£7.2M Loss

[Jock O]

Glad to see that wonderful sense of togetherness in the team has spread to the fans.......

[Speedy]

It's maybe a sensitive topic but people have served time for murder and been released since the man sent 2 questionable texts and apologised for it. It's been done to death and it's time to give the guy a break.

I don't disagree. I know I've certainly made stupid and inappropriate comments in the past that were poor humour rather than genuine malice. Learnt and moved on now.

Not everyone has to agree though, poor show to refer to that disagreement as drivel imo.

[blackpoolhibs]

I don't disagree. I know I've certainly made stupid and inappropriate comments in the past that were poor humour rather than genuine malice. Learnt and moved on now.

Not everyone has to agree though, poor show to refer to that disagreement as drivel imo.

I'd say 99% of us have and the other 1% are ..........................:wink:

[CapitalGreen]

Glad to see that wonderful sense of togetherness in the team has spread to the fans.......

Hibs.net isn’t really representative of the Hibs fanbase. Go out with a group of Hibs fans on a Saturday night and you’re unlikely to be arguing for hours on end about Profit & Loss accounts or how this is just like Hearts under Romanov like folk were doing on here.

Most Hibs fans are absolutely delighted with how SDG has us playing and there is lots of togetherness amongst those who are at matches.

[TrinityHibby]

I’m not sure why anyone thinks it’s all that outrageous a shout.

We’ve had players signed by accident. Playing suspended players in cups. Appointing the owners son to a key role because he’s the owners son and nothing else. Giving jobs to sex pests. Giving jobs to racists. Huge promises that are never fulfilled. Completely unprofessional chief execs who promise the world then do a runner a week prior to us finding them out. An obscene amount of players signed. Constant managerial churn.

Nobody is claiming the end result will be the same, but there’s more than a hint of it in the day to day running of the club.

All of what you say is true…….certain supporters simply don’t want to accept it ……ostrich mentality is staggering

[HoboHarry]

Hibs.net isn’t really representative of the Hibs fanbase. Go out with a group of Hibs fans on a Saturday night and you’re unlikely to be arguing for hours on end about Profit & Loss accounts or how this is just like Hearts under Romanov like folk were doing on here.

Most Hibs fans are absolutely delighted with how SDG has us playing and there is lots of togetherness amongst those who are at matches.
Happy to read this honestly, been away too long to have any clue. It's occurred to me more than once though if the repetitive statements on here made by some were made in a pub they'd be standing by themselves in short order.

[Since90+2]

Lies? You can go do one with that kinda chat.

Nobody else was even considered for the job. You think it was cause they suddenly realised they had the right man in the building all along?

Or more likely was it cause we’re skint, they could get him to take the job without paying him as much as others, and the fans would give him more leeway?

Let’s face it, anyone who thought LJ or Montgomery were fit to be Hibs manager, doesn’t really have a clue. Much like yourself apparently.

Nobody else was even considered? That's just silly. You're making stuff up now to row back from the silly statement the Gordons didn't appoint SDG.

If they didn't, who did?

[A Hi-Bee]

Hibs.net isn’t really representative of the Hibs fanbase. Go out with a group of Hibs fans on a Saturday night and you’re unlikely to be arguing for hours on end about Profit & Loss accounts or how this is just like Hearts under Romanov like folk were doing on here.

Most Hibs fans are absolutely delighted with how SDG has us playing and there is lots of togetherness amongst those who are at matches.

I am shocked to hear something like this dot net is full of drivellers and everyone has an opinion, no one has to listen to the opinions of course, I do like the drivellers though, very representative of some teams but dont think they is Hibs.

[Bostonhibby]

Hibs.net isn’t really representative of the Hibs fanbase. Go out with a group of Hibs fans on a Saturday night and you’re unlikely to be arguing for hours on end about Profit & Loss accounts or how this is just like Hearts under Romanov like folk were doing on here.

Most Hibs fans are absolutely delighted with how SDG has us playing and there is lots of togetherness amongst those who are at matches.I think this is fair comment, certainly consistent with my own experiences in both environments, both of which I enjoy.

Maybe we just need a song about balance sheets and profit & loss accounts?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Donegal Hibby]

Following a robust recruitment process , David Gray was our preferred candidate….

https://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/2024/june/06/david-gray-appointed-head-coach-/

[A Hi-Bee]

Away to watch the fitbaw, too many drivellers around. should it be drivellers F.C. or drivellers United.
:greengrin

[Aldo]

Following a robust recruitment process , David Gray was our preferred candidate….

https://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/2024/june/06/david-gray-appointed-head-coach-/

So who were the other candidates??

You normally hear who has been interviewed at some point during the process however absolutely nothing from anyone. No snippets no rumours just nothing?

Whilst I have no information, I find this strange and my take is we only interviewed one person and they got the job.

[Hibernian Verse]

So who were the other candidates??

You normally hear who has been interviewed at some point during the process however absolutely nothing from anyone. No snippets no rumours just nothing?

Whilst I have no information, I find this strange and my take is we only interviewed one person and they got the job.

Pretty sure Ian Murray was


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aldo]

Pretty sure Ian Murray was


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is that confirmed? Btw don’t doubt what you are saying but I didn’t see that reported anywhere??

[HoboHarry]

Is that confirmed? Btw don’t doubt what you are saying but I didn’t see that reported anywhere??

Other than MM stating it, it can't be confirmed. Anything else is just paper talk.

[jeffers]

Other than MM stating it, it can't be confirmed. Anything else is just paper talk.

Thought the Raith chairman said there had been no contact from Hibs regarding IM.

[HoboHarry]

Thought the Raith chairman said there had been no contact from Hibs regarding IM.

I was meaning generally speaking, only the board/MM could confirm that person X was interviewed

[Aldo]

Other than MM stating it, it can't be confirmed. Anything else is just paper talk.

I cannot remember reading or hearing MM saying that IM gad been interviewed. I don’t think any names were mentioned by MM. maybe wrong and I cannot find anything about it apart from article posted above.

[McD]

Lies? You can go do one with that kinda chat.

Nobody else was even considered for the job. You think it was cause they suddenly realised they had the right man in the building all along?

Or more likely was it cause we’re skint, they could get him to take the job without paying him as much as others, and the fans would give him more leeway?

Let’s face it, anyone who thought LJ or Montgomery were fit to be Hibs manager, doesn’t really have a clue. Much like yourself apparently.


The other poster can ‘do one with that kinda chat’, whilst you insult them?


Who did appoint Gray then, since you’re telling the truth that they didn’t?

[TrinityHFC]

So who were the other candidates??

You normally hear who has been interviewed at some point during the process however absolutely nothing from anyone. No snippets no rumours just nothing?

Whilst I have no information, I find this strange and my take is we only interviewed one person and they got the job.

There was an interview with MM where he talked about having lunch meetings with a large group of initial candidates then interview with the final candidates.

[Since90+2]

The other poster can ‘do one with that kinda chat’, whilst you insult them?


Who did appoint Gray then, since you’re telling the truth that they didn’t?

The fact we are even discussing if the Gordons appointed Gray or not is hilarious.

One of the daftest things I've read on here, and that's saying something.

[Aldo]

There was an interview with MM where he talked about having lunch meetings with a large group of initial candidates then interview with the final candidates.

Again I’m struggling to find that interview. I honestly cannot remember him saying he met large groups of candidates over lunch and weeded them out etc?

I’m sure that each candidate would be discussed as a group then the best would be interviewed.

Still not convinced as I cannot find anything. Maybe not looking hard enough.

[McD]

Again I’m struggling to find that interview. I honestly cannot remember him saying he met large groups of candidates over lunch and weeded them out etc?

I’m sure that each candidate would be discussed as a group then the best would be interviewed.

Still not convinced as I cannot find anything. Maybe not looking hard enough.



I do remember the interview where MM said that being discussed on here. Could it possibly have been one of the video interviews he did with Hibs TV early in his tenure that it was mentioned?

[Aldo]

I do remember the interview where MM said that being discussed on here. Could it possibly have been one of the video interviews he did with Hibs TV early in his tenure that it was mentioned?

Maybe. This is the bit I cannot remember.

[ancient hibee]

Does anyone really think than anyone interviewed who didn’ t get the job wants that to be common knowledge?

[JohnM1875]

Does anyone really think than anyone interviewed who didn’ t get the job wants that to be common knowledge?

You always hear about the other candidates for a managers job regardless of the team. Did we hear of one this time?

I genuinely believe we didn't interview anyone else. But to be honest, I'm not that bothered about it now seeing as Gray has us playing well and winning games. That and I think the guy's a complete and utter diamond. Just a really really good guy.

[007]

Lies? You can go do one with that kinda chat.

Nobody else was even considered for the job. You think it was cause they suddenly realised they had the right man in the building all along?

Or more likely was it cause we’re skint, they could get him to take the job without paying him as much as others, and the fans would give him more leeway?

Let’s face it, anyone who thought LJ or Montgomery were fit to be Hibs manager, doesn’t really have a clue. Much like yourself apparently.

You made a claim which I reckon you have no evidence to back up because you made it up.

You've done it again by claiming nobody else was even considered. Something else I daresay you can't back up.

Someone who thinks all the unsuccessful manager appointments are all the Gordons but if there is a successful one then it has nothing to do with them is clueless and incapable of making a balanced judgement, much like yourself.

[ancient hibee]

The
You always hear about the other candidates for a managers job regardless of the team. Did we hear of one this time?

I genuinely believe we didn't interview anyone else. But to be honest, I'm not that bothered about it now seeing as Gray has us playing well and winning games. That and I think the guy's a complete and utter diamond. Just a really really good guy.
Who were the other candidates for the Hearts job as a matter of interest?

[JohnM1875]

The
Who were the other candidates for the Hearts job as a matter of interest?

There were a few names mentioned in the press at the time. Per-Mathias Høgmo was one.

"Other names were mentioned. Swedish boss Kalle Karlsson, currently at Vasteras in his homeland, was considered as were former Wales manager Rob Page and experienced EFL man Gary Rowett."

Can't remember anyone being linked with us other than Gray from the start. Again tough, in this instance I don't actually care because it's starting to work under SDG.

[ancient hibee]

Hi
There were a few names mentioned in the press at the time. Per-Mathias Høgmo was one.

"Other names were mentioned. Swedish boss Kalle Karlsson, currently at Vasteras in his homeland, was considered as were former Wales manager Rob Page and experienced EFL man Gary Rowett."

Can't remember anyone being linked with us other than Gray from the start. Again tough, in this instance I don't actually care because it's starting to work under SDG.
And long may it continue.

[matty_f]

Lies? You can go do one with that kinda chat.

Nobody else was even considered for the job. You think it was cause they suddenly realised they had the right man in the building all along?

Or more likely was it cause we’re skint, they could get him to take the job without paying him as much as others, and the fans would give him more leeway?

Let’s face it, anyone who thought LJ or Montgomery were fit to be Hibs manager, doesn’t really have a clue. Much like yourself apparently.

It’s evidently wrong because we know BKFC put forward another candidate, so by definition there was more than one person considered.

[leith lynx]

So who were the other candidates??

You normally hear who has been interviewed at some point during the process however absolutely nothing from anyone. No snippets no rumours just nothing?

Whilst I have no information, I find this strange and my take is we only interviewed one person and they got the job.
Ronny Delia/Kenny Miller?

[Rumble de Thump]

Malky Mackay said: "There were at least 50 credible candidates that we had to at least look at the CV. We took that down to 20 and then to 10 then five then three and the final two.

"So there was a fairly robust process. David's final interview was two-and-a-half hours long. By the end of it, actually with 15 minutes to go, in my head I thought he's nailed this."

David Gray believes he is better suited now to accepting the job than when he first became caretaker.

He said: "I think the progression I've had in the three years since then, everything was geared up to this moment.

"Now I'm in a position where I wanted to apply for the job. I firmly believe I can make a difference here."

[Aldo]

Ronny Delia/Kenny Miller?

They were rumours on here and nothing more.
Well Delia one was.

[tamig]

No.

The biggest threat SINCE Mercer. SINCE. Not including, SINCE.

The definition of “Since” - in the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present.

That means Mercer isn’t included and is irrelevant.

Jesus Christ, the fact a very simple point is still the point of discussion 24h later is quite something. You didn’t give me the “benefit of the doubt”, you got it completely wrong and are still refusing to back down no matter how many times it’s pointed out they were completely wrong and I’ve absolutely zero doubt it’s because of my username.

As said previously, no interest in the content of the post, making up your own narrative based on what you have decided you expect me to say, much like my fairly high praise of Jordan Smith which was apparently negative (:faf:) and showed that some posters can’t enjoy being Hibs fans (:faf:), even if it’s not even close to being similar.

The hun are out the cup. The Gordons are not the biggest threat to us since Metcer. A wild assertion. And wrong. FACT.

[Eyrie]

If no other candidates were even considered, why wasn't Gray given the job permanently as soon as Montgomery was sacked?

[007]

No.

The biggest threat SINCE Mercer. SINCE. Not including, SINCE.

The definition of “Since” - in the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present.

That means Mercer isn’t included and is irrelevant.

Jesus Christ, the fact a very simple point is still the point of discussion 24h later is quite something. You didn’t give me the “benefit of the doubt”, you got it completely wrong and are still refusing to back down no matter how many times it’s pointed out they were completely wrong and I’ve absolutely zero doubt it’s because of my username.

As said previously, no interest in the content of the post, making up your own narrative based on what you have decided you expect me to say, much like my fairly high praise of Jordan Smith which was apparently negative (:faf:) and showed that some posters can’t enjoy being Hibs fans (:faf:), even if it’s not even close to being similar.

What exactly is this threat from the Gordons that you are "warning" us of?

[Smartie]

What exactly is this threat from the Gordons that you are "warning" us of?

The “threat” would surely be the financial performance continuing as it is right now and the Gordons at some point, for whatever reason, deciding to stop underwriting the losses?

At that point there comes a potentially tortuous cutting of cloth, or worse.

Intentions don’t need to be malevolent but we may just fall victim to changing priorities.

FWIW I’m not even all that concerned about the (admittedly terrible) financial results. They cover a period when I think many at Hibs realised things had to change and since that dropping of the penny we’ve seen many things happen to shift us in the direction of positive change.

The next set of results may not yet be great but I have feeling that from there, there is reason to expect the accounts to start looking much better.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The “threat” would surely be the financial performance continuing as it is right now and the Gordons at some point, for whatever reason, deciding to stop underwriting the losses?

At that point there comes a potentially tortuous cutting of cloth, or worse.

Intentions don’t need to be malevolent but we may just fall victim to changing priorities.

FWIW I’m not even all that concerned about the (admittedly terrible) financial results. They cover a period when I think many at Hibs realised things had to change and since that dropping of the penny we’ve seen many things happen to shift us in the direction of positive change.

The next set of results may not yet be great but I have feeling that from there, there is reason to expect the accounts to start looking much better.

Correct.

If people don’t think having owners who have managed to lose £17.5m in 3 years whilst performing really badly on the pitch doesn’t have the potential to leave us vulnerable then crack on.

The Gordon’s clearly have no idea how to run a football club. They can’t get it performing on the pitch and they’ve got it haemorrhaging money off it. I’ve little faith they’ll manage to get things under control, so if the day comes when they decide they’re not covering losses anymore then we could be in real bother.

[Iain G]

What exactly is this threat from the Gordons that you are "warning" us of?

The so called threat is just a bunch of worst care scenario imaginings. They have stated they will cover the losses that they have taken ownership of.

Maybe the threat is that Hibs will actually do well and some folks will have nothing to rant and rave about?

[Donegal Hibby]

The £7.2m loss isn’t good but the Gordon’s have said they are covering it so essentially they are taking the hit , not the club which has me surprised by some of the reaction to it …

As to it happening again which some might be worried about, has upgrading hospitality, stadium, new pitch not all contributed to this which we don’t have to do again….

Bad recruitment of players another contributing factor that we have also appeared to have changed with the appointment of Garvan Stewart .

We also spend fairly heavily on players like Vente , Bowie etc who might yet make us money as well , paying probably big wages for players like Marcondes and Maolida that we don’t need to do now . Hopefully we have a bit of stability on the manager front now too rather than what some say in we just keep hiring and firing till we get it right which is a costly business as well..

I’m sure the Gordon’s don’t want to keep covering costs and want to see the club become more self sufficient financially which is why there is /has been changes made …

For all the Gordon’s faults at least they have been willing to invest money into the club, could be worse in we could have got owners that borrowed the money to buy us and then lumbered their debt back onto us while watching the stadium deteriorate to the point it’s got a leaky roof…

[JohnM1875]

The £7.2m loss isn’t good but the Gordon’s have said they are covering it so essentially they are taking the hit , not the club which has me surprised by some of the reaction to it …

As to it happening again which some might be worried about has upgrading hospitality, stadium, new pitch not all contributed to this which we don’t have to do again….

Bad recruitment of players another contributing factor that we have also appeared to have changed with the appointment of Garvan Stewart .

We also spend fairly heavily on players like Vente , Bowie etc who might yet make us money as well , paying probably big wages for players like Marcondes and Maolida that we don’t need to do now . Hopefully we have a bit of stability on the manager front now too rather than what some say in we just keep hiring and firing till we get it right which is a costly business as well..

I’m sure the Gordon’s don’t want to keep covering costs and want to see the club become more self sufficient financially which is why there is /has been changes made …

For all the Gordon’s faults at least they have been willing to invest money into the club, could be worse in we could have got owners that borrowed the money to buy us and then lumbered their debt back onto us while watching the stadium deteriorate to the point it’s got a leaky roof…

Understatement of the century.

The Gordons don't have a clue what they're doing. You could've argued it might come good under Ron, because he was a successful businessman with a track record. Unfortunately neither Kit or Ian have that.

I don't dislike them as people, far from it. I know they care and want do well but that isn't enough.

Aye, it could be worse as you say, but it could also be a damn sight better with an owner who has a track record of sporting success.

[Donegal Hibby]

Understatement of the century.

The Gordons don't have a clue what they're doing. You could've argued it might come good under Ron, because he was a successful businessman with a track record. Unfortunately neither Kit or Ian have that.

I don't dislike them as people, far from it. I know they care and want do well but that isn't enough.

Aye, it could be worse as you say, but it could also be a damn site better with an owner who has a track record of sporting success.

Maybe that’s where the changes will help in they can let other folk like Stewart , Mackay and a new CEO get on with running the club while we still have owners that care for the club …

As to having a owner with a track record of success if it’s who I think it is your on about has he actually attended one of our games or any of the other clubs rather than his favourite one ? … I’ll stick with the Gordon’s , thanks 👍

[JohnM1875]

Maybe that’s where the changes will help in they can let other folk like Stewart , Mackay and a new CEO get on with running the club while we still have owners that care for the club …

As to having a owner with a track record of success if it’s who I think it is your on about has he actually attended one of our games or any of the other clubs rather than his favourite one ? … I’ll stick with the Gordon’s , thanks 👍

New CEO could be massive, agree.

Why would him attending games make us more successful? He pumped £6mil into the club less than a year ago. I'd much rather he funds us and provides us with players and staff that can improve us than a wee jaunt up to Edinburgh every now and then.

He's also on our board, so that probably shows he's invested in how we do as a club.

[blackpoolhibs]

Understatement of the century.

The Gordons don't have a clue what they're doing. You could've argued it might come good under Ron, because he was a successful businessman with a track record. Unfortunately neither Kit or Ian have that.

I don't dislike them as people, far from it. I know they care and want do well but that isn't enough.

Aye, it could be worse as you say, but it could also be a damn site better with an owner who has a track record of sporting success.

I could, one of his first major decisions was to put his son in charge of recruitment, then sack Jack Ross.

From a position of strength when 3rd, he dismantled the club from within, and every football decision since is directly down to his management and decisions.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The £7.2m loss isn’t good but the Gordon’s have said they are covering it so essentially they are taking the hit , not the club which has me surprised by some of the reaction to it …

As to it happening again which some might be worried about, has upgrading hospitality, stadium, new pitch not all contributed to this which we don’t have to do again….

Bad recruitment of players another contributing factor that we have also appeared to have changed with the appointment of Garvan Stewart .

We also spend fairly heavily on players like Vente , Bowie etc who might yet make us money as well , paying probably big wages for players like Marcondes and Maolida that we don’t need to do now . Hopefully we have a bit of stability on the manager front now too rather than what some say in we just keep hiring and firing till we get it right which is a costly business as well..

I’m sure the Gordon’s don’t want to keep covering costs and want to see the club become more self sufficient financially which is why there is /has been changes made …

For all the Gordon’s faults at least they have been willing to invest money into the club, could be worse in we could have got owners that borrowed the money to buy us and then lumbered their debt back onto us while watching the stadium deteriorate to the point it’s got a leaky roof…

Nobody is disappointed they’re taking the hit. The fact they are racking up such massive losses and having to take the hit is what’s concerning. When they decide they’re not taking the hit anymore, there could be real trouble ahead.

The infrastructure work isn’t part of the £7.2m loss.

I’m not sure we can say bad recruitment has changed yet given we’ve signed 1 player under Stewart who hasn’t played yet.

Sacking managers is a drop in the ocean in terms of the £7.2m. That’s not going to make a huge amount of odds as to what the next accounts look like. Relative to the £7.2m we lost, managers walk out of the club with pennies, they’ll be lucky to leave with £100k.

You say they don’t want to keep seeing the club lose money, and whilst that seems an obvious point, I’m sure they wouldn’t have wanted that when we lost £10.5m over the last two years either. Yet here we are, with a £7.2m loss. There’s nothing to suggest they know how to fix it because it keeps happening.

[B.H.F.C]

Nobody is disappointed they’re taking the hit. The fact they are racking up such massive losses and having to take the hit is what’s concerning. When they decide they’re not taking the hit anymore, there could be real trouble ahead.

The infrastructure work isn’t part of the £7.2m loss.

I’m not sure we can say bad recruitment has changed yet given we’ve signed 1 player under Stewart who hasn’t played yet.

Sacking managers is a drop in the ocean in terms of the £7.2m. That’s not going to make a huge amount of odds as to what the next accounts look like. Relative to the £7.2m we lost, managers walk out of the club with pennies, they’ll be lucky to leave with £100k.

You say they don’t want to keep seeing the club lose money, and whilst that seems an obvious point, I’m sure they wouldn’t have wanted that when we lost £10.5m over the last two years either. Yet here we are, with a £7.2m loss. There’s nothing to suggest they know how to fix it because it keeps happening.

I’m no an expert on these things so someone might correct me on it, but the below is notes from the financial statements on the infrastructure part.

“Significant investment also went into improving the facilities at Easter Road
Stadium. This consisted of a major refit of the Famous Five Stand to enhance
supporters’ matchday experience and providing a dedicated area for the
Hibernian Community Foundation. Rail seating was also introduced inside the
stadium, alongside new facilities for disabled supporters and upgraded
floodlights. The total amount invested was in excess of £3 million”

[Paulie Walnuts]

I’m no an expert on these things so someone might correct me on it, but the below is notes from the financial statements on the infrastructure part.

“Significant investment also went into improving the facilities at Easter Road
Stadium. This consisted of a major refit of the Famous Five Stand to enhance
supporters’ matchday experience and providing a dedicated area for the
Hibernian Community Foundation. Rail seating was also introduced inside the
stadium, alongside new facilities for disabled supporters and upgraded
floodlights. The total amount invested was in excess of £3 million”

There’s been numerous posts from our resident experts about why the infrastructure projects won’t form part of the £7.2m loss. I can’t remember if it was on this board or the PM board.

Something to do with costs being capitalised, being shown on the balance sheet rather than the P&L and being reflected by depreciation charges onto the P&L over a number of years. There was also a suggestion that the £7.2m figure may actually look better because of doing it this way.

[CapitalGreen]

There’s been numerous posts from our resident experts about why the infrastructure projects won’t form part of the £7.2m loss. I can’t remember if it was on this board or the PM board.

The completed infrastructure projects will be hitting the profit and loss in the form of depreciation. The most recent infrastructure projects which were under construction at the end of 23/24 wouldn’t be. So depreciation related to the Main Stand fit out, South Stand offices, new pitch and HTC works will be reflected in 23/24 profit and loss.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The completed infrastructure projects will be hitting the profit and loss in the form of depreciation. The most recent infrastructure projects which were under construction at the end of 23/24 wouldn’t be. So depreciation related to the Main Stand fit out, South Stand offices, new pitch and HTC works will be reflected in 23/24 profit and loss.

Aye, that. :greengrin

I’m not sure if this is your field, but there was a suggestion that doing it this way (which is apparently standard practice) could actually be making our loss look ‘better’.

[Jock O]

So what is the difference with the results here, other than the ooo's at the end. Looks a pretty similar operating model too me. I assume that resulted in a significant reduction in Bournemouth's debt but at one point they had debt around £180m I thought, I haven't dug too deep but will do.

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/bournemouth-finances-202223

[Jock O]

Aye, that. :greengrin

I’m not sure if this is your field, but there was a suggestion that doing it this way (which is apparently standard practice) could actually be making our loss look ‘better’.


It would make our loss look correct according to Financial Accounting rules, so stop implying something else.

Surely if they have mentioned £3.4m in statements regarding loss that refers to current years revenue charge. Not too close to those things but surely one of our resident experts can confirm either way.

[Jock O]

Hibs.net isn’t really representative of the Hibs fanbase. Go out with a group of Hibs fans on a Saturday night and you’re unlikely to be arguing for hours on end about Profit & Loss accounts or how this is just like Hearts under Romanov like folk were doing on here.

Most Hibs fans are absolutely delighted with how SDG has us playing and there is lots of togetherness amongst those who are at matches.

I was sort of sarcastically alluding to that with my comment, unsucessfully it seems, but only having managed 1/2 a dozen or so games myself this year, didn't want to be too hypocritical :greengrin

[Paulie Walnuts]

It would make our loss look correct according to Financial Accounting rules, so stop implying something else.

Surely if they have mentioned £3.4m in statements regarding loss that refers to current years revenue charge. Not too close to those things but surely one of our resident experts can confirm either way.

I literally said it was standard practice in my post, so I’m not implying anything. That was very clear, infact it couldn’t have been any more clear.

[danhibees1875]

It would make our loss look correct according to Financial Accounting rules, so stop implying something else.

Surely if they have mentioned £3.4m in statements regarding loss that refers to current years revenue charge. Not too close to those things but surely one of our resident experts can confirm either way.

I can see your point because of where that paragraph is placed in the report. I don't think it's a deliberate attempt to be misleading though.

[jakeshibs]

You made a claim which I reckon you have no evidence to back up because you made it up.

You've done it again by claiming nobody else was even considered. Something else I daresay you can't back up.

Someone who thinks all the unsuccessful manager appointments are all the Gordons but if there is a successful one then it has nothing to do with them is clueless and incapable of making a balanced judgement, much like yourself.


Well said

[I'm Spartacus]

I'm amazed we were bidding significant amounts on players when these results would have been known, if I go to buy a house or a car and I'm up to my eyes in debt, then I'm being told I can't take that on as I don't have the means to pay for it.

So we rely on the Gordon's taking the hit (this is Ron's baby), and we then get group stage european football and cover next years losses.

One good thing, the management team know they're not being sacked as we can't pay them off, so they should feel settled throough to their contract end.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm amazed we were bidding significant amounts on players when these results would have been known, if I go to buy a house or a car and I'm up to my eyes in debt, then I'm being told I can't take that on as I don't have the means to pay for it.

So we rely on the Gordon's taking the hit (this is Ron's baby), and we then get group stage european football and cover next years losses.

One good thing, the management team know they're not being sacked as we can't pay them off, so they should feel settled throough to their contract end.

A couple of points:-

1. we're not in debt, other than an interest-free long-term SG loan.

2. the accounts cover a period that is 7-19 months old. They don't necessarily reflect where we are now.

[Billy Whizz]

A couple of points:-

1. we're not in debt, other than an interest-free long-term SG loan.

2. the accounts cover a period that is 7-19 months old. They don't necessarily reflect where we are now.

Fair points, but I can’t see this years accounts to 30th June being great
We still have most of our high earners on our wage bill, and a few who’d left have had some sort of pay offs.

[Thatdayinmay16]

What utter nonsense.

I mean tbf, all the points apart from players being signed by mistake are actually correct, so I'm not sure what's nonsense about it?

[I'm Spartacus]

A couple of points:-

1. we're not in debt, other than an interest-free long-term SG loan.

2. the accounts cover a period that is 7-19 months old. They don't necessarily reflect where we are now.

That's for tidying that up :thumbsup:

[Thatdayinmay16]

The hun are out the cup. The Gordons are not the biggest threat to us since Metcer. A wild assertion. And wrong. FACT.

In all honesty, who was/is the biggest threat to hibs since Mercer then? Because it wasn't Farmer, so that only leaves the Gordons?

[danhibees1875]

In all honesty, who was/is the biggest threat to hibs since Mercer then? Because it wasn't Farmer, so that only leaves the Gordons?

Butcher? :dunno:

The whole sentence just seems unnecessary though. It rules out the possibility of noone being a particularly big threat over that time.

[Thatdayinmay16]

Butcher? :dunno:

The whole sentence just seems unnecessary though. It rules out the possibility of noone being a particularly big threat over that time.

I get that, I just mean from an ownership perspective technically the poster is right.

I'm not fussed who own hibs as long as sporting success follows, just I get what the guy is trying to say.

[WhileTheChief..]

Nobody else was even considered? That's just silly. You're making stuff up now to row back from the silly statement the Gordons didn't appoint SDG.

If they didn't, who did?

Who else was in the frame for the job?

What silly statement?

[WhileTheChief..]

The other poster can ‘do one with that kinda chat’, whilst you insult them?


Who did appoint Gray then, since you’re telling the truth that they didn’t?

I respond in kind to posters that quote me.

He called me a liar so insulated him back.

As for the club not appointing Gray, I’ve no idea what you mean.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Butcher? :dunno:

The whole sentence just seems unnecessary though. It rules out the possibility of noone being a particularly big threat over that time.

Nobody has been a big threat over the last 35 years. That’s despite the fact that we’ve had numerous people in different positions of influence. We’re now at a point though, where after 35 years of that being the case, we now have owners who have proven themselves incapable of delivering success on the pitch whilst making absolutely massive losses over the last 3 years that even relative to inflation, are unmatched.

We are losing such an obscene amount of money just now and we’re left with nothing other than blind hope that the Gordon’s don’t decide to stop throwing money at it. When you also consider it’s a project they inherited, rather than one they went in on themselves, that’s a bit of a vulnerable situation to be in imo.

[TrinityHFC]

Nobody has been a big threat over the last 35 years. That’s despite the fact that we’ve had numerous people in different positions of influence. We’re now at a point though, where after 35 years of that being the case, we now have owners who have proven themselves incapable of delivering success on the pitch whilst making absolutely massive losses over the last 3 years that even relative to inflation, are unmatched.

We are losing such an obscene amount of money just now and we’re left with nothing other than blind hope that the Gordon’s don’t decide to stop throwing money at it.

Think you probably should have just let this go a while ago.

You can't compare Mercer with the current ownership and you also can't equate not having made very good decisions and having to cover that financially, with being an existential threat to the club.

You really don't think the club has been in huge difficulties over the last 30 years? Only STF writing off large sums of money kept us alive.

[Since90+2]

Who else was in the frame for the job?

What silly statement?

How do you suppose Gray was appointed, to arguably the most important position within the business, if the owners of the company didn't appoint him?

It's just such a silly and ridiculous arguement that I can't even believe it's being discussed.

Who do think appointed Gray if not the Gordons?

[WhileTheChief..]

Well said

Nah, it’s not, it’s BS.

Unless you can tell us who else was interviewed?

Mackay was crystal clear when he said he sat down with SDG for hours and knew he had the right man.

No one else was interviewed. That’s 100% fact and not up for debate.

If you want to give credit to the club for appointing Maloney, LJ and Montgomery, crack on. I think they are some of the worst manager appointments we’ve ever made.

[CropleyWasGod]

In all honesty, who was/is the biggest threat to hibs since Mercer then? Because it wasn't Farmer, so that only leaves the Gordons?


Butcher? :dunno:

The whole sentence just seems unnecessary though. It rules out the possibility of noone being a particularly big threat over that time.

In the early 2000's, we had external debt of c£15m. That was pretty existential .

[Paulie Walnuts]

Think you probably should have just let this go a while ago.

You can't compare Mercer with the current ownership and you also can't equate not having made very good decisions and having to cover that financially, with being an existential threat to the club.

You really don't think the club has been in huge difficulties over the last 30 years? Only STF writing off large sums of money kept us alive.

Why? Because you dont agree? You’ve been there every step of the way giving your viewpoint, should you not let that go? Or is it just the viewpoints you don’t like?

Yet another poster who seems to be having major bother with the idea of something being since Mercer. That means after him. Making him irrelevant to the point.

[weecounty hibby]

In the early 2000's, we had external debt of c£15m. That was pretty existential .
Just to be clear for me. What is our debt at the moment?
Thanks

[Jones28]

Just to be clear for me. What is our debt at the moment?
Thanks

Approx £1m loan from the Scottish Government COVID loan.

[weecounty hibby]

Approx £1m loan from the Scottish Government COVID loan.

So as it stands zero debt then. I assume that is due to the Gordon's covering the losses. Including stadium and HTC upgrades? So if and when we start to run the "business" better which looks like with Kensell out, MM and Stewsrt in, we should be in a pretty good place? Again none of that is an excuse for how much we have lost and our football performance

[CropleyWasGod]

So as it stands zero debt then. I assume that is due to the Gordon's covering the losses. Including stadium and HTC upgrades? So if and when we start to run the "business" better which looks like with Kensell out, MM and Stewsrt in, we should be in a pretty good place? Again none of that is an excuse for how much we have lost and our football performance

The two aren't connected.

It remains to be seen exactly how they are "covering the losses". But a business can operate, debt-free, and still make losses. There is a limit, of course, which is when the cash runs out.

And we're not debt-free. The SG loan is a debt.

[weecounty hibby]

The two aren't connected.

It remains to be seen exactly how they are "covering the losses". But a business can operate, debt-free, and still make losses. There is a limit, of course, which is when the cash runs out.

And we're not debt-free. The SG loan is a debt.

Thanks

[B.H.F.C]

Nobody has been a big threat over the last 35 years. That’s despite the fact that we’ve had numerous people in different positions of influence. We’re now at a point though, where after 35 years of that being the case, we now have owners who have proven themselves incapable of delivering success on the pitch whilst making absolutely massive losses over the last 3 years that even relative to inflation, are unmatched.

We are losing such an obscene amount of money just now and we’re left with nothing other than blind hope that the Gordon’s don’t decide to stop throwing money at it. When you also consider it’s a project they inherited, rather than one they went in on themselves, that’s a bit of a vulnerable situation to be in imo.

We’ve been in a worse position financially at points in that 35 years though. As someone else said we were millions and millions in debt at various points. These accounts saw us end the year with money in the bank and no debt apart from the government loan.

It’s not as if they’ve just spent and spent and spent and realised at the end of the year they needed to write a cheque for £7m. There’s investments in there that, in agreeing to make, they’ll have knowing they need to cover it. Eg, when we signed Vente Lee Johnson thanked the Gordon family for their financial backing to make it happen. If the Gordon’s do decide to stop throwing money at it the losses wouldn’t run up the way they have in the first place.

[Jock O]

The two aren't connected.

It remains to be seen exactly how they are "covering the losses".

I think this is probably the key bit for me, if the Gordons decide to pay for something on Hibs behalf, e,g. the Vente situation, I assume they cannot just do that without a cash injection to the club, i,e, it has to wash through the books of club somehow? I assume the shareholders injection just after BK came along was an example of that.

If that is the case, then effectively without us getting more of a cash injection from shareholders, in the way of another share issue, then the covering of losses is more like a guarantee at moment, and effectively we start at the position the accounts show. So moving forward we are dependant effectively on our turnover, which I still think is important not sure why some people don't and then any further cash injection but that would involve a share issue wouldn't it? Obviously the issue here is we do not know what the subsequent year looks like, and as that is almost finished, we really don't know the specific position of the club anywhere near currently?

Did you have a look at the Bournemouth figures I put up, as I say are they not just running the same game but much much bigger? Their added complication is its not all the BK's money so they have to answer to their investors, which to answer someone's question a while ago is why they present a potentially bigger risk to us, but equally they promise potentially bigger reward.

I am not particularly concerned about either scenario but equally not sure if I have got this completely wrong.

[Bushwoof]

I'm really struggling with the attitude of some posters on here.

Very few sporting institutions run at a profit. A £7.2 million loss is substantial, but it hasn't been saddled onto the club as a debt. Instead, the Gordons have put their hand in their pockets and covered the whole lot. We should be hugely grateful, rather than sniping. If I were them, and reading this thread, I'd be wondering why I bothered.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm really struggling with the attitude of some posters on here.

Very few sporting institutions run at a profit. A £7.2 million loss is substantial, but it hasn't been saddled onto the club as a debt. Instead, the Gordons have put their hand in their pockets and covered the whole lot. We should be hugely grateful, rather than sniping. If I were them, and reading this thread, I'd be wondering why I bothered.

Have they, though? That seems to be assumed, based on the narrative accompanying the accounts, but it's not clear whether and how they have done that.

[Rumble de Thump]

Nah, it’s not, it’s BS.

Unless you can tell us who else was interviewed?

Mackay was crystal clear when he said he sat down with SDG for hours and knew he had the right man.

No one else was interviewed. That’s 100% fact and not up for debate.

If you want to give credit to the club for appointing Maloney, LJ and Montgomery, crack on. I think they are some of the worst manager appointments we’ve ever made.

The information confirming you're bizarrely making up nonsense has already been posted in this thread. It's information that's been in the public domain since June, the month Gray was appointed. Here's a link to it again: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c3g037jv403o

[CropleyWasGod]

I think this is probably the key bit for me, if the Gordons decide to pay for something on Hibs behalf, e,g. the Vente situation, I assume they cannot just do that without a cash injection to the club, i,e, it has to wash through the books of club somehow? I assume the shareholders injection just after BK came along was an example of that.

If that is the case, then effectively without us getting more of a cash injection from shareholders, in the way of another share issue, then the covering of losses is more like a guarantee at moment, and effectively we start at the position the accounts show. So moving forward we are dependant effectively on our turnover, which I still think is important not sure why some people don't and then any further cash injection but that would involve a share issue wouldn't it? Obviously the issue here is we do not know what the subsequent year looks like, and as that is almost finished, we really don't know the specific position of the club anywhere near currently?

Did you have a look at the Bournemouth figures I put up, as I say are they not just running the same game but much much bigger? Their added complication is its not all the BK's money so they have to answer to their investors, which to answer someone's question a while ago is why they present a potentially bigger risk to us, but equally they promise potentially bigger reward.

