Annual Accounts Out (£0.7m Profit, £3.6m Net Debt)

[Stoney Hibee]

http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/hibernian-fc-announce-financial-results-20090916_2262950_1797973

Financial Results on official website.

[Mikey]

They should drop through the door when the postie arrives then. Unfortunately that's around 2pm here!

A profit of £0.7m shows how bad it would have been if Fletcher hadn't been sold!

Wages/turnover ratio is closer to where people would like to see it.

[Mikey]

The net debt figure of £3.6m is interesting. Presumably that's because we have a wedge in the bank just now. That'll make the debt figure around £7/8m.

Anyone got their accounts yet to confirm?

[The_Todd]

Hopefully that means AGM soon and announcement on East Stand?

[Mikey]

AGM is 6th October.

[matty_f]

What I want to know is why are we putting these accounts out on time when big teams do it late.:grr:

Seriously though, given the circumstances of how poor last season was, and the financial climate in general, the headline figures are not bad.

Hopefully we'll see more bums on seats at Easter Road this season if Yogi can make us a team worth watching, and with that get some successful runs in the cups and a decent league placing.

The wages/turnover ratio shows that the club must be doing about as much as it can to support Yogi.

[mim]

The wages/turnover ratio shows that the club must be doing about as much as it can to support Yogi.

I think, given the period covered by the accounts, that the club was doing as much as it could to support Mixu and this is a continuing process.

[truehibernian]

The wage/turnover ratio was pretty much the same last year as well. Net debt has increased but to be honest, these are superb figures given the last two seasons we have been dumped out both cups early, attendances have fallen between 10-20% over two seasons, and we have had the major outlay of the training centre. We needed to sell to balance the books and the club is on solid footing. We have a £6 million pound training centre, over 20 acres of land out there that is still be either be developed or sold (once economic climate improves), stadium redevelopment accounted for, a healthy cash balance, and we have had to pay up contracts of players who simply were not good enough and making up numbers. Getting to the semi-finals or quarters can be up to 8 additional games and a final caps it off, so it's crucial we have at least one good run in either cup. When other clubs, notably Rangers, have been reducing investment, Hibernian have gone the other way and invested quite heavily (for a club our size). Good going in the today's horrible financial climate :agree:

[WindyMiller]

They show the true cost of Mixu's era at the Club and the boards attempts to support the Manager financially.

[the happy hibee]

They should drop through the door when the postie arrives then. Unfortunately that's around 2pm here!

A profit of £0.7m shows how bad it would have been if Fletcher hadn't been sold!

Wages/turnover ratio is closer to where people would like to see it.

I do not think the fletcher transfer fee will be included in this years figures depends on the financial year end ??

[Peevemor]

I do not think the fletcher transfer fee will be included in this years figures depends on the financial year end ??

July 31st

[HFC 0-7]

I wonder what the staff costs are now that Yogi has brought in Miller and Stokes and a couple of others. I know he has emptied a few players but I wouldnt have imagined they would have been on that much. Is the 3.6m debt just that mortgage on the main stand or is that all paid for?

[YehButNoBut]

http://sport.scotsman.com/spl/Hibs-report-slump-in-profits.5650907.jp

Details here in the Scotsman as well.

I would love to see our neighbours accounts detailed in the same way,fat chance of that however. :jamboak:

[BigKev]

Decent figures after a dismal season last time round. Hopefully with the loss of the 17 players the wage budget will remain the same allowing Yogi another couple of signings.

Have the club ever announced whether ST sales have remained the same this season or are +/- from the Mixu reign?

Looks like we're looking for a couple of decent cup runs this season as most of our prized possessions have now been sold so we can't rely on player sales to boost the profit figure.

[Iain G]

I wonder what the staff costs are now that Yogi has brought in Miller and Stokes and a couple of others. I know he has emptied a few players but I wouldnt have imagined they would have been on that much. Is the 3.6m debt just that mortgage on the main stand or is that all paid for?

I dunno, we emptied a lot of first team players, including Fletcher, Jones, O'Brien who must all have been high earners at the club.

It's not my strong suit the financial accounts, but we are reporting a profit but debt level seems to have gone up since last year, is this right and do we know why?

[Mikey]

Is the 3.6m debt just that mortgage on the main stand or is that all paid for?

It's net debt so it's being offset against what's in the bank just now. With most of the ST money still in the bank we probably have about £4-5m tucked away. It'll be needed over the course of the season though.

The actual debt figure will be nearer £7-8m. Most of that will be the mortgage on the west stand.

[RIP]

Normally the highlights of the annual accounts lists ST sales. This year only the average attendance has been documented. Will this figure appear in the copy the shareholders get. Does anyone have a copy already?

In percentage terms our ST's had been rising up to the start of last season

Season Av Att ST sales ST % Manager
03/04 9,100 N/K - BW
04/05 12,400 7,200 58% TM
05/06 13,800 9,500 69% TM
06/07 14,500 10,500 72% TM/JC
07/08 13,900 11,250 81% JC/MP
08/09 12,700 ? ? ? MP

If the % of ST's remained at 81% then the ST sales will have been @10,287.
If the % of ST's had receded to 72% then the ST sales will have been @9,144

So ST sales around 9,500 - 10,000 for last season looks a reasonable guess

[HFC 0-7]

I dunno, we emptied a lot of first team players, including Fletcher, Jones, O'Brien who must all have been high earners at the club.

It's not my strong suit the financial accounts, but we are reporting a profit but debt level seems to have gone up since last year, is this right and do we know why?

I think it is to do with what is included in each part Debt and profit. I think if the club brought in 1 million and spent in total 700,000 in operating costs, travel, wages etc but took out a loan of 1 million to fund development of stands etc the report would show a profit of 300,000, as the 1 million loan would not be taken into account in terms of profit and turnover but would be just chucked straight into the debt value. Thats my understanding anyway, probably wrong!

[Brando7]

a quote from the scotsman was a 9% reduction in attendance at Easter Road so i'm sure that ST be included in that

[GreenOnions]

This is for any of the resident accountants on here:

Generally speaking - if the club makes a profit - even although it's on trading and not an operating profit - would you not expect our net debt to fall rather than rise?

The only reason I can think of why that might not be the case is if the club borrowed some additional money during the year :confused:

[Caversham Green]

I dunno, we emptied a lot of first team players, including Fletcher, Jones, O'Brien who must all have been high earners at the club.

It's not my strong suit the financial accounts, but we are reporting a profit but debt level seems to have gone up since last year, is this right and do we know why?

We paid transfer fees for Riordan and Bamba that won't be reflected in full in the profit and loss account, but will have come out of cash and is therefore reflected in the net debt position. We might also have spent more money on the training centre for equipment etc. which will have the same effect.


I think it is to do with what is included in each part Debt and profit. I think if the club brought in 1 million and spent in total 700,000 in operating costs, travel, wages etc but took out a loan of 1 million to fund development of stands etc the report would show a profit of 300,000, as the 1 million loan would not be taken into account in terms of profit and turnover but would be just chucked straight into the debt value. Thats my understanding anyway, probably wrong!

That's pretty much right. On the net debt question though, if we had just put the million loan in the bank the effect would be: Cash £1m-debt £1m = net debt nil. On the other hand, if we had spent the money on the stand we would be showing net debt of £1m. I maintain that the net debt figure is not a good indicator of anything very much, particularly for football clubs who will be relatively cash rich at their year ends because of next season's ST sales.

[mjhibby]

It's net debt so it's being offset against what's in the bank just now. With most of the ST money still in the bank we probably have about £4-5m tucked away. It'll be needed over the course of the season though.

The actual debt figure will be nearer £7-8m. Most of that will be the mortgage on the west stand.

I believe the £3.6m is the clubs actual debt ie money in the bank versus actual debt(mortgage)It is still a great position to be in and the wage bill will i believe have been cut with such as fletcher jones and obrien away.It is a tremendous position to be in in todays finacial climate and the best part is the very small amount of interest on the debt which cripples clubs like hertz and aberdeen.Does show though that mouser backed mixu with cash and the signings of stokes and millar shows he is doing the same.Now for that chalf.

[Andy74]

Maybe I'm wrong but I can't recall us actually announcing a final figure any year?

And if they are down why the push for Hibs to come out and say all that much on it? I'd rather they were allowed to market the way they feel is best for us and if that means giving people the impression that there is still a need to come and get a season ticket or you might miss out then that's what is best.

There is no real sense in them trying to promote positive PR and a feel good factor and then tell us all that actually we have a p1ss poor season ticket membership.

What we don't know won't hurt us sometimes!

[Caversham Green]

This is for any of the resident accountants on here:

Generally speaking - if the club makes a profit - even although it's on trading and not an operating profit - would you not expect our net debt to fall rather than rise?

The only reason I can think of why that might not be the case is if the club borrowed some additional money during the year :confused:

Already answered, but a further thought - if we sold Fletcher for three million but only received £2m before the year end (for example) that other million would be reflected in profit but would not be reflected in the net debt figure because it wasn't yet cash.

Something I'm puzzled about though. Scott Lindsay says we made a £1.5m operating loss, but a bottom line profit of £0.7m. That's a difference of only £2.2m, but we were told that Fletcher and Jones were sold for a combined total of £3m+. The only other item that normally goes in here is interest charges, which were only £250k last year, so something doesn't seem to add up.

There might have been a loss on AOB's transfer fee and maybe we're now in the realms of paying tax. I'm starting to wish I'd waited until I saw the accounts before posting all this as I'm just confusing myself now. :dizzy:

[Peevemor]

I believe the £3.6m is the clubs actual debt ie money in the bank versus actual debt(mortgage)It is still a great position to be in and the wage bill will i believe have been cut with such as fletcher jones and obrien away.It is a tremendous position to be in in todays finacial climate and the best part is the very small amount of interest on the debt which cripples clubs like hertz and aberdeen.Does show though that mouser backed mixu with cash and the signings of stokes and millar shows he is doing the same.Now for that chalf.

Correct, net debt includes everything, possibly something like £8M mortgages and loans minus cash in hand (or bank) of £4.4M will give a nebt debt of £3.6M (I'm guessing at the figures). The cash in hand will be used gradually to pay wages, operating costs, etc. together with whatever other cash comes in from pay at the gate, away supporters, merchandising, tv money, etc.

Any transfer fees received after July 31st are not included in these figures, nor are fees/severances paid out.

[Caversham Green]

It's net debt so it's being offset against what's in the bank just now. With most of the ST money still in the bank we probably have about £4-5m tucked away. It'll be needed over the course of the season though.

The actual debt figure will be nearer £7-8m. Most of that will be the mortgage on the west stand.

The gross debt figure last year was £6.75m - mortgage £6.5m which will be static until it falls to be paid, and parent company loan £0.25m. So unless we've borrowed more from the parent company it shouldn't be much over £6.5m.

[IWasThere2016]

Something I'm puzzled about though. Scott Lindsay says we made a £1.5m operating loss, but a bottom line profit of £0.7m. That's a difference of only £2.2m, but we were told that Fletcher and Jones were sold for a combined total of £3m+. The only other item that normally goes in here is interest charges, which were only £250k last year, so something doesn't seem to add up.

The difference between the -1.5m and the +0.7m will be the gain on the disposal of the players and not the cash.

The players would have been on the books at the cost of their contracts. So, assuming the figs above are correct, the balance of Fletcher and Jones' contracts will have been £0.8m eg £3m less £2.2m

[Caversham Green]

The difference between the -1.5m and the +0.7m will be the gain on the disposal of the players and not the cash.

The players would have been on the books at the cost of their contracts. So, assuming the figs above are correct, the balance of Fletcher and Jones' contracts will have been £0.8m eg £3m less £2.2m

But that's only the case where the cost of the contract is in Intangible Assets - i.e. transfer fees paid (signing on fees paid to players are written off in the year they're paid). Fletcher's fee should have been pure profit as we didn't pay any fee for him, and in the case of Jones I think his cost would have been fully amortised.

Did we release AOB before 31 July? We will have made a loss on him and that would offset some of the profit made on the other two.

[HFC 0-7]

I am not sure if this is true or not but I heard Burnley never paid any of the money in the fletcher sale straight away so that it would not appear in their financial results out this year. If this is true would we have shown it in the results just out, or, can you only show what has physically gone through, ie, nothing for the fletcher sale?

[YehButNoBut]

Scotsman have added a story which claims that

HIBS today revealed they had made a profit for the fifth year in succession, a record which the Easter Road club claimed is "exceptional in the world of football". :thumbsup:

http://sport.scotsman.com/spl/Hibs-reveal-39exceptional39-profits-record.5650474.jp

[PaulSmith]

It's net debt so it's being offset against what's in the bank just now. With most of the ST money still in the bank we probably have about £4-5m tucked away. It'll be needed over the course of the season though.

The actual debt figure will be nearer £7-8m. Most of that will be the mortgage on the west stand.

Mikey, the actual debt figure for the mortgages should stand at circa £5.95m (2008 figs were £2.5m due in 2020 and £3.7m payable at £250k per year). Assuming we've made the £250k payment in the last years accounts then we should have:

£2.5m
+£3.45m.
=£5.95m

Read it fully when I get home though

[Caversham Green]

I am not sure if this is true or not but I heard Burnley never paid any of the money in the fletcher sale straight away so that it would not appear in their financial results out this year. If this is true would we have shown it in the results just out, or, can you only show what has physically gone through, ie, nothing for the fletcher sale?

Both clubs would have to show the transfer in full (apart from any contingent add-ons such as another £x after n appearances). If the cash hadn't changed hands it would appear as a debtor in Hibs accounts and a creditor in Burnley's.

[Caversham Green]

Mikey, the actual debt figure for the mortgages should stand at circa £5.95m (2008 figs were £2.5m due in 2020 and £3.7m payable at £250k per year). Assuming we've made the £250k payment in the last years accounts then we should have:

£2.5m
+£3.45m.
=£5.95m

Read it fully when I get home though

You're nearly right Paul - I missed the fact that £4m of the mortgage is now being paid off at £240k per year and £2.5m. It was £4m at 31/7/08 and should be £3.76m at 31/7/09. Total mortgage should be £6.26m including £240k that falls due within one year.

I think you're looking at the parent co loan when you mention £250k - that was shown as due to be paid within the year just ended, but may well be moveable.

[WindyMiller]

Normally the highlights of the annual accounts lists ST sales. This year only the average attendance has been documented. Will this figure appear in the copy the shareholders get. Does anyone have a copy already?

In percentage terms our ST's had been rising up to the start of last season

Season Av Att ST sales ST % Manager
03/04 9,100 N/K - BW
04/05 12,400 7,200 58% TM
05/06 13,800 9,500 69% TM
06/07 14,500 10,500 72% TM/JC
07/08 13,900 11,250 81% JC/MP
08/09 12,700 ? ? ? MP

If the % of ST's remained at 81% then the ST sales will have been @10,287.
If the % of ST's had receded to 72% then the ST sales will have been @9,144

So ST sales around 9,500 - 10,000 for last season looks a reasonable guess

From the Scotsman;
While SPL attendances fell nine per cent to 12,700 as Hibs' season stalled, it is understood season ticket sales held up remarkably well, down, it is believed by little more than 100 from the previous year with the decision to "roll back" prices to 2007 levels having, undoubtedly, played a part.

[truehibernian]

You can add £93.00 to the clubs turnover this year as I have just purchased my tickets for the upcoming league and cup games :greengrin

[IWasThere2016]

But that's only the case where the cost of the contract is in Intangible Assets - i.e. transfer fees paid (signing on fees paid to players are written off in the year they're paid). Fletcher's fee should have been pure profit as we didn't pay any fee for him, and in the case of Jones I think his cost would have been fully amortised.

Did we release AOB before 31 July? We will have made a loss on him and that would offset some of the profit made on the other two.

:confused: I thought we held the value of their contract as their cost and amortised it year on year. We paid nothing like £800k for AOB

[hibsdaft]

don't want to be negative but am i right in saying that without the sales of Fletcher and Jones we would have lost a lot of money in the last 12 months ? :confused:

[WindyMiller]

don't want to be negative but am i right in saying that without the sales of Fletcher and Jones we would have lost a lot of money in the last 12 months ? :confused:

That is a fact of life for any SPL side. We all need to sell to make a profit.There can't have been many seasons in my lifetime that the club made a profit without having sold someone.

[mim]

:confused: I thought we held the value of their contract as their cost and amortised it year on year. We paid nothing like £800k for AOB

That's how it works for as long as they're on the books, but when they get emptied, the severance pay is real money, no?

[jacomo]

don't want to be negative but am i right in saying that without the sales of Fletcher and Jones we would have lost a lot of money in the last 12 months ? :confused:

Yes, I think we would have done.

With no obvious prospects to net us a multi-million windfall in the next 12 months, I think it shows that the club is speculating a little bit this season, by backing Yogi in bringing in players like Stokes and Miller, and hoping that increased turnover covers the increase in the wage bill.

[HFC 0-7]

Yes, I think we would have done.

With no obvious prospects to net us a multi-million windfall in the next 12 months, I think it shows that the club is speculating a little bit this season, by backing Yogi in bringing in players like Stokes and Miller, and hoping that increased turnover covers the increase in the wage bill.

Or that Miller or Stokes will show some impressive form and a large bid will come in for them???

[ancienthibby]

don't want to be negative but am i right in saying that without the sales of Fletcher and Jones we would have lost a lot of money in the last 12 months ? :confused:

Correct!

In the statement, it says that the Operating Loss was £1.5 million (same as last year!)

[Caversham Green]

:confused: I thought we held the value of their contract as their cost and amortised it year on year. We paid nothing like £800k for AOB

That's why I'm confused...

If you have the 2008 accounts the accounting policies notes (c) and (e) explain the treatment (I'm far too lazy to type it all out). I take signing on fees to mean any lump sum payments made to players re their contracts, and they are "included within staff costs in the year in which they fall due". That follows the tax treatment but I don't really think it's the right accounting treatment but it is the one used by all the clubs I've looked at.

Note (c) also says "Transfer fees receivable are included in the profit and loss account in the year in which the transfer contract is signed". My underlining - I think that bit is inaccurate for the reasons you have alluded to.

[Weir7]

http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/hibernian-fc-announce-financial-results-20090916_2262950_1797973

Financial Results on official website.

Makes you wonder how good an idea it is to have an executive chairman and chief exec because the last 2 year ends that this structure has been in place the operating loss has been £3m. Not a great advert for that structure.

[Caversham Green]

That is a fact of life for any SPL side. We all need to sell to make a profit.There can't have been many seasons in my lifetime that the club made a profit without having sold someone.

We made operating profits (i.e. before player sales) in 05, 06 and 07. We had long cup runs (incuding the win) in all three seasons and finished higher than sixth in two of them. Proof that success on the field is vital to financial success.

[truehibernian]

Not strictly true about not having any "multi million pound" playing assets. I would hazard a guess that Bamba, Zemmama, Riordan and touch wood Stokes, would have quite a good chance of raising good money in transfer fees if needed. And you are forgetting the likes of young Wotherspoon, Byrne, Booth, Bell, Smith, Chalmers and co, who are future stars in the making. Factor in very poor cup exits in two seasons and a reduction of around 1500 (average) to a home gate in two years, and that accounts for quite a substantial fall in income. Sadly folk are now deep in the credit crunch too, so food on the table becomes far more important than a wee trip to see Hibs. I think the club have done well yet again to post a profit and get rid of players who really were deadwood. Aberdeen getting to the UEFA Cup league format brought in an estimated £1 million extra funds, so the money is there if the team can just post a good season in the league and cup. And for those that follow our youth teams, there are not many SPL clubs who can attract (or are attracting) promising youth players from Newcastle United, Everton and Bolton Wanderers which Hibernian are now doing on a consistent basis due to their reputation, above all, and their state of the art facilities. Hibs are doing things just right to ensure we will have a cracking wee club for many many years to come :agree:

[hibsdaft]

That is a fact of life for any SPL side. We all need to sell to make a profit.

aye, but aren't we also meant to be using the Fletcher money to build a new stand and to subsidise increased spending on new players.

thats the fans logic you read on here anyway, i guess the money men work things out totally differently to that, working on longer timeframes etc.

[Caversham Green]

Makes you wonder how good an idea it is to have an executive chairman and chief exec because the last 2 year ends that this structure has been in place the operating loss has been £3m. Not a great advert for that structure.

You think we should go back to Rod filling both roles :confused: - we made operating profits in those years.

[truehibernian]

The last two years, as CG says, have been poor on the pitch so it doesn't matter what role RP has, the team have been woeful in the cups and underperformed in the league, despite JC and MP having financial backing and the club investing heavily in East Mains.

[Jack]

What we don't know won't hurt us sometimes!

Trouble is when our club doesn’t tell us there are those who will, for whatever reason, make up or presume a figure to suit whatever story, good or bad, they are telling. :agree:


Of course if the club did tell us there are those who will, for whatever reason, say the club are being less than truthful as it doesn’t suit whatever story, good or bad, they are telling. :duck:

[Weir7]

You think we should go back to Rod filling both roles :confused: - we made operating profits in those years.

I dont think, we need an exec Chairman. A non exec would do.

[truehibernian]

I bet you if there were transfer fees paid for chairmen/managing directors, then RP would be worth Nade's weight in gold by the way :agree:

[freddie m]

Normally the highlights of the annual accounts lists ST sales. This year only the average attendance has been documented. Will this figure appear in the copy the shareholders get. Does anyone have a copy already?

In percentage terms our ST's had been rising up to the start of last season

Season Av Att ST sales ST % Manager
03/04 9,100 N/K - BW
04/05 12,400 7,200 58% TM
05/06 13,800 9,500 69% TM
06/07 14,500 10,500 72% TM/JC
07/08 13,900 11,250 81% JC/MP
08/09 12,700 ? ? ? MP

If the % of ST's remained at 81% then the ST sales will have been @10,287.
If the % of ST's had receded to 72% then the ST sales will have been @9,144

So ST sales around 9,500 - 10,000 for last season looks a reasonable guess
http://sport.scotsman.com/spl/Hibs-reveal-39exceptional39-profits-record.5650474.jp
According to the Scotsman report little more than 100 down on last years total.

[Caversham Green]

I dont think, we need an exec Chairman. A non exec would do.

We made massive losses in pretty much all the years that Ken Ledanowski and others were non-exec chairmen.

I don't think the structure of the board has a lot to do with the financial results we've experienced in individual years.

[jacomo]

Makes you wonder how good an idea it is to have an executive chairman and chief exec because the last 2 year ends that this structure has been in place the operating loss has been £3m. Not a great advert for that structure.

I think this quote from Rod explains the losses:


A strong performance on the field of play leads to strong financial results.

The reverse is also true: if the team has a bad season, the finances also take a beating.

With the wage bill rising, it means that the club needs to do even better to trade at a profit.

[HFC 0-7]

I bet you if there were transfer fees paid for chairmen/managing directors, then RP would be worth Nade's weight in gold by the way :agree:


Rod is a very very good chairman, but Nade's weight in gold? Even real Madrid couldnt afford that! Maybe the weight of his left breast is more appropriate? Still a very high price!

[truehibernian]

Stevie Fulton's weight in gold then.........or the the weight of Hans Eskillson's perm ? :greengrin

[1two]

"A strong performance on the field of play leads to strong financial results. We have maintained our financial position against a background of sporting performances which have fallen below the standards the club had set for itself in recent years.


Does this mean the penny has finally dropped and the board realise that investing in the team is how to get 'bums on seats', meaning bigger attendances, more money, more profits?

[HFC 0-7]

Stevie Fulton's weight in gold then.........or the the weight of Hans Eskillson's perm ? :greengrin


Or perhaps the weight of John Robertson in his playing days rising to his current weight depending on success? That would mean a huge increase should success happen!

[Jack]

So for those of us who cant work out the change in our pockets can someone please do the following sum?

How much money our club got in from all sources. :greengrin

MINUS

How much money our club spent, all sources. :boo hoo:

EQUALS

How much is in our pocket :greengrin / how much we cadged off a mate :boo hoo:

The use of symbols/smilies and colours in the answer is compulsory !

[GreenOnions]

Both clubs would have to show the transfer in full (apart from any contingent add-ons such as another £x after n appearances). If the cash hadn't changed hands it would appear as a debtor in Hibs accounts and a creditor in Burnley's.


The Scotsman is reporting that " ... the majority of the fee (for Fletcher) was received in cash after the year end and there could be further payments from his move in future, presumable from add-on clauses relating to appearances, Burnley remaining in the English Premier League and so on. "

This was news to me - especially the bit about it being the "majority" of the fee not being received before 31st July.

Could this help to explain the position re trading profit but net debt rising?

[H18sry]

This bit confused me :confused:

Revealing the latest set of figures, signed off by the club's auditors only a month after the financial year end,

Is this normal practise for a wee team with nothing to hide :greengrin

[Caversham Green]

The Scotsman is reporting that " ... the majority of the fee (for Fletcher) was received in cash after the year end and there could be further payments from his move in future, presumable from add-on clauses relating to appearances, Burnley remaining in the English Premier League and so on. "

This was news to me - especially the bit about it being the "majority" of the fee not being received before 31st July.

Could this help to explain the position re trading profit but net debt rising?

Yes it does - see posts 19 and 21.

The add-ons are what I'm talking about in the post you quoted - they won't appear in the accounts yet as the conditions for their payment have not yet been met and might never happen.

[Caversham Green]

So for those of us who cant work out the change in our pockets can someone please do the following sum?

How much money our club got in from all sources. :greengrin

MINUS

How much money our club spent, all sources. :boo hoo:

EQUALS

How much is in our pocket :greengrin / how much we cadged off a mate :boo hoo:

The use of symbols/smilies and colours in the answer is compulsory !

Believe me it's not that simple. I started to do something along those lines a couple of years ago and never got close to a short coherent report. And that's before the colours and smilies. I'll maybe resurrect the workings once I see this year's figures and try for a 5-year summary.

Oh aye colours and smilies :redindian::on toast!:na na: Hope that's ok - I just picked a few that I like.

[IWasThere2016]

We made massive losses in pretty much all the years that Ken Ledanowski and others were non-exec chairmen.

I don't think the structure of the board has a lot to do with the financial results we've experienced in individual years.

Other than the added cost of an Exec over a Non-Exec :cool2: .. that being six figures ..

[GreenOnions]

Both clubs would have to show the transfer in full (apart from any contingent add-ons such as another £x after n appearances). If the cash hadn't changed hands it would appear as a debtor in Hibs accounts and a creditor in Burnley's.


The Scotsman is reporting that " ... the majority of the fee (for Fletcher) was received in cash after the year end and there could be further payments from his move in future, presumable from add-on clauses relating to appearances, Burnley remaining in the English Premier League and so on. "

This was news to me - especially the bit about it being the "majority" of the fee not being received before 31st July.

Could this help to explain the position re trading profit but net debt rising?

[Mikey]

No accounts through the letterbox here I'm afraid.

Anyone got theirs?

[Col2]

Yes it does - see posts 19 and 21.

The add-ons are what I'm talking about in the post you quoted - they won't appear in the accounts yet as the conditions for their payment have not yet been met and might never happen.

Sorry I am reading this differently. The scotsman is suggesting that majority of fee was/is being paid from 1st august. If say this equates the say 2m of 3m fee - would is still firm part of profit and/or bet debt in results? ie have we still got a lot more to show in 2010 accounts for Fletcher sale (even without add ons)?

[Part/Time Supporter]

Sorry I am reading this differently. The scotsman is suggesting that majority of fee was/is being paid from 1st august. If say this equates the say 2m of 3m fee - would is still firm part of profit and/or bet debt in results? ie have we still got a lot more to show in 2010 accounts for Fletcher sale (even without add ons)?

It depends on what the deal is.

If Hibs are guaranteed £3M, and were paid £2M up front with £1M to follow next year, then the full £3M would go in the P&L and only £2M would go in cash (the other £1M would be in as a trade debtor or some such).

If however some of the money is contingent on something like Burnley staying up, or Fletcher playing for Burnley x times or Scotland x times, then they probably won't have recognised that amount of money in the accounts at all.

[Caversham Green]

Other than the added cost of an Exec over a Non-Exec :cool2: .. that being six figures ..

The work he's doing would still have to be done by someone - they may be paid a bit less, but it wouldn't make a huge difference to the bottom line I wouldn't have thought. Other comparable clubs (Aberdeen and Hearts)have non-directors doing the jobs our directors do so their salaries don't get reported.

That said, I will be interested to see what the directors fees are this year. They seemed too high last year, but I wondered if there was a bit of an overlap when SL took over from RP.

[PaulSmith]

Sorry I am reading this differently. The scotsman is suggesting that majority of fee was/is being paid from 1st august. If say this equates the say 2m of 3m fee - would is still firm part of profit and/or bet debt in results? ie have we still got a lot more to show in 2010 accounts for Fletcher sale (even without add ons)?

Maybe Hibs have asked for part payment of the Fletcher fee is to be paid after 1st August to ensure that it goes into next years accounts rather than the accounts up to 31st July 2009...possible tax implications?

If this is the case then I would imagine that we'll use these monies (in the 2010 budget) to part fund a new East Stand with operating costs slashed even further this year to try and cover any potential operating loss for year ending 2010.

A question for the AGM I think!

[GC]

In the current climate that's a pretty good set of accounts.

If compared to other clubs in the SPL they would stand out like a sore thumb.

I think I'm going to name my future child Rod:greengrin

[RIP]

Maybe I'm wrong but I can't recall us actually announcing a final figure any year?

A quick search of the main site shows a 'financial results' news story every September/October

ST Sales were always quoted

I've noticed that the Hootsmon have managed to get a quote about sales only being down 100 due to the decision to rollback prices to 2007 levels. That's not relevant however as it merely compares sales for this season (2009/10) when the 2007 offer was promoted back to last season (2008/09).

It's the figures for 2008/09 that are missing. The Scotsman quote merely reports that ST sales for the season ahead under Yogi are 100 down on the previous year under Mixu

Have I got this right?

[ancienthibby]

It depends on what the deal is.

If Hibs are guaranteed £3M, and were paid £2M up front with £1M to follow next year, then the full £3M would go in the P&L and only £2M would go in cash (the other £1M would be in as a trade debtor or some such).

If however some of the money is contingent on something like Burnley staying up, or Fletcher playing for Burnley x times or Scotland x times, then they probably won't have recognised that amount of money in the accounts at all.

If you remember, the sale/transfer of Whitty to Greyskull was deferred so that it would not go through Hibs books before 01 August and there may well be something similar at play with the Fletch sale. I am sure some accomplished archive watcher will tell us the exact day that the deal was concluded, but I would put my money on Tashman and Scotty being fully on top of this - even before it started!!:greengrin

[scoopyboy]

A quick search of the main site shows a 'financial results' news story every September/October

ST Sales were always quoted

I've noticed that the Hootsmon have managed to get a quote about sales only being down 100 due to the decision to rollback prices to 2007 levels. That's not relevant however as it merely compares sales for this season (2009/10) when the 2007 offer was promoted back to last season (2008/09).

It's the figures for 2008/09 that are missing. The Scotsman quote merely reports that ST sales for the season ahead under Yogi are 100 down on the previous year under Mixu

Have I got this right?

Yes you have got it right IMO.

We are 100 down from a figure we don't have, completely meaningless.

[TrinityHibs]

So for those of us who cant work out the change in our pockets can someone please do the following sum?

How much money our club got in from all sources. :greengrin

MINUS

How much money our club spent, all sources. :boo hoo:

EQUALS

How much is in our pocket :greengrin / how much we cadged off a mate :boo hoo:

The use of symbols/smilies and colours in the answer is compulsory !

I'm wi you on this Jack. The only bit I've really understood is that truehibernian's bought some tickets so we're £93 up. In summary I think our nett/gross debt is under control and Hertz isnae. Thats good eneough for me.:thumbsup:

[IWasThere2016]

The work he's doing would still have to be done by someone - they may be paid a bit less, but it wouldn't make a huge difference to the bottom line I wouldn't have thought. Other comparable clubs (Aberdeen and Hearts)have non-directors doing the jobs our directors do so their salaries don't get reported.

That said, I will be interested to see what the directors fees are this year. They seemed too high last year, but I wondered if there was a bit of an overlap when SL took over from RP.

RP and SL overlapped for 6-8 months IIRC, RP took a cut for 4 months just :cool2: from 1 April

[Col2]

So a £6-7m east stand investment would take us to approx £10m in debt (assuming fletch money accounted for in accounts). This also assume a break even 12 months in terms of operating costs (unless we sell someone to compensate).

Question is - can we REALLY afford a new east stand? Just playing devils advocate but £10-11m is not a million miles away from £17m debt peak a few years ago - yes we have all major infrastructure completed but we are in a worse financial climate especially for SPL.

[Hibs90]

So a £6-7m east stand investment would take us to approx £10m in debt (assuming fletch money accounted for in accounts). This also assume a break even 12 months in terms of operating costs (unless we sell someone to compensate).

Question is - can we REALLY afford a new east stand? Just playing devils advocate but £10-11m is not a million miles away from £17m debt peak a few years ago - yes we have all major infrastructure completed but we are in a worse financial climate especially for SPL.

If that is the case I can't see the East being built anytime soon unfortunately :boo hoo:

[Dan Sarf]

Two Evening News headlines from today...

Early edition:

Hibernian suffer fall in profits



Later edition:

Hibs reveal 'exceptional' profits record



What happened to make them change their mind? And which one is correct?

[oregonhibby]

Both.

1 compared to last year, and

2 the fact they have posted profits in each year of the last five is "exceptional"

[GreenOnions]

So a £6-7m east stand investment would take us to approx £10m in debt (assuming fletch money accounted for in accounts). This also assume a break even 12 months in terms of operating costs (unless we sell someone to compensate).

Question is - can we REALLY afford a new east stand? Just playing devils advocate but £10-11m is not a million miles away from £17m debt peak a few years ago - yes we have all major infrastructure completed but we are in a worse financial climate especially for SPL.

Yep - I agree. It seems that the last two years' operating losses have depleted our cash reserves somewhat.

If we have mortgages of around £6.6m and net debt of £3.6m I am assuming we have either around £3m in cash or slightly more cash and some other small loans from the Holding Company.

£3m must be quite close to the amount we would pull in from advance season ticket sales so that can't really be considered as cash available for capital projects I imagine. A couple of years ago we had similar amounts of debt but over £5m in cash.

If we have a smaller squad this year and can reasonably project a break-even performance do people think it's viable to borrow the full amount for a new East as we don't seem to have any spare cash now?

[PaulSmith]

So a £6-7m east stand investment would take us to approx £10m in debt (assuming fletch money accounted for in accounts). This also assume a break even 12 months in terms of operating costs (unless we sell someone to compensate).

Question is - can we REALLY afford a new east stand? Just playing devils advocate but £10-11m is not a million miles away from £17m debt peak a few years ago - yes we have all major infrastructure completed but we are in a worse financial climate especially for SPL.

I think if you put the question of can we afford an extra £250k per year for the next 20 odd years to build a new East Stand the answer would and should be yes. The extra revenue by the extra seats sold, the potential for cup semi's and lesser friendly international games should cover the extra outlay.

We all probably have a mortgage that would dwarf our annual salary but you use a % of this every year to pay your big debt.

[truehibernian]

I think the East Stand is very much in the pipeline. You forget that asides potential players sales in the future (and the chance of a similar season to 2007), we also have over 20 acres of land in East Lothian which could be sold for development as well. Payment for the new stand would be a long term mortgage which a club like Hibernian can easily service if we continue the way we are going financially. Remember its an investment in infrastructure as well as being termed debt.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

Thread closed.





:greengrin

[Danderhall Hibs]

No one's explained WHY they changed it.

Now I don't want to be classed as a smart arse here but have you asked the EEN why they changed it? It's more likely that they'd know the answer.

[The Judge]

No one's explained WHY they changed it.
The second Headlines after the 'exceptional' profit quotes direct from Hibernian. simples.

[The_Sauz]

One headline is true (for Hibs fans) and the other is for the "BELIEVERS" :greengrin (Yams)

[VegasHibby]

Two Evening News headlines from today...

Early edition:

Hibernian suffer fall in profits



Later edition:

Hibs reveal 'exceptional' profits record



What happened to make them change their mind? And which one is correct?



It can also be interpreted as they've revealed exceptional profit "records" basically records being their history of profit but have announced a fall in profits for THIS financial year. Even though their "records" are exceptional

[Dan Sarf]

The journo replaces his own critical analysis of the figures with a glowing press release from the club and no one thinks that's odd?

[Danderhall Hibs]

The journo replaces his own critical analysis of the figures with a glowing press release from the club and no one thinks that's odd?

No - both headlines are correct. It's not like he's went from "Hibs are in the sh.t" to "Hibs are the best run football team in the world"

[Dan Sarf]

No - both headlines are correct. It's not like he's went from "Hibs are in the sh.t" to "Hibs are the best run football team in the world"

I agree, both headlines are correct. But why was a downbeat version of the truth been removed to be replaced by a feelgood version?

We're always going on about how the Glasgow rags print whatever the Bigot Bros tell them. But it's OK when our rag does the same for us. :confused:

[PaulSmith]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5563634,00.html

How's this for a spin...Hibs remain in the red, our wages to turnover is a "staggering" 61% and our debt has risen

[Zorro]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5563634,00.html

How's this for a spin...Hibs remain in the red, our wages to turnover is a "staggering" 61% and our debt has risen

wow, staggeringly lazy 'paint by numbers' writing there. Can anyone remember what the target wages to turnover ratio was? Was it not something like 65%?

[Jack]

Believe me it's not that simple. I started to do something along those lines a couple of years ago and never got close to a short coherent report. And that's before the colours and smilies. I'll maybe resurrect the workings once I see this year's figures and try for a 5-year summary.

Oh aye colours and smilies :redindian::on toast!:na na: Hope that's ok - I just picked a few that I like.

I suppose not if things were that simple accountants wouldn't be going about in big cars and living in huge houses :devil:

Some more random smilies :tree:woohoo::3wise smi

[ancienthibby]

I suppose not if things were that simple accountants wouldn't be going about in big cars and living in huge houses :devil:

Some more random smilies :tree:woohoo::3wise smi
:stirrer::stirrer::stirrer:

[BEEJ]

The Scotsman is reporting that " ... the majority of the fee (for Fletcher) was received in cash after the year end and there could be further payments from his move in future, presumable from add-on clauses relating to appearances, Burnley remaining in the English Premier League and so on. "

This was news to me - especially the bit about it being the "majority" of the fee not being received before 31st July.

Could this help to explain the position re trading profit but net debt rising?


Sorry I am reading this differently. The scotsman is suggesting that majority of fee was/is being paid from 1st august. If say this equates the say 2m of 3m fee - would is still firm part of profit and/or bet debt in results? ie have we still got a lot more to show in 2010 accounts for Fletcher sale (even without add ons)?


Maybe Hibs have asked for part payment of the Fletcher fee is to be paid after 1st August to ensure that it goes into next years accounts rather than the accounts up to 31st July 2009...possible tax implications?


It depends on what the deal is.

If Hibs are guaranteed £3M, and were paid £2M up front with £1M to follow next year, then the full £3M would go in the P&L and only £2M would go in cash (the other £1M would be in as a trade debtor or some such).

If however some of the money is contingent on something like Burnley staying up, or Fletcher playing for Burnley x times or Scotland x times, then they probably won't have recognised that amount of money in the accounts at all.
:agree:

Unless the accounting policy has changed that Caversham Green quoted earlier on in this thread:


Note (c) also says "Transfer fees receivable are included in the profit and loss account in the year in which the transfer contract is signed". My underlining -
So regardless of when the cash is received, all the transfer income is accounted for in the financial year in which the transfer is concluded (that is to say, accounted for in the P&L, not in terms of cash where the amount yet to be received as at midnight 31 July would be treated as a debtor). *

The Fletcher deal was announced on 30th June this year, well within the 2008/09 accounting year. The Stephen Whittaker sale was announced on 1 August 2007, the first day of the new financial year to ensure that the £2m fee for him was excluded from the 2006/07 figures and were part of the 2007/08 accounts instead.

(* Add-ons, of course, are different as pointed out earlier. They are not generated on the date that the transfer goes through as contractually they have still to be earned.)

[BEEJ]

But that's only the case where the cost of the contract is in Intangible Assets - i.e. transfer fees paid (signing on fees paid to players are written off in the year they're paid). Fletcher's fee should have been pure profit as we didn't pay any fee for him, and in the case of Jones I think his cost would have been fully amortised.

Did we release AOB before 31 July? We will have made a loss on him and that would offset some of the profit made on the other two.
Yes, 1st July.

Are there not other exceptional one-off costs that would be taken below the line which would account for the difference? Mixu's pay-off, for example?

[hibs0666]

:agree:

Unless the accounting policy has changed that Caversham Green quoted earlier on in this thread:


So regardless of when the cash is received, all the transfer income is accounted for in the financial year in which the transfer is concluded. *

The Fletcher deal was announced on 30th June this year, well within the 2008/09 accounting year. The Stephen Whittaker sale was announced on 1 August 2007, the first day of the new financial year to ensure that the £2m fee for him was excluded from the 2006/07 figures and were part of the 2007/08 accounts instead.

(* Add-ons, of course, are different as pointed out earlier. They are not generated on the date that the transfer goes through as contractually they have still to be earned.)

It would still mean that the cash position was understated would it not?

[ancient hibee]

:agree:

Unless the accounting policy has changed that Caversham Green quoted earlier on in this thread:


So regardless of when the cash is received, all the transfer income is accounted for in the financial year in which the transfer is concluded. *

The Fletcher deal was announced on 30th June this year, well within the 2008/09 accounting year. The Stephen Whittaker sale was announced on 1 August 2007, the first day of the new financial year to ensure that the £2m fee for him was excluded from the 2006/07 figures and were part of the 2007/08 accounts instead.

(* Add-ons, of course, are different as pointed out earlier. They are not generated on the date that the transfer goes through as contractually they have still to be earned.)
But only accounted for in the P and L but obviously not in the cash account.

[BEEJ]

It would still mean that the cash position was understated would it not?
Yes. I am of course adding to the discussion re. the P&L account.

:wink:

[BEEJ]

It would still mean that the cash position was understated would it not?


But only accounted for in the P and L but obviously not in the cash account.
Finance geeks hunting in packs!!

OK, OK!! I'll go back and edit my shorthand sentence in an otherwise fairly complex post.

Sheeesh!


:tee hee:

[Mikey]

Finance geeks hunting in packs!!

OK, OK!! I'll go back and edit my shorthand sentence in an otherwise fairly complex post.

Sheeesh!


:tee hee:


You've got the wrong side of the accountancy clique :tsk tsk:

[whiskyhibby]

The net debt figure of £3.6m is interesting. Presumably that's because we have a wedge in the bank just now. That'll make the debt figure around £7/8m.

Anyone got their accounts yet to confirm?

I thought from the previous accounts there was something like £2.6M in cash

[One Day Soon]

You've got the wrong side of the accountancy clique :tsk tsk:


I do like the accountancy clique. It's like observing an entire woup of Professor Frink types hard at work. Do we have a general accountancy clique with a smaller subset which you could define as the Yamathematics division, specialising in Lithuanian monetary flow forensics?

You do realise that this is exactly the sort of detailed financial post-mortem that causes twitching Yams to lose sleep at night.

[Luna_Asylum]

This is for any of the resident accountants on here:

Generally speaking - if the club makes a profit - even although it's on trading and not an operating profit - would you not expect our net debt to fall rather than rise?

The only reason I can think of why that might not be the case is if the club borrowed some additional money during the year :confused:

net debt goes up and down in exactly in proportion to profit or loss unless any capital is introduced (ha ha) or dividends paid which hopefully they have not

if my o-level accounting is an acceptable qualification

[Beefster]

The journo replaces his own critical analysis of the figures with a glowing press release from the club and no one thinks that's odd?

The journalist is a football writer. I wouldn't trust his critical analysis any more than I'd trust Hibs' spin on the results.

It's obvious that the club have contacted the EEN after the original story too.

[Mikey]

It's obvious that the club have contacted the EEN after the original story too.

Indeed. And I don't really see why people have a problem with that. Surely a positive story is better than a negative one?

[matty_f]

Indeed. And I don't really see why people have a problem with that. Surely a positive story is better than a negative one?

:agree: I think Hibs would rightly have been annoyed at the first angle taken on what are fairly positive figures, given the climate and the poor season we had last season.

[GreenOnions]

wow, staggeringly lazy 'paint by numbers' writing there. Can anyone remember what the target wages to turnover ratio was? Was it not something like 65%?

Reading that sky article I think that the journalist has just got mixed up with what "red" and "black" means in accounting terms.

The article is generally positive and I'm sure he/she means to confirm the impression that we're in profit this year. It should read that we're in the black but they've just got it wrong I think.

[Peevemor]

Reading that sky article I think that the journalist has just got mixed up with what "red" and "black" means in accounting terms.

The article is generally positive and I'm sure he/she means to confirm the impression that we're in profit this year. It should read that we're in the black but they've just got it wrong I think.

That's what I thought to, but couldn't believe anyone would make that mistake.

[Ray_]

That's what I thought to, but couldn't believe anyone would make that mistake.

Why is it a mistake, it said that the club made a profit but is still in the red, which is a fact?

[YehButNoBut]

Good article in the Scotsman today with Scott Lindsay stating that there is no wage cap at Hibs. There is certainly more ambition this season from the board as can already be seen from the signings of Stokes & Miller and the failed bid for Arfield.

Just need them to perform on the park now. :agree:

http://sport.scotsman.com/spl/No-wage-cap-at-Hibernian.5654444.jp

[BSEJVT]

I thought from the previous accounts there was something like £2.6M in cash

Cash at Bank simply represents season ticket money paid up front and will be amortised during the year to meet in conjunction with pay at the gate receipts and any other income the operating expenses of the club.

Until all your debt is repaid and you either dont take advance payments or have more than sufficient cash following receipt of them to meet the bulk of the following years operating expenses you are in no sense of the word cash rich.

Net debt is a misnomer IMO as like all accounts is simply a snapshot in time.

The position would be more relevant if the accounts were prepared to the end of the season before the new season ticket monies were received but all the previous years costs had been met.

I cant remember how the accounts show, if they do, the amount of saeaon ticket monies received. but if they do and the value of cash at the bank is less than this then you are effectively "overdrawn". I accept the argument that some of the years cost are also met up front though.

The difference over the past few years is that we have effectively been largely able to provide our own funding over the season rather than rely on an overdraft.

I am sad to say though that our real debt is at least the mortgage values probably more and any rebuilding of the East Stand will increase that to back over £12m, unless an as yet untapped revenue stream, such as share issue or stadium sponsorship can be arranged.

We are effectively looking at the sale of another entire golden generation at that point to finally repay the debt.

IMO the wage to turnover ratio is miles too high at this stage of the clubs evolution and you could argue that our indulging Collins and Mixu to the extent we did has cost us massively for little or no return both in terms of results and in acquiring players that can be sold on at a profit. Bamba being the only obvious exception.

We simply must return to operating on a no loss basis excluding transfer fees this year and I bet the board are crapping themselves over the ST J cup game.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Indeed. And I don't really see why people have a problem with that. Surely a positive story is better than a negative one?

I like true stories myself.

[Luna_Asylum]

net debt goes up and down in exactly in proportion to profit or loss unless any capital is introduced (ha ha) or dividends paid which hopefully they have not

if my o-level accounting is an acceptable qualification

i have been up all night with my old school books and have realised my error.

it should be that net assets/liabilities go up and down in line with profits (if no cash put in or taken out by owners)

to get to net cash/debt I think you have to adjust for capital items bought and sold (incl players) and depreciation.

back to the books...

[oregonhibby]

Both are true stories. The second one shows that the media support doing their job by getting a better story.

Given the current economic situation, the performances last year and the "non" cup runs these figures are excellent, in my view.

The players are assets and the Club has adeptly sold players who had already signaled their intention to leave and made decent money on them. Further analysis of the wages is required because I wonder what proportion of those costs are exiting players/manager and what is underlying squad costs.

Operating costs will always be looked at but the finances of any football club is inextricably linked to performance. The numbers would have looked a lot better had we achieved at least one or two semi-finals and 3rd or 4th place.

We didn't, we have to and we should!

[BEEJ]

I am sad to say though that our real debt is at least the mortgage values probably more and any rebuilding of the East Stand will increase that to back over £12m, unless an as yet untapped revenue stream, such as share issue or stadium sponsorship can be arranged.

We are effectively looking at the sale of another entire golden generation at that point to finally repay the debt.

IMO the wage to turnover ratio is miles too high at this stage of the clubs evolution and you could argue that our indulging Collins and Mixu to the extent we did has cost us massively for little or no return both in terms of results and in acquiring players that can be sold on at a profit. Bamba being the only obvious exception.
Mixu, yes. But not Collins.

Arguably Zemmama and Benji could be sold on for a decent fee if we were pushed.

Agree with the rest of your post though.

[MB62]

wow, staggeringly lazy 'paint by numbers' writing there. Can anyone remember what the target wages to turnover ratio was? Was it not something like 65%?

I believe the recommended ratio that clubs should try and reach was around 65%.
I think in the past couple of years, Hibs ratio was around the 46% mark, way below what was recommended.

[Caversham Green]

Cash at Bank simply represents season ticket money paid up front and will be amortised during the year to meet in conjunction with pay at the gate receipts and any other income the operating expenses of the club.

Until all your debt is repaid and you either dont take advance payments or have more than sufficient cash following receipt of them to meet the bulk of the following years operating expenses you are in no sense of the word cash rich.
We are cash rich in that we have a lot of cash in the bank, but as you say we have far more expenses to pay out of it in the coming season, so in the long term we're overdrawn.


Net debt is a misnomer IMO as like all accounts is simply a snapshot in time. Agreed - I think the way of calculating it is very misleading for football clubs.


The position would be more relevant if the accounts were prepared to the end of the season before the new season ticket monies were received but all the previous years costs had been met. We tend to start selling STs before the end of the season, so I think these problems would still arise.


I cant remember how the accounts show, if they do, the amount of saeaon ticket monies received. They're shown as accruals and deferred income - the 2008 figure was £4.22m against cash of £3.93m, but I think there are probably other things included in that number.

but if they do and the value of cash at the bank is less than this then you are effectively "overdrawn". I accept the argument that some of the years cost are also met up front though.

The difference over the past few years is that we have effectively been largely able to provide our own funding over the season rather than rely on an overdraft.
We have gone into actual overdraft within all of the last few years.


I am sad to say though that our real debt is at least the mortgage values probably more and any rebuilding of the East Stand will increase that to back over £12m, unless an as yet untapped revenue stream, such as share issue or stadium sponsorship can be arranged.

We are effectively looking at the sale of another entire golden generation at that point to finally repay the debt.
To be fair, we don't need to pay off all the debt - manageable debt is a valid financial tool. I agree though that £12m feels too high for comfort.


IMO the wage to turnover ratio is miles too high at this stage of the clubs evolution and you could argue that our indulging Collins and Mixu to the extent we did has cost us massively for little or no return both in terms of results and in acquiring players that can be sold on at a profit. Bamba being the only obvious exception.
I would turn that on its head and say that turnover has been too low in the last couple of years - and that is a direct result of poor on-field performances (early cup exits, low league placings etc.)

We simply must return to operating on a no loss basis excluding transfer fees this year and I bet the board are crapping themselves over the ST J cup game. Yep.

[PaulSmith]

Cash at Bank simply represents season ticket money paid up front and will be amortised during the year to meet in conjunction with pay at the gate receipts and any other income the operating expenses of the club.

Until all your debt is repaid and you either dont take advance payments or have more than sufficient cash following receipt of them to meet the bulk of the following years operating expenses you are in no sense of the word cash rich.

Net debt is a misnomer IMO as like all accounts is simply a snapshot in time.

The position would be more relevant if the accounts were prepared to the end of the season before the new season ticket monies were received but all the previous years costs had been met.

I cant remember how the accounts show, if they do, the amount of saeaon ticket monies received. but if they do and the value of cash at the bank is less than this then you are effectively "overdrawn". I accept the argument that some of the years cost are also met up front though.

The difference over the past few years is that we have effectively been largely able to provide our own funding over the season rather than rely on an overdraft.

I am sad to say though that our real debt is at least the mortgage values probably more and any rebuilding of the East Stand will increase that to back over £12m, unless an as yet untapped revenue stream, such as share issue or stadium sponsorship can be arranged.

We are effectively looking at the sale of another entire golden generation at that point to finally repay the debt.

IMO the wage to turnover ratio is miles too high at this stage of the clubs evolution and you could argue that our indulging Collins and Mixu to the extent we did has cost us massively for little or no return both in terms of results and in acquiring players that can be sold on at a profit. Bamba being the only obvious exception.

We simply must return to operating on a no loss basis excluding transfer fees this year and I bet the board are crapping themselves over the ST J cup game.

No offence but I think that your mistaking short term debt which we did have a few years ago with a debt that requires to be repaid over the next 15/20 years.

It is a gross exaggeration to suggest that we will need to sell another golden generation of players to funds any new East Stand. In fact I'd say that it's complete bollocks.

[Peevemor]

I believe the recommended ratio that clubs should try and reach was around 65%.
I think in the past couple of years, Hibs ratio was around the 46% mark, way below what was recommended.

Only because turnover was inreased by a couple of million quid due to good cup runs. If we were to reach a final and a semi this season, the chances are that the 09-10 accounts will show a reduced ratio - will people start moaning again?

[Sergio sledge]

Cash at Bank simply represents season ticket money paid up front and will be amortised during the year to meet in conjunction with pay at the gate receipts and any other income the operating expenses of the club.

Until all your debt is repaid and you either dont take advance payments or have more than sufficient cash following receipt of them to meet the bulk of the following years operating expenses you are in no sense of the word cash rich.

Net debt is a misnomer IMO as like all accounts is simply a snapshot in time.

The position would be more relevant if the accounts were prepared to the end of the season before the new season ticket monies were received but all the previous years costs had been met.

I cant remember how the accounts show, if they do, the amount of saeaon ticket monies received. but if they do and the value of cash at the bank is less than this then you are effectively "overdrawn". I accept the argument that some of the years cost are also met up front though.

The difference over the past few years is that we have effectively been largely able to provide our own funding over the season rather than rely on an overdraft.

I am sad to say though that our real debt is at least the mortgage values probably more and any rebuilding of the East Stand will increase that to back over £12m, unless an as yet untapped revenue stream, such as share issue or stadium sponsorship can be arranged.

We are effectively looking at the sale of another entire golden generation at that point to finally repay the debt.

IMO the wage to turnover ratio is miles too high at this stage of the clubs evolution and you could argue that our indulging Collins and Mixu to the extent we did has cost us massively for little or no return both in terms of results and in acquiring players that can be sold on at a profit. Bamba being the only obvious exception.

We simply must return to operating on a no loss basis excluding transfer fees this year and I bet the board are crapping themselves over the ST J cup game.

Good post, but I would disagree with this part. If a new East stand is built, then we will be in the position that the large majority of our debt (perhaps all of it) will be mortgages, which will have a structured repayment plan, over 20/30 years. We should not have to sell any players to pay this back, because, we should be generating enough cash to pay back the circa £500k it would cost to cover both mortgages. As someone has already said, the new stand should make the stadium the first choice for any semi-finals or international friendlies which are not big enough for Hampden, which immediately increases the potential revenue streams.

The difference between the position we would be in once the east stand was built, and the position we were in before when we had to sell the players, was that of our previous £17m debt, only circa £6-7m was mortgages IIRC, so we had £10m debt which had no repayment plan and was a millstone round our neck. We cleared that by selling players, and have bought and built the training centre mortgage free, which is a fantastic achievement.

Structured mortgage debt is not something I would be expecting the club to sell players to cover. Investment in the playing side has increased now that we are essentially left with only mortgages, so it seems the club has taken the same view on it.

[matty_f]

Good post, but I would disagree with this part. If a new East stand is built, then we will be in the position that the large majority of our debt (perhaps all of it) will be mortgages, which will have a structured repayment plan, over 20/30 years. We should not have to sell any players to pay this back, because, we should be generating enough cash to pay back the circa £500k it would cost to cover both mortgages. As someone has already said, the new stand should make the stadium the first choice for any semi-finals or international friendlies which are not big enough for Hampden, which immediately increases the potential revenue streams.

The difference between the position we would be in once the east stand was built, and the position we were in before when we had to sell the players, was that of our previous £17m debt, only circa £6-7m was mortgages IIRC, so we had £10m debt which had no repayment plan and was a millstone round our neck. We cleared that by selling players, and have bought and built the training centre mortgage free, which is a fantastic achievement.

Structured mortgage debt is not something I would be expecting the club to sell players to cover. Investment in the playing side has increased now that we are essentially left with only mortgages, so it seems the club has taken the same view on it.

:agree: Good post.

[Caversham Green]

I believe the recommended ratio that clubs should try and reach was around 65%.
I think in the past couple of years, Hibs ratio was around the 46% mark, way below what was recommended.

The problems with these targets are:


If you meet the 65% target and your other running costs are higher than 35% you make a loss. Hibs other running costs appear to have been about 58% of turnover.
Staff costs are largely set at the start of the season and you can't do a great deal to change them (other than sell players within the transfer windows). You don't know what turnover will be until near the end of the season.
The 65% ratio is a model based on some accountant's idea of the perfect club, but Airfix proved that models don't always fly like the real thing. Every club is different, particularly in the SPL and what's good for Celtc could be disastrous for the likes of Hamilton or St Johnston.

[BSEJVT]

Mixu, yes. But not Collins.

Arguably Zemmama and Benji could be sold on for a decent fee if we were pushed.

Agree with the rest of your post though.

Fair Point

I had forgotten about those two!

Some of JC's other signings were an incredible waste of cash though

[mjhibby]

It depends on what the deal is.

If Hibs are guaranteed £3M, and were paid £2M up front with £1M to follow next year, then the full £3M would go in the P&L and only £2M would go in cash (the other £1M would be in as a trade debtor or some such).

If however some of the money is contingent on something like Burnley staying up, or Fletcher playing for Burnley x times or Scotland x times, then they probably won't have recognised that amount of money in the accounts at all.

The accounts im sure can only show the money hibs have recieved from the transfer(also the rob jones money by the the way)and any further instalments and payments based on premier league survival/scotland caps etc will be in next years accounts hence the reason yogi is being allowed to continue buying the likes of millar.
My guesstimate would be quite simply be that we have recieved £2.2m of transfer monies with £1.3m to come and the addons to be got as and when they happen.£2.2m minus profit of £700,000 leaves operating loss of £1.5m.Simples as they say in the merkaaat ad.So in essence the debt has risen by £800,000 but that is covered by the monies that are still to come in.in reality the debt,once all the rest of the payments for fletcher and jones have come in will probably be around £2.5m.Im sure rp and stfs greatest concern is interest payments so transfers are done to ensure we keep that to a minimum.ie whittaker not moving until after the year end.
The board obviously have confidence in yogi and the signings of the likes of stokes and millar im sure are no loss sitiations as if they do the business then a handsome profit on transfer will happen.As a few people have said the most important games could well be the cup games as that is where we can generate huge increases in money which then feeds into larger attendances in the league.Next week against the saintees is therefore a big game which yogi will want to win.
On the playing side i feel once millar and zemmamma are up to fitness the chances will follow then it is up to deek,stokes and benji to put them away.As usual with hibs im sure it will be a rollercaster of a season but i see good times ahead.(hopefully)

[BSEJVT]

No offence but I think that your mistaking short term debt which we did have a few years ago with a debt that requires to be repaid over the next 15/20 years.

It is a gross exaggeration to suggest that we will need to sell another golden generation of players to funds any new East Stand. In fact I'd say that it's complete bollocks.

Debt is Debt, it still needs to be repaid no matter how you incur it?

I agree we aren't yet storing massive trading losses annually but without transfers we have lost £3m over the last 2 years. It wont take long at that rate to get back in the hole.

Its all about opinions isnt it. I also dont think there is any need to be quite so disrepectful in tone, do you?

I am extremely uncomfortable at the thought of £12m of debt on an ongoing basis as its manageable just now when interest rates are benign, but wont be when interest rates rocket over the next 3 years to choke off rampant inflation.

Additionally this board have proven themselves to be off a similar mind by selling to reduce the debt / fund capital expenditure in the past and with respect I think they are more likely to adopt the course I have predicted rather than the one you advocate.

[BSEJVT]

Good post, but I would disagree with this part. If a new East stand is built, then we will be in the position that the large majority of our debt (perhaps all of it) will be mortgages, which will have a structured repayment plan, over 20/30 years. We should not have to sell any players to pay this back, because, we should be generating enough cash to pay back the circa £500k it would cost to cover both mortgages. As someone has already said, the new stand should make the stadium the first choice for any semi-finals or international friendlies which are not big enough for Hampden, which immediately increases the potential revenue streams.

The difference between the position we would be in once the east stand was built, and the position we were in before when we had to sell the players, was that of our previous £17m debt, only circa £6-7m was mortgages IIRC, so we had £10m debt which had no repayment plan and was a millstone round our neck. We cleared that by selling players, and have bought and built the training centre mortgage free, which is a fantastic achievement.

Structured mortgage debt is not something I would be expecting the club to sell players to cover. Investment in the playing side has increased now that we are essentially left with only mortgages, so it seems the club has taken the same view on it.

Fair do's

I do think though that servicing / repayment costs on a debt of £12m in normal interest times will cost well over £1m annually.

[Caversham Green]

The accounts im sure can only show the money hibs have recieved from the transfer(also the rob jones money by the the way)and any further instalments and payments based on premier league survival/scotland caps etc will be in next years accounts hence the reason yogi is being allowed to continue buying the likes of millar.

PTS's summary is absolutely right. As an example, if we had sold Fletcher for a straight £3m (no add ons etc) and the contract was signed on 10 July but Burnley for some reason did not give us the cheque until 10 August, the £3m would appear in the 2009 accounts as a sale in the P&L and a debtor in the balance sheet.

[BSEJVT]

We are cash rich in that we have a lot of cash in the bank, but as you say we have far more expenses to pay out of it in the coming season, so in the long term we're overdrawn.

Agreed - I think the way of calculating it is very misleading for football clubs.

We tend to start selling STs before the end of the season, so I think these problems would still arise.

They're shown as accruals and deferred income - the 2008 figure was £4.22m against cash of £3.93m, but I think there are probably other things included in that number. We have gone into actual overdraft within all of the last few years.
To be fair, we don't need to pay off all the debt - manageable debt is a valid financial tool. I agree though that £12m feels too high for comfort.
I would turn that on its head and say that turnover has been too low in the last couple of years - and that is a direct result of poor on-field performances (early cup exits, low league placings etc.)
Yep.

Fair enough

The Board are between a rock and a hard place in that they need to manage the club financially prudently and try and support the manager as well.

I would argue that they have built a rod for their own back by their failure to disclose how bad things really were a few years and by their consequent "rock solid" quotations.

There is a huge misconception amongst areas of the support that we have little or no debt and a cash pile to fund the new east stand.

On that basis they dont see the board, until recently anyway, as other than bean counters holding cash for dubious means.

IMO their failure to adequately explain the real situation by their choice to harp on about net debt has lead to mistrust and ill feeling between the board and sections of the support.

My view is that this issue has caused people to turn their back on the club when a fuller and more rounded explanation of the facts may not have caused this to happen.

[WindyMiller]

Mixu, yes. But not Collins.

Arguably Zemmama and Benji could be sold on for a decent fee if we were pushed.

Agree with the rest of your post though.

Benji was signed by Mowbray, he played in the semi-final.

[Sergio sledge]

Fair do's

I do think though that servicing / repayment costs on a debt of £12m in normal interest times will cost well over £1m annually.

I don't know, I haven't a clue about how much it would cost, but I was basing that figure on the fact that we are paying off the £6m west stand mortgage at a rate of £250k per year, so I got out my fag packet, scribbled a few numbers and came to £500k.....:greengrin

[GreenOnions]

Fair enough

The Board are between a rock and a hard place in that they need to manage the club financially prudently and try and support the manager as well.

I would argue that they have built a rod for their own back by their failure to disclose how bad things really were a few years and by their consequent "rock solid" quotations.

There is a huge misconception amongst areas of the support that we have little or no debt and a cash pile to fund the new east stand.

On that basis they dont see the board, until recently anyway, as other than bean counters holding cash for dubious means.

IMO their failure to adequately explain the real situation by their choice to harp on about net debt has lead to mistrust and ill feeling between the board and sections of the support.

My view is that this issue has caused people to turn their back on the club when a fuller and more rounded explanation of the facts may not have caused this to happen.

I know what you're saying and there's a strong argument that this is the case. Many people simply cannot understand "what's happened to all the money".

However, to a certain extent it's as Mikey replied to a post on another thread asking why the board aren't totally explicit about the number of season tickets sold.

If we want supporters and new players to be attracted to ER it's important that we accentuate the positives. Clearly that doesn't mean telling porkies but a good spin on our situation is helpful in this regard. In other words we should be highlighting all that's good about the club and not necessarily drawing attention to stats that could undermine a feel-good factor - especially when the underlying story is, in fact, a very promising one.

It's only 2 or three years since we were paying 1/10th of our turnover every year on loan interest and we had no training centre

[GreenOnions]

Benji was signed by Mowbray, he played in the semi-final.

That's right. It was his first game for us because we had so many injuries. He was almost still carrying his passport and suitcase as he trotted onto the field.

[MB62]

The problems with these targets are:


If you meet the 65% target and your other running costs are higher than 35% you make a loss. Hibs other running costs appear to have been about 58% of turnover.
Staff costs are largely set at the start of the season and you can't do a great deal to change them (other than sell players within the transfer windows). You don't know what turnover will be until near the end of the season.
The 65% ratio is a model based on some accountant's idea of the perfect club, but Airfix proved that models don't always fly like the real thing. Every club is different, particularly in the SPL and what's good for Celtc could be disastrous for the likes of Hamilton or St Johnston.

:agree:

However it was oor Rod himself who take great pride in telling us all at an AGM a few years back that Hibernian were, at that stage, were meeting the recommendations, whilst some other SPL clubs, namely the Yams & Dundee Utd, were actually over 100%.

[Caversham Green]

Fair enough

The Board are between a rock and a hard place in that they need to manage the club financially prudently and try and support the manager as well.

I would argue that they have built a rod for their own back by their failure to disclose how bad things really were a few years and by their consequent "rock solid" quotations.

There is a huge misconception amongst areas of the support that we have little or no debt and a cash pile to fund the new east stand.

On that basis they dont see the board, until recently anyway, as other than bean counters holding cash for dubious means.

IMO their failure to adequately explain the real situation by their choice to harp on about net debt has lead to mistrust and ill feeling between the board and sections of the support.

My view is that this issue has caused people to turn their back on the club when a fuller and more rounded explanation of the facts may not have caused this to happen.

Unfortunately net debt is the headline figure used by most businesses and nearly all football clubs, so it's a bit unfair to berate the Hibs board for "harping on" about it, particularly as they disclose plenty of other information at the same time. Likewise it's traditional to put as positive a spin as possible on newly published results and for the board to do otherwise would make Hibs appear worse in comparison to other clubs than is really the case.

The problem at Hibs is that we have brought in an exceptional amount of money from player sales in recent years and it is difficult on the face of it to see where all that money has gone. That has indeed caused mistrust of the board by some fans. On the other hand it is also very difficult to explain where it has gone in terms that everyone would understand and I'm not sure how far the board can or should go in doing that. Strictly speaking the board's duty in that respect only extends to the shareholders and they discharge that duty by issuing the accounts and holding an AGM each year.

[ancienthibby]

The Annual Report has now been received here at the 'Home for the Bewildered' and have been removed from the dog's teeth!

To shed more light on a couple of issues exercising posters since yesterday, here's some info:

On Cash/Debt:
Note 22 on p 19 shows that Cash at Bank at 310709 was £2.948 Mil against £3.931 Mil last year.
One mortgage payment of £250k was made.
Gross Debt was £6.532 mil compared to £6.782 mil last year.

Therefore Net Debt up to £3.584 Mil against £2.851 mil last year.

On the other matter of Season Ticket sales, one guide is obtained from the value of prepayments (not accurate, but a good indicator!) and that shows £4.287 mil this year versus £4.224 mil last Year (Note 14, p16).

Tashman has cut his remuneration package over 2 years by almost 50% - now down to £75k per annum! Well done, that man!

Hope this helps!

[Peevemor]

The Annual Report has now been received here at the 'Home for the Bewildered' and have been removed from the dog's teeth!

To shed more light on a couple of issues exercising posters since yesterday, here's some info:

On Cash/Debt:
Note 22 on p 19 shows that Cash at Bank at 310709 was £2.948 Mil against £3.931 Mil last year.
One mortgage payment of £250k was made.
Gross Debt was £6.532 mil compared to £6.782 mil last year.

Therefore Net Debt up to £3.584 Mil against £2.851 mil last year.

On the other matter of Season Ticket sales, one guide is obtained from the value of prepayments (not accurate, but a good indicator!) and that shows £4.287 mil this year versus £4.224 mil last Year (Note 14, p16).

Tashman has cut his remuneration package over 2 years by almost 50% - now down to £75k per annum! Well done, that man!

Hope this helps!

Good on him :agree:, although probably fair enough if he's only doing half the work he used to since the arrival of Scott Lindsay.

[Dashing Bob S]

So how are we then, you accountancy bods?

Nutshell it for we financial lay-persons:

a) doomed
b) thriving
c) so-so

[Caversham Green]

So how are we then, you accountancy bods?

Nutshell it for we financial lay-persons:

a) doomed
b) thriving
c) so-so

a) according to the Keechpack - they have a thread entitled "Hibs debt crisis" and there isn't a speck of irony in it.
b) according to Rod.
A wee bit worse than c) in the view of this particular accountancy bod. Disappointing but not unexpected figures to my mind. In fact I suppose I was expecting worse than a £1.5m operating loss.

[Mikey]

Accounts have dropped through the door so I'll scan in what I can. I'm tight for time just now so I'll just do the pages with numbers on them :greengrin

2 tics..........

[Dibben]

2 tics..........

:I'm waiti

:greengrin

BH.

[Mikey]

Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet..........

[Part/Time Supporter]

The problems with these targets are:


If you meet the 65% target and your other running costs are higher than 35% you make a loss. Hibs other running costs appear to have been about 58% of turnover.
Staff costs are largely set at the start of the season and you can't do a great deal to change them (other than sell players within the transfer windows). You don't know what turnover will be until near the end of the season.
The 65% ratio is a model based on some accountant's idea of the perfect club, but Airfix proved that models don't always fly like the real thing. Every club is different, particularly in the SPL and what's good for Celtc could be disastrous for the likes of Hamilton or St Johnston.

I think the 65% figure is more relevant to Premiership clubs, who receive a much higher share of their income from television. The point being that television revenue comes at little or no cost to the club concerned, all they have to do is offer camera and commentary positions.

A club like (say) Wigan will receive £40M plus from television, while generating about the same as Hibs from other sources (gate, merchandise, sponsors and so on), but their operating costs will be quite similar to Hibs because in reality it is a similar sized club. Wigan would therefore be able to spend up to 80% of their (television-based) income without breaking sweat, whereas Hibs really can't afford to spend any more than about 50-55%, depending on how well they do in the cups.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet..........

Looking at first glance, the debtors figure is up from 500K to 2M. This suggests that Burnley are due to pay Hibs a fair wad for Fletcher, and that it has already been recognised in the accounts. i.e. the deal was (approx.) £1.5M up front and £1.5M next year.

[ancienthibby]

a) according to the Keechpack - they have a thread entitled "Hibs debt crisis" and there isn't a speck of irony in it.
b) according to Rod.
A wee bit worse than c) in the view of this particular accountancy bod. Disappointing but not unexpected figures to my mind. In fact I suppose I was expecting worse than a £1.5m operating loss.

OUCH!!

Think that's a bit harsh - the results are pretty good in difficult circumstances, especially in the light of cup run failures!!

The retained profit has improved, operating costs have been cut by more than 10%, gross debt is reduced, interest costs are down substantially and ST sales are seemingly holding about even.

A few well dones are in order, I would have thought!

[Mikey]

Cash flow..........

[Mikey]

Creditors.

Does this say what I think it says?...........

[BEEJ]

Benji was signed by Mowbray, he played in the semi-final.
:confused: Yes. That's correct.....

Lines one and two in my post were unrelated and were in response to two separate points made by Thorburn. :wink:

[Mikey]

That's it for now folks, unless there are any requests :greengrin

[Woody1985]

wow, staggeringly lazy 'paint by numbers' writing there. Can anyone remember what the target wages to turnover ratio was? Was it not something like 65%?

I think that setting a limit on a % of turnover for wages should be used as a rough guide and not as an exact science.

As we can see, turnover can vary quite dramitically based on a couple of cup runs.

[IWasThere2016]

So how are we then, you accountancy bods?

Nutshell it for we financial lay-persons:

a) doomed
b) thriving
c) so-so

For me it's a c) with no business case for building a new East Stand/more debt

[IWasThere2016]

That's it for now folks, unless there are any requests :greengrin

Geeza song! :agree:

[3pm]

For me it's a c) with no business case for building a new East Stand/more debt

There is no business case - but if the planning application lapses I think we'd struggle to get it renewed.

[BEEJ]

a) according to the Keechpack - they have a thread entitled "Hibs debt crisis" and there isn't a speck of irony in it.

Have a heart, CG. These are folks completely unaccustomed to having club accounts presented openly and transparently.

How can we expect them to understand? :greengrin

[PaulSmith]

Creditors.

Does this say what I think it says?...........

What we actually have less overall debt this year than last, surely cannot be right if we're in a 'Hibs Debt Crisis'

[Dibben]

a) according to the Keechpack - they have a thread entitled "Hibs debt crisis" and there isn't a speck of irony in it.



Have a heart, CG. These are folks completely unaccustomed to having club accounts presented openly and transparently.

How can we expect them to understand? :greengrin

I seen that - funny as, they are over £35m in debt and WE are in crisis with net debt of over £3m...:confused::bitchy:

Muppets...

BH.

[Hank Schrader]

Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet..........

Just for any Hearts fans looking in, and in reference to the "Hibs Debt Crisis" thread on Keechback, Hibs balance sheet shows a healthy net asset figure of almost 15 million pounds as at 31 July 2009.

The Hearts accounts to 31 July 2008 also show an overall balance sheet total of 15 million pounds. Unfortunately for the Jambos its a negative, i.e. the other way round i.e. Hearts are in the sh*te as their liabilities hugely outweigh their total assets. God only knows what position they are in as at 31 July 2009. They are completely and utterly insolvent. Not a pot to piss in.

Now tell me, which team has a "debt crisis"? :hmmm:

[Part/Time Supporter]

For me it's a c) with no business case for building a new East Stand/more debt

Crowds need to be 13,000+ to justify it, which they were pre-Mixu. The problem is the loss of planning permission after next February, and would they get a new permission from those flats if they don't use it.

[poolman]

I seen that - funny as, they are over £35m in debt and WE are in crisis with net debt of over £3m...:confused::bitchy:

Muppets...

BH.


Thats being a bit kind to them BH

Irony to them is something that takes out the creases in their shirtsys

[Part/Time Supporter]

I seen that - funny as, they are over £35m in debt and WE are in crisis with net debt of over £3m...:confused::bitchy:

Muppets...

BH.

Which doesn't even include £1.5M due from Burnley for Fletcher (the increased trade debtor figure).

[Dibben]

Just for any Hearts fans looking in, and in reference to the "Hibs Debt Crisis" thread on Keechback, Hibs balance sheet shows a healthy net asset figure of almost 15 million pounds as at 31 July 2009.

The Hearts accounts to 31 July 2008 also show an overall balance sheet total of 15 million pounds. Unfortunately for the Jambos its a negative, i.e. the other way round i.e. Hearts are in the sh*te as their liabilities hugely outweigh their total assets. God only knows what position they are in as at 31 July 2009. They are completely and utterly insolvent. Not a pot to piss in.

