Annual Accounts Finally Released

[Barney McGrew]

A loss of 'only' £8.6m this year :faf:

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20100503/year-end-financial-results-issued_2241384_2042100

[HibeeMG]

A loss of 'only' £8.6m this year :faf:

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20100503/year-end-financial-results-issued_2241384_2042100


And they've put a figure of £34.8 million up as their debt.

I'm confused though.

How can they claim they have debt when they owe it to themselves?

[Mikey]

The debt is still up at £34.78m.

[MussiHibee]

Summarised as....

Still 35m in debt

Still no new stand

Still not got money to buy (decent) players (Expect Free Transfers)

Still going to punt Lee Wallace and eggert Johnson (Web Page practically openly punts them!)

GGTTH

[Darth Hibbie]

I am sure the way I am reading it they are not paying some of their interest it is just getting added to the debt. Like that is going to help in the longterm. Interest on the interest on the interest :faf:

[matty_f]

Brilliant, sell Berra for 1.8 million or whatever it was, knock a whack of the wage bill, cut back wherever possible... and still lose the best part of £9m quid.

[Hamish]

Sergey??:greengrin

[Barney McGrew]

The debt is still up at £34.78m.

It's OK though, they have an aim for the 'medium term' to reach operational breakeven. £8.6m is still a massive gap, and they're still spending their entire turnover on player wages.

Also a £1.8m net gain on player sales. Did they not punt Berra for £2.5m? I can't remember them paying any money for anyone else.

More registration fees no doubt :cool2:

[iwasthere1972]

As a result of a power surge at Tynecastle this morning, services at the club's Ticket Centre have been affected.

The Ticket Centre is now closed as the club's systems will not return to full service until tomorrow morning..


All it took was Nade and the microwave. :greengrin

[MussiHibee]

I am sure the way I am reading it they are not paying some of their interest it is just getting added to the debt. Like that is going to help in the longterm. Interest on the interest on the interest :faf:

Exactly, their interest on loans etc is being added to their debt.

Because they do not have to repay the interest short term they think this is good for the club short term.

Long term it's surely bad as the debt gets bigger!

They are relying on selling young players on for profit but that is never going to clear £35m in the next 50 years??...

Just cannot see how they can clear their debt in all honesty.

I know we keep saying it but Hearts are a ticking timebomb given a slow one at that...

GGTTH

[K.Marx]

Only the deluded gorgie ones could put a positive spin on this...Ridiculously high operating losses and a ridiculously high level of debt. tic toc tic toc :bye:

[Mikey]

Getting rid of our high earners will make a difference for the next set of results.

How many years have they been saying that for?

[Zondervan]

Summarised as....

Still 35m in debt

Still no new stand

Still not got money to buy (decent) players (Expect Free Transfers)

Still going to punt Lee Wallace and eggert Johnson (Web Page practically openly punts them!)

GGTTH

Still able to pump Hibs twice in quick succession with all their problems!

[RickyS]

Still able to pump Hibs twice in quick succession with all their problems!

with the worst Yam team I think I have ever seen:grr:

[MountcastleHibs]

It's because of the new stand they're building, building and maintaining their own state of the art training centre, and all the investment in their squad.

Oh wait a minute...

[scoopyboy]

On their site they think they've cracked it.

Only an operating loss of £8.6 million and they are creaming their pants and congratulating one another.

One dimwit called Mikey Gardiner can't work out how they made an operating loss of £8.6 million yet their debt has gone up rather than come down.

£34.78 million in debt and they are happy as Larry.

Their wages are bigger than their turnover and not one so far has commented on this.

[MountcastleHibs]

Still able to pump Hibs twice in quick succession with all their problems!

We might be in a bad way on the pitch at the minute, but i'd rather be in our position than theirs off it.

[banarc7062]

Still able to pump Hibs twice in quick succession with all their problems!

That is the most important point we should be considering at this time, not their fantasy book-keeing saga.:grr::grr:

[Winston Ingram]

Brilliant, sell Berra for 1.8 million or whatever it was, knock a whack of the wage bill, cut back wherever possible... and still lose the best part of £9m quid.

The biggest fee received by any Scottish club un the January 09 transfer window apparently :faf:

[Winston Ingram]

Summarised as....

Still 35m in debt

Still no new stand

Still not got money to buy (decent) players (Expect Free Transfers)

Still going to punt Lee Wallace and eggert Johnson (Web Page practically openly punts them!)

GGTTH

Why is Clum the only name not written in bold:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

The biggest fee received by any Scottish club un the January 09 transfer window apparently :faf:

:faf:

Have they retained Stevie 'Fail' Fail as their media spokesman?

That's a classic Failism and no mistake :agree: :greengrin

[mim]

That is the most important point we should be considering at this time, not their fantasy book-keeing saga.:grr::grr:

Of course, you're right, but I would venture to suggest that if Hibs FC was spending its entire income on wages, we would have a much better team than we do at the moment.

[Leith Green]

Awffy wierd how Hearts always seem to announce anything negative only after a big win for them or when they are doing well, or come out with silly talk about 50 million stands etc when things go badly... Surely cannae be coincidence?

****ing wierdos..

[Big Frank]

Unbeaton V the cabbage this season, and deservedly so.


But they have a debt which they are no arsed about, yet we are obsessed with.

We can pat our backs when there are points at stake for having the best balance sheet.


Meanwhile Hibs fans have to go to work taking their pish following another derby debacle.:yawn:

[heidtheba]

with the worst Yam team I think I have ever seen:grr:

I know - thats the real rub isn't it. Im still depressed - and to top it all that hatchet faced wee Spanish waiter, much laughed at on here, scored.

Its the same feeling I had when playing them and a sub came on - usually one who was totally gash yet that sinking feeling was always there and usually always fed by the twot scoring.

Where's the justice?

[bighairyfaeleith]

That is shocking, how can they achieve savings of over 3million, get 1.8 through the sale of berra (ignore the fact he was sold for 2.5 million for a moment) yet they only reduced there losses from the previous year by 2.6million????

Love this bit

"The Board of Hearts is also working to deliver an investment solution that will allow the club to generate a profit from an enhanced stadium. It is currently assessing certain investment options that will deliver the required benefits to the club and its supporters."

aye right then:faf:

[BroxburnHibee]

Still able to pump Hibs twice in quick succession with all their problems!


with the worst Yam team I think I have ever seen:grr:

Exactly - there will be no gloating from me over there accounts - totally bored of listening to it tbh.

[Gerard]

If our poor cousins fae Gorgie are happy about the team having a massive debt; we should be happy for them and their 400,000 fans:wink::devil:
G

[Aldoo]

Exactly - there will be no gloating from me over there accounts - totally bored of listening to it tbh.

