Lets Do The Math

[Keepitgreen]

To all those who want 'The Board' to 'loosen the purse-strings'....

Please put your money where your mouth is and answer the following 5 questions:

1) How much should a top earner at Easter Road be paid per week?

2) How many players should be paid this amount?

3) How much should a regular starter be paid per week?

4) How much should the average squad player be paid per week?

5) How much should a promising youngster breaking into the first team be paid per week?

Answer these and from there we'll do some working out and see what budget you think we should have, as clearly the current one is too low according to you.

I should explain at this point that I am not trying to defend or attack anyone here. I just get the feeling that a little more, of not a lot, is still not a lot i.e. paying our players 6 grand a week instead of 3, for example, is not going to stop them wanting a move away IMO. The teams that are taking our players are not our competitors, they are the OF and English sides who pay 5,6,7 times as much as us.

Anyway, the Hibs budget. What should it be?

 

[Cantona]

To all those who want 'The Board' to 'loosen the purse-strings'....

Please put your money where your mouth is and answer the following 5 questions:

1) How much should a top earner at Easter Road be paid per week?

2) How many players should be paid this amount?

3) How much should a regular starter be paid per week?

4) How much should the average squad player be paid per week?

5) How much should a promising youngster breaking into the first team be paid per week?

Answer these and from there we'll do some working out and see what budget you think we should have, as clearly the current one is too low according to you.

I should explain at this point that I am not trying to defend or attack anyone here. I just get the feeling that a little more, of not a lot, is still not a lot i.e. paying our players 6 grand a week instead of 3, for example, is not going to stop them wanting a move away IMO. The teams that are taking our players are not our competitors, they are the OF and English sides who pay 5,6,7 times as much as us.

Anyway, the Hibs budget. What should it be?

Bollocks to the budget. We pay peanuts that's why we cannot attract quality players.
Whats the point of having money in the bank and nothing on the park.
Petries suffocating financial restrictions would drive away most managers.
We support a football team not a financial institution. The fans are turned on by goals not balance sheets.

 

[hibadelic]

Are you really expecting everyone to calculate a budget for Hibs here? :gaga:

The problem seems to be that managers are leaving after getting pissed of at having players sold from under them without being able to replace them. If they thought from day one that this would happen they would have no reason for complaint, right?

Money is secondary. As has been said before, we can only afford to pay wages based on our turnover - not including money from player sales. This could probably be raised, but not by a great deal and certainly not enough to attract the great players that people think we'd be able to.

The problem appears (to me anyway) to be one of communication between the board and the manager. I suspect the managers are being told one thing then seeing the opposite happen once they're in the job.

 

[maw588]

You're right, we cannot compete with the teams who take our best players. But we should be able to get the best SPL "journeymen" ahead of Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Motherwell etc. But that hasn't been the case. For example, we have one of the worst defences in the league, Murphy excepted. How is that? Surely we could afford a better defence than ICT.
I also wouldn't say no to raising the bonuses for players - based on achieving goals like qualifying for Europe, getting to cup finals.

 

[Sauzee's Teeth]

I want the board to give a wee bit more money to the manager, whoever it may be.

IMO we need some signings for cover. For example, we could do with an experienced 'keeper to teach Maka & McNeil and keep them on their toes.

Also, we could do with a midfielder and a left back in the summer or in January because we all know that Boozy and Murphy will be leaving if not in January, the n in the summer.

I can't answer your questions TBH because I have no idea what the current top earner is paid or what the accounts look like.

 

[Hampden_Hibby]

Is it no 'maths'?

 

[hibadelic]

Is it no 'maths'?

Arithmetic / accounts really.

 

[Zitellis Heid]

Money willnae buy talent all the time, but will help to keep it.
Open the purse yah tight bastard!

 

[Davy]

Still needs to be free's or cheap signings. If we pay a couple of million for a player his wages will be a fair chunk as well. Better to get the player on a free then pay the 2m as wages. That said few clubs let their players run down their contracts nowadays.

Wonder though how much of a rise it would have taken to keep Killen....maybe they were afraid he would get injured again. More likely to suffer splinters up his rear end this year

 

[-l-i-s-a-]

You're right, we cannot compete with the teams who take our best players. But we should be able to get the best SPL "journeymen" ahead of Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Motherwell etc. But that hasn't been the case. For example, we have one of the worst defences in the league, Murphy excepted. How is that? Surely we could afford a better defence than ICT.I also wouldn't say no to raising the bonuses for players - based on achieving goals like qualifying for Europe, getting to cup finals.

We have conceded less goals than Aberdeen, Inverness, Hearts, Falkirk etc so how do we have the worst defence It would suggest we do have a better defence than Inverness.


Hibs conceded-21
Aberdeen conceded-27
Inverness conceded-30
Hearts conceded-29
Falkirk conceded-34

 

[Zitellis Heid]

Killen`s a wank tae! Hope he gets "Fib `n Tibbed" oaf wee Zoomah.

I`d buy THAT DVD.

 

[Keepitgreen]

Bollocks to the budget. We pay peanuts that's why we cannot attract quality players.
Whats the point of having money in the bank and nothing on the park.
Petries suffocating financial restrictions would drive away most managers.
We support a football team not a financial institution. The fans are turned on by goals not balance sheets.

Money in the bank? I believe its being invested in the club infrastructure and clearing debt so future profits can be spent on the team.

Are you really expecting everyone to calculate a budget for Hibs here? :gaga:

Not everyone, just those calling for 'The Board' to spend more. Why not? If someone can say that they want our budget increased, why not say to how much? You must know what you are asking for surely?

The problem seems to be that managers are leaving after getting pissed of at having players sold from under them without being able to replace them. If they thought from day one that this would happen they would have no reason for complaint, right?

Money is secondary. As has been said before, we can only afford to pay wages based on our turnover - not including money from player sales. This could probably be raised, but not by a great deal and certainly not enough to attract the great players that people think we'd be able to.

The problem appears (to me anyway) to be one of communication between the board and the manager. I suspect the managers are being told one thing then seeing the opposite happen once they're in the job.

Agree with this.

You're right, we cannot compete with the teams who take our best players. But we should be able to get the best SPL "journeymen" ahead of Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Motherwell etc. But that hasn't been the case. For example, we have one of the worst defences in the league, Murphy excepted. How is that? Surely we could afford a better defence than ICT.
I also wouldn't say no to raising the bonuses for players - based on achieving goals like qualifying for Europe, getting to cup finals.

YEs I feel the same about that last part.

As for our defence, we will be paying them as much if not more than any other team. Therefore it's the choice of player thats the problem there

I want the board to give a wee bit more money to the manager, whoever it may be.

IMO we need some signings for cover. For example, we could do with an experienced 'keeper to teach Maka & McNeil and keep them on their toes.

Also, we could do with a midfielder and a left back in the summer or in January because we all know that Boozy and Murphy will be leaving if not in January, the n in the summer.

I can't answer your questions TBH because I have no idea what the current top earner is paid or what the accounts look like.

So you'd like more players as opposed to higher wages. Fair enough.

Is it no 'maths'?

Pedant alert :

Money willnae buy talent all the time, but will help to keep it.
Open the purse yah tight bastard!

This is the kind of stuff I mean dude. What could we have offered Thomson, Brown, Riordan, Caldwell, Killen to stay? Would it ever be enough? I don't think so.

I am trying to move this debate on from people simply posting 'Open the purse yah tight bastard!' and instead get people thinking about the tangible effects increasing our budget by x amount will be.

 

[Kenny]

Is it no 'maths'?

in gorgie its "do the meths"

 

[Hampden_Hibby]

Pedant alert :

See, this is what's wrong with standards today. You're called a pedant for questioning poor use of English.

Mathematics is plural, derived from Aristotle's study 'τα μαθηματικά' which translates as 'all things mathematical'. So the shortened word is still plural - maths. No such thing as a math. It's only big fat Americans that cannae be bothered adding the 's'. By shortening perfectly good words, it gives them more burger chomping time.

 

[Zitellis Heid]

Money in the bank? I believe its being invested in the club infrastructure and clearing debt so future profits can be spent on the team.



Not everyone, just those calling for 'The Board' to spend more. Why not? If someone can say that they want our budget increased, why not say to how much? You must know what you are asking for surely?



Agree with this.



YEs I feel the same about that last part.

As for our defence, we will be paying them as much if not more than any other team. Therefore it's the choice of player thats the problem there



So you'd like more players as opposed to higher wages. Fair enough.



Pedant alert :



This is the kind of stuff I mean dude. What could we have offered Thomson, Brown, Riordan, Caldwell, Killen to stay? Would it ever be enough? I don't think so.
I am trying to move this debate on from people simply posting 'Open the purse yah tight bastard!' and instead get people thinking about the tangible effects increasing our budget by x amount will be.

Them`s dark words dude. So that means nothing will ever change?

If so, and Hibs HAVE won the lottery recently, how do we? How can we step it up?

Or just keep going........being an under-acheiving feeder club?

That`s all we are. :sad

 

[Keepitgreen]

See, this is what's wrong with standards today. You're called a pedant for questioning poor use of English.

Mathematics is plural, derived from Aristotle's study 'τα μαθηματικά' which translates as 'all things mathematical'. So the shortened word is still plural - maths. No such thing as a math. It's only big fat Americans that cannae be bothered adding the 's'. By shortening perfectly good words, it gives them more burger chomping time.

Dude, I called you a pedant because I don't see you correcting anyone elses 'poor use of English' around here. You'd be here all week.

If you don't like the post then state why.

 

[Keepitgreen]

Them`s dark words dude. So that means nothing will ever change?

If so, and Hibs HAVE won the lottery recently, how do we? How can we step it up?

Or just keep going........being an under-acheiving feeder club?

That`s all we are. :sad

Well, for a start, I think the club needs to clear all of our debts. That way, in the future, all of our profits can go on the team instead of interest payments. That'll put the wages up, money for transfers up, and help us compete

Then, I think the club should build our own training centre and invest in the youth academy so we can produce top-quality youngsters. That'll help us compete too

Then, I think we should have a top-notch stadium so that more hibbies can come along with their families and put up our gate receipts. That'll increase profits, allow us to pay more wages, and help us compete

Luckily, I think we are on this path to competing already Nowhere near finished yet but the steps on it are being taken. The patience required for it is a bit of a cunt but put it all together, and we can compete in the future!

Heck we do alright as it is, but imagine how much we'll compete in the seasons ahead! Cannot wait.

 

[Zitellis Heid]

Well, for a start, I think the club needs to clear all of our debts. That way, in the future, all of our profits can go on the team instead of interest payments. That'll put the wages up, money for transfers up, and help us compete

Then, I think the club should build our own training centre and invest in the youth academy so we can produce top-quality youngsters. That'll help us compete too

Then, I think we should have a top-notch stadium so that more hibbies can come along with their families and put up our gate receipts. That'll increase profits, allow us to pay more wages, and help us compete

Luckily, I think we are on this path to competing already Nowhere near finished yet but the steps on it are being taken. The patience required for it is a bit of a cunt but put it all together, and we can compete in the future!

Heck we do alright as it is, but imagine how much we'll compete in the seasons ahead! Cannot wait.

Chairman material you indeed are, got the long term plan all sorted!

Yev`e goat mah vote. Step aside Petrie, yah half-wit.

 

[Keepitgreen]

Chairman material you indeed are, got the long term plan all sorted!

Yev`e goat mah vote. Step aside Petrie, yah half-wit.

I do admit though mate, the board are not getting it all right all the time.

Funds definitely need to be made available in January to whoever comes in. We need strengthening.

 

[Hampden_Hibby]

Dude, I called you a pedant because I don't see you correcting anyone elses 'poor use of English' around here. You'd be here all week.

If you don't like the post then state why.

I do like the post - it's a smashing post. I just think the title should be "Let's do the maths".

 

[Keepitgreen]

I do like the post - it's a smashing post. I just think the title should be "Let's do the maths".

Fair do's. I've fallen victim to an Americanism there. Lesson learnt.

 

[wee 162]

To all those who want 'The Board' to 'loosen the purse-strings'....

Please put your money where your mouth is and answer the following 5 questions:

1) How much should a top earner at Easter Road be paid per week?

2) How many players should be paid this amount?

3) How much should a regular starter be paid per week?

4) How much should the average squad player be paid per week?

5) How much should a promising youngster breaking into the first team be paid per week?

Answer these and from there we'll do some working out and see what budget you think we should have, as clearly the current one is too low according to you.

I should explain at this point that I am not trying to defend or attack anyone here. I just get the feeling that a little more, of not a lot, is still not a lot i.e. paying our players 6 grand a week instead of 3, for example, is not going to stop them wanting a move away IMO. The teams that are taking our players are not our competitors, they are the OF and English sides who pay 5,6,7 times as much as us.

Anyway, the Hibs budget. What should it be?

Gonnae have a wild guess that no-one has answered this up till now...

5 tiers of pay.

Top. Young laddies that have broke through and are looking to get a big move or experienced players here for a wee pay day. Roughly 5k a week. Maximum of 4 or 5 players. 1-1.25m pa.
Next. Young laddies champing at the bit to get up to the top level and first team players brought in to do a job. Wages of 2-3k pw. 7-8 players. 700k-1.2m pa.
Young laddies breaking through, and players to fill a position in the squad. 1-2k. 10-12 players. 1m-2m pa.
Young laddies you tie up in case they do something and assorted dross to fill in. 1k max. 12-15 players. 1m-500k pa.
Youth team players. c500 per week. 20 of them. 400k max.

Total wage bill of 5.6m if every single position is filled at the top of the wage scale. 10m turnover roughly. 56% of all pennies brought in. By us. If costs need to be cut to do it, cut them elsewhere. Get a team on the park taking our money rather than a fecking CEO who cannae keep a fucking manager.

 

[hibadelic]

Total wage bill of 5.6m if every single position is filled at the top of the wage scale. 10m turnover roughly. 56% of all pennies brought in. By us. If costs need to be cut to do it, cut them elsewhere. Get a team on the park taking our money rather than a fecking CEO who cannae keep a fucking manager.

Not totally sure but don't you have to add the wage bill of groundsmen, phisios, stadium staff, admin, board members etc. too? (for the magical 50-60% of turnover figure that gets banded around) I wonder what sort of player we could get instead of Petrie?

I presume you're including bonuses etc. in the wages?

 

[Keepitgreen]

Gonnae have a wild guess that no-one has answered this up till now...

5 tiers of pay.

Top. Young laddies that have broke through and are looking to get a big move or experienced players here for a wee pay day. Roughly 5k a week. Maximum of 4 or 5 players. 1-1.25m pa.
Next. Young laddies champing at the bit to get up to the top level and first team players brought in to do a job. Wages of 2-3k pw. 7-8 players. 700k-1.2m pa.
Young laddies breaking through, and players to fill a position in the squad. 1-2k. 10-12 players. 1m-2m pa.
Young laddies you tie up in case they do something and assorted dross to fill in. 1k max. 12-15 players. 1m-500k pa.
Youth team players. c500 per week. 20 of them. 400k max.

Total wage bill of 5.6m if every single position is filled at the top of the wage scale. 10m turnover roughly. 56% of all pennies brought in. By us. If costs need to be cut to do it, cut them elsewhere. Get a team on the park taking our money rather than a fecking CEO who cannae keep a fucking manager.

Out of the hundreds of 'board-sackers' on here, the only poster to give this a go :worthy

That adds up to a total squad of between 33 and 40 players - if we give or take the fact that they won't all be on the top of their scale then I think we can factor in the staff costs and still be around your 5.6 million figure. Call it 6 Million tops.

All in all I can't argue with this dude. I like the sound of 4 top earners - these could be the spine of the team and would be the players the rest aspire to. All the other levels sound good and sound like they'd compete with anyone else in the SPL outside the smelly 3.

So, how far away are we as a club from this kind of budget? Also, how does it compare with the budgets of our competitors in the SPL?

I'd now like to call on the stattos who keep track of such things to see what the comparison is. Please could someone tell me what our total wage bill was last season?

I know it will have increased this year but we won't have that info yet I'm guessing. I just want to get a general idea of how far away we are from a scenario like the one above.

Does anyone else have the inclination to say what the budget should be? Go on, be constructive. I dare ye.

 

[dangerousdavid]

Bollocks to the budget. We pay peanuts that's why we cannot attract quality players.
Whats the point of having money in the bank and nothing on the park.
Petries suffocating financial restrictions would drive away most managers.
We support a football team not a financial institution. The fans are turned on by goals not balance sheets.

A friend of mine loves the phrase "You pay peanuts, you get monkey's"

Valid point I think

 

[Doc Shrink]

A friend of mine loves the phrase "You pay peanuts, you get monkey's"

Valid point I think

The point may be valid, but as I'm sure Hampden Hibby would point out, the apostrophe is not.



:smug:

 

[vasco de gama]

Gonnae have a wild guess that no-one has answered this up till now...

5 tiers of pay.

Top. Young laddies that have broke through and are looking to get a big move or experienced players here for a wee pay day. Roughly 5k a week. Maximum of 4 or 5 players. 1-1.25m pa.
Next. Young laddies champing at the bit to get up to the top level and first team players brought in to do a job. Wages of 2-3k pw. 7-8 players. 700k-1.2m pa.
Young laddies breaking through, and players to fill a position in the squad. 1-2k. 10-12 players. 1m-2m pa.
Young laddies you tie up in case they do something and assorted dross to fill in. 1k max. 12-15 players. 1m-500k pa.
Youth team players. c500 per week. 20 of them. 400k max.

Total wage bill of 5.6m if every single position is filled at the top of the wage scale. 10m turnover roughly. 56% of all pennies brought in. By us. If costs need to be cut to do it, cut them elsewhere. Get a team on the park taking our money rather than a fecking CEO who cannae keep a fucking manager.

Sounds good, but what about bonuses? The only evidence about bonuses I have is the payslip of that Liverpool player that was posted on interweb but bonuses seemed pretty heafty on top of weekly wage.

Personally I think most bonuses sound like a load a shite - appearance bonus, win bonus, scoring bonus - what poo, thats what they are paid a wage for in the first place. Bonuses should only be for exceptional events - winning the cup, league, maybe a place in europe.

 

[Dub]

To all those who want 'The Board' to 'loosen the purse-strings'....

Please put your money where your mouth is and answer the following 5 questions:

1) How much should a top earner at Easter Road be paid per week?

2) How many players should be paid this amount?

3) How much should a regular starter be paid per week?

4) How much should the average squad player be paid per week?

5) How much should a promising youngster breaking into the first team be paid per week?

Answer these and from there we'll do some working out and see what budget you think we should have, as clearly the current one is too low according to you.

I should explain at this point that I am not trying to defend or attack anyone here. I just get the feeling that a little more, of not a lot, is still not a lot i.e. paying our players 6 grand a week instead of 3, for example, is not going to stop them wanting a move away IMO. The teams that are taking our players are not our competitors, they are the OF and English sides who pay 5,6,7 times as much as us.

Anyway, the Hibs budget. What should it be?

Are they not our competitors Last time I looked they were in the same league as us.

See, this is what's wrong with standards today. You're called a pedant for questioning poor use of English.

Mathematics is plural, derived from Aristotle's study 'τα μαθηματικά' which translates as 'all things mathematical'. So the shortened word is still plural - maths. No such thing as a math. It's only big fat Americans that cannae be bothered adding the 's'. By shortening perfectly good words, it gives them more burger chomping time.

Right well thats the septics categorised nicely

The point may be valid, but as I'm sure Hampden Hibby would point out, the apostrophe is not.

pedant



:smug:

 

[Keepitgreen]

Are they not our competitors Last time I looked they were in the same league as us.

Aw Dub come on man gimme a break.

Anything constructive?

 

[Keepitgreen]

The point may be valid, but as I'm sure Hampden Hibby would point out, the apostrophe is not.



:smug:

 

[Dub]

Aw Dub come on man gimme a break.

Anything constructive?

I'll just go along with Als post. I didnt read it thoroughly but I will and even unread I am sure it will be thoughtful and well laid out, hopefully theres a sting in the tail.

 

[Keepitgreen]

I'll just go along with Als post. I didnt read it thoroughly but I will and even unread I am sure it will be thoughtful and well laid out, hopefully theres a sting in the tail.

Aye ok then

 

[Dub]

Aye ok then

I've read it now and I do agree with Wee162 on the pay scale. Espesh the bit about cutting costs elsewhere IE in the stands rather than on the park.

Pretty much makes a lot of sense dont you think and it would help us keep our players.

 

[Stanton Warrior]

I'd now like to call on the stattos who keep track of such things to see what the comparison is. Please could someone tell me what our total wage bill was last season?
.

I'm enjoying this thread.

I'm not a stato but searched this out of the fishy site from this years AGM reports

- Staff costs for the year were 3.7m (2004-05: 3.3m) an increase of 0.4m (11%) on the previous year

- The Ratio of Staff Costs to Turnover was 42% (2004-05: 46%). With the increase in staff costs during the year the reduction in the ratio was due to the much larger increase in turnover.

As for the point above about bonuses i haven't a clue where to start with that. How much do we pay at the moment?

 

[westsidehibs]

Bollocks to the budget. We pay peanuts that's why we cannot attract quality players.
Whats the point of having money in the bank and nothing on the park.
Petries suffocating financial restrictions would drive away most managers.
We support a football team not a financial institution. The fans are turned on by goals not balance sheets.

unless your a member of hibs net:laff:

 

[Cavalier]

unless your a member of hibs net:laff:

That'll be a ban for you then!

 

[westsidehibs]

That'll be a ban for you then!

:smug:

 

[Keepitgreen]

I'm enjoying this thread.

I'm not a stato but searched this out of the fishy site from this years AGM reports

- Staff costs for the year were 3.7m (2004-05: 3.3m) an increase of 0.4m (11%) on the previous year

- The Ratio of Staff Costs to Turnover was 42% (2004-05: 46%). With the increase in staff costs during the year the reduction in the ratio was due to the much larger increase in turnover.

As for the point above about bonuses i haven't a clue where to start with that. How much do we pay at the moment?

Thanks for digging those stats out SW What's happened to all the stattos that are around when we are criticising the board? It's a pity we only have the 2005/6 records to go on, would have liked last seasons figures. Anyway...

Based on those figures, we will assume that the budget will have increased year on year by the same %age (11%); making the budget around 4.7M for this year?

So, we are roughly 1.3M away from the desired budget outlined by Wee162 above - I rounded it up to 6M to include staff costs. To reach this it would mean a %age increase for next year by around 28%, instead of 11%. A sizeable increase but not an outlandish one by any standards I reckon.

(In fact, if we stick to the same %age increase of 11%, as the board most likely will, the budget will go up to around 5.3M anyway... That's not too far away from our proposed total above! Food for thought surely:hmmm)

All of this is based on that turnover still remaining at 10M - is that sustainable, or did the 05-06 figures get skewed by transfers? That's an important point. I hope it's gone up. In fact, I'd imagine it will have, as we're not paying out so much on debt any more, we have increased crowds and we had good cup runs...

For my input, I'd also propose a reward system where any prize money the club receives from cup competitions and league placings is pooled and shared between the players and management only. This is where the bonus money would come from essentially. The players would create their own financial success. I agree with the previous poster about appareance money etc. Feck that. We'll give you more if you deserve it.

So, to summarise: If we continue with the playing budget rising as it has been, in accordance with our turnover and the %age increase chosen by the board, in 2 seasons time we will be able to pay the wages outlined by Wee162 above:

Top earners on 5 grand, starters on 2-3 grand, others on 1-2 grand, with youngsters on 500 to a grand.

I do not think there are clubs in the SPL paying higher than this outside the OF and Gunts. In the absence of figures from the other clubs I cannot be 100% certain of course but then which clubs have a higher turnover than us?

Those calling for the board to spend more than they are, are asking for wages higher than this. What would be the point of that? It would bring no material benefit if we are already paying the highest - it would only see our money disappear faster and reduce the amount available for transfer fees.

I'll say it again; I am not saying everything the board are doing is right. What I am saying, is that they are not doing everything wrong. They are trying to run a football club prudently and within its means so that we can go on and get bigger and better in the long term future. Why? Because that is their job. They do not have any secret ulterior motives, they don't get to keep any profits, they just earn a wage for making sure Hibernian Football Club advances and competes on the park.

Yes it is frustrating at times and yes they make mistakes but overall I am genuinely happy with our club at the moment as our future is only looking bright. With all the debt gone, the training centre built, our stadium done, all future profits will be spent on the team. There is nowhere else for the money to be spent now!

Yes, I could do with a couple of signings, especially if we need to replace the players wanting away. That's a point btw. Players have wanted away from Hibs throughout our history; at least we are getting top dollar these days instead of being screwed. Why is that? Because clubs know that we are not in the shit any more. We are not desperate for any little sum of money any more. You want our player? Pay what he's worth. We are a rich club now you cunts. 'The Board' have helped us into that position. It's feckin great.

Onwards and upwards

 

[Stanton Warrior]

Crackin post keepitgreen! Making me more optimistic in a trying time.

Roll on the new year with a new manager installed and the club in it's strongest position in my lifetime:YAYYY:

 

[wee 162]

Thanks for digging those stats out SW What's happened to all the stattos that are around when we are criticising the board? It's a pity we only have the 2005/6 records to go on, would have liked last seasons figures. Anyway...

Based on those figures, we will assume that the budget will have increased year on year by the same %age (11%); making the budget around 4.7M for this year?

So, we are roughly 1.3M away from the desired budget outlined by Wee162 above - I rounded it up to 6M to include staff costs. To reach this it would mean a %age increase for next year by around 28%, instead of 11%. A sizeable increase but not an outlandish one by any standards I reckon.

(In fact, if we stick to the same %age increase of 11%, as the board most likely will, the budget will go up to around 5.3M anyway... That's not too far away from our proposed total above! Food for thought surely:hmmm)

All of this is based on that turnover still remaining at 10M - is that sustainable, or did the 05-06 figures get skewed by transfers? That's an important point. I hope it's gone up. In fact, I'd imagine it will have, as we're not paying out so much on debt any more, we have increased crowds and we had good cup runs...

For my input, I'd also propose a reward system where any prize money the club receives from cup competitions and league placings is pooled and shared between the players and management only. This is where the bonus money would come from essentially. The players would create their own financial success. I agree with the previous poster about appareance money etc. Feck that. We'll give you more if you deserve it.

So, to summarise: If we continue with the playing budget rising as it has been, in accordance with our turnover and the %age increase chosen by the board, in 2 seasons time we will be able to pay the wages outlined by Wee162 above:

Top earners on 5 grand, starters on 2-3 grand, others on 1-2 grand, with youngsters on 500 to a grand.

I do not think there are clubs in the SPL paying higher than this outside the OF and Gunts. In the absence of figures from the other clubs I cannot be 100% certain of course but then which clubs have a higher turnover than us?

Those calling for the board to spend more than they are, are asking for wages higher than this. What would be the point of that? It would bring no material benefit if we are already paying the highest - it would only see our money disappear faster and reduce the amount available for transfer fees.

I'll say it again; I am not saying everything the board are doing is right. What I am saying, is that they are not doing everything wrong. They are trying to run a football club prudently and within its means so that we can go on and get bigger and better in the long term future. Why? Because that is their job. They do not have any secret ulterior motives, they don't get to keep any profits, they just earn a wage for making sure Hibernian Football Club advances and competes on the park.

Yes it is frustrating at times and yes they make mistakes but overall I am genuinely happy with our club at the moment as our future is only looking bright. With all the debt gone, the training centre built, our stadium done, all future profits will be spent on the team. There is nowhere else for the money to be spent now!

Yes, I could do with a couple of signings, especially if we need to replace the players wanting away. That's a point btw. Players have wanted away from Hibs throughout our history; at least we are getting top dollar these days instead of being screwed. Why is that? Because clubs know that we are not in the shit any more. We are not desperate for any little sum of money any more. You want our player? Pay what he's worth. We are a rich club now you cunts. 'The Board' have helped us into that position. It's feckin great.

Onwards and upwards

Turnover is pretty much always before transfer dealings. Last years turnover was c.10m which obviously got a boost from the LC win and final.