CCFC Accounts, £1.9M Loss (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter torchomatic
- Start date
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
I skimmed them and thought; 'Oh, they're not too bad', but then just put that down to my lack of accounting knowledge!
Perhaps you understand more than you think you do.
Unlike some on here who neither think or understand but pretend they do both!
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Accounts submitted on time - Tick (I think)
Revenues up from £3.7m to £4.7m - Tick
Operating loss down from £4.4 to £1.9m - Tick
Independent Auditors happy that we're no longer an on going concern - Tick
Interest payable on debt to ARVO down from £2.7m to £1.37m - Tick
Legal costs of the JRs NOT paid by Otium or SBSL - Tick
Extra commitment in the Academy by nearly 20% more than required in said period - Tick
Sure, the move back to 'home' helped the coffers and sure, we're still in the sh*t but to me (and I'm far from a financial expert in accounting), the above looks more positive than it has done before. I'm sure OSB will give his more expert opinion later but to me, that looks better than before.
Revenues up from £3.7m to £4.7m - Tick
Operating loss down from £4.4 to £1.9m - Tick
Independent Auditors happy that we're no longer an on going concern - Tick
Interest payable on debt to ARVO down from £2.7m to £1.37m - Tick
Legal costs of the JRs NOT paid by Otium or SBSL - Tick
Extra commitment in the Academy by nearly 20% more than required in said period - Tick
Sure, the move back to 'home' helped the coffers and sure, we're still in the sh*t but to me (and I'm far from a financial expert in accounting), the above looks more positive than it has done before. I'm sure OSB will give his more expert opinion later but to me, that looks better than before.
I'm no fan of the owners but if the above figures are correct the direction they are going in is a positive for the club. Still a massive rd to go down and one i think we will see many dumps and repeats of past actions that will create frustration. But you have to get it right off the field to get it right on it and if this the first step that can only be good, time will tell and next years account while being at the Ricoh could be very telling.
The court case result could change a stance or promotion could force a different plan by our owners but i don't see them trying to get out any time soon.
The court case result could change a stance or promotion could force a different plan by our owners but i don't see them trying to get out any time soon.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Why? Surely, not even you believe that. Is it because owning CCFC is such fun and they make so much money from us?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Read the post following that one,things are more complicated than you think. The fallout from this I suggest could be as I said catastrophic for certain individuals concerned and that's why they won't sell,
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Do we know who these individuals are?
ceetee
Well-Known Member
Ownership of CCFC has cost SISU, on behalf of its investors, £61M.
As soon as the club is sold for the peanuts that it is actually worth, most of that £61M becomes a loss to the investors.
I have some shares that have halved in value. The value might go back up again so I haven't lost anything until I sell them.
As soon as the club is sold for the peanuts that it is actually worth, most of that £61M becomes a loss to the investors.
I have some shares that have halved in value. The value might go back up again so I haven't lost anything until I sell them.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
In City?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
certain investors from over the pond can sometimes take a very dim view of their cash being lost. We all know what some of these people do when they get upset about money thing is US courts are not the same as British ones. Again these are my thoughts might be way off the mark probably am
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Yes but how long do you keep them?
4waspsting
Active Member
No ones ever going to be interested,you cannot keep posting accounts in the red all the time. !!!!!!
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Are they all American then?? Who are they?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The figures are there for every one to read so .............
Questions/comments based on the sbsl group
- if the cost of the legal cases are not borne by OE or SBSL is the reverse true should those cases be successful and the proceeds are not borne by OE & SBSL?
- always find it interesting how its losses before interest that is quoted. The interest that is due is still a loss isn't it?
- Good to see that the academy is valued by the owners (is it the owners or the directors/manager doing that budget allocation) and the spend is above the minimum. I wonder how that spend is made up and the crossover of costs?
- Wonder how much it cost to pay out Pressley & co. Overall staff costs dropped £240k
- Directors remuneration paid to third party companies was 314k up from 240k - pretty sure many would feel that we didn't get value for money?
- it would seem that the sale of Wilson was in the region of 3.1m in total (that's 2.7m plus 615k adds on clauses split £200k Christie the rest Wilson) ?
- interest decreased in charge to 1.36m for the year. ARVO capitalised some of its interest bearing loans last year so reducing the capital outstanding. Rate of interest appears to be at least 13% but then again security is not very good? Interest might not have been paid but it is still payable
- Group lives within its means but the other side of that is that there is nothing to spend to expand - no risk capital?
- interesting its is now " a long term stadium solution" not "development of a new community stadium"
- the auditors do not mention material uncertainty on going concern (that in its self is a definite improvement) but the directors report does as does the note to the accounts. It hasn't gone away just not as significant and adequately disclosed in the auditors opinion
- Post balance sheet events. Interesting how it is expressed. I assume the rolling credit facility was repaid by at least part of Maddison's fee then?
- Group losses were 3.3m. Those have to be financed or rolled in to debt. Preference shares do not provide ownership rights they give a right to income - but it is still debt only a specialised kind
- I think we are all aware that without significant player sales each year the ship sinks. Even with those sales at present it seems that it is just enough to stay afloat nothing more?
- cash flow indicates a small negative of £128k but was only achieved because we sold Wilson
- ignoring the owner loans & interest then current liabilities are 3.6m with only 690k current assets to set against them. that means things are still on a knife edge to pay debts as they fall due. Weekly match receipts and timing of other receipts are critical. What happens in May June July when a lot of income dries up but the costs dont
- clearly the move to Northampton hurt because match income increased nearly 60% by coming back. Commercial income has not increased by that amount only 13%. As much as other parties needed us back the need for CCFC to be back I would argue was even greater?
- operating lease for land & buildings has increased to £443k. Does that include match day costs then?
- when comparing the improvement it is important to remember there is £2m of exceptional costs in the 2014 figures
- who did we buy for £92k in that year?
- we have decreased stock levels by £63k due to the franchise of the shop but on the flip side we also have reduced gross income and associated costs
- In both years we actually had cash in the bank
- Loans outstanding have been decreased by capitalising some of it again this year along with some interest that had been accrued. Additional pref shares issued to ARVO. So aside from the rolling facility no new funds from the investors other than ARVO since 2012. ARVO have in effect reduced their loans by converting to pref shares
Overall the finances are being stabilised. The situation is not better as such because we still have massive debts and are still making losses, especially for a L1 club with few assets but it is no longer nose diving through the floor. It has levelled out at a very low level but it could have been worse. So long as fans recognise and support the constraints on finances then progress however small has to be welcomed. The problem is managing fans expectations whilst maintaining the financial control.
So not great but better than we have seen for some time and heading in right direction
Questions/comments based on the sbsl group
- if the cost of the legal cases are not borne by OE or SBSL is the reverse true should those cases be successful and the proceeds are not borne by OE & SBSL?
- always find it interesting how its losses before interest that is quoted. The interest that is due is still a loss isn't it?
- Good to see that the academy is valued by the owners (is it the owners or the directors/manager doing that budget allocation) and the spend is above the minimum. I wonder how that spend is made up and the crossover of costs?
- Wonder how much it cost to pay out Pressley & co. Overall staff costs dropped £240k
- Directors remuneration paid to third party companies was 314k up from 240k - pretty sure many would feel that we didn't get value for money?
- it would seem that the sale of Wilson was in the region of 3.1m in total (that's 2.7m plus 615k adds on clauses split £200k Christie the rest Wilson) ?
- interest decreased in charge to 1.36m for the year. ARVO capitalised some of its interest bearing loans last year so reducing the capital outstanding. Rate of interest appears to be at least 13% but then again security is not very good? Interest might not have been paid but it is still payable
- Group lives within its means but the other side of that is that there is nothing to spend to expand - no risk capital?
- interesting its is now " a long term stadium solution" not "development of a new community stadium"
- the auditors do not mention material uncertainty on going concern (that in its self is a definite improvement) but the directors report does as does the note to the accounts. It hasn't gone away just not as significant and adequately disclosed in the auditors opinion
- Post balance sheet events. Interesting how it is expressed. I assume the rolling credit facility was repaid by at least part of Maddison's fee then?
