4 year deal for Anthony Stokes in Iran

[Tom Hart RIP]

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/3403206/anthony-stokes-celtic-hibs-tractor-sazi/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Good for him

[heretoday]

Where do you get a pint in Iran?

[SirDavidsNapper]

I think we all know how good Stokes is when he has his head screwed on. Seems like Iran has been a good move for him.

[Diclonius]

Good to see him doing well.

[CMurdoch]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/3403206/anthony-stokes-celtic-hibs-tractor-sazi/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Good for him

Has he paid the Elvis impersonator yet?

[basehibby]

Well done Stokesy!

Hopefully you don't get bombed there as the current incumbent American Idiot in Chief seems set upon such a course of action.

[The 90+2]

Great news for a legend. Brilliant food, less drink although beautiful ladies :)

[The 90+2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Has he paid the Elvis impersonator yet?

With his Scottish cup final goal bonus I hear.

[Ryan69]

At least he wont be able to get into many drunken bust ups in Iran...:)

His teams playing at the moment. 0-0

[SouthMoroccoStu]

Definitely a legend and we will all always be grateful for his contribution that day in May, he was practically unplayable that day!

He’ll always go with my good wishes but I can’t believe it cost us £200k to get rid of him last season - gross misconduct and breach of contract should have seen him gone

[eastcoasthibby]

He wont see it out .....unfortunately doesn't have it him to hold it together for that long hope he does cos he has some talent, maybe he should pay back the £200 k contract termination seeing as he took the piss for most of the part of last season he was with us ...

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Definitely a legend and we will all always be grateful for his contribution that day in May, he was practically unplayable that day!

He’ll always go with my good wishes but I can’t believe it cost us £200k to get rid of him last season - gross misconduct and breach of contract should have seen him gone

This has the potential to become another Hibs.net fact.

There's no evidence to support it. The accounts (which have been forensically examined by my lovely assistant Cav and I) are just not clear on it at all.

[Col2]

Great for him. He should never need to buy a pint in Edinburgh for the rest of his life.

Just like SDG who should never leave the club even when his playing days are over.

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

Astounded by that! Hope he screws the nut and it works out for him.

[GloryGlory]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This has the potential to become another Hibs.net fact.

There's no evidence to support it. The accounts (which have been forensically examined by my lovely assistant Cav and I) are just not clear on it at all.

I would assume any payment by Hibs would be at least partly mitigated when he got a contract at another football club.

[Iggy Pope]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This has the potential to become another Hibs.net fact.

There's no evidence to support it. The accounts (which have been forensically examined by my lovely assistant Cav and I) are just not clear on it at all.

The lovely (and outgoing) Jamie Marwick did however clearly state at the AGM to our shareholders, body of the hall, that a substantial proportion of said loss (tangible assets blah blah blah) was down to the termination of said contract of Mr Antony Stokes. Fact. Not £200k but substantial all the same and indeed, the only loss where such specific reference was made.
No one present queried his statement. You would think unclear accounts might have been questioned by those in a position to scrutinise.

[SirDavidsNapper]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Great for him. He should never need to buy a pint in Edinburgh for the rest of his life.

Just like SDG who should never leave the club even when his playing days are over.

Great point regarding SDG. I'd love to see him remain at the club in some capacity one he hangs up his boots. He's sown nothing but class since day one.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Has he paid the Elvis impersonator yet?

Got to love him for that cup final performance, though.

[Since90+2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Has he paid the Elvis impersonator yet?

The question every Hibs fans is dying to have answered.

[danhibees1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The lovely (and outgoing) Jamie Marwick did however clearly state at the AGM to our shareholders, body of the hall, that a substantial proportion of said loss (tangible assets blah blah blah) was down to the termination of said contract of Mr Antony Stokes. Fact. Not £200k but substantial all the same and indeed, the only loss where such specific reference was made.
No one present queried his statement. You would think unclear accounts might have been questioned by those in a position to scrutinise.

The accounts aren't unclear though. They just don't present every little detail. Hibs present what they're required to and are very open and transparent when asked questions in my opinion.

The fact it was brought up voluntarily would lead me to believe that we paid Stokes a decent wedge to leave, but we don't know how much.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The accounts aren't unclear though. They just don't present every little detail. Hibs present what they're required to and are very open and transparent when asked questions in my opinion.

The fact it was brought up voluntarily would lead me to believe that we paid Stokes a decent wedge to leave, but we don't know how much.

Let me take you through what we do know....

We got rid of players that had a book value of 190k. Stokes, Fontaine and big Dave. We got nothing for them. So, there's a loss of 190k right there.

