Eastendtales Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 34 minutes ago, Secure Par said: The profit/loss balance is very vague and I appreciate they don't have to show this but where is all the money being spent? Can only speculate. But off top of my head the larger items would be: Playing salaries Bonuses? Legal and starting costs for Rosyth Higher staff costs as we increased the staff count Increased energy costs? Whatever way I look at it, a 1m loss is an absolute farce without concrete numbers explaining the size of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digs Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 2 minutes ago, Eastendtales said: Can only speculate. But off top of my head the larger items would be: Playing salaries Bonuses? Legal and starting costs for Rosyth Higher staff costs as we increased the staff count Increased energy costs? Whatever way I look at it, a 1m loss is an absolute farce without concrete numbers explaining the size of it. I think that list is pretty spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deutsch Par Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 Had some time to try and make sense of that playoff statement and it still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If we hadn't won the league then Falkirk probably would have and the other teams in the playoffs were Hamilton, Airdrie and Montrose. Not exactly teams who bring massive numbers. You would think having paid employees would mean that the club would be run more professionally but the opposite is the case. The club was in a far better state when the people in charge didn't receive a wage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PentlandPar Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 Can't understand that statement either. Even if we had finished in the playoffs we couldn't have been guaranteed 2 home games. Who's to say we wouldn't have been knocked out in the semi final and not made the final. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA-go Par Adonis Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 And it still wouldn't have netted £100k nevermind £1m. However, before we get all misty eyed about the past, it's worth remembering that we lost over £700k in the Championship to year end May 2019. It then resulted in the directors coming to the conclusion that they couldn't fund the operation and sought external investment. I'd be more concerned if we were still in League 1, owed money to banks or financial institutions and/or GMBH had said they had no more cash. The balance sheet looks OK and they're obviously making progress with the training facility. The one issue I have is whether that convertible loan stock can never be called in. And, if not, when will it be converted to equity - indeed, why was it structured like that in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livipar2 Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 What is the fans vehicle for asking for greater transparency around these results? PST? Centenary Club? Individual e-mails? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA-go Par Adonis Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 Probably the SLO would be the first port of call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossmcno1 Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 Giving them a slight benefit of the doubt, I read that bit about the playoffs and just thought it was a budget explanation of expectations? It was almost meant as a throw away comment (income budget based on 19 games rather than 18 as assumption of finishing in playoffs) and I just thought it should be treated as such. Any time I’ve budgeted a business that’s what you do, you understand where you think you’re going to be performance wise and budget accordingly. Then when reviewing the P&L you compare and contrast trading to give the numbers some detail. It’s not the best worded statement that’s for sure, but by Christ we’ve had a lot worse in the past! When investors are brought in, we lose a bit of control/understanding/involvement in the financial side. We were a fan owned club (in the loosest terms) and collectively those in control of shares voted for this investment, as it was seen that the fan owned model we had was no longer fit. Ultimately the investors will have control, and it’s up to them to do what they want. Thats the trade off for no longer having that control. Ross McArthur was rightly lauded by many for his work, and it was him that’s brought these guys on board saying, he pinched himself due to how good they were, surely he wasn’t wrong? One thing I did find comforting in a way, was Kieran Maguires tweet, he’s generally very good and quick to raise any alarms for clubs where he sees dodgy stuff, and he hasn’t done so in his brief review. I do think a Q&A would be of use, to at least give the wider fan base some comfort that this is part of the plan, investors still committed etc. The breakdown of accounts is so vague that you can’t even understand wages v turnover or capex costs, or grasp any other income sources and their timings (Nisbet money for example), so we’re all guessing. What we do know is that a £1 million loss no matter how it’s dressed up should be an alarming moment, and if the board and investors know anything about our fan base at all, they should know that we’ll need a truck load more of discussion than a couple of pishy paragraphs to flap that away without big concerns remaining. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, DA-go Par Adonis said: The balance sheet looks OK and they're obviously making progress with the training facility. The one issue I have is whether that convertible loan stock can never be called in. And, if not, when will it be converted to equity - indeed, why was it structured like that in the first place. It can’t be called in, it has a 5 year period on it after which it is written off if it hasn’t been converted to shares. On the why reason, I’m not quite sure, to me GmbH have kinda lingered on without ever taking on the majority shareholding for some reason, they were apparently going to take a majority shareholding straight away in 2020, then due to Covid this became 30% due to be increased within 2 years, then due to McArthur leaving they didn’t take that option up and we’ve ended up with this agreement where they have a further 5 years to take it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA-go Par Adonis Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 Indeed, if there's a wider issue with them taking legal control at the moment, I'd be interested to hear it. Re the loss, if they've 'overspent' to bring in a paid CEO, a commercial manager, pay off Hughes, bring in McPake & Co to get us out of League 1 and cover costs of getting the training ground project moving, I've no issue - given that they seem to be covering it with their own money (I am aware that the training ground will be an asset but I'd imagine some of the initial costs would be classed as 'expenditure'). If they continue to bridge the gap with their own money in the next couple of years, I would be OK with that too. The caveat being that you would want to see progress on the pitch, off the pitch and a narrowing of the gap between inflow and outgoings. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougieDave Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 Refreshing to read such reasoned debate on this critical and sensitive subject …… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosythpar Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, parsforlife said: It can’t be called in, it has a 5 year period on it after which it is written off if it hasn’t been converted to shares. On the why reason, I’m not quite sure, to me GmbH have kinda lingered on without ever taking on the majority shareholding for some reason, they were apparently going to take a majority shareholding straight away in 2020, then due to Covid this became 30% due to be increased within 2 years, then due to McArthur leaving they didn’t take that option up and we’ve ended up with this agreement where they have a further 5 years to take it up. The worry for me is they don't take up the majority shareholding and don't invest much more into the club. Pars united wouldn't have the money to run EEP and the training facility in Rosyth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted March 1 Author Report Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, rosythpar said: The worry for me is they don't take up the majority shareholding and don't invest much more into the club. Pars united wouldn't have the money to run EEP and the training facility in Rosyth. Once the training facility has been built it should surely save money? We won't have to hire out other facilities. The cost will be getting incurred now in the building of it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossmcno1 Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 13 minutes ago, Grant said: Once the training facility has been built it should surely save money? We won't have to hire out other facilities. The cost will be getting incurred now in the building of it. Correct Grant, what we don’t know, is how much of the loss this year is down to Capital Expenditure related to this project, if any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymie Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 GmbH can convert the loan today, if they so choose. The reason they have not is to allow PUCIC to still have a voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.