McKennan Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 It's rather a circular argument though, isn't it? The product on the park is poor because the players aren't very good. The players aren't very good because we have no money to attract better players. We have no money because not enough people turn up at the home games to support the team. Thing is, we've all sat and watched teams put together on tuppence ha'penny run Thistle players ragged. It's like the focus is on everything bar giving the punters what they pay to see - an entertaining game of football. Not a lapse that's unique to Thistle though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Bugger! I knew I'd forgotten to change something. Wrong question, Yoda-Jag. Chide me if you like, but the questions should be directed at the club. Perhaps if it improved the (oh god, here goes) 'product' on the park, the matchday experience, you know, improving what it offers to fans/customers for their season ticket/£17 at the gate it might get a hell of a lot more people interested and (internet marketing watchword alert) becoming advocates for Partick Thistle. As it stands, shit football, a backsliding in the standard of catering, dwindling respect for the ability of management, players, executives, crumbling infrastructure and all the other horrible stuff that's been going on have just about exhausted this Jags fan's store of goodwill. Thistle is a village. I don't have to be on Garscube Road to smell the decay and desperation. As I said at outset in my original post McK, wasn't a dig or a pop at you, simply curiosity, and while I don't disagree as such with what you have posted in terms of reasoning, as others have subsequently pointed out, that attitude and stance leads to a vicious circle of apathy and downward revenue streams equating to poorer standard of players and the like which ends up at your original reasons for why you (and many others, (even including myself and many other good posters on this here webbything) whether in Glasgow, Scotland or overseas, near or far) choose to contribute less to the club than they may well do if things were better in the many ways you list as reasons not to put in as much as you may do if many Jagfactors were better. The real crux of the matter is how can this vicious cycle of these (valid) downsides to Thistle (and Scottish football in general) be broken and surmounted when money (for the club and individuals) is as tight as it is? Yes, more MUST be made of Firhill and it's possible uses outwith matchdays, as well as (somehow) tempting back the growing stayaway's and encouraging more fan monetary input (from those near and far as well as the disaffected), but it's rapidly approaching a point of who doesn't blink first, could see the club go jugs up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 All very Dunkirk spirit - not a bad thing. However, there's a slight whiff of blaming the customer for walking away from the shoddy goods here. Just how long are we to hang in and keep on putting our hands in our pockets regardless? I'm not too far from that moment and, judging by the crowds at Firhill, I'm not alone. Do we whistle to keep our spirits up? Right now, my spirits would be lifted by something of substance from Thistle, either on or off the park. Wins in succession, a good cup run, a Q&A, anything to break the silence - and I don't mean a Hi-De-Hi style announcement from the board on the latest cunning plan. We are rudderless on the park and off it. A couple of heids on plates won't solve any problems, regardless of what some of our brethren here seem to believe. How about it, Thistle? Ninety minutes of hard work and inspiration every weekend and word from our lords and masters, without equivocation, that there's a road ahead. I might even spill for a half-time draw ticket if that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawlty Towers Posted December 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 For those who have had a look at the accounts, what are your thoughts on them? Is there anything that jumps out as good or as something we need to worry (more so than usual) about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 It's always the terse warning from the audit people that should scare the crap out of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawlty Towers Posted December 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 It's always the terse warning from the audit people that should scare the crap out of us. Is that not something that appears in most accounts for Scottish clubs these days? *Edited to attach accounts - thanks to Martin for sharing this. blREX+0L0337-103135_9-05672568.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawlty Towers Posted January 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 A colleague at work who reads the Daily Express pointed out an article in today's edition which says that Partick Thistle "have revealed a loss of £268,199 in their annual accounts" this came as something of a shock as, having a copy of the accounts which I downloaded from the companies house website, thought they were much less than that. On checking the accounts I see on page 2 under the heading "Emphasis of matter - going concern" the following quote: "The company incurred a net loss of £117,117 during the year ended 31st May 2010 and, at that date, the company's current liabilities exceeded its current assets by £773,356". I am confused , I assume our accounts are correct so why does the newspaper have a much different figure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Curious thing, Martin. Why is the Express interested in Thistle all of a sudden? Bullshit? It someone blathering backstairs to the paper, some pish-stained hack (copyright Thomas Hosie Esquire) or a news agency? Has Princess Diana been seen cavorting along Maryhill Road with Owen Coyle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 If these are the accounts to 31st March 2010, then surely they don't include the Harkins and Twadell deals which didn't happen until the summer. There have been a lot of other incentives since March last year, so maybe things now are a little better than when these accounts were produced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 If these are the accounts to 31st March 2010, then surely they don't include the Harkins and Twadell deals which didn't happen until the summer. There have been a lot of other incentives since March last year, so maybe things now are a little better than when these accounts were produced. They moved in the summer of 2009!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 If these are the accounts to 31st March 2010, then surely they don't include the Harkins and Twadell deals which didn't happen until the summer. There have been a lot of other incentives since March last year, so maybe things now are a little better than when these accounts were produced. Allan beat me to it, but I aint sure if they will include the Propco money and subsequent reduction in interest payments. Martin's point tho is interesting, why are the figures in the accounts so different to the figures in the press? Lazy journalism? A PTFC 'insider' leaking info (inaccurate info at that)? Or are the accounts wrong (not unless Hughes done them )? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 They moved in the summer of 2009!! Doesn't time fly past as you get older Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nas Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Had a look at the accounts, well for what they are.... Prop co £900k, sale of Harkins £150k, sale of Twaddle £60k. (20k per year spread over 3 years) so in year to May 2010 we had one off income of just under £1.1m. £900k prop co money shown as investment and straight to reduce bank overdraft, which was part of overall creditors of £1.7m in 2009 and now down to £1.1m. Money from sale of players sale £170k would also go to reduce debt but would be shown through revenue account, which we aren't seeing. So loss before one off transfer income would be £117k + £170k = £287k which is pretty much the Express number. ongoing trading loss per year pretty much the same as 2009 I'n afraid......which let's remember is including the Warriors money. When does that deal run out again? When does the Ignis deal run out? 2 possible big sources of cash that could go very soon. Apologies for not being more upbeat..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawlty Towers Posted January 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Had a look at the accounts, well for what they are.... Prop co £900k, sale of Harkins £150k, sale of Twaddle £60k. (20k per year spread over 3 years) so in year to May 2010 we had one off income of just under £1.1m. £900k prop co money shown as investment and straight to reduce bank overdraft, which was part of overall creditors of £1.7m in 2009 and now down to £1.1m. Money from sale of players sale £170k would also go to reduce debt but would be shown through revenue account, which we aren't seeing. So loss before one off transfer income would be £117k + £170k = £287k which is pretty much the Express number. ongoing trading loss per year pretty much the same as 2009 I'n afraid......which let's remember is including the Warriors money. When does that deal run out again? When does the Ignis deal run out? 2 possible big sources of cash that could go very soon. Apologies for not being more upbeat..... Thanks for that analysis. The Warriors deal was for 5 years so we are half way through that and the Ignis deal expires at the end of this season. Given that we have reduced the debt as you describe how much do you reckon are we saving in terms of repayments over a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nas Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Thanks for that analysis. The Warriors deal was for 5 years so we are half way through that and the Ignis deal expires at the end of this season. Given that we have reduced the debt as you describe how much do you reckon are we saving in terms of repayments over a year? money to bank down about £600k. Think we were paying just over £100k in interest before when it was £1.5m so maybe £30k-£40k. Problem is we paid off about £1m but then lost £268k which went straight back onto the debt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) money to bank down about £600k. Think we were paying just over £100k in interest before when it was £1.5m so maybe £30k-£40k. Problem is we paid off about £1m but then lost £268k which went straight back onto the debt! All of which just emphasises that the issues we face going forward relate to the annual income/revenue side of the equation. That's where there is a real need to understand what sort of plan the board have rather than just focusing on the debt management issue. To be blunt, if we don't have a longer term plan then we're just going to be trundling along from season to season with fingers crossed which is just what we've been doing in recent years even if the debt is eradicated. Edited January 14, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colognejag Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Money from sale of players sale £170k would also go to reduce debt but would be shown through revenue account, which we aren't seeing. So loss before one off transfer income would be £117k + £170k = £287k which is pretty much the Express number. How does 170K profit from transfers become a loss??? I am very poor with numbers - can someone explain this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 How does 170K profit from transfers become a loss??? I am very poor with numbers - can someone explain this? It doesn't become a loss. It's just that our actual losses were bigger than the transfer fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 How does 170K profit from transfers become a loss??? I am very poor with numbers - can someone explain this? That's got me a bit baffled too It doesn't become a loss. It's just that our actual losses were bigger than the transfer fees. Still baffled. Why does it get added to the loss tho? Have I misread something again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter of '63 Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 How does 170K profit from transfers become a loss??? I am very poor with numbers - can someone explain this? The loss on running the club for last year was £287,000. We received £170,000 in transfer fees. This reduced the actual loss for the year to £117,000 which is the figure in the accounts. We haven't received £170,000 in transfers this year - we haven't received any! So unless costs are cut, the projected loss for this year will be around £287,000. Hope this helps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) The loss on running the club for last year was £287,000. We received £170,000 in transfer fees. This reduced the actual loss for the year to £117,000 which is the figure in the accounts. But the transfer money we recieved went to HMRC didn't it? Assuming we had been paying HMRC in the previous year (and this) then the £170k shouldn't affect loss figures at all. We haven't received £170,000 in transfers this year - we haven't received any! So unless costs are cut, the projected loss for this year will be around £287,000. Minus the 20k instalment of Twaddles transfer, £50k sponsorship deal and the reduced interest payments to the bank, about £110k roughly going by the figures discussed on here. but if my first point is accurate then the projected loss for the next lot of accounts should be £7k. Hope this helps I think Im confusing myself now Edited January 14, 2011 by Steven H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colognejag Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 OK - understand now, thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nas Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 The HMRC like the bank would have been part of the creditors of £1.7m. So the HMRC were paid from the transfers and the Bank debt reduced from Propco money. The transfer money has to be shown through the revenue account though. So while the revenue account shows a loss of £117k, this was after taking account of one off transfer income of £170k. So the actual loss before this was £287k, which I'm just guessing was the figure quoted in the Express. The Accounts to 2011 will only have £20k final installment from Twaddle deal so if nothing else changed then the loss for 2011 would be £267k compared to the £117k this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Lanark Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 The HMRC like the bank would have been part of the creditors of £1.7m. So the HMRC were paid from the transfers and the Bank debt reduced from Propco money. The transfer money has to be shown through the revenue account though. So while the revenue account shows a loss of £117k, this was after taking account of one off transfer income of £170k. So the actual loss before this was £287k, which I'm just guessing was the figure quoted in the Express. The Accounts to 2011 will only have £20k final installment from Twaddle deal so if nothing else changed then the loss for 2011 would be £267k compared to the £117k this year. Or maybe the already small playing budget was severly cut to bring this figure down for this season Could possibly explain why Flannigan was the only new player in, Halliwell was a last minute signing and not on much, why McNamara Donnelly and co are on peanuts, Fox playing for next to nothing etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 The HMRC like the bank would have been part of the creditors of £1.7m. So the HMRC were paid from the transfers and the Bank debt reduced from Propco money. The transfer money has to be shown through the revenue account though. So while the revenue account shows a loss of £117k, this was after taking account of one off transfer income of £170k. So the actual loss before this was £287k, which I'm just guessing was the figure quoted in the Express. The Accounts to 2011 will only have £20k final installment from Twaddle deal so if nothing else changed then the loss for 2011 would be £267k compared to the £117k this year. Ok, thanks I think Im getting there now....or am I . So the actual loss (all inclusive) was £117k with the transfers and the HMRC monies owed was inclusive in our total debt...which is why the Propco figures didnt add up (£900k from £1.7m does not leave a debt of £1.1m)? But I assume we usually do pay HMRC every year/month/week and last season was a one off (fortunately transfer fees were paid which allowed us to clear that debt in part with a payment scheme to clear off the difference) so I still fail to see the significance of this part of the discussion. If we usually pay HMRC yet make a loss of more £200k, then last year we pay HMRC but with transfer fees rather than on a regular basis,surely the 2 cancel one another out and the loss of £117k is a genuine one? In addition, we have been told the debt stands at around £700k have we not? See, doesn't add up Am I missing your point? 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.