Tekel Towers » fed/trust statement

blackandtangerine · 01/4/2015 11:12 pm

Beharder wrote:
If we had won the league cup would any body really have been that bothered about off field matters.

If you read the statement it gives you dates of meetings. You will see we were worried before the league cup final. If we had won we'd still have been worried. The statement is not just a knee jerk reaction.

baldyeagle · 02/4/2015 8:44 am

"Something is rotten in the state of Tannadice"

This is gonna get messy. And so it should.

The board are singing fae mair hymn sheets than Songs of Praise!

Trap_6 · 02/4/2015 11:58 am

I've read the statement a good few times now and I'm still not altogether sure just what it is I'm supposed to be up in arms about.

First gripe appears to be that the club told AT/Fed that there would be an increase in ST prices. AT/Fed argued against this. A month later the club publicly announces there will indeed be a further freeze on ST prices. Is that not something to be applauded? It would appear the club listened to AT/Fed, crunched some numbers, and agreed to their requests. What's the issue? Are the noses of AT/Fed out of joint because they weren't informed first? Does it really matter?

Secondly, the chairman said at the AGM that 'he would not allow any investment that would take his personal shareholding below 51%.' I'd like a bit more detail on that. Did he mean that he would refuse to sell? To anyone? Or did he mean that he wouldn't agree to sales that would mean he didn't have overall control of the club? Because if it's the latter, I'm glad. We can bleat on about fan ownership, clubs as social enterprises etc etc but time and again it has been shown that football clubs operate best as dictatorships. You need one man at the helm making the overall decisions. Otherwise it more often than not degenerates into factions and in-fighting. All things considered, our man at the top is a pretty good one.

Next, the unanswered questions at the meeting dated 26th March. Again, the statement gives little detail on what these were so it's difficult to make any judgement on whether these are questions the club ought to answer. Personally though, I don't believe supporters' committees have any given right to have all their questions answered. If the club prefers to keep certain things in house, it doesn't necessarily indicate anything underhand. Sometimes there are things that have to be kept secret in all types of businesses. Shareholders aren't party to all of their company's secrets. We're the same. Incidentally, this statement probably lessens the prospects of the club divulging information in the future.

Then there's the issue of continued operating losses. This despite being told for years that it has to stop. I agree to an extent on this. I don't understand why ST has continued to make these statements then authorise payments which have allowed it to continue. Combined with this though, his other main focus is to keep the team competitive on the park. The various managers over the years will all have been biting his ear to get more funds to allow this to continue. I think it only shows the chairman as a fan as well as a businessman that he's authorised this. Imagine it had been the other way? The team performing poorly on the park but him resolutely adhering to a programme of austerity? He's got a difficult balance to strike. Overall, I don't think he's spectacularly off getting it right.

The last issue is regarding the commissions received by 'unnamed parties', rumoured to be the management team. This is absolutely nothing new. Like it or not, this is pretty common practice. ST/Fed may have been well served to do some homework and find that out rather than making sleazy insinuations. Stuff like this may well drive people out of the club.

I think this whole statement reeks of people still taking the huff over the sales of GMS and Armstrong. Irrespective of whether Dundee United are £6M in debt or £6M in the black, for as long as the club produces quality young players, they will continue to be sold. That is the way for virtually every club in world football. You can pretty much guarantee that Stuart Armstrong's last contract negotiations involved some discussion about what would happen in the event of another club making a bid for him. Stuart never hid his ambition to play at a higher level. In order to persuade him to sign the deal, United would almost certainly have made it clear they wouldn't stand in his way should an appropriate offer come in. £1.75M constitutes an appropriate offer in my view. It would have been massively unfair on Armstrong, and poor conduct from the club, to then renege on that agreement because they didn't like his destination club or the timing of the deal.

Due to the success of the club's youth set-up, Dundee United are producing players who are essentially too good to remain at the club long term. Each one of these players has ambitions to go as far as they can in the game. The club can let their contracts run down and get no money for them. Or they can sign them on contracts which both parties know they will never see out but that will see the club get some financial return on. Either way, these players will leave Dundee United. Personally, I'm glad it's via the second route.

Hamiltonarab · 02/4/2015 12:41 pm

Well put Trap 6, have to agree with most of it especially on the clubs operating costs - something I have said and thought previously. The club has to strike some sort of balance there. I do have concern though and would like to know where some of these costs are going other than the playing squad as we are usually told out turnover to player wages ratio is a good one. Also some clarity is also needed on ST's plans for the club. Persoanlly I feel he is trying to clear the debt, then will focus on operating costs in order to sell the club by making it look attractive as possible in a finacially sense to attract the more risk averse of investors.

Beharder · 02/4/2015 1:00 pm

I totally agree with trap and Hamilton, I just dont see the need for the outrage. I was looking for answers when we went 16 games without a victory in 2000, however all this Thompson said this and then he changed his mind, so what.

stobievulture · 02/4/2015 1:59 pm

Club statement....

Dundee United has this afternoon responded to a statement released by two supporters groups “worried” how the club was being run.

The board of ArabTRUST and the Committee of the Federation of DUSC released a 1200-word statement this morning, which included concerns about season ticket costs, investment at Tannadice and “the overall management of the club”.

In response, United assured fans that the club’s board would continue with their strategy, which they say has already “delivered progress both on and off field”.

The full statement, posted on the club’s website, read: “The board of Dundee United has noted the statement issued by two Dundee United supporters’ organisations. All supporters can be assured that the board will continue to implement its professional and comprehensive strategy for the football club. This strategy and the related actions of the chairman and board of directors have delivered progress both on and off field.

“On field the club has reached back-to-back domestic cup finals for the first time in 29 years, qualified for European competition in three of the last four years, finished in the Premiership top six (formerly SPL) in every one of the last seven years and won the Scottish Cup in 2010. The current management team and players are also sitting fourth in the Premiership this season with sights firmly set on securing a European qualification place.

“Off field the board has reduced overall debt, including Thompson family loans, from £5.2 million in February 2014 to £2.6 million while successfully extricating the club from all bank debt. The club debt is projected to be reduced to £1.4 million by the end of this year. And, in a period where Scottish football clubs have faced some of the most challenging economic times in history, the club continues to pursue its strategic objectives and invests in facilities for the future.

“Supporters can rest assured that the board is comprised of individuals that are, without exception, Dundee United supporters. They bring with them a wealth of experience in business. At all times, the board acts to promote the success of Dundee United and will continue to do so

The Shed · 02/4/2015 2:17 pm

Is it just me or does that DUFC statement not actually say anything.

Billy_Hainey · 02/4/2015 3:05 pm

Doesnae say very much, except to me it infers that the Fed/Trust should take a run and jump. So it's back to square 1.

Beharder · 02/4/2015 3:43 pm

“On field the club has reached back-to-back domestic cup finals for the first time in 29 years, qualified for European competition in three of the last four years, finished in the Premiership top six (formerly SPL) in every one of the last seven years and won the Scottish Cup in 2010. The current management team and players are also sitting fourth in the Premiership this season with sights firmly set on securing a European qualification place.

Thats the only bit that intrests me. What more can a club with 5000 fans expect?

PatReilly · 02/4/2015 3:48 pm

The figures in the club statement baffle me. They have been laid in front of us in simple terms, with no explanation.

However, what's been bugging me today concerns the cash, perhaps half a million according to the supporters’ statement, which has gone into some folks pockets following four transfer transactions.

I was always willing to be convinced that we 'had to' sell GMS and Armstrong, and was not as outspoken as many about these transfers taking place. I assumed we needed the cash for some important reason, or we weren't willing to let the players leave eventually for nothing. Of course, Armstrong could still have gone in the summer window, but I accepted the money on offer was seen as adequate by the club.

What I didn’t know was a large chunk of money wasn’t going to the club, or helping to pay off soft loans, but was destined for individuals’ pockets. If contracts are in place allowing this (and they must be), then maybe we should have been holding out for much higher fees. Or no fee at all in the case of GMS, as we didn’t really, as a club, get that quarter of a million, did we?

Tek · 02/4/2015 4:04 pm

Bit of a minter we've sold 4 of our best assets and the BoD are boasting they've reduced the debt by a whopping 2.6 mill.

Let me get the champagne out.

Trap_6 · 02/4/2015 4:23 pm

I think the club statement says everything that needs to be said. It assures the fans that the club has a strategy for both on and off-field development, then outlines just how that plan has been working and is continuing to work. Also, the tone of the statement seems to be 'Stop phucking moaning'. Which is spot on in my opinion.

What else was it people were looking for in the statement? If it's clarity on these payments to 'unnamed parties', forget it. There's not a club in the world that will divulge that sort of information. Nor should they. I'm not sure why United fans seem to think they have a right to know the minutiae of the club's inner workings.

Trap_6 · 02/4/2015 4:29 pm

TEK wrote:
Bit of a minter we've sold 4 of our best assets and the BoD are boasting they've reduced the debt by a whopping 2.6 mill.

Let me get the champagne out.

I agree it seems a bit low mate. But remember, part of the deal to settle the debt with the bank (which was crippling the club) was that they receive a percentage of sales on a sliding scale over a certain period of time, or until they received a certain amount of money. I imagine they took a whack from the Robertson and Gauld sales because it was at that point that this deal with the bank ended (way ahead of schedule).

Neither of those offers were possible to turn down. It's just unfortunate that they both came during a time where this agreement was in place.

Beau Jest · 02/4/2015 4:35 pm

The club has said nothing , it's pathetic that they won't answer any questions either in public or private , and are alienating the fans , they forget who's club it it , And it's not the Thompsons.
This is all very Derry / Hunnish behaviour from what was once an open club , I'm glad that many fans are standing up to them and not meekly accepting as the dees and Huns did and we all know what happened there .

Beharder · 02/4/2015 5:56 pm

Just how much information do some fans think they need? Beau the tone of your post puts ST in the same bracket as the mares and Craig whyte. Surely you don't believe that. I still remain baffled about all this outrage.

St Obswell · 02/4/2015 6:03 pm

For those interested this debate continues on BBC NEWS at 20:00 with the Board on one side of the fence and those who think they know better on the other side.

And for those who really really can't let Justin & John leave they're achy breaky hearts, this debate will reconvene over and over again afterwards.

For those who choose not to buy a season ticket or pay a licence fee to the BBC then you can also join in this debate by writing to The Sporting Postbag@D.CThomson.Com or alternatively Google Dundee Mad

Last edited by St Obswell (02/4/2015 6:07 pm)

Trap_6 · 02/4/2015 6:45 pm

PatReilly wrote:
The figures in the club statement baffle me. They have been laid in front of us in simple terms, with no explanation.

Here's my interpretation of it Pat. Admittedly a lot of it is based on speculation and filling in blanks from pieces of info we already know.

If anyone knows more please feel free to correct me...

At the shareholder Q&A in February last year, the chairman gave some detail to the agreement with the bank. Part of the agreement was that the bank would receive a percentage of transfer fees over the next three transfer windows (summer 2014, January 2015, summer 2015). This percentage would slide down at each window. I don't think the exact percentages were given. This would continue until the end of the third window, or until the bank received a certain amount of money (again, unarticulated).

Sometime in the summer (after the sales of Robertson and Gauld), the club announced that this deal with the bank had come to an end. Presumably that agreed amount had been reached ahead of schedule. The deals for Robertson and Gauld were reported as £2M plus add ons and £3M respectively. Again, without knowing the details, I would imagine the Gauld deal would be inclusive of add ons. For argument's sake, let's say United got £4.5M for the two of them. The club statement says that the debt went from £5.2M to £2.6M in the period from February last year until now.

So, that leaves a shortfall of £1.9M. How much would the bank have agreed on as a total amount to have ended the %age deal early? You can't imagine it was much less than £1M? Let's say £750k.

Next, players and agents fees. 10% is the accepted norm for players. That's £450k. Agents? I've no idea. £100k?

Then, Queens Park were due a percentage of the Robertson deal. 10%? Again, speculating. 200k.

On top of that, there's transfer fees during that period paid for Szromnik and Telfer. Szromnik was undisclosed, 50k the understood fee. That's another 250k.

On those admittedly estimated but probably conservative figures, that pretty much accounts for all of the Robertson and Gauld cash.

This may be wide of the mark but I suspect it's somewhat closer than those asking where £8M in transfer fees have disappeared to.

Trap_6 · 02/4/2015 7:08 pm

I wish I'd waited half an hour before typing all that. Spencey's just been on the wireless giving a lot of the actual figures involved!

bowers · 02/4/2015 7:29 pm

what did he say on radio mate?

Arabnophobia · 02/4/2015 7:33 pm

Trap_6 wrote:
PatReilly wrote:
The figures in the club statement baffle me. They have been laid in front of us in simple terms, with no explanation.
Here's my interpretation of it Pat. Admittedly a lot of it is based on speculation and filling in blanks from pieces of info we already know.

If anyone knows more please feel free to correct me...

At the shareholder Q&A in February last year, the chairman gave some detail to the agreement with the bank. Part of the agreement was that the bank would receive a percentage of transfer fees over the next three transfer windows (summer 2014, January 2015, summer 2015). This percentage would slide down at each window. I don't think the exact percentages were given. This would continue until the end of the third window, or until the bank received a certain amount of money (again, unarticulated).

Sometime in the summer (after the sales of Robertson and Gauld), the club announced that this deal with the bank had come to an end. Presumably that agreed amount had been reached ahead of schedule. The deals for Robertson and Gauld were reported as £2M plus add ons and £3M respectively. Again, without knowing the details, I would imagine the Gauld deal would be inclusive of add ons. For argument's sake, let's say United got £4.5M for the two of them. The club statement says that the debt went from £5.2M to £2.6M in the period from February last year until now.

So, that leaves a shortfall of £1.9M. How much would the bank have agreed on as a total amount to have ended the %age deal early? You can't imagine it was much less than £1M? Let's say £750k.

Next, players and agents fees. 10% is the accepted norm for players. That's £450k. Agents? I've no idea. £100k?

Then, Queens Park were due a percentage of the Robertson deal. 10%? Again, speculating. 200k.

On top of that, there's transfer fees during that period paid for Szromnik and Telfer. Szromnik was undisclosed, 50k the understood fee. That's another 250k.

On those admittedly estimated but probably conservative figures, that pretty much accounts for all of the Robertson and Gauld cash.

This may be wide of the mark but I suspect it's somewhat closer than those asking where £8M in transfer fees have disappeared to.

Trap 6 you are close to a rational conclusion mate. Only ST and the board can fill the gaps.
I've spent 3 hours looking over club financial statements fae the last few years and picking apart the detail. Something has drastically changed.

Large amounts have possibly gone to -
the bank as previous debt payments where tangled up in transfer % payments until August 2015, agent fees, sell on clauses like 10% to Queens Park for Andy Robertson, tax, management and any other undisclosed % cuts and I unfortunately suspect that ST (hopefully not) has now included the family debt fae the past that he previously stated would probably never get back.
The last would explain a lot of the Fed/Arabtrust concerns that have not been put out in print.
I might hopefully be off the mark though.

David_Blunkett · 02/4/2015 7:39 pm

Spencey basically said we got 6.3m for the 4 sales of which the bank tanned 1.5m..

Laid out where some of the 25% might have gone, ffs the SFA get 5% the useless bastards.

Said the 500k due to unnamed parties was nowhere near that and based on a wrong assumption.

Last edited by David_Blunket (02/4/2015 7:39 pm)

Trap_6 · 02/4/2015 7:40 pm

He said he spoke to a United source in the last hour who rubbished the 500k figure. Source said that no such figure was mentioned at any meeting with AT or Fed so was intrigued as to where that figure came from. Spencey and panel all in agreement that ball is back in AT/Fed court to substantiate that claim.

Source also expressed disappointment that confidential nature of said meetings had been breached by statement.

Spencey also went into the Gauld/Roberton monies in a bit of detail. £2.8 for Robertson and £2.2 for Gauld seems to be the accepted totals, pre add-ons. Spencey said that at least 25% of any transfer money doesn't even reach the club (players and agents cuts, %age to SFA apparently). From these two transfers, the bank took £1.5M.

It's quickly becoming easy to see where this transfer windfall has gone.

arabugsy · 02/4/2015 8:19 pm

Well said, Trap, on all your posts in this thread.

Beharder · 02/4/2015 8:28 pm

Time for the would be forensic accountants (fed,trust) to come forward and back up their claims.

arabugsy · 02/4/2015 8:38 pm

Problem for me is the Associate Director or Chairman (also an accountant) of Arabtrust are jeopardising, possibly terminally, the relationship with the club.