Too true my friend, until it actually happens lets not celebrate anything, its embarrasing the jubilation that goes on here coz our balance sheet is better than theirs.

Tick tock, blah blah, HMRC blah blah, debt for equity blah blah.

[StevieC]

Correct me if I'm wrong .. but aren't these figures as of July 2009?

That was 10 months ago!!

If their operating loss is £8m a year then that currently puts their debt at around the £40m mark, no?

Is this why there were rumblings of another debt/equity type swap thingy a couple of months ago??

[jacomo]

Hearts are the worst run business in Britain. Those accounts show a chronic inability to meet targets and a shocking complacency about the current economic situation.

How the f*** are they still in business?

And how do they keep beating us?

:grr:

[Austinho]

Similar to the Portsmouth situation, does the release of this information not coincide with them now having a chance of playing in Europe next season?

[houston1875]

A loss of 'only' £8.6m this year :faf:

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20100503/year-end-financial-results-issued_2241384_2042100

will they ever go bust,thats what a wanna know?

how can they keep going
:grr:

[NAE NOOKIE]

Is £35,000,000 not the same level of debt that has their manky cousins over in weegie land sweating over administration ?

If a club with 3 times the support and 10 times the income, not to mention champions league football to bring in piles of cash are worried about going bust with this level of debt and are currently being run by the bank. How are the Yams getting away with this ?

None of this cash will ever be written off by Romanov, so at what point do the shareholders of his bank say to him that he either ditches his Scottish plaything or they ditch him ?

It just has to happen sooner or later. If it can happen to Portsmouth it sure as hell can happen to the Yams.

[StevieC]

Similar to the Portsmouth situation, does the release of this information not coincide with them now having a chance of playing in Europe next season?


Isn't the whole point of UEFA viewing accounts is to check that teams are operating within their means.

:dunno:

[Bishop Hibee]

Hearts are the worst run business in Britain. Those accounts show a chronic inability to meet targets and a shocking complacency about the current economic situation.

How the f*** are they still in business?

And how do they keep beating us?

:grr:

As has been said elsewhere on this thread, if Hibs were paying that sort of money in wages I'd be wanting at least 10 points a season off the Yams.

In business, for the moment, by the largesse of Vlad it seems.

[cwilliamson85]

All I can say is bring on these FIFA / UEFA rules about banning clubs with huge debts from European football and start point deducting them to get them back in order. That would mean rangers and hearts would be ****ed!

[CropleyWasGod]

Isn't the whole point of UEFA viewing accounts is to check that teams are operating within their means.

:dunno:

It could be argued, though, that they are living within their means... as long as the debts aren't being called in, they are still able to trade "normally".

It will be interesting to see how UEFA define the criteria.... and then watch the legal battles that ensue. I suspect that the first case will involve some relatively minor club in a footballing backwater.......

:devil:

[StevieC]

It could be argued, though, that they are living within their means... as long as the debts aren't being called in, they are still able to trade "normally".

It will be interesting to see how UEFA define the criteria.... and then watch the legal battles that ensue. I suspect that the first case will involve some relatively minor club in a footballing backwater.......

:devil: Is that not the whole point though? I thought it was to determine whether they would be in a sound position to still trade and be able to fulfil fixtures should the owner(s) go bankrupt or pull out financial backing? It may well be the case that Hearts could ... but with an annual loss of around £8m I would be surprised if they could continue to cover player wages and administration would be inevitable.

[scoopyboy]

Unbeaton V the cabbage this season, and deservedly so.


But they have a debt which they are no arsed about, yet we are obsessed with.

We can pat our backs when there are points at stake for having the best balance sheet.


Meanwhile Hibs fans have to go to work taking their pish following another derby debacle.:yawn:

Surely you are missing the point big time here BF.

Just say for argument we are £4.78 million in debt compared to their £34.78 million, then we are £30 million better off than them.

To make it equal if we spent £30 million on players and wages I think we would have a better team than them by a mile.

Not suggesting we spend that even for a milisecond but they have lived well outwith their budget so they really should be beating us.

[Big Frank]

Surely you are missing the point big time here BF.

Just say for argument we are £4.78 million in debt compared to their £34.78 million, then we are £30 million better off than them.

To make it equal if we spent £30 million on players and wages I think we would have a better team than them by a mile.

Not suggesting we spend that even for a milisecond but they have lived well outwith their budget so they really should be beating us.

I'm not sure I am Scoopy. They have a huge debt, which they pay in many ways to Romanov and his coys. He screws them royally with "registration payments etc". He has structured them so that they remain in debt and he services this.

We have been collectively rabbitting on about the yam debt for years now. They are operating with impunity.

That you think we would have a better team if we spent 30m on wages is neither here nor there.


Bottom line is we have bottled 4 derbys on the trot. We have a team of shirkers, yet we as Hibbys have to deal with the piss they are serving up week in week out when we return to work.

Petty scoring on bank balances, interest payment, timings of audits,taxmen mean the square of **** all. It comes down to 90mins. Lets all stop dicking about papering over our deficiencies, and start pressurising our club to invest on the playing side proper (ffs its becoming acceptable that DR is to leave a second time!!).

I love they idea that that shower of ***** could fold. In the meantime I want a team to be proud of, who tramp off the pitch win,lose or draw shattered because they have put all they have for the club.

A team that stands tall against the yams.

[matty_f]

Surely you are missing the point big time here BF.

Just say for argument we are £4.78 million in debt compared to their £34.78 million, then we are £30 million better off than them.

To make it equal if we spent £30 million on players and wages I think we would have a better team than them by a mile.

Not suggesting we spend that even for a milisecond but they have lived well outwith their budget so they really should be beating us.

:agree: In a nutshell. They've already shown that they're willing to outspend us on wages etc with the signing of Barr, who we were in direct competition for. It's a myth that we've got more to spend on players than them, even though on the face of it, we have.

[matty_f]

Surely you are missing the point big time here BF.

Just say for argument we are £4.78 million in debt compared to their £34.78 million, then we are £30 million better off than them.

To make it equal if we spent £30 million on players and wages I think we would have a better team than them by a mile.

Not suggesting we spend that even for a milisecond but they have lived well outwith their budget so they really should be beating us.

I'm not sure I am Scoopy. They have a huge debt, which they pay in many ways to Romanov and his coys. He screws them royally with "registration payments etc". He has structured them so that they remain in debt and he services this.

We have been collectively rabbitting on about the yam debt for years now. They are operating with impunity.

That you think we would have a better team if we spent 30m on wages is neither here nor there.


Bottom line is we have bottled 4 derbys on the trot. We have a team of shirkers, yet we as Hibbys have to deal with the piss they are serving up week in week out when we return to work.

Petty scoring on bank balances, interest payment, timings of audits,taxmen mean the square of **** all. It comes down to 90mins. Lets all stop dicking about papering over our deficiencies, and start pressurising our club to invest on the playing side proper (ffs its becoming acceptable that DR is to leave a second time!!).

I love they idea that that shower of ***** could fold. In the meantime I want a team to be proud of, who tramp off the pitch win,lose or draw shattered because they have put all they have for the club.

A team that stands tall against the yams.

Think you're mistaking rumour on here for fact, Frank. There's been nothing about Deek leaving coming from the club, other than Yogi saying the opposite in that he expects Deek to see out his contract.:confused:

[scoopyboy]

[QUOTE=scoopyboy;2450845]Surely you are missing the point big time here BF.

Just say for argument we are £4.78 million in debt compared to their £34.78 million, then we are £30 million better off than them.

To make it equal if we spent £30 million on players and wages I think we would have a better team than them by a mile.

Not suggesting we spend that even for a milisecond but they have lived well outwith their budget so they really should be beating us.[/QUOoysTE]

I'm not sure I am Scoopy. They have a huge debt, which they pay in many ways to Romanov and his coys. He screws them royally with "registration payments etc". He has structured them so that they remain in debt and he services this.

We have been collectively rabbitting on about the yam debt for years now. They are operating with impunity.

That you think we would have a better team if we spent 30m on wages is neither here nor there.


Bottom line is we have bottled 4 derbys on the trot. We have a team of shirkers, yet we as Hibbys have to deal with the piss they are serving up week in week out when we return to work.

Petty scoring on bank balances, interest payment, timings of audits,taxmen mean the square of **** all. It comes down to 90mins. Lets all stop dicking about papering over our deficiencies, and start pressurising our club to invest on the playing side proper (ffs its becoming acceptable that DR is to leave a second time!!).

I love they idea that that shower of ***** could fold. In the meantime I want a team to be proud of, who tramp off the pitch win,lose or draw shattered because they have put all they have for the club.

A team that stands tall against the yams.

I hear what you are saying and don't think for a minute I don't share the pain and frustration that is Hibs.

I just don't think its fair that clubs vastly overspend and live outwith their budget, get a couple of better seasons and then go into administration. They then come out of administration virtually unscathed with debt written off.

In the cases of Dundee and Motherwell they then seem to get taken over by the same bloody people that got them there in the first place.

Getting back to Hibs I sincerely hope that once the East is completed we can then put real money into the playing side.

By my reckoning selling Bamba should cover any shortfall in the funding of the East, and after that what else can we spend any transfer fees received on?

Maybe I am being nieve but with the stadium complete and the training centre in place surely any profit must be ploughed back into the team on the park.

I realise that the stadium and East Mains will require upkeep and it has been mooted that we get undersoil heating on a pitch at EM but surely we should see the team improve.

Mind you I have been saying we will get much better soon since I was twelve.

[Spike Mandela]

Mind you I have been saying we will get much better soon since I was twelve.


Hibs have had the longest 'transitional' period in football history:devil:

[Spike Mandela]

Reading this, is it fair to say Hearts are responsible for around a third of Scottish football's debt?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8657967.stm

[Allant1981]

hearts fans really make me laugh, was just speaking to one of them now saying i had just been reading about their latest debt etc. and i got the usual response. "aye but we owe it to oursleves so its not going to be a problem". Now this is a guy who i dont consider to be daft but they must really believe that its not a problem .

[Jack]

It doesn’t really matter how big Hearts debt is or how they intend to pay, or how their fans say the debt isn’t a problem.

The EC has now taken an interest – 300+ pages must be the abridged version, and FIFA and UEFA have already said they are committed to take action on debt.

[popcorn]

Exactly - there will be no gloating from me over there accounts - totally bored of listening to it tbh.
good point mate,we seem to be more botherd about it than them:confused:

[JeMeSouviens]

They are in exactly the same position they've been in for years now, only sustainable with the indulgence of Vlad's bank. They won't go under unless Vlad pulls the plug.

If he ever does, they are royally donald ducked. If the Hun are struggling to get a buyer with a similar debt and x times the turnover, no chance for the Yams.

[NGP]

These figures for 08/09 season.

09/10
No transfers
Wage bill still higher than their turnover
No cup runs
Lower attendances
AND the 17m loan that should have been paid back to the bank in Feb(?)

I'm not gloating, I prefer to concentrate on Hibs and football, but this does help when facing the Yam believers - ther are still many of them out there.
£35m in debt to be mid table in the SPL - over £40m to date.

[Andy74]

Funny how every year the fans tell themselves that the wage budget is way below that it was previously and that losses will be way down.

Aye? Not much evidence of any of that!!

£10m is a staggering wage bill for that team they have! Even allowing for a couple of bigger paid players having left since then it is incredible.

Being able to lose almost £9m a year, with a sale of your best player included in that is quite a talent in financial mismanagement. All that to get 6th, maybe 5th place.

I'm struggling to see even a break even point.

If they half their wage budget then they still lose about £5m. Exactly what are they paying for that the rest of us aren't? Interest I suppose is a big number. Maybe £2m a year on £35m.

With the annual loss they must be at about £40m or over now and they need to address the main stand which should be at least £5m for a basic shell with some changing and corporate facilities.

£45m debt would have them paying nearer £3m a year just on interest. That's a good head start on another annual loss each and every year.

On a turnover which can only go down as the wage budget and product goes down we may not see them actually die but the message is that they cannot be competitive for any period of time.

[Gerard]

For some Hearts fans they will never accept that their club is in big financial trouble. They have a belief that VR will be there to pay all the interest charges and debt that this club has built up.

The best solution may be to go into administration and start again with a clean financial balance.

G

[Caversham Green]

The report clearly cherry picks the best bits (or least bad bits) of the accounts, but it still doesn't exactly give a healthy picture. A quick back of envelope calculation suggests their turnover was down by about £1m, and that in turn indicates that costs were nearly double turnover.

The 2008 accounts showed that non-wages costs exceeded turnover by £2.2m - that means that even if HOMFC had not paid any wages whatsoever to any of their staff, they would still have made a £2.2m loss. This year it looks like they would just about have broken even. In short, as well as massively reducing their wages bill they need to reduce their other costs just to achieve the stated aim of breaking even.

It looks like their other costs were about £7.5m, while ours for the same year were £4.6m. I can't for the life of me see where they've spent an extra £3m, but if they cut it back to Hibs level (we are their nearest benchmark) they will have to cut their wages bill to about £2.5m. That's about Falkirk's level, and this is where their football will suffer in the years to come - remember that this is the season where they couldn't beat Hibs in the league and made third place in the league pretty much by default.

If you define success as the slowing down of failure then these are moderately successful figures.

[Peevemor]

A couple of key points from what I have just read in the copy of accounts I have just received:

Turnover was down from £9.161M to £8.307M

Wages / Turnover ratio has actually gone up from 121% to 124%

Looking good... :cool2:

[Jack]

… and looking to the future, assuming they have one, and the mythical stand is built the loss of income for 3, 4 or 5 months as it maybe gets built wont help any of the turnover figures!

[BroxburnHibee]

good point mate,we seem to be more botherd about it than them:confused:

I don't have jambo mates :wink:

[Dashing Bob S]

They are steadily getting worse, but the issue has never been how bad they are, it's always been how long Romanov has and will continue to support them.

The strangest thing in this whole affair is the other shareholders and stakeholders in the bank and the conglomerate and their relationship with Vlad and their motivation in accepting this folly. As long as he can continue to manipulate them into going along with his lunancy, and those companies continue trading, then he can prop them up for as long as he wants.

Murray has effectively pulled the plug on Rangers, that's why the banks have acted. Romanov hasn't yet, for reasons only known to him, done the same with Hearts.

[banchoryhibs]

£10m is a staggering wage bill for that team they have! Even allowing for a couple of bigger paid players having left since then it is incredible.

I think that it would be interesting to know how this figure was arrived at and just how much of the £10m was actually paid out in wages.

Could this figure include loan fees paid to Kaunas? If this was the case then the money actually paid out by the Romanov empire as a whole is reduced. It might not be anywhere near the £10m stated. This could leave it as a paper exercise.

Without knowing how the Hearts finances fit in with the rest of Romanov's businesses we can't really tell if they are in real financial difficulties. The fact that Romanov is still here and the fact that there appears to be some movement with the building of a new stand (a thread of a week or so ago) maybe he's quite content to move cash around (mostly out of the UK it appears) but keep an ok cashflow at the PBS. :dunno:

Poor balance sheets have never brought companies down - zero cashflow normally does.

[MB62]

I can't for the life of me see where they've spent an extra £3m, but if they cut it back to Hibs level (we are their nearest benchmark) they will have to cut their wages bill to about £2.5m. That's about Falkirk's level, and this is where their football will suffer in the years to come

Unfortunately that's a bit simplistic. A good coach/manager can get more out of his players than a poor one, as present situation surely proves.
If success on the park was purely about how much was spent on it, the rest of us would be as well packing it all in.

Thank goodness for Dundee Utd and Ross County, two clubs whose wage bill will be a lot less than ours I would imagine.

[Caversham Green]

I think that it would be interesting to know how this figure was arrived at and just how much of the £10m was actually paid out in wages.

Could this figure include loan fees paid to Kaunas? If this was the case then the money actually paid out by the Romanov empire as a whole is reduced. It might not be anywhere near the £10m stated. This could leave it as a paper exercise.

Without knowing how the Hearts finances fit in with the rest of Romanov's businesses we can't really tell if they are in real financial difficulties. The fact that Romanov is still here and the fact that there appears to be some movement with the building of a new stand (a thread of a week or so ago) maybe he's quite content to move cash around (mostly out of the UK it appears) but keep an ok cashflow at the PBS. :dunno:

Poor balance sheets have never brought companies down - zero cashflow normally does.

It's an interesting point. I think transactions with Kaunas should be reported in the related parties notes if they are part of the group, but there were no figures given in the 2008 accounts. I think the loans had dried up a bit by last season as well. Maybe there's a pointer in there as to why Vlad is still here though.

As far as the stand goes, I'm not holding my breath. I think it was a reaction to Hibs starting to build the East - the talking started almost immediately after the Hibs announcement.

On the point about cashflow, the real reason that UBIG accumulate interest is that HOMFC have zero cash flow - they need cash from UBIG to pay their way, so taking payment for the interest would entail sending cash over to HOMFC so that they could send it back - and that would just increase the debt by the same amount anyway.

The fact that they have mentioned that point as a positive tells us a lot about the honesty of their statement IMO.

[Caversham Green]

Unfortunately that's a bit simplistic. A good coach/manager can get more out of his players than a poor one, as present situation surely proves.
If success on the park was purely about how much was spent on it, the rest of us would be as well packing it all in.

Thank goodness for Dundee Utd and Ross County, two clubs whose wage bill will be a lot less than ours I would imagine.

Agreed, but I would still argue that reducing the wages budget by as much as they have to will vastly reduce the quality of football. After all Ross County, for all that they have had a terrific cup run, are still a middle of Div 1 side - Dundee Utd continue to work wonders with their budget though.

I suppose Killie would be the best comparison given that's where the yams fat lying slug of a manger came from and that their budget will have to be somewhat lower than Killie's if they are to break even.

[hibs0666]

good point mate,we seem to be more botherd about it than them:confused:

Cos they are a bunch of deluded, stupid pricks. :thumbsup:

[greenginger]

No sign of the HOMOFC account on Companies House web site . If they did'nt get them in by last Friday the late submission penalty is about £7000 because they were late last year too.

Of course, maybe they have not been signed off by the auditors yet! :devil:

[Kaiser1962]

It's an interesting point. I think transactions with Kaunas should be reported in the related parties notes if they are part of the group, but there were no figures given in the 2008 accounts. I think the loans had dried up a bit by last season as well. Maybe there's a pointer in there as to why Vlad is still here though.

As far as the stand goes, I'm not holding my breath. I think it was a reaction to Hibs starting to build the East - the talking started almost immediately after the Hibs announcement.

On the point about cashflow, the real reason that UBIG accumulate interest is that HOMFC have zero cash flow - they need cash from UBIG to pay their way, so taking payment for the interest would entail sending cash over to HOMFC so that they could send it back - and that would just increase the debt by the same amount anyway.

The fact that they have mentioned that point as a positive tells us a lot about the honesty of their statement IMO.

The bottom line is that their expenditure is twice their income, and has been for the last five years (this year will be about the same). They have had a £12m DFE swap, sold Gordon, Berra, Skacel et al for about £14M and are still £35m in debt which is four times their £8.3m turnover. Everythings fine and will be for the forseeable future.

[Kaiser1962]

And another thing........

They made an operating loss of £8.6m and their turnover was £8.3m with £10m on wages. So in order to break even the staff will have contribute a net £300k to be employed there. Or else in order to show a profit the staff dont get paid and 400,000 fans contribute a quid each and, caramba, a profit of £100k and the club is, as Vlad says, better than break even.


Simples..........Hobonomics...there is another way...!

[HenryMonk]

I'm not sure I am Scoopy. They have a huge debt, which they pay in many ways to Romanov and his coys. He screws them royally with "registration payments etc". He has structured them so that they remain in debt and he services this.

We have been collectively rabbitting on about the yam debt for years now. They are operating with impunity.

That you think we would have a better team if we spent 30m on wages is neither here nor there.


Bottom line is we have bottled 4 derbys on the trot. We have a team of shirkers, yet we as Hibbys have to deal with the piss they are serving up week in week out when we return to work.

Petty scoring on bank balances, interest payment, timings of audits,taxmen mean the square of **** all. It comes down to 90mins. Lets all stop dicking about papering over our deficiencies, and start pressurising our club to invest on the playing side proper (ffs its becoming acceptable that DR is to leave a second time!!).

I love they idea that that shower of ***** could fold. In the meantime I want a team to be proud of, who tramp off the pitch win,lose or draw shattered because they have put all they have for the club.

A team that stands tall against the yams.

exactly! there debt could be 100mill ffor all i care about is seeing hibs beating teams and that manky mob way more:grr:

[down the slope]

Edinburgh's biggest erse "victorian" has just come out with this gem and i quote romanov did say that a while back that there would be a modest increase in the debt in the short term and low-and-behold, that's what we have.

the future viability of the club and progression to break-even and beyond does look promising.
Tube, he does not see that they spend millions but are still below us in the league.

[banarc7062]

That is shocking, how can they achieve savings of over 3million, get 1.8 through the sale of berra (ignore the fact he was sold for 2.5 million for a moment) yet they only reduced there losses from the previous year by 2.6million????

Love this bit

"The Board of Hearts is also working to deliver an investment solution that will allow the club to generate a profit from an enhanced stadium. It is currently assessing certain investment options that will deliver the required benefits to the club and its supporters."

aye right then:faf:

They are going to try and buy the rebuilt ER :faf:

[EasterRoad4Ever]

Brilliant, sell Berra for 1.8 million or whatever it was, knock a whack of the wage bill, cut back wherever possible... and still lose the best part of £9m quid.

Alternatively, sell off an entire team of overpaid players for some decent money, play a bunch of no marks, and still have more than enough to stuff your local rivals. In fact it would be interesting to see if the Yams could put ANY animate object in a Yam strip and still beat Hibs :grr:

[Hibs07p]

And another thing........

They made an operating loss of £8.6m and their turnover was £8.3m with £10m on wages. So in order to break even the staff will have contribute a net £300k to be employed there. Or else in order to show a profit the staff dont get paid and 400,000 fans contribute a quid each and, caramba, a profit of £100k and the club is, as Vlad says, better than break even.


Simples..........Hobonomics...there is another way...!

So Hearts spent £16.9M year ending July 2009. £10M went on wages, where did the other £6.9M go? If they are talking about another debt for equity soon, surely that indicates spending this year to July 2010 is very close to their £40M limit for borrowing, and therefore the DFE is necessary to stop them becoming insolvent. The question is, what does Vlad take as security?
I see a parting of the ways for TPBS and HOMOFC.

[ekhibee]

I'm not sure I am Scoopy. They have a huge debt, which they pay in many ways to Romanov and his coys. He screws them royally with "registration payments etc". He has structured them so that they remain in debt and he services this.

We have been collectively rabbitting on about the yam debt for years now. They are operating with impunity.

That you think we would have a better team if we spent 30m on wages is neither here nor there.


Bottom line is we have bottled 4 derbys on the trot. We have a team of shirkers, yet we as Hibbys have to deal with the piss they are serving up week in week out when we return to work.

Petty scoring on bank balances, interest payment, timings of audits,taxmen mean the square of **** all. It comes down to 90mins. Lets all stop dicking about papering over our deficiencies, and start pressurising our club to invest on the playing side proper (ffs its becoming acceptable that DR is to leave a second time!!).

I love they idea that that shower of ***** could fold. In the meantime I want a team to be proud of, who tramp off the pitch win,lose or draw shattered because they have put all they have for the club.

A team that stands tall against the yams.
I couldn't agree more with virtually all you say. Regularly on Hibs.net we get post after post about Hearts' financial situation, which has been well documented in the media as well. I'm a Hibs fan, I really couldn't give a **** about Hearts or whatever happens to them in the future, but despite all these prophecies of doom about how they're going under, they're still here and regularly beating us too. We might be financially more secure than most of the other SPL clubs, but next season is becoming more and more important for several reasons, one of which is how the board are going to balance the books if/when the product on the park just drives people away from supporting the club. Regular supporters of the manager are saying that he should be given another season to turn things around on the pitch. If he doesn't/isn't able to do that, it won't just cost HIM his job, it'll cost the club, with reduced crowds, and a lot of dissillusioned fans. That's just my opinion of course.

[hibs0666]

Current assets: £2 million.
Creditors falling due within the year: £44 million.

This is joke stuff.

[Pedantic_Hibee]

Current assets: £2 million.
Creditors falling due within the year: £44 million.

This is joke stuff.

"Aye, fair point, but you've got to remember that the next year's accounts will be much better as we'll have lost a lot of the high-earners........"

If they keep repeating this every year, will it ever come true?

[jabis]

I couldn't agree more with virtually all you say. Regularly on Hibs.net we get post after post about Hearts' financial situation, which has been well documented in the media as well. I'm a Hibs fan, I really couldn't give a **** about Hearts or whatever happens to them in the future, but despite all these prophecies of doom about how they're going under, they're still here and regularly beating us too. We might be financially more secure than most of the other SPL clubs, but next season is becoming more and more important for several reasons, one of which is how the board are going to balance the books if/when the product on the park just drives people away from supporting the club. Regular supporters of the manager are saying that he should be given another season to turn things around on the pitch. If he doesn't/isn't able to do that, it won't just cost HIM his job, it'll cost the club, with reduced crowds, and a lot of dissillusioned fans. That's just my opinion of course.

:faf:.....feel free to keep your opinion,as I couldn't disagree more with virtually all you say.

[Mikey]

"Aye, fair point, but you've got to remember that the next year's accounts will be much better as we'll have lost a lot of the high-earners........"

If they keep repeating this every year, will it ever come true?

They've been telling themselves that for 3 years now.

Last year they were gobsmacked that the debt figure wasn't down at £15m - £20m but they were assured that it would be much, much better next time round.

[Col2]

Just seen a PDF on kickback and point 20 clearly indicates that Hert are under a formal HMRC investigation. I may have missed this but I thought they sorted the outstanding tax bill after going to the wire and then announcing it as an achievement on the official website once paid.

Sorry don't have link.

[Mikey]

Just seen a PDF on kickback and point 20 clearly indicates that Hert are under a formal HMRC investigation. I may have missed this but I thought they sorted the outstanding tax bill after going to the wire and then announcing it as an achievement on the official website once paid.

Sorry don't have link.

Can anyone get a hold of that?

[PaulSmith]

Creditors falling due within the year: £44 million.

This is joke stuff.

That surely cannot be correct?

[BroxburnHibee]

Can anyone get a hold of that?

They'll be deleting it as we type, knowing you're after it :greengrin

[FranckSuzy]

Here :greengrin

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h51/WorldChampions1902/2009%20Accounts/2009AccountsPage_0021.jpg (http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h51/WorldChampions1902/2009%20Accounts/2009AccountsPage_0021.jpg)

[Col2]

Can anyone get a hold of that?

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h51/WorldChampions1902/2009%20Accounts/2009AccountsPage_0021.jpg

Not sure if this works.

Thread link here.

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/72377-full-2009-hmfc-accounts-parts-1-3-merged-threads/

[FranckSuzy]

Another laughfest :wink: See point 26 :agree:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h51/WorldChampions1902/2009%20Accounts/2009AccountsPage_0023.jpg (http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h51/WorldChampions1902/2009%20Accounts/2009AccountsPage_0023.jpg)

[Mikey]

Another laughfest :wink: See point 26 :agree:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h51/WorldChampions1902/2009%20Accounts/2009AccountsPage_0023.jpg (http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h51/WorldChampions1902/2009%20Accounts/2009AccountsPage_0023.jpg)

So the £17.6m is still to be paid.

I'm sure the yams said it would just be dealt with with a debt for equity swap :wink:

[ronaldo7]

So the £17.6m is still to be paid.:agree:

I'm sure the yams said it would just be dealt with with a debt for equity swap :wink:

The £17.6m has been split but has still to be repaid...to themselves of course.

[Pedantic_Hibee]

It's debt they owe themselves though isn't it?

Uncle Vlad's good to himself though, he owes himself money and puts interest on top. What a clever chap.

Using this accepted business practice, I'm going to march to the ATM tomorrow, withdraw a tenner and chuck interest on it. I figure that by Thursday morning I'll then be due myself £20 which I'll withdraw. So I'll take £20 out on Thursday.

By Friday morning, I'll be due myself £40 so I'll take 4 tenners out and so on and so forth.

This is where Vlad's clever though, all I'm doing is dipping into my own bank account to pay the money I owe myself, wee Vladdy's dipping into a football club's piggy bank and taking out more than he put in.

So there you go ma wee Jamboloids, thanks to you shower of fuds buying your turd-coloured Ukio Bankas strips each year, Vlad's making a mint whilst you're independently labelled a going concern with a formal HMRC investigation saddling alongside. SuperSmashingGreat :top marks

Thank ****** for Rod Petrie.

[Spike Mandela]

Talk about sticking your head in the sand. JJ comes across as an ignorant fool talking about the finances.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8660888.stm

[I'm_cabbaged]

So the £17.6m is still to be paid.

I'm sure the yams said it would just be dealt with with a debt for equity swap :wink:

These accounts are 10 months old are they no? They'll not show that the deeds for the PBS have been handed over. :wink:

[Barney McGrew]

So the £17.6m is still to be paid.


Current assets: £2 million.
Creditors falling due within the year: £44 million


Just seen a PDF on kickback and point 20 clearly indicates that Hertz are under a formal HMRC investigation

Move along nothing to see here. Hobonomics at it's best.

I'm guessing the £600k in registration fees will be Hobonomics too. And the 'greatly reduced' wage bill that is still 126% of their turnover (and actually up on last year). And the turnover that was only £600k more than ours, despite us having a crappy season and them ending up in third place.

[SolentHibee]

I can't access the file from my work so I cannot check myself.

The jamboids are always bragging about their season ticket sales and crowds and I have always consoled myself that they get these attendances etc due to the season tickets costing two bob each and that they are not really making much more cash than we are from this part of the business.

Is anybody able to compare the two sets of figures?

[MrSmith]

So they are in-debt to the tune of £34.6mil. Is this figure inclusive of the £8.6m lost this last year? I thought their debt from last year totalled £36m? My maths is suspect but I would have assumed their debt, in-total, is £44.6m? But, then again, with the jiggery pokery debt for equity scheme orchestrated by vlad...I'm confused and probably best remaining that way.:confused::confused::dummytit:

[Peevemor]

So they are in-debt to the tune of £34.6mil. Is this figure inclusive of the £8.6m lost this last year? I thought their debt from last year totalled £36m? My maths is suspect but I would have assumed their debt, in-total, is £44.6m? But, then again, with the jiggery pokery debt for equity scheme orchestrated by vlad...I'm confused and probably best remaining that way.:confused::confused::dummytit:

From what I remember, the £36M was after the all the Gordon dosh but before the debt for equity thing.

However, these accounts are 9 months old so I'd imagine their debt is currently £40M+

The big questions are why is Vlad doing this and how long can he afford to let it continue? Unless, of course, he has an ulterior motive for keeping a loss making Scottish football club within his group of companies...

[NGP]

Debt for equity?

So I owe the bank £10,000
I earn £1000 per year
My outgoings are £2,200 per year (£1,000 of which is interest to the bank)

The bank tell me that they will do a debt for equity swap to reduce my debt to them. They wipe off £5,000 and take full ownership of my car.

So I now owe the bank £5,000
I still earn £1000 per year
My outgoings are now £1,700
Interest payemnts to the bank have been reduced to £500 per year
Although I can still use my car, the bank can sell it anytime they want and pocket the money without it reducing any more of my debt. (And I have to pay a hire charge to the bank for using the car)

As I keep borrowing from the bank to cover the difference in income, my debt will soon be back up to £10,000 but I have lost my main asset.

Is this how it works?

[Caversham Green]

So they are in-debt to the tune of £34.6mil. Is this figure inclusive of the £8.6m lost this last year? I thought their debt from last year totalled £36m? My maths is suspect but I would have assumed their debt, in-total, is £44.6m? But, then again, with the jiggery pokery debt for equity scheme orchestrated by vlad...I'm confused and probably best remaining that way.:confused::confused::dummytit:

The thing about the net debt figure is that it only includes certain areas of debt - normal trade creditors are not included. In the yams case the 2008 net debt figure was £30.4m, they made a loss of £8.6m so it follows that net debt should be at least £39m (it's not actually that simple either, but bear with me). The fact that its not that much means that more of the loss has been financed by trade creditors than "debt" creditors.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

[Peevemor]

Debt for equity?