- Group losses were 3.3m. Those have to be financed or rolled in to debt. Preference shares do not provide ownership rights they give a right to income - but it is still debt only a specialised kind
- I think we are all aware that without significant player sales each year the ship sinks. Even with those sales at present it seems that it is just enough to stay afloat nothing more?
- cash flow indicates a small negative of £128k but was only achieved because we sold Wilson
- ignoring the owner loans & interest then current liabilities are 3.6m with only 690k current assets to set against them. that means things are still on a knife edge to pay debts as they fall due. Weekly match receipts and timing of other receipts are critical. What happens in May June July when a lot of income dries up but the costs dont
- clearly the move to Northampton hurt because match income increased nearly 60% by coming back. Commercial income has not increased by that amount only 13%. As much as other parties needed us back the need for CCFC to be back I would argue was even greater?
- operating lease for land & buildings has increased to £443k. Does that include match day costs then?
- when comparing the improvement it is important to remember there is £2m of exceptional costs in the 2014 figures
- who did we buy for £92k in that year?
- we have decreased stock levels by £63k due to the franchise of the shop but on the flip side we also have reduced gross income and associated costs
- In both years we actually had cash in the bank
- Loans outstanding have been decreased by capitalising some of it again this year along with some interest that had been accrued. Additional pref shares issued to ARVO. So aside from the rolling facility no new funds from the investors other than ARVO since 2012. ARVO have in effect reduced their loans by converting to pref shares
Overall the finances are being stabilised. The situation is not better as such because we still have massive debts and are still making losses, especially for a L1 club with few assets but it is no longer nose diving through the floor. It has levelled out at a very low level but it could have been worse. So long as fans recognise and support the constraints on finances then progress however small has to be welcomed. The problem is managing fans expectations whilst maintaining the financial control.
So not great but better than we have seen for some time and heading in right direction
Last edited:
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Not all don't know who remember just thoughts
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
hasn't cost them £61m in the first place
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They usually are.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Exactly but the figure is there like a noose or more like a fence to keep people away
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
At least I've got some of my own you want to try it sometimes quite liberating
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
You keep saying that. But why? Why wouldn't SISU want shot of CCFC? It's hardly been a match made in heaven, has it?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Get back later tonight battery on its way out
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
“Nobody wants to buy the club at the moment anyway. It’s not worth anything."
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
You know what has been learned by the club........?
That it is better to get things like accounts out in to the open and to engage with media and fans about them, put the clubs interpretation out there first ...........
So much better than previous years
That it is better to get things like accounts out in to the open and to engage with media and fans about them, put the clubs interpretation out there first ...........
So much better than previous years
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
These are the accounts for the first year back at the Ricoh right?
So they include a few few sixfields gates also.
If debt interest is 1.3 million but not actually being paid does that mean the actual loss would be 600k in terms of cash loss? Sorry if a stupid question, I'm not clued up in the slightest on these matters.
How are things like player sales worked into this, shouldn't these accounts include Wilson sale?
So they include a few few sixfields gates also.
If debt interest is 1.3 million but not actually being paid does that mean the actual loss would be 600k in terms of cash loss? Sorry if a stupid question, I'm not clued up in the slightest on these matters.
How are things like player sales worked into this, shouldn't these accounts include Wilson sale?
ceetee
Well-Known Member
The investment in the Academy is a no brainer for the club. £600k per year to get a top ten performing academy in the country is so worth the money.
Madders cost us nothing and after 30 odd 1st team appearances we sell for 2-3 mill rising to 7mill. Great return for the owners.
Obvious that they'll sell the next one too, and the next one .................. let's hope we do just have a lucky season and go up as the current owners will not look long term.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Accounts include a cash flow statement which reconciles the loss to purely movement in cash. Overall there was a deficit £128k but only because we received £2.7m in player sales
Player sales are shown on the Profit & Loss account. The Group final loss of £3.3m is after taking in to account the player sales
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
To be honest unless we get taken over by a zillionaire then selling our best talent will be par for the course. It has been for the last 30 odd years.