PDA

View Full Version : RP on Griffiths 'bid'



Peevemor
10-09-2013, 11:32 AM
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/rod-petrie-lifts-lid-on-bid-for-leigh-griffiths-1-3084559

Rod Petrie today lifted the lid on Hibs’ bid to bring Scotland striker Leigh Griffiths to Easter Road (http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/rod-petrie-lifts-lid-on-bid-for-leigh-griffiths-1-3084559#) on a permanent basis, revealing their attempts failed because “there was no sum of money Wolves would accept”.
Petrie made strenuous efforts to prise Griffiths, who scored a stunning 28 goals for Hibs last season, from the grasp of the Midlands club, even going face-to-face with Molineux chief executive Jed Moxley in the hope of persuading him to part with the striker who had spent the previous two seasons on loan in Edinburgh.
However, the Hibs chairman found himself rebuffed at every turn, told he was wasting his time by Moxley who underlined Wolves’ determination to have Griffiths see out the final year of his contract at the newly-relegated League One outfit.
Hibs’ pursuit of Griffiths dominated Pat Fenlon’s summer dealings, the Hibs (http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/rod-petrie-lifts-lid-on-bid-for-leigh-griffiths-1-3084559#) boss turning to striker James Collins to fill the void when Wolves dug in their heels, the Swindon Town hitman one of ten signings made in preparation for the season which has just got underway. Petrie has, of course, been well aware of the mutterings among some fans that penny-pinching on his part wrecked any hope of a deal, gossip he point-blank refutes along with the claim that if he’d been prepared to fork out £150,000 in the January transfer window Griffiths would have been his.
Speaking as he revealed the Easter Road (http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/rod-petrie-lifts-lid-on-bid-for-leigh-griffiths-1-3084559#) club have moved back into the black posting a modest profit of £100,000 after two years of losses which amounted to almost £2 million, Petrie said: “It was quite simple and straight-forward, there was no sum of money Wolves would accept for Leigh Griffiths.
“In simple terms, they were jealous of what we had got from the player and they wanted to get for their club what we had had. Leigh, when he was playing with us, was a talented player scoring goals, all kinds of goals. The chairman [Steve Morgan] and chief executive of Wolves had brought Leigh to their club but they had gone through three changes of manager and they felt he had never really had his chance to establish himself and show what he could do, so they were very keen to have him back.
“We made an offer then an improved offer but there was no prospect a deal would be done because they just did not want to do a deal. It’s easy to play the game in your head and think all things will fall into place but you are actually dealing with other people at other clubs. You can try as hard as you like but, if the other party is not willing to do a deal, then you cannot do a deal.
“I’d had regular contact with Jed Moxley and I went down, met him face-to-face and talked it all through but it was never going to happen.”
Petrie revealed other attempts had been made to sign Griffiths, a lifelong Hibs fan, during his extensive stay at Easter Road and disclosed Hibs were, in fact, lucky to have him for the second half of last season. He said: “Wolves were gearing themselves up to take him back in January but, at that point, a number of things happened and the simplest thing for them was just to leave him on loan and we benefited from that.
“We’d looked to do a permanent deal at each of the various stages but the only deals Wolves would do was from one window to the next because, fundamentally, the chairman and chief executive wanted to get the best out of Leigh for Wolves and we have to respect that.
“It’s common currency that I would not pay £150,000 in January but that is totally untrue.”
Wolves’ eagerness to have Griffiths back was, Petrie believes, underlined by the alacrity with which they offered him a new two-year contract on his return to Molineux, a deal which ensures a tidy profit on the £150,000 they paid Dundee should the 23-year-old continue scoring goals at his current rate, four in six matches, so as to attract the attention of other clubs.
Petrie, however, insisted Hibs only found themselves in the position of being able to bid for Griffiths, and then Collins, thanks to an increase in the sale of season tickets, rising from 7000 to 8000, a figure which had allowed the Easter Road board to “build a cost base commensurate with that larger core level of income”.
Although expenditure has again been driven down – staff costs dropping by £200,000 during the course of the last financial year – turnover was £8m, £1.1m up on the previous year, leaving Petrie to insist everyone at the club should be satisfied with the figures – £900,000 was also wiped off Hibs’ debt – particularly against a backdrop of recession and the turmoil with which Scottish football was confronted with last summer as Rangers were relegated to the “old” Third Division.
Pointing out that it has become almost unheard of for a Scottish club to pay a transfer fee in recent years, Hibs having put up a reputed £200,000 for Collins and a much smaller sum to Bradford City to secure the signing of Michael Nelson, Petrie said: “The success we have on the pitch is defined by the contribution supporters make from attending games and particularly by season ticket memberships which give that guaranteed core level of income that enables us to plan with a greater degree of certainty.
“We are very grateful we had a higher number of season ticket holders at the start of the season which enabled us to go on and do some other things that we might not have been able to do had levels remained static.
“We genuinely tried to get an arrangement with Wolves to take Leigh on a permanent basis and that would have involved a transfer fee which is kind of unheard of in the last few years and when that proved impossible to do the funds we’d put in place were transferred to the James Collins deal.
“I have not seen many other clubs in Scotland go out and spend a transfer fee in the last two or three years. We were able to do that because of the incremental improvements that have been achieved, first and foremost, by getting back to break-even, and by a greater engagement of supporters in buying season tickets to give us that strong platform to go forward.
“Turnover is up, costs are down, we’ve repaid mortgages on the due date and made a small cash surplus on top of that. All these things are positive indicators of the good work of our finance director Jamie Marwick, club secretary Garry O’Hagan and the team of largely unsung heroes behind the scenes.
“Sacrifices have been made, some people have left the club and we’ve taken the savings that have come from that to try to maintain the amount of money we invest on the player squad.
“The first objective is to achieve break-even to ensure the safety and security of the club so that future generations do not have to suffer the anguish and torment of whether their football club would fold and die.
“The ambition is to win but the resource you have got will determine what you are able to put on the pitch and what you cannot.
“If we have more resource we will invest that resource.”

Hibee87
10-09-2013, 11:37 AM
FACT :greengrin

You cant let a simple thing like 'FACT' get in the way of a good story or a moan on here :wink:

Pretty Boy
10-09-2013, 11:50 AM
That's all well and good but if he offered 150K in January we would have got him.

Peevemor
10-09-2013, 11:53 AM
That's all well and good but if he offered 150K in January we would have got him.


I don't believe you, unless you say that you were sent a text.

Pretty Boy
10-09-2013, 11:54 AM
I don't believe you, unless you say that you were sent a text.

Sent a text by the fish delivery man who heard it in Greggs whilst waving to Jordi Cryuff on the 26 bus.

Hibbyradge
10-09-2013, 11:59 AM
"Hibs were, in fact, lucky to have him for the second half of last season. He said: “Wolves were gearing themselves up to take him back in January but, at that point, a number of things happened and the simplest thing for them was just to leave him on loan and we benefited from that."

Peevemor
10-09-2013, 12:03 PM
Sent a text by the fish delivery man who heard it in Greggs whilst waving to Jordi Cryuff on the 26 bus.

OK, fair enough.

PETRIEEEEE!!!!! :grr:

easty
10-09-2013, 12:12 PM
Sent a text by the fish delivery man who heard it in Greggs whilst waving to Jordi Cryuff on the 26 bus.

Nah...that was me. Sometimes I just like to dress up like Jordi Cruyff and go round Edinburgh on busses, waving at anyone who looks like a Hibs fan.:greengrin

hibby rae
10-09-2013, 12:30 PM
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/rod-petrie-lifts-lid-on-bid-for-leigh-griffiths-1-3084559

Rod Petrie today lifted the lid on Hibs’ bid to bring Scotland striker Leigh Griffiths to Easter Road (http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/rod-petrie-lifts-lid-on-bid-for-leigh-griffiths-1-3084559#) on a permanent basis, revealing their attempts failed because “there was no sum of money Wolves would accept”.
Petrie made strenuous efforts to prise Griffiths, who scored a stunning 28 goals for Hibs last season, from the grasp of the Midlands club, even going face-to-face with Molineux chief executive Jed Moxley in the hope of persuading him to part with the striker who had spent the previous two seasons on loan in Edinburgh.
However, the Hibs chairman found himself rebuffed at every turn, told he was wasting his time by Moxley who underlined Wolves’ determination to have Griffiths see out the final year of his contract at the newly-relegated League One outfit.
Hibs’ pursuit of Griffiths dominated Pat Fenlon’s summer dealings, the Hibs (http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/rod-petrie-lifts-lid-on-bid-for-leigh-griffiths-1-3084559#) boss turning to striker James Collins to fill the void when Wolves dug in their heels, the Swindon Town hitman one of ten signings made in preparation for the season which has just got underway. Petrie has, of course, been well aware of the mutterings among some fans that penny-pinching on his part wrecked any hope of a deal, gossip he point-blank refutes along with the claim that if he’d been prepared to fork out £150,000 in the January transfer window Griffiths would have been his.
Speaking as he revealed the Easter Road (http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/rod-petrie-lifts-lid-on-bid-for-leigh-griffiths-1-3084559#) club have moved back into the black posting a modest profit of £100,000 after two years of losses which amounted to almost £2 million, Petrie said: “It was quite simple and straight-forward, there was no sum of money Wolves would accept for Leigh Griffiths.
“In simple terms, they were jealous of what we had got from the player and they wanted to get for their club what we had had. Leigh, when he was playing with us, was a talented player scoring goals, all kinds of goals. The chairman [Steve Morgan] and chief executive of Wolves had brought Leigh to their club but they had gone through three changes of manager and they felt he had never really had his chance to establish himself and show what he could do, so they were very keen to have him back.
“We made an offer then an improved offer but there was no prospect a deal would be done because they just did not want to do a deal. It’s easy to play the game in your head and think all things will fall into place but you are actually dealing with other people at other clubs. You can try as hard as you like but, if the other party is not willing to do a deal, then you cannot do a deal.
“I’d had regular contact with Jed Moxley and I went down, met him face-to-face and talked it all through but it was never going to happen.”
Petrie revealed other attempts had been made to sign Griffiths, a lifelong Hibs fan, during his extensive stay at Easter Road and disclosed Hibs were, in fact, lucky to have him for the second half of last season. He said: “Wolves were gearing themselves up to take him back in January but, at that point, a number of things happened and the simplest thing for them was just to leave him on loan and we benefited from that.
“We’d looked to do a permanent deal at each of the various stages but the only deals Wolves would do was from one window to the next because, fundamentally, the chairman and chief executive wanted to get the best out of Leigh for Wolves and we have to respect that.
“It’s common currency that I would not pay £150,000 in January but that is totally untrue.”
Wolves’ eagerness to have Griffiths back was, Petrie believes, underlined by the alacrity with which they offered him a new two-year contract on his return to Molineux, a deal which ensures a tidy profit on the £150,000 they paid Dundee should the 23-year-old continue scoring goals at his current rate, four in six matches, so as to attract the attention of other clubs.
Petrie, however, insisted Hibs only found themselves in the position of being able to bid for Griffiths, and then Collins, thanks to an increase in the sale of season tickets, rising from 7000 to 8000, a figure which had allowed the Easter Road board to “build a cost base commensurate with that larger core level of income”.
Although expenditure has again been driven down – staff costs dropping by £200,000 during the course of the last financial year – turnover was £8m, £1.1m up on the previous year, leaving Petrie to insist everyone at the club should be satisfied with the figures – £900,000 was also wiped off Hibs’ debt – particularly against a backdrop of recession and the turmoil with which Scottish football was confronted with last summer as Rangers were relegated to the “old” Third Division.
Pointing out that it has become almost unheard of for a Scottish club to pay a transfer fee in recent years, Hibs having put up a reputed £200,000 for Collins and a much smaller sum to Bradford City to secure the signing of Michael Nelson, Petrie said: “The success we have on the pitch is defined by the contribution supporters make from attending games and particularly by season ticket memberships which give that guaranteed core level of income that enables us to plan with a greater degree of certainty.
“We are very grateful we had a higher number of season ticket holders at the start of the season which enabled us to go on and do some other things that we might not have been able to do had levels remained static.
“We genuinely tried to get an arrangement with Wolves to take Leigh on a permanent basis and that would have involved a transfer fee which is kind of unheard of in the last few years and when that proved impossible to do the funds we’d put in place were transferred to the James Collins deal.
“I have not seen many other clubs in Scotland go out and spend a transfer fee in the last two or three years. We were able to do that because of the incremental improvements that have been achieved, first and foremost, by getting back to break-even, and by a greater engagement of supporters in buying season tickets to give us that strong platform to go forward.
“Turnover is up, costs are down, we’ve repaid mortgages on the due date and made a small cash surplus on top of that. All these things are positive indicators of the good work of our finance director Jamie Marwick, club secretary Garry O’Hagan and the team of largely unsung heroes behind the scenes.
“Sacrifices have been made, some people have left the club and we’ve taken the savings that have come from that to try to maintain the amount of money we invest on the player squad.
“The first objective is to achieve break-even to ensure the safety and security of the club so that future generations do not have to suffer the anguish and torment of whether their football club would fold and die.
“The ambition is to win but the resource you have got will determine what you are able to put on the pitch and what you cannot.
“If we have more resource we will invest that resource.”

Oh Rod you are awful. But I like you. :lolrangers::lolyam:

Jack
10-09-2013, 02:28 PM
That's all well and good but if he offered 150K in January we would have got him.

Are you saying Rod Petrie is a liar?

Pretty Boy
10-09-2013, 02:34 PM
Are you saying Rod Petrie is a liar?

It was a joke.

Obviously not a very good one.

jdships
10-09-2013, 02:43 PM
That's all well and good but if he offered 150K in January we would have got him.

That is based on information from what/which source ?
" Either put up or shut up " as they say :greengrin:wink:

Green Man
10-09-2013, 03:02 PM
Maybe if he'd spoken to Jez Moxey there would have been a better chance of doing a deal.

Jack
10-09-2013, 03:25 PM
It was a joke.

Obviously not a very good one.

Ah, ok I'll laugh now. :-)

TBF I was a bit confused when I read it.

hibbymick
10-09-2013, 04:24 PM
I like how he refutes the 150k gossip fee for Griffiths but fails to mention Collins was nowhere near 200k. ( this is apparently what rod said at fans meeting.......and is my disclaimer) :greengrin

Finbar
10-09-2013, 04:35 PM
I think it's a bit misleading to say that there was no amount of money that Wolves would accept for Leigh. They might not have accepted £150K, but they would have accepted £10M. Somewhere in between is the value of the player, a value that Hibs were not prepared to meet. That's where Rod has to make a judgement. If he'd signed Leigh for £2M perhaps he'd have sold a few thousand extra season tickets, perhaps Hibs could score a goal now and then and perhaps we'd have a player other clubs would want to buy.

Hibbyradge
10-09-2013, 04:43 PM
I think it's a bit misleading to say that there was no amount of money that Wolves would accept for Leigh. They might not have accepted £150K, but they would have accepted £10M. Somewhere in between is the value of the player, a value that Hibs were not prepared to meet. That's where Rod has to make a judgement. If he'd signed Leigh for £2M perhaps he'd have sold a few thousand extra season tickets, perhaps Hibs could score a goal now and then and perhaps we'd have a player other clubs would want to buy.

Good point.

Where would we get the £2m?

Northernhibee
10-09-2013, 05:44 PM
I think it's a bit misleading to say that there was no amount of money that Wolves would accept for Leigh. They might not have accepted £150K, but they would have accepted £10M. Somewhere in between is the value of the player, a value that Hibs were not prepared to meet. That's where Rod has to make a judgement. If he'd signed Leigh for £2M perhaps he'd have sold a few thousand extra season tickets, perhaps Hibs could score a goal now and then and perhaps we'd have a player other clubs would want to buy.

If we'd had signed a player to Hibs for £2m it'd have been a ****ing ridiculous decision.

Signing James McPake certainly didn't sell a few thousand extra season tickets, neither would Leigh have.

Jonnyboy
10-09-2013, 06:20 PM
Maybe if he'd spoken to Jez Moxey there would have been a better chance of doing a deal.

I agree and said so to Rod Peltrie :agree:

hibby rae
10-09-2013, 06:23 PM
Good point.

Where would we get the £2m?

Bank job or diamond heist?

Finbar
10-09-2013, 06:34 PM
If we'd had signed a player to Hibs for £2m it'd have been a ****ing ridiculous decision.

Signing James McPake certainly didn't sell a few thousand extra season tickets, neither would Leigh have.

Every player has his price. I think it would have been more accurate if he'd said Wolves weren't willing to negotiate for the sort of money Hibs could afford to offer.

Keith_M
10-09-2013, 06:36 PM
Did Rod finish his statement with 'FACT' and 'ENDOF'?

If not, I still believe the official hibs.net party line that he could have had LG for 150k in January.

Finbar
10-09-2013, 06:38 PM
Good point.

Where would we get the £2m?

Bank loan? Failing that, I make a pretty decent banoffee pie.

Keith_M
10-09-2013, 07:08 PM
Bank loan? Failing that, I make a pretty decent banoffee pie.


How about robbing some Bosnian Pension Funds? I'm sure that's how Big Teams manage it.

Northernhibee
10-09-2013, 07:13 PM
Every player has his price.

So do we.

No point in spending ridiculous money when a player can get injured and we end up losing a ton of cash.

IWasThere2016
10-09-2013, 07:15 PM
We clearly didn't ever need that fat and expensive board we had for years - now if we'd just spent the same on players/Leigh as we did on them...

jonty
10-09-2013, 07:21 PM
We clearly didn't ever need that fat and expensive board we had for years - now if we'd just spent the same on players/Leigh as we did on them...

:top marks 154k p/a would get us some player :agree:

greenlex
10-09-2013, 07:39 PM
:top marks 154k p/a would get us some player :agree:
:tee hee:

Eyrie
10-09-2013, 08:27 PM
Good point.

Where would we get the £2m?

We could borrow it from ourselves, or steal it from the Lithuanian taxpayers.

jacomo
10-09-2013, 08:50 PM
Bank job or diamond heist?

Old school. I think setting up a sham bank linked to a dodgy investment vehicle and a complex web of off shore companies in order to facilitate massive cross-border fraud is more fashionable these days.

East Coast Hibe
10-09-2013, 08:59 PM
That's all well and good but if he offered 150K in January we would have got him.

This

Mikey
10-09-2013, 09:01 PM
This

Whoooooooosh.....................

CropleyWasGod
10-09-2013, 09:06 PM
This

Not this.

Hibbyradge
10-09-2013, 09:06 PM
This

lol

East Coast Hibe
10-09-2013, 09:12 PM
That's all well and good but if he offered 150K in January we would have got him.

This

CropleyWasGod
10-09-2013, 09:15 PM
This

Not this.

Again :greengrin

Hibbyradge
10-09-2013, 09:16 PM
This

lol again

J-C
11-09-2013, 08:54 AM
Away from all the joviality about "this " and "that" it was good to see Rod made several attempts to buy Leigh, knowing the fans and the club needed him but was never going to break the bank doing so. Hope this now puts to bed any of the ridiculous rumours about various offers for Leigh and on another point it's good to see we're in the black again, if only by a few thousand.

ian cruise
11-09-2013, 09:25 AM
I will ask before Meh does, is Leigh signing in Jan or not?

ian cruise
11-09-2013, 09:29 AM
In all seriousness it's a shame the board have to come out with statements like that. Aye it's a pretty terrible time to be a hibee just now but I still find it hard to believe they are purposely working to to detriment if the club as some posters will have you believe. If Leigh was affordable to us I can't see any reason why Rod wouldn't have jumped at the chance, his sell on potential is massive and that's one of our boards big motivations.

IWasThere2016
11-09-2013, 11:55 AM
:top marks 154k p/a would get us some player :agree:

Yup - easily enough for a David Murphy and a Rob Jones to enhance the team and sell on ... or do we not need them and the associated bums on seats? :confused:

jonty
11-09-2013, 12:03 PM
Yup - easily enough for a David Murphy and a Rob Jones to enhance the team and sell on ... or do we not need them and the associated bums on seats? :confused:

You're putting DM and RJ in the same category as LG? Seriously?

DM and RJ were unknowns. LG is a top-scoring SPL international. Maybe its just me, but I can see a bit of a difference between those two groups. And that's just assuming we're on about salaries, never mind transfer fees.

Pedantic_Hibee
11-09-2013, 12:08 PM
Yup - easily enough for a David Murphy and a Rob Jones to enhance the team and sell on ... or do we not need them and the associated bums on seats? :confused:

You could make an onion cry, TQM.

IWasThere2016
11-09-2013, 12:12 PM
You could make an onion cry, TQM.

Onions have ears?!?! Wow! :wink:

Pedantic_Hibee
11-09-2013, 12:15 PM
Onions have ears?!?! Wow! :wink:

I have no witty retort to this. I hate myself right now.

hibby rae
11-09-2013, 12:18 PM
I have no witty retort to this. I hate myself right now.

Mate, you just got served.

Pedantic_Hibee
11-09-2013, 12:18 PM
Mate, you just got served.

Go ahead, judge me :fenlon

Hibbyradge
11-09-2013, 12:28 PM
Yup - easily enough for a David Murphy and a Rob Jones to enhance the team and sell on ... or do we not need them and the associated bums on seats? :confused:

So, take the money away from the directors and pay a player £3k a week so we can sell him on. Top strategy, G. :rolleyes:

Apart from anything else, who would be doing the selling given that there wouldn't be a board.

Who's going to run a club with a multi million pound turnover, and subject themselves to the usual unreasonable abuse from fans for hee haw?

hibby rae
11-09-2013, 12:35 PM
Go ahead, judge me :fenlon

This one has spirit. :aok:

hibby rae
11-09-2013, 12:36 PM
So, take the money away from the directors and pay a player £3k a week so we can sell him on. Top strategy, G. :rolleyes:

Apart from anything else, who would be doing the selling given that there wouldn't be a board.

Who's going to run a club with a multi million pound turnover, and subject themselves to the usual unreasonable abuse from fans for hee haw?

Ian Murray MP?

basehibby
11-09-2013, 03:09 PM
Wait a minute - am I the only one thinking "Yeah but No but - it was LONG before the January transfer window, back when Wolves were in managerial turmoil (and before Griffiths had gone past 15 for the season already) that the 150K rumour surfaced"?

Ach well - it's long since burried in my book any road and the tache is deserving of plaudits right now for giving us GIRFUY material for the Yams' benefit by well and truly bursting their "Hibs are financially f****d as well" bubble - preposterous as it always was.

We've been in profit for the year and have an exciting new signing with debut pending - all good news and I'm happy to be positive and whinge free for here and now - sure I'm right tho :cb

IWasThere2016
11-09-2013, 03:44 PM
So, take the money away from the directors and pay a player £3k a week so we can sell him on. Top strategy, G. :rolleyes:

Apart from anything else, who would be doing the selling given that there wouldn't be a board.

Who's going to run a club with a multi million pound turnover, and subject themselves to the usual unreasonable abuse from fans for hee haw?

D - we paid too many directors, too much, for too many years - so the point is it is not £154k. Given the result of £100k trading profit in 2012/13 (at the depths of a recession), I am at a loss as to what value said directors brought before - because we seem to have done rather well without them. I trust you don't think using the £100k to re-instate Scott Lindsay or A N Other asap

Hibbyradge
11-09-2013, 03:55 PM
D - we paid too many directors, too much, for too many years - so the point is it is not £154k. Given the result of £100k trading profit in 2012/13 (at the depths of a recession), I am at a loss as to what value said directors brought before - because we seem to have done rather well without them. I trust you don't think using the £100k to re-instate Scott Lindsay or A N Other asap

So why are you banging on about it now?

It's fixed, isn't it?

Jack
11-09-2013, 04:14 PM
D - we paid too many directors, too much, for too many years - so the point is it is not £154k. Given the result of £100k trading profit in 2012/13 (at the depths of a recession), I am at a loss as to what value said directors brought before - because we seem to have done rather well without them. I trust you don't think using the £100k to re-instate Scott Lindsay or A N Other asap

I would have Scott Lindsay back. IMO he'd be a good Chairman.

IWasThere2016
11-09-2013, 04:23 PM
So why are you banging on about it now?

It's fixed, isn't it?

Years too late - and I banged on about it then :wink:

Hibbyradge
11-09-2013, 05:47 PM
Yup - easily enough for a David Murphy and a Rob Jones to enhance the team and sell on ... or do we not need them and the associated bums on seats? :confused:


Years too late - and I banged on about it then :wink:

You should be celebrating your ambition for the board was achieved instead of talking sheet about something that doesn't exist anymore.

David Murphy or Rob Jones. :rolleyes:

IWasThere2016
11-09-2013, 10:04 PM
You should be celebrating your ambition for the board was achieved instead of talking sheet about something that doesn't exist anymore.

David Murphy or Rob Jones. :rolleyes:

No doubt the result is excellent - far better than I expected and the Board/RP should be congratulated. However it shows yet again that the Board/RP were too slow to act - and the cut in the costs of the Board were long over due. I'll congratulate myself also on being right again also :wink:

Andy74
11-09-2013, 10:36 PM
D - we paid too many directors, too much, for too many years - so the point is it is not £154k. Given the result of £100k trading profit in 2012/13 (at the depths of a recession), I am at a loss as to what value said directors brought before - because we seem to have done rather well without them. I trust you don't think using the £100k to re-instate Scott Lindsay or A N Other asap
So we are doing well? Aren't we a football club?

IWasThere2016
12-09-2013, 05:03 AM
So we are doing well? Aren't we a football club?

Yes - see my earlier point of too much resource tied up in an grossly overly expensive Board costing us investment in the team. The Board (RP) was IMHO to slow to act to address this - however, thankfully, this has been addressed. Hibs had to stem the operating losses however as we don't have the cash to continue this way (unless STF was to continue to pump cash in - the last occassion IIRC was a soft loan from Holding Co, and not an injection of capital. Namely, STF expects Hibs to repay Holding Co (him))

On the wider footballing point - it has been rank rotten for too long also, and totally unacceptable.

Beefster
12-09-2013, 09:55 AM
I would have Scott Lindsay back. IMO he'd be a good Chairman.

Scott Lindsay is as much a leader as I am Olivia Munn's secret boyfriend. He's got many positive attributes but leading an organisation isn't one of them. Rodders' is fine as a Chairman, if only he'd appoint a decent CEO to do the day-to-day stuff.

IWasThere2016
12-09-2013, 10:37 AM
Scott Lindsay is as much a leader as I am Olivia Munn's secret boyfriend. He's got many positive attributes but leading an organisation isn't one of them. Rodders' is fine as a Chairman, if only he'd appoint a decent CEO to do the day-to-day stuff.

:love ya!:

I thought Jack's post was a wind-up!

Fergus52
12-09-2013, 10:48 AM
Wait a minute - am I the only one thinking "Yeah but No but - it was LONG before the January transfer window, back when Wolves were in managerial turmoil (and before Griffiths had gone past 15 for the season already) that the 150K rumour surfaced"?

Petrie has confirmed on more than one occasion that the 150k rumour is complete bull****.

Beefster
12-09-2013, 11:45 AM
:love ya!:

I thought Jack's post was a wind-up!

Ha, possibly. If so, apologies Jack!

Hibbyradge
12-09-2013, 11:56 AM
No doubt the result is excellent - far better than I expected and the Board/RP should be congratulated. However it shows yet again that the Board/RP were too slow to act - and the cut in the costs of the Board were long over due. I'll congratulate myself also on being right again also :wink:

No, it doesn't show that at all.

That's your opinion.

Nice of you to congratulate RP though. I'm sure he'll give a f***. :wink:

Liberal Hibby
12-09-2013, 12:57 PM
Yes - see my earlier point of too much resource tied up in an grossly overly expensive Board costing us investment in the team. The Board (RP) was IMHO to slow to act to address this - however, thankfully, this has been addressed. Hibs had to stem the operating losses however as we don't have the cash to continue this way (unless STF was to continue to pump cash in - the last occassion IIRC was a soft loan from Holding Co, and not an injection of capital. Namely, STF expects Hibs to repay Holding Co (him))



There's only one flaw in your theory though. It's bo11ocks (to quote Edmund Blackadder).

If we hadn't paid executive board members to do certain jobs, then we would have had to pay someone else to do it. No company runs without someone in charge of finance, personnel, business planning etc. If the Hibs board hadn't done it then they would have employed some highly paid directors to do it. They might have been a bit cheaper than the board - but any savings would have been marginal in the scheme of things.

IWasThere2016
12-09-2013, 12:59 PM
There's only one flaw in your theory though. It's bo11ocks (to quote Edmund Blackadder).

If we hadn't paid executive board members to do certain jobs, then we would have had to pay someone else to do it. No company runs without someone in charge of finance, personnel, business planning etc. If the Hibs board hadn't done it then they would have employed some highly paid directors to do it. They might have been a bit cheaper than the board - but any savings would have been marginal in the scheme of things.

What utter keech .. spending on the Board has fallen significantly. So we were paying much more than we are now.

CropleyWasGod
12-09-2013, 01:56 PM
It's not always reasonable, in Hibs' situation, to compare one year's Directors' costs with another and to then draw conclusions.

Directors' costs are required to be disclosed in the Financial Statements. Most other staff costs are not.

So.... if Director A, who was on a salary of £50k, retires from the Board and is not replaced, Directors' costs reduce. However, if the club employ someone else (not a Director) to do that Director's duties at a cost of £60k, there is a net increase in salaries of £10k. However, that particular fact won't be highlighted in the accounts; the decrease in Directors' costs will be.

IWasThere2016
13-09-2013, 01:41 PM
It's not always reasonable, in Hibs' situation, to compare one year's Directors' costs with another and to then draw conclusions.

Directors' costs are required to be disclosed in the Financial Statements. Most other staff costs are not.

So.... if Director A, who was on a salary of £50k, retires from the Board and is not replaced, Directors' costs reduce. However, if the club employ someone else (not a Director) to do that Director's duties at a cost of £60k, there is a net increase in salaries of £10k. However, that particular fact won't be highlighted in the accounts; the decrease in Directors' costs will be.

IMHO, that's clearly not the situation at Hibs with the downward pressure on staff costs over the years .. none more so the Boardroom costs. Some time ago the Board costs 2-3x what it costs today .. I sincerely doubt that costs is elsewhere - I believe it will have been saved.

Baldy Foghorn
13-09-2013, 05:07 PM
I would have Scott Lindsay back. IMO he'd be a good Chairman.

Hell NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

down-the-slope
13-09-2013, 08:44 PM
Hell NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

:a bite:......glad you don't drink :greengrin

You were missed Wed... Not like you to be absent....you are such a reliable stalwart. Ill?

Baldy Foghorn
13-09-2013, 09:04 PM
:a bite:......glad you don't drink :greengrin

You were missed Wed... Not like you to be absent....you are such a reliable stalwart. Ill?

Yes I was ill unfortunately.........:greengrin

Jack
14-09-2013, 08:16 AM
Yes I was ill unfortunately.........:greengrin

After boooooooooooing me like that I hope it was nothing trivial ;-)

down-the-slope
14-09-2013, 08:44 AM
Yes I was ill unfortunately.........:greengrin Man Flu :wink:

Im sure it won't stop you being in Perth - I will look out for you...shouldn't be hard as we are being squeezed into main stand