Where's this money coming from? / sack the board! (merged) [Archive]

jakedance

31-08-2009, 10:45 PM

This Petrie fella has no ambition.

Murray and Riordan were brought back. The club debt is manageable. He built a training centre. The ground will likely be completed. A bid for Naysmith last year and Arfield this year. Stokes signed. The youth development looks like it will produce another batch of talent. All this and we're in a recession.

Add to this Hearts can't afford to buy anyone and analysts predict many of our competitors are in dire financial trouble.

Sack the Board I say. It's a disgrace.

Seriously though. We've not had the debate in a while. Are we going in the right direction? Has the tache won over any doubters?

Jack

31-08-2009, 10:53 PM

I dont think anyone doubted Rods intentions, just didn't like them.

HibbyAndy

31-08-2009, 10:56 PM

IMO Arfield will be a Hibernian f.c player by tomorrow..and if not then fair doos least we are trying to strenghen the sqaud with IMO qaulity players.

Hearts on the other hand will sign the sqaure route of eff all..thats the difference.. we have a far superior sqaud to Hearts AND are still trying to strenghen..they have an owner who thinks Nade is better than Stokes :cool2:

rainman

31-08-2009, 11:06 PM

I dont think anyone doubted Rods intentions, just didn't like them.

That's why he is paid the salary he is for running a football club and the naysayers spend their days on a football forum moaning about it.

He's made tough decisions with a lot of critisism and has made these decisions for the long term good of the club.

If the naysayers had their way, the training centre, the new stand, the debt money wouldve been spent on players to get us into third place with a trip into Europe to get Pumped.

Incremental growth was a phrase used as a stick to beat Petrie with. JC, mixu and hughes' budgets are the result of incremental growth. This transfer window says it all.

All this has been done with dwindling crowds. I think now is the time the fans should SUABC.

blackpoolhibs

31-08-2009, 11:10 PM

Peevemor

31-08-2009, 11:16 PM

It appears we are paying transfer fee's way beyond what i certainly thought we could. And i'd imagine stokes will be our highest earner now. Two bids for Arfield, he wont be cheap if he does sign. Are we now looking to speculate to accumulate, something i was told we couldnt do, look at leeds third lanark, clydebank and Hearts. Or are we rolling in the stuff, maybe STF has gone mad?:wink: Or are we in the position of being able to afford these players through our income?:confused:

With talk of the new stand, attendances down and no cup runs last season, there has definitely been a change in policy.

I wonder if STF and the Board reckon that given the poor state of the SPL, particularly the teams outwith the old firm, now is the right time for a bit of careful speculation.

blackpoolhibs

31-08-2009, 11:19 PM

With talk of the new stand, attendances down and no cup runs last season, there has definitely been a change in policy.

I wonder if STF and the Board reckon that given the poor state of the SPL, particularly the teams outwith the old firm, now is the right time for a bit of careful speculation.

I have no idea, as you say crowds are down, debt rose, and the stand has to be paid for, yet we are spending more money than ever on transfers, How can this be?:confused:

Toaods

31-08-2009, 11:21 PM

I have no idea, as you say crowds are down, debt rose, and the stand has to be paid for, yet we are spending more money than ever on transfers, How can this be?:confused:

because we ain't paying for them....:wink:

HibbyAndy

31-08-2009, 11:22 PM

I have no idea, as you say crowds are down, debt rose, and the stand has to be paid for, yet we are spending more money than ever on transfers, How can this be?:confused:

Put it this way ..Petrie is the most tightfisted canut in the world..i remember the posts when he was getting slated for NOT splashing the cash and now we are questioning him actually splashing it.

He cant win.

blackpoolhibs

31-08-2009, 11:25 PM

Put it this way ..Petrie is the most tightfisted canut in the world..i remember the posts when he was getting slated for NOT splashing the cash and now we are questioning him actually splashing it.

He cant win.

I certainly dont want us to be the next leeds united, maybe petrie wants to gamble with the clubs future, but i dont.:devil:

Peevemor

31-08-2009, 11:25 PM

Put it this way ..Petrie is the most tightfisted canut in the world..i remember the posts when he was getting slated for NOT splashing the cash and now we are questioning him actually splashing it.

He cant win.

I'm not knocking what seems to be going on. It looks lke we're finally taking a wee gamble and I hope it works.

Franck is God

31-08-2009, 11:25 PM

is it not just the board doing what they said they would do?

Their first job was to ensure that the infrastructure of the club was safe and secure which they did.

The sales of players and land behind the stadium has effectively paid of the debt, funded the building of the main stand and the training centre at East Mains. It would seem that the money is ready and available to build the new East Stand too so therefore the surplus from the Fletcher/Jones sale is going towards building the squad.

Although there is money available for the right players I would imagine that the wage budget is still well under control, we cannot go back to the days under McLeish when pretty average players were earning far too much money.

blaikie

31-08-2009, 11:26 PM

I have no idea, as you say crowds are down, debt rose, and the stand has to be paid for, yet we are spending more money than ever on transfers, How can this be?:confused:
We got a tidy sum for Fletcher. I reckon that's funding the transfers at the moment. Also the players that are being linked are young prospects who are tipped to go onto greater things, Such as Stokes and Arfield if he signs. Its a sign of ambition from the board hopefully it continues in the right direction and we see the right results on the pitch.

blackpoolhibs

31-08-2009, 11:28 PM

We got a tidy sum for Fletcher. I reckon that's funding the transfers at the moment. Also the players that are being linked are young prospects who are tipped to go onto greater things, Such as Stokes and Arfield if he signs. Its a sign of ambition from the board hopefully it continues in the right direction and we see the right results on the pitch.

If this is true, then is that not a change in policy by the club?

matty_f

31-08-2009, 11:28 PM

I think we're in a safe enough position thanks to the last few years of tight budgets, to be able to use some of the money from Jones and Fletcher leaving.

I would guess that we'll make our money back and then some on Stokes, Bamba will almost undoubtedly go at a hefty profit, and if we were to get in Arfield and/or Barr, their values go up almost immediately because of the position we're in.

TheBall'sRound

31-08-2009, 11:29 PM

We got a tidy sum for Fletcher. I reckon that's funding the transfers at the moment. Also the players that are being linked are young prospects who are tipped to go onto greater things, Such as Stokes and Arfield if he signs. Its a sign of ambition from the board hopefully it continues in the right direction and we see the right results on the pitch.

It's also a sign that the board has 100% faith in Hughes and his vision for the club. It's something to be pleased about!

Westie1875

31-08-2009, 11:30 PM

because we ain't paying for them....:wink:

Are we gonna do a Hertz and not pay up? Petrie... :grr:

:greengrin

blaikie

31-08-2009, 11:38 PM

If this is true, then is that not a change in policy by the club?
Looks like it. The board are prepared to take a gamble and back JH in the transfer market. When we lost Brown, Whittaker, Sproule etc the board didn't back Collins in the way they seem to be doing with Hughes. It could work out successful by spending a bit of cash on transfers. As most of our rivals excluding the old firm cant seem to fund new players in the way we seem to be doing it.

Hopefully it pays off! :agree:

Peevemor

01-09-2009, 12:02 AM

Looks like it. The board are prepared to take a gamble and back JH in the transfer market. When we lost Brown, Whittaker, Sproule etc the board didn't back Collins in the way they seem to be doing with Hughes. It could work out successful by spending a bit of cash on transfers. As most of our rivals excluding the old firm cant seem to fund new players in the way we seem to be doing it.

Hopefully it pays off! :agree:

JC had money to spend and wasted it.

Richard Scott

01-09-2009, 12:54 AM

It's about time we started spending some proper money

CB_NO3

01-09-2009, 01:15 AM

We recieved about 3.5m-4m in transfer fees this summer and we have also chopped of 10k a week of the wage bill before the signing of Stokes so you will probably find we are still making a tidy wee profit.

Hibercelona

01-09-2009, 01:39 AM

You finally have us spending money on the squad... and the fans arent happy!

Get it sorted Tache man! :grr:

:duck:

biggie1875

01-09-2009, 01:54 AM

yep were a strange bunch no happy because we not spendin cash now were spendin its worse ?:confused: rod get it sorted :wink:

Steve-O

01-09-2009, 02:16 AM

Sorry, but being in rugby world I might've missed something - when does the transfer window close?

greenlex

01-09-2009, 02:22 AM

Sorry, but being in rugby world I might've missed something - when does the transfer window close?

5pm our time today.

Steve-O

01-09-2009, 02:23 AM

5pm our time today.

Ah, was wondering why nobody seemed too bothered that midnight had passed with no activity :greengrin

Iain G

01-09-2009, 02:54 AM

Ah, was wondering why nobody seemed too bothered that midnight had passed with no activity :greengrin

I knew when it was closing, what's your excuse :greengrin

Steve-O

01-09-2009, 02:58 AM

I knew when it was closing, what's your excuse :greengrin

Swine flu :agree::greengrin

Viva_Palmeiras

01-09-2009, 05:19 AM

bighairyfaeleith

01-09-2009, 06:15 AM

I reckon it's quit simple really, buy ten good prospects at an average of 300k, if two come good we will net around 5 to 6 million in transfer fees. Given our ability with young players I would reckon at least five of those prospects would bring in a transfer fee in excess of 1m, the total is likely to be nearer 7 to 8m.

The difference is we are spending money we have, rather than borrowing to accumulate. This I reckon has been hibs plan all along, it's just that it's been a long hard slog getting here, but given the alternative is hearts I'm glad we have.

Hibs07p

01-09-2009, 06:28 AM

Nothing to do with the tash. The old schoolboy network has kicked in and Yogi goes straight to STF and gets unlimited access to the Farmer millions. Either that, or Yogi is his secret love child. :greengrin

Keith_M

01-09-2009, 06:30 AM

Maybe we've finally gotten through the famed 'transitional phase', during which everybody just had to be patient...

:wink:

Kaiser1962

01-09-2009, 06:33 AM

bighairyfaeleith

01-09-2009, 06:34 AM

The tache is an accountant therefore he does not speculate, on anything!

I also believe he is doing what he said he would, as posted earlier.
And again, as posted earlier, we aint paying for it. :wink:

Is that not theft???

I know we are supposed be caravan dwelling junkie peg sellers, but thiefs???

Jamesie

01-09-2009, 06:46 AM

Anyone else slightly uneasy about all of this money spending?

As someone who grew up with Rod at the helm he instilled a fiscal frugality in me which I hold until this day.

To see Rod departing from that philosophy leaves me more than a little bewildered...... :greengrin

Mikey

01-09-2009, 07:03 AM

Can those who say we're "not paying for it" please expand on that, rather than just wink?

Beefster

01-09-2009, 07:06 AM

It appears we are paying transfer fee's way beyond what i certainly thought we could. And i'd imagine stokes will be our highest earner now. Two bids for Arfield, he wont be cheap if he does sign. Are we now looking to speculate to accumulate, something i was told we couldnt do, look at leeds third lanark, clydebank and Hearts. Or are we rolling in the stuff, maybe STF has gone mad?:wink: Or are we in the position of being able to afford these players through our income?:confused:

Folk need to chill out.

The Board are questioned/criticised for not spending transfer fees (including by myself). Now they're being questioned for spending money (or trying to).

We brought in over £3m this summer, perhaps the lower debt is releasing more of the money brought in. We also spent a bundle bringing in Riordan and Bamba last August so it's not necessarily a new phenomenon.

Can those who say we're "not paying for it" please expand on that, rather than just wink?

Wouldn't that force folk to put their money where their mouth is? Reputations would crumble...

johnbc70

01-09-2009, 07:51 AM

Maybe we have a silent investor who has approached the board and said he is willing to pump some money into the club, but the club are keeping it top secret at the moment so that it does not inflate the transfer values of the players we are after.

Or, maybe as has been said all along we have been prudent last 4/5 years, reduced the debt and are now starting to reap the rewards. I am sure I read that all "profits" would be reinvested back into the club so maybe now rather than infratstructure this means the team.

MB62

01-09-2009, 08:00 AM

Can those who say we're "not paying for it" please expand on that, rather than just wink?

I take it to mean that whilst we may have agreed a fee of x amount (say £300,000) Like every other football transfer fee agreed, there will be a certain amount put up front, with the rest spread over a period of time.
Burnley will have done the same with us on the Fletcher deal, so it really is all just paperwork for accountants.

The gamble we are taking is, I would imagine, that if we agree £300,000 with Falkirk, for example, by the time we come round to paying the whole fee off, it will be time to sell him on for a greater amount, HOPEFULLY, and therefore we are not really paying for it.

That's only my take on all the winking (I said wInking :wink: :greengrin) etc, but I could be totally wrong and maybe others know differently.

It actually does make good business sense, IF it works out that the player bought progresses to a higher level of course.

I really don't see people having a go at Petrie for this, maybe just amazed that it is happening.
BTW, is it still Petrie, or has he not moved onward and upwards and Scott Lindsey is the man now?

MrSmith

01-09-2009, 08:01 AM

I think many years of being prudent and pragmatic has left us all wondering how this can be? Won't knock it but will question hence an earlier topic, started by me, questioning whether the East Satnd Re-development was being cancelled.

GreenOnions

01-09-2009, 08:05 AM

I don't think we have enough "cash" to pay for a new East Stand even after Fletcher and Jones sales. Even without paying transfer fees we would have to have arranged additional "funding" to pay the £5 - £6 million required for a new stand.

However, maybe the board feel that we are now in a position with relatively low debt to make some "investments" in the team for both football and financial reasons.

I would expect that, if this is the case, any fees we do pay will be for younger players who could perhaps produce a profit for us in a few years. (Witness Man Utd's new transfer policy).

At the moment we will have a substantial amount of cash in the bank gaining little or no interest and simply waiting to be spent on infrastructure.

There's also the old adage about "when's the best time to invest" and the additional possibility that we are expecting another significant sale either now or in January?

TornadoHibby

01-09-2009, 08:09 AM

It appears we are paying transfer fee's way beyond what i certainly thought we could. And i'd imagine stokes will be our highest earner now. Two bids for Arfield, he wont be cheap if he does sign. Are we now looking to speculate to accumulate, something i was told we couldnt do, look at leeds third lanark, clydebank and Hearts. Or are we rolling in the stuff, maybe STF has gone mad?:wink: Or are we in the position of being able to afford these players through our income?:confused:

FWIW I heard yesterday from a guy who knows a good few people in and around the Hibs set up and rarely misinforms when he does hear something not officially yet public that Hibs got Stokes without a transfer fee and the reason we can keep him within the wage structure (ish) is that Sunderland gave him a "redundancy payment" of around 6 months salary (£365K if he was on £14K pw). :wink: They just wanted him off their payroll! :dunno:

Would make sense of the deal and explain why we can still chase other decent signing targets offering to pay a fee! :dunno: :hmmm: :wink:

Hibbyradge

01-09-2009, 08:14 AM

FWIW I heard yesterday from a guy who knows a good few people in and around the Hibs set up and rarely misinforms when he does hear something not officially yet public that Hibs got Stokes without a transfer fee and the reason we can keep him within the wage structure (ish) is that Sunderland gave him a "redundancy payment" of around 6 months salary (£365K if he was on £14K pw). :wink: They just wanted him off their payroll! :dunno:

Would make sense of the deal and explain why we can still chase other decent signing targets offering to pay a fee! :dunno: :hmmm: :wink:

That is definitely not the case.

I do think he was given a severance pay off though.

IWasThere2016

01-09-2009, 08:16 AM

From under RP's mattress. Which is hand made from all the 'tache trimmings over the years. The man is a frugal genius.

Hibbyradge

01-09-2009, 08:22 AM

From under RP's mattress. Which is hand made from all the 'tache trimmings over the years. The man is a frugal genius.

Oi, stop trying to get round the swear filter!

Danderhall Hibs

01-09-2009, 08:27 AM

Hibbyradge

01-09-2009, 08:30 AM

Definitely - where are the folk that told us not spending was the way forward? Like they said we don't want to be the next Leeds/Gretna/Herats/Thrird Lanark.

No-one said that would be the case for ever, though.

The argument was that we shouldn't spend excessively while we had massive debt and huge future commitments.

Once those were in hand, all monies brought into the club could be used to strengthen the squad.

It seems that time has come.

--------

01-09-2009, 08:31 AM

Hughes has a track record in spotting players. JC and Mixu did not have a track record to match/start with.

Killing 2 burds with one stone - If the East stand is built and an up and coming team is really challenging...

And the players Yogi signed on frees right at the start have shown as decent players.

Besides him getting Benji and Zouma back on side and signing Graham Stack.

We're a goalie, four midfielders and a striker to the good without any major outlay.

THAT is the sort of transfer business The Tache understands.

BEEJ

01-09-2009, 08:33 AM

It appears we are paying transfer fee's way beyond what i certainly thought we could. And i'd imagine stokes will be our highest earner now. Two bids for Arfield, he wont be cheap if he does sign. Are we now looking to speculate to accumulate, something i was told we couldnt do, look at leeds third lanark, clydebank and Hearts. Or are we rolling in the stuff, maybe STF has gone mad?:wink: Or are we in the position of being able to afford these players through our income?:confused:
Maybe we're announcing the sale of a player today at 4.59pm at a very good fee? :dunno:

JC had money to spend and wasted it.
JC had nothing like the same money to spend as Mixu had during his reign or as Hughes appears to have at his disposal just now. And when set against the money brought into the club through player sales during these different managers' periods of tenure, there is absolutely no comparison. JC by far the poorer cousin.

Can those who say we're "not paying for it" please expand on that, rather than just wink?
:agree:

BEEJ

01-09-2009, 08:35 AM

Peevemor

01-09-2009, 08:42 AM

JC had nothing like the same money to spend as Mixu had during his reign or as Hughes appears to have at his disposal just now. And when set against the money brought into the club through player sales during these different managers' periods of tenure, there is absolutely no comparison. JC by far the poorer cousin.

True, but he did poorly with what he had.

MrSmith

01-09-2009, 08:44 AM

Some reasons change may have come:

cancelled stand re-development
the league (SPL) is there for the taking (Champs League)
obvious financial return on players - investment
player being sold
or

le tasch has lost the plot!

Hibbyradge

01-09-2009, 08:45 AM

Not progression though, Hibbyradge. An apparent shift in policy from January 2008.

Maybe, but I'm not sure if that's actually the case.

We've spent close to £1m every season on transfer fees.

How much are we actually going to spend this season?

Perhaps, ibuying 10 bit part players for 100k each, Yogi is looking to buy 2/3 at significantly higher fees?

:dunno:

Whatever, it's certainly made things exciting for us.

Dashing Bob S

01-09-2009, 09:06 AM

We've moved from being a selling club to a trading club. Thus expect to see more bids of Arfield/Stokes variety but non non non to Mouseuir Boozy and others like Keenan, DVZ with no sell-on value.

It's simply better management.

blackpoolhibs

01-09-2009, 09:09 AM

No-one said that would be the case for ever, though.

The argument was that we shouldn't spend excessively while we had massive debt and huge future commitments.

Once those were in hand, all monies brought into the club could be used to strengthen the squad.

It seems that time has come.

Are we not still in debt? Is there not another stand to be built? Do we have the money for this? Dont get me wrong dave, i think its great we are in for good players now, i think its great we seem to be going for it. It is a real change in policy as far as i can see, i just hope we dont end up like leeds united.:wink:

GreenPJ

01-09-2009, 09:13 AM

Of course other than Stokes we haven't actually spent anything (yet). Could Arfield be another Naysmith bid, bit of bravado but with very little chance of being successful.

Craig_in_Prague

01-09-2009, 09:13 AM

Petrie also knows we'll get to at least 1 cup final and 1 semi-final under Yogi :duck:

jdships

01-09-2009, 09:16 AM

Maybe, but I'm not sure if that's actually the case.

We've spent close to £1m every season on transfer fees.

How much are we actually going to spend this season?

Perhaps, ibuying 10 bit part players for 100k each, Yogi is looking to buy 2/3 at significantly higher fees?

:dunno:

Whatever, it's certainly made things exciting for us.

Reckon this post and your one "No 43" are right on the button.
This is progression as I , personally , welcome and agree with

[U] "The argument was that we shouldn't spend excessively while we had massive debt and huge future commitments[ " /U]

That surely has now been justified !!

:flag:

Hibbyradge

01-09-2009, 09:17 AM

Are we not still in debt? Is there not another stand to be built? Do we have the money for this? Dont get me wrong dave, i think its great we are in for good players now, i think its great we seem to be going for it. It is a real change in policy as far as i can see, i just hope we dont end up like leeds united.:wink:

I'm not really sure it is a change in fiscal policy, Gary.

Maybe a change in signing policy, but that's down to Hughes.

As I pointed out, we have spent money on players over the last few seasons, but, apart from Deek, none were particularly high profile, although I thought we'd coughed up a wad for JJ and O'Brien too.

I didn't think we were in debt any more.

Structured mortgages don't count as debt in that sense. :dunno:

GreenOnions

01-09-2009, 09:19 AM

Of course other than Stokes we haven't actually spent anything (yet).

:greengrin That is true.

blackpoolhibs

01-09-2009, 09:36 AM

I'm not really sure it is a change in fiscal policy, Gary.

Maybe a change in signing policy, but that's down to Hughes.

As I pointed out, we have spent money on players over the last few seasons, but, apart from Deek, none were particularly high profile, although I thought we'd coughed up a wad for JJ and O'Brien too.

I didn't think we were in debt any more.

Structured mortgages don't count as debt in that sense. :dunno:

The bits in bold is what i'm struggling to understand. Are we completely out of debt now? It would account for us paying big wages, or big signing on fee's, and transfer fee's something riordan apart, we have not done since the GJP years. Its great though, and i'm happy we finally are looking to compete at the right end of the league for a change, partly down to spending money on good players, and Yogi being a good manager.:thumbsup:

Johnny_Leith

01-09-2009, 09:43 AM

Perhaps we've recieved add-on money from one of our old boys' transfers as whatever clause has been activated. Brown was to raise by another £1m from £4.5m to £5.5m? Could we now be spending that money?

GlesgaeHibby

01-09-2009, 09:53 AM

Of course other than Stokes we haven't actually spent anything (yet). Could Arfield be another Naysmith bid, bit of bravado but with very little chance of being successful.

Why would we bid for a left back that's past it when we have Murray/Hanlon/Booth for that position?

jakedance

01-09-2009, 09:58 AM

Of course other than Stokes we haven't actually spent anything (yet). Could Arfield be another Naysmith bid, bit of bravado but with very little chance of being successful.

I doubt it. We weren't the club that made the Arfield bid public.

cwilliamson85

01-09-2009, 10:01 AM

Maybe the board are realising they have to spend a little to get a lot. Euorpa league football pays a lot more than a cup run with the group stages in place. Now with other clubs not being able to buy players and selling there assets it may be time for hibs to loosing the purse strings and splurge for 3rd spot (or I dare say second:duck:)

Good on RP and the board is waht I say.

I shall get my coat now.

Sergio sledge

01-09-2009, 10:17 AM

The bits in bold is what i'm struggling to understand. Are we completely out of debt now? It would account for us paying big wages, or big signing on fee's, and transfer fee's something riordan apart, we have not done since the GJP years. Its great though, and i'm happy we finally are looking to compete at the right end of the league for a change, partly down to spending money on good players, and Yogi being a good manager.:thumbsup:

IIRC we only have mortgage debt left, which is structured to be paid back over a period of time. Whilst still technically debt, our assets, eg. the land that the mortgages are secured against more than cover the mortgage value.

We have been spending money for a while now, just that it now seems to be being spent on more high profile signings. IIRC Zemmama, Makalamby, O'Brien, Nish, Riordan and Rankin all cost fees/compensation, but apart from Rankin, Riordan and Nish not many of us had heard of the others. I do think it has been a steady development rather than sudden change, as some of these players date back to before Collins.

Mowbray spent money on Sproule and Zemmama (Total of around £150K-£200K)

Collins spent money on Makalamby and O'Brien (Total of around £300K-£400K)

Mixu spent money on Nish, Rankin and Riordan (Total of around £500K-£600K)

Hughes is spending money on Stokes and Possibly Arfield (Estimated total of anything between £700K and £1m)

Looks very much to me like a steady progression. I agree that it is great, and certainly makes the transfer window much more exciting, signing people we've heard of.

blackpoolhibs

01-09-2009, 10:22 AM

IIRC we only have mortgage debt left, which is structured to be paid back over a period of time. Whilst still technically debt, our assets, eg. the land that the mortgages are secured against more than cover the mortgage value.

If the bit in bold is true, then thats great, my patience has been rewarded.:wink: We do have the new stand to build, i'd imagine we will start it at the end of this year, do we have the funds set aside for this project, or will we have to borrow more?

Cocaine&Caviar

01-09-2009, 10:24 AM

Is it even that much of a gamble with the fees we're paying? If it was on 29 or 30 year olds i might agree, but say we pay £1m for Stokes and Arfield, in 2 or 3 years they could go for about £3m...

blackpoolhibs

01-09-2009, 10:33 AM

Is it even that much of a gamble with the fees we're paying? If it was on 29 or 30 year olds i might agree, but say we pay £1m for Stokes and Arfield, in 2 or 3 years they could go for about £3m...

Or they could break their legs next week. I thought we did not do the gambling thing?

erin go bragh

01-09-2009, 11:14 AM

I certainly dont want us to be the next leeds united, maybe petrie wants to gamble with the clubs future, but i dont.:devil:
cmon were not spending millions on players or tens of millions on their wages. yogi is going for a bit quality and about time too. hibernian is a massive club and its about time we started spending some of the cash we have raked in over the last couple of seasons.
cant believe the negative posts because we are spending. ffs
buy in some quality to add to the quality youngsters we already have,which will put more bums on the seats ,which will bring in more money:grr::grr::grr::grr:rant over

Peevemor

01-09-2009, 11:17 AM

Or they could break their legs next week. I thought we did not do the gambling thing?

As anyone who has gambled knows, you should only gamble with money you are reasonably comfortable losing. It looks like the board might be upping the stakes a little, but we're not going to go down the tubes if it doesn't work.

blackpoolhibs

01-09-2009, 12:02 PM

cmon were not spending millions on players or tens of millions on their wages. yogi is going for a bit quality and about time too. hibernian is a massive club and its about time we started spending some of the cash we have raked in over the last couple of seasons.
cant believe the negative posts because we are spending. ffs
buy in some quality to add to the quality youngsters we already have,which will put more bums on the seats ,which will bring in more money:grr::grr::grr::grr:rant over

Negative posts? All i see is a few questions being asked about where people think the money is coming from. As far as i am concernd, and as far as i can see, we are all happy the club are going down this route.:confused:

blackpoolhibs

01-09-2009, 12:08 PM

As anyone who has gambled knows, you should only gamble with money you are reasonably comfortable losing. It looks like the board might be upping the stakes a little, but we're not going to go down the tubes if it doesn't work.

I agree, any gambler should only gamble with money he can afford to lose. I cant help but wonder if thats changed at hibs. If we sign Arfield, it wont be for less than half a million pounds. Take that and his wages a half million pound player would want into account, along with Stokes, and its a huge investment/gamble. I'm just not used to it, and find it very strange, especially when we have been told so many times, this is not the way hibs run their business.:confused: I'm glad we are doing this, just shocked.:thumbsup:

Speedway

01-09-2009, 12:10 PM

I agree, any gambler should only gamble with money he can afford to lose. I cant help but wonder if thats changed at hibs. If we sign Arfield, it wont be for less than half a million pounds. Take that and his wages a half million pound player would want into account, along with Stokes, and its a huge investment/gamble. I'm just not used to it, and find it very strange, especially when we have been told so many times, this is not the way hibs run their business.:confused: I'm glad we are doing this, just shocked.:thumbsup:

Don't worry, we couldn't agree terms with Gary Barlow so they'll no be signing in this window.

blackpoolhibs

01-09-2009, 12:23 PM

Don't worry, we couldn't agree terms with Gary Barlow so they'll no be signing in this window.

Maybe we can get robbie williams, he's a free agent, out of contract right?:wink:

CB_NO3

01-09-2009, 01:08 PM

Peevemor

01-09-2009, 01:48 PM

I dont know why people are asking where we got the money from, are yous really stupid. With the sales of Fletcher and Jones, thats got us 3.5 million, with getting rid of these 2 players aswell as O'Brien, Campbell, Keenan and McNeill, that must be 10k a week of the wage bill. I dont know how many season tickets we have sold but say an average of 7500 tickets at an average of £250 a pop (am taking an average of Kids, Students and adults) thats another 1.75 million then you have shirt sales to add on top of that. So maybe all we are really doing is spending the season ticket money and the cash from the sales of Fletch and Jones have been stashed away into an bank account to go towards the stand. Its not rockets science if you think about it.

With no cup runs and reduced crowds, on top of an increased player budget, Hibs will have made an operating loss last year. It also appears that ST sales are down for the coming season.

Yes some players have left, but we have brought some in as well as giving contracts to most of last year's U19s.

There is also talk about spending £6-8M on a new stand.

It's not rocket science is it? :wink:

smurf

01-09-2009, 02:01 PM

What money have we spent?

Peevemor

01-09-2009, 02:03 PM

What money have we spent?

Ask again at 17:01. :pray: :greengrin

smurf

01-09-2009, 02:06 PM

Ask again at 17:01. :pray: :greengrin

Hope there's no need to do so...:greengrin

However, i think it's fair to say up to this point (15:06) that there's been no money really spent that we know of...

CB_NO3

01-09-2009, 02:07 PM

What money have we spent?

About 350k on Stokes.

smurf

01-09-2009, 02:12 PM

About 350k on Stokes.

Not disclosed for sure... However, i think (reading between the lines...) that we probably did spend that on Stokes.

Reinvesting just over 10% of the Fletch money on Stokes is IMHO fantastic business.

However, lets be honest we've only spent a tiny amount of the money raised so asking 'Where has all the money come from that we're spending' is (at this point:greengrin) a bit silly in my humble opinion...

Overall the board are doing a reasonably good job and we've got a good squad.

But IMHO with under 2 hours to go we need to look at the lack of creativity in midfield, RB problem and central defence....

So Arfield, Woods and Barr is the required solution and then we can seriously challenge at the top of the SPL...:thumbsup: