Stu Crowther, Elaine Morrison, Elaine Morrison, Richard Alexander, Judith Ireland, James Pryde, David Forsyth, Graeme Paterson, Sue McLernon. There's a few salaries in there in the £30-50K bracket - add a third for employer contributions to their packages.

Then there are sales, project staff, secretaries, reception, admin staff, ticket office personnel,

I forgot to factor in the fact that Catering, Stewarding and ground maintenance are outsourced. Does this mean these wages are reported separately in the accounts?

Of the current playing staff I'd guess that we had
6 players earning £1000 per week or more - Murray, Riordan, Hogg, Zemmama, Makalambay and JJ
7 players earning £500 - £800 per week - Van Zanten, Stevenson, Rankin, Nish, Bamba, Cregg, McBride
8 others in the first-team squad earning £400 pw

26 U19/U17's on trainee wages combined studies at Jewel and Esk. They may be getting student grants with the U19's paid additionally

Add head coach on £2kpw, assistant on £650pw and 3 others around £350pw that gives a total playing/coaching wage bill of £23K per week or £1.2million per year

smurf
04-08-2009, 10:39 AM
I'd have more time for those who want to splash the cash

I've honestly yet to meet any Hibby who wants us to "..splash the cash". Have you out of interest?

Most Hibby's i know are fully aware thank you very much that we're hardly a cash rich club in a position to "..splash the cash".

However, quite a few are bemused by a board who insist that our finances are "Rock solid" and we've "No need to sell" yet continue a policy of absolutely no reinvestment of even a reasonable proportion of the funds raised.

Yet at the same time as we sell, sell and sell (not really a bad thing as the players want to go and we're getting cash compensation) we become a poorer, poorer and poorer team on the park.

Phil D. Rolls
04-08-2009, 10:47 AM
I've honestly yet to meet any Hibby who wants us to "..splash the cash". Have you out of interest?

Most Hibby's i know are fully aware thank you very much that we're hardly a cash rich club in a position to "..splash the cash".

However, quite a few are bemused by a board who insist that our finances are "Rock solid" and we've "No need to sell" yet continue a policy of absolutely no reinvestment of even a reasonable proportion of the funds raised.

Yet at the same time as we sell, sell and sell (not really a bad thing as the players want to go and we're getting cash compensation) we become a poorer, poorer and poorer team on the park.

So what exactly is it you want? You've already admitted that we have to sell players or lose out on fees. You are saying we don't have a lot of money to spend on new players (I feel we have money, but not enough to improve the quality of the squad greatly).

So why not soldier on, and make the most of what we have on the field, and finish off the stadium?

smurf
04-08-2009, 11:06 AM
So what exactly is it you want? You've already admitted that we have to sell players or lose out on fees. You are saying we don't have a lot of money to spend on new players (I feel we have money, but not enough to improve the quality of the squad greatly).

So why not soldier on, and make the most of what we have on the field, and finish off the stadium?

You actually don't really need to go from one extreme to the next you know.:wink:

Folk like me just want to see a bit more ambition from the board. A willingness to back the manager (Their appointment) in order for him to improve the team (How are the board expecting their appointment to improve us when he's got a weaker squad at his disposal than his predecessor?).

Lets look at the Goalkeeping situation... Yogi identified it from day one as his top priority. Then we are heavily linked with Mark Brown of Celtic (Now lets all put to one side our opinions on his capabilities). Then it appears that he is off our radar because Celtic want a fee...

Now if this is true it is totally unacceptable in my humble opinion.

It is obvious to all that we are short of players good enough for us to seriously expect a challenge for 3rd spot. And that is just not good enough.

Our European qualification record under the custodianship of Sir Tom and his Boards is shameful for a club with our historic European records.

We've been in decline since season 2004-2005 and it's not good enough.

Oh and we've still not actually signed a goalkeeper.....:cool2:

brog
04-08-2009, 11:18 AM
[QUOTE=brog;2118371]

It was frustrating to see Livingston spending money, it was frustrating to see the Pars spending money, Dundee were ambitious and spent money, Gretna paid wages they couldn't afford - where are they all now?

Hamilton have a choice - use the money to finish off their joke stadium, and probably get relegated, or strengthen the sqaud so that the joke stadium features in the SPL for another season or two.

We don't have to worry about relegation, and given that we could double our expenditure and not finish any higher, we might as well do something about the infrastructure.

I'd have more time for those who want to splash the cash, if it guaranteed an improvement in league position and winning cups, but it doesn't. There is one team I can think off sitting on £30 million debt, at great risk of insolvency, probably going to lose their stadium, and what do they have to show for it?

Answers on the back of a Malone's pie to:

Ocean Finance
Gorgie Business Park
MacLeod Street
EDINBURGH

You see, you did exactly as I forecast & quoted the Yams Titanic scenario in response to a reasonable suggestion we spend 25% of our transfer income on buying new players. All over the world clubs are spending that amount & more & yet maintaining a succesful business model. Why can't we? The fact that our neighbours are out of control ( & hopefully soon out of business ) does not mean we need to compare ourselves to them every time a suggestion is made to spend within our means.
I'm a great fan of your posts but perhaps our slavish acceptance of RP's business acumen is not all that different from the Yams blind faith in Romanov, the faith you brilliantly & regularly mock on this board.

Phil D. Rolls
04-08-2009, 11:20 AM
You actually don't really need to go from one extreme to the next you know.:wink:

Folk like me just want to see a bit more ambition from the board. A willingness to back the manager (Their appointment) in order for him to improve the team (How are the board expecting their appointment to improve us when he's got a weaker squad at his disposal than his predecessor?).

Lets look at the Goalkeeping situation... Yogi identified it from day one as his top priority. Then we are heavily linked with Mark Brown of Celtic (Now lets all put to one side our opinions on his capabilities). Then it appears that he is off our radar because Celtic want a fee...

Now if this is true it is totally unacceptable in my humble opinion.

It is obvious to all that we are short of players good enough for us to seriously expect a challenge for 3rd spot. And that is just not good enough.

Our European qualification record under the custodianship of Sir Tom and his Boards is shameful for a club with our historic European records.

We've been in decline since season 2004-2005 and it's not good enough.

Oh and we've still not actually signed a goalkeeper.....:cool2:

Leave Farmer out of it. Our European qualification since 1978 has been woeful, so that points the finger at Tom Hart; Kenny Waugh and The Mafiosi Brothers as well.

To say we've been in decline since 2004-2005 is a bit stupid IMO. We won the League Cup, playing exciting football to boot in 2007. We have been in the top six constantly for at least five years.

I think last season was a disappointment, we should have done better with the squad we had, however the board recognised that and changed the management.

We lost two good players from that squad, and without them we are weaker. I think it's a bit early for panic stations but - like others - I will be very disappointed if we don't bring in some decent pros before the window closes.

Caversham Green
04-08-2009, 11:22 AM
As I said absolutely conjecture - i.e. no factual basis.

I based it entirely on the staff I had seen working at ER and assumptions about admin required to support our core functions. Non-exec management roles include Amanda Vettesse, Anna Devine, John Nicol, Stu Crowther, Elaine Morrison, Elaine Morrison, Richard Alexander, Judith Ireland, James Pryde, David Forsyth, Graeme Paterson, Sue McLernon. There's a few salaries in there in the £30-50K bracket - add a third for employer contributions to their packages. The top rate of employer's NI is 12.8%, or just over an eighth, not a third.

Then there are sales, project staff, secretaries, reception, admin staff, ticket office personnel, Mostly pretty low paid I would guess

I forgot to factor in the fact that Catering, Stewarding and ground maintenance are outsourced. Does this mean these wages are reported separately in the accounts? They won't be included in staff costs at all - they're overheads or other costs

Of the current playing staff I'd guess that we had
6 players earning £1000 per week or more - Murray, Riordan, Hogg, Zemmama, Makalambay and JJ
7 players earning £500 - £800 per week - Van Zanten, Stevenson, Rankin, Nish, Bamba, Cregg, McBride
8 others in the first-team squad earning £400 pw That's 21 players - isn't our first team squad 28?

26 U19/U17's on trainee wages combined studies at Jewel and Esk. They may be getting student grants with the U19's paid additionally Their wages and costs will still be included in staff costs

Add head coach on £2kpw, assistant on £650pw and 3 others around £350pw that gives a total playing/coaching wage bill of £23K per week or £1.2million per year You've accounted for 52 of the 74 reported staff - what about the other 22? You've also forgotten to add on the employer's NI here.

I know the £1.2m was reported in the press around the time of Mixu's departure, but I can't see that it was what it was claimed to be.

The starting point of £3.5m is your own estimate based on an out of date wages/turnover ratio, your figures don't allow for signing on fees, bonuses etc. and I still don't see where the £1.1m saving will come from if the wages of the players we've "lost" were at the same level as your estimates.

I'm afraid I'd need some harder evidence before I'm convinced that our playing budget (as I would recognise the term) is £1.2m.

Phil D. Rolls
04-08-2009, 11:24 AM
[QUOTE=Filled Rolls;2118442]

You see, you did exactly as I forecast & quoted the Yams Titanic scenario in response to a reasonable suggestion we spend 25% of our transfer income on buying new players. All over the world clubs are spending that amount & more & yet maintaining a succesful business model. Why can't we? The fact that our neighbours are out of control ( & hopefully soon out of business ) does not mean we need to compare ourselves to them every time a suggestion is made to spend within our means.
I'm a great fan of your posts but perhaps our slavish acceptance of RP's business acumen is not all that different from the Yams blind faith in Romanov, the faith you brilliantly & regularly mock on this board.

Yeah, pay no attention to the stuff about Hamilton, Dundee, Livi and Gretna. They were just put there to build up my Yambusting punchline.

I admit, and it sometimes worries me, that supporting Petrie is similar to their blind faith. There has been no real statement from Hibs as to what their intentions are. I hope that we are going laying foundations for the future (and given the way that football is changing that's a wise thing), but I don't know.

All I can say is that they seem to know what they are doing with money, and seem to improve the lot of the club (if not in terms of results) year in year out.

jgl07
04-08-2009, 11:26 AM
As I said absolutely conjecture - i.e. no factual basis.

So you made the whole thing based on assumptions off the top of your head. This was allbased on accounts from two years back based on the reality of three years ago.

No further questions m'lud!

Craig_in_Prague
04-08-2009, 11:34 AM
[QUOTE=brog;2118542]

Yeah, pay no attention to the stuff about Hamilton, Dundee, Livi and Gretna. They were just put there to build up my Yambusting punchline.

I admit, and it sometimes worries me, that supporting Petrie is similar to their blind faith. There has been no real statement from Hibs as to what their intentions are. I hope that we are going laying foundations for the future (and given the way that football is changing that's a wise thing), but I don't know.

All I can say is that they seem to know what they are doing with money, and seem to improve the lot of the club (if not in terms of results) year in year out.

For all the stick the board get, for me the last 10 years has been much much better than than the previous 10 years, thus taking me exactly back to a 9 year old laddie,
we have seen some horrendous football during the last few years but IMHO also some really excellent football (for which it seems the fans expect now all the time).........Some outstanding youth players that have broke through and went on to better things......... One trophy (and a wonderful performance)... & some good other cup runs......... consistent (or safe) league positions (not enough 3rd / 4th finishes that we all desire, but still.. ) ..... 1 stand away from a very very nice footy stadium............ a fantastic training centre (which is a requirement in modern football)....... some gubbings given to the Old Firm........ decent league record v. Hearts............ etc etc

There are plenty positive things to take from the club, yet some still keep saying 'spend more on the team' .... throwing money at a few players won't guarentee anything & if Yogi can find a quality player on terms Hibs can cope with, then he'll land him / them. (a reality check on the market we operate in wouldn't go a miss, and what 'quality' fans expect for 1000 - 3000 quid a week).....

The board have dragged the club into the 21st century, kept us in safe finanical footing & we've had somewhat decent footy to watch too.

Not all bad IMO :cool2:

Andy74
04-08-2009, 11:38 AM
I've honestly yet to meet any Hibby who wants us to "..splash the cash". Have you out of interest?

Most Hibby's i know are fully aware thank you very much that we're hardly a cash rich club in a position to "..splash the cash".

However, quite a few are bemused by a board who insist that our finances are "Rock solid" and we've "No need to sell" yet continue a policy of absolutely no reinvestment of even a reasonable proportion of the funds raised.

Yet at the same time as we sell, sell and sell (not really a bad thing as the players want to go and we're getting cash compensation) we become a poorer, poorer and poorer team on the park.


That'd be fine iof that were true though eh, but it's not.

We've spent more on transfer fees and signing players than any other club outside the OF and more than Hearts over the last couple of years.

Do the likes of Jones, Maka, AOB, Nish, Rankin and Riordan that we paid decent sums for not really count for some reason???

RIP
04-08-2009, 12:18 PM
I know the £1.2m was reported in the press around the time of Mixu's departure, but I can't see that it was what it was claimed to be. I'm afraid I'd need some harder evidence before I'm convinced that our playing budget (as I would recognise the term) is £1.2m.

Caversham - I agree that £1.2million for 74 playing and coaching staff seems insufficient. However will there not be a large number of fixed staff wages (Youths, Coaches, Technical Support and Medical) that are not subject to major change year on year. I would suspect they do not fall part of the manager's budget - not part of what he has the authority to change.

Is it possible that Mixu was given a wages budget last year of £1.6million for the first team squad and was told it would have to be cut to £1.2million for the year ahead?

£1.2 million a year equates to an average of £800 quid a week for the first team squad of 28. With half of that squad under 21 it's safe to say most will only be earning a max of £500 quid a week. Add half a dozen players over a £1000 per week and the rest around the average and I'd say the figures stack up.

The SOS article by Moira Gordon quoted an inside source........
"Prior to the Finn taking control, the player budget was in the region of £2.6m, this year it had been slashed by £1m and next season there will be a further tightening of the purse-strings, taking the tally to nearer £1.2m."

£2.6million would equate to an average wage of £1600 per week for players like Makalambay, Brown, Whittaker, Jones, Hogg, Sproule, Beuzy, Thomson, S Brown, Fletcher, Zemmama, Benji, Stewart, Murphy, Sheils, Martis, O'Brien

Rod moved on all our highest earners and we have replaced them with players of lower quality who are happy to earn more than they did at Killie, ICT or Falkirk

brog
04-08-2009, 12:22 PM
That'd be fine iof that were true though eh, but it's not.

We've spent more on transfer fees and signing players than any other club outside the OF and more than Hearts over the last couple of years.

Do the likes of Jones, Maka, AOB, Nish, Rankin and Riordan that we paid decent sums for not really count for some reason???


I've seen you say this now on numerous occasions without any evidence to support your statement. Off the top of my head I can think of Dundee Utd signing Daly, Sandaza, Robertson, Swanson, Conway, Gomis, Grainger, Dixon & Kovacevic in the same period as above plus the likes of Webster & Feeney on loan. Do you know how much they all cost?
The things I'm sure you & all other Hibs Net posters would agree is we've brought in millions more in transfer fees than DU in same period, we have a much larger fan base & consequently we also bring in considerably more in gate revenue. Oh, & DU finished above us last season.
Surely its not too much of a stretch to have aspirations to be better than Dundee United?

BEEJ
04-08-2009, 12:25 PM
Caversham - I agree that £1.2million for 74 playing and coaching staff seems insufficient. However will there not be a large number of fixed staff wages (Youths, Coaches, Technical Support and Medical) that are not subject to major change year on year. I would suspect they do not fall part of the manager's budget - not part of what he has the authority to change.

Is it possible that Mixu was given a wages budget last year of £1.6million for the first team squad and was told it would have to be cut to £1.2million for the year ahead?

£1.2 million a year equates to an average of £800 quid a week for the first team squad of 28. With half of that squad under 21 it's safe to say most will only be earning a max of £500 quid a week. Add half a dozen players over a £1000 per week and the rest around the average and I'd say the figures stack up.

The SOS article by Moira Gordon quoted an inside source........
"Prior to the Finn taking control, the player budget was in the region of £2.6m, this year it had been slashed by £1m and next season there will be a further tightening of the purse-strings, taking the tally to nearer £1.2m."

£2.6million would equate to an average wage of £1600 per week for players like Makalambay, Brown, Whittaker, Jones, Hogg, Sproule, Beuzy, Thomson, S Brown, Fletcher, Zemmama, Benji, Stewart, Murphy, Sheils, Martis, O'Brien

Rod moved on all our highest earners and we have replaced them with players of lower quality who are happy to earn more than they did at Killie, ICT or Falkirk
FWIW, I can't see the £1.2m figure being viable either. For one thing none of the analysis so far in this thread has factored in win bonuses.

More likely that Mixu was advised by RP in late May that based on season ticket sales up to that point the player budget for 09/10 would be just £1.2m - remember the golden rule, ticket sales (season and walk-up) pay for the players' salary budget.

The subsequent appointment of Hughes improved the season ticket position considerably and so that £1.2m figure no longer applies.

Speedway
04-08-2009, 12:32 PM
[QUOTE=brog;2118542]

Yeah, pay no attention to the stuff about Hamilton, Dundee, Livi and Gretna. They were just put there to build up my Yambusting punchline.

I admit, and it sometimes worries me, that supporting Petrie is similar to their blind faith. There has been no real statement from Hibs as to what their intentions are. I hope that we are going laying foundations for the future (and given the way that football is changing that's a wise thing), but I don't know.

All I can say is that they seem to know what they are doing with money, and seem to improve the lot of the club (if not in terms of results) year in year out.

Apart from this one?
http://www.hibs.co.uk/news/more.php?id=2580_0_1_0_C

The following is a statement from the Board of Hibernian Football Club.

The Board’s vision for Hibernian can be defined in three words – successful, exciting and sustainable.


Successful - because the Board is determined to see Hibernian compete each year at the upper echelon of Scottish football, achieve European football on a regular basis, and remain secure for future generations with a first-class infrastructure.

Exciting - because we want to play an entertaining brand of football and thereby provide a return for every supporter who invests in a ticket for the match or a season ticket.

Sustainable - because we must always remember that the long-term stability of the club is paramount. The Board would be negligent if it tried to pursue short-term success at the expense of long-term stability. Our job is to develop the Club in a way that ensures it will be here for generations to come.

So that’s our vision – successful, exciting and sustainable football. To deliver that vision, the Board has to balance many factors. A number of key aims are contained within the Board’s strategy, these include:

* developing a first-class training centre to support the development of our talented footballers
* completing Easter Road as a top quality, modern stadium that provides the Club’s supporters with the best possible facilities
* and, of course, providing the Manager with the support he needs to build and develop his squad. This is done in an incremental and sustainable way, adding to costs when increased levels of revenue are achieved or foreseen

Football Infrastructure

In the past few weeks Hibernian has celebrated the opening of a £4.9m state-of-the-art training centre – representing the biggest single investment in the development of the football team the Club has ever made.

The provision of a training centre was identified as the top priority facing the Board by successive managers who saw the creation of a high quality training centre as the best investment the Board could make for the development of the team. That has been delivered, and the Club now owns a facility that rivals the best available anywhere for the development of players.

Stadium Development

The Club continues to work towards completing Easter Road Stadium as a top class football venue through building a new East Stand. The existing planning consent is valid until 2010 and discussions are taking place with a number of contractors. Three new stands have been built in the last twelve years and completing the fourth stand would confirm Easter Road’s status as the finest football arena in the country outside of Glasgow. No other Club outwith the Old Firm enjoys ownership of a quality stadium and a first class training centre.

Squad Development

The Club has a track record of working with the Manager to help him achieve the squad of players he wants. In the year ended 31 July 2007, the Club spent almost £1 million either bringing new players to the Club or following the Manager’s recommendations in securing players already at the Club. The ability of the Club to commit this sum reflects the improving finances and the priority given by the Board. All the key signing targets identified to the Board were secured in the summer transfer window.

The Board has now appointed Mixu Paatelainen as Manager - a bright, enthusiastic young man with good man management skills. He also happens to be a former Hibernian hero, to the delight of both the Board and the Club’s supporters.

In supporting Mixu Paatelainen, two more players have been signed so far in the January transfer window – John Rankin from Inverness Caledonian Thistle for a six figure fee, and former captain Ian Murray from Norwich City. The Board continues to seek to support the Manager in his efforts to shape the squad.

Everyone is aware that David Murphy has left for the English Premiership – one of the very few players to move from a Scottish club to England’s top flight in recent years – for a substantial fee. David was signed for no fee by former manager Tony Mowbray in 2004 and developed into an exceptional player for the Club. David had made plain his desire to return to England for personal and professional reasons. Other players have gone on loan to get first team football and Torben Joneleit is returning to AC Monaco.

The Manager has a budget and it is for the Manager to decide how that should be spent. We operate in a structured and well-managed way but we also understand the need for flexiblity. Headroom in the budget is available to the new Manager and he has funds available to help bring players to the Club if that is what he wants to do.

JJ, Monk and Rosa were then added.

Trading at a loss by overspending on player costs in an attempt to buy short-term success is unsustainable and is a strategy which has been discredited.

Yet it appears that this is precisely what has happened.

Summary

The Board continues to believe that the Club is leading the way within Scottish football and that Hibernian is highly competitive in both sporting and financial terms.

It is now more than five years since the financial meltdown in Scottish football in 2002. During that time the Club has finished in the top half of the SPL for the last three seasons; has been to the semi finals of the Scottish Cup on three occasions; has played in two League Cup finals – winning the Cup in 2007- and has taken part in European competitions on three occasions: twice in the UEFA Intertoto Cup and once in the UEFA Cup.

Throughout that period, players have come and players have gone. Successive managers have brought through young players from the Club’s youth academy as well as bringing new players to the Club to shape their squad at the start of each season. Each of these talented and exciting teams was built within the framework of the Board’s vision.

Whilst the personnel at the Club are transient, the one constant is the extended Hibernian family, including those supporters who attend every match and those who attend less often. The players, management and everyone at the Club is grateful for the backing given to the team. The Board believes that the Hibernian family understands the need to ensure our Club is run in a way that the team’s efforts can be enjoyed not just by today’s supporters but by supporters in generations to come.

hibhib7
04-08-2009, 12:33 PM
I've honestly yet to meet any Hibby who wants us to "..splash the cash". Have you out of interest?

Most Hibby's i know are fully aware thank you very much that we're hardly a cash rich club in a position to "..splash the cash".

However, quite a few are bemused by a board who insist that our finances are "Rock solid" and we've "No need to sell" yet continue a policy of absolutely no reinvestment of even a reasonable proportion of the funds raised.

Yet at the same time as we sell, sell and sell (not really a bad thing as the players want to go and we're getting cash compensation) we become a poorer, poorer and poorer team on the park.Correct, and the crowds will inevitably decrease from now on if continue to pursue PPP (Petrie's Parsimonius Policy). We're screaming out for a centre-half and a right-back and if we don't get them the defence will be a shambles all season.

Andy74
04-08-2009, 12:38 PM
I've seen you say this now on numerous occasions without any evidence to support your statement. Off the top of my head I can think of Dundee Utd signing Daly, Sandaza, Robertson, Swanson, Conway, Gomis, Grainger, Dixon & Kovacevic in the same period as above plus the likes of Webster & Feeney on loan. Do you know how much they all cost?
The things I'm sure you & all other Hibs Net posters would agree is we've brought in millions more in transfer fees than DU in same period, we have a much larger fan base & consequently we also bring in considerably more in gate revenue. Oh, & DU finished above us last season.
Surely its not too much of a stretch to have aspirations to be better than Dundee United?

I don't know how much they all cost at Dundee Utd. If you want to prove your point, you'd better find out eh?

In recent years I can think of:

(estimates)

Jones - 250k
Maka - 200k
O'Brien - 200k
Nish - 150k
Rankin - 100k
Riordan - 400k
Bamba - 50k

Totalling about 1.35m

With a settled management team and paying probabaly more than they can afford yes, they did finish a place above us last season. They also have an awful stadium and no training facilities that I know of.

And yes, we should very much be looking to be better than Dundee Utd.

What are you saying though, we need to pay more than we have because the fugures show pretty clearly we made an operating loss last year and will probably report another one this year.

We gave the last manager the opportunity to significantly overstep the budget he was given and of course we are still in debt, paying back for times when we previously paid more than we had.

Yes, we've taken in more fees than most, we've done that by firstly producing good players but also by being in a strong position to ask for that money. Dundee Utd have lost players for peanuts.

We had significantly more debt than most other teams, we've nearly finsihed a top qulaity stadium which others haven't done and we have a top calss training facilty which we own.

You can see where the fees have gone, all inot the club for its long term benefit.

When we can pay cash out we will, but it will be done with all the information at hand, not by saying that we will stick such and such a percentage of cash in on transfer fees. That's far too simplistic.

Caversham Green
04-08-2009, 12:49 PM
Caversham - I agree that £1.2million for 74 playing and coaching staff seems insufficient. However will there not be a large number of fixed staff wages (Youths, Coaches, Technical Support and Medical) that are not subject to major change year on year. I would suspect they do not fall part of the manager's budget - not part of what he has the authority to change.

Is it possible that Mixu was given a wages budget last year of £1.6million for the first team squad and was told it would have to be cut to £1.2million for the year ahead?

£1.2 million a year equates to an average of £800 quid a week for the first team squad of 28. With half of that squad under 21 it's safe to say most will only be earning a max of £500 quid a week. Add half a dozen players over a £1000 per week and the rest around the average and I'd say the figures stack up.

The SOS article by Moira Gordon quoted an inside source........
"Prior to the Finn taking control, the player budget was in the region of £2.6m, this year it had been slashed by £1m and next season there will be a further tightening of the purse-strings, taking the tally to nearer £1.2m."

£2.6million would equate to an average wage of £1600 per week for players like Makalambay, Brown, Whittaker, Jones, Hogg, Sproule, Beuzy, Thomson, S Brown, Fletcher, Zemmama, Benji, Stewart, Murphy, Sheils, Martis, O'Brien

Rod moved on all our highest earners and we have replaced them with players of lower quality who are happy to earn more than they did at Killie, ICT or Falkirk

We still have four of those players on our books and the main reason given for most of the others moving on was that we were not paying them enough. There's also a timing difference - O'Brien and Makalambay were not in the squad at the same time as the others. Oh and you've counted Brown twice unless you're including the fat one in that group.

The truth is that we could go on playing with figures all day (it's what I do for a living :wink:), but I remain unconvinced by the figures used by a reporter to support the tone of her article. Incidentally, the same article said something along the lines of the budget being the same as Falkirk's which was patently nonsense since Falkirk's total wages bill was little more than Hibs' alleged playing budget.

I think Beej has probably got it right, and I suspect there was at least a bit of engineering Mixu's departure involved.

Speedway
04-08-2009, 12:57 PM
FWIW, I can't see the £1.2m figure being viable either. For one thing none of the analysis so far in this thread has factored in win bonuses.

More likely that Mixu was advised by RP in late May that based on season ticket sales up to that point the player budget for 09/10 would be just £1.2m - remember the golden rule, ticket sales (season and walk-up) pay for the players' salary budget.

The subsequent appointment of Hughes improved the season ticket position considerably and so that £1.2m figure no longer applies.

Interestingly, based on a widely held belief that we stand at 8,000 STs sold and before walk up revenue, an average ST sale value of £225 gives a budget of £1.8m to play with.

Broken down into 52 weeks, this comes to £34,615 a week for the entire playing staff, or Scott Brown's weekly wage at Smellsick.

brog
04-08-2009, 01:04 PM
1. We've spent more on transfer fees and signing players than any other club outside the OF and more than Hearts over the last couple of years.


2. [QUOTE=Andy74;2118681]I don't know how much they all cost at Dundee Utd. If you want to prove your point, you'd better find out eh?



It's not me making the statement Andy, it's you. I have no idea how much other Scottish clubs have spent on transfers & I suspect you are also in the dark.
Which of your 2 statements above is correct?

Caversham Green
04-08-2009, 01:12 PM
I've seen you say this now on numerous occasions without any evidence to support your statement. Off the top of my head I can think of Dundee Utd signing Daly, Sandaza, Robertson, Swanson, Conway, Gomis, Grainger, Dixon & Kovacevic in the same period as above plus the likes of Webster & Feeney on loan. Do you know how much they all cost?
The things I'm sure you & all other Hibs Net posters would agree is we've brought in millions more in transfer fees than DU in same period, we have a much larger fan base & consequently we also bring in considerably more in gate revenue. Oh, & DU finished above us last season.
Surely its not too much of a stretch to have aspirations to be better than Dundee United?

United's accounts show transfer fees of: 2005/6 £397K; 2006/07 £188k; 2007/8 £187k. (I don't have the 2006/7 accounts, that figure is taken from the comparatives in the following year.)

In the same period Hibs spent: 2005/6 £279k; 2006/7 £904k; 2007/08 £786k.

If those numbers prove anything it is that spending money is not a guarantee of success, since 2005/06 was our best season in terms of league placings.

Speedway
04-08-2009, 01:21 PM
United's accounts show transfer fees of: 2005/6 £397K; 2006/07 £188k; 2007/8 £187k. (I don't have the 2006/7 accounts, that figure is taken from the comparatives in the following year.)

In the same period Hibs spent: 2005/6 £279k; 2006/7 £904k; 2007/08 £786k.

If those numbers prove anything it is that spending money is not a guarantee of success, since 2005/06 was our best season in terms of league placings.

But interestingly again, that put the Arabs at spending £772,000 over the period that Hibs spent £1,969,000 - nearly triple.

Arabs spent the wiser it seems.

smurf
04-08-2009, 01:22 PM
(estimates)

Jones - 250k
Maka - 200k
O'Brien - 200k
Nish - 150k
Rankin - 100k
Riordan - 400k
Bamba - 50k

Totalling about 1.35m

5 year period July 2004 - July 2009.

(estimates)

Sproule - 5K
Jones - 150k
Maka - 150k
O'Brien - 200k
Nish - 100k
Rankin - 90k
Riordan - 400k
Bamba - 50k

Totalling about just over 200K a year....

Or 4K a week...

jgl07
04-08-2009, 01:22 PM
I based it entirely on the staff I had seen working at ER and assumptions about admin required to support our core functions. Non-exec management roles include Amanda Vettesse, Anna Devine, John Nicol, Stu Crowther, Elaine Morrison, Elaine Morrison, Richard Alexander, Judith Ireland, James Pryde, David Forsyth, Graeme Paterson, Sue McLernon. There's a few salaries in there in the £30-50K bracket - add a third for employer contributions to their packages.

Then there are sales, project staff, secretaries, reception, admin staff, ticket office personnel,

I forgot to factor in the fact that Catering, Stewarding and ground maintenance are outsourced. Does this mean these wages are reported separately in the accounts?

There's only Two Elaine Morrisons!

No wonder the admin costs are high, Hibs and paying people twice!

RIP
04-08-2009, 01:59 PM
There's only Two Elaine Morrisons!

No wonder the admin costs are high, Hibs and paying people twice!

Elaine has had two spells at the club - maybe Hibs forgot to take her off the payroll the first time :dunno::embarrass

brog
04-08-2009, 02:19 PM
United's accounts show transfer fees of: 2005/6 £397K; 2006/07 £188k; 2007/8 £187k. (I don't have the 2006/7 accounts, that figure is taken from the comparatives in the following year.)

In the same period Hibs spent: 2005/6 £279k; 2006/7 £904k; 2007/08 £786k.

If those numbers prove anything it is that spending money is not a guarantee of success, since 2005/06 was our best season in terms of
league placings.



Thanks for your good numbers. A genuine question. Are these really all transfer fees or are they also re-negotiated contracts? Reason I ask is Hibs 2006/07 accounts state The club spent almost £1million either bringing new players to the Club or - - securing players already at the club. This fits with your number of £904k but my reading of that is it also included renewed contracts, ( Fletch? ). I think the £904k also included £200k we belatedly had to pay for Zemmama, I very much doubt we would have bought him if we had known the cost up front.

ancient hibee
04-08-2009, 02:29 PM
Interesting is it not that so many people castigate Petrie for not paying wages-the fact is :

year to end June 2006 £3.6M
2007 £4.0M
2008 £4.5M

Caversham Green
04-08-2009, 02:38 PM
Thanks for your good numbers. A genuine question. Are these really all transfer fees or are they also re-negotiated contracts? Reason I ask is Hibs 2006/07 accounts state The club spent almost £1million either bringing new players to the Club or - - securing players already at the club. This fits with your number of £904k but my reading of that is it also included renewed contracts, ( Fletch? ). I think the £904k also included £200k we belatedly had to pay for Zemmama, I very much doubt we would have bought him if we had known the cost up front.

According to the accounting policies:

"Costs associated with the acquisition of players are capitalised" but "Signing on fees payable to players are included in staff costs".

I've used the capitalised figures, so I think they are all transfer (or transfer-type) fees. I would expect the criteria to be whether the fee was paid to an employee (staff costs) or another club/agent (capital).

I would agree that the Zemmama fee will probably have been recognised in a later year as it would not have been determined when the relevant accounts were issued.

brog
04-08-2009, 02:38 PM
Interesting is it not that so many people castigate Petrie for not paying wages-the fact is :

year to end June 2006 £3.6M
2007 £4.0M
2008 £4.5M

How much is it without Rod's wedge? :wink:

Beefster
04-08-2009, 03:00 PM
That'd be fine iof that were true though eh, but it's not.

We've spent more on transfer fees and signing players than any other club outside the OF and more than Hearts over the last couple of years.

Do the likes of Jones, Maka, AOB, Nish, Rankin and Riordan that we paid decent sums for not really count for some reason???

It's all relative. I'd be surprised if any other SPL club, outwith the OF, have taken in anything like the amounts that we have. Using Hearts as a comparison is useless too as no-one has a clue what's going on with the fees for Gordon and Berra.

Even taking into account your, likely over-inflated, figures later on, we've invested less than 10% back into replacing the quality lost.

I doubt anyone wants a massive splurge on transfer fees. Some fans just want a little more investment in the playing squad.


Interesting is it not that so many people castigate Petrie for not paying wages-the fact is :

year to end June 2006 £3.6M
2007 £4.0M
2008 £4.5M

Unless I'm wrong, that figure includes all staff at the club and around £500k for the directors?

jgl07
04-08-2009, 03:04 PM
Interesting is it not that so many people castigate Petrie for not paying wages-the fact is :

year to end June 2006 £3.6M
2007 £4.0M
2008 £4.5M

But you dod not realize that the playing staff wages have been cut every year to facilitate the employment of a team of accountants, finacial planners plus a tache hygenist for Rod Petrie.

smurf
04-08-2009, 03:07 PM
Interesting is it not that so many people castigate Petrie for not paying wages-the fact is :

year to end June 2006 £3.6M
2007 £4.0M
2008 £4.5M

They figures don't just include players though....:wink:

wee 162
04-08-2009, 04:55 PM
Martin Bain and Peter Lawell (Rantic chief executives) earn more than that by themselves.

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/rangers/Directors.htm

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/celtic/Directors.htm

And that's based on a turnover of £64.5m & £73m respectively. As a percentage of turnover (which is the way Rod has always asked us to look at our wage bill) Hibs have a massively high renumeration package for directors compared with others on a similar income level in the SPL.

Rangers pay their top director roughly 0.8% of their turnover. Celtic pay their top director 0.7% of their turnover.

Hibs pay their highest paid director (and by a huge distance the highest paid person at the club) 5% of their total turnover.

Or do we only want to look at salary to turnover ratios when it suits us?

ancient hibee
04-08-2009, 06:11 PM
And that's based on a turnover of £64.5m & £73m respectively. As a percentage of turnover (which is the way Rod has always asked us to look at our wage bill) Hibs have a massively high renumeration package for directors compared with others on a similar income level in the SPL.

Rangers pay their top director roughly 0.8% of their turnover. Celtic pay their top director 0.7% of their turnover.

Hibs pay their highest paid director (and by a huge distance the highest paid person at the club) 5% of their total turnover.

Or do we only want to look at salary to turnover ratios when it suits us?
Absolute rubbish.

Year to 2008

Turnover £8053218

5%=£402665

Petrie got
£191057 which included a pension contribution of £21750 and a company car which had a beefit in kind tariff of ££11807.

However I think it's quite right not to let facts get in the way of having a good moan about something that is not actually happening.

Woody1985
04-08-2009, 06:26 PM
No it's not. It's as it was.:wink:


Correct.

Yes, but a lot of companies work to a 1, 3, 5 and 10 year plan. Our one year plan may remain the same. However, our 3, 5 & 10 will all be reduced meaning that to try and minimise the knock on effect to those other plans we will need to be tighter with the same amount of funds.

Therefore, there's no point bleating on about how 'We're still getting the same amount of money this year as we budgeted for'. That may be factually correct but if it really worked like that then there wouldn't be any point in 3,5 & 10 year plans. You'd be aswell working to one year plans each year. That inevitably is a dangerous game to play because the assumption is you'll take in at least the same amount the following year, which as we know, doesn't always happen :wink:

francobaresi
04-08-2009, 07:37 PM
Building and maintaining East Mains, new stands built/being built to make the ground complete, they are the priorities, throwing money at players is not. It's a long-term game Hibs are playing therefore we have to wait patiently to reap the benefits.

Thank-you and good day, RP.

I don't want to go & look at a nice complete ground, I want to see a strong team on the park. And that is the fundamental reason I don't go along every week; the priorities are all wrong...
And how long do we patiently wait, 10, 20, 30 years?

ScottB
04-08-2009, 08:21 PM
Once the East Stand is up, there will be no more capital projects for the Board to invest in and still a very manageable amount of debt. At this point I expect an increase in funding for the playing side.

Should this not materialise I would be concerned, while I can appreciate how it can appear that we are fairly well off yet don't seem to invest as much as other clubs (though in recent years I think we have been easily among the biggest spenders, pity 90% of the players brought in were rubbish, a clear argument for money not bringing success) the Board has taken the strategy of securing the clubs future through finishing the stadium and building the training ground.

sahib
04-08-2009, 08:22 PM
Absolute rubbish.

Year to 2008

Turnover £8053218

5%=£402665

Petrie got
£191057 which included a pension contribution of £21750 and a company car which had a beefit in kind tariff of ££11807.

However I think it's quite right not to let facts get in the way of having a good moan about something that is not actually happening.

I make that 2.37%. Is that good value? Who knows.

wee 162
04-08-2009, 08:33 PM
Absolute rubbish.

Year to 2008

Turnover £8053218

5%=£402665

Petrie got
£191057 which included a pension contribution of £21750 and a company car which had a beefit in kind tariff of ££11807.

However I think it's quite right not to let facts get in the way of having a good moan about something that is not actually happening.

Sorry. Misread a previous post which I thought said Petrie got £400k. So he "only" got 2.4% of Hibs annual turnover rather than the 5% I said. I'll also retract the word "huge" since Petrie is only the highest paid person at the club, not by a huge amount.

The directors as a whole did get over 5% of the annual turnover though. It pleases me no end that after paying in to roughly 20 home games last season that one of those entrance fees went wholly towards paying the directors.

Did Petrie get a wage cut after stepping down as Chief Executive and being replaced by Scott Lindsay?

As a club we pay our directors a larger proportion out of our income than the OF do. And Aberdeen. And Hearts. And Dundee Utd. And Kilmarnock. And Motherwell. And St Mirren. And Falkirk. Football Finances doesn't have figures for Inverness or Hamilton. By a considerable distance it should be added.

Caversham Green
04-08-2009, 08:57 PM
Sorry. Misread a previous post which I thought said Petrie got £400k. So he "only" got 2.4% of Hibs annual turnover rather than the 5% I said. I'll also retract the word "huge" since Petrie is only the highest paid person at the club, not by a huge amount.

The directors as a whole did get over 5% of the annual turnover though. It pleases me no end that after paying in to roughly 20 home games last season that one of those entrance fees went wholly towards paying the directors.

Did Petrie get a wage cut after stepping down as Chief Executive and being replaced by Scott Lindsay?

As a club we pay our directors a larger proportion out of our income than the OF do. And Aberdeen. And Hearts. And Dundee Utd. And Kilmarnock. And Motherwell. And St Mirren. And Falkirk. Football Finances doesn't have figures for Inverness or Hamilton. By a considerable distance it should be added.

Aberdeen's CEO was paid more than Rod in 2008, their accountant, marketing officer and other heads of department are not directors so their salaries don't get reported. Similarly, none of Hearts heads of department are on the board (their board is made up of UBIG people who are not paid by Hearts), but I'd be surprised if Campbell Ogilvie isn't paid at least at a similar level to RP. Dundee United seem to be the model to follow in this respect as well - their total directors remuneration was only £53k. Presumably this is the influence of the Thompson family in action. However, their balance sheet is negative to the tune of £3m.

It's not really possible to compare like for like in these circumstances.

Caversham Green
04-08-2009, 09:01 PM
I make that 2.37%. Is that good value? Who knows.

I think that is the crux of the matter really, and that boils down to opinion.

My opinion FWIW is that it's reasonable vfm, but the board could do better. Maybe it's no coincidence that Hibs pay their board well and are widely considered to be the best run club in Scotland.

IWasThere2016
04-08-2009, 09:17 PM
Interesting is it not that so many people castigate Petrie for not paying wages-the fact is :

year to end June 2006 £3.6M
2007 £4.0M
2008 £4.5M


Absolute rubbish.

Year to 2008

Turnover £8053218

5%=£402665

Petrie got
£191057 which included a pension contribution of £21750 and a company car which had a beefit in kind tariff of ££11807.

However I think it's quite right not to let facts get in the way of having a good moan about something that is not actually happening.

So the facts are 3x the % paid by the OF :cool2:


I make that 2.37%. Is that good value? Who knows.

It is not. You'll struggle to find such percentages elsewhere .. even the banks


Sorry. Misread a previous post which I thought said Petrie got £400k. So he "only" got 2.4% of Hibs annual turnover rather than the 5% I said. I'll also retract the word "huge" since Petrie is only the highest paid person at the club, not by a huge amount.

The directors as a whole did get over 5% of the annual turnover though. It pleases me no end that after paying in to roughly 20 home games last season that one of those entrance fees went wholly towards paying the directors.

Did Petrie get a wage cut after stepping down as Chief Executive and being replaced by Scott Lindsay?

As a club we pay our directors a larger proportion out of our income than the OF do. And Aberdeen. And Hearts. And Dundee Utd. And Kilmarnock. And Motherwell. And St Mirren. And Falkirk. Football Finances doesn't have figures for Inverness or Hamilton. By a considerable distance it should be added.

Yes - but months afterwards. And the sum of the two will be a hyper-inflation increase on the previous year of Rod only.

Fantic
04-08-2009, 09:36 PM
I think that is the crux of the matter really, and that boils down to opinion.

My opinion FWIW is that it's reasonable vfm, but the board could do better. Maybe it's no coincidence that Hibs pay their board well and are widely considered to be the best run club in Scotland.

That about sums it up for me. When we got Riordan back it was a bit of a shock to the system and hopefully its a sign of the times. Keep going the way we are and the board will need to step up to the mark and invest far more significantly in the team than we are used too.Time will tell but i don't see any reason they wont.

Its all part of the Masterplan :greengrin

Weir7
05-08-2009, 09:47 AM
...at £400k plus per year.

Discuss.

Since Rod went to exec chairman (a paid position) and Scott Lindsay became Chief Exec our operating loss last year was around £1m and this year it will be more than that....... The question is are we getting value for money?

Also, when Rod is on SPL Board duty and sitting on these SFA committe's, the expenses / money that I understand is paid, is this given back to Hibs or is this extra work on top of his role at Hibs?

smurf
05-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Ok we've got Rod Petrie and Scott Lindsay as executive Chairman and Managing Director respectively. Both have a combined cost to the club of 400K.

I'm sure these guys are both very efficient and hard working individuals behind the scenes...

But are we really getting value for money at 400K on our relatively small turnover?

Just where is their leadership? They are like two mute men... Just whenever do they communicate with the support? Is leadership not about leading from the front? Just where is it? Has anyone of the two said anything on last seasons underachievement? Has any of the two said a damned thing about their hopes and aspirations for the new season?

The irony in all of this is that our owner Sir Tom Farmer became a well known personality because he was leading his then company Kwik-Fit from the front. Even to the extent that his face and words were on all marketing and advertising materials.

With 400K leadership duo Rod Petrie and Scott Lindsay we have no face and no words.

Phil D. Rolls
05-08-2009, 02:36 PM
]Since Rod went to exec chairman (a paid position) and Scott Lindsay became Chief Exec our operating loss last year was around £1m and this year it will be more than that....... The question is are we getting value for money?[/B]

Also, when Rod is on SPL Board duty and sitting on these SFA committe's, the expenses / money that I understand is paid, is this given back to Hibs or is this extra work on top of his role at Hibs?

Please define value for money, and also give the criteria we will use to evaluate it.

Weir7
05-08-2009, 03:03 PM
Please define value for money, and also give the criteria we will use to evaluate it.

Exec salary bill goes up and we go from being a company making an operational profit to loosing millions

jgl07
05-08-2009, 03:17 PM
I think that is the crux of the matter really, and that boils down to opinion.

My opinion FWIW is that it's reasonable vfm, but the board could do better. Maybe it's no coincidence that Hibs pay their board well and are widely considered to be the best run club in Scotland.
As an example of this, recall when Celtic came in for Thomson and Brown with a £2 million bid.

Petrie forced Rangers and Celtic to pay £6.5 in total for the pair.

The likes of Whittaker and Murphy were also sold at realistic prices rather than the nominal £200,000 fees that other clubs would have sold them for.

Hibs have traded themselves out of an impossible position circa 1990. Then they were virtually bust, had a crumbling stadium needing massive spending to keep a safety certificate.

Now the last section of the stadium is about to be completed, a brand new training facility has been opened, and the club have arguably the strongest financial base of any team in Scotland (bar Celtic?).

The training ground and the new East Stand are both essential if Hibs are to progress.

All this has impacted on performance. Hibs have found themselves outbid for players by the likes of Dunfermline, Dundee, Livingston, Motherwell, etc. Where are they now?

Hearts were in a much better position than Hibs in 1990 but have generally fouled things up under successive regimes and are now probably £40 million in debt with no realistic plans to replace the rotting asbestos riddled main stand and no real aspirations than to stay one jump ahead of the liquidator.

Is that what people want?

ancienthibby
05-08-2009, 03:21 PM
As an example of this, recall when Celtic came in for Thomson and Brown with a £2 million bid.

Petrie forced Rangers and Celtic to pay £6.5 in total for the pair.

The likes of Whittaker and Murphy were also sold at realistic prices rather than the nominal £200,000 fees that other clubs would have sold them for.

Hibs have traded themselves out of an impossible position circa 1990. Then they were virtually bust, had a crumbling stadium needing massive spending to keep a safety certificate.

Now the last section of the stadium is about to be completed, a brand new training facility has been opened, and the club have arguably the strongest financial base of any team in Scotland (bar Celtic?).

The training ground and the new East Stand are both essential if Hibs are to progress.

All this has impacted on performance. Hibs have found themselves outbid for players by the likes of Dunfermline, Dundee, Livingston, Motherwell, etc. Where are they now?

Hearts were in a much better position than Hibs in 1990 but have generally fouled things up under successive regimes and are now probably £40 million in debt with no realistic plans to replace the rotting asbestos riddled main stand and no real aspirations than to stay one jump ahead of the liquidator.

Is that what people want?

What he said. :top marks

hibees_green
05-08-2009, 03:34 PM
Please define value for money, and also give the criteria we will use to evaluate it.

As the criteria could we use '...to see Hibernian compete each year at the upper echelon of Scottish football, achieve European football on a regular basis...'?

Or how about setting a year on year target to increase the player wage v's turnover ratio whilst sustaining the clubs future. We seem to have no targets of increasing this important figure.

jgl07
05-08-2009, 03:50 PM
As the criteria could we use '...to see Hibernian compete each year at the upper echelon of Scottish football, achieve European football on a regular basis...'?

Or how about setting a year on year target to increase the player wage v's turnover ratio whilst sustaining the clubs future. We seem to have no targets of increasing this important figure.
This sounds a strange thing to target.

Any idiot can do that either by reducing turnover or by paying £10,000 a week to sicknotes like Hearts do.

The performance measured should be to get the best team on the park. It is not that easy when League One and even some League Two clubs down south can outbid Hibs for players.

Hibs are not alone in struggling to attract players. Aberdeen are really toiling while Hearts seem to have a policy of signing Spanish waiters and Turkish fork lift truck drivers from the lower reaches of the continetal league systems.

The key is to push up turnover. Attendance should improve as the economy improves. A new East Stand should boost numbers. This happened when the North Stand was built and again when the West Stand was built.

It certainly makes sense to get the East Stand built before next season. Apart from the planning permission running out there is are advantages in building the stand before the recession is full over and bidding will be keener.

hibees_green
05-08-2009, 04:01 PM
This sounds a strange thing to target.

Any idiot can do that either by reducing turnover or by paying £10,000 a week to sicknotes like Hearts do.......The key is to push up turnover.

Sorry I didn't imagine that anyone would think that increasing turnover would not also be a target. It seemed too obvious to explicitly state.

I'm a lapsed ST as of this year. A new stand will not get me to return. Better players will.

By the way Hearts finished 3rd and are in Europe.

Phil D. Rolls
05-08-2009, 04:20 PM
As the criteria could we use '...to see Hibernian compete each year at the upper echelon of Scottish football, achieve European football on a regular basis...'?

Or how about setting a year on year target to increase the player wage v's turnover ratio whilst sustaining the clubs future. We seem to have no targets of increasing this important figure.

I think the criteria should be a bit more specific - upper echelon would mean the SPL to some, the top six to others, and top three to a few. Likewise European football on a regular basis could mean every year, once every five years. How do you define European football - do we mean getting shafted by a team of minnows at the start of July, or do we mean the group stages of the Eorpa League?

When you actually get down to realistic objectives, I don't think our board are that far off the mark. What I'd like to see is how they are going to position themselves in the new order of European and World football. That could be a few years before the smaller clubs get down to redifining their role - but at least we will be there to take part.

Some teams - OK, most teams in Scotland are way way off the mark, with pitiful stadiums and poor balance sheets.

jgl07
05-08-2009, 04:50 PM
Sorry I didn't imagine that anyone would think that increasing turnover would not also be a target. It seemed too obvious to explicitly state.

I'm a lapsed ST as of this year. A new stand will not get me to return. Better players will.

By the way Hearts finished 3rd and are in Europe.
Aye and are also £40 million in debt!

Hearts spend 120% of turnover on wages. Is that what you want?

cabbage07
05-08-2009, 04:58 PM
Aye and are also £40 million in debt!

Hearts spend 120% of turnover on wages. Is that what you want?

So what do we do then dont spend any money at all on the team ,i get a bit pissed off with people on here still backing petries spending after 18 m or so in transfer funds and hardly ****all spent on the team .
Well your messiahs procedures has seen a drop in Season tickets ,standard of football dropped ,doesnt sound to me as very cost effective does it.

Mibbes Aye
05-08-2009, 05:10 PM
So what do we do then dont spend any money at all on the team ,i get a bit pissed off with people on here still backing petries spending after 18 m or so in transfer funds and hardly ****all spent on the team .
Well your messiahs procedures has seen a drop in Season tickets ,standard of football dropped ,doesnt sound to me as very cost effective does it.

:faf:

Every now and again, you (and newmalkysomebody) start or drop in on a thread like this and make a post like this.

Time and time again actually.

You never really engage with the posts refuting your supposed points though.

So why should anyone take you seriously now?

I do get that some posters have concerns and criticisms about how the club is run. But.......

It's been going on long enough what with the big drama about the car park money (that never was); the big drama about the wage cap (that never was); the big drama about no money for transfers (that never was); the big story about selling everyone at the first offer (that never was); the big drama about not increasing the wage budget (that never was).

It begs the question. How many folk are just at the wind-up and how many are just stupid?

I have respect for those who can criticise our model and suggest an alternative and justify why it's viable but I've never seen anything from you to put you in that camp I'm afraid.

Feel free to put me right :agree:

Ray_
05-08-2009, 05:12 PM
As an example of this, recall when Celtic came in for Thomson and Brown with a £2 million bid.

Petrie forced Rangers and Celtic to pay £6.5 in total for the pair.

The likes of Whittaker and Murphy were also sold at realistic prices rather than the nominal £200,000 fees that other clubs would have sold them for.



With a number of clubs interested Hibs sold Brown before the season had even ended & even after his injury, it will take far in excess of 2m to get Thomson.

Hearts got almost the same amount for Gordon than all those players you mentioned, Vlad certainly done better than Petrie when it came to sales.

Ray_
05-08-2009, 05:22 PM
:faf:

Every now and again, you (and newmalkysomebody) start or drop in on a thread like this and make a post like this.

Time and time again actually.

You never really engage with the posts refuting your supposed points though.

So why should anyone take you seriously now?

I do get that some posters have concerns and criticisms about how the club is run. But.......

It's been going on long enough what with the big drama about the car park money (that never was); the big drama about the wage cap (that never was); the big drama about no money for transfers (that never was); the big story about selling everyone at the first offer (that never was); the big drama about not increasing the wage budget (that never was).

It begs the question. How many folk are just at the wind-up and how many are just stupid?

I have respect for those who can criticise our model and suggest an alternative and justify why it's viable but I've never seen anything from you to put you in that camp I'm afraid.

Feel free to put me right :agree:

What about the one that had us as the most attractive team in Scotland, full of outstanding young players & guaranteed to thrill, to the garbage we have been the last 20 months?

Mibbes Aye
05-08-2009, 05:37 PM
Sorry you find it patronising. Really.

Just can't see how you turn up every so often to blame the board for not spending anything on the team when all we have done in the last couple of years is put more money into the playing side.

You talk about 18 million. Where did that money go? Tell us where it went?

hibees_green
05-08-2009, 06:09 PM
I think the criteria should be a bit more specific - upper echelon would mean the SPL to some, the top six to others, and top three to a few. Likewise European football on a regular basis could mean every year, once every five years. How do you define European football - do we mean getting shafted by a team of minnows at the start of July, or do we mean the group stages of the Eorpa League?



I agree it could be refined but the point is they should not be exempt from being judged by our footballing performances.

At the moment I get the impression they somehow measure themselves on the size of our bank balance and infrastructure (and giving themselves full marks) whilst passing the footballing responsibilities elsewhere.

Well that's how it comes across to me anyway.

hibees_green
05-08-2009, 06:15 PM
Aye and are also £40 million in debt!

Hearts spend 120% of turnover on wages. Is that what you want?

Some things are just funny. I really have no idea how you jumped to this conclusion from my post.:confused:

At the end of the day though if thier 40million in debt would allow us to sign Nade I'd take it.

Is that better?

Phil D. Rolls
05-08-2009, 06:15 PM
I agree it could be refined but the point is they should not be exempt from being judged by our footballing performances.

At the moment I get the impression they somehow measure themselves on the size of our bank balance and infrastructure (and giving themselves full marks) whilst passing the footballing responsibilities elsewhere.

Well that's how it comes across to me anyway.

It's already been pointed out that they appointed a manager last year, gave him a budget, and when he didn't come up with the goods, replaced him. If they hadn't cared about the football would they have done that?

Ray_
05-08-2009, 06:20 PM
It's already been pointed out that they appointed a manager last year, gave him a budget, and when he didn't come up with the goods, replaced him. If they hadn't cared about the football would they have done that?

Hibs have been performing abysmally on the park & at the box office, over the last couple of years, the buck stops at the top.

Phil D. Rolls
05-08-2009, 06:24 PM
Hibs have been performing abysmally on the park & at the box office, over the last couple of years, the buck stops at the top.

Yes, I don't think anyone is going to tolerate another season like last one. I think abysmally is a bit strong, in fact did they not win a trophy a couple of years ago - and blow a semi-final?

hibees_green
05-08-2009, 06:28 PM
It's already been pointed out that they appointed a manager last year, gave him a budget, and when he didn't come up with the goods, replaced him. If they hadn't cared about the football would they have done that?

I didn't say they don't care, I think they don't see themselves in anyway failling or responsible for the poor performances over the last 2 years.

The way you've interpreted my post makes me think you feel the same way, and I just don't get how they have managed to avoid responsibility for what I judge to be the most important measurement of a clubs success.

hibees_green
05-08-2009, 06:31 PM
Yes, I don't think anyone is going to tolerate another season like last one. I think abysmally is a bit strong, in fact did they not win a trophy a couple of years ago - and blow a semi-final?

That was 3 seasons ago and from being in a superb position to capatilise they have failed (abysmally?).

Phil D. Rolls
05-08-2009, 06:40 PM
That was 3 seasons ago and from being in a superb position to capatilise they have failed (abysmally?).

I agree things are not what we would want, but it's the degree of disatisfaction that puzzles me. I don't think we have been abysmal, compared to other clubs outside the OF we are pretty much on a par.

I can see where the frustration of fans comes from, we had great players, and we sold them for a good price. I think that the Mowbray years were the blip, when you consider Hibs over the last couple of decades. At least we capitalised, financially - we were never going to build on that team.

We were between a rock and a hard place, we had to get the money for those players, yet we knew we couldn't replace them. I don't know how we can put together a good team by spending cash, where are the players that would do the job, and what would they cost.

Realistically we are competing for the best of the dross, when the likes of PNE can pay 5 times our wages. I'm not saying I'm happy, but we have to be realistic.

Woody1985
05-08-2009, 06:50 PM
Ok we've got Rod Petrie and Scott Lindsay as executive Chairman and Managing Director respectively. Both have a combined cost to the club of 400K.

I'm sure these guys are both very efficient and hard working individuals behind the scenes...

But are we really getting value for money at 400K on our relatively small turnover?

Just where is their leadership? They are like two mute men... Just whenever do they communicate with the support? Is leadership not about leading from the front? Just where is it? Has anyone of the two said anything on last seasons underachievement? Has any of the two said a damned thing about their hopes and aspirations for the new season?

The irony in all of this is that our owner Sir Tom Farmer became a well known personality because he was leading his then company Kwik-Fit from the front. Even to the extent that his face and words were on all marketing and advertising materials.

With 400K leadership duo Rod Petrie and Scott Lindsay we have no face and no words.

Do you really want Petrie / Lindsay on your advertising materials? :faf: Surely you'd rather have a star player? Can you imagine Man United having the Glazier boy floating around all the time saying, right supporters, we're gonna sign big money players and compete with the best teams in the world every year. The fans would laugh their ***** off.

However, I can see your point re the direction but I think that their actions speak louder than words. The fans got what we wanted last year, spent some money on Deeks and got rid of Mixu. We now have Yogi who was wanted by a fair few.

We're in a recession and we don't have lots of money to throw around. I appreciate you'd only like a proportion of it spent. However, if you take a common thing from a personal life and try to compare it...

Joe Bloggs is Savings up for a car (stand) and is only £1,000 away from the one he wants to buy. Does Joe go and buy himself a new TV (player) for £400 because he has £3,000 in the bank already. The TV isn't going to drastically improve his lifestyle (a 200/300k player isn't going to get us far IMO) and because he's continually paying for cover (wages) in case it breaks down it's even more of a drain on his resources. Therefore, Joe being £1,000 away is suddenly £1,500 away and the car is no longer viable because the price has gone up / already been sold (planning permission expires).

Get the stand built, chip away at the mortgage on the other one and I'm confident that we'll have a rock solid foundation to challenge the OF in 5/10 years time. With everything in place we'll have the most investable club within Scottish football and we might just get some multi millionaire coming in to finance players.

I know people don't want to wait and neither do I. However, can you imagine the joy of your team pushing for the league title and CL because of the way it has been run for 10/15 years? Hopefully I'll still be around.

snooky
05-08-2009, 06:53 PM
Half tongue in cheek - if we put all the Scot/Eng/Wales teams in a Brit pot, do you think we could compete in the BucksFizz league? If so, more to the point, would we get the same dosh as say the likes of PNE?

Woody1985
05-08-2009, 06:56 PM
Half tongue in cheek - if we put all the Scot/Eng/Wales teams in a Brit pot, do you think we could compete in the BucksFizz league? If so, more to the point, would we get the same dosh as say the likes of PNE?

I think we'd be league one with Rangers/Celtic Championship level. I think we'd probably struggle to get out of that level TBH. I think we may occassionally flit betweend Championship, League One and League Two.

It would also mean the end to our national teams.

hibees_green
05-08-2009, 07:01 PM
I agree things are not what we would want, but it's the degree of disatisfaction that puzzles me......Realistically we are competing for the best of the dross.

I agree with the reality of what you describe but the disatifaction doesn't puzzle me as for the last two year we have failed to compete with the best of the dross when we are in a position that we should have.

Futhermore, it's difficult to see any actions that are being taken that are likely to change this.

wee 162
05-08-2009, 07:07 PM
As an example of this, recall when Celtic came in for Thomson and Brown with a £2 million bid.

Petrie forced Rangers and Celtic to pay £6.5 in total for the pair.

The likes of Whittaker and Murphy were also sold at realistic prices rather than the nominal £200,000 fees that other clubs would have sold them for.

Hibs have traded themselves out of an impossible position circa 1990. Then they were virtually bust, had a crumbling stadium needing massive spending to keep a safety certificate.

Now the last section of the stadium is about to be completed, a brand new training facility has been opened, and the club have arguably the strongest financial base of any team in Scotland (bar Celtic?).

The training ground and the new East Stand are both essential if Hibs are to progress.

All this has impacted on performance. Hibs have found themselves outbid for players by the likes of Dunfermline, Dundee, Livingston, Motherwell, etc. Where are they now?

Hearts were in a much better position than Hibs in 1990 but have generally fouled things up under successive regimes and are now probably £40 million in debt with no realistic plans to replace the rotting asbestos riddled main stand and no real aspirations than to stay one jump ahead of the liquidator.

Is that what people want?

That's an interesting take on it. The first time that the massively high price for the two of them was mentioned it was by Collins who said £7m for the pair of them.

Which was laughed at by the media, and more than a few in our support as well, as I remember it.

We got fair value for the two of them imo. But I don't particularly think that was down to Petrie, I think it was down to the manager at the time valuing them correctly. If Petrie knew the value of players then imo the sale of O'Connor was crap afaic since I felt he was sold for under his value at a time which was nonsensical. Did he have a pit stop on the road to Damascus in the intervening 8 months?

Mibbes Aye
05-08-2009, 07:13 PM
I agree things are not what we would want, but it's the degree of disatisfaction that puzzles me. I don't think we have been abysmal, compared to other clubs outside the OF we are pretty much on a par.

I can see where the frustration of fans comes from, we had great players, and we sold them for a good price. I think that the Mowbray years were the blip, when you consider Hibs over the last couple of decades. At least we capitalised, financially - we were never going to build on that team.

We were between a rock and a hard place, we had to get the money for those players, yet we knew we couldn't replace them. I don't know how we can put together a good team by spending cash, where are the players that would do the job, and what would they cost.

Realistically we are competing for the best of the dross, when the likes of PNE can pay 5 times our wages. I'm not saying I'm happy, but we have to be realistic.

:agree: Well-reasoned post.

We've gradually built up the player spend over the last while, even though our focus has been on reducing the debt and infrastructure.

We increased the wage budget a few times, we gave Fletcher a new deal rather than sell him (but eventually had to bow to the inevitable), likewise knocked back money for Beuzelin and turned down money for Jones that seems better than what we eventually let him go for.

Key players. That the Board backed the manager over, and hung onto.

Ho-hum.

Still not heard back from anyone who knows of a rival who had 400K to spend on securing Deeks on the last day of last season. We had it. And we did it.

Hibs are actually pretty good, given the constraints we operate under.

jgl07
05-08-2009, 10:12 PM
I don't want to go & look at a nice complete ground, I want to see a strong team on the park. And that is the fundamental reason I don't go along every week; the priorities are all wrong...
And how long do we patiently wait, 10, 20, 30 years?
"What childish innocence it is to present impatience as a theoretically convincing argument!"

This was written by Frederick Engels in 1874 and is highly relevant here!

matty_f
05-08-2009, 11:15 PM
:agree: Well-reasoned post.

We've gradually built up the player spend over the last while, even though our focus has been on reducing the debt and infrastructure.

We increased the wage budget a few times, we gave Fletcher a new deal rather than sell him (but eventually had to bow to the inevitable), likewise knocked back money for Beuzelin and turned down money for Jones that seems better than what we eventually let him go for.

Key players. That the Board backed the manager over, and hung onto.

Ho-hum.

Still not heard back from anyone who knows of a rival who had 400K to spend on securing Deeks on the last day of last season. We had it. And we did it.

Hibs are actually pretty good, given the constraints we operate under.

The increase in spend is constantly overlooked by some people on here, IMHO.

The way I see it is that Hibs are going about things in the best possible way to 'ensure' a successful future (obviously you can't guarantee success, but we can do as much as we can to try).

There will be a point in the not so distant future, where we'll sell another top player, the money will come into the club, and the board will look at what to spend it on. We'll have a stand, and with it a complete, modern stadium; we'll have as good a training centre as we could hope for - a base for excellence for Hibs players of all levels; and we'll have the team.

The training centre and the stadium running costs won't increase substantially, there will be no more capital projects to spend the money on, so that will leave the team.

At which point we'll start to keep our good players longer, we'll start to attract better players to the club, in fact we'll be in a great position because there are very few clubs that can say that. We'll be able to spend where others cannot.

As Mibbes said - we've already managed to flex a bit of muscle in bringing Deeks back at a time where other clubs were reluctant to spend.

Yogi said in his Hibs TV interview earlier this week, that Hibs are widely seen as being the best at what they do in the majority of areas looked at. He said the next thing is to make the first team the best as well.

Yogi was spot on. We're a tremendously well run club, very well respected by our peers.

To close, I'll draw a comparison with my employer (a major financial organisation) - three or four years back the decision was made to increase it's capital base and hold back on the lending (where, at the time our competitors were going all out with rate-wars to get business). They were criticised for their conservative approach and there were a number of complaints from staff asking why we couldn't go toe to toe with the competitors on the high street.

Fast forward to last year, the banking sector dies on it's arse and the company that came through it without a penny of public spend on it, and held a share price some twenty times the amount of the big banks, was the one that played for the long game.

It's not a spectacular approach, but it's worth it.










I hope!!:greengrin

Jonnyboy
05-08-2009, 11:21 PM
"What childish innocence it is to present impatience as a theoretically convincing argument!"

This was written by Frederick Engels in 1874 and is highly relevant here!

Wash your mouth out :wink::greengrin

new malkyhib
05-08-2009, 11:29 PM
:faf:

Every now and again, you (and newmalkysomebody) start or drop in on a thread like this and make a post like this.

Time and time again actually.

You never really engage with the posts refuting your supposed points though.

So why should anyone take you seriously now?

I do get that some posters have concerns and criticisms about how the club is run. But.......

It's been going on long enough what with the big drama about the car park money (that never was); the big drama about the wage cap (that never was); the big drama about no money for transfers (that never was); the big story about selling everyone at the first offer (that never was); the big drama about not increasing the wage budget (that never was).

It begs the question. How many folk are just at the wind-up and how many are just stupid?

I have respect for those who can criticise our model and suggest an alternative and justify why it's viable but I've never seen anything from you to put you in that camp I'm afraid.

Feel free to put me right :agree:

Ok, i'll try and put you right:agree:

It's maybe all about quality of post(s) and not quantity though eh?

So maybe I should bow down to your superior post count and just swallow everything the ER PR spin machine sends us - such as how good a job they're doing with their top-heavy Board and the soundbites they continually send us about the "best-run club in Scotland" etc., etc., despite the fact that the team struggle to qualify for Europe year on year under their stewardship, and the fanfare that there is every time we appoint another faceless suit to tell us more of the same...

So i'm not on "the wind-up", or just "stupid", just curious to know how much longer you, and your fellow Petrie acolytes will hold to the "patience" line - because in my humble opinion, once the new stand is built, then our present owners/benefactors will look to sell up and the fabled "investment in the team because at that point there's nothing else to spend the money on" will prove to be a trojan horse...

Just my opinion,of course...

Fantic
05-08-2009, 11:53 PM
Ok, i'll try and put you right:agree:

It's maybe all about quality of post(s) and not quantity though eh?

So maybe I should bow down to your superior post count and just swallow everything the ER PR spin machine sends us - such as how good a job they're doing with their top-heavy Board and the soundbites they continually send us about the "best-run club in Scotland" etc., etc., despite the fact that the team struggle to qualify for Europe year on year under their stewardship, and the fanfare that there is every time we appoint another faceless beauracrat to tell us more of the same...

So i'm not on "the wind-up", or just "stupid", just curious to know how much longer you, and your fellow Petrie acolytes will hold to the "patience" line - because in my humble opinion, once the new stand is built, then our present owners/benefactors will look to sell up and the fabled "investment in the team because at that point there's nothing else to spend the money on" will prove to be a trojan horse...

Just my opinion,of course...


So you would be happier with someone else?
Who you got lined up??

Petrie and Farmer were at the open day on Sunday and were genuinely having a good crack with both the staff and supporters. That says a lot.

RyeSloan
06-08-2009, 12:16 AM
Ok, i'll try and put you right:agree:

It's maybe all about quality of post(s) and not quantity though eh?

So maybe I should bow down to your superior post count and just swallow everything the ER PR spin machine sends us - such as how good a job they're doing with their top-heavy Board and the soundbites they continually send us about the "best-run club in Scotland" etc., etc., despite the fact that the team struggle to qualify for Europe year on year under their stewardship, and the fanfare that there is every time we appoint another faceless suit to tell us more of the same...

So i'm not on "the wind-up", or just "stupid", just curious to know how much longer you, and your fellow Petrie acolytes will hold to the "patience" line - because in my humble opinion, once the new stand is built, then our present owners/benefactors will look to sell up and the fabled "investment in the team because at that point there's nothing else to spend the money on" will prove to be a trojan horse...

Just my opinion,of course...

Who gives a toss if they sell up in a few years...what will they be selling? A club with a strong balance sheet, finished stadium, brand new training centre, consistent record of top 6 finishes, sound financials in terms player spend while still retaining a solid squad!!! Sounds like just the perfect base for someone to come in.......

Sometimes I think people are desperate for Petrie to fail and the club not to be fit for sale. Surely if they are spinning all of this to manufacture a sell on then they will be trying to get the best price....that means a fit for purpose club that has little debt, excellent infrastructre and a good team.

Sure 400k sounds a bit high, maybe the club shoudl look at that and attempt to trim the costs of the top to provide more room in the player budget or improve the financials overall but is anyone really saying that they can't see the progress that has been made at Hibs or even more starkly the lack of it by almost every other team in Scotland???

jgl07
06-08-2009, 01:45 AM
Wash your mouth out :wink::greengrin
Obviously Engels saw where the Yams were coming from in the year of their (alleged) creation.

brog
06-08-2009, 08:12 AM
That's an interesting take on it. The first time that the massively high price for the two of them was mentioned it was by Collins who said £7m for the pair of them.

Which was laughed at by the media, and more than a few in our support as well, as I remember it.

We got fair value for the two of them imo. But I don't particularly think that was down to Petrie, I think it was down to the manager at the time valuing them correctly. If Petrie knew the value of players then imo the sale of O'Connor was crap afaic since I felt he was sold for under his value at a time which was nonsensical. Did he have a pit stop on the road to Damascus in the intervening 8 months?

Absolutely, it was also Collins who virtually forced the board to offer Fletch his new contract & as a result gained us £3mm. Unfortunately Collins failed to persuade the board to honour a verbal commitment to Jones to do likewise.
If posts on this board are accurate we've sold about 8,000 season tickets, that's about 20-25% down on a couple of seasons ago, or put another way, about £1/2mm in income. I don't see brilliant business acumen there albeit it was the shocking early season ticket figures which contributed to Mixu's " resignation ".

Ray_
06-08-2009, 09:21 AM
I agree things are not what we would want, but it's the degree of disatisfaction that puzzles me. I don't think we have been abysmal, compared to other clubs outside the OF we are pretty much on a par.

I can see where the frustration of fans comes from, we had great players, and we sold them for a good price. I think that the Mowbray years were the blip, when you consider Hibs over the last couple of decades. At least we capitalised, financially - we were never going to build on that team.

We were between a rock and a hard place, we had to get the money for those players, yet we knew we couldn't replace them. I don't know how we can put together a good team by spending cash, where are the players that would do the job, and what would they cost.

Realistically we are competing for the best of the dross, when the likes of PNE can pay 5 times our wages. I'm not saying I'm happy, but we have to be realistic.

The other clubs out with the old firm didn't have the platform Hibs did, i.e. the best group of youngsters seen in almost forty years and year on year of breaking income records on all parts of the business & to go from that to where we have been/are, is abysmal.

Phil D. Rolls
06-08-2009, 09:27 AM
The other clubs out with the old firm didn't have the platform Hibs did, i.e. the best group of youngsters seen in almost forty years and year on year of breaking income records on all parts of the business & to go from that to where we have been/are is abysmal.

Part of breaking the income records was selling the players. I think the differences of opinion come from how that money should have been spent, could we have reached another level?

I'm still not convinced it's been abysmal. Filling the team with trialists like we had in the Kenny Waugh years was abysmal; so was facing extinction and that horrendous run of scoreless draws against Hearts; Jim Duffy was abysmal; the last couple of years have been disappointing.

smurf
06-08-2009, 10:06 AM
Do you really want Petrie / Lindsay on your advertising materials? :faf:

No i don't think that was my point. And i think you know that.:wink:

ahibby
06-08-2009, 10:34 AM
The other clubs out with the old firm didn't have the platform Hibs did, i.e. the best group of youngsters seen in almost forty years and year on year of breaking income records on all parts of the business & to go from that to where we have been/are, is abysmal.

Whether the word should be abysmal or disappointing is another matter but the important point for me lies in what you say about record income from player sales, merchandise and season ticket sales. With the exception of player sales we have seen a downturn this season and last which considering our previous platform is disappointing (oops I said disappointing and not abysmal). However if the poor performance in developing a successful team continues and it leads to further reduction in ST and merchandise sales then that must by abysmal.:confused:

If the board have splashed out (was it really £400k for Deeks?) then the expenditure must pay dividends for the club IMO in the form of good season ticket sales. If it doesn't then they have got it wrong in some other way; perhaps by buying players or bringing in managers who are incomplete and unable to do the business in some way. The financial running of the club has been good in the past but I have an issue with the footballing side of things which the board must also take responsibility for. In Scottish terms when you bring in £4,000,000, £3,000,000 and £2,000,000 for single player sales then you are surely a big time club no? So small time signings (and I'll refrain from singling out certain players recent past and present) just doesn't sit well.

Ray_
06-08-2009, 10:47 AM
Part of breaking the income records was selling the players. I think the differences of opinion come from how that money should have been spent, could we have reached another level?

I'm still not convinced it's been abysmal. Filling the team with trialists like we had in the Kenny Waugh years was abysmal; so was facing extinction and that horrendous run of scoreless draws against Hearts; Jim Duffy was abysmal; the last couple of years have been disappointing.

The sales wasn't the part I was relating to, it was the merchandising, season ticket, walk up & hospitality, the player sales would be considered asset stripping. Again, Jimmy Duffy didn't have the platform that we had, if he did hopefully he wouldn't have bought all those first division Ike players, ironically, just like some of those we have began shipping out, that had been brought in to replace the quality that was leaving.

Phil D. Rolls
06-08-2009, 10:51 AM
The sales wasn't the part I was relating to, it was the merchandising, season ticket, walk up & hospitality, the player sales would be considered asset stripping. Again, Jimmy Duffy didn't have the platform that we had, if he did hopefully he wouldn't have bought all those first division Ike players, ironically, just like some of those we have began shipping out, that had been brought in to replace the quality that was leaving.

Jim Duffy had a lot of money to spend though.

Do you realistically think we could have held onto the players we sold. I don't, and it was better to get money for them than let them go for zero. That's the reality, we were never going to build from that position, as I don't think we could replace them. We got lucky.

Ray_
06-08-2009, 10:59 AM
Jim Duffy had a lot of money to spend though.

Do you realistically think we could have held onto the players we sold. I don't, and it was better to get money for them than let them go for zero. That's the reality, we were never going to build from that position, as I don't think we could replace them. We got lucky.

Some of them yes & having a team challenging would have made things easier.

Yes we got lucky, we were lucky that we had all those players coming through together & we were lucky that TM applied for the managers position, did we make best use of that luck? To see us in the last two season's & where we are desperately lacking now, I think not.

ahibby
06-08-2009, 11:02 AM
I don't think Jimmy Boco, Barry Lavety and Chic Charnley were big expensive deals but they are three of the key players I remember from JDs days.

Ray_
06-08-2009, 11:06 AM
I don't think Jimmy Boco, Barry Lavety and Chic Charnley were big expensive deals but they are three of the key players I remember from JDs days.

Filled Rolls is absolutely right, Jim Duffy spent a lot of money, far too much money in fact, we were paying a kings ransom for mediocre players Lavety being one of them, 100k for Power, 100k for Tosh plus wages etc etc etc, we already had a large pool of players when we started bringing in hordes more & we needed to get rid far sooner than we did.

ahibby
06-08-2009, 11:14 AM
Some of them yes & having a team challenging would have made things easier.

Yes we got lucky, we were lucky that we had all those players coming through together & we were lucky that TM applied for the managers position, did we make best use of that luck? To see us in the last two season's & where we are desperately lacking now, I think not.

In football terms we seem to have gone down the boom and bust road and it shows in our attitude that sixth place is just not good enough, what we expect since our success financial and football in the TM days. We might not be able to afford to replace the likes of Scott Brown, Kevin Thomson, Steven Whittaker, Gary O'Connor, Buezelin etc but we shouldn't have been bringing in some of the signings we have endured of late.

In some ways this reminds me of what Alex McLeish said about Didier Agathe. Something along the lines of 'my only option was to sign him for three months, if I hadn't someone else would have and I would have denied our fans and the team. He was a short lived success with us scoring more goals in three months than he did at Celtic in two seasons. It is better to have loved than not loved at all is another way of looking at it but some of us find it hard to accept a period of financial success (record breaking success) followed by mediocrity or worse in football. Rant over.

ahibby
06-08-2009, 11:22 AM
Filled Rolls is absolutely right, Jim Duffy spent a lot of money, far too much money in fact, we were paying a kings ransom for mediocre players Lavety being one of them, 100k for Power, 100k for Tosh plus wages etc etc etc, we already had a large pool of players when we started bringing in hordes more & we needed to get rid far sooner than we did.

Well maybe that is the case I don't know but I was close to someone who worked with Duffy at ER and he told me Hibs were thinking small. The person concerned had a key position at ER and according to him was only on £12K a year. I bow to your superior knowledge of player costs though. Stevie Crawford I believe was another of their signings no? The JD team without Lavety was distinctly light weight, although I don't think many would like to mess with Tosh.

Ray_
06-08-2009, 11:25 AM
In football terms we seem to have gone down the boom and bust road and it shows in our attitude that sixth place is just not good enough, what we expect since our success financial and football in the TM days. We might not be able to afford to replace the likes of Scott Brown, Kevin Thomson, Steven Whittaker, Gary O'Connor, Buezelin etc but we shouldn't have been bringing in some of the signings we have endured of late.

In some ways this reminds me of what Alex McLeish said about Didier Agathe. Something along the lines of 'my only option was to sign him for three months, if I hadn't someone else would have and I would have denied our fans and the team. He was a short lived success with us scoring more goals in three months than he did at Celtic in two seasons. It is better to have loved than not loved at all is another way of looking at it but some of us find it hard to accept a period of financial success (record breaking success) followed by mediocrity or worse in football. Rant over.

I was brought up to support Hibs & never through my upbringing did I, nor anybody else for that matter, consider sixth place particularly good, on the contrary, it was considered poor.

As for Agathe, I thought it was Hibs decision to sign him on a three month loan deal from Raith Rovers?? There didn't seem to be a que of clubs until he was such a success those couple of months at Hibs [we will exclude the miss at Tynie:greengrin].

Phil D. Rolls
06-08-2009, 11:27 AM
Well maybe that is the case I don't know but I was close to someone who worked with Duffy at ER and he told me Hibs were thinking small. The person concerned had a key position at ER and according to him was only on £12K a year. I bow to your superior knowledge of player costs though. Stevie Crawford I believe was another of their signings no? The JD team without Lavety was distinctly light weight, although I don't think many would like to mess with Tosh.

I think the club spent big between Duffy's arrival and McLeish's departure. I know a lot of people think it was a travesty that Alex Miller didn't get the cash to spend that those guys did.

ahibby
06-08-2009, 11:32 AM
I was brought up to support Hibs & never through my upbringing did I, nor anybody else for that matter, consider sixth place particularly good, on the contrary, it was considered poor.

As for Agathe, I thought it was Hibs decision to sign him on a three month loan deal from Raith Rovers?? There didn't seem to be a que of clubs until he was such a success those couple of months at Hibs [we will exclude the miss at Tynie:greengrin].

Not quite right Ray. What actually happened is that Celtic went sniffing around before he signed from us and he was advised to only sign for a short term (not by Celtic but by some connection in Fife, sounds obscure I guess but thats what happened). He knew that if he impressed at Hibs, Celtic were coming from him and that is why he and not Hibs insisted on a three month deal (he was acting on advice).

ahibby
06-08-2009, 11:34 AM
I was brought up to support Hibs & never through my upbringing did I, nor anybody else for that matter, consider sixth place particularly good, on the contrary, it was considered poor.

As for Agathe, I thought it was Hibs decision to sign him on a three month loan deal from Raith Rovers?? There didn't seem to be a que of clubs until he was such a success those couple of months at Hibs [we will exclude the miss at Tynie:greengrin].

I remember one season I thought eleventh place would have been good but unfortunately we finished twelvth and were relegated:wink:

Barman Stanton
06-08-2009, 11:39 AM
Part of breaking the income records was selling the players. I think the differences of opinion come from how that money should have been spent, could we have reached another level?

I'm still not convinced it's been abysmal. Filling the team with trialists like we had in the Kenny Waugh years was abysmal; so was facing extinction and that horrendous run of scoreless draws against Hearts; Jim Duffy was abysmal; the last couple of years have been disappointing.

Yes, but structure wise and financially we are in a miles better situation than we were in those days. Therefore should an average of 6th place and no Europe be a position we should be happy and content with? Certainly not imo.

Ray_
06-08-2009, 11:39 AM
I remember one season I thought eleventh place would have been good but unfortunately we finished twelvth and were relegated:wink:

That happened twice & was unthinkable before the PL came in.

Phil D. Rolls
06-08-2009, 11:44 AM
Yes, but structure wise and financially we are in a miles better situation than we were in those days. Therefore should an average of 6th place and no Europe be a position we should be happy and content with? Certainly not imo.

6th place was really gash. If it happens again then things are in a mess. I just wanted a wee bit of balance, as we are hardly posting our worst performances of the past 15 years or so. We quickly forget how bad things were.

Barman Stanton
06-08-2009, 11:52 AM
6th place was really gash. If it happens again then things are in a mess. I just wanted a wee bit of balance, as we are hardly posting our worst performances of the past 15 years or so. We quickly forget how bad things were.

I think everyone would agree that we are not even comparable to how bad we have been in the past. I think the main issue is that we are a pretty average team in a very poor league at the moment, when everything is in place for us to certainly be challenging for 3rd every season.

For me there is no balance in raking in over 3 and half million on players and bringing in a few free transfers who were not even first choices at their clubs (nothing against the guys, and I hope they do well). There is still a lot of time to bring in players I guess, but its easy to see why people are concerned.

jgl07
06-08-2009, 12:42 PM
Filled Rolls is absolutely right, Jim Duffy spent a lot of money, far too much money in fact, we were paying a kings ransom for mediocre players Lavety being one of them, 100k for Power, 100k for Tosh plus wages etc etc etc, we already had a large pool of players when we started bringing in hordes more & we needed to get rid far sooner than we did.
I think you will find that Lavety was signed by Alex Miller. He came into the team in the League Cup match at Brechin (and scored). That was before Miller was emptied.

Later Scott signed Brian Grant, Yogi Hughes, and Rab Shannon.

Duffy signed Power and Tosh from Dundee. This was (allegedly) to ensure he received his contract payoff from Dundee.

Duffy also signed a number of free transfers including Jimmy Boco, Chick Charnley, and David Elliot.

I can't recall who signed Steve Crawford.

brog
06-08-2009, 12:55 PM
I think you will find that Lavety was signed by Alex Miller. He came into the team in the League Cup match at Brechin (and scored). That was before Miller was emptied.

Later Scott signed Brian Grant, Yogi Hughes, and Rab Shannon.

Duffy signed Power and Tosh from Dundee. This was (allegedly) to ensure he received his contract payoff from Dundee.

Duffy also signed a number of free transfers including Jimmy Boco, Chick Charnley, and David Elliot.

I can't recall who signed Steve Crawford.



I have a horrible feeling we paid a chunk of cash for David Elliot, maybe even 6 figures. Thanks for reminding me of him! :boo hoo:

ancient hibee
06-08-2009, 01:33 PM
I was brought up to support Hibs & never through my upbringing did I, nor anybody else for that matter, consider sixth place particularly good, on the contrary, it was considered poor.

As for Agathe, I thought it was Hibs decision to sign him on a three month loan deal from Raith Rovers?? There didn't seem to be a que of clubs until he was such a success those couple of months at Hibs [we will exclude the miss at Tynie:greengrin].

Maybe you were brought up to consider 6th place failure but for example in the 25 years from 1960 we only finished better than 6th 11 times so let's not get too carried away about the god old days.

smurf
06-08-2009, 01:58 PM
I think you will find that Lavety was signed by Alex Miller. He came into the team in the League Cup match at Brechin (and scored). That was before Miller was emptied.

Later Scott signed Brian Grant, Yogi Hughes, and Rab Shannon.

Duffy signed Power and Tosh from Dundee. This was (allegedly) to ensure he received his contract payoff from Dundee.

Duffy also signed a number of free transfers including Jimmy Boco, Chick Charnley, and David Elliot.

I can't recall who signed Steve Crawford.

Using the money from the sale of Jackson Duffy reinvested a decent amount in Crawford, Ollie & Rougier...

Ray_
06-08-2009, 01:59 PM
Maybe you were brought up to consider 6th place failure but for example in the 25 years from 1960 we only finished better than 6th 11 times so let's not get too carried away about the god old days.

Things started to drop towards the end of Eddie Turnbull's tenure, that was the turning point IMHO & my first game was in 1965. During the period in between I would imagine the figures would be far more favourable.

jgl07
06-08-2009, 02:02 PM
Using the money from the sale of Jackson Duffy reinvested a decent amount in Crawford, Ollie & Rougier...
I was trying to work out where the money came from for Crawford after Scott had blown £300,000 or so on Yogi.

Rougier was a bit of an enimga. But without him, Hibs would never have signed Latapy.

ScottB
06-08-2009, 02:36 PM
It's not the boards fault that the majority of players signed by Mixu and JC were huddies. The board backed their manager, more so than any other club outwith the Old Firm in recent years.

Which is really the crux of the matter, had we been spending money at a greater level than we have been since we started selling off 'the golden generation' where does the notion that this would result in better players come from?

TM brought in Sproule, Jones, Murphy et all on a shoestring, JC and Mixu blew well over a million quid between them on O'Brien, Kerr, Zarabi and co. More money would not equate better players as a matter of fact, it could just as easily left us with even more deadweight.

jgl07
06-08-2009, 02:42 PM
It's not the boards fault that the majority of players signed by Mixu and JC were huddies. The board backed their manager, more so than any other club outwith the Old Firm in recent years.

I suppose you could blame the board for appointing said managers.

But then again I seem to recall practically everyone here clamouring for Collins and Mixu to be appointed.

Of course six months or so on when things were going wrong it was all the board's fault.

ScottB
06-08-2009, 02:44 PM
I suppose you could blame the board for appointing said managers.

But then again I seem to recall practically everyone here clamouring for Collins and Mixu to be appointed.

Of course six months or so on when things were going wrong it was all the board's fault.

Board are damned if they do, damned if they don't. When the team does well its the manager, when the team sucks its the boards fault for not coughing up the cash or giving it to the wrong man.

brog
06-08-2009, 02:50 PM
Maybe you were brought up to consider 6th place failure but for example in the 25 years from 1960 we only finished better than 6th 11 times so let's not get too carried away about the god old days.

I don't think it's a completely fair comparison. For the first 15 of these years it was an 18 team league & many other teams had glory years. eg in 1965 the top 4 were Killie ( yes!!! ) Hearts, Dunfermline & Hibs. In the next 10 years after formation of SPL we had the emergence of the New Firm so to get better than 6th meant being best of rest other than OF & Dons/Arabs.
Now we have a very stable ( & boring ) SPL & effectively there's really only about 5 teams competing for 3rd place. To be regularly bottom or thereabouts of those 5 teams is what's depressing our fans & in case of last year, getting horsed at home in 2 cup competitions by 2 lesser teams :wink: also did not help.

Phil D. Rolls
06-08-2009, 02:55 PM
I don't think it's a completely fair comparison. For the first 15 of these years it was an 18 team league & many other teams had glory years. eg in 1965 the top 4 were Killie ( yes!!! ) Hearts, Dunfermline & Hibs. In the next 10 years after formation of SPL we had the emergence of the New Firm so to get better than 6th meant being best of rest other than OF & Dons/Arabs.
Now we have a very stable ( & boring ) SPL & effectively there's really only about 5 teams competing for 3rd place. To be regularly bottom or thereabouts of those 5 teams is what's depressing our fans & in case of last year, getting horsed at home in 2 cup competitions by 2 lesser teams :wink: also did not help.

Have we been regularly bottom? If we have there hasn't been much of a margin in it.

jgl07
06-08-2009, 02:57 PM
Board are damned if they do, damned if they don't. When the team does well its the manager, when the team sucks its the boards fault for not coughing up the cash or giving it to the wrong man.
That was the situation in the late 1990s after Alex Miller was sacked. The board allowed the acting manager Jockie Scott to blow £300,000 on three players. Only Yogi Hughes made any measureable contribution.

Then Jim Duffy came in and signed half a team. Only Stevie Crawford persisted for long after Duffy walked.

McLeish operated a real revolving door with players coming in and going out each week. There was Paul Holsgrove, Justin Skinner, the two Austrians, Paul Lovering, Derek Collins, and numerous players from the lower leagues. Eventually he did get it right but continued to tinker. This lead to the finacial crisis at Easter Road around 2002.

The board would be justified in being very careful in letting managers spend a lot of money.

brog
06-08-2009, 03:00 PM
Have we been regularly bottom? If we have there hasn't been much of a margin in it.

To be honest I don't know off the top of my head but our few appearances in Europe in recent years certainly suggests we're usually worse than 4th.

Ray_
06-08-2009, 03:03 PM
Board are damned if they do, damned if they don't. When the team does well its the manager, when the team sucks its the boards fault for not coughing up the cash or giving it to the wrong man.

The board are the only ones who interview said appointments, remember Petrie gloating about boxes ticked when TM was appointed, he didn't do much gloating after that & come to think of it, hadn't much to gloat about before then as well.

Phil D. Rolls
06-08-2009, 03:04 PM
To be honest I don't know off the top of my head but our few appearances in Europe in recent years certainly suggests we're usually worse than 4th.

What has frustrated me is that with the squad we had last year we might have put in a stronger challenge. We let too many points slip away, especially at the start. I think that was down to the manager myself, and so we are in the position of having to wait and see, again.

jgl07
06-08-2009, 03:10 PM
Now we have a very stable ( & boring ) SPL & effectively there's really only about 5 teams competing for 3rd place.
It has been reasonably competitive. The following have finished third in the SPL since its inception:

St Johnstone
Livingston
Hearts (x3)
Hibs (x2)
Aberdeen
Rangers
Motherwell

You can add Dundee United as competitors.

ScottB
06-08-2009, 03:13 PM
That was the situation in the late 1990s after Alex Miller was sacked. The board allowed the acting manager Jockie Scott to blow £300,000 on three players. Only Yogi Hughes made any measureable contribution.

Then Jim Duffy came in and signed half a team. Only Stevie Crawford persisted for long after Duffy walked.

McLeish operated a real revolving door with players coming in and going out each week. There was Paul Holsgrove, Justin Skinner, the two Austrians, Paul Lovering, Derek Collins, and numerous players from the lower leagues. Eventually he did get it right but continued to tinker. This lead to the finacial crisis at Easter Road around 2002.

The board would be justified in being very careful in letting managers spend a lot of money.

I agree, even considering the most recent 3 their ratios of good player to bad player wouldnt inspire me with confidence to have given them vast amounts of cash to spend.

hibees_green
06-08-2009, 07:32 PM
....It's not a spectacular approach, but it's worth it....

And there in lies the problem. Not enough people will hang around to enable it to happen. It's simply too boring.

We're not an insurance bond we're a football club. It's a product that exists as a form of entertainment. Without that something extra people will switch off and do something else (as we are seeing).

matty_f
06-08-2009, 08:19 PM
And there in lies the problem. Not enough people will hang around to enable it to happen. It's simply too boring.

We're not an insurance bond we're a football club. It's a product that exists as a form of entertainment. Without that something extra people will switch off and do something else (as we are seeing).

It's not all down to the money though, is it? We've spent more than Mowbray had over the last few seasons without seeing as good a brand of football as we did there.

We all want to see a winning team on the pitch, playing great football. I doubt that there is one single person sitting thinking 'Christ, I hope we don't sign anyone as it'll scunner the books' - however I think a large number of people can recognise that for all the criticism the board take, they have delivered hugely significant things for the club -

A modern stadium (hopefully soon to be completed)
A top class training centre
Consecutive top 6 finishes for the past however many seasons
Some European football
A CIS Cup win
Numerous Scottish Cup semi-finals over the last few years
A highly successful youth set up
Increase in spend on player wages year on year (according to the accounts, IIRC)
Increase in spend year on year on player fees
An ability to hold onto our better players while the manager needs them (Boozy, Fletcher, and Jones all could have been cashed in on far earlier than we did, in fact we let Boozy go for nothing specifically because the manager wanted him longer).

That's a more than decent return from the board, IMHO - and we'll see how things go under Yogi. Having listened to him talking in depth about what he wants to achieve at the club, I'm confident that we'll see more of the spectacular stuff on the pitch sooner rather than later.

I'm not saying we don't need to bring players in - we do, and I'm confident we will, because the board have shown repeatedly over the past few seasons that they will do what they can to support the manager.

Gerard
06-08-2009, 08:52 PM
:top marks
What he said. :top marks
:top marks
G

blackpoolhibs
06-08-2009, 09:11 PM
We can have all the arguments about what petrie has given to each manager, but we are spending more than we ever have, but its the managers at the time, who have brought in mediocre player after mediocre player, filling the squad with mediocre players. Each manager since mowbray said they wanted quality rather than quantity. Well its time we got that right.:pray:

matty_f
06-08-2009, 09:56 PM
We can have all the arguments about what petrie has given to each manager, but we are spending more than we ever have, but its the managers at the time, who have brought in mediocre player after mediocre player, filling the squad with mediocre players. Each manager since mowbray said they wanted quality rather than quantity. Well its time we got that right.:pray:

:top marks :agree:

Have to say that so far, Cregg, McBride and Galbraith all look like they are good enough players.

blackpoolhibs
06-08-2009, 10:01 PM
:top marks :agree:

Have to say that so far, Cregg, McBride and Galbraith all look like they are good enough players.

The proof will be when the real stuff starts. I remember thinking the same when we signed Rankin and Nish, and for the older fans, Scott and Fyfe. :faf:

Hibbyradge
06-08-2009, 10:22 PM
Absolutely, it was also Collins who virtually forced the board to offer Fletch his new contract & as a result gained us £3mm. Unfortunately Collins failed to persuade the board to honour a verbal commitment to Jones to do likewise.
If posts on this board are accurate we've sold about 8,000 season tickets, that's about 20-25% down on a couple of seasons ago, or put another way, about £1/2mm in income. I don't see brilliant business acumen there albeit it was the shocking early season ticket figures which contributed to Mixu's " resignation ".

Remember that we are in the midst of an aggressive recession.

Season tickets were always going to be hit.

jgl07
06-08-2009, 10:36 PM
Remember that we are in the midst of an aggressive recession.

Season tickets were always going to be hit.
Not if you sell them for £19!

Works for Hearts.

Ray_
07-08-2009, 09:47 AM
The proof will be when the real stuff starts. I remember thinking the same when we signed Rankin and Nish, and for the older fans, Scott and Fyfe. :faf:

And even older Jim Blair :shocked:

blackpoolhibs
07-08-2009, 09:49 AM
And even older Jim Blair :shocked:

Christ i'd forgotten about him. The word hopeless was invented for him.


Christ we have signed some *****.

hibees_green
07-08-2009, 07:39 PM
It's not all down to the money though, is it? .....

I actually do think the decline over the last 2 seasons is partly due to lack of invetsment in the squad.

I also accept that the board is partly responsible for your list but similarly they are partly responsible for the failure (IMHO) over the last 2 seasons.

I could actually create a list that reads equally negative over the last 5-10 years.

The main point is that many ain't going back if the playing side doesn't improve.

The board needs to make that happen and I do not believe it will happen unless there is a change in strategy.

Only my opinion like.

Mibbes Aye
07-08-2009, 07:56 PM
I actually do think the decline over the last 2 seasons is partly due to lack of invetsment in the squad.

I also accept that the board is partly responsible for your list but similarly they are partly responsible for the failure (IMHO) over the last 2 seasons.

I could actually create a list that reads equally negative over the last 5-10 years.

The main point is that many ain't going back if the playing side doesn't improve.

The board needs to make that happen and I do not believe it will happen unless there is a change in strategy.

Only my opinion like.

Go on then :agree:. I'm sure you could, just interested to see how it would read and how realistic any criticisms would be. Whether the things you see as negative could have been avoided, and if so how.....that sort of thing :dunno:

You talk about a change in strategy. What do you propose?

hibees_green
07-08-2009, 11:08 PM
Go on then :agree:. I'm sure you could, just interested to see how it would read and how realistic any criticisms would be. Whether the things you see as negative could have been avoided, and if so how.....that sort of thing :dunno:

You talk about a change in strategy. What do you propose?

Firstly I'm not that excited about some of your list. It's not what I go to see hibs for and if we were successful on the park would anyone really care about it? i.e. a modern stadium & a top class training centre. I actually worry that our training centre is over cooked and will incurr excessive operational costs going forward that we could well do without.

But for those things that I do care about:

Consecutive top 6 finishes for the past however many seasons

Managed to finish above sixth 3 times in ten years.

Some European football

Played 2 meaningful European games in 10 years and failed to progress in either.

Cups

Hampden against Hearts, Ayr, Dunfermline & Livi too name but a few. (Direct result of lack of investment in squad/manager imho).

Increase in spend on player wages year on year

A manager walking out due to lack of funds despite huge player sale income. Maybe a better real world indicator that statement of accounts.

An ability to hold onto our better players while the manager needs them.

A turnover of over 40 players in 2 years all of which were involved in 1st team action a some point.

As far as strategy I'd like to see a gaurantee that some agreed percentage of player sale income (25%?) going directly into the playing budget over and above ticket money. In essence evidence of a short to medium term plan as well as a long term one.

new malkyhib
07-08-2009, 11:11 PM
Firstly I'm not that excited about some of your list. It's not what I go to see hibs for and if we were successful on the park would anyone really care about it? i.e. a modern stadium & a top class training centre. I actually worry that our training centre is over cooked and will incurr excessive operational costs going forward that we could well do without.

But for those things that I do care about:

Consecutive top 6 finishes for the past however many seasons

Managed to finish above sixth 3 times in ten years.

Some European football

Played 2 meaningful European games in 10 years and failed to progress in either.

Cups

Hampden against Hearts, Ayr, Dunfermline & Livi too name but a few. (Direct result of lack of investment in squad/manager imho).

Increase in spend on player wages year on year

A manager walking out due to lack of funds despite huge player sale income. Maybe a better real world indicator that statement of accounts.

An ability to hold onto our better players while the manager needs them.

A turnover of over 40 players in 2 years all of which were involved in 1st team action a some point.

As far as strategy I'd like to see a gaurantee that some agreed percentage of player sale income (25%?) going directly into the playing budget over and above ticket money. In essence evidence of a short to medium term plan as well as a long term one.

:top marksFar too ambitious by half though...:greengrin

sahib
08-08-2009, 07:39 AM
And even older Jim Blair :shocked:

Jim Blair had a lovely lasy left peg. Time dims the memory but I think Blair had more football about him than Nish.

Spike Mandela
08-08-2009, 08:01 AM
It's not all down to the money though, is it? We've spent more than Mowbray had over the last few seasons without seeing as good a brand of football as we did there.

We all want to see a winning team on the pitch, playing great football. I doubt that there is one single person sitting thinking 'Christ, I hope we don't sign anyone as it'll scunner the books' - however I think a large number of people can recognise that for all the criticism the board take, they have delivered hugely significant things for the club -

A modern stadium (hopefully soon to be completed)
A top class training centre
Consecutive top 6 finishes for the past however many seasons
Some European football
A CIS Cup win
Numerous Scottish Cup semi-finals over the last few years
A highly successful youth set up
Increase in spend on player wages year on year (according to the accounts, IIRC)
Increase in spend year on year on player fees
An ability to hold onto our better players while the manager needs them (Boozy, Fletcher, and Jones all could have been cashed in on far earlier than we did, in fact we let Boozy go for nothing specifically because the manager wanted him longer).

That's a more than decent return from the board, IMHO - and we'll see how things go under Yogi. Having listened to him talking in depth about what he wants to achieve at the club, I'm confident that we'll see more of the spectacular stuff on the pitch sooner rather than later.

I'm not saying we don't need to bring players in - we do, and I'm confident we will, because the board have shown repeatedly over the past few seasons that they will do what they can to support the manager.

This is the crucial barometer for me.

Qualified for Europe 3 times in the entire 19/20 year tenure of the Farmer/Petrie regime and only one of those based on League position.

Despite all the other undoubted positives acheived listed above this is where I feel Hibs fans have been short changed.

A period of consistent qualification for Europe via league position is the next target we need to acheive in my book although I suspect the board's target is a fourth stand.

Ray_
08-08-2009, 09:01 AM
Jim Blair had a lovely lasy left peg. Time dims the memory but I think Blair had more football about him than Nish.

I know he scored two against Rangers & I wouldn't argue against the latter one way or the other, but back then he cost a massive 45k, which was more than half we got for the terrific player he was replacing, Peter Cormack.

Cliché time, at the end of the day Jim Blair was a huddy & a lot of his team mates at that time became what is known as the TT's, he was hopelessly out of his class with that company. I think he also got two against Malmo, in the 6-0 fairs cup win & apart from one other goal I believe that was the total he got in the season he spent at the club, I think we managed to get 18k back off ST Mirren, the following close season.

Ironically, we paid more for Blair from ST Mirren than Leeds did for Gordon McQueen & centre half was a real problem position throughout the seventies, Leeds also paid 30k for Joe Jordan around that time

BEEJ
08-08-2009, 09:11 AM
But for those things that I do care about:

Consecutive top 6 finishes for the past however many seasons

Managed to finish above sixth 3 times in ten years.

Some European football

Played 2 meaningful European games in 10 years and failed to progress in either.
:agree:

Those are the most telling indicators that we have failed to punch our weight for some considerable time now.

That's why I find irksome the references to expectations of a 3rd / 4th place SPL finish being hopelessly optimistic / unrealistic in the light of recent club history; many seem to be using a poor benchmark against which to measure our expectation of achievement.

The last 20 years should not become the norm for this club - we should expect better.

Hopefully that begins from this season! :wink:

matty_f
08-08-2009, 09:27 AM
This is the crucial barometer for me.

Qualified for Europe 3 times in the entire 19/20 year tenure of the Farmer/Petrie regime and only one of those based on League position.

Despite all the other undoubted positives acheived listed above this is where I feel Hibs fans have been short changed.

A period of consistent qualification for Europe via league position is the next target we need to acheive in my book although I suspect the board's target is a fourth stand.

:agree: I definitely think we should be targeting consistent European qualification now - we've got ourselves into a position where we should be stronger than most of our peers now.

:agree:

Those are the most telling indicators that we have failed to punch our weight for some considerable time now.

That's why I find irksome the references to expectations of a 3rd / 4th place SPL finish being hopelessly optimistic / unrealistic in the light of recent club history; many seem to be using a poor benchmark against which to measure our expectation of achievement.

The last 20 years should not become the norm for this club - we should expect better.

Hopefully that begins from this season! :wink:

I agree with that, too - the last 20 years have put us in a position where we have gone from near extinction to being a club that has almost everything in place to enjoy a real spell of relative success. We are well ahead of the likes of almost all of the SPL in terms of how we are set up, and we have already seen some tangible evidence of this in terms of not selling players at the first sniff of cash, and in most cases the 'calibre' of player we have signed has risen (i.e. from going from signing unknown young players to signing established SPL level players - admittedly this hasn't paid dividends the way we would have hoped, but that was more to do with the manager that signed them rather than anything financial).

Phil MaGlass
08-08-2009, 09:48 AM
We really do have a solid footing now,everything is in place (apart from the east stand) all we need now is an investor to pump in a couple of million then were ready to go.

matty_f
08-08-2009, 10:07 AM
We really do have a solid footing now,everything is in place (apart from the east stand) all we need now is an investor to pump in a couple of million then were ready to go.

I'll do it.:agree::greengrin

jgl07
08-08-2009, 11:03 AM
This is the crucial barometer for me.

Qualified for Europe 3 times in the entire 19/20 year tenure of the Farmer/Petrie regime and only one of those based on League position.

It is actual two times out of three.

2001: Third place would have guaranteed a UEFA Cup place regardless of Hibs being cup runners up.

2005: Third place gave a place in the UEFA Cup.

--------
08-08-2009, 11:59 AM
We really do have a solid footing now,everything is in place (apart from the east stand) all we need now is an investor to pump in a couple of million then were ready to go.


We'd need a lot more than a couple of million from an outside investor.

Two million's chickenfeed these days.

if you're talking about investment in the team, it'd need to be a LOT more, and sustained over at least 5 years.

We wouldn't be competing with the rest of the SPL - we'd be competing with the lower EPL and the Championship, which means single transfers in the 5-10 million bracket and salaries in five figures each week.

Mibbes Aye
08-08-2009, 05:22 PM
Firstly I'm not that excited about some of your list. It's not what I go to see hibs for and if we were successful on the park would anyone really care about it? i.e. a modern stadium & a top class training centre. I actually worry that our training centre is over cooked and will incurr excessive operational costs going forward that we could well do without.

But for those things that I do care about:

Consecutive top 6 finishes for the past however many seasons

Managed to finish above sixth 3 times in ten years.

Some European football

Played 2 meaningful European games in 10 years and failed to progress in either.

Cups

Hampden against Hearts, Ayr, Dunfermline & Livi too name but a few. (Direct result of lack of investment in squad/manager imho).

Increase in spend on player wages year on year

A manager walking out due to lack of funds despite huge player sale income. Maybe a better real world indicator that statement of accounts.

An ability to hold onto our better players while the manager needs them.

A turnover of over 40 players in 2 years all of which were involved in 1st team action a some point.

As far as strategy I'd like to see a gaurantee that some agreed percentage of player sale income (25%?) going directly into the playing budget over and above ticket money. In essence evidence of a short to medium term plan as well as a long term one.

Haven't the Board indicated that with the completion of the East Stand they envisage any income going back into the club - the "spend a pound less than we earn" quote? That's more or less 100%, not 25%.

Couple of points around if we went public with a figure like the 25% (say this season, with the Fletcher money) -then if you were to be satisfied we were actually spending 25% we would have to announce the value of the deals, which we don't always do (or which the buying club don't always want us to do). Do we include any add-ons at the time? And wouldn't every selling club then have a great idea of how much we have to spend? And what happens when our acquisitions would cost 28% - is it okay to go above our limit? Why not 30% then? Or 35%? Or 50%? If we don't stick to it then there's no point setting a figure but I can imagine the reaction of some if we lost out on a deal because we wouldn't go a few % over...........

And does this 25% get used for transfers and signing-on fees? What about wages and bonuses over the length of the contract? If they're also included and when that money is spent, do we have to sell a good player to maintain the same standard, rather than having the capacity to fund it from within? What if we don't have someone to sell at that moment? What if they do an Andy Driver and get injured in the window? Do we then turn to the manager and say sorry, you're losing such-and-such because we can't renew his contract because we're relying on transfer money to pay it?

I think the point is that once we have finished the stadium we will be in a position to look at windfall money being used in near enough its entirety on the playing side. I don't see the benefit in committing ourselves to some sort of benchmark figure though. And if we are to try and maintain some sort of incremental gain then we have to be careful woth how we use money that isn't reasonably predictable income.

I know there are some who can't help but focus on the short-term. Looking at it longer-term though, I suppose we really started the 'incremental model' in the wake of the collapsed TV deal. We've seen ourselves go from the plunging cuts that had us in tenth place to consistent top six. In between we had two exceptional finishes under Mowbray. Unfortunately they were with players we couldn't afford to keep, either from our point of view or theirs. The bonus was that we were able to stabilise the club's finances, work towards the completion of the ground and get the training centre that Mowbray and Collins both wanted.

Next step is to raise the bar further - for me it's got to be building on consistently making the top six to achieving European qualification on a far more regular basis.

(Oh, and it wasn't my list you were unexcited about :wink:)

hibees_green
09-08-2009, 10:57 AM
Haven't the Board indicated that with the completion of the East Stand they envisage any income going back into the club - the "spend a pound less than we earn" quote? That's more or less 100%, not 25%.

I do not believe this will ever happen. In five years time I think that real world variables will mean posts of ' ah but something else came up.....' or 'ah but if it hadn't been for x, y, z...'.

As far as the 25% figure I don't really care what the figure is but some investment should be made. I'd expected that initially it would simply enable us to attract better 'bosmans'. If we couldn't afford to keep them at the end of thier contract, due to insufficient income, I'd accept that. At least we'd have tried to maintain some level of quality on the playing side.

I don't really know if my strategy is perfect but over the last 2 years something should have been done in the short term to improve the squad. A player turnover of approx 40 in 2 years, along with the performances, shows it wasn't.

In short I think the current strategy will continue and many will be happy with this. Unfortunately from my view of things it's really sad as it's resulted in me giving up my ST of 10 years and my father and his pals giving their's up after over 60 years of attending:boo hoo:.


(Oh, and it wasn't my list you were unexcited about :wink:)

Ooops apologies.

RyeSloan
09-08-2009, 06:35 PM
I do not believe this will ever happen. In five years time I think that real world variables will mean posts of ' ah but something else came up.....' or 'ah but if it hadn't been for x, y, z...'.

As far as the 25% figure I don't really care what the figure is but some investment should be made. I'd expected that initially it would simply enable us to attract better 'bosmans'. If we couldn't afford to keep them at the end of thier contract, due to insufficient income, I'd accept that. At least we'd have tried to maintain some level of quality on the playing side.

I don't really know if my strategy is perfect but over the last 2 years something should have been done in the short term to improve the squad. A player turnover of approx 40 in 2 years, along with the performances, shows it wasn't.

In short I think the current strategy will continue and many will be happy with this. Unfortunately from my view of things it's really sad as it's resulted in me giving up my ST of 10 years and my father and his pals giving their's up after over 60 years of attending:boo hoo:.



Ooops apologies.

So the fact that Board supported each manager to bring in and get rid of so many players is a sign that the Board are not supporting the manager :confused::confused:

You use the last two years as an example of how we have not 'invested'....have a look at the accounts, outside player sales we spent MORE than we could afford so player sales have been used to suppliment the managers budget.

Jeeez we can't spend what we ain't got....a lot of the transer fees received have been used to pay for money we had already spent 'investing' in the team in previous years and thankfully some was actually invested into the stadium and the training ground.

I really don't see where this extra 'investment' is going to come from without forcing up the debt yet again....any suggestions??

If by 'current strategy' you mean using player sales to invest in a fully completed modern stadium, a modern self owned training centre and ensuring managable debt then too right people will be happy with it.

It shouldn't really take much to see that when this phase is completed we WILL be in a position to use a huge portion of future sales to maybe try and attract significantly better quality of player or maybe more likely be able to hold onto future star players that wee bit longer.

Sure it's taken 10 years or so but consider how low we were and how far we have come I find it really really strange that people consider the strategy as a whole flawed. Thankfully our Board can see past a poor season or a dissapointing Managerial appointment and keep to the plan, because ultimately it is all being shaped to allow us to focus more and more on the football side thanks to having a low debt, solid infrastucture set up well beyond any other SPL side outside the OF.

Thing is is we have a 'good' season this year and are right in the mix for 3rd or 4th we wouldn't be having this discussion...if we do I wonder how much credit you would give the Board or would it as ever be down to Yogi doing the business despite Rod and co's best efforts??

wee 162
09-08-2009, 07:15 PM
So the fact that Board supported each manager to bring in and get rid of so many players is a sign that the Board are not supporting the manager :confused::confused:

You use the last two years as an example of how we have not 'invested'....have a look at the accounts, outside player sales we spent MORE than we could afford so player sales have been used to suppliment the managers budget.

Jeeez we can't spend what we ain't got....a lot of the transer fees received have been used to pay for money we had already spent 'investing' in the team in previous years and thankfully some was actually invested into the stadium and the training ground.

I really don't see where this extra 'investment' is going to come from without forcing up the debt yet again....any suggestions??

If by 'current strategy' you mean using player sales to invest in a fully completed modern stadium, a modern self owned training centre and ensuring managable debt then too right people will be happy with it.

It shouldn't really take much to see that when this phase is completed we WILL be in a position to use a huge portion of future sales to maybe try and attract significantly better quality of player or maybe more likely be able to hold onto future star players that wee bit longer.

Sure it's taken 10 years or so but consider how low we were and how far we have come I find it really really strange that people consider the strategy as a whole flawed. Thankfully our Board can see past a poor season or a dissapointing Managerial appointment and keep to the plan, because ultimately it is all being shaped to allow us to focus more and more on the football side thanks to having a low debt, solid infrastucture set up well beyond any other SPL side outside the OF.

Thing is is we have a 'good' season this year and are right in the mix for 3rd or 4th we wouldn't be having this discussion...if we do I wonder how much credit you would give the Board or would it as ever be down to Yogi doing the business despite Rod and co's best efforts??
Thing is thought that the turnover of players is because we are working at the bottom end of the football market. When you're signing players who you hope will develop into better players that's a gamble. When you're signing players older than that, then the fact is that if Hibs are the biggest club trying to sign them they've got to have some question marks against them at best, or they just simply aren't very good. There's probably around a couple of hundred clubs in Europe who can afford better wages than Hibs can pay.

What I would really like to see would be Hibs identifying and targetting a different way of signing good players. Personally I reckon that the two Morrocans we have are pretty near the best in the squad technique wise. So they've been good signings imo (leaving aside the various dramas with Benji in particular) because they've enhanced the side and squads technical ability. So maybe we should be having more of a look at the North African market for youngish players who are keen on moving to Europe for example. I'm not saying that targetting North Africa is the only way that we can do that, but I reckon it would be a decent starting place.

matty_f
09-08-2009, 07:47 PM
Thing is thought that the turnover of players is because we are working at the bottom end of the football market. When you're signing players who you hope will develop into better players that's a gamble. When you're signing players older than that, then the fact is that if Hibs are the biggest club trying to sign them they've got to have some question marks against them at best, or they just simply aren't very good. There's probably around a couple of hundred clubs in Europe who can afford better wages than Hibs can pay.

What I would really like to see would be Hibs identifying and targetting a different way of signing good players. Personally I reckon that the two Morrocans we have are pretty near the best in the squad technique wise. So they've been good signings imo (leaving aside the various dramas with Benji in particular) because they've enhanced the side and squads technical ability. So maybe we should be having more of a look at the North African market for youngish players who are keen on moving to Europe for example. I'm not saying that targetting North Africa is the only way that we can do that, but I reckon it would be a decent starting place.

:agree: Good point about identifying better places to pick up talent cheap. There's a few ways to do this, but we actually have a great youth set up that should give us players much cheaper than going out to buy them.

hibees_green
09-08-2009, 08:55 PM
Thing is thought that the turnover of players is because we are working at the bottom end of the football market.

:agree:

jgl07
09-08-2009, 09:05 PM
Some European football

Played 2 meaningful European games in 10 years and failed to progress in either.

That is probably down to the way that European football is structured.

There were four Scottish clubs in the Europa Cup. Three have already departed before the domestic season has started. Hearts are still there because they haven't prlayed a match yet, Does anyone give them a chance against Dimano?

You either end up playing before pre-season training has barely commenced, often against teams in the middle of their season. Assuming that you scrape through such matches you will end in the Challenge Round against a seeded team who you have little chance of beating.

The whole thing has become an bloated overseeded bore.

The old European competitions offered a bit of uncertainty because they used a genuine draw. The current system based on coefficient points is rigged to ensure the maximum representation in the later round of clubs from the bigger leagues (more attractive to TV companies).

Apart from Rangers (dropping down form the CL) only two Scottish Clubs have made it to the Group Stages of the UEFA Cup (Hearts and Aberdeen) and only Aberdeen have progressed. When Hearts made it into the Group Stages they were seeded in the qualifying round. This is highly unlikely to be repeated in the future.

European progress is not really a realistic proposition for non-OF teams in the current structure,