So I owe the bank £10,000
I earn £1000 per year
My outgoings are £2,200 per year (£1,000 of which is interest to the bank)

The bank tell me that they will do a debt for equity swap to reduce my debt to them. They wipe off £5,000 and take full ownership of my car.

So I now owe the bank £5,000
I still earn £1000 per year
My outgoings are now £1,700
Interest payemnts to the bank have been reduced to £500 per year
Although I can still use my car, the bank can sell it anytime they want and pocket the money without it reducing any more of my debt. (And I have to pay a hire charge to the bank for using the car)

As I keep borrowing from the bank to cover the difference in income, my debt will soon be back up to £10,000 but I have lost my main asset.

Is this how it works?

Sort of, yes.

The difference is that Vlad and his group already owned nearly all of Hearts shares and then had to create new shares to give them something to swap. It was really just a paper exercise to stop the football club's figures looking even more ridiculous - the bottom line being that Vlad could close the club and sell the assets (ground) any time he wants.

This is also true of STF and Hibs, but I know which one I trust more.

[Caversham Green]

Debt for equity?

So I owe the bank £10,000
I earn £1000 per year
My outgoings are £2,200 per year (£1,000 of which is interest to the bank)

The bank tell me that they will do a debt for equity swap to reduce my debt to them. They wipe off £5,000 and take full ownership of my car.

So I now owe the bank £5,000
I still earn £1000 per year
My outgoings are now £1,700
Interest payemnts to the bank have been reduced to £500 per year
Although I can still use my car, the bank can sell it anytime they want and pocket the money without it reducing any more of my debt. (And I have to pay a hire charge to the bank for using the car)

As I keep borrowing from the bank to cover the difference in income, my debt will soon be back up to £10,000 but I have lost my main asset.

Is this how it works?

That's more like a sale and lease-back arrangement.

DfE needs the debtor to be a company with shares. Thus, D Ltd owes C £5,000, but doesn't have the cash to pay it back. D says to C 'We will create more shares in D Ltd to the value of £5,000 and give them to you in settlement of our debt.' Thus C becomes part-owner of D and shares in future profits. There's no real logic in it where C is already the owner - it's like cutting a cake into 8 slices instead of 4, you have 8 slices but you still have the same amount of cake (apart from the wee bits that stick to the knife, but that's not really relevant.) The reason for doing it in that case is to improve the health of D Ltd - doing it once can be seen as a re-organisation, doing it more than once is an admission of failure and mismanagement. Doing it more than once in 5 years is just appalling.

As an aside, a company can only issue shares up to its authorised capital level. Hearts have an authorised capital of 47m shares of 10p each of which 46,919,350 have already been issued. That gives them scope to issue only 80,650 more shares - at 10p each that will raise £8,065. They could put a huge premium on the shares, but I expected them to use the forthcoming AGM to propose an increase in the authorised share capital. I suspect they will have to call a further meeting to propose that now.

[Caversham Green]

Sort of, yes.

The difference is that Vlad and his group already owned nearly all of Hearts shares and then had to create new shares to give them something to swap. It was really just a paper exercise to stop the football club's figures looking even more ridiculous - the bottom line being that Vlad could close the club and sell the assets (ground) any time he wants.

This is also true of STF and Hibs, but I know which one I trust more.

The thing is Peeve, Hibs have a positive net asset value and a recent history of generating income (albeit in small amounts) so STF might get more from selling them as a going concern if that's what he wanted to do. Hearts have a negative asset value and a history of loss making, so Vlad would struggle to give the shares away. On the other hand his debts carry a security on the PBS which means he would get some repayment if he closed the club down and sold the land. Alternatively he could take the stadium over and rent it back to the Yams (a bit like NGP's arrangement) thereby getting some value for his debt and income for the future.

[Caversham Green]

One further point at this stage, despite all the positive noises from Yamland this is the second worst set of results since Vlad took over. Only 2007 had a worse bottom line loss and debt position.

[Peevemor]

The thing is Peeve, Hibs have a positive net asset value and a recent history of generating income (albeit in small amounts) so STF might get more from selling them as a going concern if that's what he wanted to do. Hearts have a negative asset value and a history of loss making, so Vlad would struggle to give the shares away. On the other hand his debts carry a security on the PBS which means he would get some repayment if he closed the club down and sold the land. Alternatively he could take the stadium over and rent it back to the Yams (a bit like NGP's arrangement) thereby getting some value for his debt and income for the future.

Correct. STF and his boardroom appointments have improved the club's infrastructure beyond recognition. If he was to sell and make a tidy profit, nobody could legitimately complain about that (though I know many would try!).

Vlad however is an enigma, apart from any dosh that he's allegedly siphoned off, he's lost a packet on HoMoFC. Given that he only seems to appear at the PBS 4 or 5 times a year, the image of the football daft millionaire ploughing money into the team of his dreams doesn't ring true either. He obviously thought at the outset that simply throwing money at the team would guarantee annual European income. This could have worked if he'd been less of a radge, but the result is there for all to see.

How long can he continue in this fashion is their main worry.

[Caversham Green]

Correct. STF and his boardroom appointments have improved the club's infrastructure beyond recognition. If he was to sell and make a tidy profit, nobody could legitimately complain about that (though I know many would try!).

Vlad however is an enigma, apart from any dosh that he's allegedly siphoned off, he's lost a packet on HoMoFC. Given that he only seems to appear at the PBS 4 or 5 times a year, the image of the football daft millionaire ploughing money into the team of his dreams doesn't ring true either. He obviously thought at the outset that simply throwing money at the team would guarantee annual European income. This could have worked if he'd been less of a radge, but the result is there for all to see.

How long can he continue in this fashion is their main worry.

I said a while back that there's a "rabbit in the headlights" feel to what's going on over there - they simply don't know what to do, so they're doing nothing. It all needs a massive overhaul both financially and operationally which would involve severe financial loss and damage to Vlad's reputation. I don't think another £12m dfe and the transfer of the PBS would be enough now and it's getting worse all the time.

I think Abramovich had the right idea at Chelsea - write the lot off in one go and start again. If Vlad does that, I'll buy a hat so I can first take it off to him and then eat it.

[Peevemor]

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/72398-a-solution-to-hearts-debt/page__view__findpost__p__1618578

:Ummm:

[Bad Martini]

How the f*** are they still in business?

And how do they keep beating us?

:grr:


Cause Vlad runs/picks and motivates their team and Yogi does oors???

The only good thing aboot their pelters is, soon enough they WILL be in Churches League, Division 3...nae nets. Yam bam trumpets...

[Phil D. Rolls]

Talk about sticking your head in the sand. JJ comes across as an ignorant fool talking about the finances.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8660888.stm

Jeffries is only worried about his wages being in the bank. He cares ***** all for the future of the circus.


http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/72398-a-solution-to-hearts-debt/page__view__findpost__p__1618578

:Ummm:

I love this comment from Gorgie Rebel:


NUSRE!!!

The Yams can sleep safe at night, knowing that intelligent guys like this are watching out for their interests.

[MSK]

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/72398-a-solution-to-hearts-debt/page__view__findpost__p__1618578

:Ummm:

gorgie_rebel

Junior Member


NUSRE!!!


Thickwit yam tramp cannae even spell !!!!! :faf::faf:

[Jack]

*** Back of a fag packet calculation warning ***

Hearts net transfer activity since the Romanov empire came to town (2004-05) is around £15m (Hibs around £18.5m). Say other income has averaged £9m a year (Hibs £8m) and the DfE of £17.5m (Hibs – nope). That means Hearts have gone through £86m (to Hibs £66.5m). Would it be fair to add the increased debt on to the figure £86m as spend during that time, making it £106m?

In that time Hearts debt has increased by around £20m to £35m, Hibs has come down from a similar level to Hearts to around £5m.

Would it be right to suggest over the period Hearts have paid £32m (we’ve paid off about £12m debt, they have increased by £20m) plus £20m (the difference in income) = £52m for the following level of superiority over us?
[£72m if you include the increased debt.]

Games over the period
Hibs won 6
Hearts won 9
Draw 7

League position
2004-05 Hibs 3 Hearts 5
2005-06 Hibs 4 Hearts 2
2006-07 Hibs 6 Hearts 4
2007-08 Hibs 6 Hearts 8
2008-09 Hibs 6 Hearts 3

I still think we’ll finish above them this season so that’s pretty evenly split at 4/3 they have finished above us/we finished above them.

One national cup each.

Other stuff
Hibs have a bought and paid for modern stadium – Hearts have still to go through the financial pain of doing so.

Hibs have a bought and paid for modern training facility, Hearts have a part-time arrangement lease hold.

Salaries obviously make up a lot of the headline figures in the first bit and we can see where Hibs have spent their money; clearing debt and building(s) for the future.

What can the Hearts fans point at and say that’s where the £86,000,000 [maybe £106m] went? For a few extra points???

Feel free to amend any figures where you know better, but mind that a NET transfer figure. :greengrin

[Caversham Green]

*** Back of a fag packet calculation warning ***

Hearts net transfer activity since the Romanov empire came to town (2004-05) is around £15m (Hibs around £18.5m). Say other income has averaged £9m a year (Hibs £8m) and the DfE of £17.5m (Hibs – nope). That means Hearts have gone through £86m (to Hibs £66.5m). Would it be fair to add the increased debt on to the figure £86m as spend during that time, making it £106m?

In that time Hearts debt has increased by around £20m to £35m, Hibs has come down from a similar level to Hearts to around £5m.

Would it be right to suggest over the period Hearts have paid £32m (we’ve paid off about £12m debt, they have increased by £20m) plus £20m (the difference in income) = £52m for the following level of superiority over us?
[£72m if you include the increased debt.]

Games over the period
Hibs won 6
Hearts won 9
Draw 7

League position
2004-05 Hibs 3 Hearts 5
2005-06 Hibs 4 Hearts 2
2006-07 Hibs 6 Hearts 4
2007-08 Hibs 6 Hearts 8
2008-09 Hibs 6 Hearts 3

I still think we’ll finish above them this season so that’s pretty evenly split at 4/3 they have finished above us/we finished above them.

One national cup each.

Other stuff
Hibs have a bought and paid for modern stadium – Hearts have still to go through the financial pain of doing so.

Hibs have a bought and paid for modern training facility, Hearts have a part-time arrangement lease hold.

Salaries obviously make up a lot of the headline figures in the first bit and we can see where Hibs have spent their money; clearing debt and building(s) for the future.

What can the Hearts fans point at and say that’s where the £86,000,000 [maybe £106m] went? For a few extra points???

Feel free to amend any figures where you know better, but mind that a NET transfer figure. :greengrin

Boiling it down to spending on players, in those 5 years Hearts have spent £28.44m more on wages and £4.174m more on transfers than Hibs (who did the yams buy for £609k in 08/09? :confused: Hibs have brought in £1.123m more in transfer receipts.

[andrew70]

Boiling it down to spending on players, in those 5 years Hearts have spent £28.44m more on wages and £4.174m more on transfers than Hibs (who did the yams buy for £609k in 08/09? :confused: Hibs have brought in £1.123m more in transfer receipts.

Was that not Mirsad Beslija from some club in Belgium(Genk??) sure they got taken to FIFA for not paying his transfer fee.

[hibbymac]

Was that not Mirsad Beslija from some club in Belgium(Genk??) sure they got taken to FIFA for not paying his transfer fee.

was that the guy they tried to send back under the "30 day cooling off period"? :faf:

[Mon Dieu4]

was that the guy they tried to send back under the "30 day cooling off period"? :faf:

Yep same guy described as "the fastest man in Belgium" :faf:

[Sergey]

The report clearly cherry picks the best bits (or least bad bits) of the accounts, but it still doesn't exactly give a healthy picture. A quick back of envelope calculation suggests their turnover was down by about £1m, and that in turn indicates that costs were nearly double turnover.

The 2008 accounts showed that non-wages costs exceeded turnover by £2.2m - that means that even if HOMFC had not paid any wages whatsoever to any of their staff, they would still have made a £2.2m loss. This year it looks like they would just about have broken even. In short, as well as massively reducing their wages bill they need to reduce their other costs just to achieve the stated aim of breaking even.

It looks like their other costs were about £7.5m, while ours for the same year were £4.6m. I can't for the life of me see where they've spent an extra £3m, but if they cut it back to Hibs level (we are their nearest benchmark) they will have to cut their wages bill to about £2.5m. That's about Falkirk's level, and this is where their football will suffer in the years to come - remember that this is the season where they couldn't beat Hibs in the league and made third place in the league pretty much by default.

If you define success as the slowing down of failure then these are moderately successful figures.

I'm a bit late in commenting on this thread as I've been out the country, but the part in bold is a belter of a statement!

Interesting point about the HMRC still being on the case. I'm ever slightly tumescent thinking about it.