The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Michael W]

I think we are due a Frank appraisal of the club's finances and the risks here, to be honest. This is a lot of money we're talking but things aren't stacking up. 

1) We've raised £100k through crowdfunding. 

2) 80% of our wage bill covered by furlough.

3) VAT payments were deferred. They will be payable again, but we'll have incurred next to zero since the shutdown. 

4) Bowie's transfer went through (over £100k)

5) we've sold 700 shirts.

6) SPFL prize money paid out and half the Challenge Cup money paid out also.

7) We were eligible for a government grant which we applied for.

Business rates holiday.

9) I was under the impression that Hearta/Partick had a benefactor paying their legal bills for this challenge. If so, why are we needing to pay their legal costs (which will be zero) if we lose at arbitration? 

10) A Raith bulletin had the costs of the court case as £25k. Why did this double to £50k?

Clearly all of our bills didn't stop just because of coronavirus, but it seems to me that our outgoings should be minimal at the moment meanwhile the club has received quite a lot money. Something isn't stacking up for me here and I would rather like to know why the tone has been so downbeat here. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Michael W

[SirJimmyofNic]

11 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I think we are due a Frank appraisal of the club's finances and the risks here, to be honest. This is a lot of money we're talking but things aren't stacking up. 

1) We've raised £100k through crowdfunding. 

2) 80% of our wage bill covered by furlough.

3) VAT payments were deferred. They will be payable again, but we'll have incurred next to zero since the shutdown. 

4) Bowie's transfer went through (over £100k)

5) we've sold 700 shirts.

6) SPFL prize money paid out and half the Challenge Cup money paid out also.

7) We were eligible for a government grant which we applied for.

Business rates holiday.

9) I was under the impression that Hearta/Partick had a benefactor paying their legal bills for this challenge. If so, why are we needing to pay their legal costs (which will be zero) if we lose at arbitration? 

10) A Raith bulletin had the costs of the court case as £25k. Why did this double to £50k?

Clearly all of our bills didn't stop just because of coronavirus, but it seems to me that our outgoings should be minimal at the moment meanwhddaaddaddile the club has received quite a lot money. Something isn't stacking up for me here and I would rather like to know why the tone has been so downbeat here. 

Add to that the player fund for the last few months , must be around 14k

[Skyline Drifter]

9 hours ago, Michael W said:

I think we are due a Frank appraisal of the club's finances and the risks here, to be honest. This is a lot of money we're talking but things aren't stacking up. 

1) We've raised £100k through crowdfunding. 

2) 80% of our wage bill covered by furlough.

3) VAT payments were deferred. They will be payable again, but we'll have incurred next to zero since the shutdown. 

4) Bowie's transfer went through (over £100k)

5) we've sold 700 shirts.

6) SPFL prize money paid out and half the Challenge Cup money paid out also.

7) We were eligible for a government grant which we applied for.

Business rates holiday.

9) I was under the impression that Hearta/Partick had a benefactor paying their legal bills for this challenge. If so, why are we needing to pay their legal costs (which will be zero) if we lose at arbitration? 

10) A Raith bulletin had the costs of the court case as £25k. Why did this double to £50k?

Clearly all of our bills didn't stop just because of coronavirus, but it seems to me that our outgoings should be minimal at the moment meanwhile the club has received quite a lot money. Something isn't stacking up for me here and I would rather like to know why the tone has been so downbeat here. 

A lot of good questions in there to be fair. A couple of comments:

2 - Furlough could have covered ALL of your payroll costs. You are not obliged to pay wages in full. If you chose to do so thats good news for your staff but pretty mental if you are running so close to the edge that a £30k legal bill tips you over the edge. Also not opting to incur that legal bill would also be an option if cash is that tight.

3 - Do you know you definitely deferred vat? Most businesses didnt in my experience. Its not going away so deferring didnt really achieve much unless you truly couldnt pay it, which is unlikely given all the other income you mention.

9 - I think you misunderstood. Or I am misunderstanding you. Nobody is suggesting you may have to pay Hearts costs, though if you did them having a benefactor would be irrelevant. Nor will their costs be zero. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Skyline Drifter]

3 hours ago, Rovers_Lad said:

 

Sure  Anderson would be chuffed if we threw his grant on helping to pay our legal bill.

Anderson doesnt acfually have any say in how you spend his money. Yiou can use it to pay legal bills if you want. The only conditions were that it not be used for payroll and the club prove that it has community engagement. Beyond that you can spend it how you want.

3 hours ago, Michael W said:

It's probably James Anderson that's financing Hearts' legal challenge tbh. 

I presumed it likely and I wouldnt be astonished if he was the one covering Thistle too. The thing I found most surprising is Stranraer werent included.

[stevoraith]

The other thing about the compensation claim is that, even if the clubs affected can prove that the losses they are claiming for are accurate, why should they receive compensation for all of those losses?

 

There is a good chance that Hearts in particular would have been relegated, and therefore incurred those losses anyway, had the season been allowed to finish.

 

So surely the compensation awarded should be proportional to how likely it is that they would have avoided relegation?

So if we say there’s a 30% chance either club stayed up, they should get 30% of the losses they say will be incurred by relegation.

 

Of course the difficulty is coming up with a method of agreeing how likely they were to avoid relegation….

[Michael W]

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

A lot of good questions in there to be fair. A couplr of comments:

2 - Furlough could have covered ALL of your payroll costs. You are not obliged to pay wages in full. If you choss to do so thats good news for your staff but pretty mental if you are funning so close to the ddge that a £30k legal bill tips you over the edge. Also not opting to incur that legal bill would also be an option if cash is that tight.

3 - Do you know you definitely deferred vat? Most businesses didnt in my experience. Its not going away so deferring didnt really achirve much unless you truly couldnt pay it, which is unlikely given all the other income you mention.

9 - I think you misunderstood. Or I am misunderstanding you. Nobody is suggesting you may have to pay Hearts costs, though if you did them having a benefactor would be irrelevant. Nor will their costs be zero. 

 

2) We did choose to pay our players in full. It seems that this was fine previously, but coupled with the court action might be putting us under strain now. 

3) I'm not sure. I think I recall us saying we would, but whether we did in the end I don't know. I agree it doesn't go away, but deferral may have made sense due to uncertainties on when/if the season would end and prize money be paid out. 

9) It's Bill Clark that's suggesting that we'll need to pay Hearts' legal costs if we lose at arbitration, which he estimates will be in the region of £150k and is a factor in whether or not to continue with legal action. We'll have a share of that rather than the full amount, but that would be on top of our own costs and by the sounds of it this would be a massive problem. That's a pity about the costs, but guess I should've expected that. 

[RandomGuy.]

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

The thing I found most surprising is Stranraer werent included.

Surely that's obvious?

Theyve looked doomed all season and have almost no complaints about being relegated, while Partick have legitimate complaints with only being 2pts off 9th.

People seem to misunderstanding Budge, again. Shes not fighting to overturn relegations, shes simply fighting to overturn Hearts relegation. If she gets an option to save Hearts but relegate Partick/Stranraer then she would accept it without blinking. Stranraer are of no use to her here so are left to the wolves.

[Jilted John]

Surely that's obvious?
Theyve looked doomed all season and have almost no complaints about being relegated, while Partick have legitimate complaints with only being 2pts off 9th.
People seem to misunderstanding Budge, again. Shes not fighting to overturn relegations, shes simply fighting to overturn Hearts relegation. If she gets an option to save Hearts but relegate Partick/Stranraer then she would accept it without blinking. Stranraer are of no use to her here so are left to the wolves.

That’s only partly true. Stranraer aren’t involved as they don’t have the cash to take legal action. Partick weren’t going to be included either until one of their fans offered financial support. It was initially going to be Hearts in their own.

[Jilted John]

 
2) We did choose to pay our players in full. It seems that this was fine previously, but coupled with the court action might be putting us under strain now.  

We didn’t pay the players in full. They only got their furlough payments.

[McGuigan1978]

We had no choice but to have legal representation at the Court , due to Fucking Hearts serving papers on us, I hope Budgie gets stuffed this next round 

We definitely had a choice. Appreciate it’s easy to be wise after the event, but the SPFL were essentially fighting the battle for us. We didn’t have to send our own, expensive representatives, and if we hadn’t, we’d still have ended up at the arbitration stage anyway.

[Skyline Drifter]

28 minutes ago, Michael W said:

 

2) We did choose to pay our players in full. It seems that this was fine previously, but coupled with the court action might be putting us under strain now. 

3) I'm not sure. I think I recall us saying we would, but whether we did in the end I don't know. I agree it doesn't go away, but deferral may have made sense due to uncertainties on when/if the season would end and prize money be paid out. 

9) It's Bill Clark that's suggesting that we'll need to pay Hearts' legal costs if we lose at arbitration, which he estimates will be in the region of £150k and is a factor in whether or not to continue with legal action. We'll have a share of that rather than the full amount, but that would be on top of our own costs and by the sounds of it this would be a massive problem. That's a pity about the costs, but guess I should've expected that. 

I know you paid your players in full. I am saying it is absolutely mental to have voluntarily incurred that cost if an unexpected legal bill 3 months later is enough to send you begging for cash. Topping up player wages is something you consider only if you can actually afford it, not when your safety net is so low.

Do you have a link / source for Bill Clark saying you might have to cover Hearts costs  which if a Court didnt order it seems an extraordinary suggestion about arbitration. The club statement linked above certainly doesnt suggest it.

[Skyline Drifter]

17 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Surely that's obvious?

Theyve looked doomed all season and have almost no complaints about being relegated, while Partick have legitimate complaints with only being 2pts off 9th.

People seem to misunderstanding Budge, again. Shes not fighting to overturn relegations, shes simply fighting to overturn Hearts relegation. If she gets an option to save Hearts but relegate Partick/Stranraer then she would accept it without blinking. Stranraer are of no use to her here so are left to the wolves.

This is about principles though in terms of the legal case. How deserving or otherwise doesnt come into it. Its either wrong to relegate on a truncated season when clubs still COULD have escaped or it isnt. Stranraer arent in this case because presumably they thought legal fees incurred would be futile, which was also Thistle's position until someone offered to pay the costs. If that WAS Anderson its surprising he didnt cover Stranraer too. It makes the principled case stronger having a united front.

[Michael W]

17 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I know you paid your players in full. I am saying it is absolutely mental to have voluntarily incurred that cost if an unexpected legal bill 3 months later is enough to send you begging for cash. Topping up player wages is something you consider only if you can actually afford it, not when your safety net is so low.

Do you have a link / source for Bill Clark saying you might have to cover Hearts costs  which if a Court didnt order it seems an extraordinary suggestion about arbitration. The club statement linked above certainly doesnt suggest it.

Yep, it's towards the end of the below:

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2020/07/06/raith-chairman-admits-club-could-have-to-pull-out-of-legal-battle/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Specky Ginger]

2 hours ago, stevoraith said:

 

 

So surely the compensation awarded should be proportional to how likely it is that they would have avoided relegation?

So if we say there’s a 30% chance either club stayed up, they should get 30% of the losses they say will be incurred by relegation.

 

Of course the difficulty is coming up with a method of agreeing how likely they were to avoid relegation….

The method of calculating how likely Hearts, and others, were likely to avoid relegation was average points per game. 

On this basis it was calculated that Hearts and the others were likely to finish bottom. 

Their behaviour through all this is akin to a kid from a posh school, with rich parents, who has pissed about all year, failed their prelims miserably, but is now taking the exam board to court for not awarding them straight As as they were deprived the chance of sitting their actual exams and might have done better than in the prelims. 

 

[Skyline Drifter]

38 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Yep, it's towards the end of the below:

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2020/07/06/raith-chairman-admits-club-could-have-to-pull-out-of-legal-battle/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Thanks. I still think that's an extraordinary suggestion though.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Jilted John said:

 

That’s only partly true. Stranraer aren’t involved as they don’t have the cash to take legal action. Partick weren’t going to be included either until one of their fans offered financial support. It was initially going to be Hearts in their own.

Stranraer have the cash if they wanted to spend it. They made £0.25m from playing Rangers on tv in the Scottish Cup 2 months before lockdown. They CHOSE not to spend it.

The speculation here is whether James Anderson is bankrolling both Hearts and Thistle's action (Thistle never said it was one of their own fans, just that a 3rd party had offered to fund it). My point was that if it is Anderson then I'd have thought he'd have picked up Stranraer too if they wanted to do it. It therefore maybe isn't Anderson.

[Scottydog]

As I understand it.

Legal representation for a QC is about £5,000 per day, so far Raith, Cove and Utd have so far each paid for 3 days of their QCs time. 
I believe this Arbitration panel is to consist of 3 former top legal minds (judge/sheriff/law lord or QC) each chosen from a set list, one appointed by the good guys, one by the Baddies and a middle man.  There is then a QC employed by each side to argue the case.

Hearts and Partick will have a top man on the case and will stand firm, hopefully so will all of the other side. IMO if anyone stood down it could well be perceived as weakening their case.
Costs of the precedings will be around £25k per day (£5k for every legal eagle involved, if the complainants lose they will be faced with relegation and costs for for the case which could reasonably be anything from £25-100k.
If they win then The league and the named clubs will foot the bill for costs and the league will have to make reparation for damages, if that reparation ends up being the full £10M that’s being looked for then it will be big trouble for the SFL and it’s members. For that  last reason alone none of the members of the SFL can afford to toke the view that “it’s the SFL and those other 3 clubs problem, let the, sort it out.”

Reversal of Promotions and Relegations though unlikely can’t be ruled out, the more likely outcome is reparations be made to the complainants, the full £10M is probably unlikely but half or even a quarter would be deeply damaging and the award of costs (unless shared) more so too.

[third lanark]

14 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

As I understand it.

Legal representation for a QC is about £5,000 per day, so far Raith, Cove and Utd have so far each paid for 3 days of their QCs time. 
I believe this Arbitration panel is to consist of 3 former top legal minds (judge/sheriff/law lord or QC) each chosen from a set list, one appointed by the good guys, one by the Baddies and a middle man.  There is then a QC employed by each side to argue the case.

Hearts and Partick will have a top man on the case and will stand firm, hopefully so will all of the other side. IMO if anyone stood down it could well be perceived as weakening their case.
Costs of the precedings will be around £25k per day (£5k for every legal eagle involved, if the complainants lose they will be faced with relegation and costs for for the case which could reasonably be anything from £25-100k.
If they win then The league and the named clubs will foot the bill for costs and the league will have to make reparation for damages, if that reparation ends up being the full £10M that’s being looked for then it will be big trouble for the SFL and it’s members. For that  last reason alone none of the members of the SFL can afford to toke the view that “it’s the SFL and those other 3 clubs problem, let the, sort it out.”

Reversal of Promotions and Relegations though unlikely can’t be ruled out, the more likely outcome is reparations be made to the complainants, the full £10M is probably unlikely but half or even a quarter would be deeply damaging and the award of costs (unless shared) more so too.

Theres not a chance it would come to £10 million, mostly probably £200,000 in Thistles case (we will lose a lot more than that for going down of course, but it would be something i suppose) .  Of course maybe the SPFL could end up axing Doncaster and the saving on his wage could go to the clubs

Dont know what Hearts would get

[Michael W]

Yeah, somewhere between 200k-400k is I think the true "cost" of relegation from Championship to L1, taking into account the reduced crowds and less prize money.  

[Skyline Drifter]

9 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Yeah, somewhere between 200k-400k is I think the true "cost" of relegation from Championship to L1, taking into account the reduced crowds and less prize money.  

I don't think it's as high as that but it will of course inevitably partly depend on who else is in each division and how successful your season is. The difference in crowds between a top 2 season in League 1 and a bottom 2 season in the Championship, certainly for us, probably isn't significant but we don't tend to get especially big away supports here, it may be bigger in central Glasgow. Home supports will turn out to see a successful team and won't for one that loses a lot, the relative division isn't that important. Undeniably there's a prize money drop but it's no more than £100k between the bottom end of one division and the top end of the other. There may be drops in the value of some sponsorship I suppose with less tv exposure but I think the true cost will be certainly below £200k and you also have to factor in that payroll costs are probably lower too at least to some extent, depending on what relegation clauses were in contracts and how many were out of contract.