The Famous Aberdeen - Season 2022/23

[Frank Grimes]

1) Vincent has never seen a woman naked 

[Squonk]

12 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

If we are ever in a loss making position Cormack has said him and his friends will cover them. 

A sustainable business model is one where the club can stand on its own feet rather than rely on funds from benefactors.

Vinnie G going all out to obtain his Tact & Diplomacy degree before hitting high school has been a fun read. To be fair, HarleyQuinn's above contradiction evens things up a bit. 

[shuggz]

2 hours ago, coprolite said:

On this day in History-

30 years ago 21 November 1992

Dons v Partick in Glasgow. Dons 2-0 up after 56 minutes when the match was abandoned due to snow obscuring the lines (for younger viewers, snow is a type of frozen rain). 

According to afcheritage the groundsman tried to clear it at half time but "he only had one brush and the head kept coming off it. 

Despite the anti Dons conspiracy, Aberdeen went on to win the rearranged fixture a few days later 7-0.

And beat Hearts 6-2 a few days later.

[AJF]

9 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

1) My goodness. Were you not just banging on about sustainability? Are you seriously suggesting Aberdeen's sustainability is losing a hundred grand a week and hoping to sell players to make up the losses? Honestly...

2) No, he hasn't. He's said he'll sustain it to a point. Again, you are losing a hundred grand a week. That is Aberdeen's operating status at the moment. What if Miovski breaks his leg and Duk does his ACL? Is this really the model you think Aberdeen are striving for? If so, I'd suggest you'll be alone in believing that.

3) This is the road to ruin. Have you just not been paying attention to fitba for the past 20 years? What if he stops scoring or breaks his leg? Leeds thought they'd be fine as long as they kept qualifying for the Champions League. And that was fine, until they didn't... And Hearts don't need to sell our best players to plug gaps, as we have a completed stadium with almost 16,000 ST holders and the money from group stage football in Europe. I mean, seriously, stop and read your own words.

4) What we have established here is that you are choosing to assume Aberdeen will keep selling players for millions of pounds. That's it. There is no other plan. You're basically just hoping to keep winning the lottery. It's financial insanity.

I can see where you are coming from with some of your points, but surely investing (over-investing you might want to call it) into recruitment and player development is generally one of the more logical paths to sustainability?

If they are in a position where any current losses are being covered by shareholders while they invest, then if they do things right, it'll come to a point where they have talented players on their books that improve on-field performances that they can then sell on at a profit. You then plan to repeat that process by investing that money you raise.

It's obviously a difficult thing to get right, otherwise every team would be doing it. But if that's the model they are aiming for and they are confident of achieving it then it's hardly a controversial route to go down.

[VincentGuerin]

12 minutes ago, AJF said:

I can see where you are coming from with some of your points, but surely investing (over-investing you might want to call it) into recruitment and player development is generally one of the more logical paths to sustainability?

If they are in a position where any current losses are being covered by shareholders while they invest, then if they do things right, it'll come to a point where they have talented players on their books that improve on-field performances that they can then sell on at a profit. You then plan to repeat that process by investing that money you raise.

It's obviously a difficult thing to get right, otherwise every team would be doing it. But if that's the model they are aiming for and they are confident of achieving it then it's hardly a controversial route to go down.

They may get away with it, but I'd be very wary of my club being run this way.

I think the issue is that Aberdeen's strategy seems to be based on the success of clubs who operate in a completely different context. You can build scarcity for tickets and charge through the nose if you are Brentford and play in a big league and have the world's biggest clubs visiting. Not so much if you play in the Scottish Premiership. As I posted last week, Aberdeen would need to be charging about 700 quid for their top STs and over 500 quid for their Cat B season ticket this season to match Hearts' ST revenue if they had a 16,000 capacity stadium, based on Hearts' current prices. Do you reckon Aberdeen could sell many at 700 quid? Their prices will have to go up massively.

Similarly, you can speculate on making money from transfers if you have a safety net. We've seen Celtic do this with their European money (and huge ST revenues), and we've seen clubs that operate in bigger leagues who can rely on huge tv deals and parachute payments etc do it. Aberdeen don't have these things and are basically betting their future on playing the market. Anyone who knows anything about fitba can tell you that's risky.

And as for the stadium, well... Despite the baseless optimism of the likes of HQ on this thread, there are clearly big red flags (no pun intended) around Aberdeen's finances at the moment.

Edited November 21, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[AJF]

4 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

They may get away with it, but I'd be very wary of my club being run this way.

I think the issue is that Aberdeen's strategy seems to be based on the success of clubs who operate in a completely different context. You can build scarcity for tickets and charge through the nose if you play in a big league and have the world's biggest clubs visiting. Not so much if you play in the Scottish Premiership. As I posted last week, Aberdeen would need to be charging about 700 quid for their top STs and over 500 quid for their Cat B season ticket this season to match Hearts' ST revenue if they had a 16,000 capacity stadium, based on Hearts' current prices. Do you reckon Aberdeen could sell many at 700 quid? Their prices will have to go up massively.

Similarly, you can speculate on making money from transfers if you have a safety net. We've seen Celtic do this with their European money (and huge ST revenues), and we've seen clubs that operate in bigger leagues who can rely on huge tv deals and parachute payments etc do it. Aberdeen don't have these things and are basically betting their future on playing the market. Anyone who knows anything about fitba can tell you that's risky.

And as for the stadium, well... Despite the baseless optimism of the likes of HQ on this thread, there are clearly big red flags (no pun intended) around Aberdeen's finances at the moment.

Every strategy has a risk attached to it. If you are suggesting that it is too risky for Aberdeen to attempt to become sufficient and grow by investing in the main assets (the players) who dictate how well the club performs on the pitch, then what is the alternative that you would deem more appropriate?

You've already mentioned that the benefactor money that Hearts get is budgeted for. Why should this be viewed any differently from shareholder investment covering any initial losses until they are in a sustainable position?

[VincentGuerin]

10 minutes ago, AJF said:

Every strategy has a risk attached to it. If you are suggesting that it is too risky for Aberdeen to attempt to become sufficient and grow by investing in the main assets (the players) who dictate how well the club performs on the pitch, then what is the alternative that you would deem more appropriate?

You've already mentioned that the benefactor money that Hearts get is budgeted for. Why should this be viewed any differently from shareholder investment covering any initial losses until they are in a sustainable position?

I think there's a significant difference. As I mentioned above, Hearts are like a young couple with two good incomes but who also have rich parents willing to help them out with the house deposit. You don't need the help, but you'll certainly take it. It's something Hearts are lucky to have. Cormack is apparently willing to lose a wee bit short-term. But five million a year? And where does the business improvement come from? Again, not even on the stadium issue yet.

What Aberdeen are doing is losing eye-watering amounts of money while basically hoping to cover it with transfer fees. That's not a strategy, that's a Hail Mary. Bringing in the kind of fees Aberdeen have recently should be putting them at a real advantage. It should be going towards really growing the club, but they won't even cover the last two years' losses. Their record sale doesn't cover their operating loss for this year. How many record sales are they going to need in successive years? I mean, where else does the improvement in Aberdeen's finances come from?

Selling players is great. I'd like to see Hearts do it better. But it's not a replacement for being run well as a business strategy. You simply can't bank on it. Signings sometimes don't work out, injuries happen etc. Aberdeen don't have tv revenue etc to make up for that, and they don't have the ST base to bank on.

Edited November 21, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[AJF]

8 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think there's a significant difference. As I mentioned above, Hearts are like a young couple with two good incomes but who also have rich parents willing to help them out with the house deposit. You don't need the help, but you'll certainly take it. It's something Hearts are lucky to have. Cormack is apparently willing to lose a wee bit short-term. But five million a year? And where does the business improvement come from? Again, not even on the stadium issue yet.

What Aberdeen are doing is losing eye-watering amounts of money while basically hoping to cover it with transfer fees. That's not a strategy, that's a Hail Mary. Bringing in the kind of fees Aberdeen have recently should be putting them at a real advantage. It should be going towards really growing the club, but they won't even cover the last two years' losses. Their record sale doesn't cover their operating loss for this year. How many record sales are they going to need in successive years? I mean, where else does the improvement in Aberdeen's finances come from?

Selling players is great. I'd like to see Hearts do it better. But it's not a replacement for being run well as a business strategy. You simply can't bank on it. Signings sometimes don't work out, injuries happen etc. Aberdeen don't have tv revenue etc to make up for that, and they don't have the ST base to bank on.

And I asked you what an alternative to what Aberdeen are doing could be. If there is a strategy out there that will help them build the the team and grow sustainably that carries no risk, what is it? Every strategy has a risk attached.

Your house deposit analogy is also flawed given that it is reliant on your benefactor pumping money in year upon year as well. How long will that happen? And when it dries up, Hearts will need to tighten their purse-strings accordinly unless they adopt another method to cover the shortfall and allow growth, which will no doubt come down to options including shareholder investment and investing in players to increase their profitability.

You could also argue that Aberdeen's model has seen relative success thus far given that they have sold 2 of their best players in the summer yet find themselves above Hearts in the table.

[VincentGuerin]

15 minutes ago, AJF said:

And I asked you what an alternative to what Aberdeen are doing could be. If there is a strategy out there that will help them build the the team and grow sustainably that carries no risk, what is it? Every strategy has a risk attached.

Your house deposit analogy is also flawed given that it is reliant on your benefactor pumping money in year upon year as well. How long will that happen? And when it dries up, Hearts will need to tighten their purse-strings accordinly unless they adopt another method to cover the shortfall and allow growth, which will no doubt come down to options including shareholder investment and investing in players to increase their profitability.

You could also argue that Aberdeen's model has seen relative success thus far given that they have sold 2 of their best players in the summer yet find themselves above Hearts in the table.

If you think that a team outwith the Old Firm basically playing the speculate to accumulate game while racking up huge losses is a sound strategy, then I can only assume you've not paid any attention to Scottish football since the mid-nineties.

And, we keep coming back to this, Hearts are not reliant on money year after year from Anderson. He's committed to a couple of years at least of more funding and Hearts are spending money he has committed to the club. A lot of it goes on the women's team, Hearts' charitable work, and expect to see a good chunk of it going towards the hotel project. None of this is anything we need to worry about or be in much doubt about. It's not the kind of spending Hearts will need to make every year.

Where Aberdeen are going is far less certain. Hearts would have hoped to sell Baningime this coming summer, for example, and would have expected a decent transfer fee for him. But he got a really bad injury, and there's very little chance he'll be sold for what
Hearts would have expected this summer. Similarly, Souttar's injuries followed by his decision to run down his deal cost us a lot in terms of potential transfer money. Financially, that's no problem for Hearts. However, with the model Aberdeen have, that kind of thing scuppers their entire 'idea'.

And the main worry for Aberdeen is the stadium. It's really simple, clubs need to make money from their stadiums at our level, and Aberdeen's is a financial black hole with absolutely no sign of how they get out of this. I'm not sure their fans have thought through the implications of not owning where they go next. How do they make money from a small stadium they don't own, which they have to charge through the nose to get into? The simple answer is, they don't.

It's very easy to see a long-term decline for Aberdeen from here. Basically, their financial plan is to hope absolutely everything goes right. That never happens.

Edited November 21, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[AJF]

9 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

If you think that a team outwith the Old Firm basically playing the speculate to accumulate game while racking up huge losses is a sound strategy, then I can only assume you've not paid any attention to Scottish football since the mid-nineties.

And, we keep coming back to this, Hearts are not reliant on money year after year from Anderson. He's committed to a couple of years at least of more funding and Hearts are spending money he has committed to the club. A lot of it goes on the women's team, Hearts' charitable work, and expect to see a good chunk of it going towards the hotel project. None of this is anything we need to worry about or be in much doubt about. It's not the kind of spending Hearts will need to make every year.

Where Aberdeen are going is far less certain. Hearts would have hoped to sell Baningime this coming summer, for example, and would have expected a decent transfer fee for him. But he got a really bad injury, and there's very little chance he'll be sold for what
Hearts would have expected this summer. Similarly, Souttar's injuries followed by his decision to run down his deal cost us a lot in terms of potential transfer money. Financially, that's no problem for Hearts. However, with the model Aberdeen have, that kind of thing scuppers their entire 'idea'.

And the main worry for Aberdeen is the stadium. It's really simple, clubs need to make money from their stadiums at our level, and Aberdeen's is a financial black hole with absolutely no sign of how they get out of this. I'm not sure their fans have thought through the implications of not owning where they go next. How do they make money from a small stadium they don't own, which they have to charge through the nose to get into? The simple answer is, they don't.

It's very easy to see a long-term decline for Aberdeen from here. Basically, their financial plan is to hope absolutely everything goes right. That never happens.

But you are under the impression that these losses will continue. If Aberdeen get it right (and in the summer they did) then they will be in a position where expected player sales put them in a positive position. You then also need to consider that the shareholders have committed to covering those losses it reduces the risk significantly.

Then, regardless as to what Anderson's money is used for, when that stops, Hearts will need to either reduce those outgoings or come up with a different strategy to cover that gap. So they will either need to reduce the amount the invest in their women's team, charitable work and hotel project.

Again, I'm not really disputing a lot of what you are saying regarding the risks attached to the strategy and their stadium, but you seem to have already made your mind up that Aberdeen's model is doomed to fail when you could argue it is already proving to have shown some effectiveness given the recent transfer fees received and their current position in the league as a result of investing that money in the playing squad. As mentioned by others, that improved performance will no doubt see them scoop more SPFL prize money, increase the value of their players and possibly have a crack at Europe next season.

And again, you've not said what you believe to be a better strategy. Without a benefactor or donations, what other risk-free options are out there?

[Frank Grimes]

In other news looking at Hampden ticket sales online it appears we’ve sold 16,000 tickets for the semi already which is pretty good going considering they’ve only just gone on sale 

[VincentGuerin]

4 minutes ago, AJF said:

But you are under the impression that these losses will continue. If Aberdeen get it right (and in the summer they did) then they will be in a position where expected player sales put them in a positive position. You then also need to consider that the shareholders have committed to covering those losses it reduces the risk significantly.

Then, regardless as to what Anderson's money is used for, when that stops, Hearts will need to either reduce those outgoings or come up with a different strategy to cover that gap. So they will either need to reduce the amount the invest in their women's team, charitable work and hotel project.

Again, I'm not really disputing a lot of what you are saying regarding the risks attached to the strategy and their stadium, but you seem to have already made your mind up that Aberdeen's model is doomed to fail when you could argue it is already proving to have shown some effectiveness given the recent transfer fees received and their current position in the league as a result of investing that money in the playing squad. As mentioned by others, that improved performance will no doubt see them scoop more SPFL prize money, increase the value of their players and possibly have a crack at Europe next season.

And again, you've not said what you believe to be a better strategy. Without a benefactor or donations, what other risk-free options are out there?

Starting to go in circles here, but I think a better strategy would be spending appropriately to avoid the situation where your operating losses are a hundred grand a week. I don't see what's controversial about that.

The point isn't that Aberdeen's sales won't help them. Of course they will. The point is that Aberdeen won't really benefit from them, as their operating model means they're basically just using them to cover losses. And those losses don't seem likely to stop, since they've almost certainly increased spending on their team in the current accounting year.

It's not a difficult concept. What happens to Aberdeen if they don't get group stage football next season and, for whatever reason, can't/don't sell Miovski and Duk for what they expect? And if they do sell them, what if the replacements don't do the biz? Or get injured, etc? It's so obviously a flawed model for a Scottish Premiership side, as we have seen repeatedly.

[AJF]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

Starting to go in circles here, but I think a better strategy would be spending appropriately to avoid the situation where your operating losses are a hundred grand a week. I don't see what's controversial about that.

The point isn't that Aberdeen's sales won't help them. Of course they will. The point is that Aberdeen won't really benefit from them, as their operating model means they're basically just using them to cover losses. And those losses don't seem likely to stop, since they've almost certainly increased spending on their team in the current accounting year.

It's not a difficult concept. What happens to Aberdeen if they don't get group stage football next season and, for whatever reason, can't/don't sell Miovski and Duk for what they expect? And if they do sell them, what if the replacements don't do the biz? Or get injured, etc? It's so obviously a flawed model for a Scottish Premiership side, as we have seen repeatedly.

Of course they will benefit from the sales if they are reinvesting the money into the playing squad. That increased spending on their team has seen them overtake Hearts (as it stands) and they are in a much better position compared to last season. That also doesn't take into account that they will likely bank more of the summer sales than they will pay out.

What happens if they don't get group stage football or sell an asset or two? Then the shareholders cover the losses as they've seemingly committed to doing. If they then decide they can't continue this, they adjust their spending accordingly, similarly to what Hearts will need to do if/when Anderson's money dries up.

Additionally, the whole point of investing in your recruitment department and increasing player costs is to minimise the risk that any replacements don't do the business. There will always be a chance of them failing, but the more you spend on it, the lower that risk becomes.

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, AJF said:

Of course they will benefit from the sales if they are reinvesting the money into the playing squad. That increased spending on their team has seen them overtake Hearts (as it stands) and they are in a much better position compared to last season. That also doesn't take into account that they will likely bank more of the summer sales than they will pay out.

What happens if they don't get group stage football or sell an asset or two? Then the shareholders cover the losses as they've seemingly committed to doing. If they then decide they can't continue this, they adjust their spending accordingly, similarly to what Hearts will need to do if/when Anderson's money dries up.

Additionally, the whole point of investing in your recruitment department and increasing player costs is to minimise the risk that any replacements don't do the business. There will always be a chance of them failing, but the more you spend on it, the lower that risk becomes.

1) It hasn't really. They've just had easier fixtures than us so far, with less congestion and fewer injuries. The bookies seem pretty sure they'll end up behind Hearts this season.

2) This is a Scottish fitba tale as old as the hills. It's fine as long as we qualify for the CL/win the league/ sell players for loads of money. It rarely ends well. For a club racking up huge losses and with a stadium catastrophe looming, it's a mad thing to defend.

[Sheep62]

10 minutes ago, Frank Grimes said:

In other news looking at Hampden ticket sales online it appears we’ve sold 16,000 tickets for the semi already which is pretty good going considering they’ve only just gone on sale 

Stop it Frank

No place for good news in this thread right now

Frankly Vinny has all but bored me into accepting we're fucked

[VincentGuerin]

10 minutes ago, Sheep62 said:

Stop it Frank

No place for good news in this thread right now

Frankly Vinny has all but bored me into accepting we're fucked

I'm not saying you're necessarily fucked, but there's certainly cause for concern. Similar to how the alarm bells with Rangers were ignored for years, it seems strange to me that Aberdeen's finances seem to escape the attention of the media. Same with Dundee United. It's a failing of our Old Firm centred media, but it's much healthier for these things to be discussed and for clubs to properly be held to account. For different reasons you could say the same about clubs like Queens Park, Clyde.

Nobody seems interested in doing so. Clubs get to just fire out their own PR, and, as we see on this thread, fans are happy to just not challenge them on it.

Edited November 21, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[coprolite]

14 minutes ago, Frank Grimes said:

In other news looking at Hampden ticket sales online it appears we’ve sold 16,000 tickets for the semi already which is pretty good going considering they’ve only just gone on sale 

What’s our record like against Murty?

[lubo_blaha]

So much of a blip that it's err... your second five million loss in a row.
---disnae ken what 'blip' means, imo ---

It’s incredible that a football club made a loss in a season where their supporters weren’t allowed to attend games.

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, lubo_blaha said:

It’s incredible that a football club made a loss in a season where their supporters weren’t allowed to attend games.

Ten million quid over two years?

As I said, you keep on happy clapping. I don't understand this slavish need to defend a board doing a bad job. Every Scottish club that's ended up in trouble has had this stage. Obious warning signs, but supporters criticising people who point them out.

Amazing that you've watched so many other clubs get into bother, but now are just happy to take the club's PR when there are issues staring you in the face.

[AJF]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

1) It hasn't really. They've just had easier fixtures than us so far, with less congestion and fewer injuries. The bookies seem pretty sure they'll end up behind Hearts this season.

2) This is a Scottish fitba tale as old as the hills. It's fine as long as we qualify for the CL/win the league/ sell players for loads of money. It rarely ends well. For a club racking up huge losses and with a stadium catastrophe looming, it's a mad thing to defend.

You also forgot to add that it's fine if shareholders are able to cover the losses. You seem to be constantly ignoring that key point.

I don't think many people are saying that continued losses are a good thing, I'm certainly not anyway. I'm saying that if there is an undertaking that any initial losses are covered which then allows Aberdeen to invest in their recruitment and playing squad, then it allows them to be more competitive on the pitch and bring in better players they will then hope to sell on. I'm not denying there is risk attached to it, but until such a point the shareholders are unwilling to cover any losses then it's not really a big deal.