I am not particularly concerned about either scenario but equally not sure if I have got this completely wrong.

Pretty much agree with your first couple of paragraphs.

I have only briefly looked at the Bournemouth figures. The numbers scare me :greengrin

[TimeForHeroes]

I'm really struggling with the attitude of some posters on here.

Very few sporting institutions run at a profit. A £7.2 million loss is substantial, but it hasn't been saddled onto the club as a debt. Instead, the Gordons have put their hand in their pockets and covered the whole lot. We should be hugely grateful, rather than sniping. If I were them, and reading this thread, I'd be wondering why I bothered.

👏👏👏

[Smartie]

Think you probably should have just let this go a while ago.

You can't compare Mercer with the current ownership and you also can't equate not having made very good decisions and having to cover that financially, with being an existential threat to the club.

You really don't think the club has been in huge difficulties over the last 30 years? Only STF writing off large sums of money kept us alive.

The Mercer comparison may be fanciful but a Romanov one isn’t.

It should be remembered how close he was to killing Hearts, and how lucky their fans are to still have a team.

[Rumble de Thump]

The Mercer comparison may be fanciful but a Romanov one isn’t.

It should be remembered how close he was to killing Hearts, and how lucky their fans are to still have a team.

Comparing the Gordons to Romanov is something deluded Jambos have been desperately trying and failing to do since Ron became the major shareholder. It's utterly bonkers and completely detached from reality.

[Aldo]

Nah, it’s not, it’s BS.

Unless you can tell us who else was interviewed?

Mackay was crystal clear when he said he sat down with SDG for hours and knew he had the right man.

No one else was interviewed. That’s 100% fact and not up for debate.

If you want to give credit to the club for appointing Maloney, LJ and Montgomery, crack on. I think they are some of the worst manager appointments we’ve ever made.


The information confirming you're bizarrely making up nonsense has already been posted in this thread. It's information that's been in the public domain since June, the month Gray was appointed. Here's a link to it again: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c3g037jv403o

I posted a few days ago asking who had been interviewed as well as DG. No rumours just nothing from anyone anywhere. Nothing in the media, nothing leaked nowt. Which seems odd as normally candidates or those who had been interviewed normally come out at some point during the process.

I have been of the opinion from the off that no one else was interviewed and I stand by this.
I don’t have any inside information or any connections but just my opinion or take in this.

As for the article. It’s the type I expect when looking or having recently appointed a new manager.

[Rumble de Thump]

I posted a few days ago asking who had been interviewed as well as DG. No rumours just nothing from anyone anywhere. Nothing in the media, nothing leaked nowt. Which seems odd as normally candidates or those who had been interviewed normally come out at done pint during the process.

I have been of the opinion from the off that no one else was interviewed and I stand by this.
I don’t have any inside information or any connections but just my opinion or take in this.

As for the article. It’s the type I expect when looking or having recently appointed a new manager.

Opinion and fantasy are different things.

[Aldo]

Opinion and fantasy are different things.

Explain to me how it’s fantasy?

[WhileTheChief..]

How do you suppose Gray was appointed, to arguably the most important position within the business, if the owners of the company didn't appoint him?

It's just such a silly and ridiculous arguement that I can't even believe it's being discussed.

Who do think appointed Gray if not the Gordons?

The Gordons have Gray the job, I’m not arguing that point ffs.

The point I’m making is that they didn’t consider anyone else. Everyone on here was agrees on that point for months so I don’t know why you’re challenging going me on it now.

[Golden Bear]

I'm really struggling with the attitude of some posters on here.

Very few sporting institutions run at a profit. A £7.2 million loss is substantial, but it hasn't been saddled onto the club as a debt. Instead, the Gordons have put their hand in their pockets and covered the whole lot. We should be hugely grateful, rather than sniping. If I were them, and reading this thread, I'd be wondering why I bothered.

Absolutely correct.

[Billy Whizz]

I'm really struggling with the attitude of some posters on here.

Very few sporting institutions run at a profit. A £7.2 million loss is substantial, but it hasn't been saddled onto the club as a debt. Instead, the Gordons have put their hand in their pockets and covered the whole lot. We should be hugely grateful, rather than sniping. If I were them, and reading this thread, I'd be wondering why I bothered.

Not disagreeing with this, but they’ll try and recoup every penny when they sell Hibs in my opinion

[CapitalGreen]

Not disagreeing with this, but they’ll try and recoup every penny when they sell Hibs in my opinion

Then why bother writing off previous loans?

If you’re worried about recouping money at a future date why terminate the mechanism which states it’s owed to you.

[WhileTheChief..]

This is a belter.

You want us to be grateful that the folk that ran up huge debts, are going to cover them?

It’s their damn job and responsibility.

If they had spent the money wisely and we’d picked up a trophy they’d get all the thanks and credit in the world.

But they haven’t. They wasted it on crap players and managers that should never have been anywhere near ER.

If they do read this thread, and are wondering why they bother, maybe they’ll eventually think ‘screw this, we’re outta here’.

That would be some result and I’d happily take credit for it!!

[cubehindthegoal]

Have they, though? That seems to be assumed, based on the narrative accompanying the accounts, but it's not clear whether and how they have done that.

I’m far from an expert in this field, but I wonder then, will any of the documentation regarding the accounts for this period include reference to this loss being covered ? And on a daily basis, is that loss during that year somehow covered - eg by cash investment or loan repayments - during the following year ?

I would hope that given it’s been reasonably explicitly stated that the Gordon family are covering the losses, that it is reasonable to assume that they mean the club isn’t lumbered with it, and they have taken that loss on board.

I understand from what you say that it is perhaps the situation that we don’t know enough. I guess my question is, therefore … fundamentally, how and when do we find that out ?

As an aside, it’s also an interesting comparison too, to look at Hearts, and their cash injections from individuals and supporter donations, that are never guaranteed to continue for ever … are both clubs then currently relying on a source of money that isn’t actually income. If so, can it be gleaned somehow from our accounts, if we (because I’m not really concerned about whether Hearts are 😈) are on the road now that will lead to self sufficiency?

Might be a lot to ask there, sorry ! 😁

[CropleyWasGod]

This is a belter.

You want us to be grateful that the folk that ran up huge debts, are going to cover them?

It’s their damn job and responsibility.

If they had spent the money wisely and we’d picked up a trophy they’d get all the thanks and credit in the world.

But they haven’t. They wasted it on crap players and managers that should never have been anywhere near ER.

If they do read this thread, and are wondering why they bother, maybe they’ll eventually think ‘screw this, we’re outta here’.

That would be some result and I’d happily take credit for it!!

What debts?

Do you mean losses?

[GreenPJ]

The Gordons have Gray the job, I’m not arguing that point ffs.

The point I’m making is that they didn’t consider anyone else. Everyone on here was agrees on that point for months so I don’t know why you’re challenging going me on it now.

So it looks as if its been a coronation as opposed to a full blown process but whether we did or didn't interview anyone else he was always favourite to get the job and the only question to be considered at this stage is has he been a success so far.

[we are hibs]

I'm really struggling with the attitude of some posters on here.

Very few sporting institutions run at a profit. A £7.2 million loss is substantial, but it hasn't been saddled onto the club as a debt. Instead, the Gordons have put their hand in their pockets and covered the whole lot. We should be hugely grateful, rather than sniping. If I were them, and reading this thread, I'd be wondering why I bothered.We should be grateful the Gordons are paying for the losses they generated due to their own incompetence? Right you are.


It was said that the losses are largely due to "poor recruitment strategy" over the past few years. Ian Gordon has been involved in that for a number of years saddling the club with a number of below average players on big wages who we have struggled to shift. Damn right he should clear up the mess he created.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I’m far from an expert in this field, but I wonder then, will any of the documentation regarding the accounts for this period include refer nor to this loss being covered ? And on a daily basis, is that loss during that year somehow covered - eg by cash investment or loan repayments - during the following year ?

I would hope that given it’s been reasonably explicitly stated that the Gordon family are covering the losses, that it is reasonable to assume that they mean the club isn’t lumbered with it, and they have taken that loss on board.

I understand from what you say that it is perhaps the situation that we don’t know enough. I guess my question is, therefore … fundamentally, how and when do we find that out ?

As an aside, it’s also an interesting comparison too, to look at Hearts, and their cash injections from individuals and supporter donations, that are never guaranteed to continue for ever … are both clubs then currently relying on a source of money that isn’t actually income. If so, can it be gleaned somehow from our accounts, if we (because I’m not really concerned about whether Hearts are ��) are on the road now that will lead to self sufficiency?

Might be a lot to ask there, sorry ! ��

We ask them :greengrin

I'm just a little concerned that, with a few trite sentences, we are appeased. The pedant in me wants to know how. Like you say, we don't know enough yet.

There is an AGM upcoming, though. An opportunity to ask.

On your Hearts analogy, there's a bit of truth in it. The difference is that Hearts know the "external" income they're getting each year. I am yet to be convinced that we do. As for our self-sufficiency, we can't tell that from these accounts, as they are historical.

[007]

Nah, it’s not, it’s BS.

Unless you can tell us who else was interviewed?

Mackay was crystal clear when he said he sat down with SDG for hours and knew he had the right man.

No one else was interviewed. That’s 100% fact and not up for debate.

If you want to give credit to the club for appointing Maloney, LJ and Montgomery, crack on. I think they are some of the worst manager appointments we’ve ever made.

The BBC article quotes Malky Mackay saying "There were at least 50 credible candidates that we had to at least look at the CV," Mackay said. "We took that down to 20 and then to 10 then five then three and the final two.

The Evening News reported there was a final shortlist of contenders being interviewed. Let's see you evidence to the contrary.

https://i.ibb.co/6RVz1FjQ/Screenshot-20250210-162429-Duck-Duck-Go.jpg (https://ibb.co/LzbmJ1VK)

https://i.ibb.co/JFbhW9SG/Screenshot-20250210-160654-Duck-Duck-Go.jpg (https://ibb.co/KzQ1cJ8f)

[007]

What debts?

Surely not more false statements? 🤔

[HoboHarry]

What debts?

Do you mean losses?
Looking forward to seeing his reply :greengrin

[WhileTheChief..]

So it looks as if its been a coronation as opposed to a full blown process but whether we did or didn't interview anyone else he was always favourite to get the job and the only question to be considered at this stage is has he been a success so far.

Things are certainly going well now.

But a few months ago? Things were as bad as they’ve ever been.

[WhileTheChief..]

What debts?

Do you mean losses?

Yes, I meant losses.

I’m not an accountant, but thankfully you knew what I meant.

Hopefully that clears that up.

[WhileTheChief..]

Looking forward to seeing his reply :greengrin

Yeah cause that’s what important eh.

All you ever care about is point scoring over other posters on here.

Let’s just call it 7-0 to you and save some time.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Have they, though? That seems to be assumed, based on the narrative accompanying the accounts, but it's not clear whether and how they have done that.

I had wondered this the other day. There seems to be an assumption that the Gordon’s are writing off this money, but I’m yet to see anything that says that’s happening. I recall there being mention if covering losses previously, but as far as I can recall, that was after a different set of losses/issues as it was long before Friday. I can’t remember if it was mentioned that future losses would also be covered but at this point in time it appears to be nothing but blind faith that they’re covering this one as well.

[Bushwoof]

We should be grateful the Gordons are paying for the losses they generated due to their own incompetence? Right you are.


It was said that the losses are largely due to "poor recruitment strategy" over the past few years. Ian Gordon has been involved in that for a number of years saddling the club with a number of below average players on big wages who we have struggled to shift. Damn right he should clear up the mess he created.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk
So it would be much better if we had run up a smaller more manageable loss that was on the books as a club debt, of course, you're spot on.

If the Gordons are paying out of their own pocket for their mistakes then what have we got to complain about? Do you really think that if the Gordons weren't bankrolling things we'd only ever have bought super players that make us a huge profit?

It's like a Jambo saying "I hate that Anderson bloke, giving us millions every year that the club just wastes on crap players. He should shove his cash and get lost".

[Paulie Walnuts]

So it would be much better if we had run up a smaller more manageable loss that was on the books as a club debt, of course, you're spot on.

If the Gordons are paying out of their own pocket for their mistakes then what have we got to complain about? Do you really think that if the Gordons weren't bankrolling things we'd only ever have bought super players that make us a huge profit?

It's like a Jambo saying "I hate that Anderson bloke, giving us millions every year that the club just wastes on crap players. He should shove his cash and get lost".

What have we got to complain about? Have you watched the ****show they’ve reigned over the last few years?

It’s absolutely nothing like Hearts fans saying that about Anderson. Anderson has nothing to do with running Hearts.

[Sergio sledge]

What have we got to complain about? Have you watched the ****show they’ve reigned over the last few years?

It’s absolutely nothing like Hearts fans saying that about Anderson. Anderson has nothing to do with running Hearts.

He's on their board of directors so he has some say in how Hearts are run.

[HoboHarry]

Yeah cause that’s what important eh.

All you ever care about is point scoring over other posters on here.

Let’s just call it 7-0 to you and save some time.
That's really not true but that won't stop you repeating it another 1000 times. I do pick up posters who are making stuff up or simply following a Hibs bashing agenda, posters like you in fact. Regardless, I've been living rent free in your head for a while now, you might be better to just ignore me rather than repeating yourself over and over again.

[CropleyWasGod]

I had wondered this the other day. There seems to be an assumption that the Gordon’s are writing off this money, but I’m yet to see anything that says that’s happening. I recall there being mention if covering losses previously, but as far as I can recall, that was after a different set of losses/issues as it was long before Friday. I can’t remember if it was mentioned that future losses would also be covered but at this point in time it appears to be nothing but blind faith that they’re covering this one as well.

From the accounts:-

"The club.... is reliant on the steadfast support of the shareholders who continue to underwrite losses."

It's the word "underwrite" that needs to be clarified for me.

In addition, which shareholders? The accounts go on to thank Leslie Robb, Kathrin Hamilton and HSL "for their ongoing financial support". LR and HSL are shareholders, but I don't think KH is.

[flash]

He's on their board of directors so he has some say in how Hearts are run.

Indeed. If i was going to compare us unfavourably to Hertz, which i wouldn't, I would make sure I wasn't talking rubbish.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Indeed. If i was going to compare us unfavourably to Hertz, which i wouldn't, I would make sure I wasn't talking rubbish.

I didn’t realise he was a director.

I didn’t make any comparison to Hearts. The original poster did, I actually said that comparison was nothing like it.

[CapitalGreen]

He's on their board of directors so he has some say in how Hearts are run.

Yeah it’s nonsense that Anderson has no involvement in how Hearts are run, he’s been heavily involved in hiring process for at least their last 2 managers.

[WhileTheChief..]

That's really not true but that won't stop you repeating it another 1000 times. I do pick up posters who are making stuff up or simply following a Hibs bashing agenda, posters like you in fact. Regardless, I've been living rent free in your head for a while now, you might be better to just ignore me rather than repeating yourself over and over again.


Every single week you are on here having a go at Hibs fans. You can't deny it, just go read any match day thread and you'll see your posts.

There's that agenda talk again.Tell me, what is my agenda?

I'm in no way, shape, or form, anti Hibs. You've just made that up to suit your argument.

I'm absolutely 'anti' Ian Gordon though, if that's what you maybe meant.

I've been on this forum for years. Up until Maloney was appointed I'd have been accused of being a happy clapper.

No idea what 'living rent free in your head' is supposed to mean. Guessing it's a cool, edgy thing to say that you've picked up from someone.

[Bushwoof]

I didn’t realise he was a director.

I didn’t make any comparison to Hearts. The original poster did, I actually said that comparison was nothing like it.
You missed out the bit that says:
"now that I realise Anderson is on the board of directors, the comparison is actually valid. Sorry I got that so wrong"

[Paulie Walnuts]

You missed out the bit that says:
"now that I realise Anderson is on the board of directors, the comparison is actually valid. Sorry I got that so wrong"

Bit weird, but if it makes you happy I apologise for not realising James Anderson was a director at Hearts. :aok: I mustn’t have the same level of interest in them as you.

[hibsbollah]

I bet half of the folk on this thread have forgotten what they were actually talking about in the first place

[One Day Soon]

I bet half of the folk on this thread have forgotten what they were actually talking about in the first place

Perish the thought.

There's a level of feuding here that's impressively Calabrian. The first rule of Hibs Fight Club is that you have to be absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

[Lago]

Every single week you are on here having a go at Hibs fans. You can't deny it, just go read any match day thread and you'll see your posts.

There's that agenda talk again.Tell me, what is my agenda?

I'm in no way, shape, or form, anti Hibs. You've just made that up to suit your argument.

I'm absolutely 'anti' Ian Gordon though, if that's what you maybe meant.

I've been on this forum for years. Up until Maloney was appointed I'd have been accused of being a happy clapper.

No idea what 'living rent free in your head' is supposed to mean. Guessing it's a cool, edgy thing to say that you've picked up from someone.
Your best ignoring him he's taken over from a certain poster who has left dot net a while ago.

[007]

Every single week you are on here having a go at Hibs fans. You can't deny it, just go read any match day thread and you'll see your posts.

There's that agenda talk again.Tell me, what is my agenda?

I'm in no way, shape, or form, anti Hibs. You've just made that up to suit your argument.

I'm absolutely 'anti' Ian Gordon though, if that's what you maybe meant.

I've been on this forum for years. Up until Maloney was appointed I'd have been accused of being a happy clapper.

No idea what 'living rent free in your head' is supposed to mean. Guessing it's a cool, edgy thing to say that you've picked up from someone.

He said he picks up posters who are making stuff up, you've yet to prove your claim "Nobody else was even considered for the job". You made that up.

[Cameron1875]

It does feel like we may be moving closer to a point that the Gordon's sell up. Carrying on his father's legacy is admirable but can't help but think Ian's naivety at this level leaves him (and I suppose us) open to any snakeoil sales man.

Some might say he's already fallen victim to a couple of them who are no longer in key positions at Hibs.

[HoboHarry]

Your best ignoring him he's taken over from a certain poster who has left dot net a while ago.
I've taken over from the now gone poster? :confused:

[Lago]

I've taken over from the now gone poster? :confused:
Yip

[HoboHarry]

Aye ok then, compared to a few years ago I rarely post at all lol.

[GreenPJ]

Things are certainly going well now.

But a few months ago? Things were as bad as they’ve ever been.

And? The club did the right thing to stick with him and he has started to turn it around - are you advocating that we should have punted him in Oct/Nov? And as it being as bad as its ever been then even when we were on that winless run under Gray give me that any time before the latter Calderwood days or Butcher days. Even under Fenlon you had charlatans jogging around in a Hibs shirt pretending to be professional footballers who did not care.

[matty_f]

We’ve been in a worse position financially at points in that 35 years though. As someone else said we were millions and millions in debt at various points. These accounts saw us end the year with money in the bank and no debt apart from the government loan.

It’s not as if they’ve just spent and spent and spent and realised at the end of the year they needed to write a cheque for £7m. There’s investments in there that, in agreeing to make, they’ll have knowing they need to cover it. Eg, when we signed Vente Lee Johnson thanked the Gordon family for their financial backing to make it happen. If the Gordon’s do decide to stop throwing money at it the losses wouldn’t run up the way they have in the first place.
Your last paragraph is really important when looking at what’s happened with the accounts.
The board took a strategic decision to take the loss knowing that it was covered. It doesn’t look great but it’s controlled spending.

[matty_f]

The BBC article quotes Malky Mackay saying "There were at least 50 credible candidates that we had to at least look at the CV," Mackay said. "We took that down to 20 and then to 10 then five then three and the final two.

The Evening News reported there was a final shortlist of contenders being interviewed. Let's see you evidence to the contrary.

https://i.ibb.co/6RVz1FjQ/Screenshot-20250210-162429-Duck-Duck-Go.jpg (https://ibb.co/LzbmJ1VK)

https://i.ibb.co/JFbhW9SG/Screenshot-20250210-160654-Duck-Duck-Go.jpg (https://ibb.co/KzQ1cJ8f)

The idea that nobody else was considered is demonstrably false - aside from the quotes you’ve shared, we know that BKFC favoured another of the candidates.

[Pedantic_Hibee]

I respond in kind to posters that quote me.

He called me a liar so insulated him back.

As for the club not appointing Gray, I’ve no idea what you mean.

I bet that made him feel warm inside…

[McD]

I respond in kind to posters that quote me.

He called me a liar so insulated him back.

As for the club not appointing Gray, I’ve no idea what you mean.



No idea what I mean because it’s not what I said. No one has said the club didn’t appoint Gray. YOU have stated that the Gordons didn’t appoint him. Now changing the wording to talk about the club not appointing him is a strawman argument.


The poster said it was lies that the Gordons didn’t appoint Gray. Can you prove it wasn’t them? You’ve given them criticism for the appointments of Johnson, Montgomery, Maloney, but as soon as someone more successful comes into the job, you’re now saying they didn’t appoint him?

[McD]

Nah, it’s not, it’s BS.

Unless you can tell us who else was interviewed?

Mackay was crystal clear when he said he sat down with SDG for hours and knew he had the right man.

No one else was interviewed. That’s 100% fact and not up for debate.

If you want to give credit to the club for appointing Maloney, LJ and Montgomery, crack on. I think they are some of the worst manager appointments we’ve ever made.



100% fact? Not up for debate? 😂 So you’ll be able to show us these facts then, complete proof that no other individuals were interviewed, despite the same man you quote (MM) also being quoted as saying they started at 50, and whittled down from there, including meeting candidates for lunch and interviews

[Kato]

I bet that made him feel warm inside…Well that's that wrapped up.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[WhileTheChief..]

100% fact? Not up for debate? 😂 So you’ll be able to show us these facts then, complete proof that no other individuals were interviewed, despite the same man you quote (MM) also being quoted as saying they started at 50, and whittled down from there, including meeting candidates for lunch and interviews

Does anyone really believe that 50 people were either on a shortlist or applied for the job?

Back when Gray got the job, there wasn't a single other name mentioned.

There was plenty chat on here about who we might want, McInnes for example, but there was never a favourite or a name the press ran with.

Gray's appointment came pretty much out of the blue after a period of apparent inactivity.

Always, this is kinda beside the point. The point I'm making is that I think the Gordon's have been useless for us since they arrived and I hope they're gone soon.

[B.H.F.C]

Does anyone really believe that 50 people were either on a shortlist or applied for the job?

Back when Gray got the job, there wasn't a single other name mentioned.

There was plenty chat on here about who we might want, McInnes for example, but there was never a favourite or a name the press ran with.

Gray's appointment came pretty much out of the blue after a period of apparent inactivity.

Always, this is kinda beside the point. The point I'm making is that I think the Gordon's have been useless for us since they arrived and I hope they're gone soon.

I can easily believe we got 50 applications for the job. There are a lot more managers out there than there are jobs and there are plenty for who Hibs would be a step up. What we did with any of those applications is a different question.

[WhileTheChief..]

And? The club did the right thing to stick with him and he has started to turn it around - are you advocating that we should have punted him in Oct/Nov? And as it being as bad as its ever been then even when we were on that winless run under Gray give me that any time before the latter Calderwood days or Butcher days. Even under Fenlon you had charlatans jogging around in a Hibs shirt pretending to be professional footballers who did not care.

Back in Oct / Nov I thought he would have been sacked. I wasn't shouting for it, I just didn't see any way back for Gray.

Now? I'm delighted with the way things are going. If it stays like this until the end of the season, then brilliant. We'll be in Europe and it will have been a successful season.

But if we go on another 10 game winless run, finishing bottom 6, then I could fully understand if he's sacked.

As for Calderwood and Butcher, they are easily the worst managers in my lifetime. But LJ and Montgomery are up there, Closely followed by Duffy.

Agree about Fenlon. He was crap, and was another that should never have got the job. Similar to Maloney though, at least he cared.

The others barely wanted to be here and couldn't give a damn about us as a club.

[WhileTheChief..]

You made a claim which I reckon you have no evidence to back up because you made it up.

You've done it again by claiming nobody else was even considered. Something else I daresay you can't back up.

Someone who thinks all the unsuccessful manager appointments are all the Gordons but if there is a successful one then it has nothing to do with them is clueless and incapable of making a balanced judgement, much like yourself.

Maybe I just got it wrong?:confused::rolleyes:

It happens.

It doesn’t make me liar, or mean I made anything up, or that I’ve got an agenda, or that I’m anti Hibs, or that I’m unable………..

So again, go do one with that kinda chat.

[Paul1642]

We should be grateful the Gordons are paying for the losses they generated due to their own incompetence? Right you are.


It was said that the losses are largely due to "poor recruitment strategy" over the past few years. Ian Gordon has been involved in that for a number of years saddling the club with a number of below average players on big wages who we have struggled to shift. Damn right he should clear up the mess he created.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

In short yes, as long as it’s clarified that the owners are personally taking the hit for the losses. If this is the case they have taken the risk at their own expense to give we, the supports a good product and somewhat failed.

Option A) (What has happened is reality). We run a a loss at the owners expense and hope it pays off. If it pays off we end up with a great product on the park and schoosh 3rd. It hasn’t worked out like that yet we have improved infrastructure and a product on the park which is finally looking good and has us in the running for 3rd and still in the cup.

Option B) We live entirely within our means. If it pays off we get one 3rd place finish every 20 years or so (see our last 20 years). If we recruit poorly we get absolutely dog **** on the park and get relegated.

In short, we haven’t gotten things right but we’re still in a better place for it.

[McD]

Does anyone really believe that 50 people were either on a shortlist or applied for the job?

Back when Gray got the job, there wasn't a single other name mentioned.

There was plenty chat on here about who we might want, McInnes for example, but there was never a favourite or a name the press ran with.

Gray's appointment came pretty much out of the blue after a period of apparent inactivity.

Always, this is kinda beside the point. The point I'm making is that I think the Gordon's have been useless for us since they arrived and I hope they're gone soon.


Nah, your original point was that the Gordons didn’t appoint gray, which is complete nonsense. And your extended point about no other candidates has been debunked as well, both with posters on here and actual quotes from McKay.


As it happens, Ian Murray was heavily linked to the job, and was linked to quotes (before Gray was appointed iirc) about Hibs not having as much money as people expected.


Leaks coming out of Hibs have drastically reduced in the last couple of years, (virtually) no one knew about Nicky Cadden signing before he was announced for example. Lack of names in the public domain doesn’t mean they don’t exist.


To your final point, I agree that very little positive has happened on the pitch since the Gordons came in. I’m not entirely sure what outcome I would prefer (in regard to you saying you hope they’re gone soon). I think they mean well, whilst not executing well. I’d settle for them stepping back and being benevolent owners and leave the running of the club to people who are more expert in those areas (new CEO, Garvan, McKay/DoF, Gray)

[WhileTheChief..]

I can easily believe we got 50 applications for the job. There are a lot more managers out there than there are jobs and there are plenty for who Hibs would be a step up. What we did with any of those applications is a different question.

It’s possible, sure.

But it’s also possible that when they sacked Montgomery, Kensall and Gordon looked at each other muttering “ f sake, what do we do now”.

[McD]

It’s possible, sure.

But it’s also possible that when they sacked Montgomery, Kensall and Gordon looked at each other muttering “ f sake, what do we do now”.


They quite probably did ask that question, that doesn’t mean that there was no other candidates interviewed, “100% fact, no debate”, as you stated earlier on the thread

[WhileTheChief..]

Nope, the Gordon's get zero for credit for anything.

They didn't appoint SDG. They just went with him cause they didn't who else to go for. They might get lucky, and it's looking much better now, but that's all on SDG, not the Gordon's or Kensall.!!

This is what I said originally.

Surprised it caused so much fuss.

[WhileTheChief..]

Geezo. Read the rest of the sentence!

They just went with him because…….

How is it even that important? It’s a throw away line on a forum yet some of you are treating it like we’re in a court room.

What does it matter?

[Donegal Hibby]

There would have been plenty of managers throwing their names into the hat for the Hibs job, for all the negativity on here about the club we would have been seen as a good opportunity .. size of club , facilities etc ..

I think what’s been said that we didn’t interview anyone other than Gray quite frankly there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of to suggest this was the case and there’s more evidence that we did actually.

[McD]

Geezo. Read the rest of the sentence!

They just went with him because…….

How is it even that important? It’s a throw away line on a forum yet some of you are treating it like we’re in a court room.

What does it matter?


Saying they didn’t appoint him is completely wrong, the rest of the sentence is a separate thing. Whether they didn’t know who to go for apart from him is irrelevant to the point that they did appoint him.


And there’s been plenty evidence that they did consider other people, interviewed other people, and went against who the BK thought should get it, but you still refuse to accept that what you’ve said is completely wrong, even doubling down with statements like “100% fact, no debate”, which is also rubbish.


It’s important because people will call out things that are said that are factually wrong

[Carheenlea]

In contrast, Celtic have announced a profit of £44M with £65M cash in the bank.

[WhileTheChief..]

Who did the BKs want to give the job to?

[WhileTheChief..]

Saying they didn’t appoint him is completely wrong, the rest of the sentence is a separate thing. Whether they didn’t know who to go for apart from him is irrelevant to the point that they did appoint him.


And there’s been plenty evidence that they did consider other people, interviewed other people, and went against who the BK thought should get it, but you still refuse to accept that what you’ve said is completely wrong, even doubling down with statements like “100% fact, no debate”, which is also rubbish.


It’s important because people will call out things that are said that are factually wrong


Maybe I just got it wrong?:confused::rolleyes:

It happens.

It doesn’t make me liar, or mean I made anything up, or that I’ve got an agenda, or that I’m anti Hibs, or that I’m unable………..

So again, go do one with that kinda chat.

.

[McD]

Who did the BKs want to give the job to?


Ask Malky, he can tell you who the other 49 applicants were as well

[Coco Bryce]

Saying they didn’t appoint him is completely wrong, the rest of the sentence is a separate thing. Whether they didn’t know who to go for apart from him is irrelevant to the point that they did appoint him.


And there’s been plenty evidence that they did consider other people, interviewed other people, and went against who the BK thought should get it, but you still refuse to accept that what you’ve said is completely wrong, even doubling down with statements like “100% fact, no debate”, which is also rubbish.


It’s important because people will call out things that are said that are factually wrong

Since you seem to know. As a matter of interest. Who was interviewed for the job?

[jeffers]

Who did the BKs want to give the job to?

I heard a rumour about who they wanted as DoF, though no idea of it’s accuracy.

[HoboHarry]

In contrast, Celtic have announced a profit of £44M with £65M cash in the bank.
Sevco will read that and weep :faf::faf::faf::faf:

[Coco Bryce]

Sevco will read that and weep :faf::faf::faf::faf:

They have made a profit of £44 and have £65 in the bank 🤣

[hibsbollah]

Perish the thought.

There's a level of feuding here that's impressively Calabrian. The first rule of Hibs Fight Club is that you have to be absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

So, have we signed Isaak Toure yet?

[McD]

Since you seem to know. As a matter of interest. Who was interviewed for the job?


I’ve no idea, I’ve not claimed to know who, I’m going by the quotes from MM about how many applications and how they were whittled down, there’s several posts on the thread highlighting them.

[McD]

They have made a profit of £44 and have £65 in the bank 🤣


They’d have to borrow the £65 from one of their players 😂

[The_Todd]

Rod Petrie would never let this happen

:duck:

[jeffers]

St Mirren should be out of sight, those ******* surely can’t be as bad in the 2nd half.

[danhibees1875]

They have made a profit of £44 and have £65 in the bank 🤣

Jokes aside, Rangers made a more staggering loss than us (in absolute terms) - £17.2M.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Jokes aside, Rangers made a more staggering loss than us (in absolute terms) - £17.2M.

Winners of the League Cup, runners up in the Scottish, round of 16 in the Europa League and they’re still making those kind of losses.

Obviously cutting their cloth will help them financially, but it’s hard to see how they can ever win the league again if they ever even come close to stopping making losses because they’re unlikely to have a significantly better season than that anytime soon. Going to be stuck in a perpetual no man’s land in domestic football of knowing exactly where they’re going to finish before they even start.

[HoboHarry]

Jokes aside, Rangers made a more staggering loss than us (in absolute terms) - £17.2M.
Seen comments online that this years Sevco's accounts will be just as bad again, ah well, **** 'em....

[cubehindthegoal]

I didn’t realise he was a director.

I didn’t make any comparison to Hearts. The original poster did, I actually said that comparison was nothing like it.

You actually did compare, you gave your own comparison. And also you were fundamentally wrong in a part of your argument. No shame in that, just acknowledge your fellow supporter calling it is all it needs, I’d suggest.

You do seem to put forward vehement defence of Hearts from what I’ve read, though perhaps that is just in the process of comparison.

[cubehindthegoal]

We ask them :greengrin

I'm just a little concerned that, with a few trite sentences, we are appeased. The pedant in me wants to know how. Like you say, we don't know enough yet.

There is an AGM upcoming, though. An opportunity to ask.

On your Hearts analogy, there's a bit of truth in it. The difference is that Hearts know the "external" income they're getting each year. I am yet to be convinced that we do. As for our self-sufficiency, we can't tell that from these accounts, as they are historical.

Well yeh that is true. I hope someone with better attriculation than my own manages to frame the questions there, and create some constructive debate around it for us. I can’t, but I’m sure there are some who can. Hope so.

[CropleyWasGod]

Well yeh that is true. I hope someone with better attriculation than my own manages to frame the questions there, and create some constructive debate around it for us. I can’t, but I’m sure there are some who can. Hope so.

It's in hand. :greengrin

[Paulie Walnuts]

You actually did compare, you gave your own comparison. And also you were fundamentally wrong in a part of your argument. No shame in that, just acknowledge your fellow supporter calling it is all it needs, I’d suggest.

You do seem to put forward vehement defence of Hearts from what I’ve read, though perhaps that is just in the process of comparison.

Eh? What comparison did I make? I said it was nothing like Anderson and Hearts. I never made any comparison.

And when do I put forward a vehement defence of Hearts? :confused:

[Smartie]

Your last paragraph is really important when looking at what’s happened with the accounts.
The board took a strategic decision to take the loss knowing that it was covered. It doesn’t look great but it’s controlled spending.

My concern is that whilst they’ve got it covered for now, we’re vulnerable to them suddenly not being able to / choosing not to.

If it’s a million or two then you sell a player or let a few big contracts run down and you’ve cut your cloth.

£7.2m is uncomfortable for a club of our size and it’s not the sort of thing you turn around quickly, even if we’ve seen a Sauzee / Zitelli / Latapy team broken up and replaced with the “golden generation” before.

We’re probably a year or two of organic improvements (spells without sacking managers, getting the wage bill under control, seeing increased turnover as a result of recent investments in infrastructure) away from me personally being entirely comfortable with the situation, albeit I think we’re currently likely to be very much on the right track.

[cubehindthegoal]

It's in hand. :greengrin

Glad to hear it 😁

[danhibees1875]

With regards to the positive cash flow movements within the financing section of the cash flow statement there are £8M and £2M noted as proceeds from issue of shares and repayment of borrowings respectively.

I'm trying to work out what the later is and how there's a positive cash movement from it?

As for the former, do we know if this is covering losses from the prior years, Or was this pre-planned investment? If the later, then I wonder to what degree we budgeted to run at a loss in order to use this money.

I guess some of it is used to cover the purchase of fixed assets which I'd take to be the stadium upgrades (and adds to ~£3M across the 2 years shown).

[Paulie Walnuts]

My concern is that whilst they’ve got it covered for now, we’re vulnerable to them suddenly not being able to / choosing not to.

If it’s a million or two then you sell a player or let a few big contracts run down and you’ve cut your cloth.

£7.2m is uncomfortable for a club of our size and it’s not the sort of thing you turn around quickly, even if we’ve seen a Sauzee / Zitelli / Latapy team broken up and replaced with the “golden generation” before.

We’re probably a year or two of organic improvements (spells without sacking managers, getting the wage bill under control, seeing increased turnover as a result of recent investments in infrastructure) away from me personally being entirely comfortable with the situation, albeit I think we’re currently likely to be very much on the right track.

You’ll presumably get castigated for this, you’re supposed to say thank you to the Gordon’s for covering it and say you’re very comfortable about it all :greengrin

The issue for me is £7.2m is VERY uncomfortable. It’s also the second £7m in 3 years along with another smaller, but still huge loss in the middle. There’s been suggestions from a couple of posters who seem to know what they’re talking about that there’s a couple of warning signs in what’s in the accounts that next years might not be great either.

As you say, £7.2m isn’t just a quick bit of cost cutting and we’ll be on our way. It’s about 3 or 4 years of player sales for us and if we’re honest, at this point in time we don’t have anyone in the squad that’s a cert to fetch us much of a fee.

[Kato]

You’ll presumably get castigated for this, you’re supposed to say thank you to the Gordon’s for covering it and say you’re very comfortable about it all :greengrin

The issue for me is £7.2m is VERY uncomfortable. It’s also the second £7m in 3 years along with another smaller, but still huge loss in the middle. There’s been suggestions from a couple of posters who seem to know what they’re talking about that there’s a couple of warning signs in what’s in the accounts that next years might not be great either.

As you say, £7.2m isn’t just a quick bit of cost cutting and we’ll be on our way. It’s about 3 or 4 years of player sales for us and if we’re honest, at this point in time we don’t have anyone in the squad that’s a cert to fetch us much of a fee.As fans what would you suggest we do?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Paulie Walnuts]

As fans what would you suggest we do?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Pray that the Gordon’s sell is about the sum of it.

Ultimately it has to of been a highly uncomfortable few years for them watching the team flounder, sacking managers and haemorrhaging their family fortune. We just have to hope they get bored of throwing money at something they can’t get to work.

[CropleyWasGod]

With regards to the positive cash flow movements within the financing section of the cash flow statement there are £8M and £2M noted as proceeds from issue of shares and repayment of borrowings respectively.

I'm trying to work out what the later is and how there's a positive cash movement from it?
know.
As for the former, do we know if this is covering losses from the prior years, Or was this pre-planned investment? If the later, then I wonder to what degree we budgeted to run at a loss in order to use this money.

I guess some of it is used to cover the purchase of fixed assets which I'd take to be the stadium upgrades (and adds to ~£3M across the 2 years shown).

Can't help with the former. Cash-flow statements were always a weird one for me. Email them?

On the latter, that's simply the BKFC input, plus the additional one later in that year, no? What it is being/to be spent on, we don't really know.

[Kato]

Pray that the Gordon’s sell is about the sum of it.

Ultimately it has to of been a highly uncomfortable few years for them but it generally seems like water off a ducks back to them. We just have to hope they get bored of throwing money at something they can’t get to work.Pray?

Not superstitious myself.

I thought you had some solutions given the frequency with which you are expressing your deep concerns.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrinityHFC]

You’ll presumably get castigated for this, you’re supposed to say thank you to the Gordon’s for covering it and say you’re very comfortable about it all :greengrin

The issue for me is £7.2m is VERY uncomfortable. It’s also the second £7m in 3 years along with another smaller, but still huge loss in the middle. There’s been suggestions from a couple of posters who seem to know what they’re talking about that there’s a couple of warning signs in what’s in the accounts that next years might not be great either.

As you say, £7.2m isn’t just a quick bit of cost cutting and we’ll be on our way. It’s about 3 or 4 years of player sales for us and if we’re honest, at this point in time we don’t have anyone in the squad that’s a cert to fetch us much of a fee.
It’s not debt. It is an annual loss and one that has been covered by shareholders.

These numbers are also at June 2024.

Since then we’ve paid good money for players and bid good money for others. We’ve also turned down big bids for players.

Why are you talking about 3 or 4 yrs of player sales?

I’ve lost count of the number of extreme exaggerations you’ve made on a few fronts on this thread.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Pray?

Not superstitious myself.

I thought you had some solutions given the frequency with which you are expressing your deep concerns.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Ah, is this us back to the ‘if you don’t have a business plan for a multi million pound company then you’re not allowed in the discussion’ patter again.

[cubehindthegoal]

As you say, £7.2m isn’t just a quick bit of cost cutting and we’ll be on our way. It’s about 3 or 4 years of player sales for us and if we’re honest, at this point in time we don’t have anyone in the squad that’s a cert to fetch us much of a fee.

Do you think, and indeed have any knowledge we don’t have, that you can share with us, that the Gordon’s are lying, when they say they will cover the loss?

[Paulie Walnuts]

It’s not debt. It is an annual loss and one that has been covered by shareholders.

These numbers are also at June 2024.

Since then we’ve paid good money for players and bid good money for others. We’ve also turned down big bids for players.

Why are you talking about 3 or 4 yrs of player sales?

I’ve lost count of the number of extreme exaggerations you’ve made on a few fronts on this thread.

I never called it debt. I never mentioned debt once. We also paid good money for players whilst losing money over the last few years, so what’s your point?

We’ve made about £7m or so in player sales in the last 3 or 4 years. It was really pretty clear why I mentioned it.

What part of that post is an extreme exaggeration? That it takes us 3 or 4 years to sell £7m of players? That £7m is a very uncomfortable amount of money to lose?

[matty_f]

My concern is that whilst they’ve got it covered for now, we’re vulnerable to them suddenly not being able to / choosing not to.

If it’s a million or two then you sell a player or let a few big contracts run down and you’ve cut your cloth.

£7.2m is uncomfortable for a club of our size and it’s not the sort of thing you turn around quickly, even if we’ve seen a Sauzee / Zitelli / Latapy team broken up and replaced with the “golden generation” before.

We’re probably a year or two of organic improvements (spells without sacking managers, getting the wage bill under control, seeing increased turnover as a result of recent investments in infrastructure) away from me personally being entirely comfortable with the situation, albeit I think we’re currently likely to be very much on the right track.

It depends on what's in the bank. - if you start the year with £10m in the bank and run a £7m loss the next year, you can afford it without it being anything major to worry about, but you need to manage it going forward.

For Hibs, we wouldn't have made the loss that we did without planning for it first - the overspend was signed off before we made it, so had the Gordons said that they didn't fancy covering it then we wouldn't have had the January window we had and we might have decided not to sack Monty to save on compensation.

Ian Gordon has already said that the family have agreed to cover the overspend needed to support SDG in the summer window (where we signed 11 players) and we spent money to bring in Manneh in January, so they're clearly still comfortable putting money in for the time being.

[TrinityHFC]

Ah, is this us back to the ‘if you don’t have a business plan for a multi million pound company then you’re not allowed in the discussion’ patter again.

I think it is more why you need to worry so deeply about something you aren’t paying for? You want rid of the shareholder who is continuing to chuck money at us. Hopefully the use it better sometime soon. But you must have an idea with what you’d replace them with and how that would improve matters?

[Kato]

Ah, is this us back to the ‘if you don’t have a business plan for a multi million pound company then you’re not allowed in the discussion’ patter again.Even if wanted to stop you posting, which I don't, I wouldn't want to but I seem to reading the same stuff from you every couple of hours, like you have an alarm clock.

You care, but that doesn't mean you have to repeat the same stuff over and over.

BTW the biggest threat to Hibs since Mercer was Sky TV pulling their deal. The didn't cover Hibs loses as the present owners are doing, now did they?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Jock O]

You’ll presumably get castigated for this, you’re supposed to say thank you to the Gordon’s for covering it and say you’re very comfortable about it all :greengrin

The issue for me is £7.2m is VERY uncomfortable. It’s also the second £7m in 3 years along with another smaller, but still huge loss in the middle. There’s been suggestions from a couple of posters who seem to know what they’re talking about that there’s a couple of warning signs in what’s in the accounts that next years might not be great either.

As you say, £7.2m isn’t just a quick bit of cost cutting and we’ll be on our way. It’s about 3 or 4 years of player sales for us and if we’re honest, at this point in time we don’t have anyone in the squad that’s a cert to fetch us much of a fee.

If you actually look at it, we were actually in a relatively strong position after the loss, decent net cash balance and no debt, so actually its only a sign of how poor our budgetary management was that year, although comparing with Bournemouth again, maybe we should be praising their ambition, and cursing their football knowledge. One of the problems with Accounts is they give a picture at a specific point in time, and one that is very old. However for that picture we should also be saying how lucky we were to have a significant increase in turnover, yes it does matter, and how brazen faced a fibber Ben Kensell was. Other than that its actually irrelevant to our current position, other than saying if they did it again, without ponying up, we probably should be worried. Like most areas of concern on here the truth is we don't know!

I suggest you buy a Frank Wood book, it might help you sleep at night. And it might take your mind off what is ruining any possibility of a decent conversation on this thread.

[TrinityHFC]

I never called it debt. I never mentioned debt once. We also paid good money for players whilst losing money over the last few years, so what’s your point?

We’ve made about £7m or so in player sales in the last 3 or 4 years. It was really pretty clear why I mentioned it.

What part of that post is an extreme exaggeration? That it takes us 3 or 4 years to sell £7m of players? That £7m is a very uncomfortable amount of money to lose?

You are confusing a loss with debt that has to be paid back. We don’t need to sell £7m of players. The loss is being covered.

The fact we are buying and bidding on players and not accepting bids for players indicates pretty well that we are not being forced to sell £7m worth of players.

[cubehindthegoal]

It’s not debt. It is an annual loss and one that has been covered by shareholders.

These numbers are also at June 2024.

Since then we’ve paid good money for players and bid good money for others. We’ve also turned down big bids for players.

Why are you talking about 3 or 4 yrs of player sales?

I’ve lost count of the number of extreme exaggerations you’ve made on a few fronts on this thread.

Lot of truth in this.

I am beginning to think I’ve seen enough of a blinkered negative focus there myself, but been giving benefit of the doubt. You’d think we were bottom of the league and ripping off fans, rather than being supported by a family who might get it wrong, as many do, but are backing their words with hard cash.

Anyway, folk can draw their own conclusions. Just saying likes.

[danhibees1875]

Can't help with the former. Cash-flow statements were always a weird one for me. Email them?

On the latter, that's simply the BKFC input, plus the additional one later in that year, no? What it is being/to be spent on, we don't really know.

Thanks. :aok:

I can't recall what the inputs were now- they make sense though. Agree around the mystery of your last sentence which is a key take away for me - we simply don't know the intentions we had.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Even if wanted to stop you posting, which I don't, I wouldn't want to but I seem to reading the same stuff from you every couple of hours, like you have an alarm clock.

You care, but that doesn't mean you have to repeat the same stuff over and over.

BTW the biggest threat to Hibs since Mercer was Sky TV pulling their deal. The didn't cover Hibs loses as the present owners are doing, now did they?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Im reading the same stuff from other posters as well. The issue is that you don’t want to read what you don’t agree with, not the frequency, or else you’d be calling them out as well.

[hibsbollah]

Im reading the same stuff from other posters as well.

Perhaps this should stimulate a thought process on your part?

[Paulie Walnuts]

You are confusing a loss with debt that has to be paid back. We don’t need to sell £7m of players. The loss is being covered.

The fact we are buying and bidding on players and not accepting bids for players indicates pretty well that we are not being forced to sell £7m worth of players.

No, I’m not confusing anything.

I replied to Smarties post which they mentioned if the Gordon’s decide they’re not putting anymore money in then you’re looking at player sales and running contracts down. There’s no confusion.

I never said we’re being forced to sell anyone. Again, it was in reply to Smarties post, where they were discussing what we’d need to do if they decide they’re not covering a loss.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Perhaps this should stimulate a thought process on your part?

I couldn’t care less about reading it. The forums for discussion, I have no issue with people using it for its purpose and if there’s any rules being broken then I’m sure the admins will be quick to have a word in anyone’s ear. If you don’t want to read my posts, put me on ignore. :aok:

[Kato]

Im reading the same stuff from other posters as well. The issue is that you don’t want to read what you don’t agree with, not the frequency, or else you’d be calling them out as well.I don't have any issues, thanks.

If I think something about Hibs or Hibs owners I don't rush on here to write panicky crap every 15 mins.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

Note 26 is a good one - £3M short in terms of cash to be able to cover our debts.

That was the position the previous year, now we have £1.3M more cash than debt.

[CropleyWasGod]

Note 26 is a good one - £3M short in terms of cash to be able to cover our debts.

That was the position the previous year, now we have £1.3M more cash than debt.

On the flip-side of that, much of that improvement in liquidity is down to the share issues.

[danhibees1875]

On the flip-side of that, much of that improvement in liquidity is down to the share issues.

Yeah - how we got there is by-the-by... :wink:

[TrinityHFC]

No, I’m not confusing anything.

I replied to Smarties post which they mentioned if the Gordon’s decide they’re not putting anymore money in then you’re looking at player sales and running contracts down. There’s no confusion.

I never said we’re being forced to sell anyone. Again, it was in reply to Smarties post, where they were discussing what we’d need to do if they decide they’re not covering a loss.

Yes, you are confused, whether you realise it or not.

[One Day Soon]

Contrary to a number of others I want to thank Paulie for posting his views on this and other threads. It makes for livelier and more interesting discussion as well as testing any given subject much more fully than would otherwise be the case. Also, this would be an incredibly dull place without differences of opinion.

Some of those on the opposing side of this debate are certainly just as determined in their defence of the Gordons here and on other threads.

[matty_f]

Contrary to a number of others I want to thank Paulie for posting his views on this and other threads. It makes for livelier and more interesting discussion as well as testing any given subject much more fully than would otherwise be the case. Also, this would be an incredibly dull place without differences of opinion.

Some of those on the opposing side of this debate are certainly just as determined in their defence of the Gordons here and on other threads.

I think it’s been a good discussion in the main, would be boring if everyone just agreed.

[04Sauzee]

I think it’s been a good discussion in the main, would be boring if everyone just agreed.

Absolute nonsense

[1 8 7 5]

Contrary to a number of others I want to thank Paulie for posting his views on this and other threads. It makes for livelier and more interesting discussion as well as testing any given subject much more fully than would otherwise be the case. Also, this would be an incredibly dull place without differences of opinion.

Some of those on the opposing side of this debate are certainly just as determined in their defence of the Gordons here and on other threads.

Well said.

[007]

Maybe I just got it wrong?:confused::rolleyes:

It happens.

It doesn’t make me liar, or mean I made anything up, or that I’ve got an agenda, or that I’m anti Hibs, or that I’m unable………..

So again, go do one with that kinda chat.

I could maybe have accepted you'd made a genuine mistake if you'd said so after 1st being challenged about your claim but you didn't. You hurled insults, doubled down and kept insisting what you said was fact. It was only after evidence was produced and others also pointed out your "error" that you've now suggested it was a genuine mistake, along with another insult into the bargain. Caught in a lie I'd call it. Is it any wonder that some might think there's an agenda when this sort of thing is going on?

[matty_f]

Absolute nonsense

😂

[WhileTheChief..]

Contrary to a number of others I want to thank Paulie for posting his views on this and other threads. It makes for livelier and more interesting discussion as well as testing any given subject much more fully than would otherwise be the case. Also, this would be an incredibly dull place without differences of opinion.

Some of those on the opposing side of this debate are certainly just as determined in their defence of the Gordons here and on other threads.

Well said.

The amount of grief he’s getting on here is ridiculous.

Absolutely nothing wrong with what he’s posting.

[WhileTheChief..]

I could maybe have accepted you'd made a genuine mistake if you'd said so after 1st being challenged about your claim but you didn't. You hurled insults, doubled down and kept insisting what you said was fact. It was only after evidence was produced and others also pointed out your "error" that you've now suggested it was a genuine mistake, along with another insult into the bargain. Caught in a lie I'd call it. Is it any wonder that some might think there's an agenda when this sort of thing is going on?

FFS.

Again with calling me a liar.

Piss off and don’t quote me again.

[snedzuk]

My concern is that whilst they’ve got it covered for now, we’re vulnerable to them suddenly not being able to / choosing not to.

If it’s a million or two then you sell a player or let a few big contracts run down and you’ve cut your cloth.

£7.2m is uncomfortable for a club of our size and it’s not the sort of thing you turn around quickly, even if we’ve seen a Sauzee / Zitelli / Latapy team broken up and replaced with the “golden generation” before.

We’re probably a year or two of organic improvements (spells without sacking managers, getting the wage bill under control, seeing increased turnover as a result of recent investments in infrastructure) away from me personally being entirely comfortable with the situation, albeit I think we’re currently likely to be very much on the right track.

Our turnover is up 28%, but we still posted enormous losses. Increasing profit on whats been invested is key.

[MKHIBEE]

Absolute nonsense

No it isn’t

[TrinityHFC]

Well said.

The amount of grief he’s getting on here is ridiculous.

Absolutely nothing wrong with what he’s posting.

People are just disagreeing with him.

If you are going to post quite dramatic statements then you have to expect to be challenged on them.

[TrinityHFC]

Our turnover is up 28%, but we still posted enormous losses. Increasing profit on whats been invested is key.

Reducing costs is more key. Less wastage on coaching teams and players that aren’t contributing. As well as not chucking gate and prize money away through poor on pitch performance.

[Donegal Hibby]

Hopefully with the Gordon’s covering the losses and the changes that’s happening at the club especially on the recruitment side of things with the appointment of Garvan Stewart and a new CEO coming in the club can get back on track on and off the park now …

This mentions the fact Gray said we would only take in genuine quality , players who would improve us in January which left some unhappy that we only signed one player , probably not a bad thing that we seemed to have changed our approach in signing players from what it was…

https://www.nottheoldfirm.com/news/hibs-disastrous-accounts-say-it-all-about-recruitment-but-here-are-the-signs-it-is-turning/

[Smartie]

No, I’m not confusing anything.

I replied to Smarties post which they mentioned if the Gordon’s decide they’re not putting anymore money in then you’re looking at player sales and running contracts down. There’s no confusion.

I never said we’re being forced to sell anyone. Again, it was in reply to Smarties post, where they were discussing what we’d need to do if they decide they’re not covering a loss.

To be honest - selling players or running contracts down is at the more acceptable end of the scale. That's just how a sensible business behaves if it gets into trouble.

My concern would be if we weren't even in a position to do that.

The £7.2m needs to become something very different within a couple of years imo, unless we maybe have 3 or 4 very saleable assets to get us out of trouble very quickly - something I don't think I see happening in a hurry from where we are right now.


I should add again - I'm not at the "freaking" end of the scale.

Yet.

Concerned, yes. I'm also a wee bit concerned at the notion that hounding out the people who are currently propping it all up and keeping it viable is the solution. Co-operating with the Gordons whilst they work through what has been a difficult time for them and whilst they learn is probably my favoured option, still. When it comes to football club ownership I'm very much a "be careful what you wish for" type, and deep down I don't think there's any malevolence whatsoever with the Gordons. There's a world of baddies out there who could potentially get their hands on our club. I actually believe the Gordons ARE learning and I think it'll cost them a good few quid for a few years but that they'll eventually get there.

[flash]

Well said.

The amount of grief he’s getting on here is ridiculous.

Absolutely nothing wrong with what he’s posting.

Friend of the persecuted as ever.

[Since452]

Absolute nonsense

Reported

[WhileTheChief..]

Friend of the persecuted as ever.

Blah blah blah

[flash]

Blah blah blah

You're losing it. I guess the interview "mistake" is taking its toll.

[WhileTheChief..]

What you getting involved for?

This was done and dusted yesterday.

[WhileTheChief..]

You're losing it. I guess the interview "mistake" is taking its toll.

It’s really not that big a deal.

“Mistake” - I guess you’re also calling me a liar or saying i made stuff up?

Seriously, you guys need to get a life. It was such an innocuous post I made that I’m struggling to see why you care at all, let alone so much.

Have you no one to talk to in the house or at work instead of pestering me?

[Northernhibee]

I think it’s been a good discussion in the main, would be boring if everyone just agreed.

No it wouldn’t

[gbhibby]

No it wouldn’t
Have you come on here for the 5 or 10 minutes argument?

[nonshinyfinish]

Have you come on here for the 5 or 10 page argument?

Ftfy

[gbhibby]

Ftfy
No you didn't 😆

Homage to monty python sketch.

[One Day Soon]

No you didn't 😆

Homage to monty python sketch.

I think you'll find that this is largely not an argument, it's just contradiction.

[gbhibby]

I think you'll find that this is largely not an argument, it's just contradiction.

No it isn't 😁

Hope the passion on this thread is transferred into the stands on matchdays remember nae fighting.

[WhileTheChief..]

I think you'll find that this is largely not an argument, it's just contradiction.

Pah.

You caused half of this - all I did was agree with you!!

Flash didn’t even pull you up for your original comment. Or the other poster that agreed with you!

[Since452]

That wee lassie got glassed, and no **** leaves till I find out what **** did it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Pah.

You caused half of this - all I did was agree with you!!

Flash didn’t even pull you up for your original comment. Or the other poster that agreed with you!

Whoosh?

Tbf, maybe you're on the young side. :wink:

[Thatdayinmay16]

Champions Leagues on in a few hours lads, get the feet up and kettle on and enjoy. No point arguing on what's out of your control:thumbsup:

[A Hi-Bee]

Champions Leagues on in a few hours lads, get the feet up and kettle on and enjoy. No point arguing on what's out of your control:thumbsup:

That is no real reason to stop drivelling, now is it?
We want more drivel.

[Smartie]

I hate to think what this place would be like if we were getting knocked out of the Scottish Cup at home to Queens Park and the like.

[WhileTheChief..]

Whoosh?

Tbf, maybe you're on the young side. :wink:

You lost me with this one?!!

What was the Whoosh moment? Young side for what?

Unless this is the whoosh moment now. I'm struggling to keep up!

[WhileTheChief..]

Whoosh?

Tbf, maybe you're on the young side. :wink:

Ah, Monty Python maybe??

Not my thing really. Never did get it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Ah, Monty Python maybe??

Not my thing really. Never did get it.

Got it :greengrin

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ)

[007]

FFS.

Again with calling me a liar.

Piss off and don’t quote me again.

Again with the insults.

I'll quote you again if and when I like.

[Donegal Hibby]

Another club with losses ….

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/14323213/man-utd-sack-staff-sir-jim-ratcliffe-cuts/

[Smartie]

Another club with losses ….

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/14323213/man-utd-sack-staff-sir-jim-ratcliffe-cuts/

At their level, is it not cheaper and more sensible just to make plans to ditch one expensive dud player than to sack hundreds of staff?

[Donegal Hibby]

At their level, is it not cheaper and more sensible just to make plans to ditch one expensive dud player than to sack hundreds of staff?

You would have thought so . Read they are still paying something like over 80 grand a week to Rashford in wages even though he’s on loan at Villa now too .

[Hibernia&Alba]

In contrast, Celtic have announced a profit of £44M with £65M cash in the bank.

Wasn’t the Rangers number a £17 million loss for the last six months? It’s no wonder Scottish football is now a one horse race. The gap from Celtic to the rest in enormous; competition is impossible.

[TrinityHFC]

At their level, is it not cheaper and more sensible just to make plans to ditch one expensive dud player than to sack hundreds of staff?

Likely to be a lot of wastage and inefficiency if they can lose so many roles. The whole club has been allowed to become a bloated mess with low standards throughout.

[HoboHarry]

Wasn’t the Rangers number a £17 million loss for the last six months? It’s no wonder Scottish football is now a one horse race. The gap from Celtic to the rest in enormous; competition is impossible.
This year too will be heavy losses for Sevco from what I've read and that's even without firing Voldemort plus his backroom staff of dementors and whatever payment that would require.

[McD]

Wasn’t the Rangers number a £17 million loss for the last six months? It’s no wonder Scottish football is now a one horse race. The gap from Celtic to the rest in enormous; competition is impossible.



That’s a ludicrous number for six months, that’s surely a serious risk to medium-long term ability to function (unless they get another cash injection from a board member)

[Hibernian Verse]

That’s a ludicrous number for six months, that’s surely a serious risk to medium-long term ability to function (unless they get another cash injection from a board member)

The fans could always…ohhh wait a minute


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gbhibby]

Ah, Monty Python maybe??

Not my thing really. Never did get it.
Yes you did.

[gbhibby]

Notice Celtic posting a big profit and have lots of money in the bank.

[Hibernia&Alba]

That’s a ludicrous number for six months, that’s surely a serious risk to medium-long term ability to function (unless they get another cash injection from a board member)


I was wrong, mate. Rangers’s last annual report was a £17 million loss, so it was for the year, not six months. Still bad right enough, and there is currently a big cost cutting process at Ibrox, hence the redundancies and moving out the highest paid players. The financial gap between Rangers and Celtic is only growing.

[Smartie]

I was wrong, mate. Rangers’s last annual report was a £17 million loss, so it was for the year, not six months. Still bad right enough, and there is currently a big cost cutting process at Ibrox, hence the redundancies and moving out the highest paid players. The financial gap between Rangers and Celtic is only growing.

I'm fairly convinced that their strong European showings since Gerrard took over have saved their bacon.

Lots of cash from TV, a packed Ibrox and prize money.

They appear to have another day of reckoning coming soon but it would have hit them long ago if it hadn't been for those runs.

[Speedy]

In contrast, Celtic have announced a profit of £44M with £65M cash in the bank.

If Celtic ever lose the league it has to be considered one of the biggest management failures in Scottish football.

[HoboHarry]

If Celtic ever lose the league it has to be considered one of the biggest management failures in Scottish football.
The last title they lost to Sevco was a massive management failure by Lennon, Celtic should have won it easily.

[Smartie]

The last title they lost to Sevco was a massive management failure by Lennon, Celtic should have won it easily.

Peculiar season.

Covid time, Rangers built a big lead up whilst Celtic had games in hand and Celtic imploded.

Rangers nowadays don't have the grit to get through adversity. It's all entitlement, hissy fits and histrionics whenever anything goes against them. That's not the way that "winning" works.

But they're all happy whenever they're in front.

[One Day Soon]

Really pisses me off when the commentators start their swooning over the green ugly sister winning everything in sight domestically as though it’s some incredible achievement. With the gigantic resource imbalance between them and everyone else they should be hitting the treble routinely. It’s **** all special and it’s certainly not a testament to them being an extraordinary footballing side.

[Ozyhibby]

Peculiar season.

Covid time, Rangers built a big lead up whilst Celtic had games in hand and Celtic imploded.

Rangers nowadays don't have the grit to get through adversity. It's all entitlement, hissy fits and histrionics whenever anything goes against them. That's not the way that "winning" works.

But they're all happy whenever they're in front.

It’s all about money. Celtic have 10k extra seats to sell every week. They have better sponsors, better retail operations and better marketing globally. And they have champions league money. The stadium was what got them there. Fergus McCann sealed Rangers fate when he built Celtic a bigger stadium and the extra cash started rolling in. It forced Murray to borrow and cheat and eventually it crushed them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Really pisses me off when the commentators start their swooning over the green ugly sister winning everything in sight domestically as though it’s some incredible achievement. With the gigantic resource imbalance between them and everyone else they should be hitting the treble routinely. It’s **** all special and it’s certainly not a testament to them being an extraordinary footballing side.

To be fair, they are hitting the treble routinely unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

It’s all about money. Celtic have 10k extra seats to sell every week. They have better sponsors, better retail operations and better marketing globally. And they have champions league money. The stadium was what got them there. Fergus McCann sealed Rangers fate when he built Celtic a bigger stadium and the extra cash started rolling in. It forced Murray to borrow and cheat and eventually it crushed them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are right but they had the chance to rebuild a sustainable model after 2012 but instead they tried to build from the roof down and coupled with all of the moronic legal battles started by the Lying King they didn't just shoot themselves in the foot, they machined gunned both feet. This generation and the next will have no idea of what a winning Sevco team looks like.

[Ozyhibby]

You are right but they had the chance to rebuild a sustainable model after 2012 but instead they tried to build from the roof down and coupled with all of the moronic legal battles started by the Lying King they didn't just shoot themselves in the foot, they machined gunned both feet. This generation and the next will have no idea of what a winning Sevco team looks like.

They need those 10k extra seats or they will always be disadvantaged. And that’s going to need external investment. After that they could maybe slowly build something.
In my lifetime (54) Rangers period of success in the 90’s sticks out as a blip now. The rest of the time has been dominated by Celtic.
The only other thing that would help is a hard salary cap not based on turnover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

It seems to have the reached the stage where the only chance Rangers have of dominating is via a buyout. However, a Man City type takeover just isn’t appealing in Scotland; the market is too small. They might never recover from the events of 2012.

[Stuart93]

It seems to have the reached the stage where the only chance Rangers have of dominating is via a buyout. However, a Man City type takeover just isn’t appealing in Scotland; the market is too small. They might never recover from the events of 2012.

Good