This is how you run a football club!

[Kyle A]

The 2008 accounts show that the club is still burdened with horrendous debts, this stood at £30m at 31st July 2008.
On its day to day operations the club is losing roughly £11m a year. By selling Craig Gordon, and others for nearly £10m the club managed to produce a smaller loss of only £3.5m for the year. This result cannot be matched in 2009 due to the lack of saleable players. That the club are still spending £2m more on player wages than they get in income in total is totally unsustainable. The interest payments for 2008 of over £2m are another crippling cost. The club has debts of over £30m, with no obvious way of ever paying those debts off. Overall the results are very depressing.




:faf::faf::faf::faf::faf:

[Kyle A]

For Hibs finances up til 2009
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/hibs/2009/index.htm







The only thing i didnt like the look of was......



Something that stands out in the accounts for Hibs is the amount of money that goes to the directors. Hibs has paid out roughly £500,000 to the directors for each of the last two seasons. As a percentage of the money coming in to the club this is three times higher than anyone else in the SPL. This seems excessive.

[IWasThere2016]

Is this from RealityKickingInBack?

[Kyle A]

Is this from RealityKickingInBack?


see
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/hearts/

[HibeeB]

see
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/hearts/

They don’t particularly understand, and aren’t really bothered unless something is very bad, or very good. The explanations on these site has generally been to just give people a bit more insight into what has been going on.

</SPAN>
Hearts are different.

:faf:

[RickyS]

For Hibs finances up til 2009
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/hibs/2009/index.htm







The only thing i didnt like the look of was......



Something that stands out in the accounts for Hibs is the amount of money that goes to the directors. Hibs has paid out roughly £500,000 to the directors for each of the last two seasons. As a percentage of the money coming in to the club this is three times higher than anyone else in the SPL. This seems excessive.

Worth every penny, we have 3 x the board of any other joker in the country. In Rod we trust.:hnet:

[RoYO!]

For Hibs finances up til 2009
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/hibs/2009/index.htm







The only thing i didnt like the look of was......



Something that stands out in the accounts for Hibs is the amount of money that goes to the directors. Hibs has paid out roughly £500,000 to the directors for each of the last two seasons. As a percentage of the money coming in to the club this is three times higher than anyone else in the SPL. This seems excessive.

However it works out as them collectively getting paid the same each Week as one christiano Nade! I know who I'd rather have at the club.

I reckon they're worth every penny for the direction they've taken the club

[Woody1985]

For Hibs finances up til 2009
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/hibs/2009/index.htm


The only thing i didnt like the look of was......

Something that stands out in the accounts for Hibs is the amount of money that goes to the directors. Hibs has paid out roughly £500,000 to the directors for each of the last two seasons. As a percentage of the money coming in to the club this is three times higher than anyone else in the SPL. This seems excessive.

I think I read before that we appear like this because we show all our directors pay on the accounts whereas other clubs directors are paid through other holding companies (Aberdeen rings a bell) which means that not everything is shown but I could be wrong.

Someone will have more information on it.

At the end of the day, our board are doing a great job and we're now starting to see funds going into the team at what would seem an acceptable level. Better performances and league positions will see us invest even more in the team.

I reckon we'll still have to sell players to finance the loan on the west (IIRC) at some point and players will naturally want to leave but we're certainly on the right track.

[IWasThere2016]

Our Directors do take an excessive % share of income IMHO. I think you'd be hard placed to find higher in UK football .. and its way above the banks or our many quangos :devil: Rod was earning more than the PM in his last full year ffs!

[degenerated]

Our Directors do take an excessive % share of income IMHO. I think you'd be hard placed to find higher in UK football .. and its way above the banks or our many quangos :devil: Rod was earning more than the PM in his last full year ffs!

given the performance of the banks, quangos and the last few pm's it's not the really the best comparison to make your point with :wink:

[IWasThere2016]

Some banks are doing very well - as have some quangos. Imagine the on field difference if the Directors' take was in line with other clubs - could be two more decent signings IMHO.

[greenlex]

Pah!!!! Let's compare apples with apples. How does his renumeration. Ompare to Barak Obama's? Prime Minister Soooooooo third rate.

[Removed]

Some banks are doing very well - as have some quangos. Imagine the on field difference if the Directors' take was in line with other clubs - could be two or three more decent signings IMHO.

Not seen the accounts so are we taking about comparing their actual £K salary or their £K remuneration as a % of turnover?

Any examples of what other directors from which clubs?

[IWasThere2016]

IIRC, both %s are very high. I'm sure a look at the original link will reveal this.

[Removed]

IIRC, both %s are very high. I'm sure a look at the original link will reveal this.

Just had a look - that analysis on there is a heap of pish. Generates way more questions than it does answers. No way you can properly compare directors remuneration by looking at that.

[matty_f]

Just had a look - that analysis on there is a heap of pish. Generates way more questions than it does answers. No way you can properly compare directors remuneration by looking at that.

You're right Billy, but it's easier to use these figures as they are in order to portray Petrie and the board as villains, for some reason.

[RickyS]

Our Directors do take an excessive % share of income IMHO. I think you'd be hard placed to find higher in UK football .. and its way above the banks or our many quangos :devil: Rod was earning more than the PM in his last full year ffs!

Rod for PM, thats the answer. get it sorted Petrie:wink:

[Kyle A]

The original point of this thread was not to criticise the board, we all know they are doing a good job.

the point was to laugh at hearts so lets do that :greengrin

[Kaiser1962]

Some banks are doing very well - as have some quangos. Imagine the on field difference if the Directors' take was in line with other clubs - could be two more decent signings IMHO.

Or we could have the Hearts board and end up overpaying crap players and instead of 500k on directors we could end up paying 2m in interest due to poor management. You gets what you pays for.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Hearts are a ****ing shambles. FACT :agree:

[Caversham Green]

I think I read before that we appear like this because we show all our directors pay on the accounts whereas other clubs directors are paid through other holding companies (Aberdeen rings a bell) which means that not everything is shown but I could be wrong.

Someone will have more information on it.

At the end of the day, our board are doing a great job and we're now starting to see funds going into the team at what would seem an acceptable level. Better performances and league positions will see us invest even more in the team.

I reckon we'll still have to sell players to finance the loan on the west (IIRC) at some point and players will naturally want to leave but we're certainly on the right track.

That's about right Woody. Hibs are the only non-OF club to have a fully working board - the other clubs' directors are generally unpaid. That sounds good, but it means that the directors look elsewhere to make a living, so are not fully focussed on the club. It also means that these clubs have to pay someone else to do the job that the Hibs directors are doing.

For example, Hearts board consists entirely of Lithuanians who also work for UBIG. With the exception of the new guy who is charged with building the new stand (can we have a flying pig smilie please?) they are unpaid by the football club. Until recently they also had Campbell Ogilvie who did the job that Rod/Scott Lindsay are doing at Hibs - his salary doesn't have to be disclosed because he's not a director, but I suspect he didn't come cheap.

Aberdeen do have a working MD - Duncan Fraser - who was paid slightly less than Rod in 2007 and slightly more in 2008 (I don't have Aberdeen's 2009 accounts to do a more up to date comparison).They also pay Willie Miller a fair whack, but their other directors are unpaid.

I think it's really a product of STF's hands-off approach - he takes no part in the day-to-day running of the club, so pays people he trusts to run the club.

[frazeHFC]

For Hibs finances up til 2009
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/hibs/2009/index.htm







The only thing i didnt like the look of was......



Something that stands out in the accounts for Hibs is the amount of money that goes to the directors. Hibs has paid out roughly £500,000 to the directors for each of the last two seasons. As a percentage of the money coming in to the club this is three times higher than anyone else in the SPL. This seems excessive.



Don't even know what that means, is it that because of good profits, our directors get more money than other teams?

[Removed]

The original point of this thread was not to criticise the board, we all know they are doing a good job.

the point was to laugh at hearts so lets do that :greengrin

:agree: But you :worms:with post #2. Played right into hands of the anti petrie brigade :bitchy:

Mon the board :thumbsup: **** the hearts :lolyam:

[IWasThere2016]

You're right Billy, but it's easier to use these figures as they are in order to portray Petrie and the board as villains, for some reason.

We cannae aw be sycophants, M :wink:


Hearts are a ****ing shambles. FACT :agree:

Now - no one can disagree with that :greengrin


Don't even know what that means, is it that because of good profits, our directors get more money than other teams?

I think - without player sales - we've only operated in profit in 3 of the last 8 years.


**** the hearts :lolyam:

:thumbsup: I think they're still a worry for 3rd (which must be our minimum target this season) though! :boo hoo: