Part Time?

[Auld Jag]

I know i will be told all the money has to go to the bank.But we have had a few cup ties against Rangers,get told by the board we have done well by the Greaves deal,sold Harkins and twaddle,get the rugby money every season and the Propco deal.we dont pay the highest wages and on average our crowds are around about the 4th best in the league.But we look as if we will be p/t next season,unless we are the first of a number of clubs to do this for next season it does not add up for me.If we do go p/t where does that leave McColl,will he also be p/t?and surely we will not need the same amount of coaches?

[Jaggiest Thistle]

I know i will be told all the money has to go to the bank.But we have had a few cup ties against Rangers,get told by the board we have done well by the Greaves deal,sold Harkins and twaddle,get the rugby money every season and the Propco deal.we dont pay the highest wages and on average our crowds are around about the 4th best in the league.But we look as if we will be p/t next season,unless we are the first of a number of clubs to do this for next season it does not add up for me.If we do go p/t where does that leave McColl,will he also be p/t?and surely we will not need the same amount of coaches?

 

Pretty much of the same opinion

[Woodstock Jag]

I know i will be told all the money has to go to the bank.But we have had a few cup ties against Rangers,get told by the board we have done well by the Greaves deal,sold Harkins and twaddle,get the rugby money every season and the Propco deal.we dont pay the highest wages and on average our crowds are around about the 4th best in the league.But we look as if we will be p/t next season,unless we are the first of a number of clubs to do this for next season it does not add up for me.If we do go p/t where does that leave McColl,will he also be p/t?and surely we will not need the same amount of coaches?

 

Cup ties with Rangers helped plug the annual budget deficit.

 

Greaves deal impact is anyone's guess.

 

Harkins and Twaddle helped with the downpayment on a debt to HMRC

 

Rugby money is substantial. Without it we'd be losing even more money every year.

 

PropCo only reduces the overall debt and the level of interest repayments on our debt to the BOS.

 

The core of our problems results from two issues. One is cash-flow. Put simply our overdraft is so substantial that we are put in a vulnerable position if there is a spell of poor attendances and unimpressive levels of gate money. The second issue is that the interest payments on our core bank debt make up the vast majority of the losses we make every season. For example if you take last season where we lost more than £200k, all but about £30k of that loss could have been averted if we didn't have a debt which was accruing interest.

 

I don't know the exact situation with all other Clubs, but certainly many are in dire straights too.

 

Dundee, for example, don't own their ground (it's owned by Dundee United director Bennett!) and rely on crowds regularly in excess of 4000 to support their budget.

 

Dunfermline lost something like half a million pounds in 2009 and are about 11 million in debt, mostly in the form of soft loans to directors. They don't own their stadium (again owned by a director IIRC) and would be in serious danger if those debts were ever recalled.

 

Queen of the South have had their budget massacred after (by all accounts) having more than used up all the money from their Cup runs and Euro exploits (Davie Rae doesn't seem willing to throw as much of his own cash at them either).

 

Dougie Rae at Morton's patience , you'd think, will wear thin soon having thrown a fair bit of cash at them in the not to recent past for little return.

 

Falkirk don't own their stadium (Council owned) and have a parachute payment from the SPL to assist them.

 

Raith Rovers run a hybrid team (mostly full-time following some of their cup money from last season allowing them to replace 2 part-time players with full-time ones and move another to a full-time contract, leaving 4 part-time players). Their cup run covered their operating debt and allowed them to decrease their structural debt a little. The ownership of their stadium is (IIRC) a bit of an ugly mix and not directly by the football Club.

 

Ross County seem to do well out of their Youth Academy. I don't know about their wider financial situation though.

 

And Stirling and Cowdenbeath are Part-time.

 

The lesson we can draw? Pretty much all FT clubs are either sustaining considerable losses or are being backed by an external investor. Given our weakness both with respect to cash-flow and how much and to whom we owe our structural debt, we are especially vulnerable.

 

Simple maths says it doesn't add up to pay full-time wages when it puts the Club at risk of being wound-up through being unable to pay its debt repayments. Whilst you do have to account for the greater risk of relegation and likely drop-off in crowd numbers, PT football has to be considered as a serious option. We ultimately have to ask ourselves if we'd rather take the risk of having a team which generally yo-yos between First and Second Divisions or no Club at all. If we keep losing money like we are just now, the latter is a very serious risk.

[Jaggernaut]

Well, it's up the the Board. But I just hope they realise that a part-time outfit will get a lot more part-time than dedicated supporters. Somebody gave the example of Clyde and Airdrie (or their ancestors): used to be full-time, now part-time. Yes indeed, but look at the state they're in, and ask whether you'd like to go and see that every week.

[GrantB]

Well, it's up the the Board. But I just hope they realise that a part-time outfit will get a lot more part-time than dedicated supporters. Somebody gave the example of Clyde and Airdrie (or their ancestors): used to be full-time, now part-time. Yes indeed, but look at the state they're in, and ask whether you'd like to go and see that every week.

 

Exactly.

[The Incredible Adam Spark]

I think it's a gross over-simplification to say "oh, we'll go part time and all our problems will be solved", but I'd rather watch a part time team than have no team to watch at all.

 

The above posters use Clyde and Airdrie to highlight the dangers of going part time. Perhaps if those clubs wouldn't be in dire straits had they followed that course of action sooner.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I'm no economist, and anyway you can never get two economists to agree. Isn't it a case of if we and say two other SFL sides went part time the remaining SFL full time clubs (and some lower SPL clubs as well) would benefit financially? By that I mean there would be a considerable surplus of full time players and thus that would drive full time wages downwards.

I'm not sure the significance of that further than in a couple of seasons time the cost of running a club with part time players may not be that much less than with a full time squad.

[Steven H]

I think it's a gross over-simplification to say "oh, we'll go part time and all our problems will be solved", but I'd rather watch a part time team than have no team to watch at all.

 

The above posters use Clyde and Airdrie to highlight the dangers of going part time. Perhaps if those clubs wouldn't be in dire straits had they followed that course of action sooner.

 

Two major differences between them and us tho, in CLydes case their relocation to Cumbernauld has caused most of their fans to drift away. In Airdrie Utds case they lost a helluva lot of fans when they changed from Airdrieonians. Both the Clubs used to highlight the bad that can come from being part-time have had other major structural changes that have contributed to their current problems.

 

As for us, part-time football may be the only option available but I wonder what group/groups of people can prevent that from happening

[Mr Bunny]

PropCo only reduces the overall debt and the level of interest repayments on our debt to the BOS.

 

I think they only managed to get half the investors they'd hoped for so that a substantial amount of the debt still remains. As you say, reducing it a bit cutd the interest a bit but still leaves us with a big albatross tied to our backs.

 

Note to anyone winning the pools/lottery: buy up the spare Propco shares - you help the club and might still get your money back.

[Chicofan]

our current league and alba cup form shows that our current squad would be right at home in Div 2...unfortunately

[GrantB]

Two major differences between them and us tho, in CLydes case their relocation to Cumbernauld has caused most of their fans to drift away. In Airdrie Utds case they lost a helluva lot of fans when they changed from Airdrieonians. Both the Clubs used to highlight the bad that can come from being part-time have had other major structural changes that have contributed to their current problems.

 

As for us, part-time football may be the only option available but I wonder what group/groups of people can prevent that from happening

 

Not true in Clyde's case. Their crowds in their last years at Shawfield and at Firhill were less then they get now. I can remember them playing in front of 300 at Firhill. They have gained fans playing in Cumbernauld.

 

Clyde's problems arose when Billy Carmichael stopped bankrolling them and they were left with a load of unpaid bills.

 

In Airdrie's case, they suffered when they sold old Broomfield and groundshared with Clyde. Their crowds never really got back to the same level (although in the last few years at old Broomfield, they were playing to larger crowds than their usual 1500 - 2000 as they had been in the SPL)

[Steven H]

Not true in Clyde's case. Their crowds in their last years at Shawfield and at Firhill were less then they get now. I can remember them playing in front of 300 at Firhill. They have gained fans playing in Cumbernauld.

 

Clyde's problems arose when Billy Carmichael stopped bankrolling them and they were left with a load of unpaid bills.

 

In Airdrie's case, they suffered when they sold old Broomfield and groundshared with Clyde. Their crowds never really got back to the same level (although in the last few years at old Broomfield, they were playing to larger crowds than their usual 1500 - 2000 as they had been in the SPL)

 

Your signature is a joke right?

[GrantB]

Your signature is a joke right?

 

Nope. Why would you think that?

[Steven H]

Nope. Why would you think that?

 

Coz it made me laugh .

[GrantB]

Coz it made me laugh .

 

 

Hope my new one makes you laugh

[Steven H]

Hope my new one makes you laugh

 

Chuckle chuckle

[Fearchar]

I'm no economist, and anyway you can never get two economists to agree....

 

Perhaps I can help, since I used to be one. What you suggest is not good enough: you really have to simplify the model as much as possible first, before you can move on to further conclusions. Start with one economist and, ceteris paribus, you still won't get agreement.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Fearchar