The accounts show a loss on disposal of players of 220k. According to Jamie, that happened because we terminated contracts, plural.

So, to get to that figure, the total pay offs had to be 30k.

However, all of that is complicated by the notion that we also received add-ons for Jason Cummings. Nobody knows whether that was the case, or how much it was.

Conclusion therefore.... the total pay offs for all 3 players was 30k PLUS whatever we got for JC's add ons.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The lovely (and outgoing) Jamie Marwick did however clearly state at the AGM to our shareholders, body of the hall, that a substantial proportion of said loss (tangible assets blah blah blah) was down to the termination of said contract of Mr Antony Stokes. Fact. Not £200k but substantial all the same and indeed, the only loss where such specific reference was made.
No one present queried his statement. You would think unclear accounts might have been questioned by those in a position to scrutinise.

See above. The 200k wasn't the pay off.

I heard him, and didnt query it because I didn't see any reason to.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let me take you through what we do know....

We got rid of players that had a book value of 190k. Stokes, Fontaine and big Dave. We got nothing for them. So, there's a loss of 190k right there.

The accounts show a loss on disposal of players of 220k. According to Jamie, that happened because we terminated contracts, plural.

So, to get to that figure, the total pay offs had to be 30k.

However, all of that is complicated by the notion that we also received add-ons for Jason Cummings. Nobody knows whether that was the case, or how much it was.

Conclusion therefore.... the total pay offs for all 3 players was 30k PLUS whatever we got for JC's add ons.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

It was only Jamie's decision to reference Stokes without prompt that makes me assume it's a reasonable amount.

Does the receipts on disposals in the cash flow of £270k help us? Is that going to be the money in for JC? Or is it muddied in with something else?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was only Jamie's decision to reference Stokes without prompt that makes me assume it's a reasonable amount.

Does the receipts on disposals in the cash flow of £270k help us? Is that going to be the money in for JC? Or is it muddied in with something else?

The cash flow statement is a dog's breakfast ( code for "I don't understand it"). For example, the additions to intangibles there don't match the intangibles note. I suspect that's to do with timing differences, but.....

Put this another way... had we got rid of Stokes with no pay-off, the accounts would have said a loss of 190k.

Inadvertently, by mentioning it at the AGM, he's shone a light on it and caused this debate.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Iggy Pope]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

See above. The 200k wasn't the pay off.

I heard him, and didnt query it because I didn't see any reason to.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I know. I stated this in my post.
Substantial part of it he said. Agreed?

[Iggy Pope]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The accounts aren't unclear though. They just don't present every little detail. Hibs present what they're required to and are very open and transparent when asked questions in my opinion.

The fact it was brought up voluntarily would lead me to believe that we paid Stokes a decent wedge to leave, but we don't know how much.

Jamie Marwick evidently concurs, having delivered this statement quite clearly. That’s my point. There’s no Hibs.net myth here. The paid director has said so. Voluntarily, as you rightly point out. No questions asked. Seemed clear to me on the night that the loss figure was largely down to what we had to pay the man to leave. Until CWG gets Jamie’s job then I’ll stick with what I heard.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I know. I stated this in my post.
Substantial part of it he said. Agreed?

The loss on getting rid of AS was the main reason for the 220k figure in the accounts. I agree with that, and don't have a problem with what Jamie said.

That's not the issue, though. Had we paid him and the others nothing, the figure in the accounts would have been 190k. That's what they were valued at, and we got nothing. Hence there was already a loss of 190k before we paid anything to anybody.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Iggy Pope]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The loss on getting rid of AS was the main reason for the 220k figure in the accounts. I agree with that, and don't have a problem with what Jamie said.

That's not the issue, though. Had we paid him and the others nothing, the figure in the accounts would have been 190k. That's what they were valued at, and we got nothing. Hence there was already a loss of 190k before we paid anything to anybody.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Terminating Antony Stokes was not the substantiating reason for the loss after all then in your opinion? Would he have been better keeping his trap shut?

[danhibees1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Terminating Antony Stokes was not the substantiating reason for the loss after all then in your opinion? Would he have been better keeping his trap shut?

Presumably stokes was the main contribution to the loss. But the £190k was a loss on disposal of an asset, not any cash changing hands.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Terminating Antony Stokes was not the substantiating reason for the loss after all then in your opinion? Would he have been better keeping his trap shut?

Of the 3 players that we got rid of, AS would have been (By far), the most valuable in the accounts. So, of course, the loss on him would have been much higher than that on the others. Again, there's no argument on that.

One way to settle this. If anyone can tell us how much we got for Cummings in add-ons, we can calculate the total pay offs.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk