PDA

View Full Version : Did Our Most Expensive Board Per % Of T/O In The SPL Explain The Sale Of Stokes To..



smurf
02-09-2010, 06:32 PM
...us mere supporters? Us that we're told actually are the club?

Indeed was it even put on the website that we sold him?

I suspect there were good reasons for him being sold. However, i must admit i felt a tad embarassed speaking to a non SPL football fan today who ridiculed us for selling Stokes for the pittance we did. Particularly as he said the fortune Celtc took in for Fortune.

Thoughts?

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 06:34 PM
You make good points

Beefster
02-09-2010, 06:37 PM
I thought the lack of information on the official site about Stokes leaving (his sale was summarised in one sentence at the bottom of an article about the players we had brought in) was very shabby.

Hibs only release news when it suits them. There's no consistency whatsoever.

Phil D. Rolls
02-09-2010, 06:45 PM
...us mere supporters? Us that we're told actually are the club?

Indeed was it even put on the website that we sold him?

I suspect there were good reasons for him being sold. However, i must admit i felt a tad embarassed speaking to a non SPL football fan today who ridiculed us for selling Stokes for the pittance we did. Particularly as he said the fortune Celtc took in for Fortune.

Thoughts?

This is the same board that got way over what anyone expected for the likes of Brown, Whittaker and Thomson. Why do you think they were keen to take such a small fee for Stokes - who some say is a player who will burn out soon?

Or is that Stokes had a clause in his contract. Fair's fair the board are expensive but they pay their way. Have you got any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Gatecrasher
02-09-2010, 06:47 PM
Have hibs ever done this though?

i cant remember anything other than wishing loan players good luck and the odd player being released

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 06:47 PM
This is the same board that got way over what anyone expected for the likes of Brown, Whittaker and Thomson. Why do you think they were keen to take such a small fee for Stokes - who some say is a player who will burn out soon?

Or is that Stokes had a clause in his contract. Fair's fair the board are expensive but they pay their way. Have you got any evidence to suggest otherwise?

They didnt get way over for those players IMO.

Hibbyradge
02-09-2010, 07:02 PM
Sign a player for nowt.

Get 23 goals out of him.

Sell him for a million pounds.

I hope we do that every season.

jdships
02-09-2010, 07:05 PM
...us mere supporters? Us that we're told actually are the club?

Indeed was it even put on the website that we sold him?

I suspect there were good reasons for him being sold. However, i must admit i felt a tad embarassed speaking to a non SPL football fan today who ridiculed us for selling Stokes for the pittance we did. Particularly as he said the fortune Celtc took in for Fortune.

Thoughts?

It was neither the time nor the place to write this until he actually left the club
Re the reason he was sold all I can add is what the man himself told me on two seperate occasions when he was in the company of another Hibs player.
His agent had a clause inserted that if/when a club offered a certain figure ( he did not clarify) he was to be given permission by HFC to speak with them .
Was he telling the truth / porky's I know not :bitchy:
Are you privy to a RELIABLE SOURCE regarding the fee paid ?
If so I'm sure many of us would like to know :wink:

easty
02-09-2010, 07:09 PM
Sign a player for nowt.

Get 23 goals out of him.

Sell him for a million pounds.

I hope we do that every season.

Aye in principle that sounds good.

How about you use the analogy of a car though..

You win a brand now sports car, let's say a Porsche

It's a total chick magnet, in the next 12 months you get girls way out of your league almost weekly

Then you sell it for £500.

Aye you've still come out of the situation well up, but its still not enough.

Granted that's a pretty **** analogy but you get my point I'm sure.

truehibernian
02-09-2010, 07:13 PM
We didn't sell AS for a "pittance". We also got rid of a player who was absolutely intent on leaving, a player who had caused problem last and this season, and a player who is not bigger than Hibernian Football Club. Did the non SPL fan have any thoughts as to why his club is non SPL and don't have the kind of infrastructure, fanbase and team that we have ? The board could have indeed held off and kept AS here. But that would have been at the expense of disharmony IMHO. As someone pointed out, if we continue to develop a player or two a season and sell for a seven figure sum, I will be well happy. After all, we don't need any more cash (other than running costs) for infrastructure for a long time yet. Hopefully the budgets will increase for players, we get in better quality, and in turn get success with cup wins/league placings.

Speedway
02-09-2010, 07:20 PM
I thought the lack of information on the official site about Stokes leaving (his sale was summarised in one sentence at the bottom of an article about the players we had brought in) was very shabby.

Hibs only release news when it suits them. There's no consistency whatsoever.

So they are consistent then.

The expensive board of ours are doing the best job and progressing a club in the SPL. They should charge double.

smurf
02-09-2010, 07:26 PM
Filled Rolls. What relevance is your question to the thread? Where did I suggest anything to raise the question. Or is it an attempt at diversion to the OP? I think I raise legitimate questions. It's not an anti board OP. Why get defensive? It appears for many our board are above any questioning.

HFC 0-7
02-09-2010, 07:26 PM
Sign a player for nowt.

Get 23 goals out of him.

Sell him for a million pounds.

I hope we do that every season.

Why do you support Hibs? Do you support them, hopefully to see them win games? Well if thats the case the best way to do it is to buy players of quality and keep adding to the team. We never got silly money for Stokes so unless there was a clause I think it was a bad move from Hibs.

Would you not prefer to sign a player for nowt,

Get 23 goals out of them in a season.

the next season keep that 23 goal player and add to the team?

I would like to do that every season.

Hibercelona
02-09-2010, 07:33 PM
Put it this way...

We arent going to find another striker of Stokes quality with a million...

Not that we'd ever spend that much on a player anyway! :grr: :boo hoo:


Anyway.... dreadful move IMO.

Peanuts for a top goal scorer.

greenlex
02-09-2010, 07:39 PM
As usual the board who are the present custodians of our club will be acting in the clubs best interests. I have no reason to believe it is any diffrent.

jdships
02-09-2010, 07:40 PM
Put it this way...

We arent going to find another striker of Stokes quality with a million...

Not that we'd ever spend that much on a player anyway! :grr: :boo hoo:


Anyway.... dreadful move IMO.

Peanuts for a top goal scorer.

How do you/we know it was "peanuts" ?
I have seen no "official " figure quoted - in most of the papers it stated "UNDISCLOSED FEE"
For pity's sake let's give some credit to the management/board in this matter
:rolleyes:

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 07:42 PM
As usual the board who are the present custodians of our club will be acting in the clubs best interests. I have no reason to believe it is any diffrent.

Im sure they do but they can make mistakes, we all in life try to do things but make errors they are no different. IMO and maybe some others this is one.

CropleyWasGod
02-09-2010, 07:43 PM
Put it this way...

We arent going to find another striker of Stokes quality with a million...

.

How much did he cost us?

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 07:43 PM
Why do you support Hibs? Do you support them, hopefully to see them win games? Well if thats the case the best way to do it is to buy players of quality and keep adding to the team. We never got silly money for Stokes so unless there was a clause I think it was a bad move from Hibs.

Would you not prefer to sign a player for nowt,

Get 23 goals out of them in a season.

the next season keep that 23 goal player and add to the team?

I would like to do that every season.

Indeed

Hibbyradge
02-09-2010, 07:51 PM
Why do you support Hibs?


Who the ****** are you to ask that of me?

What difference does it make to you why I support Hibs?




Would you not prefer to sign a player for nowt,

Get 23 goals out of them in a season.

the next season keep that 23 goal player and add to the team?

I would like to do that every season.

I'd love to do that. We can't afford to.

Do you have a magic pot of money which pays for stands, training centres and reduces our debt?

No, I didn't think so.

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 07:58 PM
Who the ****** are you to ask that of me?

What difference does it make to you why I support Hibs?



I'd love to do that. We can't afford to.

Do you have a magic pot of money which pays for stands, training centres and reduces our debt?

No, I didn't think so.

Im quite sure all would still be well off the park if Celtic hadnt bought Stokes.

easty
02-09-2010, 08:00 PM
Who the ****** are you to ask that of me?

People seem a bit uptight tonight...time of the month ladies?

bighairyfaeleith
02-09-2010, 08:03 PM
I think we all feel that in hindsight we should have got a better contract out of stokes, however in reality who could have got the best contract? I would have voted for petrie.

So if this is the best he could get us then I reckon it's the best pretty much anyone would have got us.

So I'm not happy at losing stokes for a millionish but I am happy to lose a player at a profit, especially given his baggage which I reckon will come out fully over the next couple of seasons.

Hainan Hibs
02-09-2010, 08:04 PM
People seem a bit uptight tonight...time of the month ladies?

hibs13681 made the rookie mistake of not looking at the post count and immediately bowing to superior Hibbyness:agree:

EasterRoad4Ever
02-09-2010, 08:14 PM
OP makes some good points, irrespective of the Board's previous record. They describe and advertise the club as the Hibernian "Family" yet pick and choose the type of information that they deem appropriate for us Hibs fans who actually pay their wages. Yes, the truth may hurt, but it is the Hibs supporters who pay their wages. Without us, the club is bust, nothing, redundant. A higher degree of respect and openess is the least we deserve.

Zondervan
02-09-2010, 08:14 PM
Aye in principle that sounds good.

How about you use the analogy of a car though..

You win a brand now sports car, let's say a Porsche

It's a total chick magnet, in the next 12 months you get girls way out of your league almost weekly

Then you sell it for £500.

Aye you've still come out of the situation well up, but its still not enough.

Granted that's a pretty **** analogy but you get my point I'm sure.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40715000/jpg/_40715733_swistonybbc203.jpg

You see Paul, selling a player is very much like making love to a beautiful woman. First of all, you make them run all over your box. Then you must make sure there is grass on their pitch. Then you stick your balls in their net and dump them off to some other tramp.

Agree with OP 100% though.

bighairyfaeleith
02-09-2010, 08:34 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40715000/jpg/_40715733_swistonybbc203.jpg

You see Paul, selling a player is very much like making love to a beautiful woman. First of all, you make them run all over your box. Then you must make sure there is grass on their pitch. Then you stick your balls in their net and dump them off to some other tramp.

Agree with OP 100% though.

disagree 100% with op but thats class:greengrin

The Silver Fox
02-09-2010, 08:44 PM
Sign a player for nowt.

Get 23 goals out of him.

Sell him for a million pounds.

I hope we do that every season.

Hibs have never done it before, it was a one off.

I think we all deserve a little transperancy over this deal. It does seem cheap, if there was a clause in his contract who is being protected by not revealing details. At the end of the day it is good business but to the uneducated eye it have been a lot better.

Ray_
02-09-2010, 08:45 PM
This is the same board that got way over what anyone expected for the likes of Brown, Whittaker and Thomson. Why do you think they were keen to take such a small fee for Stokes - who some say is a player who will burn out soon?



If you add the money we got from Sproule to the cash we got for Brown, Whittaker & Thomson, it almost amounts to the money "Mad" Vlad pulled in for Gordon.

Geo_1875
02-09-2010, 08:46 PM
We keep hearing mention of a clause in his contract allowing him to go for a certain amount. Who's to say the clause wasn't that he would be allowed to go if Celtc came sniffing around. After all, they are the club he's wanted to go to all his life, except when he snubbed them for Sunderland.

TBH I think we are in a catch 22 situation where any decent player we produce/ sign will always be willing to go to the OF for the extra money they can make. The alternative is to go for average players who will not attract attention from other clubs. Stephen Craigan anyone?

If we go down that route the board will be accused of showing no ambition.

jacomo
02-09-2010, 08:49 PM
Sign a player for nowt.

Get 23 goals out of him.

Sell him for a million pounds.

I hope we do that every season.

How do you know we signed him for nowt? I'm sure a sizeable signing on fee was involved.

Bookkeeper
02-09-2010, 09:01 PM
Aint it great the lengths and depths you can debate this to, when probably no-one on here knows any of the facts of the matter! :confused:

HFC_NYC
02-09-2010, 09:02 PM
I'm sick and tired of reading people having a go at the board for selling Strokes for "only" a million. Do these people honestly think that Rod would have let him go for this small fee unless his hands were tied by way of a clause.

blackpoolhibs
02-09-2010, 09:11 PM
I suppose we could have kept him, then let him leave for nothing in 2 season. In fact we could do that with every player we get, then just replace them again with similar types, its easy enough.

HFC 0-7
02-09-2010, 09:12 PM
Who the ****** are you to ask that of me?

What difference does it make to you why I support Hibs?



I'd love to do that. We can't afford to.

Do you have a magic pot of money which pays for stands, training centres and reduces our debt?

No, I didn't think so.

I didnt question your loyalties to hibs did I? so less of the swearing at me! I was making a point that we should be looking for more from our club than making money. If I touched a nerve I am sorry but there is no need to start swearing!

Training centre is paid for, we have a mortgage which is very 'affordable' for the stand and we apparently had money ringfenced for the new stand + we got additional money from the fletcher sale from Burnley.

The OP's comments were about the board being more forthcoming with information to the people that are paying their wages, and pretty large wages at that. We have played hard ball in the past with the old firm where we demanded large transfer fees from them, this time its seems we crumbled and everyone seems to think that the fee was on the cheap.

Now if there was a clause why would the board not tell us, the income source for the club, why the deal happened like this.

HFC 0-7
02-09-2010, 09:13 PM
Aint it great the lengths and depths you can debate this to, when probably no-one on here knows any of the facts of the matter! :confused:

Which is why the board should be more forthcoming with information?!?!?

easty
02-09-2010, 09:17 PM
I'm sick and tired of reading people having a go at the board for selling Strokes for "only" a million. Do these people honestly think that Rod would have let him go for this small fee unless his hands were tied by way of a clause.

I wouldnt so much say I was "having a go at the board", overall they do a very good job that I'm happy with.

That said though, I'd still like to know details around losing a player that, most Hibs fans seem to agree, was worth more in the current market than we recieved for him.

It won't affect my level of the support for the club, or the board, whether or not they do tell us. But you can't grudge some of us wanting to know can you?

new malkyhib
02-09-2010, 09:19 PM
We keep hearing mention of a clause in his contract allowing him to go for a certain amount. Who's to say the clause wasn't that he would be allowed to go if Celtc came sniffing around. After all, they are the club he's wanted to go to all his life, except when he snubbed them for Sunderland.

TBH I think we are in a catch 22 situation where any decent player we produce/ sign will always be willing to go to the OF for the extra money they can make. The alternative is to go for average players who will not attract attention from other clubs. Stephen Craigan anyone?

If we go down that route the board will be accused of showing no ambition.

No, no the likes of Craigan, but maybe the likes of Clarkson or our peers'best players (Dundee Utd or A'deen or Kaunus of Midlothian) to try and steal a march on them?

This present (expensive) Hibs Board wouln't know ambition ON THE FIELD if it kicked them in the backside...

Alfred E Newman
02-09-2010, 09:20 PM
How much did he cost us?

Exactly. If he was worth as much as some on here think ,we would never have been able to sign him in the first place. Sunderland paid over the odds for him and discovered he couldn`t hack it at their level. He was punted out on loan and it didn`t work out and nobody was interested until we came along.
There is no doubt he had an impressive season for us last season but time will tell if the move to Celtic works out. £1m might prove to be a good deal.

easty
02-09-2010, 09:21 PM
I didnt question your loyalties to hibs did I? so less of the swearing at me! I was making a point that we should be looking for more from our club than making money. If I touched a nerve I am sorry but there is no need to start swearing!



Someone should wash his potty mouth out with soap.

FitbaFolkKen
02-09-2010, 09:22 PM
Could it be that there was some kind of confidentiality agreement in place? Hence the lack of information, as i'm sure the board would be delighted to paint this as a positive move for the club.

All the talk has centred on clauses for release of contract or transfer moves, if they have decided to sell because of a breach of discipline then that could well remain confidential and might go some way to explaining the silence round ER.

lyonhibs
02-09-2010, 09:22 PM
I'm sick and tired of reading people having a go at the board for selling Strokes for "only" a million. Do these people honestly think that Rod would have let him go for this small fee unless his hands were tied by way of a clause.

:top marks :top marks

If we managed to get £2 million for Whittaker who was on a clause-free contract, then it's pretty obvious that a minumum bid clause was involved in the Stokes transfer.

Hibbyradge
02-09-2010, 09:24 PM
so less of the swearing at me! no need to start swearing!




I didn't swear.

It's not allowed. :wink:

Antifa Hibs
02-09-2010, 09:27 PM
According to a Sellick website it was £800k up front, Sunderland are due a percemtage of that, with a further £500k due to be paid in installments/various terms. Does seem like aload of *****.

Radium
02-09-2010, 09:29 PM
Three things occurred to me reading this thread

The price may come out in the accounts but he's away and nothing can be done.
Think it was poor that the club didn't publish an article on the site.
Should we have sold Willie Irvine after his 24 goal season?

Aubenas
02-09-2010, 09:37 PM
This present (expensive) Hibs Board wouldn't know ambition ON THE FIELD if it kicked them in the backside...

As they are commonly acknowledged by neutral observers to be the most effective Board in the SPL, it's not surprising they are best paid.

When they say they want to get the infrastructure right so that future income can be invested on the field, which bit don't you understand, or are you saying the Board are in place to build stadia and training grounds and have no interest in football?
Just askin like.

Hibs On Tour
02-09-2010, 09:52 PM
Sign a player for nowt.

Get 23 goals out of him.

Sell him for a million pounds.

I hope we do that every season.

Aye, very good. Pantomime season is it? :bitchy:

Your 'plan' works great only *IF* we find a 23-goal-a-season striker EACH SEASON...

By the other posters analogy, you're then left hoping you win another Porche. Not much of a plan. I prefer the 'keep the striker, have him score more goals for the following 1-2 seasons' plan. Because that wins us games. And that is the point after all...

PS - him leaving just now only makes sense if we were either offered silly money [which isn't sounding likely] or there was a clause [which does]. If there were a clause, why aren't Hibs saying so? After all, if so then the truth would in this case appease the fans and we could all get on with looking forward instead of this pointless bickering over a player leaving...

BEEJ
02-09-2010, 09:54 PM
Three things occurred to me reading this thread

The price may come out in the accounts but he's away and nothing can be done.
Aye, the accounts for the current financial year which will not be published for another 13 months. :wink:

By which time the episode will be less painful and most will have moved on.

In any case it's seldom straightforward to pick out one transfer fee from a set of statutory accounts, unless the Directors' list the fee specifically in their report - which is unusual.

Hibbyradge
02-09-2010, 09:57 PM
Aye, very good. Pantomime season is it? :bitchy:

Your 'plan' works great only *IF* we find a 23-goal-a-season striker EACH SEASON...

By the other posters analogy, you're then left hoping you win another Porche. Not much of a plan. I prefer the 'keep the striker, have him score more goals for the following 1-2 seasons' plan. Because that wins us games. And that is the point after all...

PS - him leaving just now only makes sense if we were either offered silly money [which isn't sounding likely] or there was a clause [which does]. If there were a clause, why aren't Hibs saying so? After all, if so then the truth would in this case appease the fans and we could all get on with looking forward instead of this pointless bickering over a player leaving...

What if the player wanted to leave?

Kaiser1962
02-09-2010, 10:00 PM
Lets face we're football fans and are never happy. If we won the SPL by three points we would be moaning that it should have been ten and the manager/players/board are responsible and should be sacked/replaced. Thats the way of things.

new malkyhib
02-09-2010, 10:06 PM
As they are commonly acknowledged by neutral observers to be the most effective Board in the SPL, it's not surprising they are best paid.

When they say they want to get the infrastructure right so that future income can be invested on the field, which bit don't you understand, or are you saying the Board are in place to build stadia and training grounds and have no interest in football?
Just askin like.

...so it would seem, as we have to re-build the team every season.

Just tellin' like...

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 10:06 PM
Im not really interested in the fee, im interested in the thinking it best to sell our top scorer is all. If he wanted to leave he was under contract so he cant. Im sure all our players would want to play for more money, a contract gives Hibs some control.

Some seem so happy on how much we sell players for as if thats the greatest thing, it's not for me, I think the balance is well wrong. Hibs would still be here if we didnt Sell Stokes of that im sure, oh we might not get the debt down as quick, so ****, Im interested in watching good players that we have already and doing something with them.

Im not interested in what Stokes wanted whilst under contract he can get on with it, however if a realese clause wa in then yes all bets are off and there was nothing we could do, anything else is just poor IMO.

new malkyhib
02-09-2010, 10:11 PM
I wouldnt so much say I was "having a go at the board", overall they do a very good job that I'm happy with.

That said though, I'd still like to know details around losing a player that, most Hibs fans seem to agree, was worth more in the current market than we recieved for him.

It won't affect my level of the support for the club, or the board, whether or not they do tell us. But you can't grudge some of us wanting to know can you?

Good point - if the Board were to come out with a statement as to how their hands were tied with this particular deal, then it might silence some of the malcontents on this message board who never seem to want to give Rod Petrie any credit.:wink:

jacomo
02-09-2010, 10:12 PM
What if the player wanted to leave?

Drop him. With two years left on his contract he'd be knocking on the manager's door soon enough.

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 10:18 PM
Drop him. With two years left on his contract he'd be knocking on the manager's door soon enough.

Indeed this is a point that can be positioned to suit any argument, he would be unhappy and cause trouble so we had no choice or he would be unhappy and soon realise he had to get on with it for his own benefit, the latter suits my case on not selling him, it cannot be proved it would not be case so there is no argument or any way that can be changed from my POV. I am sure people who think the first cannot have their view changed as I cannot prove he wouldnt throw a strop so we would have to sell.

Geo_1875
02-09-2010, 10:21 PM
Drop him. With two years left on his contract he'd be knocking on the manager's door soon enough.

And in the meantime we pay out however much every week for no return. Sounds like we should take leaf out of Vlad's book

Vini1875
02-09-2010, 10:23 PM
Not sure the board could do a great deal about this. When it came to Fletcher and celtc we were able to tell them to f off. This would indicate to me that Stokes did have some sort of release clause and so it was out of our hands. Some could say it was foolish to insert such clauses, but possibly it was only way to get him to sign in the first place. For Stokes himself this was the second time celtc had come calling he must have been thinking there would not be a third time.

Hibs haven't disclosed the amount of the transfer, which I don't think is anything new and they never make any big deal out of players who have left the club. Why should they, these guys have gone and are of no further interest to the supporters, except to use it as a weapon against the board or manager.

FWIW I am not happy to see any of our players sold to rivals, but since Stokes in particular had failed in England, meaning he would only be bought by the OF and because he is Irish celtc were the only likely suitor of those two.

At this point it is purely guess work as to the price and any sell on clauses etc

Hibs On Tour
02-09-2010, 10:24 PM
What if the player wanted to leave?

What? Let the tail wag the dog? Na, that's just verging on the ridiculous now IMHO.

If a player doesn't have a release clause but wants to leave they can - as soon as the buying club meets OUR valuation. If they don't he knuckles under and plays on. That's how its always worked - why should it be any different with us?

If there was a release clause fair enough I have no complaints bar that I think Hibs should be telling us that was the case. If there was no such clause then IMHO unless we were being offered silly money then he should still have been here...

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 10:26 PM
What? Let the tail wag the dog? Na, that's just verging on the ridiculous now IMHO.

If a player doesn't have a release clause but wants to leave they can - as soon as the buying club meets OUR valuation. If they don't he knuckles under and plays on. That's how its always worked - why should it be any different with us?

If there was a release clause fair enough I have no complaints bar that I think Hibs should be telling us that was the case. If there was no such clause then IMHO unless we were being offered silly money then he should still have been here...

:top marks
Spot on

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 10:32 PM
Not sure the board could do a great deal about this. When it came to Fletcher and celtc we were able to tell them to f off. This would indicate to me that Stokes did have some sort of release clause and so it was out of our hands. Some could say it was foolish to insert such clauses, but possibly it was only way to get him to sign in the first place. For Stokes himself this was the second time celtc had come calling he must have been thinking there would not be a third time.

Hibs haven't disclosed the amount of the transfer, which I don't think is anything new and they never make any big deal out of players who have left the club. Why should they, these guys have gone and are of no further interest to the supporters, except to use it as a weapon against the board or manager.

FWIW I am not happy to see any of our players sold to rivals, but since Stokes in particular had failed in England, meaning he would only be bought by the OF and because he is Irish celtc were the only likely suitor of those two.

At this point it is purely guess work as to the price and any sell on clauses etc


Why is part in bold relevant, so what if a striker moves from one English club to another and fails, is no other English club going to buy him? If Stokes did roughly the same this season I think clubs would be interested from south of border. He would be bought by a new club mostly on the merits of his time here.

oldbutdim
02-09-2010, 10:43 PM
Aye in principle that sounds good.

How about you use the analogy of a car though..

You win a brand now sports car, let's say a Porsche

It's a total chick magnet, in the next 12 months you get girls way out of your league almost weekly

Then you sell it for £500.

Aye you've still come out of the situation well up, but its still not enough.

Granted that's a pretty **** analogy but you get my point I'm sure.

That's a perfectly decent analogy.
I was discussing this very point with Mrs Oldbutdim, but she felt unable to give a definite opinion without knowing what colour the Porsche was.
:cool2:

PedroEdin84
02-09-2010, 11:08 PM
So if our new players allow us to play riordan up front and get a good left back, and then duffy weighs in with goals with riordan and nish to the same level as last season are the board still 'underperforming and underpaid'???? :bitchy:

Hibs have always been about selling! In the next 2-3 years i think we might start to invest due to the fact if we keep getting transfer money in what we going to do with it after we have paid for the east? :greengrin

Waited a long time already and got the feeling in a few years could be a very good time to be a hibbee!:agree:

Captain Trips
02-09-2010, 11:47 PM
So if our new players allow us to play riordan up front and get a good left back, and then duffy weighs in with goals with riordan and nish to the same level as last season are the board still 'underperforming and underpaid'???? :bitchy:

Hibs have always been about selling! In the next 2-3 years i think we might start to invest due to the fact if we keep getting transfer money in what we going to do with it after we have paid for the east? :greengrin

Waited a long time already and got the feeling in a few years could be a very good time to be a hibbee!:agree:

I remember on selling Brown and Thomson over 3 years ago about how in about 3 years we will be investing in team and what great things will happen, still selling to the OF.

sevenil
03-09-2010, 12:50 AM
That's a perfectly decent analogy.
I was discussing this very point with Mrs Oldbutdim, but she felt unable to give a definite opinion without knowing what colour the Porsche was.
:cool2:

I like it - we could do with more pearls of wisdom from your good lady........

Lucius Apuleius
03-09-2010, 04:58 AM
Virtually every thread in this post is littered with "ifs". Bottom line is, like it or not, the Board is answerable to Farmer and the shareholders.Only.

Here is another analogy. Marks and Spencers decided to get rid of their BBQ Beef and Onion chipsticks a few years ago. Did they publish it in the national newspapers? No. A unilateral decision by the board. Did my whinging about it help? Absolutely not. Did I stop going to Markies for other messages? Nope, but it peed me off. I just had to find a substitute or become leaner and thinner.

We have the best run club in Scotland. Investment in the team WILL come. Of that I am sure, but as I said petrie or anybody else on the board is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to disclose his business plan to the plebs.

Kaiser1962
03-09-2010, 06:00 AM
I was inconsolable when we sold Colin Stein to Rangers.

You get over it.

IWasThere2016
03-09-2010, 06:03 AM
Did M+S sell to a rival?

Are M+S customers as emotionally attached as Hibs fans?

Not a dig GT but any analogy with another 'business' doesn't work because of the lack of an emotional tie - like there is with the Hibs.

I have no difficulty with the Stokes sale - we'll always sell players especially as we are losing money - but there needs to be, IMHO

a) More invested in the team

b) More invested in building the fan base

It appears to me the Board had decided to sell a player - any player - this summer to assist with the financing of the East. Stokes IMHO will have wanted to go and there was tangible interest in him - unlike the other players who may raise a decent fee eg Bamba and Riordan.

There should also have been in the past a longer term view taken of the financing of the tangible assets eg EM and the East Stand (lovely as it is there was no compelling business need or case for this). Taking the short-term view has meant the player sales are not available for re-investment on the team - and understandably this annoys/frustrates/disenchants some fans.

The constant short-term asset building does not require financing at the pace it has been eg the East could have been financed at 2-3% just now or fixed at 3-4% - leaving more room for spending on the team and building the fan base.

Any well-run business should be looking after its future and its customers in the short, medium and long-term.

As fans that should mean for us a better balance between the team and the Balance Sheet than there has been in recent years IMHO.

Kaiser1962
03-09-2010, 06:19 AM
You make good points TQM but i would only add that football is a business like no other. Very seldom does a football club actually trade profitably and I think that the board, having money to spend, were opportunistic and spent it on the infrastructure of the club and these improvements were much needed.
On the other hand had we spent £10m on two, maybe three, class players on three year contracts (OF wages or close to)the money would now be gone and I suspect, we would have little to show for it. At best a cup. Now, like you, I would like to see the boards undoubted talents concentrated on developing the team and support.

Glory Glory


Did M+S sell to a rival?

Are M+S customers as emotionally attached as Hibs fans?

Not a dig GT but any analogy with another 'business' doesn't work because of the lack of an emotional tie - like there is with the Hibs.

I have no difficulty with the Stokes sale - we'll always sell players especially as we are losing money - but there needs to be, IMHO

a) More invested in the team

b) More invested in building the fan base

It appears to me the Board had decided to sell a player - any player - this summer to assist with the financing of the East. Stokes IMHO will have wanted to go and there was tangible interest in him - unlike the other players who may raise a decent fee eg Bamba and Riordan.

There should also have been in the past a longer term view taken of the financing of the tangible assets eg EM and the East Stand (lovely as it is there was no compelling business need or case for this). Taking the short-term view has meant the player sales are not available for re-investment on the team - and understandably this annoys/frustrates/disenchants some fans.

The constant short-term asset building does not require financing at the pace it has been eg the East could have been financed at 2-3% just now or fixed at 3-4% - leaving more room for spending on the team and building the fan base.

Any well-run business should be looking after its future and its customers in the short, medium and long-term.

As fans that should mean for us a better balance between the team and the Balance Sheet than there has been in recent years IMHO.

Part/Time Supporter
03-09-2010, 06:22 AM
Did M+S sell to a rival?

Are M+S customers as emotionally attached as Hibs fans?

Not a dig GT but any analogy with another 'business' doesn't work because of the lack of an emotional tie - like there is with the Hibs.

I have no difficulty with the Stokes sale - we'll always sell players especially as we are losing money - but there needs to be, IMHO

a) More invested in the team

b) More invested in building the fan base

It appears to me the Board had decided to sell a player - any player - this summer to assist with the financing of the East. Stokes IMHO will have wanted to go and there was tangible interest in him - unlike the other players who may raise a decent fee eg Bamba and Riordan.

There should also have been in the past a longer term view taken of the financing of the tangible assets eg EM and the East Stand (lovely as it is there was no compelling business need or case for this). Taking the short-term view has meant the player sales are not available for re-investment on the team - and understandably this annoys/frustrates/disenchants some fans.

The constant short-term asset building does not require financing at the pace it has been eg the East could have been financed at 2-3% just now or fixed at 3-4% - leaving more room for spending on the team and building the fan base.

Any well-run business should be looking after its future and its customers in the short, medium and long-term.

As fans that should mean for us a better balance between the team and the Balance Sheet than there has been in recent years IMHO.

From where? Hibs are losing money year on year.

Prawn Sandwich
03-09-2010, 06:27 AM
Reasons for selling Stokes?

1. Clause in his contract.
2. Hibs projected an income of £1 million in September (perhaps expecting to sell
Bamba and they didn't receive any offers).
3. Celtic were the only side likely to pay that higher transfer fee for Stokes, so
cash in now.
4. All of the above.

Get over it.

Woody1985
03-09-2010, 06:29 AM
Aye in principle that sounds good.

How about you use the analogy of a car though..

You win a brand now sports car, let's say a Porsche

It's a total chick magnet, in the next 12 months you get girls way out of your league almost weekly

Then you sell it for £500.

Aye you've still come out of the situation well up, but its still not enough.

Granted that's a pretty **** analogy but you get my point I'm sure.

And what happens when the owner doesn't take care of the Porsche and it becomes run down and beset with problems and it's worth £50 instead of £500 and it can barely get you to the end of your street?

Ray_
03-09-2010, 06:37 AM
Virtually every thread in this post is littered with "ifs". Bottom line is, like it or not, the Board is answerable to Farmer and the shareholders.Only.

Here is another analogy. Marks and Spencers decided to get rid of their BBQ Beef and Onion chipsticks a few years ago. Did they publish it in the national newspapers? No. A unilateral decision by the board. Did my whinging about it help? Absolutely not. Did I stop going to Markies for other messages? Nope, but it peed me off. I just had to find a substitute or become leaner and thinner.

We have the best run club in Scotland. Investment in the team WILL come. Of that I am sure, but as I said petrie or anybody else on the board is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to disclose his business plan to the plebs.

This is not M&S and an easy way for a football team to to lose support is to have a hollier than thou attitude with the fans. Hibs found out this the hard way, they failed miserably to cash in on McLeish’s excellent team [highlighted further by the records brought in under TM, after SUABC].

The fact they needed consultants, in the first place, to engage with the support, tells its own story, lets hope lessons have been learnt for the long term, although going by this case, I wouldn’t bet on it.

greenlex
03-09-2010, 06:39 AM
TQM. There us no way in a he'll ANY business is getting finance below 4% st the moment. Nothing like it. The financial institutions won't even loan to a businesses at the moment without huge personal guarantees. This is even to businesses they have had relationships with for over 20 years. If you get finance the rates are extortionate and most businesses are not bothering. If you know different let me know so I can pass info on to most of my business friends that are seriously pissed off.

IWasThere2016
03-09-2010, 06:44 AM
Lex - not so. I'm working on something right now and the debt is sub 3%

RyeSloan
03-09-2010, 07:22 AM
From where? Hibs are losing money year on year.

A point convieniently missed by most....just where all of this extra 'investment' in the team is meant to come from I'm not sure.

As for the OP...I'm happy to suggest that RP knows what he is doing and that Stokes to Celtic for £1m was either best case scenario or essential fund raising. It is clear to any who look at the club finances that we have needed to sell in order to break even for the last 4 years or so, it might just be that the Stokes was the required sale this time around.

With that in mind the only probable way of breaking that cycle was to put in place a structure that could provide significant increase in long term revenue and/or a decrease in costs. I'm sure Hibs evidenced significant cuts in underlying costs last year and the new east along with the general upgrade to the pitch/stadium environs have now given the club the upside required on the revenue front.

Sure sure we need a team to bring in the punters but again Hibs have been the few teams in the last 5 years in the SPL that have signifcantly invested in their squad by way of paying transfer fees and have the ability to pay higher wages than most....sadly I think it's been largely wasted by succesive managers. All the more reason I would say thank god we spent the windfall transfer monies on upgrading our stadium rather than on expensive duds.

Still I think in general terms we are now in quite a good spot and although losing Stokes is a blow I hardly see it as a terminal one and Im convinced that with a good manager we would comfortably be top 4 with our current set up/player budget....sadly I am far from convinced Hughes is that man.

Barney McGrew
03-09-2010, 07:47 AM
As fans that should mean for us a better balance between the team and the Balance Sheet than there has been in recent years IMHO.

Which given that the stadium is completed and the training round likewise will mean that that's exactly what will happen, as long as the cash in coming in to allow us to do just that. The problem is, we can't invest in the team on the park if we're losing money year on year as Simar very eloquently puts it above, and barring the one CIS winning season, we've lost money if you exclude transfer fees received every single year in the recent past.

Caversham Green
03-09-2010, 08:19 AM
Which given that the stadium is completed and the training round likewise will mean that that's exactly what will happen, as long as the cash in coming in to allow us to do just that. The problem is, we can't invest in the team on the park if we're losing money year on year as Simar very eloquently puts it above, and barring the one CIS winning season, we've lost money if you exclude transfer fees received every single year in the recent past.

We've recouped those losses from transfer fees so it could be argued that those fees have been invested in the team albeit indirectly. The alternative would have been to cut the wages budgets at the start of each season.

On the OP, it's worth noting that the board have a stated policy of not commenting on transfer fees. They are unlikely to break that policy here, so we shouldn't expect an official statement on the subject. I generally agree with that policy, but in this case I hope they will make some of the circumstances known - either through Yogi in interviews or in answer to the inevitable questions at the AGM. Something like "We had no choice in the matter" if it was a clause in the contract, or "The manager felt it was right for the balance of the squad" if it was attitude problems, would suffice.

One last thought, if it was found that Stokes' attitude and influence in the dressing room was in some way responsible for the slump in form since the middle of February, would we still think this was a bad deal?

bawheid
03-09-2010, 08:29 AM
It appears to me the Board had decided to sell a player - any player - this summer to assist with the financing of the East.


We established on the thread on the PM forum that this was you, at best, guessing. We sold the player because he wanted to go and a valuation was met.



There should also have been in the past a longer term view taken of the financing of the tangible assets eg EM and the East Stand (lovely as it is there was no compelling business need or case for this). Taking the short-term view has meant the player sales are not available for re-investment on the team - and understandably this annoys/frustrates/disenchants some fans.

The constant short-term asset building does not require financing at the pace it has been eg the East could have been financed at 2-3% just now or fixed at 3-4% - leaving more room for spending on the team and building the fan base.

Any well-run business should be looking after its future and its customers in the short, medium and long-term.

As fans that should mean for us a better balance between the team and the Balance Sheet than there has been in recent years IMHO.

You cannot invest transfer fees into the playing squad. We've gone over this so many times.

How would it work? Do you increase your wage bill using the £1m? Then what happens when the £1m runs out? That's not how sustainable growth works.

Do you buy a player for a £1m transfer fee? What kind of wages will a £1m player want?

IMO wages and any transfer fees should be paid out of the club's bread and butter - ST money, merchendise sales, etc. Standard revenue stuff.

Any transfer windfall should be used to reduce debt, cover losses or pay for something lasting and tangible. Capital.

Exiled Hibby
03-09-2010, 08:33 AM
Not sure that I see much benefit in the board issuing statements re the transfer. I am not in the know here, but if there was a "release" clause in his contract then I dont think it helps to be advertising this. It might explain things to the fans, but when the tache negotiates with our next uncovered superstar's agent, that agent will know we are prepared to accept such clauses - next thing you know our superstar, the next Sauzee perhaps, is off for a measly £1m plus a handful of jube-jubes.

We all want to keep our stars but thats life I'm afraid.

jdships
03-09-2010, 08:41 AM
Not sure that I see much benefit in the board issuing statements re the transfer. I am not in the know here, but if there was a "release" clause in his contract then I dont think it helps to be advertising this. It might explain things to the fans, but when the tache negotiates with our next uncovered superstar's agent, that agent will know we are prepared to accept such clauses - next thing you know our superstar, the next Sauzee perhaps, is off for a measly £1m plus a handful of jube-jubes.

We all want to keep our stars but thats life I'm afraid.

:top marks
What a pleasure it is to read a common sense post :thumbsup:

Hibs90
03-09-2010, 08:58 AM
So if our new players allow us to play riordan up front and get a good left back, and then duffy weighs in with goals with riordan and nish to the same level as last season are the board still 'underperforming and underpaid'???? :bitchy:

Hibs have always been about selling! In the next 2-3 years i think we might start to invest due to the fact if we keep getting transfer money in what we going to do with it after we have paid for the east? :greengrin

Waited a long time already and got the feeling in a few years could be a very good time to be a hibbee!:agree:

The potential for us to step up to the next level is there, whether we have the ambition, the drive, the team and the fans to by then is another thing.

smurf
03-09-2010, 09:03 AM
And why exactly are we losing money every year aside from player sales? Is it not to do with alarmingly falling numbers attending games? And has that nothing to do with selling players and not communicating the reasons to the support? Is that nothing to do with us not sensibly reinvesting back in the squad? There is absolutely no bums on seats strategy from boardroom level. And that relates to my OP. Us hardcore will take it on the chin but the 3000 we've lost since 2007 won't.

basehibby
03-09-2010, 09:11 AM
...us mere supporters? Us that we're told actually are the club?

Indeed was it even put on the website that we sold him?

I suspect there were good reasons for him being sold. However, i must admit i felt a tad embarassed speaking to a non SPL football fan today who ridiculed us for selling Stokes for the pittance we did. Particularly as he said the fortune Celtc took in for Fortune.

Thoughts?

I agree with you that we, the fans, deserve an explanation of what happened with Stokes and why he was released for the relatively low sum he was released for. It seems entirely likely that he had a release clause in his contract but I'd like to see an official statement.

That said, I wouldn't necessarilly expect a statement to be made quite yet - the transfer window has just closed and I expect that Petrie et al were working very hard indeed right up to the deadline and beyond to get i's dotted and t's crossed. Additionally, there's still the possibility of landing a free agent or two and I would expect these matters to be the priority at the moment rather than making statements to the press.

I would hope to see something come out next week though, once the dust has well and trully settled.

smurf
03-09-2010, 09:20 AM
Don't think it was asking for much for a "..naturally the club were reluctant to lose the player for his footballing contributions but contractual reasons meant we were duty bound as a board to get the best deal for the club and following intensive prolonged negotiations we feel confident that we did..." I don't know... just something so we can say and feel that we are an inclusive club. Our PR has been shocking for many years and IMHO a bit of emotional intelligence from our board would go a long way...

bawheid
03-09-2010, 09:29 AM
And why exactly are we losing money every year aside from player sales? Is it not to do with alarmingly falling numbers attending games? And has that nothing to do with selling players and not communicating the reasons to the support? Is that nothing to do with us not sensibly reinvesting back in the squad? There is absolutely no bums on seats strategy from boardroom level. And that relates to my OP. Us hardcore will take it on the chin but the 3000 we've lost since 2007 won't.

3000? :confused:

basehibby
03-09-2010, 09:46 AM
And why exactly are we losing money every year aside from player sales? Is it not to do with alarmingly falling numbers attending games? And has that nothing to do with selling players and not communicating the reasons to the support? Is that nothing to do with us not sensibly reinvesting back in the squad? There is absolutely no bums on seats strategy from boardroom level. And that relates to my OP. Us hardcore will take it on the chin but the 3000 we've lost since 2007 won't.

3000 may be a bit of an exageration but crowds HAVE fallen away a bit over the last few years. There are probably a number of different reasons for that. One of which is that, like you point out, some of the less staunch Hibees will bail out when things aren't going quite so swimmingly or when a big name player is sold.

Also though, you have to take into account the recession - which has hit every club by the way. I can vouch that it's had a direct effect on attendances because I myself have had to forego a season ticket and miss out on matches because quite simply I'm out of work and skint.

I think you're right though that there's not enough being attempted to counteract this - it pains to say it but the Yams have been a LOT more proactive in this sense what with freeby tickets and mega cheap STs for kids.

Barney McGrew
03-09-2010, 09:58 AM
Us hardcore will take it on the chin but the 3000 we've lost since 2007 won't.

We've lost 2,423 off our highest average attendance, and that's a figure that's artificially bumped up because of reduced capacity last season. It would only have been around 1,500 less if we'd had the full ground for the whole of last season.


Average Attendances:

2009-10 - 12,164 (reduced capacity)
2008-09 - 12,684
2007-08 - 14,004
2006-07 - 14,587
2005-06 - 13,818
2004-05 - 12,539
2003-04 - 9,284
2002-03 - 10,157
2001-02 - 11,588

It's interesting to note that we're also getting higher average attendances than when the likes of Sauzee and Zitelli were around, so it doesn't always lead that better players mean bigger crowds :cool2:

smurf
03-09-2010, 10:05 AM
Ok sorry not 3000...2500 then. Which over 18 fixtures is 45,000. Oh let's say 2000 in case you further challenge me... so that's 36,000. At say an average of say twenty quid per visit? 720K a year.

500miles
03-09-2010, 10:10 AM
And why exactly are we losing money every year aside from player sales? Is it not to do with alarmingly falling numbers attending games? And has that nothing to do with selling players and not communicating the reasons to the support? Is that nothing to do with us not sensibly reinvesting back in the squad? There is absolutely no bums on seats strategy from boardroom level. And that relates to my OP. Us hardcore will take it on the chin but the 3000 we've lost since 2007 won't.

When we brought in Anthony Stokes and Liam Miller season ticket sales were still down. Nothing to do with Mixu, Hughes or investment - it's all about recession. Even in the Premiership, numbers are down in a suprising way.

I'm struggling to get a season ticket this year - and I'll struggle all the same to pay walk up prices. Currently on sick pay, and possibly so for the next 7 weeks, it's even harder. I will do it, because I take a much greater interest in Hibs than a lot of people who are supporters. Some people just take the line that, at times like these, getting money together for a season ticket is, while possible, isn't worth it. Not every fan is interested in message boards, or MUST know who the next player in/out the door is. Some fans don't even have thier day, weekend, and even week ruined by a poor result. Now, if they freely have the money, they'll get a season ticket, or turn up at the gate. However, as soon as things look restrictive, the football is the first thing to get the elbow - there's plenty on the TV anyway. I find nothing more frustrating than missing the game, and I've had fellow football fans have a good laugh at me going to stupid legnths to find some sort of coverage of a Hibs game. They would never go to such legnths , just for a football game, but they DID get a season ticket if the funds were freely available, but won't make the financial stretch now.

Until fans start turning up in numbers upward of 18,000 every week, then we'll continue to sell players for a comparative pittance. Rangers and Celtic are at a level where £1m means very little to them - it's pennies to spend, and goes nowhere to solving any financial issues when taken in, therefore they will always be able to sell for more than we do, because £1m is still a considerable amount of money to us. However, they have over 3 times what is even the attendances we aspire to, which is still the main source of income in the SPL.

BroxburnHibee
03-09-2010, 10:10 AM
Cant believe this pish has ran to 3 pages.

He's gone....big ******* deal

The board run the club and imo run it well....

They need to explain nothing

Barney McGrew
03-09-2010, 10:14 AM
Ok sorry not 3000...2500 then. Which over 18 fixtures is 45,000. Oh let's say 2000 in case you further challenge me... so that's 36,000. At say an average of say twenty quid per visit? 720K a year.

It's only that level because we were at a reduced capacity last season.

Ray_
03-09-2010, 10:14 AM
Not sure that I see much benefit in the board issuing statements re the transfer. I am not in the know here, but if there was a "release" clause in his contract then I dont think it helps to be advertising this. It might explain things to the fans, but when the tache negotiates with our next uncovered superstar's agent, that agent will know we are prepared to accept such clauses - next thing you know our superstar, the next Sauzee perhaps, is off for a measly £1m plus a handful of jube-jubes.

We all want to keep our stars but thats life I'm afraid.

Don't you think, by word of mouth, that the agents would already know what clubs are prepared to offer as a way of incentives, to attract players.

Andy74
03-09-2010, 10:16 AM
Cant believe this pish has ran to 3 pages.

He's gone....big ******* deal

The board run the club and imo run it well....

They need to explain nothing

Yep, they shouldn't explain it in public as it will have an impact on future deals.

As for the crowds down argument. Last year showed you can make big signings and the crowds are still going to be uneffected. Recession is having an effect.

Remember when we kept hearing signing Riordan again would add 2,000 to the gate? Rubbish.

I think crowds have been pretty good given the conditions just now.

Ray_
03-09-2010, 10:19 AM
Cant believe this pish has ran to 3 pages.

He's gone....big ******* deal

The board run the club and imo run it well....

They need to explain nothing

If it is ran well, why is the returns through normal business on a year to year decrease?

Sergio sledge
03-09-2010, 10:22 AM
We've lost 2,423 off our highest average attendance, and that's a figure that's artificially bumped up because of reduced capacity last season. It would only have been around 1,500 less if we'd had the full ground for the whole of last season.


Average Attendances:

2009-10 - 12,164 (reduced capacity)
2008-09 - 12,684
2007-08 - 14,004
2006-07 - 14,587
2005-06 - 13,818
2004-05 - 12,539
2003-04 - 9,284
2002-03 - 10,157
2001-02 - 11,588

It's interesting to note that we're also getting higher average attendances than when the likes of Sauzee and Zitelli were around, so it doesn't always lead that better players mean bigger crowds :cool2:

It would be interesting to see our figures against the rest of the SPL for the same period. I get the impression that attendances have fallen in general (although this may not be totally accurate) so it would be interesting to see how our falling attendances compare to others to see whether there are other factors at play here, not just "failure to invest" from our board.

Another factor would be the size of away supports brought to ER, certainly in 2006-2007 as well as the Old Firm bringing large away supports, Hearts, and Aberdeen were fairly successful and could always be relied upon to bring sizeable supports to the ground. All of these teams away supports were noticeably smaller last season.

smurf
03-09-2010, 10:27 AM
BroxburnHibee... fair enough that's your POV. But IMO if its one shared by the board in the respect that we are entitled to know nothing as mere supporters then let's hope they drop their patronizing drivel of 'your home' and 'your club' etc etc because its meaningless and worthless beyond false spin?

Gatecrasher
03-09-2010, 10:30 AM
It would be interesting to see our figures against the rest of the SPL for the same period. I get the impression that attendances have fallen in general (although this may not be totally accurate) so it would be interesting to see how our falling attendances compare to others to see whether there are other factors at play here, not just "failure to invest" from our board.

Another factor would be the size of away supports brought to ER, certainly in 2006-2007 as well as the Old Firm bringing large away supports, Hearts, and Aberdeen were fairly successful and could always be relied upon to bring sizeable supports to the ground. All of these teams away supports were noticeably smaller last season.

Attendances have fallen through the SPL the last season or so with celtic taking the biggest hit with a 20% reduction IIRC, i cant remember what paper i seen it in but hibs looked decent compared to some

Stevie Reid
03-09-2010, 10:32 AM
Can I just add that the Porsche analogy is rubbish btw? We didn't 'win' Antony Stokes, we offered a player a chance to resurrect his faltering career when few other clubs around or above our level were prepared to do so, and invested (what is to Hibs) good money in persuading him to sign for us. We were all amazed when we got him and we all knew ultimately what would happen.

I had hoped it would be next year instead of this but I never thought for one second that we'd end this season with both Stokes and Riordan still here, and I'm delighted that we still have Deek - Stokes leaving may ultimately help us hold onto him for longer too. The only way we would have managed to keep hold of Stokes was if he was a dismal failure and failed to score goals - in which case he would have been an expensive mistake.

He wasn't, and we've benefitted from a 1 in 2 strike rate, a relatively small outlay in wages in return for that strike rate, and substantial profit from transfer of a player who no longer wanted to be here. I struggle to see where we've lost out, frankly.

Barney McGrew
03-09-2010, 10:35 AM
It would be interesting to see our figures against the rest of the SPL for the same period. I get the impression that attendances have fallen in general (although this may not be totally accurate) so it would be interesting to see how our falling attendances compare to others to see whether there are other factors at play here, not just "failure to invest" from our board

2009-10
Rangers 47564 Celtic 45582 Hearts 14484 Hibernian 12164 Aberdeen 10461

2008-09
Celtic 57671 Rangers 49534 Hearts 14398 Aberdeen 12929 Hibernian 12684

2007-08
Celtic 56182 Rangers 48091 Hearts 14253 Hibernian 14004 Aberdeen 11994

2006-07
Celtic 57928 Rangers 49955 Hearts 16937 Hibernian 14587 Aberdeen 12475

2005-06
Celtic 58150 Rangers 49245 Hearts 16767 Hibernian 13818 Aberdeen 12728

2004-05
Celtic 57943 Rangers 48676 Aberdeen 13577 Hibernian 12539 Hearts 12272

2003-04
Celtic 57657 Rangers 48992 Hearts 11947 Aberdeen 10389 Hibernian 9284

2002-03
Celtic 57575 Rangers 48814 Hearts 12058 Aberdeen 11775 Hibernian 10157

2001-02
Celtic 58512 Rangers 47880 Aberdeen 14035 Hearts 12080 Hibernian 11588

iwasthere1972
03-09-2010, 10:47 AM
Can I just add that the Porsche analogy is rubbish btw? We didn't 'win' Antony Stokes, we offered a player a chance to resurrect his faltering career when few other clubs around or above our level were prepared to do so, and invested (what is to Hibs) good money in persuading him to sign for us. We were all amazed when we got him and we all knew ultimately what would happen.

I had hoped it would be next year instead of this but I never thought for one second that we'd end this season with both Stokes and Riordan still here, and I'm delighted that we still have Deek - Stokes leaving may ultimately help us hold onto him for longer too. The only way we would have managed to keep hold of Stokes was if he was a dismal failure and failed to score goals - in which case he would have been an expensive mistake.

He wasn't, and we've benefitted from a 1 in 2 strike rate, a relatively small outlay in wages in return for that strike rate, and substantial profit from transfer of a player who no longer wanted to be here. I struggle to see where we've lost out, frankly.

:agree: I haven't got the energy or the desire to sit and write paragraph after paragraph on this subject but pretty sums it up for me.

Once Celtic showed their interest in Stokes (again) he wanted away and apart from Hibs either "sending him to Coventry" or sticking him on the bench there was nothing they could do. He showed no desire to play for the jersey at St Mirren and it's best he's now gone. Don't know about any clauses in Stokes contract but if anyone can extract the last penny out of Celtic then it has to be Rodders.

He's away now and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he fails miserably at Celtic and is punted to some English 1st division side within a year or so. Looking forward to seeing which Hibs player gets the first hard tackle in on Stokesey at Celtic Park. My money is on Big Sol.

sleeping giant
03-09-2010, 10:49 AM
Looking forward to seeing which Hibs player gets the first hard tackle in on Stokesey at Celtic Park. My money is on Big Sol.



My money is on Deek :greengrin

Caversham Green
03-09-2010, 11:19 AM
If it is ran well, why is the returns through normal business on a year to year decrease?

Because they're in a diminishing market and because their policy is not profit-orientated. Despite that they have increased the asset value of the club and have probably turned round the loss-making trend in the season just past - that seems like good management to me.

However, this and other threads show that customer satisfaction is low and that is something they need to be addressing as a matter of urgency.

Ray_
03-09-2010, 11:32 AM
Because they're in a diminishing market and because their policy is not profit-orientated. Despite that they have increased the asset value of the club and have probably turned round the loss-making trend in the season just past - that seems like good management to me.

However, this and other threads show that customer satisfaction is low and that is something they need to be addressing as a matter of urgency.

I would hazard a guess that the diminishing market has a lot more to do with the the quality of the product on offer in Scottish football, rather than the recession. I for one spent a lot more on my club when the quality was better, it wasn't just my decision, my children are not so keen to go [or have kits etc], when they just get boring rubbish on the park.

It is clearly not just hibs, but the whole of Scottish football, as the standards elsewhere are very poor as well, but Hibs, even although we are so well run and streets ahead of the opposition, due to us being so well run, are just as unatractive and inept as everybody else.

Caversham Green
03-09-2010, 11:42 AM
I would hazard a guess that the diminishing market has a lot more to do with the the quality of the product on offer in Scottish football, rather than the recession. I for one spent a lot more on my club when the quality was better, it wasn't just my decision, my children are not so keen to go [or have kits etc], when they just get boring rubbish on the park.

It is clearly not just hibs, but the whole of Scottish football, as the standards elsewhere are very poor as well, but Hibs, even although we are so well run and streets ahead of the opposition, due to us being so well run, are just as unatractive and inept as everybody else.

Yep, that's one aspect of the customer satisfaction bit - communication is another, which is what this thread started out about. However, on the management side they're still going forward (financially) in a recession so they're getting one important bit right.

GreenPJ
03-09-2010, 11:45 AM
Because they're in a diminishing market and because their policy is not profit-orientated. Despite that they have increased the asset value of the club and have probably turned round the loss-making trend in the season just past - that seems like good management to me.

However, this and other threads show that customer satisfaction is low and that is something they need to be addressing as a matter of urgency.

So what is it? I keep on hearing that what has been down over the last number of years is to ensure Hibs are still here in 50 years time. I am all for that and that has meant reducing the debt and monitoring spending but ultimately they must be looking to make profit a) to reduce the debt and b) to provide an element of sustainability going forward.

Whether they are looking to make profit for shareholders is a different issue but lets face it a minimal debt club with good infrastructure and stadium is going to fetch a better price.

I agree totally that the customer satisfaction issue needs to be addressed and quickly. Personally I think without making a major impact and no financial outlay if Yogi started to use some of the youngsters more then fans would be more willing to accept this than watch journeymen go through the motions.

Lucius Apuleius
03-09-2010, 11:49 AM
Did M+S sell to a rival?

Are M+S customers as emotionally attached as Hibs fans?

Not a dig GT but any analogy with another 'business' doesn't work because of the lack of an emotional tie - like there is with the Hibs.

.

Nae worse an analogy than a porsche thats for sure :greengrin

I had to transfer my allegiance to another flavour of chipsticks or stop eating them altogether. I stopped. I guess maybe there is a better analogy right there.

I think they are in many ways emotionally tied. Where else would they buy knickers? Primark? Not for your average M&S shopper! I would also imagine M&S have a helluva lot more people emotionally tied through shares, pensions, unit trusts etc etc than we have.

I do see your point. I carry the emotional baggage that is Hibernian FC with me everywhere. However, much as I would like to be told every little detail of everything that happens at the Holy Ground, the point I was making is that the board have no legal obligation to do so. I know I am in a huge minority here but I see my job as to totter along to ER or wherever we are playing and support my team. I see the Board's position to manage it so as I have ateam to watch. Pretty simplistic I know, but I am busy!!!!

Mikey
03-09-2010, 11:50 AM
their policy is not profit-orientated.


So what is it?


To spend £1 less than the club earns every year.

Caversham Green
03-09-2010, 11:55 AM
So what is it? I keep on hearing that what has been down over the last number of years is to ensure Hibs are still here in 50 years time. I am all for that and that has meant reducing the debt and monitoring spending but ultimately they must be looking to make profit a) to reduce the debt and b) to provide an element of sustainability going forward.

Whether they are looking to make profit for shareholders is a different issue but lets face it a minimal debt club with good infrastructure and stadium is going to fetch a better price.

I agree totally that the customer satisfaction issue needs to be addressed and quickly. Personally I think without making a major impact and no financial outlay if Yogi started to use some of the youngsters more then fans would be more willing to accept this than watch journeymen go through the motions.

Their stated policy is to "spend a pound less than we earn". In theoretical terms that's breakeven, but you're right that in the real world it means making profit to service debt and for capital expenditure (including player purchases). Profit maximisation rather than self-sufficiency is not their policy though.

Part/Time Supporter
03-09-2010, 12:16 PM
I would hazard a guess that the diminishing market has a lot more to do with the the quality of the product on offer in Scottish football, rather than the recession. I for one spent a lot more on my club when the quality was better, it wasn't just my decision, my children are not so keen to go [or have kits etc], when they just get boring rubbish on the park.

It is clearly not just hibs, but the whole of Scottish football, as the standards elsewhere are very poor as well, but Hibs, even although we are so well run and streets ahead of the opposition, due to us being so well run, are just as unatractive and inept as everybody else.

That can't be addressed by money though per se, as it is more to do with the general decline in the standards of Scottish players compared with 25+ years ago. Even the vast majority of the players in the Scotland squad are barely average, and almost all of them are on far more money than Hibs could realistically pay.

Ray_
03-09-2010, 12:34 PM
That can't be addressed by money though per se, as it is more to do with the general decline in the standards of Scottish players compared with 25+ years ago. Even the vast majority of the players in the Scotland squad are barely average, and almost all of them are on far more money than Hibs could realistically pay.

McLeish's team had few Scottish players, where as TM's had a fair few & both those teams performed at a far higher standard than we have seen in recent years at ER.

Rangers & Celtic's decline is very much linked to cash, they have stopped spending the vast amounts on players, therefore they are having a large degree of unrest amongst their support.

Exiled Hibby
03-09-2010, 12:37 PM
Don't you think, by word of mouth, that the agents would already know what clubs are prepared to offer as a way of incentives, to attract players.

very possible, I agree. However, I still cant see any real advantage in the Board telling everyone everything that happens. As I previously stated, I have no definite knowledge as to why Stokes was transferred, if there was a contractual clause etc. I also dont know if he was disruptive, a bad trainer etc as has been alluded to by those "in the know" - all I know for certain is he's gone so why do we need a Board explanation? Arrived cheap, scored goals, sold at a profit - dont see whats wrong with that. Hibs will move on.

Ray_
03-09-2010, 12:47 PM
very possible, I agree. However, I still cant see any real advantage in the Board telling everyone everything that happens. As I previously stated, I have no definite knowledge as to why Stokes was transferred, if there was a contractual clause etc. I also dont know if he was disruptive, a bad trainer etc as has been alluded to by those "in the know" - all I know for certain is he's gone so why do we need a Board explanation? Arrived cheap, scored goals, sold at a profit - dont see whats wrong with that. Hibs will move on.

It is obviously causing a problem with a significant number of the support & therefore, if it is going to "P" people off enough, for it to start affecting income, then I think the board should be more open.

Lets face it, the performances of the team is enough to put some on the brink, additional factors such as the derision caused by the events surrounding Stokes & the subsequent wall of silence, can only exasperate the situation.

Part/Time Supporter
03-09-2010, 12:52 PM
McLeish's team had few Scottish players, where as TM's had a fair few & both those teams performed at a far higher standard than we have seen in recent years at ER.

Rangers & Celtic's decline is very much linked to cash, they have stopped spending the vast amounts on players, therefore they are having a large degree of unrest amongst their support.

Celtic are spending as much (if not more) than they were 10 years ago. The difference is that English clubs are spending far more, so instead of competing with (say) Everton, Celtic are now competing with (say) Wolves. Similar principle applies to Hibs, 10 years ago Hibs were competing with reasonably big Championship clubs, now it is League One (if that). Increasing the budget by (say) 20% won't make that much of a difference in quality and would lead to big losses, as Hearts have ably demonstrated.

Ray_
03-09-2010, 12:56 PM
Celtic are spending as much (if not more) than they were 10 years ago. The difference is that English clubs are spending far more, so instead of competing with (say) Everton, Celtic are now competing with (say) Wolves. Similar principle applies to Hibs, 10 years ago Hibs were competing with reasonably big Championship clubs, now it is League One (if that). Increasing the budget by (say) 20% won't make that much of a difference in quality and would lead to big losses, as Hearts have ably demonstrated.

Celtic were buying 5M players 10 years ago, they are not doing that now.

Spike Mandela
03-09-2010, 01:08 PM
Sounds like Yogi has went out of his way to get Stokes his move to Celtic due to their great relationship.........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8964836.stm

Woody1985
03-09-2010, 01:22 PM
If you add the money we got from Sproule to the cash we got for Brown, Whittaker & Thomson, it almost amounts to the money "Mad" Vlad pulled in for Gordon.

Craig Gordon has/had the potential to be a world class goalkeeper. None of them do. If RP was in charge he'd probably have got more for Gordon :greengrin although take your hat off to VR for that one. He got a massive amount of money for Gordon.

Betty Boop
03-09-2010, 01:24 PM
Sounds like Yogi has went out of his way to get Stokes his move to Celtic due to their great relationship.........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8964836.stm

" He's a lovely kid ", not what some on here were saying.

Beefster
03-09-2010, 02:41 PM
IMO wages and any transfer fees should be paid out of the club's bread and butter - ST money, merchendise sales, etc. Standard revenue stuff.

Any transfer windfall should be used to reduce debt, cover losses or pay for something lasting and tangible. Capital.

It's practically impossible to pay modern transfer fees with a turnover the size of ours, if you disregard the fees brought in. If we sell players for a certain fee, some of that fee should be used to bring in adequate replacements. No-one is saying that Hibs should be spending £1m on a player and the wages of a £100k-£500k player can easily be paid by Hibs. In all cases, it should be possible to cover the wages of new players with the wages released as a result of selling a player.

What happens if/when we run out of capital projects to spend our transfer fees on? Buy a chain of wine bars?

Barney McGrew
03-09-2010, 02:59 PM
Celtic were buying 5M players 10 years ago, they are not doing that now.

SPL clubs could justify paying that back then because the money from Sky was far far higher. The subsequent collapse of the Sky deal caused the money problems that we see now. Clubs were left with high earners on their books on contracts that had been agreed during the good times, and no income from TV to pay them. Hence debt built up to massive levels and they're all having to cut their cloth accordingly. Thankfully, we cut ours sooner which is why we're in the position we are now.

In the same period, money from TV down south has rocketed, so where the likes of Rantic were completing to get players with Spurs and Everton then, they're competing with Burnley and Cardiff now.

(The EPL doesn't really count, because it's so overinflated it's not real. £17 odd million for James Milner FFS!)

bawheid
03-09-2010, 03:06 PM
It's practically impossible to pay modern transfer fees with a turnover the size of ours, if you disregard the fees brought in. If we sell players for a certain fee, some of that fee should be used to bring in adequate replacements. No-one is saying that Hibs should be spending £1m on a player and the wages of a £100k-£500k player can easily be paid by Hibs. In all cases, it should be possible to cover the wages of new players with the wages released as a result of selling a player.

What happens if/when we run out of capital projects to spend our transfer fees on? Buy a chain of wine bars?

Agree with your first paragraph.

If we continue to get transfer fees once the debt is zero and everything is built then we could use them to pay out of contract players signing-on fees to either keep them at the club on their current wage, or entice them to the club on wages that would normally be too low for them.

Phil D. Rolls
03-09-2010, 04:53 PM
Filled Rolls. What relevance is your question to the thread? Where did I suggest anything to raise the question. Or is it an attempt at diversion to the OP? I think I raise legitimate questions. It's not an anti board OP. Why get defensive? It appears for many our board are above any questioning.

They aren't beyond question. I am saying that they have shown good business acumen up until now, so why should that disappear over night.

IMO, it's either a case that keeping Stokes would have been a disaster as he would burn out, and they'd get nothing; or, he has a clause in his contract that says should Celtic offer the right money he can go.

If you ask a question, don't get humpty if someone gives you a different answer from the one you wanted to hear.

blackpoolhibs
03-09-2010, 05:00 PM
Agree with your first paragraph.

If we continue to get transfer fees once the debt is zero and everything is built then we could use them to pay out of contract players signing-on fees to either keep them at the club on their current wage, or entice them to the club on wages that would normally be too low for them.

:agree: Its getting closer, we are not there yet but nearly. If we started paying way over the odds again, we'd be back to square 1. A little more patience and we will see the benefits on the park.

Phil D. Rolls
03-09-2010, 05:28 PM
:agree: Its getting closer, we are not there yet but nearly. If we started paying way over the odds again, we'd be back to square 1. A little more patience and we will see the benefits on the park.

You have to hope so. For me, I'd be a lot more concerned if the money hadn't gone on infrastructure. That suggests that they are concerned about the "football club", if they didn't care, why invest in these things?

blackpoolhibs
03-09-2010, 06:04 PM
You have to hope so. For me, I'd be a lot more concerned if the money hadn't gone on infrastructure. That suggests that they are concerned about the "football club", if they didn't care, why invest in these things?

I'd have thought the infrastructure was put in place to give us the best platform to give us success. As others have said if we'd have spent all our money on buying players or giving them huge wages, we'd still be playing at a decrepit easter road, and it would need bulldozing by now. We have the new training ground, that should bear fruits now, we have the stadium finished, there is nothing more to spend our income on.

The debt is manageable, we are in a great position to improve on the pitch, over to you Yogi. :pray:

Vini1875
03-09-2010, 06:12 PM
Why is part in bold relevant, so what if a striker moves from one English club to another and fails, is no other English club going to buy him? If Stokes did roughly the same this season I think clubs would be interested from south of border. He would be bought by a new club mostly on the merits of his time here.

It's relevant because despite being the second top scorer in the SPL last season there was zero interest from England. Not one single English club as far as I am aware made any tentative offer for Stokes. Not one.

Captain Trips
03-09-2010, 06:32 PM
It's relevant because despite being the second top scorer in the SPL last season there was zero interest from England. Not one single English club as far as I am aware made any tentative offer for Stokes. Not one.

I stated that if had another good year at Hibs there would be, I do not see why he was not great in England thats his lot down there.

Phil D. Rolls
03-09-2010, 06:51 PM
I stated that if had another good year at Hibs there would be, I do not see why he was not great in England thats his lot down there.

Maybe people at the club know this is unlikely?

Captain Trips
03-09-2010, 06:55 PM
Maybe people at the club know this is unlikely?

Maybe they dont.

IWasThere2016
03-09-2010, 09:04 PM
From where? Hibs are losing money year on year.

Which is why we will always sell players - and we return profits after the player sales. I have repeatedly said I have no issue with this. But don't buy the 'we don't have to sell' line - we have done, have just done and will continue to do so.


Which given that the stadium is completed and the training round likewise will mean that that's exactly what will happen, as long as the cash in coming in to allow us to do just that. The problem is, we can't invest in the team on the park if we're losing money year on year as Simar very eloquently puts it above, and barring the one CIS winning season, we've lost money if you exclude transfer fees received every single year in the recent past.

Or it could be viewed another way eg we postponed the sale of our better players (Broon, Whitty etc) and it was right on the park = profits :wink:


We established on the thread on the PM forum that this was you, at best, guessing. We sold the player because he wanted to go and a valuation was met.

IYHO :wink:



You cannot invest transfer fees into the playing squad. We've gone over this so many times.

How would it work? Do you increase your wage bill using the £1m? Then what happens when the £1m runs out? That's not how sustainable growth works.

Do you buy a player for a £1m transfer fee? What kind of wages will a £1m player want?

IMO wages and any transfer fees should be paid out of the club's bread and butter - ST money, merchendise sales, etc. Standard revenue stuff.

Any transfer windfall should be used to reduce debt, cover losses or pay for something lasting and tangible. Capital.

So it would have been beyond Hibs to spend £200k on a player and £50k on a signing on fee, and a £3k wage for 3 years? Cash out £700K, Cash in £1m. £300k to debt, capital .. IIRC the £250k wouldn't go through the P&L either .. It is acheivable - if desired :cool2: IMHO.

BroxburnHibee
03-09-2010, 09:07 PM
Smurf........grow up.

Where did i say they didn't need to tell us anything.

There's plenty news comes out of ER at times....they very rarely broadcast transfer details

As for the our home stuff.....would you rather they said.....Easter Road - like it or lump it?

IWasThere2016
03-09-2010, 09:12 PM
Yep, they shouldn't explain it in public as it will have an impact on future deals.

As for the crowds down argument. Last year showed you can make big signings and the crowds are still going to be uneffected. Recession is having an effect.

Remember when we kept hearing signing Riordan again would add 2,000 to the gate? Rubbish.
I think crowds have been pretty good given the conditions just now.

Poor football is having an effect .. and I'd guess that Deeks - and players of the same class - will add more to the crowd than the new East and East Mains


It's practically impossible to pay modern transfer fees with a turnover the size of ours, if you disregard the fees brought in. If we sell players for a certain fee, some of that fee should be used to bring in adequate replacements. No-one is saying that Hibs should be spending £1m on a player and the wages of a £100k-£500k player can easily be paid by Hibs. In all cases, it should be possible to cover the wages of new players with the wages released as a result of selling a player.

What happens if/when we run out of capital projects to spend our transfer fees on? Buy a chain of wine bars?

:agree: I didn't see this before I replied in the post above.

JohnScott
04-09-2010, 01:07 AM
When we brought in Anthony Stokes and Liam Miller season ticket sales were still down. Nothing to do with Mixu, Hughes or investment - it's all about recession. Even in the Premiership, numbers are down in a suprising way.

Suprising how? Nearly all the Premiership teams have empty seats nowadays as can clearly be seen on tv. Down here the biggest complaint is cost. Who but the most die-hard fan would pay £30+ for a match live on tv? The game has totally lost the plot.

A good example is Leeds Utd. They just played Millwall at home and were asking £33.00 for a limited view seat behind the goals. This despite the fact the top deck of their huge stand is not in use. Even if Hibs improve greatly I just cant see them filling Easter Road at any cat B match, not at todays prices. So I agree totally with your point on the recession. As for Stokes? There is another possibilty......Hibs might have punted him to Celtic, hence the relatively low fee. :wink:

Part/Time Supporter
04-09-2010, 06:15 AM
So it would have been beyond Hibs to spend £200k on a player and £50k on a signing on fee, and a £3k wage for 3 years? Cash out £700K, Cash in £1m. £300k to debt, capital .. IIRC the £250k wouldn't go through the P&L either .. It is acheivable - if desired :cool2: IMHO.

That's what the Marrs tried to do at Dundee. How did that one turn out again?

BTW, I see that Kevin McDonald - who you persistently advocated Hibs buying from Dundee - is way out of the box at Burnley now. He hasn't played in a league game this season and has been dropped by Scotland u21s.

Beefster
04-09-2010, 06:40 AM
That's what the Marrs tried to do at Dundee. How did that one turn out again?

BTW, I see that Kevin McDonald - who you persistently advocated Hibs buying from Dundee - is way out of the box at Burnley now. He hasn't played in a league game this season and has been dropped by Scotland u21s.

I'd have thought the Marrs spent more than they got in, surely?

Brizo
04-09-2010, 06:43 AM
Perhaps the problems Stokesy told us he'd grown out of and left behind at Sunderland were still to the fore at ER and causing a lot of friction and disharmony in the dressing room ?

Perhaps Rod and Yogi weighed up the pros of natural goalscorer vs the cons of off field baggage. Stokesy hadnt cut it down south and realistically there was only ever one side of the uglies ever gonna come in for him. Maybe when they came a calling it was decided that 800k and a disruptive influence moved on from the club was a good compromise outcome.

FWIW in this instance I think that Rod and Yogi probably got it right. My main concerns what happens to the 800k and if any of it goes to Yogi in the next transfer window what he does with it.

Part/Time Supporter
04-09-2010, 06:50 AM
I'd have thought the Marrs spent more than they got in, surely?

Of course they eventually lost a ton of money and went into administration, but they weren't trying to do that (which would be illegal). They publicly said that they were bringing in (foreign) players to sell them on at a profit, "like Real Mallorca". This would then generate funds to pay for that season's acquisitions. It worked to an extent for the first year or so because they sold Rab Douglas (who was at the club anyway!), but the losses mounted from 2001 onwards.

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/sunday-mail-glasgow-scotland/mi_7994/is_2000_Oct_22/football-marr-tay-merger/ai_n36202253/


But Marr makes no attempt to hide how he intends to pay for the transformation.

He said: "Selling Robert Douglas to Celtic for pounds 1m got the club the money to meet the wage bill for this season. Lee Wilkie is wanted by Leeds, Spurs and Middlesbrough, while Celtic and Rangers have had a look at him as well. He will leave Dens when the time is right because Ivano has the worldwide contacts to bring us in new players of equal ability for less money.

I live part of the year in Spain and I've watched Real Mallorca build up their club the same way. When I met Ivano for the first time and told him this was the way I wanted to exploit his contacts' book he was in complete agreement. Now we can grow bigger and bring back more fans. Not necessarily to Dens Park, but definitely to watch Dundee and not a merged team from Tayside.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/Dundee-pay-dearly-for-mistakes.2481795.jp


Yesterday was the reaping of a bleak harvest sown nearly four years ago, when manager Jocky Scott was shown the door and replaced by Ivano Bonetti. A crazily ambitious "Italian project" was pursued which had at its heart a concept borrowed from the Spanish club Real Mallorca: give talented foreign players a stage and then profit as they were sold on.

The Bosman ruling made this a high-risk policy to adopt, and with the collapse of the television market and the subsequent failure of those players brought in to arouse the interest expected, Dundee’s financial problems accelerated. Asked yesterday to find a reason for the debt now swamping the club, Marr admitted: "Paying players too much money."


http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/When-board-games-go-wrong.2482824.jp


The destructive process began in a state of blissful ignorance, one guesses, since the Marrs had no desire, surely, to run the club of their childhood into the ground. Who knows when the idea first grew inside Marr’s head that Dundee could ape La Liga side Real Mallorca and their equally doomed policy of granting generously paid players a stage on which to make both them and club richer? But when it did, when it presented itself in the cartoon form of a low-wattage light bulb, all we could do was sit back and watch the scheme unravel. No-one, however, could have predicted quite how spectacularly, with the headlines hardly able to be more stark: Three Months to Save Dundee.

http://sport.scotsman.com/dundeefc/Prophet-finds-honour-in-his.2750138.jp


[Jocky] Scott takes no comfort from being proved right, he says. He told Marr that a scheme which aped the one in place at Real Mallorca, whereby foreign acquisitions were given a platform in the hope they'd increase their market value, was doomed.

"Just before Peter brought in [Paco] Luna, [Javier] Artero and [Jose] Mesas he outlined his idea that had been gleaned from abroad," recalls Scott. "I disagreed. I honestly told him that in theory it might sound great, but in practical terms, in Scotland, no chance. I thought we had more chance bringing the likes of Gavin Rae and Lee Wilkie through the system."

Romanov had the exact same model in mind with Hearts and Lithuanian players and has had the same difficulty. The only reason that Hearts haven't gone into administration is that he has been able to prop them up with his other businesses, which the Marrs couldn't do.

Barney McGrew
04-09-2010, 06:52 AM
Poor football is having an effect .. and I'd guess that Deeks - and players of the same class - will add more to the crowd than the new East and East Mains.

If that's the case, then why are we getting bigger crowds now than when we had Sauzee, Latapy et all?

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 07:26 AM
Barney, are you telling me EM and the East (a few weeks auld) have increased our average gates? :greengrin

The counter stat of course is higher average attendances under TM (better fitbaw) than now.

Of course, the one way for Hibs to push on would be if the owners sought additional investment in the club .. What's the chances of that happening???

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 07:48 AM
PTS - you were very quiet about KM when he was scoring at Eastlands, Stamford Bridge and double v. Arsenal etc. He's out of the picture because of Laws, and he's better than anything we have IMHO.

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 07:55 AM
As for the Marrs :faf: It's a change from the usual Leeds, Yams comparisons - I'll give you that! :greengrin

Kaiser1962
04-09-2010, 08:12 AM
That's what the Marrs tried to do at Dundee. How did that one turn out again?

I think a our near neighbours tried it as well except importing players "on loan" from the Eastern Bloc.

At least thats before the revisionist theorists rewrote history in that regard.

Kaiser1962
04-09-2010, 08:13 AM
As for the Marrs :faf: It's a change from the usual Leeds, Yams comparisons - I'll give you that! :greengrin

:hide:

son of haggart
04-09-2010, 08:18 AM
Of course they eventually lost a ton of money and went into administration, but they weren't trying to do that (which would be illegal). They publicly said that they were bringing in (foreign) players to sell them on at a profit, "like Real Mallorca". This would then generate funds to pay for that season's acquisitions. It worked to an extent for the first year or so because they sold Rab Douglas (who was at the club anyway!), but the losses mounted from 2001 onwards.

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/sunday-mail-glasgow-scotland/mi_7994/is_2000_Oct_22/football-marr-tay-merger/ai_n36202253/





http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/Dundee-pay-dearly-for-mistakes.2481795.jp



http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/When-board-games-go-wrong.2482824.jp



http://sport.scotsman.com/dundeefc/Prophet-finds-honour-in-his.2750138.jp



Romanov had the exact same model in mind with Hearts and Lithuanian players and has had the same difficulty. The only reason that Hearts haven't gone into administration is that he has been able to prop them up with his other businesses, which the Marrs couldn't do.

That's a really good analysis. Romanov originally had this approach certainly - you can see from the Skacel and Bednar sales that it has some limited success, and it could be argued the Gordon, Hartley, Berra valuations rose considerably as a result of playing in that team (similar to the O'Connor, Brown, Thomson collective valuations, though a different source/ model). Romanov however, spent vastly too mch on players who werer high risk - Tall, Goncalves, Beslija, Witteveen - and too few of them paid off.

More recently the model has changed twice at Hearts - firstly to a scaled down model where the 'talents' showcased were a mixture of eastern european (Romanov's DOF chums picks) and youth players coming through. Now it seems to have sunk in there is more chance of increasing value by taking young scottish players nearing the end of their contracts from smaller clubs and getting some playing value from them as well as a possible sale later.

However I suspect the market is now nearly gone for anything but the very best players and proven goalscorers.

While clubs have been able to at least ameliorate their losses throug player sales i suspect for the second tier SPL clubs (Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Hearts Hibs) the books are going to be very hard to balance for the next 5 years unless they unearth a special player or two. With falling attendances certain, £1million pound sales will not be enough.

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 08:26 AM
So it would have been beyond Hibs to spend £200k on a player and £50k on a signing on fee, and a £3k wage for 3 years? Cash out £700K, Cash in £1m. £300k to debt, capital .. IIRC the £250k wouldn't go through the P&L either .. It is acheivable - if desired :cool2: IMHO.

£116,667 of your £250,000 would hit the P&L in the player's first season, the remainder would do so in the following two seasons. But what you're describing is already happening. In the last published set of accounts - 2008/09 - £892k was spent on acquiring players (i.e. transfer fees). The club overspent by a total of £1.7m, wages being the largest single expense, and this was subsidised by incoming transfer fees. The remainder of the transfer fees was spent on debt/infrastructure.


Barney, are you telling me EM and the East (a few weeks auld) have increased our average gates? :greengrin

The counter stat of course is higher average attendances under TM (better fitbaw) than now.

Of course, the one way for Hibs to push on would be if the owners sought additional investment in the club .. What's the chances of that happening???

Increased gates on their own is not enough. Smurf's additional 3,000, which is extremely optimistic, would not have covered the losses we've made over the last two years and would realistically have needed the increased capacity of the new East in any case. so the building is a means to an end.

BTW what sort of additional investment do you envisage?

Barney McGrew
04-09-2010, 08:33 AM
Barney, are you telling me EM and the East (a few weeks auld) have increased our average gates? :greengrin

The counter stat of course is higher average attendances under TM (better fitbaw) than now.

Of course, the one way for Hibs to push on would be if the owners sought additional investment in the club .. What's the chances of that happening???

I never said that, I simply said that the answer being put forward from some quarters that better players and/or a winning team will automatically bring in higher crowds is not true. The stats from when we had our best team (Franck, Russell etc.) in the last however many years back that up.

BTW, the average attendance for season 2004-05 when Mowbray took over was lower than the average attendance when MIxu was in charge :greengrin.

Whether STF and Petrie will seek additional investment, I don't know and you don't know - they're the only two people who could answer that question. If you're that interested in finding out, you can find them both in Behind The Goals before each home match. Maybe if you made it along to ER one afternoon, you could ask them? :wink:

Mikey
04-09-2010, 08:37 AM
More recently the model has changed twice at Hearts - firstly to a scaled down model where the 'talents' showcased were a mixture of eastern european (Romanov's DOF chums picks) and youth players coming through. Now it seems to have sunk in there is more chance of increasing value by taking young scottish players nearing the end of their contracts from smaller clubs and getting some playing value from them as well as a possible sale later.



That'll dry up if they keep treating players who are getting towards the end of their contract in the way they do. What must Barr and Kyle make of the Zaliukas situation? If they don't generate a big bucks sale can they expect to spend the lat year of their contract kicking their heals with the kids?

That's surely too much of a risk for a player to take?

Part/Time Supporter
04-09-2010, 08:40 AM
PTS - you were very quiet about KM when he was scoring at Eastlands, Stamford Bridge and double v. Arsenal etc. He's out of the picture because of Laws, and he's better than anything we have IMHO.

Nothing to do with buggering off at half-time to go down the pub (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1264044/Kevin-McDonald-goes-pub-second-half-gets-fined-Burnley.html)?

Mikey
04-09-2010, 08:41 AM
BTW what sort of additional investment do you envisage?

Most people's idea of "investment" is someone coming along and simply pouring money in and not expecting it back.

It's hard enough just now to get the fans to "invest" 25 quid to come and watch a home game.

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 08:46 AM
Most people's idea of "investment" is someone coming along and simply pouring money in and not expecting it back.

It's hard enough just now to get the fans to "invest" 25 quid to come and watch a home game.

:agree: That's why I asked. Who in their right mind would actually invest their money in an SPL club?

Captain Trips
04-09-2010, 08:48 AM
I dont know if we have been conditioned by the board but where has football got to when its seen as alright to sell our top scorer, simply based on goals as no evidence yet I have seen to prove rumours of trouble. Hibs would go on and be fine without this sale.

bawheid
04-09-2010, 08:51 AM
I dont know if we have been conditioned by the board but where has football got to when its seen as alright to sell our top scorer, simply based on goals as no evidence yet I have seen to prove rumours of trouble.

Everton sold their top scorer to Manchester United. The valuation was met and he wanted to go.

Manchester United sold their top scorer to Real Madrid. The valuation was met and he wanted to go.

That's football.

Captain Trips
04-09-2010, 08:58 AM
Everton sold their top scorer to Manchester United. The valuation was met and he wanted to go.

Manchester United sold their top scorer to Real Madrid. The valuation was met and he wanted to go.

That's football.

That does not make it right, and these clubs probably went out and bought a top scorer from another team of similar calibur, I think for the money it was not enough to sell IMO, who was the Everton top scorer as I dont think Rooney was their top scorer. we bring in loan players so hardly any similarity. I also bet you that the first offers % wise were nowhere near what both clubs wanted in comparison to Stokes, Man Utd waited ages on Real stepping up there offer.

bawheid
04-09-2010, 09:03 AM
That does not make it right, and these clubs probably went out and bought a top scorer from another team of similar calibur

Away wi ye!

Who did Everton replace Rooney with?

Man Utd haven't replaced Ronaldo, much to the annoyance of their fans (Glazer protests etc).

Captain Trips
04-09-2010, 09:07 AM
Away wi ye!

Who did Everton replace Rooney with?

Man Utd haven't replaced Ronaldo, much to the annoyance of their fans (Glazer protests etc).

Im talking about they will have used a fair chunk of the money and bought a player from a club of similar calibur not maybe the player, these are 2 players of high calibur I can then easily say that they also keep there top scorers as well when an offer is made, that is also football. I am sure Man Utd and Everton have told clubs no also.

Own goals are part of football, bad play is part of football and we come on here and are unhappy about it, selling players to your rival is as you say part of it and that bothers me perhaps more than some other people but I am sure things bother them more that happen and bother me less. So IMO I do not care what other clubs do, I am not happy at selling our top scorer to Celtic one bit. I am sure on the Everton message boards and Man utd ones there would be people like me pissed off with the sale and people not so bothered.

son of haggart
04-09-2010, 09:12 AM
That'll dry up if they keep treating players who are getting towards the end of their contract in the way they do. What must Barr and Kyle make of the Zaliukas situation? If they don't generate a big bucks sale can they expect to spend the lat year of their contract kicking their heals with the kids?

That's surely too much of a risk for a player to take?

It's Romanov policy not to play players who don't re-sign towards the end of their contract - it's one of the things I think he has got right. If Barr and Kyle play well enough to be sold on during their contract or be offered an extension on as good or better terms that is a reasonable expectation for a player these days.

Zaliukas is allegedly asking for £20K per week to sign a new contract - that's ridiculous so his bluff is being called. Having a bunch of players every year who don't want to play for the club any more is worse news for morale IMO than freezing out players who want to leave and won't negotiate a reasonable extension deal.

Part/Time Supporter
04-09-2010, 09:24 AM
As for the Marrs :faf: It's a change from the usual Leeds, Yams comparisons - I'll give you that! :greengrin

Well, that's what you advocated above. Spending (say) £250K of money Hibs don't have on a player in the hope of selling him for £1M+ a year or two later. That's fine and dandy as long as you are able to make that sale. But it doesn't really happen that often, hence why it doesn't work.

In actual fact, Hibs did spend a few quid on (tribunal) fees in the summer of 2007. On Makalambay and Alan O'Brien. Now, whatever the (lengthily debated) merits of those players, the facts are that Hibs ended up releasing both of them for no fee (one of them a year early). So all that investment was lost with no return, which is far more typical of what happens in football.


So it would have been beyond Hibs to spend £200k on a player and £50k on a signing on fee, and a £3k wage for 3 years? Cash out £700K, Cash in £1m. £300k to debt, capital .. IIRC the £250k wouldn't go through the P&L either .. It is acheivable - if desired IMHO.

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 09:24 AM
Barney - I was looking at 06/07 :wink: and I was last in BTG v Killie in March, RP wasnae there.

PTS - I didnae say it wasn't or that he is birght :cool2:. He was on the soft drinks.

Investment? New shares, new cash ..

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 09:31 AM
Im talking about they will have used a fair chunk of the money and bought a player from a club of similar calibur not maybe the player, these are 2 players of high calibur I can then easily say that they also keep there top scorers as well when an offer is made, that is also football. I am sure Man Utd and Everton have told clubs no also.

Own goals are part of football, bad play is part of football and we come on here and are unhappy about it, selling players to your rival is as you say part of it and that bothers me perhaps more than some other people but I am sure things bother them more that happen and bother me less. So IMO I do not care what other clubs do, I am not happy at selling our top scorer to Celtic one bit. I am sure on the Everton message boards and Man utd ones there would be people like me pissed off with the sale and people not so bothered.

I doubt if anyone is actually happy that we've sold our top scorer to Celtc, but some of us see it as a necessary evil. The club you want Hibs to be does not exist and would not survive if it did - that's the harsh reality of football along with OGs etc. Moan all you want, it ain't going to change.

The reported price we got is very low and given our recent history of player sales indicates very strongly that there were other factors involved. I fear however that they will never be made public.

Barney McGrew
04-09-2010, 09:34 AM
Barney - I was looking at 06/07 :wink: and I was last in BTG v Killie in March, RP wasnae there.

TM was only in charge for four homes games that season before he left. The two full seasons he was in charge before that only saw a slight rise in average gates.

Well done on making it to a match in March. I'm sure next time you manage to drag yourself out Tannadice hospitality to make it along you'll get another chance be able to ask the questions direct :greengrin


The reported price we got is very low and given our recent history of player sales indicates very strongly that there were other factors involved. I fear however that they will never be made public.

Indeed. Given Hibs track record, it makes no sense for them to sell off at a low price unless something else forced them to do so.

blackpoolhibs
04-09-2010, 09:36 AM
TM was only in charge for four homes games that season before he left. The two full seasons he was in charge before that only saw a slight rise in average gates.

Well done on making it to a match in March. I'm sure next time you manage to drag yourself out Tannadice hospitality to make it along you'll get another chance be able to ask the questions direct :greengrin

:tee hee:

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 09:39 AM
Barney - I was looking at 06/07 :wink: and I was last in BTG v Killie in March, RP wasnae there.

PTS - I didnae say it wasn't or that he is birght :cool2:. He was on the soft drinks.

Investment? New shares, new cash ..

I've got this brilliant new investment scheme (or I will have soon). I'll give you some share certificates in exchange for a lot of money. You won't get any dividend on them and the company policy is to break even, so they won't gain in value. Which doesn't matter because you can't sell them anyway. But hey - it's an investment.

Better still give me a lot of money for nothing. Anyone in?

Captain Trips
04-09-2010, 09:47 AM
I doubt if anyone is actually happy that we've sold our top scorer to Celtc, but some of us see it as a necessary evil. The club you want Hibs to be does not exist and would not survive if it did - that's the harsh reality of football along with OGs etc. Moan all you want, it ain't going to change.

The reported price we got is very low and given our recent history of player sales indicates very strongly that there were other factors involved. I fear however that they will never be made public.

I did not see that as neccesary, the comparisons are not really acceptable with ronaldo, Man utd got far and above the highest fee they have ever got as did Everton, I am not saying stokes was best player we have had but to go for less than most other players whom had done well is why I cannot really compare this to Man Utd, So until we are told for sure that there was a clause I will think it was an error to sell him for the price we did.

TrickyNicky
04-09-2010, 09:52 AM
I doubt if anyone is actually happy that we've sold our top scorer to Celtc, but some of us see it as a necessary evil. The club you want Hibs to be does not exist and would not survive if it did - that's the harsh reality of football along with OGs etc. Moan all you want, it ain't going to change.

The reported price we got is very low and given our recent history of player sales indicates very strongly that there were other factors involved. I fear however that they will never be made public.

I would have to agree with this.

I am perplexed by the price in comparison to other players and their face value transfer fees, however obvious increased wage requirements, motivation and Stoke's contractual loophole / opportunity hastened the process somewhat.

Without knowing actual figures I'd surmise Yogi and RP were happy to take the profit made on Stokes and attain the services of Denneboom, Duffy, Dickoh and Grounds ( all in positions that needed to be drastically addressed ).

The romance of keeping one of our star players, along with being one of our only 3-4 shining light was gone and the harsh reality of requirement was the replacement.

Hopefully 1 of these players ( 2 if we're lucky ) will be successful buys - 1 may make us another million pound profit in a year and one might stay with us for a while and be an integral, rock-solid part of the team.

Maybe the numbers game is too hard to deny in Hibs case.

i really, really wish it were different.

Captain Trips
04-09-2010, 09:57 AM
I would have to agree with this.

I am perplexed by the price in comparison to other players and their face value transfer fees, however obvious increased wage requirements, motivation and Stoke's contractual loophole / opportunity hastened the process somewhat.

Without knowing actual figures I'd surmise Yogi and RP were happy to take the profit made on Stokes and attain the services of Denneboom, Duffy, Dickoh and Grounds ( all in positions that needed to be drastically addressed ).

The romance of keeping one of our star players, along with being one of our only 3-4 shining light was gone and the harsh reality of requirement was the replacement.

Hopefully 1 of these players ( 2 if we're lucky ) will be successful buys - 1 may make us another million pound profit in a year and one might stay with us for a while and be an integral, rock-solid part of the team.

Maybe the numbers game is too hard to deny in Hibs case.

i really, really wish it were different.

We will only make a profit on the new players if they stay beyond there 1 year deals, and there it is again profit before what they might do on park, all part of the conditioning, I dont think there is any romance in keeping Stokes tbh, if there was a clause then fine let us know until then I think it was a joke sale.

johnrebus
04-09-2010, 09:58 AM
I would have to agree with this.

I am perplexed by the price in comparison to other players and their face value transfer fees, however obvious increased wage requirements, motivation and Stoke's contractual loophole / opportunity hastened the process somewhat.

Without knowing actual figures I'd surmise Yogi and RP were happy to take the profit made on Stokes and attain the services of Denneboom, Duffy, Dickoh and Grounds ( all in positions that needed to be drastically addressed ).

The romance of keeping one of our star players, along with being one of our only 3-4 shining light was gone and the harsh reality of requirement was the replacement.

Hopefully 1 of these players ( 2 if we're lucky ) will be successful buys - 1 may make us another million pound profit in a year and one might stay with us for a while and be an integral, rock-solid part of the team.

Maybe the numbers game is too hard to deny in Hibs case.

i really, really wish it were different.

What a ridiculously sensible post.

:top marks

Ray_
04-09-2010, 10:05 AM
TM was only in charge for four homes games that season before he left. The two full seasons he was in charge before that only saw a slight rise in average gates.



At the same time Hibs were reporting record amounts brought in with season ticket sales, crowds, merchandising, hospitality & sponsorship, so I wouldn't be so dismissive of the appeal of good team on the park.

Hibs must have saved me around £1200 per year, over the last few season's, as the kids are not pressing me to spend money in the on line shop, nearly as much as when they had a decent team to watch.

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 10:09 AM
We will only make a profit on the new players if they stay beyond there 1 year deals, and there it is again profit before what they might do on park, all part of the conditioning, I dont think there is any romance in keeping Stokes tbh, if there was a clause then fine let us know until then I think it was a joke sale.

The club have a policy of not commenting on transfer fees, so you won't hear it directly from them. However according to a poster I regard as honest and trusworthy

It was neither the time nor the place to write this until he actually left the club
Re the reason he was sold all I can add is what the man himself told me on two seperate occasions when he was in the company of another Hibs player.
His agent had a clause inserted that if/when a club offered a certain figure ( he did not clarify) he was to be given permission by HFC to speak with them .
Was he telling the truth / porky's I know not :bitchy:
Are you privy to a RELIABLE SOURCE regarding the fee paid ?
If so I'm sure many of us would like to know :wink:

Straight from the carthorses mouth.

Ray_
04-09-2010, 10:13 AM
The club have a policy of not commenting on transfer fees, so you won't hear it directly from them. However according to a poster I regard as honest and trusworthy


Straight from the carthorses mouth.

Well if such a clause existed they should come out and say, they will lose money over this & a bit of straight speaking would help stem the loses.

Captain Trips
04-09-2010, 10:14 AM
The club have a policy of not commenting on transfer fees, so you won't hear it directly from them. However according to a poster I regard as honest and trusworthy


Straight from the carthorses mouth.

Thats fine but will only really accept from club as I am sure to much stuff on here is inacurate, we can agree to disagree, IMO selling Stokes on the information that is fact as of now, a very poor decision on the football front for me.

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 10:28 AM
Barney - you know fine I've been to ER since March. Also been to away games since also - none of which were Tanna hospy :wink:

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 10:29 AM
Well if such a clause existed they should come out and say, they will lose money over this & a bit of straight speaking would help stem the loses.

I think they should let the reasons be known as well, but it won't be through an official statement. There are good reasons for their confidentiality policy and I doubt if they will break it for this one case.

I don't see how the club will lose a great deal of money over it though, especially if we go on to have a better season than we did last time.

BEEJ
04-09-2010, 10:30 AM
I am perplexed by the price in comparison to other players and their face value transfer fees, however obvious increased wage requirements, motivation and Stoke's contractual loophole / opportunity hastened the process somewhat.

Without knowing actual figures I'd surmise Yogi and RP were happy to take the profit made on Stokes and attain the services of Denneboom, Duffy, Dickoh and Grounds ( all in positions that needed to be drastically addressed ).

Hopefully 1 of these players ( 2 if we're lucky ) will be successful buys - 1 may make us another million pound profit in a year and one might stay with us for a while and be an integral, rock-solid part of the team.
Has he been signed as a free agent? Haven't seen this anywhere.

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 10:33 AM
Thats fine but will only really accept from club as I am sure to much stuff on here is inacurate, we can agree to disagree, IMO selling Stokes on the information that is fact as of now, a very poor decision on the football front for me.

Fair enough. Personally I can't see how a club that has got a very good price for many players in the past would suddenly make such a poor decision without good reason.

Danderhall Hibs
04-09-2010, 10:34 AM
I've got this brilliant new investment scheme (or I will have soon). I'll give you some share certificates in exchange for a lot of money. You won't get any dividend on them and the company policy is to break even, so they won't gain in value. Which doesn't matter because you can't sell them anyway. But hey - it's an investment.

Better still give me a lot of money for nothing. Anyone in?

:tee hee: I'm in! Do you take switch?

grunt
04-09-2010, 10:34 AM
... until then I think it was a joke sale.
I don't understand why you should think this. It's not as if the club has a history of "joke sales"; quite the opposite. Surely it is far more likely that there are reasons for the level of money involved in this sale which we don't and won't know?

As for the club explaining this to the fans - I would have thought that a contract of employment was a private thing between the club and the player, and I respect them for keeping this info confidential. I'm sure you wouldn't be very pleased if a former employer of yours made public details of your employment contract.

TrickyNicky
04-09-2010, 10:38 AM
We will only make a profit on the new players if they stay beyond there 1 year deals,
You're right but chances are, one may be a dud or one may have bad luck with an injury so the decision makers are trying to hedge their bets somewhat it seems

and there it is again profit before what they might do on park, all part of the conditioning,
They have filled the positions that needed to be dealt with immediately - albeit short term to some extent but it did need to be done NOW - this surely must satisfy what is required on the park ( as long as it's not O' Brien and Orman with facial reconstructions ), I agree to a point with you regarding conditioning but I don't think they have to be to the detriment of each other

I dont think there is any romance in keeping Stokes tbh,
Might just've been me - I thought he was a fantastic player and with Deeks there too, hope sprung eternal!

if there was a clause then fine let us know until then I think it was a joke sale.
Mibbe they're not allowed to say and the use of forums such as this is the only way of allowing us to get to the bottom of it Columbo style

TrickyNicky
04-09-2010, 10:42 AM
Has he been signed as a free agent? Haven't seen this anywhere.

Don't know - I got a bit carried away and I just like typing his name, sorry !

Captain Trips
04-09-2010, 10:44 AM
I don't understand why you should think this. It's not as if the club has a history of "joke sales"; quite the opposite. Surely it is far more likely that there are reasons for the level of money involved in this sale which we don't and won't know?

As for the club explaining this to the fans - I would have thought that a contract of employment was a private thing between the club and the player, and I respect them for keeping this info confidential. I'm sure you wouldn't be very pleased if a former employer of yours made public details of your employment contract.


What has the histoy got to do with it? I have given Hibs credit for many other things that I think correct, I happen to disagree with this one. what is confidentiality to do with anything, every player we sign we are usually told how long its for, what is the problem with saying he had a clause in it for x amount?

My employment contract would tell youi what I earn nobody is asking that its a simple thing and I would like to know what effect us being told would have on anything.

Kaiser1962
04-09-2010, 11:36 AM
:agree: That's why I asked. Who in their right mind would actually invest their money in an SPL club?

Most SPL clubs (and English clubs for that matter) are business train wrecks. Of the "major" Scottish clubs it's interesting that only ourselves and Celtic are trading anywhere near sensibly and it's also interesting that both these clubs went very close to going out of business in the early nineties. Rangers, Hearts, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd and Kilmarnock are, to all intents and purposes, technically insolvent. Motherwell, run prudently now, are only still here because John Boyle took a huge hit, as did their suppliers and players. Hamilton and St. Mirren sold their homes and moved and look stable at the moment. As we dont make any profit I dont really understand how we are going to invest without accumulating debt and by not making (significant) profits, how we pay back the accrued debt is a mystery. Speculating to accumulate, in football terms, is a gamble which, historically, fails every time. I am sure there are examples where this has been a success that I dont know about but we are littered with the corpses of those who tried.

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 11:59 AM
So Caversham - your mouth-watering 'investment' opp aside - how do we grow the fan base to get beyond an average occupancy of ER? It's currently at 60-something %

Kaiser1962
04-09-2010, 12:05 PM
There have been factors at play here that we dont, and probably wont, know about. Rod gets good deals for Hibs and everybody knows it, even Mick McCarthy commented on it last month.

I, like you, am not particularly chuffed we have sold Stokes, and to celtic of all people but what are we to do? We're Hibbies Ray and that wont change, ever. It's not like getting a bad pie at the bakers so we go to another bakers we'll still be Hibbies. I see your 54 Ray and I would therefore assume, like me, you are still pissed at selling Colin Stein to Rangers and being a Hibby its been a rollercoaster of, mainly, kicks in the 'nads from then till now and Stokes is only the latest, he wont be the last, and we'll be back, maybe a bit miffed, but we'll be back and when Duffy/Denneboom/Riordan rattles in a winner in the last minute at the PBS we will be dancing and shouting Tony who? Like we've always done.


Well if such a clause existed they should come out and say, they will lose money over this & a bit of straight speaking would help stem the loses.

degenerated
04-09-2010, 12:20 PM
So Caversham - your mouth-watering 'investment' opp aside - how do we grow the fan base to get beyond an average occupancy of ER? It's currently at 60-something %


people could actually start going to games and supporting their team instead of opting to spend their saturday afternoons on the internet partaking in crapulent whining about how the club is run :dunno: it's a novel idea but it might just catch on.

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 12:31 PM
So Caversham - your mouth-watering 'investment' opp aside - how do we grow the fan base to get beyond an average occupancy of ER? It's currently at 60-something %

If I knew that I'd re-'invest' Danderhall's money in the club straight away.

Seriously, we need to start winning cups and playing attractive football - no argument from me on that one. However we as fans need to recognise that there is no fairy dust we can sprinkle to make that happen. The fact that United and Well are effectively matching us Hearts and Aberdeen despite having much cheaper teams shows that throwing money at the squad doesn't always work in any case - if it did the league placings would be exactly the same every year based on how rich the respective clubs were.

It can never be an exact science and football would be even duller if it was. The best anyone can do is make the most of what they've got (by building a training centre for example), put the possibilities for expansion in place (by building a bigger stand for example), sell players at the optimum price and put the right coaching and scouting teams in place (no comment at this stage).

If it was easy everyone would do it - what's your (practical) solution?

PS At ER in particular better communication and PR would help but us accountant types aren't very good at that.

truehibernian
04-09-2010, 12:40 PM
If I knew that I'd re-'invest' Danderhall's money in the club straight away.

Seriously, we need to start winning cups and playing attractive football - no argument from me on that one. However we as fans need to recognise that there is no fairy dust we can sprinkle to make that happen. The fact that United and Well are effectively matching us Hearts and Aberdeen despite having much cheaper teams shows that throwing money at the squad doesn't always work in any case - if it did the league placings would be exactly the same every year based on how rich the respective clubs were.

It can never be an exact science and football would be even duller if it was. The best anyone can do is make the most of what they've got (by building a training centre for example), put the possibilities for expansion in place (by building a bigger stand for example), sell players at the optimum price and put the right coaching and scouting teams in place (no comment at this stage).

If it was easy everyone would do it - what's your (practical) solution?

PS At ER in particular better communication and PR would help but us accountant types aren't very good at that.

Always enjoy reading your posts caversham. Do you know the exisiting bonus structure at Easter Road (is it outlined anywhere at all ?). Interesting to hear Kevin Kyle say that the win bonus at Tynecastle is "very good" in his words, and that at Killie some players depended on it. I know it is not the norm to make these common knowledge, but has it ever been mentioned anywhere and what are the effects on the salary bill on the accounts ?

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 12:43 PM
Degenerated - we are talking thousands - one thing will work IMHO better players/better football. Reduced ticket prices would also assist - I accept this ain't easy.

I think we need new shares, new cash, new players, new fans .. These are all linked and new investment in Hibs would help immensely.

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 01:01 PM
Always enjoy reading your posts caversham. Do you know the exisiting bonus structure at Easter Road (is it outlined anywhere at all ?). Interesting to hear Kevin Kyle say that the win bonus at Tynecastle is "very good" in his words, and that at Killie some players depended on it. I know it is not the norm to make these common knowledge, but has it ever been mentioned anywhere and what are the effects on the salary bill on the accounts ?

Thanks for that - no, I don't have any inside knowledge of the wages structure at ER. Going on what the accounts tell me I can't see that the bonus system is particularly strong - the wages bill for a very good year (2006/07) was lower than that for a poor year (2007/08) so that would suggest bonuses don't play a big part. There are many other factors to consider though, so it can only ever be an educated guess.

Kaiser1962
04-09-2010, 01:04 PM
As Caversham pointed out earlier who would buy these shares knowing they are going to get zero return on them? Assuming a share issue, which is probably the only way we're going to raise significant money quickly, isnt going to work what else? Other than what we're already doing that is.

I seem to recall we had a share issue once before. Roaring success that was.


Degenerated - we are talking thousands - one thing will work IMHO better players/better football. Reduced ticket prices would also assist - I accept this ain't easy.

I think we need new shares, new cash, new players, new fans .. These are all linked and new investment in Hibs would help immensely.

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 01:07 PM
Or the onwers selling up???

Kaiser1962
04-09-2010, 01:09 PM
Or the onwers selling up???

Like Man U? Then adding the purchase price to the debt?

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 01:18 PM
Or the onwers selling up???

The initial investment would go from the new onwers (:wink:) to the old onwers and then we'd have to hope that the new onwers were going to put more money into the club - preferably by share issue rather than debt capital. That means the new onwers would have to be very rich and not looking for any sort of return on their capital.

In short they'd be covered in fairy dust.

blackpoolhibs
04-09-2010, 01:26 PM
Or the onwers selling up???

I hear we are snowed under in offers to buy the club. Which offer should the club take?

WindyMiller
04-09-2010, 01:43 PM
I've got this brilliant new investment scheme (or I will have soon). I'll give you some share certificates in exchange for a lot of money. You won't get any dividend on them and the company policy is to break even, so they won't gain in value. Which doesn't matter because you can't sell them anyway. But hey - it's an investment.

Better still give me a lot of money for nothing. Anyone in?

I'm in!
If you could PM me your bank details a.s.a.p. :agree:

Caversham Green
04-09-2010, 01:52 PM
:tee hee: I'm in! Do you take switch?


I'm in!
If you could PM me your bank details a.s.a.p. :agree:

We should go for the second option then - just send me your bank cards and PINs and I can do the rest (best to email me with your PINs for security reasons.)

Mibbes Aye
04-09-2010, 02:37 PM
The initial investment would go from the new onwers (:wink:) to the old onwers and then we'd have to hope that the new onwers were going to put more money into the club - preferably by share issue rather than debt capital. That means the new onwers would have to be very rich and not looking for any sort of return on their capital.

In short they'd be covered in fairy dust.

:agree:

It's typical that the club haven't moved forward on this :grr:

If Petrie isn't capable of unearthing some benevolent multi-millionaires covered in fairy dust then he should go and go now.

matty_f
04-09-2010, 03:04 PM
So Caversham - your mouth-watering 'investment' opp aside - how do we grow the fan base to get beyond an average occupancy of ER? It's currently at 60-something %

We'll rarely sell out ER even if we get more Hibs fans in - a big part of the issue is that teams outwith the OF won't sell out the away end. That means if we ever got to the point where we filled our three stands, we would need more again to start filling in the blanks in the away end. Even then, if there's mixed fans in there then segregation comes into play and that means that there's a reduction in capacity.

You said in an earlier post that you thought the club were selling because we're losing money, then said we should be investing more money into the playing side. Can you tell me what the long term consequences of spending more money than you have already shown that you're able to afford are?

At the end of the day, the Board have always maintained that the budget for the manager is dictated by the gate receipts, so until such a time comes when those that stay away from games realise that the only way that we'll see more investment is if they go back and pay for it, then we'll always be like this.

Ray_
04-09-2010, 03:22 PM
We'll rarely sell out ER even if we get more Hibs fans in - a big part of the issue is that teams outwith the OF won't sell out the away end. That means if we ever got to the point where we filled our three stands, we would need more again to start filling in the blanks in the away end. Even then, if there's mixed fans in there then segregation comes into play and that means that there's a reduction in capacity.

You said in an earlier post that you thought the club were selling because we're losing money, then said we should be investing more money into the playing side. Can you tell me what the long term consequences of spending more money than you have already shown that you're able to afford are?

At the end of the day, the Board have always maintained that the budget for the manager is dictated by the gate receipts, so until such a time comes when those that stay away from games realise that the only way that we'll see more investment is if they go back and pay for it, then we'll always be like this.

People did start to attend and spend money, as they had good football to watch, they were rewarded with everything that could be sold, was sold, the football suffered & so did the income. Only those that are extremely attached to hibs will come to ER & spend money regardless, the others want to be entertained.

Woody1985
04-09-2010, 03:26 PM
At the same time Hibs were reporting record amounts brought in with season ticket sales, crowds, merchandising, hospitality & sponsorship, so I wouldn't be so dismissive of the appeal of good team on the park.

Hibs must have saved me around £1200 per year, over the last few season's, as the kids are not pressing me to spend money in the on line shop, nearly as much as when they had a decent team to watch.

How many kids have you got and you really used to spend upwards of 100 a month in the club shop?

I assume that you still bought things so the figure would be higher than £1200.

You've either got a lot of spare cash or just made that up! :greengrin

matty_f
04-09-2010, 03:26 PM
People did start to attend and spend money, as they had good football to watch, they were rewarded with everything that could be sold, was sold, the football suffered & so did the income. Only those that are extremely attached to hibs will come to ER & spend money regardless, the others want to be entertained.

That was a necessary evil at that point, Ray - and from that point the club have grown and set up everything needed off the field to start to be a success on it. We know what happened to that money.

Folk can talk all they want about how much the board puts into the team, but until folk start putting their money where their mouths are then they've not got much of a complaint, IMHO.

blackpoolhibs
04-09-2010, 03:31 PM
That was a necessary evil at that point, Ray - and from that point the club have grown and set up everything needed off the field to start to be a success on it. We know what happened to that money.

Folk can talk all they want about how much the board puts into the team, but until folk start putting their money where their mouths are then they've not got much of a complaint, IMHO.

Yip. :agree:

Ray_
04-09-2010, 03:43 PM
That was a necessary evil at that point, Ray - and from that point the club have grown and set up everything needed off the field to start to be a success on it. We know what happened to that money.

Folk can talk all they want about how much the board puts into the team, but until folk start putting their money where their mouths are then they've not got much of a complaint, IMHO.

I have been putting my money where my mouth was since 1965, only difference is that over the last 2-3 years I have been paying a great deal less than I have done in the past.

This is because I have now got to the stage where I want more now than just the regular match day feeling of being bored ridgid, as is more often the case these days & its brought on by the inferior product on offer.

blackpoolhibs
04-09-2010, 03:53 PM
I have been putting my money where my mouth was since 1965, only difference is that over the last 2-3 years I have been paying a great deal less than I have done in the past.

This is because I have now got to the stage where I want more now than just the regular match day feeling of being bored ridgid, as is more often the case these days & its brought on by the inferior product on offer.

We have all done our time, you are no different to my dad who gave up a few times. He'd seen us win the league, and what was on offer in the 60s and 80s was not as good. You will be replaced, as my dad was. He came back and you will too. I stopped going only a couple of seasons ago, and i will probably stop going again in the future. Its my choice, as its your choice, but by not going, its depriving the club and moaning about the club spending less as some do, while not attending is quite funny imho.

Ray_
04-09-2010, 03:59 PM
How many kids have you got and you really used to spend upwards of 100 a month in the club shop?

I assume that you still bought things so the figure would be higher than £1200.

You've either got a lot of spare cash or just made that up! :greengrin

Its not too difficult to reach those figures, my eldest is fourteen & has grown quickly [large man size now], so he would out grow his new strips before Xmas & then we would need larger sizes, when you start adding the training gear, clothes, bedroom stuff etc, ££££'s, it soon mounts up. Sorry rather than regular monthly outlay's it would 3-4 large ones, particularly the new season & Xmas order's.

My other lad would only need the regular 1x home & 1 x away strip, plus the above mentioned extra's. Now with the football boring & them living in the south east, I'm not up as often & I'm not being pushed to get the most up-to-date strips etc.

Now I spend very little in comparison to before, an example, last season I bought them strips near the end of the season.

Ray_
04-09-2010, 04:12 PM
We have all done our time, you are no different to my dad who gave up a few times. He'd seen us win the league, and what was on offer in the 60s and 80s was not as good. You will be replaced, as my dad was. He came back and you will too. I stopped going only a couple of seasons ago, and i will probably stop going again in the future. Its my choice, as its your choice, but by not going, its depriving the club and moaning about the club spending less as some do, while not attending is quite funny imho.

I remember when you were far from satisfied at what was going on Gary & like me, when you were going less frequently, you still put your views on here, because , like me, you just don't all of a sudden not become a fan & a lot of your mood is taken from what is happening at your club, so its not that funny.

As for being replaced, if you look back at the crowds in your Dad's day, they certainly weren't replaced & a 20k stadium would have been inadequate for a lot of games in the sixties & seventies.

blackpoolhibs
04-09-2010, 04:30 PM
I remember when you were far from satisfied at what was going on Gary & like me, when you were going less frequently, you still put your views on here, because , like me, you just don't all of a sudden not become a fan & a lot of your mood is taken from what is happening at your club, so its not that funny.

As for being replaced, if you look back at the crowds in your Dad's day, they certainly weren't replaced & a 20k stadium would have been inadequate for a lot of games in the sixties & seventies.

I agree, we should all have our say about whats going on. I just think not going does not help, even though i did exactly that. :greengrin Again i agree we dont suddenly stop being a fan, but the older we get the more loses dont mean as much, and dont hurt as badly as they did, thats certainly the case for me and it is easier to stay away the older i get.

Yes crowds were big in my dads day, just as they were very small in the late 70s or early 80s. There was nothing else to do when my father went, and the price was not anywhere near as expensive as it is now. We dont do badly for crowds these days, certainly in my lifetime its very decent. Lots of things have changed since my dad went to the football, this is how it is now, whats not changed is the club still need people through the door.

Ray_
04-09-2010, 04:49 PM
I agree, we should all have our say about whats going on. I just think not going does not help, even though i did exactly that. :greengrin Again i agree we dont suddenly stop being a fan, but the older we get the more loses dont mean as much, and dont hurt as badly as they did, thats certainly the case for me and it is easier to stay away the older i get.

Yes crowds were big in my dads day, just as they were very small in the late 70s or early 80s. There was nothing else to do when my father went, and the price was not anywhere near as expensive as it is now. We dont do badly for crowds these days, certainly in my lifetime its very decent. Lots of things have changed since my dad went to the football, this is how it is now, whats not changed is the club still need people through the door.


Gary, I often wonder if I would still go every match if I still stayed in Edinburgh. When I stayed back home, with the district manager on a three month holiday, his deputy transferred me & this meant no Saturday PM off. I used to have a late lunch & managed, with travelling time, to pay to get in and watch 20 minutes of the home games, but like I said, now I’m unsure if I’d go all the time, even if I lived just around the corner.

To go now, it is a 900+ plus mile drive or a train journey that lasts forever, as I have to go through London & that’s almost 2 hours away, or Stansted, which is 75 minutes away and then the waiting times at airports. What’s on offer is just not worth the agro.

blackpoolhibs
04-09-2010, 04:55 PM
Gary, I often wonder if I would still go every match if I still stayed in Edinburgh. When I stayed back home, with the district manager on a three month holiday, his deputy transferred me & this meant no Saturday PM off. I used to have a late lunch & managed, with travelling time, to pay to get in and watch 20 minutes of the home games, but like I said, now I’m unsure if I’d go all the time, even if I lived just around the corner.

To go now, it is a 900+ plus mile drive or a train journey that lasts forever, as I have to go through London & that’s almost 2 hours away, or Stansted, which is 75 minutes away and then the waiting times at airports. What’s on offer is just not worth the agro.
Thats a journey and a half, it makes our 9 am starts seem easy.:wink:

jakki
04-09-2010, 05:06 PM
Maybe I missed it reading all about Stokes clause in his contract with Hibs, but maybe there is a good "sell on" clause with his Celtc contract to make his departure a bit sweeter?

On another issue, the board has found me a secure parking spot for my mobility scooter (it's maroon) and as I am not classed as DLA, there are 2 adult tickets@£22 each already purchased for the ICT game,one for me and another for my helper! First home game for 3 years except for when I won 4 balls in the lottery and did hospitality! :thumbsup:

GGTTH

Jones28
04-09-2010, 06:16 PM
Which is why the board should be more forthcoming with information?!?!?

Why? What would be the point in telling the fans how much he was sold for and how much he was bought for?

Captain Trips
04-09-2010, 07:18 PM
Why? What would be the point in telling the fans how much he was sold for and how much he was bought for?

Well why do clubs tell us about any fees then? Whats the point?

NRW_Hibbie
04-09-2010, 07:23 PM
Maybe I missed it reading all about Stokes clause in his contract with Hibs, but maybe there is a good "sell on" clause with his Celtc contract to make his departure a bit sweeter?


I'd be surprised if Stokes is ever sold for more than the fee we have just received.

discman
04-09-2010, 08:11 PM
Perhaps the problems Stokesy told us he'd grown out of and left behind at Sunderland were still to the fore at ER and causing a lot of friction and disharmony in the dressing room ?

Perhaps Rod and Yogi weighed up the pros of natural goalscorer vs the cons of off field baggage. Stokesy hadnt cut it down south and realistically there was only ever one side of the uglies ever gonna come in for him. Maybe when they came a calling it was decided that 800k and a disruptive influence moved on from the club was a good compromise outcome.

FWIW in this instance I think that Rod and Yogi probably got it right. My main concerns what happens to the 800k and if any of it goes to Yogi in the next transfer window what he does with it.

bang on!! 5/12/07 roy keane said"stokes can go as far as he wants,he could be a top player or he could be playing non league football in 5 years"

Loads of talent but troubled with off field baggage, booze and gambling,this has already been flagged by other posters,turning up late for training etc, thanking yogi for the oppertunity to reserect his career ,month later involved in bother in a nightclub,nothing if not consistent!

jdships
04-09-2010, 08:14 PM
Perhaps the problems Stokesy told us he'd grown out of and left behind at Sunderland were still to the fore at ER and causing a lot of friction and disharmony in the dressing room ?

Perhaps Rod and Yogi weighed up the pros of natural goalscorer vs the cons of off field baggage. Stokesy hadnt cut it down south and realistically there was only ever one side of the uglies ever gonna come in for him. Maybe when they came a calling it was decided that 800k and a disruptive influence moved on from the club was a good compromise outcome.

FWIW in this instance I think that Rod and Yogi probably got it right. My main concerns what happens to the 800k and if any of it goes to Yogi in the next transfer window what he does with it.


Can'r understand this obsession with "£800000" there were at least four different figures quoted in the media and as far as I can see there has been no official confirmation of the fee received..
As I have posted before AS told me in front of witnesses that he had a clause in his contract that if a £1,000,000 offer came in he would be given permission to talk to that club
Truth or porky's I know not :greengrin

renato
04-09-2010, 08:51 PM
Can'r understand this obsession with "£800000" there were at least four different figures quoted in the media and as far as I can see there has been no official confirmation of the fee received..
As I have posted before AS told me in front of witnesses that he had a clause in his contract that if a £1,000,000 offer came in he would be given permission to talk to that clubTruth or porky's I know not :greengrin

Interesting. So assuming he was telling the truth (unsure why he would lie and also use that particular figure) then Celtc (via Stokes' agent) must have known this in order to trigger the clause.

Certainly can't see Rod giving Tony the OK to speak to them otherwise. Would also explain the relatively low amounts that the press have guesstimated and published.

Either way, still a pi$$er losing him to one of the uglies but sounds like we didn't have much choice in the matter

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 09:09 PM
You said in an earlier post that you thought the club were selling because we're losing money, then said we should be investing more money into the playing side. Can you tell me what the long term consequences of spending more money than you have already shown that you're able to afford are?

That'll be where the selling of players comes in ..


We have all done our time, you are no different to my dad who gave up a few times. He'd seen us win the league, and what was on offer in the 60s and 80s was not as good. You will be replaced, as my dad was. He came back and you will too. I stopped going only a couple of seasons ago, and i will probably stop going again in the future. Its my choice, as its your choice, but by not going, its depriving the club and moaning about the club spending less as some do, while not attending is quite funny imho.

G - You telling me when you werenae going you werenae moaning about Hibs two seasons ago? :wink: :greengrin

Ironically, I can see me being at more games this season than I've been to in a long time. Admittedly, more are likely to be away than home as I think we're away twice at each of StJ, Arabs and Sheep.

jdships
04-09-2010, 09:28 PM
Interesting. So assuming he was telling the truth (unsure why he would lie and also use that particular figure) then Celtc (via Stokes' agent) must have known this in order to trigger the clause.

Certainly can't see Rod giving Tony the OK to speak to them otherwise. Would also explain the relatively low amounts that the press have guesstimated and published.

Either way, still a pi$$er losing him to one of the uglies but sounds like we didn't have much choice in the matter

That's exactly as I see it :thumbsup:
AS was with another Hibs player whom I know and I was introduced to him .
This was in the week before he actually moved .
He "Appeared" very laid back about the whole thing but did mentiom the £1m clause and basically said he hoped things would work out for him - which they obviously did :wink:

blackpoolhibs
04-09-2010, 09:55 PM
That'll be where the selling of players comes in ..



G - You telling me when you werenae going you werenae moaning about Hibs two seasons ago? :wink: :greengrin

Ironically, I can see me being at more games this season than I've been to in a long time. Admittedly, more are likely to be away than home as I think we're away twice at each of StJ, Arabs and Sheep.

Yip thats true, but i'd bet every penny i have, i still saw more games than you. And they all involved at least a 450 mile round trip minimum.

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 10:33 PM
Yip thats true, but i'd bet every penny i have, i still saw more games than you. And they all involved at least a 450 mile round trip minimum.

My hero

IWasThere2016
04-09-2010, 11:31 PM
Yip thats true, but i'd bet every penny i have, i still saw more games than you. And they all involved at least a 450 mile round trip minimum.

Did you know see the wink and smiley?

We were on the same script two seasons ago and you werenae concerned about how many games I attended then.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I look forward to you stalking ma posts, counting ma games and cyber-bullying this season.

You'll be as 'entertaining' as the Yams nae doubt!

blackpoolhibs
05-09-2010, 09:25 AM
Did you know see the wink and smiley?

We were on the same script two seasons ago and you werenae concerned about how many games I attended then.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I look forward to you stalking ma posts, counting ma games and cyber-bullying this season.

You'll be as 'entertaining' as the Yams nae doubt!

How is a team that qualified for Europe on the same script? I have no need to start counting the games you attend, Just look for you on match days here, talking sheite, telling lies to get your negative points over.:bitchy:

IWasThere2016
05-09-2010, 10:29 AM
Europe???

2 seasons ago = Mixu :wink:

blackpoolhibs
05-09-2010, 12:09 PM
Europe???

2 seasons ago = Mixu :wink:

:yawn: We won a place in the Europa cup last season with our league position, under Mixu we had to apply for the intertoto. Well done Mixu.

IWasThere2016
05-09-2010, 01:07 PM
Ffs - one the wee words - we were in agreement re Mixu; you had no issue with how many games I went to because we agreed. We no longer agree re Yogi but you now have issue with the games I attend - can you now understand?

blackpoolhibs
05-09-2010, 01:16 PM
Ffs - one the wee words - we were in agreement re Mixu; you had no issue with how many games I went to because we agreed. We no longer agree re Yogi but you now have issue with the games I attend - can you now understand?

The BIG difference being you have been against him from day 1. You have never given him a chance, even when we were doing well. At least i supported Mixu from the beginning, you while hardly setting foot in a football ground, criticize Yogi for his tactics, while seeing none of them. You have a go at his accent, what he says in the papers, in fact anything, its a long list of negativity because you never got the man you wanted. Who was this genius again, the man who was going to lead us to glory?:faf:

IWasThere2016
05-09-2010, 03:39 PM
:faf: You will find very few posts of me criticising Yogi this season. So you'd best get yer facts right. He got it wrong v Maribor away and St Mirren IMHO - can't say he's did owt wrong v Maribor home nor Der Hun tbh.

If you'd been at Perth, Accies, Tannadeechee you'd have seen Yogi's 'tactics' were very very wanting :wink:

blackpoolhibs
05-09-2010, 04:15 PM
:faf: You will find very few posts of me criticising Yogi this season. So you'd best get yer facts right. He got it wrong v Maribor away and St Mirren IMHO - can't say he's did owt wrong v Maribor home nor Der Hun tbh.

If you'd been at Perth, Accies, Tannadeechee you'd have seen Yogi's 'tactics' were very very wanting :wink:

My erse. you cant wait to give it out, you are a plumb. Enjoy your fix of Hibs with the match reports on here and in the papers.

Phil D. Rolls
05-09-2010, 04:51 PM
Jaysus are you perr still at it? There's only woon way to settle deze tings in deze parts.

http://www.jessecollins.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/the-quiet-man-shot.jpg


:faf: You will find very few posts of me criticising Yogi this season. So you'd best get yer facts right. He got it wrong v Maribor away and St Mirren IMHO - can't say he's did owt wrong v Maribor home nor Der Hun tbh.

If you'd been at Perth, Accies, Tannadeechee you'd have seen Yogi's 'tactics' were very very wanting :wink:

Dum dum dum dum de diddy dum


My erse. you cant wait to give it out, you are a plumb. Enjoy your fix of Hibs with the match reports on here and in the papers.

Dum dum dum dum de diddy dum

IWasThere2016
05-09-2010, 05:07 PM
:faf:

BletherPish isnae that handsome, FR! :thumbsup:

PaulSmith
10-09-2010, 06:32 PM
Just in case no one else points this out, Rod Petrie took a £50,000 pay cut from £125k to £75k in the last financial accounts.

The total director pay was reduced from £471k in 2009 to £403k in 2010 and no one received a pay increase for the second year in a row. Which in effect means in real terms that their pay is worth less this year than 2 years ago.

BEEJ
10-09-2010, 07:01 PM
Just in case no one else points this out, Rod Petrie took a £50,000 pay cut from £125k to £75k in the last financial accounts.

The total director pay was reduced from £471k in 2009 to £403k in 2010 and no one received a pay increase for the second year in a row. Which in effect means in real terms that their pay is worth less this year than 2 years ago.
You need to add in the amounts paid to former Directors which are also spelt out in that Note. With those sums included the total amount paid to Directors was £493k in 2010 compared to £496k in 2009.

I suspect that Rod's £50k reduction in salary has moved substantially across to Scott Lindsay's pay-packet as he has taken over the duties of the CEO.

Like you, I noted the pay freeze for commercial staff for the second successive year. Tough one. Also their headcount numbers reduced from 33 to 31 (and the year before that in the 2008 accounts there were 37 commercial staff recorded).

PaulSmith
10-09-2010, 07:03 PM
You need to add in the amounts paid to former Directors which are also spelt out in that Note. With those sums included the total amount paid to Directors was £493k in 2010 compared to £496k in 2009.

I suspect that Rod's £50k reduction in salary has moved substantially across to Scott Lindsay's pay-packet as he has taken over the duties of the CEO.

Like you, I noted the pay freeze for commercial staff for the second successive year. Tough one. Also their headcount numbers reduced from 33 to 31 (and the year before that in the 2008 accounts there were 37 commercial staff recorded).

Fair do's BEEJ, just looked at the headline figures.

Part/Time Supporter
10-09-2010, 07:35 PM
You need to add in the amounts paid to former Directors which are also spelt out in that Note. With those sums included the total amount paid to Directors was £493k in 2010 compared to £496k in 2009.

I suspect that Rod's £50k reduction in salary has moved substantially across to Scott Lindsay's pay-packet as he has taken over the duties of the CEO.

Like you, I noted the pay freeze for commercial staff for the second successive year. Tough one. Also their headcount numbers reduced from 33 to 31 (and the year before that in the 2008 accounts there were 37 commercial staff recorded).

:agree:

That's because Tim Gardiner resigned as finance director part way through the year and was replaced by Jamie Marwick.