Now tell me, which team has a "debt crisis"? :hmmm:

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

You and your pesky Hobo-nomics.... they DON'T have debt as they owe it to themselves!!!!

:blah: :sofa:

:greengrin

BH.

[bawheid]

For me it's a c) with no business case for building a new East Stand/more debt

The business case is that when Hibs are playing well, we could easily sell more than 17,100 tickets for games against Rangers, Celtic, Hearts and Aberdeen...and for big cup games. If we achieve the stated aim of playing in Europe, this would also utilise the bigger capacity a new stand would give.

This is before you start talking about the number of potential customers put off by the state of the facilities in the east terracing.

Not completing the stadium when we have an opportunity to do so would show a real weeteam mentality IMO. The business case is plain for all who wish to look for it.

Just because attendances were poor under Mixu, doesn't mean they're going to continue to be so.

[ancienthibby]

The business case is that when Hibs are playing well, we could easily sell more than 17,100 tickets for games against Rangers, Celtic, Hearts and Aberdeen...and for big cup games. If we achieve the stated aim of playing in Europe, this would also utilise the bigger capacity a new stand would give.

This is before you start talking about the number of potential customers put off by the state of the facilities in the east terracing.

Not completing the stadium when we have an opportunity to do so would show a real weeteam mentality IMO. The business case is plain for all who wish to look for it.

Just because attendances were poor under Mixu, doesn't mean they're going to continue to be so.

:top marks

[Big Frank]

The business case is that when Hibs are playing well, we could easily sell more than 17,100 tickets for games against Rangers, Celtic, Hearts and Aberdeen...and for big cup games. If we achieve the stated aim of playing in Europe, this would also utilise the bigger capacity a new stand would give.

This is before you start talking about the number of potential customers put off by the state of the facilities in the east terracing.

Not completing the stadium when we have an opportunity to do so would show a real weeteam mentality IMO. The business case is plain for all who wish to look for it.

Just because attendances were poor under Mixu, doesn't mean they're going to continue to be so.

:agree:

Get it built

[Liberal Hibby]

Fair enough

The Board are between a rock and a hard place in that they need to manage the club financially prudently and try and support the manager as well.

I would argue that they have built a rod for their own back by their failure to disclose how bad things really were a few years and by their consequent "rock solid" quotations.

There is a huge misconception amongst areas of the support that we have little or no debt and a cash pile to fund the new east stand.

On that basis they dont see the board, until recently anyway, as other than bean counters holding cash for dubious means.

IMO their failure to adequately explain the real situation by their choice to harp on about net debt has lead to mistrust and ill feeling between the board and sections of the support.

My view is that this issue has caused people to turn their back on the club when a fuller and more rounded explanation of the facts may not have caused this to happen.


Very well said. I also agree that our wages to turnover is far too high and we need a period of retrenchment. I'm slightly non plussed by Scott Lindsey's statement today that there will be no wage cap and we will speculate to get to Europe.

I personally can see no way we can do this prudently and borrow for a new stand. I fear now that an East Stand may never be built - especially if we let the planning permission lapse.

[PaulSmith]

For me it's a c) with no business case for building a new East Stand/more debt

Could building a new East stand with better facilities encourage an extra 500 fans to come to Easter Road each home game?

My fag packet calculations are that to make the proposed extra £250k per annum in mortgage payments you'd need an extra 10,000 people through the door thoughout the season each paying £25.

My actual guess is that we're more than capable of acheiving these extra 10,000 punters by having an opportunity of selling an extra 1500 tickets at each of the home games against the OF and Hearts = 9000 tickets.

[Jack]

Crowds need to be 13,000+ to justify it, which they were pre-Mixu. The problem is the loss of planning permission after next February, and would they get a new permission from those flats if they don't use it.

Posted on anudder thread.


I was at a conference and speaking to a Enbra Coonciler Thursday night into the wee sma hours, a ST Hibby Coonciler at that!

Among other things I asked him his thoughts on the progress.

1. As has been said here before you basically only have to dig a hole to show that work has started and planning permission will be OK. There is no deadline [edit, seems to be a 3 year dealine], as I thought there was, for the project to be finished within a certain time.

What if the hole isn't big enough to satisfy that condition and Hibs have to apply for planning permission again I asked?

2. If work isn't started at all and Hibs have to seek planning permission again for the same project with the same specifications objections would only be considered on the basis of a planning objection i.e. too tall, didn’t fit in with surrounding developments, noise, light etc.. As all these requirements have been met/fulfilled in the original specifications the objections would be dismissed.

That’s what he told me.

So getting new permission from those flats if they don't use it should not be the problem we think it is.

[ancient hibee]

Fair enough

The Board are between a rock and a hard place in that they need to manage the club financially prudently and try and support the manager as well.

I would argue that they have built a rod for their own back by their failure to disclose how bad things really were a few years and by their consequent "rock solid" quotations.

There is a huge misconception amongst areas of the support that we have little or no debt and a cash pile to fund the new east stand.

On that basis they dont see the board, until recently anyway, as other than bean counters holding cash for dubious means.

IMO their failure to adequately explain the real situation by their choice to harp on about net debt has lead to mistrust and ill feeling between the board and sections of the support.

My view is that this issue has caused people to turn their back on the club when a fuller and more rounded explanation of the facts may not have caused this to happen.
Don't understand what you mean by the board's failure to disclose.The accounts are there every year and the position at each year end is perfectly clear.

[WindyMiller]

:confused: Yes. That's correct.....

Lines one and two in my post were unrelated and were in response to two separate points made by Thorburn. :wink:

No proplem mate, but it shows that our previous 2 managers, although very active in the market, had very limited success.
When the pay-offs for the duds are taken into account it really makes clear that we could do with a bit of stability.

[Caversham Green]

That's it for now folks, unless there are any requests :greengrin

Mikey, if you're still there, I'd like to see the note re Intangible Fixed Assets please. See if I can work out why the transfer income looks so low.

And what did you think the creditors note said? :confused:

[bawheid]

Posted on anudder thread.

So getting new permission from those flats if they don't use it should not be the problem we think it is.

I've said all along this planning permission thing is a bit of a red herring IMO.

Remember it is the council as planning authority who grants planning consent, not a bunch of folk living in flats. They can object all they want but as long as the council is satisfied on the points you have brought up, there is no reason to refuse planning permission second time around.

I would still get it built now though, just to be on the safe side. You never know when a stray yam councillor could call it into their planning committee and start trying to cause problems.

[Caversham Green]

OUCH!!

Think that's a bit harsh - the results are pretty good in difficult circumstances, especially in the light of cup run failures!!

The retained profit has improved, operating costs have been cut by more than 10%, gross debt is reduced, interest costs are down substantially and ST sales are seemingly holding about even.

A few well dones are in order, I would have thought!

I was really talking about the position the club is in, rather than how we got there. We've had a couple of difficult years and as a result we haven't gone as far forward financially as we probably should have. The fact that we've made a loss from our core activity is a worry for the future, but the solution is to some degree in our own hands, and our general financial position is good in comparison with our competitors. So, of the three options DBS gave I think so-so was the most appropriate - I lean towards the "worse" side because of the trend towards losses and the uncertainty of being able to sell players in the future.

It wasn't intended as any sort of comment on anyone's performance, but you have highlighted a number of positives in the figure, so I don't disagree with your last sentence.

[BSEJVT]

Don't understand what you mean by the board's failure to disclose.The accounts are there every year and the position at each year end is perfectly clear.

What I mean is that its okay for folk who can look behind the headline figures and understand what the real position is.

Too may people read net debt x cash at bank y and think that because y is greater than x that we have pots of cash.

I know why they do it, I just think that they could have saved themselves much grief by saying although the accounting treatment is this it still means we have £x of debt to repay, so lets no get too carried away yet.

[Mikey]

Mikey, if you're still there, I'd like to see the note re Intangible Fixed Assets please. See if I can work out why the transfer income looks so low.

And what did you think the creditors note said? :confused:


CG, I'm back and I'm going to scan in the lot and put them in a single thread in the vault.

That'll take about 4 tics :greengrin...................

[BSEJVT]

I was really talking about the position the club is in, rather than how we got there. We've had a couple of difficult years and as a result we haven't gone as far forward financially as we probably should have. The fact that we've made a loss from our core activity is a worry for the future, but the solution is to some degree in our own hands, and our general financial position is good in comparison with our competitors. So, of the three options DBS gave I think so-so was the most appropriate - I lean towards the "worse" side because of the trend towards losses and the uncertainty of being able to sell players in the future.

It wasn't intended as any sort of comment on anyone's performance, but you have highlighted a number of positives in the figure, so I don't disagree with your last sentence.

FWIW its worth so-so would be my answer as well.

We should be further down the road to lasting financial freedom than we are and IMO there is danger we are going back to the boom and bust mentality that got us into all our problems to start with.

Albeit with a much improved infrastructure.

I think we have wasted £3m over the last 2 years for no tangible reward and it cant continue.

There is a school of thought that the board panicked at the first sign of trouble /supporter unrest and gave too much money to JC & Mixu who were palpably incapable of spending it wisely.

Would we really have finished much worse than 6th 2 seasons on the bounce if they had restricted their budgets until we could see how they did with the limited funds they got?

Few of their signings had any real impact and you could just about pick a junior side that could compete in the current SPL.

[IWasThere2016]

The business case is that when Hibs are playing well, we could easily sell more than 17,100 tickets for games against Rangers, Celtic, Hearts and Aberdeen...and for big cup games. If we achieve the stated aim of playing in Europe, this would also utilise the bigger capacity a new stand would give.

We'd need to play better than we did under TM then - when average crowds were 14,500. We do so one the possibility of a) playing (very) well and b) a few games per season .. no sure I see the business sense in that, B.

[GreenOnions]

We'd need to play better than we did under TM then - when average crowds were 14,500. We do so one the possibility of a) playing (very) well and b) a few games per season .. no sure I see the business sense in that, B.

I think Bawheid was talking about the potential for us having facilities for increased attendances at a certain number of games rather than an overall average.

I certainly think it's possible that we could attract an additional 1,500 to home games against the OF and Hearts. All other things being equal that would be approx an extra 9,000 paying customers pa * £25 = £225,000

That's without considering potential additional income from major home cup ties, european ties, neutral venue semi-finals, Scotland games or even additional support attending due to greater availability of modern, quality facilities.

[hughio]

i am torn by this issue.

On the one hand there is the question of the aesthetic of the completed stadium.The unfinished bit does look a bit scabby.
On the other hand the soulless tin sheds that we all have to sit in have sure as death taken the life and atmosphere out of going to the game (on a saturday as it used to be..harumph)

On balance i think we have to do all we can to keep the atmosphere.
in the best of all worlds we would be the first club to innovate by building a section with removable seats and challenge the world to make us change it back.All right thinking people know that the so called safety argument is old fashioned scaremongering bogus claptrap.
You could have quite safe standing areas supervised by the clubs own hand picked stewards and show them how it can be done safely.There might be the odd accident with drunks falling over but Ibrox disasters aint gonna happen again

[rabcp1]

I certainly think it's possible that we could attract an additional 1,500 to home games against the OF and Hearts. All other things being equal that would be approx an extra 9,000 paying customers pa * £25 = £225,000


Wouldnt a new east stand bring us upto 21,000 giving an extra 3,500 new seats as opposed to just 1,500, that being the case full houses against the OF and hearts would bring in an extra 21,000 £25= £525,000 :dunno:

[God Petrie]

Just got the accounts through the door. Interesting to see Rod Petrie has taken a wage cut from £125,000 to £75,000 and got no bonuses.

[WindyMiller]

I'm sure there are many like me who on finding they can make the game, look on-line for seating and find that it's only the East that's available and decide to watch it in the pub.

The augument that we can only fill it when we're successful is a crock of s***. If we can bring in crowds of 19/20k for a few games a season the extra income would increase the prospect of having more successful seasons.

Get it built. Surely by waiting too long we risk paying more as the construction industry moves out of recession?

[BSEJVT]

Despite everything I have said earlier on this thread, I am firmly of the view we should build it now.

We should however do so in the knowledge that there will need to be further player sales to fund it.

[GreenOnions]

Wouldnt a new east stand bring us upto 21,000 giving an extra 3,500 new seats as opposed to just 1,500, that being the case full houses against the OF and hearts would bring in an extra 21,000 £25= £525,000 :dunno:

Yes - I suppose I was just taking a figure used by an earlier poster that he thought was a realistic figure rather than a maximum possible figure.

[hibsdaft]

the cold facts are that we've only had what, 10-15 sell outs in the last 8 years or so. probably fewer than that.

and whilst these games may have sold out, would they have sold out a 20K capacity ground? maybe AEK Athens would have but i doubt any others would unless it involved expanding the Away capacity, which our current plans don't do.

build the seats and they will come is total pie in the sky for me, who are "they"?

would still love the stand to get built after a long time on the fence on this subject, but we have to be realistic when estimating what it could mean for us.

[PaulSmith]

the cold facts are that we've only had what, 10-15 sell outs in the last 8 years or so. probably fewer than that.

and whilst these games may have sold out, would they have sold out a 20K capacity ground? maybe AEK Athens would have but i doubt any others would unless it involved expanding the Away capacity, which our current plans don't do.

build the seats and they will come is total pie in the sky for me, who are "they"?

would still love the stand to get built after a long time on the fence on this subject, but we have to be realistic when estimating what it could mean for us.

The many that would've went to the game if they didn't have to sit in the East Stand. And believe me there are plenty.

[Dashing Bob S]

I agree with the economics of building the new stand. It's not just about building a stand and increasing the capacity, it's about COMPLETING THE STADIUM. ER as it stands, is not a football stadium, its 3/4 of a stadium, 1/4 an old school football 'park'. Like or it loathe it (and as an old school fan I detest the fact) the ambience of the stadium with the 'East' doesn't appeal to kids, and 'new' (middle-class) football fans, whose impression of what football stadia should be is formed from TV by watching the richest clubs.

By completing a modern stadium we are perceived of as having a proper footballing arena by this potential element of support. If its constructed with sympathetic regard to atmosphere and layout as well as pricing, it shouldn't alienate the traditional fan either. Let's face it, apart from derbies, OF or big cup games, the east is pretty much as dead as the rest of ER these days.

Not building it isn't an option.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I've said all along this planning permission thing is a bit of a red herring IMO.

Remember it is the council as planning authority who grants planning consent, not a bunch of folk living in flats. They can object all they want but as long as the council is satisfied on the points you have brought up, there is no reason to refuse planning permission second time around.

I would still get it built now though, just to be on the safe side. You never know when a stray yam councillor could call it into their planning committee and start trying to cause problems.

You've got to bear in mind that Hibs will be a bit paranoid about the council given the farce re: the butterfly.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Despite everything I have said earlier on this thread, I am firmly of the view we should build it now.

We should however do so in the knowledge that there will need to be further player sales to fund it.

Mind, it's not as if Hibs wouldn't sell players the other way.

[bawheid]

We'd need to play better than we did under TM then - when average crowds were 14,500. We do so one the possibility of a) playing (very) well and b) a few games per season .. no sure I see the business sense in that, B.


I think Bawheid was talking about the potential for us having facilities for increased attendances at a certain number of games rather than an overall average.


Correct. Plus there's the issue Paul highlights below.


The many that would've went to the game if they didn't have to sit in the East Stand. And believe me there are plenty.

Added to this, I'm sure there are a number of supporters who do not go to a match which has nearly sold out for fear of being stuck behind a pillar in the worst seat in the house, or not being able to sit next to their mates/family.


You've got to bear in mind that Hibs will be a bit paranoid about the council given the farce re: the butterfly.

Understandable, but it's a different council now. The politics has changed and there are not as many corrupt yam cooncillers.

[Peevemor]

I've said all along this planning permission thing is a bit of a red herring IMO.

Remember it is the council as planning authority who grants planning consent, not a bunch of folk living in flats. They can object all they want but as long as the council is satisfied on the points you have brought up, there is no reason to refuse planning permission second time around.

I would still get it built now though, just to be on the safe side. You never know when a stray yam councillor could call it into their planning committee and start trying to cause problems.

Hibs now have a Building Warrant for the first phase of the work (substructure I'd imagine). The fact that they applied for a phased warrant is normally a sign of urgency, ie. get the demolition and foundations approved and start on that while finalising the rest. There is also the issue of the Architect's fee for preparing and submitting the application. This will have been a fair amount of money, which i doubt the board would have spent if they weren't going to start the work.

[mim]

the cold facts are that we've only had what, 10-15 sell outs in the last 8 years or so. probably fewer than that.

and whilst these games may have sold out, would they have sold out a 20K capacity ground? maybe AEK Athens would have but i doubt any others would unless it involved expanding the Away capacity, which our current plans don't do.

build the seats and they will come is total pie in the sky for me, who are "they"?

would still love the stand to get built after a long time on the fence on this subject, but we have to be realistic when estimating what it could mean for us.

Hibs would have the flexibilty to increase the away capacity by ensuring that no more season tickets are sold for the East than can be accomodated in the South.

In that way the East could be allocated to away fans for a one-off game, with FF, South and West being for home supporters.

It's something that could be considered for our Champions League knock out stage games against the Chelseas and Man Us of the world. :greengrin

[BEEJ]

No proplem mate, but it shows that our previous 2 managers, although very active in the market, had very limited success.

When the pay-offs for the duds are taken into account it really makes clear that we could do with a bit of stability.
Agree with that. :agree:

We literally can't afford for Yogi to fail.


I think we have wasted £3m over the last 2 years for no tangible reward and it cant continue.

There is a school of thought that the board panicked at the first sign of trouble /supporter unrest and gave too much money to JC & Mixu who were palpably incapable of spending it wisely.
I realise that you're making a general point here, but it's just not valid to quote JC and Mixu in the same breath in that regard.

Both spent about £500k -£650k on transfers during their tenure. At the same time JC brought in £9m during his reign while Mixu brought in about £1.7m, most of that through the sale of Murphy which happened the day after Mixu arrived.

The club spent much more on salaries and sign-on fees to attract the likes of Murray, Nish, Bamba, Riordan, Johanssen, Szamo and Rosa during Mixu's reign than it did for Sowumni, Donaldson, Ghatteussi, Morais, Noubissie and MAC while JC was in charge.

Yes, both squandered their respective player budgets but there is simply no comparison between the two, particularly in the light of the transfer fees taken in during those periods.

[BEEJ]

Despite everything I have said earlier on this thread, I am firmly of the view we should build it now.

We should however do so in the knowledge that there will need to be further player sales to fund it.
I agree.

Get the ruddy thing finished.

[CapitalHibs]

Despite everything I have said earlier on this thread, I am firmly of the view we should build it now.

We should however do so in the knowledge that there will need to be further player sales to fund it.

That will always be the backup/insurance plan in case all else goes mams up.

[WindyMiller]

Despite everything I have said earlier on this thread, I am firmly of the view we should build it now.

We should however do so in the knowledge that there will need to be further player sales to fund it.

Even as a result of 2 very poor seasons we've only needed to sell Fletcher to break even. If the new stand is financed as a long-term mortgage then even a couple of similarly poor seasons won't neccessarily mean we'd need to sell.

[Weir7]

The many that would've went to the game if they didn't have to sit in the East Stand. And believe me there are plenty.

Where were they when he had 2000 odd seats unsold in the FF and west stand for the tic game.

[BSEJVT]

Even as a result of 2 very poor seasons we've only needed to sell Fletcher to break even. If the new stand is financed as a long-term mortgage then even a couple of similarly poor seasons won't neccessarily mean we'd need to sell.

There is no way IMO that Hibs should consider going forward with anything approaching £12m of debt.

Quite apart from the fact that I doubt they could get a bank to fund it in the current climate, when interest rates rise it will lop £1m per season minimum in debt and repayment cost off the playing budget.

Bear in mind also that the 2nd Mortgage currently needs to be repaid in 2020? with one bullet payment.

I dont think they could countenance entering into a similar agreement in the hope that they could guarantee pullling in several £2m+ windfalls at some fixed future dates on top of any trading loss.

If you take a look around recent player sales from non OF teams in Scotland, only the Jambo's have recently pulled in anything like that in single sales.

My big hope is that we get lucky (not the right word, but you know what I mean again) and find a couple of guys we can sell pronto and recoup the cost of the new East Stand.

I have to say though that I went through that hope at the start of the golden generation sale and never for a moment thought that having pulled in the cash we have that we would still need more big sales to complete the infrastructure, let alone repay the flippin debt!

[Weir7]

There is no way IMO that Hibs should consider going forward with anything approaching £12m of debt.

Quite apart from the fact that I doubt they could get a bank to fund it in the current climate, when interest rates rise it will lop £1m per season minimum in debt and repayment cost off the playing budget.

Bear in mind also that the 2nd Mortgage currently needs to be repaid in 2020? with one bullet payment.

I dont think they could countenance entering into a similar agreement in the hope that they could guarantee pullling in several £2m+ windfalls at some fixed future dates on top of any trading loss.

If you take a look around recent player sales from non OF teams in Scotland, only the Jambo's have recently pulled in anything like that in single sales.

My big hope is that we get lucky (not the right word, but you know what I mean again) and find a couple of guys we can sell pronto and recoup the cost of the new East Stand.

I have to say though that I went through that hope at the start of the golden generation sale and never for a moment thought that having pulled in the cash we have that we would still need more big sales to complete the infrastructure, let alone repay the flippin debt!

I agree, disappointing with the transfer fees we've pulled in .......... still got £6m mortgage and would need to increase that by £4 or £5m to build the east stand. You wonder how all the cash got spent

[WindyMiller]

I agree, disappointing with the transfer fees we've pulled in .......... still got £6m mortgage and would need to increase that by £4 or £5m to build the east stand. You wonder how all the cash got spent

The accounts published in 2003 show a debt of £14.5m.

[hibs0666]

The accounts published in 2003 show a debt of £14.5m.

I think East Mains must be invisible too. :wink:

[BEEJ]

CG, I'm back and I'm going to scan in the lot and put them in a single thread in the vault.

That'll take about 4 tics :greengrin...................
Mikey,

Have you done this? Can't see it anywhere.

:I'm waiti

[Mibbes Aye]

I think East Mains must be invisible too. :wink:

It's no wonder it cost so much then, if they built it using Stealth technology.
No need for that IMO :bitchy:

[GreenOnions]

The accounts published in 2003 show a debt of £14.5m.

Yep - the scale of the job that's been done by the board is only beginning to be appreciated. We've also posted operating losses in 03/04, 07/08 and 08/09. The total operating losses since 2003 have been £3.8m.

Since 2003 we have covered those losses, reduced our debt by over £8m and built a training centre for £5m or so.

We've recording operating profits in three years since then totalling £3.2m but, broadly speaking - we've used profits from our business including player sales and some loan write-offs to deal with almost £17m of debt, operating losses and training centre construction costs.

Clearly this will be an over-simplification but I don't think it's a million miles off.

[IWasThere2016]

Could building a new East stand with better facilities encourage an extra 500 fans to come to Easter Road each home game?

My fag packet calculations are that to make the proposed extra £250k per annum in mortgage payments you'd need an extra 10,000 people through the door thoughout the season each paying £25.

My actual guess is that we're more than capable of acheiving these extra 10,000 punters by having an opportunity of selling an extra 1500 tickets at each of the home games against the OF and Hearts = 9000 tickets.

Do we have any idea what it will cost - and what impact t will have on ER's capacity?


Yep - the scale of the job that's been done by the board is only beginning to be appreciated. We've also posted operating losses in 03/04, 07/08 and 08/09. The total operating losses since 2003 have been £3.8m.

Since 2003 we have covered those losses, reduced our debt by over £8m and built a training centre for £5m or so.

We've recording operating profits in three years since then totalling £3.2m but, broadly speaking - we've used profits from our business including player sales and some loan write-offs to deal with almost £17m of debt, operating losses and training centre construction costs.

Clearly this will be an over-simplification but I don't think it's a million miles off.

When did we flog the land adjacent to ER?

[BEEJ]

Yep - the scale of the job that's been done by the board is only beginning to be appreciated. We've also posted operating losses in 03/04, 07/08 and 08/09. The total operating losses since 2003 have been £3.8m.

Since 2003 we have covered those losses, reduced our debt by over £8m and built a training centre for £5m or so.

We've recording operating profits in three years since then totalling £3.2m but, broadly speaking - we've used profits from our business including player sales and some loan write-offs to deal with almost £17m of debt, operating losses and training centre construction costs.

Clearly this will be an over-simplification but I don't think it's a million miles off.
It's an impressive story.

Wish someone could reconcile that fully though against the sale of the car park (+ £10m), player sales (+ £15m or so) and transfer fees paid out (-£2m - £3m?).

Has anyone ever pieced together the full picture over this 5 year period?

[GreenOnions]

It's an impressive story.

Wish someone could reconcile that fully though against the sale of the car park (+ £10m), player sales (+ £15m or so) and transfer fees paid out (-£2m - £3m?).

Has anyone ever pieced together the full picture over this 5 year period?

The car park was not owned by the football club. The holding company owned it along with an amount of historic debt it took on from the football club (this historic debt was in addition to the £14.5m mentioned above).

As I understand it the idea was that the Holding Company would take our historic debt from us, keep most of the car park and, initially, the stadium and build the North and South Stands.

It did that, sold the ground back to us for a small amount with two new stands and then sold the car park. Most of the proceeds from the car park sale went to cover the historic debt with the remainder effectively allowing the Holding Company to write off around £2m of loans from them to the football club.

It appears to me that this arrangement has been very beneficial to Hibs. However, although we received two new stands and had our historic debt removed and paid off, the only portion of the £14.5m debt in 2003 to be effectively paid off by the car park sale was a a result of the £2m or so loan write-offs. The rest of the debt repayment has been via operating profit and player sales.

[Peevemor]

I make no apologies for posting this link yet again. It's an article from 2003 which explains quite a bit.

http://www.scotsman.com/spl/Hibs-reveal-full-extent-of.2448050.jp

[BEEJ]

The car park was not owned by the football club. The holding company owned it along with an amount of historic debt it took on from the football club (this historic debt was in addition to the £14.5m mentioned above).

As I understand it the idea was that the Holding Company would take our historic debt from us, keep most of the car park and, initially, the stadium and build the North and South Stands.

It did that, sold the ground back to us for a small amount with two new stands and then sold the car park. Most of the proceeds from the car park sale went to cover the historic debt with the remainder effectively allowing the Holding Company to write off around £2m of loans from them to the football club.

It appears to me that this arrangement has been very beneficial to Hibs. However, although we received two new stands and had our historic debt removed and paid off, the only portion of the £14.5m debt in 2003 to be effectively paid off by the car park sale was a a result of the £2m or so loan write-offs. The rest of the debt repayment has been via operating profit and player sales.
That's helpful. Thanks.

:aok:

[Caversham Green]

It's an impressive story.

Wish someone could reconcile that fully though against the sale of the car park (+ £10m), player sales (+ £15m or so) and transfer fees paid out (-£2m - £3m?).

Has anyone ever pieced together the full picture over this 5 year period?

I did the car park bit - I won't link the thread again, but it's in the vault - and started on a review of cash flow from the year we sold O'Connor onwards. I got bogged down though (probably too much detail) and it never reached a conclusion. Once Mikey has got his butt into gear and posted this year's accounts I'll have another go and extend it to a five-year review.

I've seen enough to see where it has all gone and be happy that there's nothing untoward, but getting into a form that everyone will understand is not an easy task. I have to say it's not exactly rivetting stuff either.

Watch this space, but don't hold your breath (and none of these :I'm waiti please).

[WindyMiller]

I did the car park bit - I won't link the thread again, but it's in the vault - and started on a review of cash flow from the year we sold O'Connor onwards. I got bogged down though (probably too much detail) and it never reached a conclusion. Once Mikey has got his butt into gear and posted this year's accounts I'll have another go and extend it to a five-year review.

I've seen enough to see where it has all gone and be happy that there's nothing untoward, but getting into a form that everyone will understand is not an easy task. I have to say it's not exactly rivetting stuff either.

Watch this space, but don't hold your breath (and none of these :I'm waiti please).


The next time anyone complains about STF's stewardship of our club they should be made to read that thread and the article posted in Peevemor's link.

[Mikey]

Mikey,

Have you done this? Can't see it anywhere.

:I'm waiti


I have indeed, but it's 3.2mb and won't upload. No.10 is on the case :greengrin

[Caversham Green]

So for those of us who cant work out the change in our pockets can someone please do the following sum?

How much money our club got in from all sources. :greengrin

MINUS

How much money our club spent, all sources. :boo hoo:

EQUALS

How much is in our pocket :greengrin / how much we cadged off a mate :boo hoo:

The use of symbols/smilies and colours in the answer is compulsory !

Jack, I've done the easy part of this - it answers all your questions, but isn't going to add back to the position at the start of the year for various reasons.

Income :greengrin
Gate money, TV money etc £7,711,485
Player sales £2,811,229
A total of £10,522,714, which includes £2,008,483 that we hadn't received yet - mostly Fletcher's transfer money.

Expenditure :boo hoo:
Wages & running costs £9,270,618
Interest paid £143,936
These are P&L costs, but you don't get back to the £700k profit figure because there's a capital element in player sales.
Fixed asset additions (mainly East Mains I think) £473,258
Player (and manager) purchases £892,341
Mortgage repayment £240,000
The last three don't affect the profit figure, which answers the question why debt went up despite us showing a profit.
Of the above we still owed £1,029,881.

Position at year end :dunno:
Cash in the bank :greengrin £2,948,048
But we had received £4,287,430 in ST sales that is not included in the income figures above.
Amounts owed :boo hoo:
Mortgages £6,260,000
Parent company loan £250,000
Lease/HP £22,320

We also had goods for resale in stock that cost us £181,605.

Some of the figures need further explaining, but the above should be a fair summary of the years results.

[Mikey]

See the accounts here.........

http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=162663

[PaulSmith]

See the accounts here.........

http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=162663

Has there been any analysis done of these on JKB or similar, would be interested to know if we missing anything about Morston Securities, East Mains not being part of Hibernian FC, Farmer taking money from the club etc.

[Mikey]

Has there been any analysis done of these on JKB or similar, would be interested to know if we missing anything about Morston Securities, East Mains not being part of Hibernian FC, Farmer taking money from the club etc.

Nah. They're too busy not talking about their U19's being bottom of their league :greengrin

[Dibben]

Nah. They're too busy not talking about their U19's being bottom of their league :greengrin

Er, hang on, I thought Csaba said that they had the best youth set up in all of the land??

:hijack:

BH.

[Luna_Asylum]

Has there been any analysis done of these on JKB or similar, would be interested to know if we missing anything about Morston Securities, East Mains not being part of Hibernian FC, Farmer taking money from the club etc.

farmer/morston did take some or all of the car park but donated a stand or part of one. i don't think anybody got to the bottom of that so yes we are maybe missing something

more recently they tried and failed to move us to make $'s

[Mikey]

farmer/morston did take some or all of the car park but donated a stand or part of one. i don't think anybody got to the bottom of that so yes we are maybe missing something

more recently they tried and failed to move us to make $'s

This pretty much clears up the mystery of the car park money :wink:.........

http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=135671


I'm not so sure that they "tried and failed to move us to make $'s". If they wanted to line their pockets they would have moved us anyway and they'd have done it long before now :wink:

[Luna_Asylum]

This pretty much clears up the mystery of the car park money :wink:.........

http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=135671


I'm not so sure that they "tried and failed to move us to make $'s". If they wanted to line their pockets they would have moved us anyway and they'd have done it long before now :wink:

well for you anyhow who decided it was "Brilliant piece of investigative work there"

the next poster chap who questioned it was banned!

farmer wanted us to move - for $ - but even he could not ignore fan power

[matty_f]

well for you anyhow who decided it was "Brilliant piece of investigative work there"

the next poster chap who questioned it was banned!

farmer wanted us to move - for $ - but even he could not ignore fan power

He wasn't banned for those posts though. That post was in November, the guy was still posting in Feb.

[Mikey]

the next poster chap who questioned it was banned!



Presumably because he questioned it??

[Peevemor]

well for you anyhow who decided it was "Brilliant piece of investigative work there"

the next poster chap who questioned it was banned!

farmer wanted us to move - for $ - but even he could not ignore fan power

So should we not respect him for that alone, or are you going to start moaning about his tenure?

[RyeSloan]

So should we not respect him for that alone, or are you going to start moaning about his tenure?

Start???? Luna has spent his life having a go at Hibs...this latest one shows exactly his level of not letting the facts, even when clearly detailed, stand in the way of having yet another pop at Farmer et al. :bitchy:

[Luna_Asylum]

Start???? Luna has spent his life having a go at Hibs...this latest one shows exactly his level of not letting the facts, even when clearly detailed, stand in the way of having yet another pop at Farmer et al. :bitchy:

if you want to join peev in giving respect to farmer for backing out of his grubby plan to move us to straiton don't let me stop you please

[Mikey]

if you want to join peev in giving respect to farmer for backing out of his grubby plan to move us to straiton don't let me stop you please

Why did he back out?

[PaulSmith]

if you want to join peev in giving respect to farmer for backing out of his grubby plan to move us to straiton don't let me stop you please

So what, he had a business plan for Hibs to move into a self financied stadium and at the same time wipe out the clubs debts...Hibs fans voiced their disaproval and the CLUB started Stand Up and Be Counted to basically say if you want to stay at Easter Road then you need to play your part.

Fans did this and were backed by the club. End result was that Straiton was no more and business plan shelved.

Seems pretty simple to me but if you want to look for something else in it then it would be better to back it up with some facts?

[Luna_Asylum]

So what, he had a business plan for Hibs to move into a self financied stadium and at the same time wipe out the clubs debts...Hibs fans voiced their disaproval and the CLUB started Stand Up and Be Counted to basically say if you want to stay at Easter Road then you need to play your part.

Fans did this and were backed by the club. End result was that Straiton was no more and business plan shelved.

Seems pretty simple to me but if you want to look for something else in it then it would be better to back it up with some facts?

sorry i don't have the facts or history on morston/farmers straiton land assets but perhaps one of the financial experts might

[MB62]

So what, he had a business plan for Hibs to move into a self financied stadium and at the same time wipe out the clubs debts...Hibs fans voiced their disaproval and the CLUB started Stand Up and Be Counted to basically say if you want to stay at Easter Road then you need to play your part.

Fans did this and were backed by the club. End result was that Straiton was no more and business plan shelved.

Seems pretty simple to me but if you want to look for something else in it then it would be better to back it up with some facts?

you might also find that it had a little something to do with Mining pits that seemingly riddle the area below where STF wanted to build us a new ground.

[Peevemor]

sorry i don't have the facts or history on morston/farmers straiton land assets but perhaps one of the financial experts might

You don't have the facts, but you choose to criticise anyway?

[jgl07]

you might also find that it had a little something to do with Mining pits that seemingly riddle the area below where STF wanted to build us a new ground.
Stariton never happened the first time (1993) because the local authority (Midlothian District?) were unwilling to give planning permission for a green belt development including the shops and other commercial activities needed to finance the stadium.

They were prepared to give planning permission for the stadium but little else.

Since then the land across the road has been developed for Marks and Spencer etc not to mention IKEA.

The second time around (2002) the plan failed because of the resistance of the supporters not to mention the £13 million already spent on developments at Easter Road. Technical difficulties such as potential mining subsidence obviously helped the decision making.

[BSEJVT]

sorry i don't have the facts or history on morston/farmers straiton land assets but perhaps one of the financial experts might

Its water under the bridge and has been done to death over the years with no evidence whatsoever that anyone was trying to rip the club off.

The most damning criticism anyone has come up with was that there was a potential "win" for both sides. Why not?

They have had plenty opportunity before and since to do so had they wanted.

Still Luna bash on with your petty unsubstantiated and oudated mud flinging, there's sure to be a wide audience of the usual disenfranchised to support you.

What's more interesting though is that more and more people have come to accept the reality of the situation and cant be bothered with this type of unfounded divisive crap any more.

Not to worry though someone's got to be the last prophet.

[Luna_Asylum]

Its water under the bridge and has been done to death over the years with no evidence whatsoever that anyone was trying to rip the club off.

The most damning criticism anyone has come up with was that there was a potential "win" for both sides. Why not?

They have had plenty opportunity before and since to do so had they wanted.

Still Luna bash on with your petty unsubstantiated and oudated mud flinging, there's sure to be a wide audience of the usual disenfranchised to support you.

What's more interesting though is that more and more people have come to accept the reality of the situation and cant be bothered with this type of unfounded divisive crap any more.

Not to worry though someone's got to be the last prophet.

the passage of time does not change anything

[hibbie02]

sorry i don't have the facts or history on morston/farmers straiton land assets but perhaps one of the financial experts might

Sounds like you prefer the sort of "facts" peddled over in Gorgie. Compare and contrast the two clubs and tell me which one is being ripped off and which one is making sound progress with no financial problems.

If, as you say there is some financial shennanigans going on, then I say keep them going. Our club is in probably the best shape of any club in Scotland and even if Mr Farmer has made some money out of us, then fine, he is entitled to after the money he put in.

What's your point anyway? Have you lost money personally?

[Peevemor]

the passage of time does not change anything

Especially opinions it would seem.

[Luna_Asylum]

Especially opinions it would seem.

exactly and you are right it has been done to death and yes we may be the best run club in Scotland but you are completely re-writing history to say the the most damning criticism was it was a potential win for both sides.

[Peevemor]

exactly and you are right it has been done to death and yes we may be the best run club in Scotland but you are completely re-writing history to say the the most damning criticism was it was a potential win for both sides.

I never said that, though even if I did it's a matter of conjecture whether this would or wouldn't have been the case.

[BSEJVT]

exactly and you are right it has been done to death and yes we may be the best run club in Scotland but you are completely re-writing history to say the the most damning criticism was it was a potential win for both sides.

Although I can scarcely be bothered, please remind me what the most damning criticism was in the very faint hope that someone else can be bothered to reply with a full explanation and you can put it to rest once and for all.

FWIW, I think its holding you back, some sort of ***** envy type of thing.

If you cant get over the fact that the guys with money choose the game and the guys without try to change the rules to give themselves a better chance then IMO you are in denial.

I fail to see how anyone can argue objectively that STF's tenure at Hibs has not been beneficial to the club. Yet folk bleat that he should hand over vast sums to the club or not profit from his association. If it doesnt harm the club why not?

Its this sort of benefit culture that is wrecking the country and causes folk to accept things as they are, rather than striving to better themselves and their families lives.

Didnt STF come from nothing?

[MB62]

I fail to see how anyone can argue objectively that STF's tenure at Hibs has not been beneficial to the club. Yet folk bleat that he should hand over vast sums to the club or not profit from his association. If it doesnt harm the club why not?

It has certainly worked out to have been benificial Thorburn1, but it was not always the case, IMO.

It took group of dedicated fans (Hands ON Hibs) to maybe point STF along the right road in the years gone by. Thankfully he seemed to be willing (forced?) to listen and Hibs are now the envy of most in the way we are run and conduct our business, so credit where it is due.

[BSEJVT]

It has certainly worked out to have been benificial Thorburn1, but it was not always the case, IMO.

It took group of dedicated fans (Hands ON Hibs) to maybe point STF along the right road in the years gone by. Thankfully he seemed to be willing (forced?) to listen and Hibs are now the envy of most in the way we are run and conduct our business, so credit where it is due.

Exactly my point, guys with cash are used to choosing the game and guys like us sometimes need to keep them on the straight and narrow and point them in the right direction.

The problem is that in business they are used to being blindly followed and there is no-one to question them.

IMO though the irony is that a lot of STF's predecessors ripped buckets of cash out the club when it was in a pre-eminent position in the 50's etc and no-one utters a cheep about that.

STF seems to me to be just too easy a target, driven in part I am sure by guys jealous of his success and that they cant play the great saviour to the club.

When push came to shove he was the first guy to come up with the cash and sufficient amounts of it to save us. I bet he sometimes wonders why.

[Baker9]

Exactly my point, guys with cash are used to choosing the game and guys like us sometimes need to keep them on the straight and narrow and point them in the right direction.

The problem is that in business they are used to being blindly followed and there is no-one to question them.

IMO though the irony is that a lot of STF's predecessors ripped buckets of cash out the club when it was in a pre-eminent position in the 50's etc and no-one utters a cheep about that.
STF seems to me to be just too easy a target, driven in part I am sure by guys jealous of his success and that they cant play the great saviour to the club.

When push came to shove he was the first guy to come up with the cash and sufficient amounts of it to save us. I bet he sometimes wonders why.

I made that very point a few years ago in a thread on this site. When you work out the crowds, comparative cost of entry, lack of stadium development in the 50s and 60s it must have been extremely lucrative to be a director of Hibs around then - cash floating about all over the place.

I do find it strange that people are still trying to 'catch out' STF. Surely he's a hero?

[RyeSloan]

Start???? Luna has spent his life having a go at Hibs...this latest one shows exactly his level of not letting the facts, even when clearly detailed, stand in the way of having yet another pop at Farmer et al. :bitchy:


sorry i don't have the facts or history on morston/farmers straiton land assets but perhaps one of the financial experts might

Enough said.

[MB62]

I do find it strange that people are still trying to 'catch out' STF. Surely he's a hero?

That's certainly not MY intention. I was merely pointing out the facts of history. I believe now that STF has actually had a change in his outlook and does take more of an interest in Hibernian F.C. which he certainly did not have in his early days as owner.



The problem is that in business they are used to being blindly followed and there is no-one to question them.
IMO though the irony is that a lot of STF's predecessors ripped buckets of cash out the club when it was in a pre-eminent position in the 50's etc and no-one utters a cheep about that.

Different times. In those days people didn't get involved too deeply in the politics of their football club, and generally didn't protest about much. Times move on and nowadays there's protests about almost anything you can protest against.



When push came to shove he was the first guy to come up with the cash and sufficient amounts of it to save us. I bet he sometimes wonders why.

As you mentioned in one of your previous posts, this is a point that also has been debated to death, but some people only want to read what they want to believe. Like you, I can't be bothered debating this again because it's all 'old hat' but I will just say, STF was the PREFERRED choice of the Bank of Scotland, he was neither the FIRST nor the ONLY one who came up with the cash to save us.
I think ultimately though, we should probably be thankful to the BoS for choosing STF, it has worked out well so far under his ownership.

[Woody1985]

The many that would've went to the game if they didn't have to sit in the East Stand. And believe me there are plenty.

My grandad is one. He'll not go to a game, no matter who against, if he has to sit in the east.

[Baker9]

That's certainly not MY intention. I was merely pointing out the facts of history. I believe now that STF has actually had a change in his outlook and does take more of an interest in Hibernian F.C. which he certainly did not have in his early days as owner.


Different times. In those days people didn't get involved too deeply in the politics of their football club, and generally didn't protest about much. Times move on and nowadays there's protests about almost anything you can protest against.




As you mentioned in one of your previous posts, this is a point that also has been debated to death, but some people only want to read what they want to believe. Like you, I can't be bothered debating this again because it's all 'old hat' but I will just say, STF was the PREFERRED choice of the Bank of Scotland, he was neither the FIRST nor the ONLY one who came up with the cash to save us.
I think ultimately though, we should probably be thankful to the BoS for choosing STF, it has worked out well so far under his ownership.

I agree with you on STF not having a football interest in the club, originally. It is well documented that football is hardly a passion for him. So why did he even bother to get involved? I firmly believe it was his tentative historic link to the club and his desire to put something back into Leith.

There are lots of other ways he could have spent his money and my feeling is that he will never take money out of Hibs for personal gain. Until he does, I love him.

[MB62]

I agree with you on STF not having a football interest in the club, originally. It is well documented that football is hardly a passion for him. So why did he even bother to get involved? I firmly believe it was his tentative historic link to the club and his desire to put something back into Leith.

There are lots of other ways he could have spent his money and my feeling is that he will never take money out of Hibs for personal gain. Until he does, I love him.

Because Tom O'Malley, who was either chairman or recent past chairman, basically begged him to help out, pointing out to STF his family heritage with the club.
I think STF did it more as a favour to T. O'M than anything else, this bit being only my opinion, but over the years STF has grown into the club and actually does have a bit of pride in Hibernian Football Club now.

[--------]

Because Tom O'Malley, who was either chairman or recent past chairman, basically begged him to help out, pointing out to STF his family heritage with the club.
I think STF did it more as a favour to T. O'M than anything else, this bit being only my opinion, but over the years STF has grown into the club and actually does have a bit of pride in Hibernian Football Club now.


Tom O'Malley was headmaster of a big secondary school, I think, and was chairman the year we went down - replace Lex Gold, IIRC, and was a huge improvement, IMO.

I wrote to him about his 'great adventure' comment, and received a very full and extremely courteous letter in return, thanking me for my concern and reassuring me that he and the rest of the board and STF as well were fully committed to making sure that our stay in Div One would be as short and as painless as possible. It was a lovely letter and he came over as a very nice man.

If he was the one who persuaded STF to come in to save us, then he deserves a place in the Hibernian Valhalla along with the best of the best. :thumbsup:

[hibee_nation]

Tom O'Malley was headmaster of a big secondary school, I think, and was chairman the year we went down - replace Lex Gold, IIRC, and was a huge improvement, IMO.

I wrote to him about his 'great adventure' comment, and received a very full and extremely courteous letter in return, thanking me for my concern and reassuring me that he and the rest of the board and STF as well were fully committed to making sure that our stay in Div One would be as short and as painless as possible. It was a lovely letter and he came over as a very nice man.

If he was the one who persuaded STF to come in to save us, then he deserves a place in the Hibernian Valhalla along with the best of the best. :thumbsup:

St Davids RC school in Dalkeith, Abbey Road to be percise.

[ancient hibee]

I see David Rowland(and his son)are making waves again-now there's a name to conjure with.