Why do the board take over 10%....

[Callum_62]

of the clubs total income?

are they really just under THREE TIMES better than any other SPL board?

why is the wages figure so bloody high here?

it seems ridiculous for a club who are reknowed for scrimping and saving!

[RIP]

If we were a company run by multiple shareholders they would have been sacked long ago. Or at the very least the man at the top.

Rod was a great accountant but as a director of football he's failed.
85 players in five years
Failure to obtain targets - eg hammel barr etc
Offering managers players that previous managers refused
Not leaving managers to sign within budget
constantly changing the coaching teams
Running the team like a shop window


Either hand over the reigns to the manager or resign

[superfurryhibby]

My son told me that Hibs accounts are available for public viewing, at a small fee. Does anyone have the link to whichever public registry that provides this serevice or even better, has anyone paid for the info. I would really like to see the figures myself!!

[PaulSmith]

My son told me that Hibs accounts are available for public viewing, at a small fee. Does anyone have the link to whichever public registry that provides this serevice or even better, has anyone paid for the info. I would really like to see the figures myself!!

There all on here in the vault.

[superfurryhibby]

There all on here in the vault.

Can you elaborate? Where is the vault? Cheers!

[IWasThere2016]

Can you elaborate? Where is the vault? Cheers!

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?192245-****Hibs-Accounts-To-31st-July-2010-See-Them-Here****

[Grizz]

Does anyone perhaps agree with me that we need a Director of Football in place at Hibs?

Moreso given the amount of managers we've gone through - most likely relating to lack of resources made available (for players) or the poor use of.

[Jack]

If we were a company run by multiple shareholders they would have been sacked long ago. Or at the very least the man at the top.


Rod was a great accountant but as a director of football he's failed.
85 players in five years
Failure to obtain targets - eg hammel barr etc
Offering managers players that previous managers refused
Not leaving managers to sign within budget
constantly changing the coaching teams
Running the team like a shop window

Either hand over the reigns to the manager or resign

As a spot the director role you’ve failed mate. Rod is not the director of football.

1. 85 players chosen by the managers, with the odd exception like Deeks and Murray, probably, who at the time I suspect no Hibs manager would have refused. Liam Miller, I understand, first spoke to Rod who informed Yogi of the enquiry. Yogi nearly had a wee moment before saying yes!

2. As I said yesterday the manager sets out the targets and the price he is prepared to pay. Rod and the board then go away and negotiate with that figure in mind. Barr’s transfer was used as an example.

3. Who offered who to who, when?

4. See 2 above.

5. Again the role of the manager and the manager has the final say.

6. Rod doesn’t run the team.

I specifically asked at a fans forum about a director of football I was quite firmly told that director level role was the Football Managers role.

[smurf]

Does anyone perhaps agree with me that we need a Director of Football in place at Hibs?

Moreso given the amount of managers we've gone through - most likely relating to lack of resources made available (for players) or the poor use of.

Folk keep raising this 'Director of Football' thing.

We have one.

He's the 'Chairman' who works based in East Mains.

Rod Petrie.

[greenginger]

One things for sure, if we do go down, we will have to lose at least a couple of highly paid director roles which should concentrate the minds of those holding the purse-strings.

Spend, and spend big in the next 10 days or some of you will be out of a job !

[jonty]

of the clubs total income?

are they really just under THREE TIMES better than any other SPL board?

why is the wages figure so bloody high here?

it seems ridiculous for a club who are reknowed for scrimping and saving!
Are they being compared like for like? All i've seen have been direct comparisons of how much the board of directors are paid - but no-one has compared average salaries.

I've been told out board has quite a few board members, compared to say, Aberdeen, who have a 3.

Can anyone confirm?

[ancienthibby]

Are they being compared like for like? All i've seen have been direct comparisons of how much the board of directors are paid - but no-one has compared average salaries.

I've been told out board has quite a few board members, compared to say, Aberdeen, who have a 3.

Can anyone confirm?

Jonty,

Some answers:

Following are Hibs Directors:

Rod Petrie - Executive Chairman;
Scott Lindsay - CEO and Executive Director;
Jamie Marwick - Finance and Executive Director;
Garry O'Hagan - Company Secretary and Executive Director;
Fyfe Hyland - Commercial and Executive Director;

To which add Bruce Langham and Amanda Jones, both Non-Executive Directors and both UNPAID.

Total Remuneration in 2010 was £492,903 against a turnover of £7.064 mln, to give a % of 6.98. By comparision in 2009, the numbers were: £495,702 and £7.711 mln, for a % of 6.42.

For my own part, I think the Board is too heavy. To be blunt, it could be reduced by at least two, if not, three, though that would not change the costs as the functional jobs would still have to be done and Executive Directors are not normally paid for their roles as Board Directors.

Hope this helps.

[Ray_]

As a spot the director role you’ve failed mate. Rod is not the director of football.

1. 85 players chosen by the managers, with the odd exception like Deeks and Murray, probably, who at the time I suspect no Hibs manager would have refused. Liam Miller, I understand, first spoke to Rod who informed Yogi of the enquiry. Yogi nearly had a wee moment before saying yes!

2. As I said yesterday the manager sets out the targets and the price he is prepared to pay. Rod and the board then go away and negotiate with that figure in mind. Barr’s transfer was used as an example.

3. Who offered who to who, when?

4. See 2 above.

5. Again the role of the manager and the manager has the final say.

6. Rod doesn’t run the team.

I specifically asked at a fans forum about a director of football I was quite firmly told that director level role was the Football Managers role.

Just one thing, John Hughes stated after getting the push that if he knew it was going to cost him his job, he would have fought harder to keep Stokes. Three things spring to mind,

1] was JH telling porkies?

2] was it Stokes he would have had to fight to have kept him here [bearing in mind his contract]?

3] was it RP & Co and if that was the case, you would have to revisit some of you statements?

[7Hero]

the OWNER of the club is the most influential person, removing petrie won't change anything.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Does anyone perhaps agree with me that we need a Director of Football in place at Hibs?

Moreso given the amount of managers we've gone through - most likely relating to lack of resources made available (for players) or the poor use of.

Yet to see a good example of it working in Britain tbh.

[Mikey]

Are they being compared like for like? All i've seen have been direct comparisons of how much the board of directors are paid - but no-one has compared average salaries.

I've been told out board has quite a few board members, compared to say, Aberdeen, who have a 3.

Can anyone confirm?

It's impossible to compare like with like when it comes to SPL boards. The Aberdeen board is a good example of why.

For instance, they don't have a Marketing Director or a Finance Director. They do however have a Marketing Manager and a Financial Controller, neither of which are on the board. Both have been at the club for some time and are most likely on a higher salary than their counterparts at Hibs.

At the other end of the scale you've got guys like Martin Bain at Rangers who is paid more than the Hibs board combined, despite the huge debt they have. I wonder what the Rangers fans would rather have, Kenny Miller or Martin Bain :wink:

[Ray_]

At the other end of the scale you've got guys like Martin Bain at Rangers who is paid more than the Hibs board combined, despite the huge debt they have. I wonder what the Rangers fans would rather have, Kenny Miller or Martin Bain :wink:


I remember we used to have him, until our board sold him, or was it McLeish? :greengrin

PS I know I would rather have sold RP than KM :wink:

[Mikey]

For my own part, I think the Board is too heavy. To be blunt, it could be reduced by at least two, if not, three, though that would not change the costs as the functional jobs would still have to be done and Executive Directors are not normally paid for their roles as Board Directors.

Hope this helps.

The bit in bold is the key. I'm not really sure where savings could be made there.

[Mikey]

PS I know I would rather have sold RP than KM :wink:

:greengrin

[IWasThere2016]

Jonty,

Some answers:

Following are Hibs Directors:

Rod Petrie - Executive Chairman;
Scott Lindsay - CEO and Executive Director;
Jamie Marwick - Finance and Executive Director;
Garry O'Hagan - Company Secretary and Executive Director;
Fyfe Hyland - Commercial and Executive Director;

To which add Bruce Langham and Amanda Jones, both Non-Executive Directors and both UNPAID.

Total Remuneration in 2010 was £492,903 against a turnover of £7.064 mln, to give a % of 6.98. By comparision in 2009, the numbers were: £495,702 and £7.711 mln, for a % of 6.42.

For my own part, I think the Board is too heavy. To be blunt, it could be reduced by at least two, if not, three, though that would not change the costs as the functional jobs would still have to be done and Executive Directors are not normally paid for their roles as Board Directors.

Hope this helps.

:top marks


It's impossible to compare like with like when it comes to SPL boards. The Aberdeen board is a good example of why.

For instance, they don't have a Marketing Director or a Finance Director. They do however have a Marketing Manager and a Financial Controller, neither of which are on the board. Both have been at the club for some time and are most likely on a higher salary than their counterparts at Hibs.

At the other end of the scale you've got guys like Martin Bain at Rangers who is paid more than the Hibs board combined, despite the huge debt they have. I wonder what the Rangers fans would rather have, Kenny Miller or Martin Bain :wink:

But you promised me an analysis which wouldnae should our board in such bad light! :cool2:

However, as a % of turnover - when underlying losses are > 25% of turnover the cost is indefensible.

Regardless of what happens elseshere Mikey.

[Kaiser1962]

Just one thing, John Hughes stated after getting the push that if he knew it was going to cost him his job, he would have fought harder to keep Stokes. Three things spring to mind,

1] was JH telling porkies?

2] was it Stokes he would have had to fight to have kept him here [bearing in mind his contract]?

3] was it RP & Co and if that was the case, you would have to revisit some of you statements?

Option 2 Ray. Yogi told me so himself.

[Jack]

Just one thing, John Hughes stated after getting the push that if he knew it was going to cost him his job, he would have fought harder to keep Stokes. Three things spring to mind,

1] was JH telling porkies?

2] was it Stokes he would have had to fight to have kept him here [bearing in mind his contract]?

3] was it RP & Co and if that was the case, you would have to revisit some of you statements?

Stokes is an odd one.

We’ve heard about his alleged contract and clause in it that allowed him to leave if a certain club and amount were matched. If this was the case it would appear that neither Yogi nor the Board had much choice once those conditions were met. Stokes was also quoted in the paper, through Yogi, saying as soon as he heard Celtc were after him he was desperate to leave and we all know that once that happens the club look to maximise their income, rather than hold on to a huffy, underperforming player who will leave for nothing in a few months time.

We’ve also been told he was ‘let go’ for non-footballing reasons. Having heard rumours of his behaviour at Hibs there was no way that could or should have been tolerated by the manager or the club, I for one am glad he went, and since then dubious goings on at Celtc, I’m glad he’s gone.

I personally, with nothing but supposition, think it was somewhere in between. Celtc got close enough to the required figure and the club cut their losses.

[jonty]

Jonty,

Some answers:

Following are Hibs Directors:

Rod Petrie - Executive Chairman;
Scott Lindsay - CEO and Executive Director;
Jamie Marwick - Finance and Executive Director;
Garry O'Hagan - Company Secretary and Executive Director;
Fyfe Hyland - Commercial and Executive Director;

To which add Bruce Langham and Amanda Jones, both Non-Executive Directors and both UNPAID.

Total Remuneration in 2010 was £492,903 against a turnover of £7.064 mln, to give a % of 6.98. By comparision in 2009, the numbers were: £495,702 and £7.711 mln, for a % of 6.42.

For my own part, I think the Board is too heavy. To be blunt, it could be reduced by at least two, if not, three, though that would not change the costs as the functional jobs would still have to be done and Executive Directors are not normally paid for their roles as Board Directors.

Hope this helps.

You've just made it worse :greengrin
So our board are paid on average, 100k each?

what are comparable positions (including non-board members) paid at other clubs?
What are other boards paid, on average?
What exactly are we trying to compare, or is it just moaning for moanings sake?

If we're paying, on average, 3 or 5 times more per employee, i can see the argument that they're overpaid.

Then to confuse things even more... does that include bonus, perks, shares etc etc etc?

[The Falcon]

I'm pretty sure Lawell is on over £800k at Celtic and Ogilvie was on about £350k at the Yams.

Petrie got about £106k, everything included.


You've just made it worse :greengrin
So our board are paid on average, 100k each?

what are comparable positions (including non-board members) paid at other clubs?
What are other boards paid, on average?
What exactly are we trying to compare, or is it just moaning for moanings sake?

If we're paying, on average, 3 or 5 times more per employee, i can see the argument that they're overpaid.

Then to confuse things even more... does that include bonus, perks, shares etc etc etc?

[matty_f]

Jonty,

Some answers:

Following are Hibs Directors:

Rod Petrie - Executive Chairman;
Scott Lindsay - CEO and Executive Director;
Jamie Marwick - Finance and Executive Director;
Garry O'Hagan - Company Secretary and Executive Director;
Fyfe Hyland - Commercial and Executive Director;

To which add Bruce Langham and Amanda Jones, both Non-Executive Directors and both UNPAID.

Total Remuneration in 2010 was £492,903 against a turnover of £7.064 mln, to give a % of 6.98. By comparision in 2009, the numbers were: £495,702 and £7.711 mln, for a % of 6.42.

For my own part, I think the Board is too heavy. To be blunt, it could be reduced by at least two, if not, three, though that would not change the costs as the functional jobs would still have to be done and Executive Directors are not normally paid for their roles as Board Directors.

Hope this helps.

So, going by the figures on your post the OP is pretty much wrong with the information in the thread title then, given that 6.92% is not 'over 10%'.

[PaulSmith]

I'm pretty sure Lawell is on over £800k at Celtic and Ogilvie was on about £350k at the Yams.

Petrie got about £106k, everything included.

Celtic are a multi national organisation which has a huge TO and also a PLC answerable to their shareholders.

[matty_f]

Celtic are a multi national organisation which has a huge TO and also a PLC answerable to their shareholders.

And the Yams? :dunno:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Hibs have a high board cost compared to most clubs because:

a) they stick more of their senior employees on the board than most other clubs, as mentioned above. That doesn't mean they are wasting money. Two or three of the "other" executive directors could resign their office tomorrow and stay on performing their normal work. That would reduce this director pay % that is being talked about above, but it wouldn't save Hibs a penny.

b) some other clubs have artificially low board costs because the club owner does a lot of unpaid work (eg Eddie Thompson when he was alive). The only way that is ever going to happen at Hibs, irrespective of whether Petrie is there, is if *someone* buys the club from Tom Farmer and does that unpaid work. Good luck finding that person, judging by the inability of St. Mirren and Rangers to find buyers.

[Liberal Hibby]

You've just made it worse :greengrin
So our board are paid on average, 100k each?

what are comparable positions (including non-board members) paid at other clubs?
What are other boards paid, on average?
What exactly are we trying to compare, or is it just moaning for moanings sake?

If we're paying, on average, 3 or 5 times more per employee, i can see the argument that they're overpaid.

Then to confuse things even more... does that include bonus, perks, shares etc etc etc?

The cost will include all the add ons - including employers' National Insurance - which given Rod Petrie is reportedly on £100k would mean the other four are on around £75k which is probably a bit less than a FD or marketing director for a company with a £7m turnover would expect.

I imagine the unpaid directors will also get some expenses - which will also be included in the £492k total.

By way of comparison if Riordan is on £2.5k a week plus bonus - his pay is getting on for half as much again as Petrie's and given Mr Petrie put more effort into typing his e-mail to supporters today than the indispensible Mr Riordan has on the pitch for about two months - I know who's worth it.

[jonty]

Hibs have a high board cost compared to most clubs because:

a) they stick more of their senior employees on the board than most other clubs, as mentioned above. That doesn't mean they are wasting money. Two or three of the "other" executive directors could resign their office tomorrow and stay on performing their normal work. That would reduce this director pay % that is being talked about above, but it wouldn't save Hibs a penny.

b) some other clubs have artificially low board costs because the club owner does a lot of unpaid work (eg Eddie Thompson when he was alive). The only way that is ever going to happen at Hibs, irrespective of whether Petrie is there, is if *someone* buys the club from Tom Farmer and does that unpaid work. Good luck finding that person, judging by the inability of St. Mirren and Rangers to find buyers.


The cost will include all the add ons - including employers' National Insurance - which given Rod Petrie is reportedly on £100k would mean the other four are on around £75k which is probably a bit less than a FD or marketing director for a company with a £7m turnover would expect.

I imagine the unpaid directors will also get some expenses - which will also be included in the £492k total.

By way of comparison if Riordan is on £2.5k a week plus bonus - his pay is getting on for half as much again as Petrie's and given Mr Petrie put more effort into typing his e-mail to supporters today than the indispensible Mr Riordan has on the pitch for about two months - I know who's worth it.

Thanks - I also understand AH's post now :thumbsup:

[IWasThere2016]

The cost will include all the add ons - including employers' National Insurance - which given Rod Petrie is reportedly on £100k would mean the other four are on around £75k which is probably a bit less than a FD or marketing director for a company with a £7m turnover would expect.

I imagine the unpaid directors will also get some expenses - which will also be included in the £492k total.

By way of comparison if Riordan is on £2.5k a week plus bonus - his pay is getting on for half as much again as Petrie's and given Mr Petrie put more effort into typing his e-mail to supporters today than the indispensible Mr Riordan has on the pitch for about two months - I know who's worth it.

£75k for a FD of a £7m turnover business with trading losses of £2m is excessive IMHO.

And who pays to watch Rod - apart fae Andy74? :faf:

[matty_f]

£75k for a FD of a £7m turnover business with trading losses of £2m is excessive IMHO.

And who pays to watch Rod - apart fae Andy74? :faf:

We never posted a loss last year, TQM.

You can work the figures how you like, but at the end of the day the club turned a profit.

[marinello59]

£75k for a FD of a £7m turnover business with trading losses of £2m is excessive IMHO.

And who pays to watch Rod - apart fae Andy74? :faf:

At least he pays. :agree:

[IWasThere2016]

We never posted a loss last year, TQM.

You can work the figures how you like, but at the end of the day the club turned a profit.

The clue was in 'trading' :wink: and when the player sales dry up as they are???

[IWasThere2016]

At least he pays. :agree:

:greengrin

[matty_f]

The clue was in 'trading' :wink: and when the player sales dry up as they are???

Player sales count as trading.:wink:

And I thought the player sales weren't drying up - aren't we meant to be the easiest club on the planet to buy from?:rolleyes:

[Sumner]

Player sales count as trading.:wink:

And I thought the player sales weren't drying up - aren't we meant to be the easiest club on the planet to buy from?:rolleyes:

And when the quality has gone, and there
is so little left to sell for sizeable income,
will the self-defeating sales keep coming ? :rolleyes:

[matty_f]

And when the quality has gone, and there
is so little left to sell for sizeable income,
will the self-defeating sales keep coming ? :rolleyes:

Then you can all take out your bell-ends and have a mass stroke-a-thon for being proved right.:rolleyes:

[IWasThere2016]

Player sales count as trading.:wink:

And I thought the player sales weren't drying up - aren't we meant to be the easiest club on the planet to buy from?:rolleyes:

Not sure I'd class selling players as day to day business personally, still - when the player sales dry up?

[IWasThere2016]

Then you can all take out your bell-ends and have a mass stroke-a-thon for being proved right.:rolleyes:

Classy :wink:

Still he'll no have long to wait.

[matty_f]

Classy :wink:

Still he'll no have long to wait.

Cheers :aok:

[greenlex]

Not sure I'd class selling players as day to day business personally, still - when the player sales dry up?

Stop panicking we will get 22 mlion for Danny Gbraith after he has a dozen or so decent games in a row. That's how it works isn't it? I am sure I read that's how big teams operate.

[IWasThere2016]

Stop panicking we will get 22 mlion for Danny Gbraith after he has a dozen or so decent games in a row. That's how it works isn't it? I am sure I read that's how big teams operate.

:thumbsup:

[Sumner]

Then you can all take out your bell-ends and have a mass stroke-a-thon for being proved right.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: enlightened stuff son :rolleyes:

[matty_f]

:rolleyes: enlightened stuff son :rolleyes:

Thanks, I was saving that one up.:greengrin

[Sumner]

Thanks, I was saving that one up.:greengrin

Just keep telling yourself you're a "special" poster, "special" :rolleyes:

[matty_f]

Just keep telling yourself you're a "special" poster, "special" :rolleyes:

I will. :aok:

[Danderhall Hibs]

Just keep telling yourself you're a "special" poster, "special" :rolleyes:

Are you hinting that he's a ******?

[The Falcon]

Not sure I'd class selling players as day to day business personally, still - when the player sales dry up?

But it is still part of the overall business.

Nonetheless the point is valid and a concern that we are losing money on the running of the club and this has to be supported from other areas.

This has absolutely hee-haw to do with the wages of the board which, as you pointed out, appears on the large side numbers wise, but if the "commercial director" wasnt on the board we would still have to employ a "commercial manager" and his wage would be in the general salaries other than the directors salaries. Swings and roundabouts.

I dont think Rod is overpaid but bearing in mind he is the right hand man of the owner, who is not paid a penny.

[Sumner]

Are you hinting that he's a ******?

"special".. struggles to understand perhaps but "special"

[matty_f]

Are you hinting that he's a ******?

Like it wasn't obvious already?:confused:


"special".. struggles to understand perhaps but "special"

Oh, are we still doing this? Brilliant.

[Sumner]

Oh, are we still doing this? Brilliant.

Oh, maybe you should go practice this instead...


... take out your bell-ends and have a mass stroke-a-thon for being proved right.:rolleyes:

"Special", so very "special"... :wink:

[Danderhall Hibs]

Oh, maybe you should go practice this instead...



"Special", so very "special"... :wink:

I reckon he'd love to be able to do that. :agree:

[IWasThere2016]

But it is still part of the overall business.

Nonetheless the point is valid and a concern that we are losing money on the running of the club and this has to be supported from other areas.

This has absolutely hee-haw to do with the wages of the board which, as you pointed out, appears on the large side numbers wise, but if the "commercial director" wasnt on the board we would still have to employ a "commercial manager" and his wage would be in the general salaries other than the directors salaries. Swings and roundabouts.

I dont think Rod is overpaid but bearing in mind he is the right hand man of the owner, who is not paid a penny.

We're never gonna agree .. But as someone who works at Boardroom level, I think ours does not represent value for money and as presently configured/remunerated our Board is IMHO unaffordable.

[matty_f]

I reckon he'd love to be able to do that. :agree:

:agree: No' happening tonight though!

[The Falcon]

We're never gonna agree .. But as someone who works at Boardroom level, I think ours does not represent value for money and as presently configured/remunerated our Board is IMHO unaffordable.

I think we're closer to agreement than you think. While not at boardroom level I work closely with a board in a senior managerial role so i know how much a board can hold a company back :greengrin

[greenlex]

Thread bordering on personal abuse because of differing opinions. Sad really.

[IWasThere2016]

I think we're closer to agreement than you think. While not at boardroom level I work closely with a board in a senior managerial role so i know how much a board can hold a company back :greengrin

Especially the ones overloaded with accountants (and I'm allowed to say that :wink:)

[sesoim]

The boards' wages wouldn't look so bad if we were bringing in a turnover like 2007 (around £9.5M I think). At the moment, though, it's hard to justify half a million being paid to them when we are failing badly as a club. How much will they expect to earn when we are in the First Division and cutting the squad wage bill down by a couple of million?

The operating costs are also quite high, I wonder how they compare to Inverness, St Johnstone, Motherwell and all the other teams currently above us in the league with much smaller average attendadances than us?

[IWasThere2016]

The boards' wages wouldn't look so bad if we were bringing in a turnover like 2007 (around £9.5M I think). At the moment, though, it's hard to justify half a million being paid to them when we are failing badly as a club. How much will they expect to earn when we are in the First Division and cutting the squad wage bill down by a couple of million?
The operating costs are also quite high, I wonder how they compare to Inverness, St Johnstone, Motherwell and all the other teams currently above us in the league with much smaller average attendadances than us?

Well in that time turnover fell by £2.5m and RP took a cut and SL came in - net was increased cost. A drop into the First Div., won't cost the same in turnover so your guess is as good as mine but I wouldn't foresee a significant cut.

Operating costs are higher because of East Mains I think.

[Ray_]

The cost will include all the add ons - including employers' National Insurance - which given Rod Petrie is reportedly on £100k would mean the other four are on around £75k which is probably a bit less than a FD or marketing director for a company with a £7m turnover would expect.

I imagine the unpaid directors will also get some expenses - which will also be included in the £492k total.

By way of comparison if Riordan is on £2.5k a week plus bonus - his pay is getting on for half as much again as Petrie's and given Mr Petrie put more effort into typing his e-mail to supporters today than the indispensible Mr Riordan has on the pitch for about two months - I know who's worth it.

Easily pleased comes to mind, thankfully most companies, outside the banking industry, are run on results & not words, otherwise this country would be in much more of state than it already is.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Well I know that if I was responsible for the club as everyone seems to say Petrie is then I am pretty bloody sure I would be unhappy that I have so many employees getting paid more than me. Ones that I cannot even sack or discipline for not doing the job they are paid to do to a reasonable standard. So, no, I do not think the board are over paid.

[Sergio sledge]

Except interest on the loans for the stand(s).

Alright I'll bite, where's this come from? Aren't the mortgages from the bank?I hope you have some evidence of this and haven't just made it up.....

[The Falcon]

Alright I'll bite, where's this come from? Aren't the mortgages from the bank?I hope you have some evidence of this and haven't just made it up.....

Dont. You'll only encourage him. There's £5m or so in debt sloshing about (or not sloshing about) somewhere in some company thats owned by STF. This is debt from the building of the stands, is basically owed to STF and does NOT accrue interest.

But dont let that stop these stories. The more you say these things the truer they become FACT!

[ancienthibby]

Dont. You'll only encourage him. There's £5m or so in debt sloshing about (or not sloshing about) somewhere in some company thats owned by STF. This is debt from the building of the stands, is basically owed to STF and does NOT accrue interest.

But dont let that stop these stories. The more you say these things the truer they become FACT!


This statement is contradicted by the Annual Accounts!!:greengrin

[The Falcon]

This statement is contradicted by the Annual Accounts!!:greengrin

What? The £5m that is shares held by Maidencraig?

[ancienthibby]

What? The £5m that is shares held by Maidencraig?

Dearie, dearie me,

Shares and debt are NOT the same.

Check your post - you claimed debt of about £5 million existed for the stands and did not carry interest.

I repeat, the Accounts show stadium mortgages carrying interest costs, which are charged to the P&L.

I believe the Accounts.:agree:

[The Falcon]

Dearie, dearie me,

Shares and debt are NOT the same.

Check your post - you claimed debt of about £5 million existed for the stands and did not carry interest.

I repeat, the Accounts show stadium mortgages carrying interest costs, which are charged to the P&L.

I believe the Accounts.:agree:

But that is not paid to STF?

[CropleyWasGod]

Dearie, dearie me,

Shares and debt are NOT the same.

Check your post - you claimed debt of about £5 million existed for the stands and did not carry interest.

I repeat, the Accounts show stadium mortgages carrying interest costs, which are charged to the P&L.

I believe the Accounts.:agree:

Mortgages to the bank, shirley.

[The Falcon]

Dearie, dearie me,

Shares and debt are NOT the same.

Check your post - you claimed debt of about £5 million existed for the stands and did not carry interest.

I repeat, the Accounts show stadium mortgages carrying interest costs, which are charged to the P&L.

I believe the Accounts.:agree:

I was referring to the £5m which used to come under the category of "creditors due after more than one year". This was transferred into shares which were held by Morston then sold to Infocus Investments for £1 so Morston (STF) took a £5m hit basically. A DFE swap which actually had meaning.

[aberhibsfc]

Yet to see a good example of it working in Britain tbh.

Only place I have seen it work was at Man Utd, but it's only because Bobby C and Alex Ferguson have total respect in each other and let the other get on with their job.

I've seen it lose Keegan from NUFC and Mourinho at Chelski.

The DOF should be a go between to allow the manager to concentrate on football managers. The DOF should be the teams man on the board.

Football management in Britain is primarily in the hands of a manager any other influences on this tends to end in bother.

On the continent they are comfortable with the coach and DOF situation but that's because they are used to it.

[ancienthibby]

I was referring to the £5m which used to come under the category of payable after one year. This was transferred into shares which were held by Morston then sold to Infocus Investments for £1 so Morston (STF) took a £5m hit basically. A DFE swap which actually had meaning.

Now that's what I call a substantial piece of backtracking!:thumbsup:

The FACT (as you like to say) is that the Club does have debt, particularly stadium mortgages on which it pays interest and principal repayments.

Your post 65 remains rubbish!

[greenlex]

Now that's what I call a substantial piece of backtracking!:thumbsup:

The FACT (as you like to say) is that the Club does have debt, particularly stadium mortgages on which it pays interest and principal repayments.

Your post 65 remains rubbish!

Rubbish aside does STF get interest on loans or is it a financial institution? Either way it makes no odds IMO as we have to pay it to someone.

FWIW and IIRC STF was a gaurantor for loans rather than the facilitator.

[The Falcon]

Now that's what I call a substantial piece of backtracking!:thumbsup:

The FACT (as you like to say) is that the Club does have debt, particularly stadium mortgages on which it pays interest and principal repayments.

Your post 65 remains rubbish!

I see what you mean now.

I was jumping from post #62 AH which said that STF was being paid interest for loans for the stands.

[The Falcon]

Now that's what I call a substantial piece of backtracking!:thumbsup:

The FACT (as you like to say) is that the Club does have debt, particularly stadium mortgages on which it pays interest and principal repayments.

Your post 65 remains rubbish!

And I very rarely use FACT. Thats a FACT. :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

I see what you mean now.

I was jumping from post #62 AH which said that STF was being paid interest for loans for the stands.
:cool2:

[ancienthibby]

Rubbish aside does STF get interest on loans or is it a financial institution? Either way it makes no odds IMO as we have to pay it to someone.

FWIW and IIRC STF was a gaurantor for loans rather than the facilitator.

The stadium mortgages (pre new East) are to the Bank of Scotland who hold a standard floating charge as security. No mention of a guarantor.

The club do have a small loan from the parent co. No repayment schedule is identified in the accounts. Interest paid in the year to July 2010 was £4,926.

[Ray_]

Well I know that if I was responsible for the club as everyone seems to say Petrie is then I am pretty bloody sure I would be unhappy that I have so many employees getting paid more than me. Ones that I cannot even sack or discipline for not doing the job they are paid to do to a reasonable standard. So, no, I do not think the board are over paid.

Thankfully for Man U, Fergie doesn't think along the same lines....

[The Falcon]

The stadium mortgages (pre new East) are to the Bank of Scotland who hold a standard floating charge as security. No mention of a guarantor.

The club do have a small loan from the parent co. No repayment schedule is identified in the accounts. Interest paid in the year to July 2010 was £4,926.

Is that paid directy to Farmer?

And thats nearly a hundred quid a week! No wonder the guy makes the rich list each year :rolleyes:

[Lucius Apuleius]

Thankfully for Man U, Fergie doesn't think along the same lines....

IMO he should. What is Fergie's salary?

[ancienthibby]

Is that paid directy to Farmer?

And thats nearly a hundred quid a week! No wonder the guy makes the rich list each year :rolleyes:

No, it's paid to HFC Holdings Limited.

[The Falcon]

No, it's paid to HFC Holdings Limited.

Which also sold the £5m shares for £1 to Infocus via Maiden Craig?

[ancienthibby]

Which also sold the £5m shares for £1 to Infocus via Maiden Craig?

Caversham Green is the man to answer that!

[The Falcon]

Caversham Green is the man to answer that!

He certainly is :greengrin

[Ray_]

IMO he should. What is Fergie's salary?

£7M a year. "Rooney's new wage packet is £8.3million a year MORE than his old weekly pay packet of £90,000, which was just short of £5M a year". As per the media.

Don't get me wrong, if the board were doing well & money was pouring in to the club, then they would deserve the cash & more, but we are performing very very poorly and the amount they are taking from the club is way above the norm, for the a business with our current turnover.

[ancienthibby]

[QUOTE=Ray-in-ireland;2703389]£7M a year. "Rooney's new wage packet is £8.3million a year MORE than his old weekly pay packet of £90,000, which was just short of £5M a year". As per the media.

Don't get me wrong, if the board were doing well & money was pouring in to the club, then they would deserve the cash & more, but we are performing very very poorly and the amount they are taking from the club is way above the norm, for the a business with our current turnover.

Don't think so!

I worked for a start-up where the directors (same number) employment costs were higher than Hibs have now and we had zero turnover!

The one place where Hibs could save at Board level is combining the roles of Finance Director and Company Secretary. Most companies do this.

[Ray_]

[QUOTE=Ray-in-ireland;2703389]£7M a year. "Rooney's new wage packet is £8.3million a year MORE than his old weekly pay packet of £90,000, which was just short of £5M a year". As per the media.

Don't get me wrong, if the board were doing well & money was pouring in to the club, then they would deserve the cash & more, but we are performing very very poorly and the amount they are taking from the club is way above the norm, for the a business with our current turnover.

Don't think so!

I worked for a start-up where the directors (same number) employment costs were higher than Hibs have now and we had zero turnover!

The one place where Hibs could save at Board level is combining the roles of Finance Director and Company Secretary. Most companies do this.

A lot of companies directors own said business [it used to cost £100 at the post office to list your business as a limited company, not sure what it is now] & they could set the wages at whatever they want to take. But it would be crazy for a firm to hire staff [whatever level] at a rate they can't afford or is not in relation to what the company brings in & that generally doesn't happen.

[ancienthibby]

[QUOTE=ancienthibby;2703409]

A lot of companies directors used to own said business [it used to cost £100 at the post office to list your business as a limited company, not sure what it is now] & they could set the wages at whatever they want to take. But it would be crazy for a firm to hire staff [whatever level] at a rate they can't afford or is not in relation to what the company brings in & that generally doesn't happen.

Ray,

Two responses, first many companies are funded by shareholders to incur losses for the first few years and to hire staff (many times expensive and varied!). Second, usually the Business Plan dictates including the scenario I've just outlined but, in Hibs case, what we may be seeing is a lack of response to cutting costs if the revenue line is running way behind plan!

[Ray_]

[QUOTE=Ray-in-ireland;2703422]

Ray,

Two responses, first many companies are funded by shareholders to incur losses for the first few years and to hire staff (many times expensive and varied!). Second, usually the Business Plan dictates including the scenario I've just outlined but, in Hibs case, what we may be seeing is a lack of response to cutting costs if the revenue line is running way behind plan!

You said it yourself, the first response was to build a new company or one that may have been rebranded, that is not general that is for a specific reason.

Reason two, in hibs case, I think that rather than not cutting costs as expected, the problem is far more to do with the fact we haven’t progressed as expected.

The board may have to change direction now, however, rather than cutting expenditure, the club has been adding to the costs, [as they keep on saying], the wage budget has been increasing, East Mains would add to the running costs & the new stand will have also increased expenditure.