PDA

View Full Version : How much debt should we have?



Hibbyradge
24-07-2011, 09:07 AM
Many people argue that the board (or more specifically, Rod Petrie) should spend more money on transfer fees and wages.

We don't have an excess of cash so they'd need to borrow to do that.

Loans need to be repaid with interest. I don't know how cheap business loans are just now, but assuming a rather generous rate of 6% is charged, Hibs would need to sell another 150 season tickets every year to pay for the interest alone on every £1m borrowed. On top of that would be the hefty capital repayments.

So, I'd be interested to hear people's opinions as to how much debt we should get into?

And what should happen when we've reached that limit?

blackpoolhibs
24-07-2011, 09:11 AM
I think retire has done a great job with the finances, its the clowns he's appointed to spend it that's let him and us down.

blackpoolhibs
24-07-2011, 09:13 AM
Predictive text perhaps telling us something lol.

R'Albin
24-07-2011, 09:21 AM
Predictive text perhaps telling us something lol. :hilarious

jonty
24-07-2011, 09:24 AM
I think retire has done a great job with the finances, its the clowns he's appointed to spend it that's let him and us down.

:agree:
Predictive text perhaps telling us something lol. :tee hee:

To me its a bit like the recent financial crisis. When the going is good (we've only mortgage debt) we spend a little more than we should and everyone is happy.
Then bang - we're in the merde and suddenly we've got to offload a shedload of wages.

So far we've been carefully (skillfully?) guided through the crisis without getting ourselves into bother (well - since the last TV deal went south)
If we've only got mortgage payments to now cover, then the manager is obviously going to have more at his disposal. Debt is a short term fix with longer term pain - whichever way you look at it.

On that basis, apart from mortgage debt, then no debt is acceptable - it'll come back to bite us in the ass.


--posted from the the ideal world.

Caversham Green
24-07-2011, 10:23 AM
Break out the black coffee....

The point about business debt is that you're borrowing money to buy assets that will (directly or indirectly) generate or save enough funds to at least repay the loan plus interest. It follows that the lifetime of the asset should equal or exceed the period of the loan. Given that most purchased players will sign two or three year contracts the asset is almost certain to have expired before the loan has been repaid and we then have to find further funds to replace the asset as well as continuing to finance the original loan, all while the asset has moved on to bigger or better things. It would only really work if the player was sure to bring in massive crowds or could guarantee a cup win. Players like that are very rare, particularly at the level Hibs operate in.


It's safe and boring and doesn't help Hibs our of their current condition, but that's the financial reality.

BEEJ
24-07-2011, 11:38 AM
Break out the black coffee....

The point about business debt is that you're borrowing money to buy assets that will (directly or indirectly) generate or save enough funds to at least repay the loan plus interest. It follows that the lifetime of the asset should equal or exceed the period of the loan. Given that most purchased players will sign two or three year contracts the asset is almost certain to have expired before the loan has been repaid and we then have to find further funds to replace the asset as well as continuing to finance the original loan, all while the asset has moved on to bigger or better things. It would only really work if the player was sure to bring in massive crowds or could guarantee a cup win. Players like that are very rare, particularly at the level Hibs operate in.


It's safe and boring and doesn't help Hibs our of their current condition, but that's the financial reality.
:agree: Or could be sold on for a healthy mark-up. But the same argument applies.

RMQ1967
24-07-2011, 11:50 PM
I'm not an accountant but I support the boards policy of driving down debt & ideally not paying transfer fees or excessive wages. It seems a big part of what Rod looks for in a manager is the ability to spot a player - not many (none??) since TM have had success on this front but CC signings look promising.

The clamour by some for Rod / the board to splash cash on "quality" players is absolute nonsense. As mentioned above we're on a different financial planet to the OF & need to rely on picking up players with promise.

The board has proved it's prepared to support each manager to get the right players but credit to Rod - if he sees the manager can't spot a player it seems the financial support is withdrawn - & rightly so.

Building a solid business is a marathon - I'm happy CC & the board are not knee jerking into signing mercenaries.

I don't get involved in any of the "Rod must go" debates because it's pointless trying to explain to these people that at our level, high wages DOES NOT equal success.

We have club infrastructure & finances that are the envy of 99% of clubs in British football - the final part of the jigsaw still needs to fall into place but we're in a better position than ever to complete it - I'm happy to wait for the right players at the right price to come along.

IWasThere2016
25-07-2011, 08:47 AM
Break out the black coffee....

The point about business debt is that you're borrowing money to buy assets that will (directly or indirectly) generate or save enough funds to at least repay the loan plus interest. It follows that the lifetime of the asset should equal or exceed the period of the loan. Given that most purchased players will sign two or three year contracts the asset is almost certain to have expired before the loan has been repaid and we then have to find further funds to replace the asset as well as continuing to finance the original loan, all while the asset has moved on to bigger or better things. It would only really work if the player was sure to bring in massive crowds or could guarantee a cup win. Players like that are very rare, particularly at the level Hibs operate in.


It's safe and boring and doesn't help Hibs our of their current condition, but that's the financial reality.

Yet, our Board have spent cash and taken on shorter-term debt for the infrastructure - which will last decades .. Are the stands going to "bring in massive crowds or could guarantee a cup win"?

Flawed logic in the Boardroom and the repercussions are now very obvious.

Petrie :bye:

The Falcon
25-07-2011, 08:56 AM
:agree: Or could be sold on for a healthy mark-up. But the same argument applies.


The best way to sell players is to raise our own. We have signed many players but the ones we have moved on for anything close to a "healthy mark up" are few and far between.

Ray_
25-07-2011, 09:00 AM
The best way to sell players is to raise our own. We have signed many players but the ones we have moved on for anything close to a "healthy mark up" are few and far between.

So apart from the golden generation, which was around forty years after we had a similar crop, what home grown players has got the club serious money? I'll start with Miller & Collins.

The Falcon
25-07-2011, 09:08 AM
So apart from the golden generation, which was around forty years after we had a similar crop, what home grown players has got the club serious money? I'll start with Miller & Collins.

Perhaps we should have learned from the success of that rather than revert to tried, tested and failed methods of buying in and selling on.

Ray_
25-07-2011, 09:21 AM
Perhaps we should have learned from the success of that rather than revert to tried, tested and failed methods of buying in and selling on.

They started to come through seven years ago, who have we got that we can sell now for big bucks? Nobody. Do you really believe Scottish clubs, over the years, haven't been striving to get a flow of young talent, for the very purpose you suggest?

The key is no matter what the plan is, the fact is that Scottish football hasn't produced a continuous supply of talented youngsters since the early seventies & I've seen nothing to suggest the golden generation was anything other than a one off.

By all means we need to keep on investing in youth, but it would be utter folly to think that this alone would be our salvation.

pentlando
25-07-2011, 09:22 AM
Yet, our Board have spent cash and taken on shorter-term debt for the infrastructure - which will last decades .. Are the stands going to "bring in massive crowds or could guarantee a cup win"?

Flawed logic in the Boardroom and the repercussions are now very obvious.

Petrie :bye:

:confused:

Stands are required for crowds :wink:

Also if we were to produce a few top notch players with the aid of the new training centre, which, imo, will take another 4 or 5 years till we see noticeable improvement, then it would be partly responsible for a cup win. As much as part of the golden generation were pretty responsible for our last cup win.

On the topic of how much debt we should have, we should have none. Does it not make more sense to have a surplus of cash, whilst using the yearly interest to top up playing budgets?

pentlando
25-07-2011, 09:25 AM
They started to come through seven years ago, who have we got that we can sell now for big bucks? Nobody. Do you really believe Scottish clubs, over the years, haven't been striving to get a flow of young talent, for the very purpose you suggest?

The key is no matter what the plan is, the fact is that Scottish football hasn't produced a continuous supply of talented youngsters since the early seventies & I've seen nothing to suggest the golden generation was anything other than a one off.

I would argue that Callum Booth would attract a very nice transfer fee if he plays at the level he did yesterday all season. For his age Paul Hanlon is a very accomplished centre half, and imo is around the level Berra was whilst he was this age at Hearts. Also Wotherspoon looks to have a lot of potential also, so to say the 'wells dried up' is way off the mark.

Ray_
25-07-2011, 09:34 AM
I would argue that Callum Booth would attract a very nice transfer fee if he plays at the level he did yesterday all season. For his age Paul Hanlon is a very accomplished centre half, and imo is around the level Berra was whilst he was this age at Hearts. Also Wotherspoon looks to have a lot of potential also, so to say the 'wells dried up' is way off the mark.

Callun Booth has plenty of potential, IMHO he needs plenty of work before he can be considered for a large fee, he got in some great positions yesterday, but unfortunately, the most important factor was missing, the final ball, that's what determines a players worth. Defensively, he was posted missing far too often & Celtic could/should have got far more by exploiting the space down their right.

Paul Hanlon is still learning, he is not a patch on the likes of Sloop, at a similar age, the comparison with Berra, we'll see when he does it at Premiership level.

Wotherspoon, we got him from Celtic, but, on the strength of the last 18 months, if we had decent alternatives, I wouldn't have him anywhere near the first team, he seems to have gone backwards.

pentlando
25-07-2011, 09:40 AM
Callun Booth has plenty of potential, IMHO he needs plenty of work before he can be considered for a large fee, he got in some great positions yesterday, but unfortunately, the most important factor was missing, the final ball, that's what determines a players worth. Defensively, he was posted missing far too often & Celtic could/should have got far more by exploiting the space down their right.

Paul Hanlon is still learning, he is not a patch on the likes of Sloop, at a similar age, the comparison with Berra, we'll see when he does it at Premiership level.

Wotherspoon, we got him from Celtic, but, on the strength of the last 18 months, if we had decent alternatives, I wouldn't have him anywhere near the first team, he seems to have gone backwards.

All opinions i suppose. Usually players of their ages that are first team regulars in the SPL will become good enough at their peak to be at least Championship level. Whilst it may not be a huge fee like Brown, could still be a nice boost.

Arch Stanton
25-07-2011, 09:43 AM
Yet, our Board have spent cash and taken on shorter-term debt for the infrastructure - which will last decades .. Are the stands going to "bring in massive crowds or could guarantee a cup win"?

Flawed logic in the Boardroom and the repercussions are now very obvious.

Petrie :bye:

I don't think paying off mortgages early can ever be a bad thing - the wages to turnover ratio does not indicate that we were short-changing managers to do so.

You also have to question, how much money would JH have needed to bring in massive crowds or guarantee a cup win?

Ray_
25-07-2011, 09:44 AM
All opinions i suppose. Usually players of their ages that are first team regulars in the SPL will become good enough at their peak to be at least Championship level. Whilst it may not be a huge fee like Brown, could still be a nice boost.

It would need to be more than a nice boost to keep Hibs going & to improve the present lot, which was the basis of the posts.

IWasThere2016
25-07-2011, 09:45 AM
I don't think paying off mortgages early can ever be a bad thing - the wages to turnover ratio does not indicate that we were short-changing managers to do so.

You also have to question, how much money would JH have needed to bring in massive crowds or guarantee a cup win?

I do. We have insufficient cash now to bring about the necessary changes in the short term.

smurf
25-07-2011, 09:48 AM
So what exactly is our net debt total?

Green Mikey
25-07-2011, 09:57 AM
I do. We have insufficient cash now to bring about the necessary changes in the short term.

Do we? What makes you think there isn't enough money available? CC has brought in 8 or 9 players since he arrived at the club and there will certainly be more before the end of August. Personally, I feel that the changes haven't happened because of the uncertainty over CC's future and the ludicrously early start to our season nothing to do with there not being enough money.

Hibs are in a poor footballing situation now not because of Petrie's financial stewardship but because of the amount of managers he has appointed then, contrary to popular opinion, backed financially. JC, Mixu, Hughes and now CC have been allowed to build there own teams and all of them have failed to produced the type of results that are expected.

Caversham Green
25-07-2011, 10:17 AM
Yet, our Board have spent cash and taken on shorter-term debt for the infrastructure - which will last decades .. Are the stands going to "bring in massive crowds or could guarantee a cup win"?

Flawed logic in the Boardroom and the repercussions are now very obvious.

Petrie :bye:

That actually illustrates the point I'm making. The stand and training centre will still be an asset long after the debt has been repaid. How much funds they save or generate depends on future circumstances. There's nothing flawed about the concept there, although the execution is certainly open to criticism given the current state of the club. The mirror image - say a five year loan for a player on a two year contract (or worse, to pay a single year's wages bill) is flawed to the point of being dangerous for the reasons I've already explained. I'd be appalled if the club went down that road in any significant way.

IMO, the point behind completing the stadium is to attract new spectators - they will undoubtedly prefer to sit in a comfortable "shiny new" stand than the crumbling death trap that was the old East - so the stands should bring in extra income over their 25-50 year lifetime. I've seen that concept work to great effect here at Reading. In truth though they had to be built in any case and the timing of the East build saved a huge amount of money.

Of course, the other thing that will bring in new spectators (I'm deliberately avoiding using the word 'fans') is attractive or at least winning football and there is no doubt that the club is failing to deliver on that score - no argument from me on that one. As to whose fault it is, I'm staying out of that debate, because like most posters on here - I DON'T KNOW.

Caversham Green
25-07-2011, 10:27 AM
So what exactly is our net debt total?

Smurf, the net debt is always a misleading figure because it nets off cash in hand against selected debt categories and football clubs are always relatively cash rich at their financial year ends because of season ticket sales. It also fluctuates for the same reason. Gross 'structured' debt - i.e. loans and mortgages are more meaningful IMO.

At the beginning of last season that debt was £6.27m including a parent company loan of £0.25m. We're paying it off at £0.24m pa, so that part of the debt will be £6.03m in the forthcoming accounts. TQM will be able to tell you how much can be added to that in relation to the East Stand.

Arch Stanton
25-07-2011, 10:34 AM
I do. We have insufficient cash now to bring about the necessary changes in the short term.

What nonsense. If we have a problem that is deemed to require a cash injection then our credit worthiness will be more than good enough to raise it.

And you accuse the board of flawed logic?

Beefster
25-07-2011, 10:36 AM
We don't have an excess of cash so they'd need to borrow to do that.

They could try increasing the revenue instead of borrowing.

HFC 0-7
25-07-2011, 10:37 AM
That actually illustrates the point I'm making. The stand and training centre will still be an asset long after the debt has been repaid. How much funds they save or generate depends on future circumstances. There's nothing flawed about the concept there, although the execution is certainly open to criticism given the current state of the club. The mirror image - say a five year loan for a player on a two year contract (or worse, to pay a single year's wages bill) is flawed to the point of being dangerous for the reasons I've already explained. I'd be appalled if the club went down that road in any significant way.

IMO, the point behind completing the stadium is to attract new spectators - they will undoubtedly prefer to sit in a comfortable "shiny new" stand than the crumbling death trap that was the old East - so the stands should bring in extra income over their 25-50 year lifetime. I've seen that concept work to great effect here at Reading. In truth though they had to be built in any case and the timing of the East build saved a huge amount of money.

Of course, the other thing that will bring in new spectators (I'm deliberately avoiding using the word 'fans') is attractive or at least winning football and there is no doubt that the club is failing to deliver on that score - no argument from me on that one. As to whose fault it is, I'm staying out of that debate, because like most posters on here - I DON'T KNOW.

Surely there are massive flaws here. Hibs built stands to expand and have the ability to generate more income, however, they have missed something rather important out. They have forgotten about the product that will fill the money generating assetts which are the stands. In any business you want to expand but you dont build bigger and better shops if the product that you want to fill those shops are rubbish and there isnt a big enough demand. The board are and want to run the club as a business but the way in which they have gone about it is wrong. Surely creating sufficient demand was the thing to do before building stands.

The stands have been built we have to live with that, however, it is still the boards job to get the demand up to start these stands earning us money. What to most business' do when they need more people to buy their product if their product isnt as good as others on the market? they lower the prices in an attempt to get more selling, we arent doing that. Hibs are competing with fans choices of where to spend their money and right now the fans are choosing to spend that money elsewhere. Lower the prices and make it a more attractive proposition, however, the board have shot themselves in the foot again as we have started the season now, the prices are set because fans have purchased the season tickets and we now cannot lower walk up prices.

The board, IMO, havent thought this one through, or they have and the manager has made a host of errors. The board MUST know that in this time of financial hardships that getting a decent team on the pitch is the only way that fans will part with their cash. Fail to deliver on the pitch and income will be down. I am not saying its an easy thing to do as we need to do it without going bust, but its the same with any company. Sell a product with as little cost as possible. Make the margins as big as possible. Hibs have not done this and its not the fault of the fans, its the fault of the boards. They need to assess the demand, they need to assess how good the product needs to be, they need to try and employ the right people to carry the instructions out. If the people they employ are failing, the board have either employed the wrong person or the boards strategy which they are wanting the manager to use is flawed.

Ray_
25-07-2011, 10:40 AM
What nonsense. If we have a problem that is deemed to require a cash injection then our credit worthiness will be more than good enough to raise it.

And you accuse the board of flawed logic?


"There's nothing flawed about the concept there, although the execution is certainly open to criticism given the current state of the club. The mirror image - say a five year loan for a player on a two year contract (or worse, to pay a single year's wages bill) is flawed to the point of being dangerous for the reasons I've already explained. I'd be appalled if the club went down that road in any significant way."

Is this nonsense too?

Caversham Green
25-07-2011, 10:50 AM
Surely there are massive flaws here. Hibs built stands to expand and have the ability to generate more income, however, they have missed something rather important out. They have forgotten about the product that will fill the money generating assetts which are the stands. In any business you want to expand but you dont build bigger and better shops if the product that you want to fill those shops are rubbish and there isnt a big enough demand. The board are and want to run the club as a business but the way in which they have gone about it is wrong. Surely creating sufficient demand was the thing to do before building stands.

The stands have been built we have to live with that, however, it is still the boards job to get the demand up to start these stands earning us money. What to most business' do when they need more people to buy their product if their product isnt as good as others on the market? they lower the prices in an attempt to get more selling, we arent doing that. Hibs are competing with fans choices of where to spend their money and right now the fans are choosing to spend that money elsewhere. Lower the prices and make it a more attractive proposition, however, the board have shot themselves in the foot again as we have started the season now, the prices are set because fans have purchased the season tickets and we now cannot lower walk up prices.

The board, IMO, havent thought this one through, or they have and the manager has made a host of errors. The board MUST know that in this time of financial hardships that getting a decent team on the pitch is the only way that fans will part with their cash. Fail to deliver on the pitch and income will be down. I am not saying its an easy thing to do as we need to do it without going bust, but its the same with any company. Sell a product with as little cost as possible. Make the margins as big as possible. Hibs have not done this and its not the fault of the fans, its the fault of the boards. They need to assess the demand, they need to assess how good the product needs to be, they need to try and employ the right people to carry the instructions out. If the people they employ are failing, the board have either employed the wrong person or the boards strategy which they are wanting the manager to use is flawed.

What I'm saying is that there are no flaws in the approach to financing the stands and training centre, but there have arguably been flaws in the execution at least in the short term. I would argue that the stands were absolutely necessary in some form, and the training centre was extremely desireable. Remember as well that the training centre was built (at the request of two managers who were successful at the time) at a time when demand was high and the product was good. If they could have foreseen how the product would deteriorate maybe they wouldn't have bothered building it.

IWasThere2016
25-07-2011, 11:05 AM
That actually illustrates the point I'm making. The stand and training centre will still be an asset long after the debt has been repaid. How much funds they save or generate depends on future circumstances. There's nothing flawed about the concept there, although the execution is certainly open to criticism given the current state of the club. The mirror image - say a five year loan for a player on a two year contract (or worse, to pay a single year's wages bill) is flawed to the point of being dangerous for the reasons I've already explained. I'd be appalled if the club went down that road in any significant way.

IMO, the point behind completing the stadium is to attract new spectators - they will undoubtedly prefer to sit in a comfortable "shiny new" stand than the crumbling death trap that was the old East - so the stands should bring in extra income over their 25-50 year lifetime. I've seen that concept work to great effect here at Reading. In truth though they had to be built in any case and the timing of the East build saved a huge amount of money.

Of course, the other thing that will bring in new spectators (I'm deliberately avoiding using the word 'fans') is attractive or at least winning football and there is no doubt that the club is failing to deliver on that score - no argument from me on that one. As to whose fault it is, I'm staying out of that debate, because like most posters on here - I DON'T KNOW.

I know that was your point C. It was cheap to build but the point is about how it was financed - and the term thereon.


What nonsense. If we have a problem that is deemed to require a cash injection then our credit worthiness will be more than good enough to raise it.

And you accuse the board of flawed logic?

You are missing the point, and will it .. we're losing £2m per annum without player sales. Courtesy of a downward spiral of neglecting the team. The cash needed to put that right is not in place.



They could try increasing the revenue instead of borrowing.

:agree: required by investing in the team ..


Surely there are massive flaws here. Hibs built stands to expand and have the ability to generate more income, however, they have missed something rather important out. They have forgotten about the product that will fill the money generating assetts which are the stands. In any business you want to expand but you dont build bigger and better shops if the product that you want to fill those shops are rubbish and there isnt a big enough demand. The board are and want to run the club as a business but the way in which they have gone about it is wrong. Surely creating sufficient demand was the thing to do before building stands.

The stands have been built we have to live with that, however, it is still the boards job to get the demand up to start these stands earning us money. What to most business' do when they need more people to buy their product if their product isnt as good as others on the market? they lower the prices in an attempt to get more selling, we arent doing that. Hibs are competing with fans choices of where to spend their money and right now the fans are choosing to spend that money elsewhere. Lower the prices and make it a more attractive proposition, however, the board have shot themselves in the foot again as we have started the season now, the prices are set because fans have purchased the season tickets and we now cannot lower walk up prices.

The board, IMO, havent thought this one through, or they have and the manager has made a host of errors. The board MUST know that in this time of financial hardships that getting a decent team on the pitch is the only way that fans will part with their cash. Fail to deliver on the pitch and income will be down. I am not saying its an easy thing to do as we need to do it without going bust, but its the same with any company. Sell a product with as little cost as possible. Make the margins as big as possible. Hibs have not done this and its not the fault of the fans, its the fault of the boards. They need to assess the demand, they need to assess how good the product needs to be, they need to try and employ the right people to carry the instructions out. If the people they employ are failing, the board have either employed the wrong person or the boards strategy which they are wanting the manager to use is flawed.

:agree:

HFC 0-7
25-07-2011, 11:17 AM
What I'm saying is that there are no flaws in the approach to financing the stands and training centre, but there have arguably been flaws in the execution at least in the short term. I would argue that the stands were absolutely necessary in some form, and the training centre was extremely desireable. Remember as well that the training centre was built (at the request of two managers who were successful at the time) at a time when demand was high and the product was good. If they could have foreseen how the product would deteriorate maybe they wouldn't have bothered building it.

The training centre was a must IMO but the east stand has been a problem. The size of the stand is probably the biggest problem now as people can now pick and choose the games. Peoples reasoning behind this was that if they bought a season ticket and missed a couple of games the season ticket would no longer be value for money as you could pay at the gate miss a couple of games and still have spent the same amount as ST. This is probably down to the ST pricing as well as it isnt a big enough saving IMO, another failing of the board, especially this season when people will know that they will miss a couple of games because of the early start.

The Board havent done enough and have been blinded by getting the stadium finished, they seemed to have a 'build it and they will come' approach. They now seem at a loss of what to do now. I said it another thread that tickets that they should be trying to sell, which they havent been doing so are the corporate ones. Hibs have massive amounts of corporate seating and package seating available all in good areas, they probably have far too many. All to often these seats remain empty, even yesterday they were empty. these seats and packages can be the big money makers and there doesnt seem to be much in the way of a push from the board to sell these.

Caversham Green
25-07-2011, 11:37 AM
The training centre was a must IMO but the east stand has been a problem. The size of the stand is probably the biggest problem now as people can now pick and choose the games. Peoples reasoning behind this was that if they bought a season ticket and missed a couple of games the season ticket would no longer be value for money as you could pay at the gate miss a couple of games and still have spent the same amount as ST. This is probably down to the ST pricing as well as it isnt a big enough saving IMO, another failing of the board, especially this season when people will know that they will miss a couple of games because of the early start.

The Board havent done enough and have been blinded by getting the stadium finished, they seemed to have a 'build it and they will come' approach. They now seem at a loss of what to do now. I said it another thread that tickets that they should be trying to sell, which they havent been doing so are the corporate ones. Hibs have massive amounts of corporate seating and package seating available all in good areas, they probably have far too many. All to often these seats remain empty, even yesterday they were empty. these seats and packages can be the big money makers and there doesnt seem to be much in the way of a push from the board to sell these.

It's a difficult call though (that's what they're paid for of course). The timing got it built at probably the lowest possible price and when future planning permission might be compromised. I wouldn't have thought there would be much saving in building a smaller stand, since that would have entailed revised plans and much of the cost is likely to have been in demolition and foundations in any case. Its also worth bearing in mind that the stand is for life, not just for this season. It's not inconceivable that Hibs will have a golden period in the next 25 years and we now have the capacity to fuel it. I agree that that has to be balanced against the short-term problems we are experiencing and if you don't survive the short-term there is no long-term.

In some ways it could be argued that the scale of the training centre and the building of the stadium are indications of an over-ambitious board. I'm not sure I'd use that argument on Hibs.net at the moment though.:duck: