£835k losses for May 2022, up by £600k from May 2021.

Accounts

Incredibly alarming...

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

The key message from Scot Gardiner’s appearance was that times are tough financially but there is “no danger” of us going bust. He stated that he is more concerned about performances on the pitch.

That's good if we're not in danger of going bust so hopefully that has allayed fans fears 🤔.

I wonder if the players heard the interview and put on a performance and got a result just to prove to the CEO that they are capable and to also buy Billy and co another couple of weeks though I can accept hanging onto them until the end of the season now that we are clear of relegation; in fact we really should be looking up the table and be looking to try and catch whoever loses midweeks game in hand fixture and possibly even Partick.

4 hours ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

What you mean that he has failed to address the substandard performances for several months presided over by the coach he employed

Yes

It saddens me that some peeps can’t make their own responses and rely on churlish, childish and totally obvious interference with serious and clearly widely popular and supported expressions of views which only serve to prove that those posts and the posters are meaningless, embarrassing and probably strengthening the validity of the original content

7 hours ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

It saddens me that some peeps can’t make their own responses and rely on churlish, childish and totally obvious interference with serious and clearly widely popular and supported expressions of views which only serve to prove that those posts and the posters are meaningless, embarrassing and probably strengthening the validity of the original content

Could you make yourself look like any more of a sanctimonious *****?

2 hours ago, STFU said:

Sorry. Could we make ourselves look lany more like sanctimonious *****?

Apology gratefully accepted 

12 hours ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

It saddens me that some peeps can’t make their own responses and rely on churlish, childish and totally obvious interference with serious and clearly widely popular and supported expressions of views which only serve to prove that those posts and the posters are meaningless, embarrassing and probably strengthening the validity of the original content

Oooft. That's some good input right there. Post some more, makes a great read.

1 hour ago, bdu98196 said:

Oooft. That's some good input right there. Post some more, makes a great read.

Again it is really satisfying to receive plaudits from those who appeared to be detractors. A bit like the team really.

I heard SG on Radio Scotland prior to the Ayr game. It seems the so called financial crisis has been blown out of proportion. I just don't know what to believe anymore. I find the money the club continues to lose year in very alarming but if the powers that be think it's acceptable let's crack on. 

There must be a watching "anorak" who could provide a comparison with other clubs. And this forum is possibly the biggest scaremonger factor in operation. I will always be concerned but my anxieties are eased slightly in the knowledge that somebody has dug us out of a financial hole on a number of previous occasions. Plus SG and peers would not have issued the statement if they did not have a Plan A or Plan B to fall back on and even provided some of the constituents. Lets face it - no matter how well we perform that promotion is the only way out of the mire.

Neither Scot Gardiner or the current Chairman have done a single thing they said they would do since being in situ, so there's nothing to base any trust on.

Plan A was the concerts.  Plan B seems to be some sort of park and ride scheme using carparks the club doesn't even own, and a battery storage facility being built half way across the city which we only seem to be lending our name to, and which is already facing planning objections.

I make no apology for remaining extremely sceptical.

One would expect SG to play down any financial difficulties on national radio.  One also recognises that most football clubs have financial difficulties, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the situation with ICT.   Let's just remind ourselves of what the official financial report actually stated. The accounts reported a loss before tax of £835K and net current liabilities (debt) of £1.71M which is up  70% from the previous year and from the last Covid free year in 2018/9.  The accounts do not report a turnover figure, but from memory, turnover in previous years has been just a little over £2m.  

Whether you consider those figures as representing a crisis or not is maybe a matter of opinion, but they are certainly a significant concern.  The new auditors stated they had "material concerns" about the viability of the club relying on unproven income streams and savings on operational costs. The club waited till the deadline to post the latest accounts and has had no AGM since the previous accounts were posted, also at the deadline.  It is not a pretty picture.

Personally I don't think the club is in immediate risk of going bust, but unless some major financial windfall comes along, it clearly needs to find someone to pump record sums of money into the club to stop the finances getting even worse than they currently are.  One hopes that when the club finally has its AGM later this month, there will be a little more openness about the financial situation than we have had to date.  As things stand, unless we can somehow win promotion (or the cup!) this year, cuts to the playing budget seem inevitable.  If that happens, getting out of the Championship at the right end will get more and more difficult.

A loss of £800k on turnover of £2m implies costs of £2.8m, a 40% loss, which would be alarming for most companies.

In business that means two options, which can be taken forward jointly:

1. Increase revenue

2. Reduce costs.

We look to have tried (and failed) to increase revenue (eg concerts) so we must now look at costs.

This does not have to mean players and their contracts, but we need to look at all the non playing staff and see what economies are possible. Do we need a staff of 90 odd?

There may be “non cash” items in the costs, for example if we are depreciating assets over a defined period, but I would not expect any such items to be substantial.

The other key element is cash flow and whether it is positive, or dependent on ongoing loans from Directors.

Looking forward, as well as a thorough review of all costs, we should get any realistic prospects tied up on long term contracts if possible so we maximise the chances of decent transfer income.

And a win on Friday would also help immensely!

Edited March 6, 20233 yr by Robert

2 hours ago, Robert said:

There may be “non cash” items in the costs, for example if we are depreciating assets over a defined period, but I would not expect any such items to be substantial.

The other key element is cash flow and whether it is positive, or dependent on ongoing loans from Directors.

Depreciation was only £178k of the costs.

As for cash flow, ‘only’ £40k was advanced by directors in the year under review. The rest of the cash loss of about £0.6m was funded, as others have pointed out earlier, by not paying suppliers and HMRC as promptly as we used to. You can build up arrears like that as a short term solution to cash flow but you can’t really play that card more than once otherwise the arrears increase to a level that creditors can no longer tolerate, leading eventually to a winding up order from someone. So it is likely that the directors are having to dig a lot deeper this season.

31 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Depreciation was only £178k of the costs.

As for cash flow, ‘only’ £40k was advanced by directors in the year under review. The rest of the cash loss of about £0.6m was funded, as others have pointed out earlier, by not paying suppliers and HMRC as promptly as we used to. You can build up arrears like that as a short term solution to cash flow but you can’t really play that card more than once otherwise the arrears increase to a level that creditors can no longer tolerate, leading eventually to a winding up order from someone. So it is likely that the directors are having to dig a lot deeper this season.

They will need a big shovel 

Or another "loan" from Uncle Roy ?

I wonder if any shareholder on here has had formal notification of the Club's AGM yet?  I've received nothing and there is nothing on the Club's website.  In his recent statement, the Chairman stated that the AGM would be held on 28th March.  That being the case, the deadline to receive formal notification was yesterday as shareholders should be receiving formal notification at least 21 days prior to the meeting. 

The AGM is already long overdue, so I hope this does not mean that the Club is delaying the AGM even more.  One can't help feel that if there was substance to the optimism expressed in the Chairman's recent statement and in the Accounts submitted to Companies House, the Club would be keen to make their plans public as soon as possible.  These constant delays suggest that they are experiencing some difficulty in finding anyone willing to put the kind of money into the club which is required in order to prevent swingeing cuts to management and player budgets.

Hopefully, the failure to get the paperwork out in time is just an administrative glitch and we will receive details by the end of the week.  If not, some serious questions will need to asked.

Quite right. 21 days if that is constitutional. Nothing arrived here.

2 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

I wonder if any shareholder on here has had formal notification of the Club's AGM yet?  I've received nothing and there is nothing on the Club's website.  In his recent statement, the Chairman stated that the AGM would be held on 28th March.  That being the case, the deadline to receive formal notification was yesterday as shareholders should be receiving formal notification at least 21 days prior to the meeting. 

I am on an identical mission to yourself, DD. The only indication of an AGM date has been an informal and incidental reference to 28th March concealed in the middle of last Wednesday’s extremely lengthy statement, although there had previously been speculation about 21st February - but that never materialised. For the 21 days’ notice specified in Article 58 to be realised, this would have to have been given yesterday but, as you say, there’s nothing in the post or on the website. I suppose it might conceivably have been mailed yesterday, but to me the relevant date is when it’s received, not when it’s sent… so it’s late.

This situation is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory since even March 28 would be more than three months in breach of  Article 55, but there’s more. The accounts were made public on 28 Feb by bodies external to the club (Companies House, whose deadline 28 Feb was, and the media) and to my knowledge, apart from inference from Scot Gardiner’s radio interview, the club itself has not yet even acknowledged that these accounts exist. They are not even referred to in that statement issued on the Chairman’s behalf the following day (Mar 1).

I also seem to recollect that information about the collapse of the Concert Company back on the autumn was also sparse in the extreme, even though this had been touted as a potential saviour. As far as the accounts to May 2022 are concerned, I’m disappointed that the turnover figure has been withheld because we need to know what percentage the loss is of that turnover or of total expenditure.

As far as shareholders are concerned, I am a simple £250 foot soldier, but there are people who have put hundreds of thousands of pounds which they will never see again into that club to keep it solvent and some clarity is urgently needed.

Edited March 8, 20233 yr by Charles Bannerman

11 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

 The accounts were made public on 28 Feb by bodies external to the club (Companies House, whose deadline 28 Feb was, and the media) and to my knowledge, apart from inference from Scot Gardiner’s radio interview, the club itself has not yet even acknowledged that these accounts exist.

That could be read as criticism of SG and those in charge of the club. Watch out as the 'fanboys' will not be happy.

On 3/1/2023 at 1:06 PM, Ronaldo said:

Slightly off topic, but in my opinion the stadium will always be our ball and chain.

Soulless, lonely with no atmosphere!!

Or a memory like Kingsmills or Telford Street 😩

Hey - If you were in charge - would you be avoiding an AGM until the storm clouds have settled to a degree and there is an opportunity to provide a new plan for the future ?

1 hour ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

Or a memory like Kingsmills or Telford Street 😩

Hey - If you were in charge - would you be avoiding an AGM until the storm clouds have settled to a degree and there is an opportunity to provide a new plan for the future ?

That's irrelevant though. 

But whats the response ?

Where there is flexibility to hold back a meeting to allow for details about future plans to be clarified, I have absolutely no objections to that happening. Indeed, it is often helpful to do so.  But that is not what is happening here.  The Club is obliged to hold its AGM no later than 15 months after the previous AGM and therefore, the flexibility to delay ran out in December.  And there has not been a word of explanation or apology from the club.

If I was in charge I would hold the AGM within the required time frame.  If there were plans for funding and/or restructuring being worked on behind the scenes, I would report that work was on-going and it was not possible to give details at this time.  I would also say that when the time was right, the club would hold a General Meeting or Extraordinary General Meeting to discuss the details.  Meanwhile, I would communicate with shareholders and fans to keep people informed as much as possible.  

Failing to communicate is never a good strategy.  Apart from p*ssing off the supporters and shareholders, it leads to lots of conjecture, some of which can be wildly wrong and even damaging to the club.

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

Where there is flexibility to hold back a meeting to allow for details about future plans to be clarified, I have absolutely no objections to that happening. Indeed, it is often helpful to do so.  But that is not what is happening here.  The Club is obliged to hold its AGM no later than 15 months after the previous AGM and therefore, the flexibility to delay ran out in December.  And there has not been a word of explanation or apology from the club.

Current issues include:-

* An AGM, the holding of which is doubly in default of Para 55 of the Articles of Association, has yet to take place.

* Based on a throw away remark in a statement issued nine days ago, we are led to believe that this is to be held on March 28th (the night of a Scotland Euro qualifier v Spain). However the 21 days statutory notice of an AGM on that date (Para 58) expired three days ago.

* On February 28th, the last day allowed for filing, the accounts appeared on the Companies House website indicating losses to May 2022 of £835,000 and increased debts to trade creditors and HMRC, but no indication of turnover. So far there has been no acknowledgement, such as in the March 1st statement, by the club of any detail of these accounts.

* What changes have there been in the club’s financial status in over nine months since May 2022?

* Given that the Concert Company collapsed (with minimal detail provided), new income sources are urgently needed. Much has been made of a potential deal with a land company and of a battery farm. Given that the club’s capacity to earn money is very limited (although unknown due to the absence of a turnover figure) it would appear that the need for these income streams is quite urgent. How quickly will the battery farm etc come on stream?

Edited March 10, 20233 yr by Charles Bannerman