ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Joy, TF and CA had a piss up.
Another nice positive article in the CT (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter chiefdave
- Start date
Joy, TF and CA had a piss up.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
How do you know it's not a big deal ?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Did the anomaly prove Juggy right? I must have missed that bit
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
I have no idea , there's probably a perfectly rational explanation, just surprised that there was no
comment on it ,before that post all the talk was accounts.
After that post it was Juggy's a bootboy.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That was his username on here. Actually one of several usernames
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Well you certainly missed my point.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If OSB isn't worried, I'm not worried. He's been looking at the accounts for years, if millions were disappearing off someone it would have been spotted.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No, you didn't really have one.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
I did ,it just doesn't fit your train of thought
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Well I'm not worried either,
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
What is it you want comment on? Lets look at the points in the article.
He starts off complaining about season ticket prices. They have indeed gone up this year but they were massively discounted last year. If you take a longer term view it tells a different story: 16/17 £299 15/16 £249 14/15 £299 12/13 £299 11/12 £286 10/11 £286 09/10 £310 08/09 £292 07/08 £292 06/07 £292.
Factor in inflation and they are significantly cheaper now than 10 years ago.
Next he complains the prices have gone up but the player budget will remain the same. He suggests this is because money is going to SISU or to pay legal fees. However the accounts show SISU have had to put in £780K this season as the club didn't generate enough to cover the budget. They have had a repayment of £250K from the Maddison sale. The accounts also clearly state SISU, not the club, are funding legal action.
Then he states SISU have invested £60m but he doesn't believe that figure. Well SISU converted £60m of debt into shares so the figure is correct, well actually the figure is £60,898,116.
He then does some maths where he decides we've up £10m in transfers since dropping to L1 which has disappeared. Bigi, Clarke and Keogh were under £1m each, Maddision £2m and Wilson £3m. So that's less than £8m before you take off the transfer and loan fees for players coming in. Again, look at the accounts and this is not true.
Onto ticket revenues. He has worked out its £3.5-4m for the season just gone but as we have 'only' spent £2.5m on the player budget he is again suggesting money is missing. Total attendance is 298,234. That would mean £11.74 - £13.41 per head. That's way higher than we've had in the past in a season when ticket prices were considerably lower.
Since they converted the debt to shares we have lost £4.4m and £1.9m. There simply isn't 'spare' money that isn't accounted for. What he's saying simply doesn't tally with the evidence available.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Juggy's username on here was Leamingtonbootboy no ones having a pop at him by calling him "boot boy".
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
If OSB 58 or anyone else for that matter had bought up an issue with the council,wasps or Higgs
(Could be anything ) this thread would be 40pages by now .
It's not my opinion on SISUs accounts, it's my opinion that people read his post and for some reason
Passed it by. IMO
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It's pretty amazing that a paper would actually print that drivel even as an opinion piece. Next on the Coventry Telegraph, it's a column from Jedward about the economic case for Brexit.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
I agree they shouldn't, very irresponsible a reporter would never have got away with
Such unsubstantiated comment.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Agree with this completely.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I've had a little glimpse at the pre-draft.
Edward has a surprisingly succinct understanding of the IMF...
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Lets clear a few things up. I have no answer for the anomaly but I am not free from concern either. I can not and will not say that there has been any underhand dealing or wrong doing. I do not know why there is an anomaly and can not explain it. Will the club or owners or administrator/liquidator explain it, very unlikely.
Firstly the reason I looked at all is because I didn't agree with Juggy's summation of what was going on and at this moment I have seen no evidence to make me change my mind. The only evidence we are ever likely to see is the statutory accounts filed at Companies House. It looks to me that player sales are shown as contributing to reducing the losses
A cash flow statement is exactly what it says on the tin. It reconciles the operating profit, which includes non cash items such as depreciation, player contract amortisation etc, back to the actual movement of cash in the year to finally show how the cash balance changes from the start to the end of the year. Its starting point, the operating profit, is before taking in to account profit on sales of players
You can get to a calculated sales value (excl any VAT) of the player sales by taking the cost of disposals less the accumulated amortisation on disposals then add back the profit on sales. All figures clearly disclosed in the accounts
So having satisfied myself that the profits on player sales appear to be included in the accounts and therefore applied to meeting the costs of the club I checked the details in the Cash flow statements expecting the figures disclosed there to bear a close correlation to the total sales figure in the various sets of accounts. I have never carried out that exercise before
Several years there were no differences 2008 & 2013 which you would expect. Two particular years there were large differences 2010 £607k and 2012 £2.25m between the calculated sales figure and the figure disclosed in the cash flow statement . Other years had smaller differences. Overall there is it seems a difference of £3.15m over the years since SISU got here to the 2015 accounts where the calculated sales value is more than the proceeds shown in the cash flow. Now you could put it down to timing of cash flows but over 8 years if that were the case then you would expect it to even out. The difference in 2015, the year of the Wilson sale was £74k and that could be the net effect of agents fees or costs- who knows . Would anything from 2010 or 2012 still be outstanding in 2015?. Some of the overall difference could be agents fees being netted off the amount actually received but not the larger amounts surely?
Look at it even more simply in 2012 the club made £2.87m profit on player sales. The cash flow showed that £935K as proceeds. The following year 2013 showed no difference £0 between sales value and proceeds so no staged payments
There is also a difference of almost £600k on the player purchases. The figure shown on balance sheet is £596k more than the actual cash paid out on the cash flow statement.
The reason should be there somewhere because for every debit in the accounts there must be an equal and opposite credit. What the debit is I cannot tell, it apparently isn't an increase in the cash balance
Now I could have said nothing certainly but would I have been right to do so? Like I said I set out to show Juggy's assumptions were wrong and found this anomaly. It could be a mistake in putting the cash flow statement together, an accounting error. Any other reason people will have to make their own assessment. Other than the above I cant explain and in all honesty it is not up to me to explain the anomaly
The only thing I can say for certain is that the figures included in the accounts for both player sales and purchases do not have a good correlation to the figures disclosed as actual physical receipts or payments in the cash flow for each year and by some large numbers. Why that is I do not know and I am not making any accusations
Firstly the reason I looked at all is because I didn't agree with Juggy's summation of what was going on and at this moment I have seen no evidence to make me change my mind. The only evidence we are ever likely to see is the statutory accounts filed at Companies House. It looks to me that player sales are shown as contributing to reducing the losses
A cash flow statement is exactly what it says on the tin. It reconciles the operating profit, which includes non cash items such as depreciation, player contract amortisation etc, back to the actual movement of cash in the year to finally show how the cash balance changes from the start to the end of the year. Its starting point, the operating profit, is before taking in to account profit on sales of players
You can get to a calculated sales value (excl any VAT) of the player sales by taking the cost of disposals less the accumulated amortisation on disposals then add back the profit on sales. All figures clearly disclosed in the accounts
So having satisfied myself that the profits on player sales appear to be included in the accounts and therefore applied to meeting the costs of the club I checked the details in the Cash flow statements expecting the figures disclosed there to bear a close correlation to the total sales figure in the various sets of accounts. I have never carried out that exercise before
Several years there were no differences 2008 & 2013 which you would expect. Two particular years there were large differences 2010 £607k and 2012 £2.25m between the calculated sales figure and the figure disclosed in the cash flow statement . Other years had smaller differences. Overall there is it seems a difference of £3.15m over the years since SISU got here to the 2015 accounts where the calculated sales value is more than the proceeds shown in the cash flow. Now you could put it down to timing of cash flows but over 8 years if that were the case then you would expect it to even out. The difference in 2015, the year of the Wilson sale was £74k and that could be the net effect of agents fees or costs- who knows . Would anything from 2010 or 2012 still be outstanding in 2015?. Some of the overall difference could be agents fees being netted off the amount actually received but not the larger amounts surely?
Look at it even more simply in 2012 the club made £2.87m profit on player sales. The cash flow showed that £935K as proceeds. The following year 2013 showed no difference £0 between sales value and proceeds so no staged payments
There is also a difference of almost £600k on the player purchases. The figure shown on balance sheet is £596k more than the actual cash paid out on the cash flow statement.
The reason should be there somewhere because for every debit in the accounts there must be an equal and opposite credit. What the debit is I cannot tell, it apparently isn't an increase in the cash balance
Now I could have said nothing certainly but would I have been right to do so? Like I said I set out to show Juggy's assumptions were wrong and found this anomaly. It could be a mistake in putting the cash flow statement together, an accounting error. Any other reason people will have to make their own assessment. Other than the above I cant explain and in all honesty it is not up to me to explain the anomaly
The only thing I can say for certain is that the figures included in the accounts for both player sales and purchases do not have a good correlation to the figures disclosed as actual physical receipts or payments in the cash flow for each year and by some large numbers. Why that is I do not know and I am not making any accusations
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
As I've been ordered to comment else I love SISU and all its little babies, I'll ask a question that will be naive, and show I'm not an accountant 
Player sales usually have clauses dependent on certain things happening. When CCFC sell, we never see our former players score a hattrick in the Lunar Cup final to pay out.
Could the initial figure be a figure taking into account, in some way, those clauses, and the money received being what was *actually* received?
Player sales usually have clauses dependent on certain things happening. When CCFC sell, we never see our former players score a hattrick in the Lunar Cup final to pay out.
Could the initial figure be a figure taking into account, in some way, those clauses, and the money received being what was *actually* received?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Thanks OSB, like NW said could it be linked to staggered payments?
Also wouldn't the auditor pick up if there has been an accounting error? Surely thats their job? Wouldn't the club have to justify the discrepancies with the auditor before sign off?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Also wouldn't the auditor pick up if there has been an accounting error? Surely thats their job? Wouldn't the club have to justify the discrepancies with the auditor before sign off?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
simple answer is it shouldn't NW. It would also need to be disclosed in the notes to the accounts as a contingent asset and it isn't.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Yes it should be clarified/asked but I am pretty certain it wont be answered given that they never have before. Plus it mainly actually relates to Companies that no longer exist
Yes I am concerned there appears to be £3m unexplained in the clubs cash flow. I am not however making any accusation of wrong doing
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Over the 8 year period you would expect the staggered payments to even it out so that some years reversed it. That does not happen. There was no difference in 2013 in 2014 it was (5436) in 2015 74036
Yes you would expect auditors to get it right. But then you would expect them to know the difference between a trading company and property company or to know who owned which assets wouldn't you
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
So maybe Simon Gilbert or Les Reid should try and get some answers, 3 million is
a lot of money especially for a club on the bread line.
It's probably easily explained, but we should know the truth .
Because it's an >>>opinion<<< piece?
There's no reason why you couldn't submit a piece offering your opinion on the situation.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't get published. Opinions also have to have some basis of fact or should not be printed.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It's an opinion piece that is littered with supposed 'facts'. It's an opinion based on imaginary facts,
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
They're all psychotic murderers, who have dismembered Labovitch and fed him to their cat.
/note for any lawyers with less than two brain cells reading, this is for comedic purposes to illustrate a point, and I don't *really* know that they are psychotic murderers...
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Also think Juggy is wrong on the ticket income. In 2015 we had match day income of 1.797m on crowds of 9332 average. This season our average crowd was nearer 12570. Work it out from there and ticket income is closer to £2.42 m before factoring in whether overall prices were lower 2015 than 2014. Just about pays the player wages budget. What about the other costs
Other incomes in some areas will have dropped. The club shop is now a franchise as is program selling, where the club receives a percentage (not the case in 2014). There wasn't a lot of prize money but there would be some central distributions . In total probably less than 3m
So total income 5.4m.
Against that are the total staff wages, the direct costs and administrative expenses. in 2015 these were 5m, 1.5m and 2.9m respectively. Total costs 9.4m. In 2016 no doubt there were savings made but is anyone seriously suggesting the club traded at a profit in 2016?
Other incomes in some areas will have dropped. The club shop is now a franchise as is program selling, where the club receives a percentage (not the case in 2014). There wasn't a lot of prize money but there would be some central distributions . In total probably less than 3m
So total income 5.4m.
Against that are the total staff wages, the direct costs and administrative expenses. in 2015 these were 5m, 1.5m and 2.9m respectively. Total costs 9.4m. In 2016 no doubt there were savings made but is anyone seriously suggesting the club traded at a profit in 2016?
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
That's a wee bit juvenile for a sensible poster like yourself, do you not think theyAs I've been ordered to comment else I love SISU and all its little babies, I'll ask a question that will be naive, and show I'm not an accountant
Player sales usually have clauses dependent on certain things happening. When CCFC sell, we never see our former players score a hattrick in the Lunar Cup final to pay out.
Could the initial figure be a figure taking into account, in some way, those clauses, and the money received being what was *actually* received?
Should be accountable for there actions as custodians of our club.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
An opinion has to be factual? That's a new one on me.
Are you going to write an opinion piece and submit it to CT? It would allow you to constructively demonstrate the issues with this piece.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
If you're going to include "facts" in your opinion piece, then they should be factual.
Juggys maths are way wide of the mark, and people who don't know much about the situation will read the "opinion" piece and take it as "fact".
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
So that's two of you that will be offering an opinion piece to the Telegraph then?
The readers would definitely be aware of the situation once they've read them.
Last edited: