Brian_Laws wrote:

Beharder wrote:

So I think I see your point you think ST has just got lucky with the transfer income allowing him to subsidise the expenditure.

I think its more likely that the GA arena,sprinkler system, fees for Telfer,Muirhead and Szor...(polish keeper) the signings of Dixon and McGowan would not have happened without the transfer income.

Buts let's just agree to disagree its a time for harmony.

No probs bud. 
 

 

Good to see B harder and B Lawser keeping things real. We are all Arabs and should try to remain United. Well played.

Last edited by Arabnophobia (04/4/2015 8:12 pm)

Beharder wrote:

So I think I see your point you think ST has just got lucky with the transfer income allowing him to subsidise the expenditure.

I think its more likely that the GA arena,sprinkler system, fees for Telfer,Muirhead and Szor...(polish keeper) the signings of Dixon and McGowan would not have happened without the transfer income.

You're absolutely right that these things wouldn't have happened without the the transfer income, but the surplus funds should've been a bonus rather than a dependence, and there's no guarantee of any future transfer income.
 

But normal trading conditions, excluding exceptional items like transfer income, mean an annual deficit of £750-800k and that isn't sustainable long term.

Agreed 100%, but the chairman seems to prefer the high risk option (dependence on transfer fees).

Off field strategy has worked so far but he's emptied the well of sellable assets and still has the revenue shortfall.

Thats simply not the case.  There has been a revenue shortfall for years and this continues to be the case, long before the transfer income started to come in from Goodie onwards.  His mission when he took over as Chairman was to make the club capable of 'washing its own face' and he has singularly failed to do that. Transfer fees have masked this issue for the most part but it is widely known that things almost came to a head this time 2 years ago when we were almost out of cash and only Rory Boulding's goal saved us from going into admin.

bowers wrote:

the main thing here is people are failing to see the state the club can end up in very quickly.

Who do we have left to sell for a good fee? The way it is we need get a good transfer fee each window to keep things going 

Do we know how things are at the moment though Bowers? Surely we won't know the details of the club's current expenditure until the accounts dealing with this period come out? Next year?

Also, the original AT/Fed statement mentioned that Southern told them in January that the club was committed to attaining a break even position (without relying on transfer fees) by May 2016.
 

bowers wrote:

Trap_6 wrote:

bowers wrote:

the main thing here is people are failing to see the state the club can end up in very quickly.

Who do we have left to sell for a good fee? The way it is we need get a good transfer fee each window to keep things going 

Do we know how things are at the moment though Bowers? Surely we won't know the details of the club's current expenditure until the accounts dealing with this period come out? Next year?

Also, the original AT/Fed statement mentioned that Southern told them in January that the club was committed to attaining a break even position (without relying on transfer fees) by May 2016.
 

The wage level is way past the budget once again for a start. 
MAy 2016 is a long time away. Alot can happen then.

We wont break even if we continue to blow money. 

Is it way past budget because the club brought in transfer money?

Had the Gauld/Robertson cash not come in, then perhaps JM simply wouldn't have got funds for Dixon, McGowan, Muirhead and Anier? Although the chairman will set a playing budget for the season, should that not be subject to change if the club receives a transfer windfall?

May 2016 may seem a while off but it would be impossible to decide to run at break even then implement it the next day. Contracts still have to run. It seems as though Southern has been brought in to oversee this side of things, amongst other things. Surely he deserves a bit of time to try and implement it?
 

Beharder wrote:

Ocean in the revenue shortfall period you mention the clubs debt has reduced significantly and the club has posted a profit in 4 of the last 5 years. The club is currently in the best financial state it has been since the Sturrock spending spree.
The club is now in the position to be attractive to new owners it certainly wasn't when ST took over

Agreed 100% again, but see below.
 

We might have been closer to a 'break even' point financially if ST hadn't taken on another high wage to do the job he did because he planned to fly the coup.