A few years ago that fat hun prick Derek Johnstone said we were £10 million in debt and Stephen Thompson made a big point of phoning up his show and saying we were only around £4 million in debt. Fast forward 2-3 years and despite taking in 750k for Johnny Russell, £3 million for Robbo, £2.75 million for Gauld and now £1.8 million for the Timmy Twosome, we are still £1.3 million in debt? How the fuck does that work???? Maybe fatty Johnstone was right after all because Im pretty sure that £4 million minus £8.3 million does not equal £1.3 million. Unless that 4 million was not pounds but fucking gold debloons or something.

Is that 1.3 million debt the soft loans?

lifesanocean wrote:

A few years ago that fat hun prick Derek Johnstone said we were £10 million in debt and Stephen Thompson made a big point of phoning up his show and saying we were only around £4 million in debt. Fast forward 2-3 years and despite taking in 750k for Johnny Russell, £3 million for Robbo, £2.75 million for Gauld and now £1.8 million for the Timmy Twosome, we are still £1.3 million in debt? How the fuck does that work???? Maybe fatty Johnstone was right after all because Im pretty sure that £4 million minus £8.3 million does not equal £1.3 million. Unless that 4 million was not pounds but fucking gold debloons or something.

 


Cause the mans a liar.

We want and deserve the truth

All those figures don't include agents fees, vat and sell on fees inserted by previous clubs. The tone here seems to be that the chairman is sneaking money out of tannadice for his own use. Time for some people to get a grip.

Beharder wrote:

All those figures don't include agents fees, vat and sell on fees inserted by previous clubs. The tone here seems to be that the chairman is sneaking money out of tannadice for his own use. Time for some people to get a grip.

Haven't seen one person on here say that.

He wouldn't be able to 'sneak' money away.Everything is shown in the accounts,of course.

But people are rightly questioning why the debt isn't gone.

Simple answer is because the transfer fees received are having to plug gaping holes in operating losses each season.
 

All folk want is someone to be upfront. If we're losing money each year why are we signing internationalists? Dixon, McGowan and Anier won't be on sweety money.

It's a hard balancing act. We need to he self sufficient IMO.

Maybe the recent signings were only made as Thompson is funding the increased wages through the transfer fees, therefore that's why the basic accounting regarding the debt doesn't add up.

Beharder wrote:

Maybe the recent signings were only made as Thompson is funding the increased wages through the transfer fees, therefore that's why the basic accounting regarding the debt doesn't add up.

Or maybe they were sold  as we were running short of cash before getting the next tranche of Gaulds fee in the bank ?

This is not a personal attack on Thompson so please don't take it like that...

It's a very concerned fans take on where the club are and where we are going ....just looking for laymans terms clarity..
 

Last edited by Brian_Laws (04/3/2015 10:34 pm)

Few years ago i was saying, ok so we have to sell now but the time will come when we can wipe the debt out and keep players a bit longer, let some see their contracts out and genuinely challenge for honours.

If the figures reported for transfer fees were correct then that time came in the summer.  Something doesnt add up  and I believe a big part of that is the fees for Robertson and Gauld were nowhere near what was reported. If those fees were £3m ish each as reported then we would have been debt free once that money was all paid, even after all the other associated costs.


Even with it not all paid yet, knowing it was guaranteed income should have put us in a comfortable position going forward. To find out we're still 1.3m in debt after 2 more players being sold is scary economics. Do we know how much of all the transfer fees have still to be paid?

I dont necessarily have a problem with the business model of rearing and selling, but it puts immense pressure on the scouts/ youth coaches to get it right, and there is a risk of a  'bad batch'.  The club should not be losing 750k a year without transfer fees though, thats way more than should be allowed to happen.

Having said all that the balance has to be struck between competing on the pitch and gradually improving financial state.  Problem is I thought we were doing that, it now appears that we arent at all.

i still dinna get, and haven't for years got, why we still lose a fortune month after month, year after year...

look at the likes of st johnstone..whaur do they get the money, and stay debt free to pay wages of the likes of Duberry, johannson,jody morris, sandaza, o'hallaron,may,now swanson...amongst loads of others...

stobievulture wrote:

i still dinna get, and haven't for years got, why we still lose a fortune month after month, year after year...

look at the likes of st johnstone..whaur do they get the money, and stay debt free to pay wages of the likes of Duberry, johannson,jody morris, sandaza, o'hallaron,may,now swanson...amongst loads of others...

Always mystified me too.

Have what? 2,000 season ticket holders max?

Sign guys like Swanson,McFadden etc when they become available.Always make decent signings actually and have a good sized squad too.

Sell a player once in a blue moon.

No financial doom mongering fae Chairman Bown...EVER!!
 

We've accumulated an absolutely massive development squad of laddies aged from 16-20 in the hope that one or two more Gaulds and Roberston's will emerge.  These laddies will not be on big money bit it all adds up in terms of the wage bill.  The problem is that it would appear that none of them (certainly in the age 18-20 group) are going to make it.  Thon David Southern seemingly said that the youth squad is massive and needs to be cut at a Business Club meeting recently.