PDA

View Full Version : how much do we pay in wages ???



yekimevol
17-07-2011, 12:20 PM
i thought we were past paying under £2,000 for our good players.

I remember hearing that we were paying alan o'brien around £5,000 and riordan was on £3,000. so why are we having problems signing a good player. im not expecting the £14,000 he is on but at least £3,000 why are we offering £1,400 ?

extract from evening news.
Continuing to discharge his Easter Road duties in the meantime, Calderwood has expressed his desire to tie up Sheridan but the wage offer from the Leith club is only a tenth of his £14,000-a-week salary with current club CSKA Sofia. Other English clubs Leeds United, Coventry City and Sheffield Wednesday that were to have attended the Easter Road fixture would be in a position to come closer to his Bulgarian terms.

http://sport.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Monsoon-on-Leith-washes-out.6802872.jp

R'Albin
17-07-2011, 12:25 PM
i thought we were past paying under £2,000 for our good players. I remember hearing that we were paying alan o'brien around £5,000 and riordan was on £3,000. so why are we having problems signing a good player. im not expecting the £14,000 he is on but at least £3,000 why are we offering £1,400 ?extract from evening news.Continuing to discharge his Easter Road duties in the meantime, Calderwood has expressed his desire to tie up Sheridan but the wage offer from the Leith club is only a tenth of his £14,000-a-week salary with current club CSKA Sofia. Other English clubs Leeds United, Coventry City and Sheffield Wednesday that were to have attended the Easter Road fixture would be in a position to come closer to his Bulgarian terms.http://sport.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Monsoon-on-Leith-washes-out.6802872.jp

Looks like he's not going to come to us.

Thats annoying.

CMcP
17-07-2011, 12:29 PM
Looks like he's not going to come to us.Thats annoying.

Looks unlikely now. Gutted, would have been signing of the season for me, but this offer looks like they never really intended to sign him at all and were just giving him a platform to be seen by other clubs.

Hibernian Verse
17-07-2011, 12:30 PM
That's if you believe everything you read in the paper.

bingo70
17-07-2011, 12:30 PM
i thought we were past paying under £2,000 for our good players.

I remember hearing that we were paying alan o'brien around £5,000 and riordan was on £3,000. so why are we having problems signing a good player. im not expecting the £14,000 he is on but at least £3,000 why are we offering £1,400 ?

extract from evening news.
Continuing to discharge his Easter Road duties in the meantime, Calderwood has expressed his desire to tie up Sheridan but the wage offer from the Leith club is only a tenth of his £14,000-a-week salary with current club CSKA Sofia. Other English clubs Leeds United, Coventry City and Sheffield Wednesday that were to have attended the Easter Road fixture would be in a position to come closer to his Bulgarian terms.

http://sport.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Monsoon-on-Leith-washes-out.6802872.jp

We could afford to pay more then because we were doing better in cups and had bigger crowds, we can only spend what we can afford.

That said i'm always pretty sceptical about these stories, your only hearing part of whats on offer, i'm sure there'll be lots of other bonuses, incentives, add ons and signing on fees that'll take it to considerably more than £1400p/week.

.Sean.
17-07-2011, 12:31 PM
Looks like he's not going to come to us.

Thats annoying.
Dissapointed, but not unexpected if he chooses to go elsewhere for bigger bucks.

R'Albin
17-07-2011, 12:32 PM
We could afford to pay more then because we were doing better in cups and had bigger crowds, we can only spend what we can afford.

That said i'm always pretty sceptical about these stories, your only hearing part of whats on offer, i'm sure there'll be lots of other bonuses, incentives, add ons and signing on fees that'll take it to considerably more than £1400p/week.

Never really thought of that, and apparently the fee is wrong according to another thread I just read on here.

yekimevol
17-07-2011, 12:35 PM
We could afford to pay more then because we were doing better in cups and had bigger crowds, we can only spend what we can afford.

That said i'm always pretty sceptical about these stories, your only hearing part of whats on offer, i'm sure there'll be lots of other bonuses, incentives, add ons and signing on fees that'll take it to considerably more than £1400p/week.

yeh i understand that but what ever happened to speculate to accumulate. we build a better squad to get back into the latter stages of the cups and back into the top 4 of the league.

and i know we have never been good at investing in the squad but after players like riordan stokes, miller, o'connor and ivan i thought were getting better.

WindyMiller
17-07-2011, 12:45 PM
i thought we were past paying under £2,000 for our good players.

I remember hearing that we were paying alan o'brien around £5,000 and riordan was on £3,000. so why are we having problems signing a good player. im not expecting the £14,000 he is on but at least £3,000 why are we offering £1,400 ?

extract from evening news.
Continuing to discharge his Easter Road duties in the meantime, Calderwood has expressed his desire to tie up Sheridan but the wage offer from the Leith club is only a tenth of his £14,000-a-week salary with current club CSKA Sofia. Other English clubs Leeds United, Coventry City and Sheffield Wednesday that were to have attended the Easter Road fixture would be in a position to come closer to his Bulgarian terms.

http://sport.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Monsoon-on-Leith-washes-out.6802872.jp



68% of turnover, as of our last published accounts.​

Ray_
17-07-2011, 01:03 PM
68% of turnover, as of our last published accounts.​

IMHO, shows what a hams fist we are making of it!

R'Albin
17-07-2011, 01:05 PM
68% of turnover, as of our last published accounts.​

Okay this is a quick calculation from me could be wrong(probably will be wrong):greengrin

Last year we spent £4,828,000 on wages a year, meaning we spent about £82,346 on wages a week, I don't know how many players that includes so these figures would mean nothing really.

EDIT Anywhere where it might tell you how much of the percentage is on playing staff?

Edit2 Didnt even have to bother working that out :grr:

TowerHibs
17-07-2011, 01:08 PM
I don't know what the basic pay is for the top earners but Hibs pay very decent win bonuses/ appearance fees, to the younger players in particular. I don't really want to mention figures but appearance fees almost double their pay packets and win bonuses are quite a healthy sum.



Having a guess here that the highest basic wouldn't be any more than 2K a week though?

this is the case, however i don't think this is a bad way of doing contracts -a good deal for both club/player (if your playing and winning)

I certainly know certain old firm players who aren't on top wages there, but once they receive appearance, win, goal, champo league bonus then some of the wages are staggering.

Saorsa
17-07-2011, 01:13 PM
68% of turnover, as of our last published accounts.​Any idea what % of that is on playing staff?

The Falcon
17-07-2011, 01:29 PM
yeh i understand that but what ever happened to speculate to accumulate. we build a better squad to get back into the latter stages of the cups and back into the top 4 of the league.

and i know we have never been good at investing in the squad but after players like riordan stokes, miller, o'connor and ivan i thought were getting better.


Yeah, we've done it before. Almost bust us.

IFONLY
17-07-2011, 01:36 PM
I don't know what the basic pay is for the top earners but Hibs pay very decent win bonuses/ appearance fees, to the younger players in particular. I don't really want to mention figures but appearance fees almost double their pay packets and win bonuses are quite a healthy sum.



Having a guess here that the highest basic wouldn't be any more than 2K a week though?


So we still dont pay that much.

Elephant Stone
17-07-2011, 01:37 PM
If £1400 a week is what we've offered then that really is grim. Hopefully it's not true.

The Falcon
17-07-2011, 01:48 PM
So we still dont pay that much.

We pay what we can afford. CSKA pay him £10k a week (or £14k depending on the source) and have been reported to FIFA for not paying his transfer fee so it looks like they cant afford what they do pay.

I asked elsewhere but if they dont pay the transfer fee do Celtic get him back?

IFONLY
17-07-2011, 01:53 PM
We pay what we can afford. CSKA pay him £10k a week (or £14k depending on the source) and have been reported to FIFA for not paying his transfer fee so it looks like they cant afford what they do pay.

I asked elsewhere but if they dont pay the transfer fee do Celtic get him back?


Sorry too upset you but I was trying a bit of humour i.e. win bonuses, dont cost much as we dont win that often lol

The Falcon
17-07-2011, 01:56 PM
Sorry too upset you but I was trying a bit of humour i.e. win bonuses, dont cost much as we dont win that often lol


You didnt upset me in the slightest. :greengrin

Cropley10
17-07-2011, 01:58 PM
68% of turnover, as of our last published accounts.​

So is turnover coming DOWN or are wages going UP?

frazeHFC
17-07-2011, 02:04 PM
Apparently Sheridan wants £2k a week. I am shocked if we are not offering that.

Ray_
17-07-2011, 02:39 PM
Yeah, we've done it before. Almost bust us.


Yeah agreed, I've seen us do this before, we brought in the likes of Keith Wright, Crunchie, O'Neill, Darren Jackson, De La Cruz & most recently Stokes.

But I have a feeling you mean the time we spent a fortune on first division & below class players under Duffy, which led to a squad of 50 plus players, all getting wages & some cost hefty transfer fees. Somehow the blame for which was put on the likes of McLeish, Latapy & Sauzee, instead of the purchase of a mountain of dross. That episode was not an example of speculation, but sheer stupidity, which we are still paying for.

IFONLY
17-07-2011, 02:52 PM
Apparently Sheridan wants £2k a week. I am shocked if we are not offering that.

What does that mean? How do you know this, is it fact or just a figment of your imagination.

frazeHFC
17-07-2011, 03:06 PM
What does that mean? How do you know this, is it fact or just a figment of your imagination. It was either on here or in the paper that apparently he wants £2k but we are only offering £1.5k.

yekimevol
17-07-2011, 03:47 PM
Yeah, we've done it before. Almost bust us.

true my friend but surely we learned the lessons from that time and can more accurately guess were the line between bust and speculation is.

Beefster
17-07-2011, 04:02 PM
68% of turnover, as of our last published accounts.​

Which, presumably, includes our well-remunerated board and other, non-footballing, employees.

R'Albin
17-07-2011, 04:04 PM
It was either on here or in the paper that apparently he wants £2k but we are only offering £1.5k.

Surely we could stump up an extra £500 a week? We really need to get a second striker in before the season starts.

blackpoolhibs
17-07-2011, 04:05 PM
Surely we could stump up an extra £500 a week? We really need to get a second striker in before the season starts.

That is assuming any of this is true?

R'Albin
17-07-2011, 04:07 PM
That is assuming any of this is true?

That's what I mean't, surely if this was true we would stump up the extra £500 P/W that is needed.

KeithTheHibby
17-07-2011, 04:51 PM
This thread is full of speculation, nothing more.

There is nobody on this board knows anything about how much players earn or what is offered, neither do the papers.

I think Sheridan will end at ER but only on a year long loan deal with Sofia still paying some of his wages.

R'Albin
17-07-2011, 05:10 PM
This thread is full of speculation, nothing more.

There is nobody on this board knows anything about how much players earn or what is offered, neither do the papers.

I think Sheridan will end at ER but only on a year long loan deal with Sofia still paying some of his wages.

The turnover post and mines are true though:smug:

Big Frank
17-07-2011, 05:11 PM
This thread is full of speculation, nothing more.

There is nobody on this board knows anything about how much players earn or what is offered, neither do the papers.

I think Sheridan will end at ER but only on a year long loan deal with Sofia still paying some of his wages.

Spot on.

I challenge any poster to prove what players earn at Easter Road.

I won't hold my breath:rolleyes:

DH1875
17-07-2011, 06:25 PM
68% of turnover, as of our last published accounts.​

How much of that is Rod's wages though?


It was either on here or in the paper that apparently he wants £2k but we are only offering £1.5k.

I'm sure it was in the papers.

KeithTheHibby
17-07-2011, 06:35 PM
The turnover post and mines are true though:smug:


The turnover post's are fact, agreed.

Nothing else is though.

WindyMiller
17-07-2011, 07:45 PM
[QUOTE=Cropley10;2859376]So is turnover coming DOWN or are wages going UP?[/QUOTE

YES.
http://www.football-finances.org.uk/hibs/2010/income2.htm

cabbageandribs1875
17-07-2011, 08:06 PM
Looks unlikely now. Gutted, would have been signing of the season for me, but this offer looks like they never really intended to sign him at all and were just giving him a platform to be seen by other clubs.


if that were true(and the reported 14k salary etc) i would be very annoyed at hibs for giving this guy the platform to go and impress other clubs reps :agree: the friendlies are about systems for our players for the coming season, not to put non-hibs staff in the shop window.



IF thats fact :wink:

cabbageandribs1875
17-07-2011, 08:09 PM
It was either on here or in the paper that apparently he wants £2k but we are only offering £1.5k.


and if THAT was true, i'd be annoyed at hibs for penny-pinching over an extra 2k/month

jdships
17-07-2011, 08:11 PM
[QUOTE=.sean.;2859332]I don't know what the basic pay is for the top earners but Hibs pay very decent win bonuses/ appearance fees, to the younger players in particular. I don't really want to mention figures but appearance fees almost double their pay packets and win bonuses are quite a healthy sum.


That is exactly how it is from what "my two lads" tell me :agree::thumbsup:

JohnScott
17-07-2011, 08:48 PM
[QUOTE=.sean.;2859332]I don't know what the basic pay is for the top earners but Hibs pay very decent win bonuses/ appearance fees, to the younger players in particular. I don't really want to mention figures but appearance fees almost double their pay packets and win bonuses are quite a healthy sum.


That is exactly how it is from what "my two lads" tell me :agree::thumbsup:

Dont you have to win to get a bonus. We must save a fortune then. :greengrin

WindyMiller
18-07-2011, 05:25 AM
I'd be very surprised if a club, with an average crowd of +/- 4k, would offer a player, that was out on loan at St J., £14k p.w.

WindyMiller
18-07-2011, 05:50 AM
IMHO, shows what a hams fist we are making of it!

:agree:



Any idea what % of that is on playing staff?


Nearer £4M than £3.5M. :dunno:




Which, presumably, includes our well-remunerated board and other, non-footballing, employees.



Some will argue that the board are well paid, but I would be surprised if there was an argument that we overpay our other staff. I'd assume EM has caused an increase in permanent, trained staff in the past 3 years though.

Kaiser1962
18-07-2011, 06:53 AM
Some will argue that the board are well paid, but I would be surprised if there was an argument that we overpay our other staff. I'd assume EM has caused an increase in permanent, trained staff in the past 3 years though.


There are a number of clubs, including Hearts, who do not distinquish director's salaries.

Caversham Green
18-07-2011, 07:43 AM
There are a number of clubs, including Hearts, who do not distinquish director's salaries.

Actually, they do K - they have to by law. It's just that most clubs have figurehead directors with non-director staff doing the work that our directors do. Hearts had Cambell Ogilvie, David Southern et al doing the work and reporting to the board - those two were paid more than our entire board, but they've cut down significantly in that area since CO left. Aberdeen also pay their MD (who is on the board) quite a lot more than we pay ours, but again the other work is done by non directors. They also have Willie Miller on the board and paid just under £100k pa - Hibs don't have a direct equivalent. Dundee United pay their three directors a bit over £100k pa in total, but I suspect Stephen Thompson is unpaid.

On the same basis that Sheridan was offered £1,400 per week, our highest paid director is paid £1,440 per week.

Viva_Palmeiras
18-07-2011, 08:05 AM
I think you'll find that organisations that are careful with the pennies will remunerate those further up the food chain rewarding them for the streamlining and management. And there I've seen talented folks leave due to a desire to keep within budgets/pay structures to the longerterm detriment of the organisation. I guess were no different.To the pointmon speculate to accumulate i dont think that language is part of rods vocab these days Some will argue that the board are well paid, but I would be surprised if there was an argument that we overpay our other staff. I'd assume EM has caused an increase in permanent, trained staff in the past 3 years though.[/QU

Mikey
18-07-2011, 08:13 AM
and if THAT was true, i'd be annoyed at hibs for penny-pinching over an extra 2k/month

Why is it "penny pinching" when the club won't spend money they don't have?

Do you live in a 6 bedroom house in Barnton? Do you have 3 or 4 flash cars in the driveway? Do you go on 4 foreign holidays a year?

If not, why not?

Mikey
18-07-2011, 08:14 AM
There are a number of clubs, including Hearts, who do not distinquish director's salaries.


Actually, they do K - they have to by law. It's just that most clubs have figurehead directors with non-director staff doing the work that our directors do. Hearts had Cambell Ogilvie, David Southern et al doing the work and reporting to the board - those two were paid more than our entire board, but they've cut down significantly in that area since CO left. Aberdeen also pay their MD (who is on the board) quite a lot more than we pay ours, but again the other work is done by non directors. They also have Willie Miller on the board and paid just under £100k pa - Hibs don't have a direct equivalent. Dundee United pay their three directors a bit over £100k pa in total, but I suspect Stephen Thompson is unpaid.

On the same basis that Sheridan was offered £1,400 per week, our highest paid director is paid £1,440 per week.


You're wasting your time guys.

Ray_
18-07-2011, 08:26 AM
Why is it "penny pinching" when the club won't spend money they don't have?

Do you live in a 6 bedroom house in Barnton? Do you have 3 or 4 flash cars in the driveway? Do you go on 4 foreign holidays a year?

If not, why not?

Mikey you don't have to own a six bedroom house & go on four holidays a year to attract customers, which is what Hibs need to do. We had around sixteen players leave over recent months & last season showed that we need quality & if the club doesn't deliver and slide continues, it raises even more serious questions about those put in charge of running the club. The close season has been a total shambles, rather than attract people to buy in to the club, some will have been put off for life.

Kaiser1962
18-07-2011, 10:30 AM
Actually, they do K - they have to by law. It's just that most clubs have figurehead directors with non-director staff doing the work that our directors do. Hearts had Cambell Ogilvie, David Southern et al doing the work and reporting to the board - those two were paid more than our entire board, but they've cut down significantly in that area since CO left. Aberdeen also pay their MD (who is on the board) quite a lot more than we pay ours, but again the other work is done by non directors. They also have Willie Miller on the board and paid just under £100k pa - Hibs don't have a direct equivalent. Dundee United pay their three directors a bit over £100k pa in total, but I suspect Stephen Thompson is unpaid.

On the same basis that Sheridan was offered £1,400 per week, our highest paid director is paid £1,440 per week.

I get a copy of Hearts accounts sent to me and I do not recall anything there regarding director's renumeration unless it was under another category. I think Motherwell and Killie are the same. There may be a reason for this but it does not seem clear to me, whereas Hibs are totally transparent in that we know what the board gets paid.

I also recall most of the key personnel at Hibs are directors and I understand that this is way STF operates and guys who are with him are usually in post long term. An example would be that Hibs have a finance director but most other clubs do not.

AndersonGGTTH
18-07-2011, 10:41 AM
What I can't understand is if we have let go off ten or more so players then surely we've got more of a wage budget and can pay CS his poxxy 2k p/w???? and I'm sure DR10 was on more than that likewise with rankin , nish etc!!

Kaiser1962
18-07-2011, 10:44 AM
What I can't understand is if we have let go off ten or more so players then surely we've got more of a wage budget and can pay CS his poxxy 2k p/w???? and I'm sure DR10 was on more than that likewise with rankin , nish etc!!

Perhaps we had less income and need to make savings?

blackpoolhibs
18-07-2011, 11:00 AM
What I can't understand is if we have let go off ten or more so players then surely we've got more of a wage budget and can pay CS his poxxy 2k p/w???? and I'm sure DR10 was on more than that likewise with rankin , nish etc!!

How do you know we have not offered him £2k a week?

Caversham Green
18-07-2011, 12:36 PM
I get a copy of Hearts accounts sent to me and I do not recall anything there regarding director's renumeration unless it was under another category. I think Motherwell and Killie are the same. There may be a reason for this but it does not seem clear to me, whereas Hibs are totally transparent in that we know what the board gets paid.

I also recall most of the key personnel at Hibs are directors and I understand that this is way STF operates and guys who are with him are usually in post long term. An example would be that Hibs have a finance director but most other clubs do not.

That's what I'm saying - Hearts have four directors, three of whom are employed and paid by UBIG and who rarely even set foot in the UK. The fourth is paid £52k per annum (note 22 in their accounts) - he's the one that's responsible for building that posh new stand/stadium/press box/light fitting that they now have. However Hearts also had Ogilvie, Southern, Broadie and the finance bloke whose name escapes me doing the work that our directors do, but because they're not directors their remuneration doesn't need to be disclosed separately. Motherwell and Killie are similar - they will have notes in the accounts to the effect that no remuneration was paid to the directors, but other people will have done those jobs (although probably on a smaller scale).

Companies have to disclose the total amount paid to directors, how many directors were paid over £100,000 and the amount the highest-paid director received if that was over £100,000 (they don't have to name those directors although Hibs choose to do so). All those figures include benefits in kind such as cars, health insurance etc. There's no such requirement for staff who are not directors.

The Falcon
18-07-2011, 02:49 PM
There are a number of clubs, including Hearts, who do not distinquish director's salaries.


Actually, they do K - they have to by law. It's just that most clubs have figurehead directors with non-director staff doing the work that our directors do. Hearts had Cambell Ogilvie, David Southern et al doing the work and reporting to the board - those two were paid more than our entire board, but they've cut down significantly in that area since CO left. Aberdeen also pay their MD (who is on the board) quite a lot more than we pay ours, but again the other work is done by non directors. They also have Willie Miller on the board and paid just under £100k pa - Hibs don't have a direct equivalent. Dundee United pay their three directors a bit over £100k pa in total, but I suspect Stephen Thompson is unpaid.

On the same basis that Sheridan was offered £1,400 per week, our highest paid director is paid £1,440 per week.

So what you guys are telling us is that oher clubs have employees doing the same job that our directors do :agree:

So our directors may not be such a bad deal as we are often told they are? And they are paid less than an offer to a player thats been described as embarrassing on here? Not the player the offer that is.

At the end of the day it's up to STF who gets what as it's he who gets the bill if it all goes pear shaped.

Ray_
18-07-2011, 03:02 PM
So what you guys are telling us is that oher clubs have employees doing the same job that our directors do :agree:

So our directors may not be such a bad deal as we are often told they are? And they are paid less than an offer to a player thats been described as embarrassing on here? Not the player the offer that is.

At the end of the day it's up to STF who gets what as it's he who gets the bill if it all goes pear shaped.

Not quite true, the fans spent bundles under TM & it all went towards the debt that was generated when it went pear shaped & then instead of entertainment, the fans then got 3-4 years and counting, of dross.

Jim44
18-07-2011, 03:04 PM
If you pay peanuts you get monkeys, but at least our monkeys have a zoo keeper who is can more or less guarantee a constant supply of peanuts.

The Falcon
18-07-2011, 03:09 PM
Not quite true, the fans spent bundles under TM & it all went towards the debt that was generated when it went pear shaped & then instead of entertainment, the fans then got 3-4 years and counting, of dross.


I thought that selling players and a big chunk of land paid for the debt?

And who guaranteed the debts accumulated?

Ray_
18-07-2011, 03:17 PM
I thought that selling players and a big chunk of land paid for the debt?

And who guaranteed the debts accumulated?

STF money is very safe & the people who by far suffers most when it goes pear shaped is the fans. Since the players were sold, STF's asset has grown considerably & the fans are left with a far inferior product.

"who guaranteed the debts accumulated?" How much did that cost, not a fraction compared to the loss of the support have put up with.

The Falcon
18-07-2011, 03:24 PM
STF money is very safe & the people who by far suffers most when it goes pear shaped is the fans. Since the players were sold, STF's asset has grown considerably & the fans are left with a far inferior product.

"who guaranteed the debts accumulated?" How much did that cost, not a fraction compared to the loss of the support have put up with.


Then you should have nipped in in front of him when it was for sale. We would be European Champions by now.

Ray_
18-07-2011, 04:43 PM
Then you should have nipped in in front of him when it was for sale. We would be European Champions by now.

If everything is so wonderful why are the club's earnings greatly reduced & why are Hibs losing customers in droves?

silverhibee
18-07-2011, 07:10 PM
Then you should have nipped in in front of him when it was for sale. We would be European Champions by now.


Just out of curiosity how much do you think STF has put in to the club since he took over from his own fortune that he has made, £1m, £5m,£10m or more. Just asking like. :aok:

The Falcon
18-07-2011, 08:30 PM
Just out of curiosity how much do you think STF has put in to the club since he took over from his own fortune that he has made, £1m, £5m,£10m or more. Just asking like. :aok:


With or without the costs of building the North and South stands? Just asking like :aok:

Jonnyboy
18-07-2011, 08:35 PM
With or without the costs of building the North and South stands? Just asking like :aok:

Are you saying STF paid for the building of those stands?

The Falcon
18-07-2011, 08:38 PM
Are you saying STF paid for the building of those stands?

His company paid the most part.

steviehibsleith
18-07-2011, 08:47 PM
As a matter of curiosity how many people on here get paid - £72800 basic.

What im watching at easter road im miffed they complain and dont sign.

Reality is we cant compete with Down south and we pay more than everyone else in Scotland apart from 3 teams. That is our overhall wage bill.

Jonnyboy
18-07-2011, 08:49 PM
His company paid the most part.

Really? Is there anywhere I can read up on that?

The Falcon
18-07-2011, 08:54 PM
Really? Is there anywhere I can read up on that?


http://sport.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Hibs-reveal-depth-of-Farmers.2447717.jp

Jonnyboy
18-07-2011, 08:58 PM
http://sport.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Hibs-reveal-depth-of-Farmers.2447717.jp

:aok: Thanks for that and :top marks to you for digging it up so quickly (July 2003 article) :thumbsup:

The Falcon
18-07-2011, 09:02 PM
:aok: Thanks for that and :top marks to you for digging it up so quickly (July 2003 article) :thumbsup:


Were you not at that meeting?

Jonnyboy
18-07-2011, 09:03 PM
Were you not at that meeting?

Who knows - cannae remember :greengrin

(Probably - were you?)

The Falcon
18-07-2011, 09:07 PM
Who knows - cannae remember :greengrin

(Probably - were you?)


Certainly. They blew one myth after the other out the water. Having listened to tons of **** for the previous twelve years it was quite enjoyable and, given the information that was disclosed, most un-Hibs like. I thought it would have ended the nonsense but it didn't so I think they gave up.

sesoim
18-07-2011, 11:04 PM
Yeah, we've done it before. Almost bust us.


Back in 1990, yes. In 2004, when we had the biggest debt we have ever have (around £15.4M from memory), at least £12M of that was, effectively, money spent on building three stands. We haven't been "big" spenders since Duff and Gray went.

sesoim
18-07-2011, 11:11 PM
His company paid the most part.


Yes, but the club still paid indirectly. When Farmer bought the club he separated the land from the club, and in 2004 he sold that land for a huge sum. Part of that sum would have went towards the money spent on the first two stands.

I'm not complaining about Farmer as I think he has done as much as we could ask of a guy who isn't even really a Hibs fan. But I hate when people talk about all the money he has put into the club, as if he is just handing us huge sums out of the goodness of his heart. He gave us loans and wrote off the odd fee, but bear in mind how much he paid for us and consider how much more we are worth now, even in the present dodgy climate.

The Falcon
19-07-2011, 06:23 AM
Yes, but the club still paid indirectly. When Farmer bought the club he separated the land from the club, and in 2004 he sold that land for a huge sum. Part of that sum would have went towards the money spent on the first two stands.

I'm not complaining about Farmer as I think he has done as much as we could ask of a guy who isn't even really a Hibs fan. But I hate when people talk about all the money he has put into the club, as if he is just handing us huge sums out of the goodness of his heart. He gave us loans and wrote off the odd fee, but bear in mind how much he paid for us and consider how much more we are worth now, even in the present dodgy climate.

All the money from the sale of the car park was accounted for in the audited published accounts and was used solely to benefit Hibernian Football Club.

As for writing off the "odd fee" I recall one of over £5.5m and a share issue of £3.5m in a company he already owned. If he operated any of his other businesses like this he would not last 5 minutes.

Kaiser1962
19-07-2011, 07:42 AM
Yes, but the club still paid indirectly. When Farmer bought the club he separated the land from the club, and in 2004 he sold that land for a huge sum. Part of that sum would have went towards the money spent on the first two stands.

I'm not complaining about Farmer as I think he has done as much as we could ask of a guy who isn't even really a Hibs fan. But I hate when people talk about all the money he has put into the club, as if he is just handing us huge sums out of the goodness of his heart. He gave us loans and wrote off the odd fee, but bear in mind how much he paid for us and consider how much more we are worth now, even in the present dodgy climate.

What are we worth now?

Unless someone wants to buy a purpose built football stadium then we are only worth the land the stadium sits on, which will not be as great as it once was. IMO any developer worth their salt would level the place and build houses. So the land value at ER and farmland at East Mains. Minus the outstanding debts, mortgages and loans then take away the cash he paid up front and I suspect it will not be as much as you think.

Stevie Reid
19-07-2011, 10:16 AM
Certainly. They blew one myth after the other out the water. Having listened to tons of **** for the previous twelve years it was quite enjoyable and, given the information that was disclosed, most un-Hibs like. I thought it would have ended the nonsense but it didn't so I think they gave up.

I was at the fans forum where STF spoke, it was excellent. All that was set out by the club that night was adhered to, and to be where we are now from where we were then is absolutely unbelievable - we set out a structure for clearing our debt over the coming years and we managed it and then some. Of course, many will tell you we were lucky.

Cropley10
19-07-2011, 10:22 AM
I was at the fans forum where STF spoke, it was excellent. All that was set out by the club that night was adhered to, and to be where we are now from where we were then is absolutely unbelievable - we set out a structure for clearing our debt over the coming years and we managed it and then some. Of course, many will tell you we were lucky.

No-one could argue that these objectives weren't met or exceeded. Did anyone outline what the plan would be after they were achieved?

The only debate is whether it's harder to achieve the next set of objectives than it was the ones STF laid out.

Stevie Reid
19-07-2011, 10:54 AM
No-one could argue that these objectives weren't met or exceeded. Did anyone outline what the plan would be after they were achieved?

The only debate is whether it's harder to achieve the next set of objectives than it was the ones STF laid out.

I believe that the objectives would be the mission statement that the board released stating that our aim every season was to challenge for Europe and have good cup runs. It shouldn't be harder, the latter objectives have been achieved by many different clubs since the SPL began, and in Motherwell's case under McGhee was achieved with (I'm sure) considerably less expenditure than what we spend. A succession of managers have been given the tools to make a serious challenge on all of those fronts, and we last achieved one of the objectives the season before last when we finished 4th; previous to that it was 2007 when we won the League Cup and got to the semi final of the SC - some folk on here would have you believe that we have been struggling at the lower reaches of the SPL for years (which I actually thought may happen when the 2003 objectives were laid out) the way this place is.

The task of trading our way out of £17M debt whilst operating the club purely on gate receipts seemed insurmountable back in 2003, if someone had suggested that night (when leaving ER seemed by far the most likely outcome at the time, lest we forget) that we could do it whilst finishing in the top 6 for the next 6 years, qualifying for Europe twice, winning a trophy, building a stand and a £5M training academy, I think most folk would have laughed - especially given how much we reduced our wage bill.

Finishing 3rd is not easy, even Hearts, having spent something in the region of £30M more on wages that we have since Romanov took over, have only managed it twice in the last four years - but I would argue that it's a more realistic and achievable goal with our current wage/transfer budgets than the goals set out in 2003. Ironically, the time we finshed 3rd most convincingly was in the immediate aftermath of the slashing of the wage budgets in 2003, Mowbray's 2004-05 league finish may well (I would imagine) have been our smallest wage bill in all of the years since - this shows that who is spending the money and what it is spent on is more important than the amount spent. Celtic have learned that very painfully in the last 3 seasons, when Walter Smith's astute management saved Rangers from a stone cold crisis, and Celtic have missed the opportunity to stamp their greatest rivals into the ground.

If Calderwood fails to meet the objectives set out to him (and many will tell you, very wrongly I feel, that he already met a major objective set him last season by simply keeping us in the SPL) then he will go the same way of Mixu and Yogi - if/when that happens, I think it will be time to question Petrie's managerial appointments. But until then, we know what the goals are, and the budget is there to achieve them - over to you Colin...

007 Mickey Weir
19-07-2011, 12:50 PM
So our wage budget is about £3.5- 4 million. Similar to Aberdeen I think.

Peter Houston was on Talksport this morning talking about budgets and how had it is to keep or bring in players. Utd's wage budget for this season is only £1.5million!! He talked about Hearts having an £8million budget and the Old firm being higher than that. So very hard to compete. Also said that with thebudget hearts have they should runaway with 3rd every year.


Time to bring through the youngsters I think.

Also get the league changed NOW. Ok every club will take an initial hit but we are all struggling for cash now. Whats a bit more for the long term future of the game. SPL1 - 16 Teams, SPL2 - 16 Teams. Then regional leagues North, SW and SE. Regional league winners all playing each other and second bottom of SPL2 at end of season for entry into SPL2. 2 up and down each year.
Keep Scottish cup but hype it more.
Bin league cup and try and get a new Celtic cup involving Irish & Welsh teams. Keep rounds in same countries until QF stage.

We need change but it can be a positive move for all.

:flag: