skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
NEWS: Coventry City FC and parent company publish latest set of accounts
Will await Oldskyblue58's verdict
Will await Oldskyblue58's verdict
Club Accounts 2016/2017 (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter skybluebeduff
- Start date
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
No time to look at present but first skim shows..
£2m less on sale of players but operating loss down ~£600K.
Financially going well, the players not sold are retained as assets and probably improved in value.
Just need Norwich to sell Maddison for a huge fee in the summer and next season there will probably be a small profit.
Even though SISU are c**ts they know how to fix the finances.. but their methods involve pain.
£2m less on sale of players but operating loss down ~£600K.
Financially going well, the players not sold are retained as assets and probably improved in value.
Just need Norwich to sell Maddison for a huge fee in the summer and next season there will probably be a small profit.
Even though SISU are c**ts they know how to fix the finances.. but their methods involve pain.
BlueElephant
Well-Known Member
Remember these are last year's accounts so next year will show Thomas and Stevenson sales (circa £1.5m)
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Right, so those accounts will probably show a decent profit even if there is no Maddison windfall I think.
Why is the interest payable on the SISU/ARVO loans going down, is the capital value of the loan being paid back somewhere? I'm sure OSB will explain to the hard of understanding about this money trickery stuff like me.
BlueElephant
Well-Known Member
Yep. Money from Madders or Wilson moving on this summer will be most welcome.
Covstu
Well-Known Member
Its a slow move in the right direction, would be interested to see operating losses in the first year of SISU trading? I am sure the accounts will start the usual CT style abuse of 'selling the crown jewels', 'not investing in the squad', 'we don't own the ground' type responses but the tanker is slowly turning around.
My concerns (in my simplistic view of accounts) are:
1) Looks like we need circa £1M worth of player sales each year to break even
2) The need for supporters to be there is ever paramount
3) Looks like we are truly cutting our cloth accordingly to League two
My concerns (in my simplistic view of accounts) are:
1) Looks like we need circa £1M worth of player sales each year to break even
2) The need for supporters to be there is ever paramount
3) Looks like we are truly cutting our cloth accordingly to League two
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
and the Checkatrade money?
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
Depends when that is paid. If it’s end of the season (30th June) it will be in the next set. If it’s not long after the final they’ll be included in the figures above.
Covstu
Well-Known Member
WHAT!!!! You mean it didn't go straight into Joy's new yacht fund immediately!!!???
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
It says the accounts run to the period up to 31st May.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Already accounted for isn't it, final was before the end of accounting year.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Which to be fair, could probably be said about the majority of L1/L2 clubs.
Read the "Strategic Report" tells you there about interest and about the Checkatrade
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
No time till tonight.. better do some work now. :emoji_blush:
Covstu
Well-Known Member
Agree sort of but I think we are unique in that we have plummeted down the leagues at a great rate of knots where as our costs, infrastructure, fan expectation, fan/owner poor relationship have not caught up with our reality.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Do you think the £175k to Fisher and Deering is good value? I don't suppose Deering does much so presumably this is mainly Fisher.
Says paid / accrued to third parties etc so cannot tell who it relates to. LD represents SISU in the main.
Some might even have been Anderson?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Fisher does it for free doesn't he?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Know any other good jokes?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Overall I think I am disappointed by these figures. Yes I know we got relegated and it affects the finances but it also includes the Wembley cup win. The tone of the Director's report seems down beat
So key points
Otium Entertainment Group Limited. The operating company and the holder of all of the footballing related assets
The accounts & Auditors highlight the material concerns about Otium being a going concern ie carrying on operating. Without formally qualifying the audit report. They have relied on a non contractual assurance that the owners will provide any shortfall in funds - but they do not have to provide that funding. In any case I have discussed before that case law demonstrates such assurances carry very little weight in a court of law. Also they highlight that within the next 6 months from now Otium is going to need new funds to support it
Again makes mention of searching for own ground, and mentions signing of 1 year deal at Ricoh
- Turnover is up 690K at £6.134m
- Direct costs are also up by 384K at £1.506m
Margin achieved 70.5% (2016 79.4%)
Turnover is split Matchday 2.46m (2016 2.31m)
Commercial 3.67m (2016 3.13m) despite continued assertions we only have match day income of any significance
Administration overheads are down by 205K at 1.564m
Wage costs are down by £60k. Whilst mention is made of the new bonus structure there are fewer back room staff and stewards employed by the club. There were apparently 22 more players & football staff though. I cant help thinking that was pretty poor recruitment and value for money given we got relegated. Yes the cup was won but that's a one off not a continued income source and no doubt meant bonuses paid
Directors pay was 76k which I assume was for Venus. There is additional directors pay shown in the SBS&L accounts so that would be Fishers £100k I assume unless Deering was paid too
The operating loss, is highlighted by the director, showing a reduction of 644k compared to 2016. However it is still a loss of £1,108,529. Better but not really something to shout about. Moving in right direction.
There were few player sales in the year a total profit of £252K (2016 £2.478m ). This is a worry because player trading is necessity to keep the club going. At the end of the season there was a big exodus of players and certainly at that time average contract length was say 2 years? All very well retaining players but the club actually needs a regular significant sale to stay afloat. Player trading is still part of operating.
Interest payable was 1.86m (including withholding tax) in 2016 there was a catch up on a number of years withholding tax so the reduction is not as significant when comparing one year with one year. The loan debt has not decreased so we can expect the interest to remain at this magnitude if not grow in years to come. The ARVO interest and SISU Master Fund Interest has been rolled up and carried forward not paid out. Just adds to the balance deficit, the net liabilities of 17m
Overall Otium made a net loss of £2.714m compared to £1.745m in 2016. Otium has not improved overall ............it is deeper in the hole. It performed £1m worse than in 2016 because there were no player sales of significance primarily but also due to relegation. Crowds dropped and have dropped further this season
The club (Otium) has total assets of £2.025m compared to £2.315m in 2016
Against that the club owes £19.34m compared to £16.919m in 2016
Net deficit 17.319m deeper in the hole by 2.7m in 2017. Will that have improved in 2018 figures in L2, lower crowds, less success (so far) etc?
The club has paid out a total of £602k in rent compared to £491k in 2016. Neither figure would be just to the Ricoh
Player additions owned by Otium were £75K whilst disposals had a value of £340k (including profit of £252k). The club also spent 27k on new equipment (possibly for ticketing? at least in part)
Excluding related party loans and interest the current liabilities have increased from 4.47m in 2016 to 5.05m in 2017
Related parties loans have increased by £388k. That's loans from ARVO or SISU related entities. The increase this year has been from SISU Master Fund Ltd of 500k less repayment £112k
Player add ons that are expected £125k those that maybe payable £100K. Hardly significant funds. Hardly the sort of significant funds receivable we were told to expect
Like many clubs lower down it is hand to mouth and reliance on the goodwill of others including the owners. What if that changes? The company is worthless with increasing debt levels and interest burden.
Otium is still showing signs of financial distress and must deal with it in L2. There is no quick fix on the horizon
So key points
Otium Entertainment Group Limited. The operating company and the holder of all of the footballing related assets
The accounts & Auditors highlight the material concerns about Otium being a going concern ie carrying on operating. Without formally qualifying the audit report. They have relied on a non contractual assurance that the owners will provide any shortfall in funds - but they do not have to provide that funding. In any case I have discussed before that case law demonstrates such assurances carry very little weight in a court of law. Also they highlight that within the next 6 months from now Otium is going to need new funds to support it
Again makes mention of searching for own ground, and mentions signing of 1 year deal at Ricoh
- Turnover is up 690K at £6.134m
- Direct costs are also up by 384K at £1.506m
Margin achieved 70.5% (2016 79.4%)
Turnover is split Matchday 2.46m (2016 2.31m)
Commercial 3.67m (2016 3.13m) despite continued assertions we only have match day income of any significance
Administration overheads are down by 205K at 1.564m
Wage costs are down by £60k. Whilst mention is made of the new bonus structure there are fewer back room staff and stewards employed by the club. There were apparently 22 more players & football staff though. I cant help thinking that was pretty poor recruitment and value for money given we got relegated. Yes the cup was won but that's a one off not a continued income source and no doubt meant bonuses paid
Directors pay was 76k which I assume was for Venus. There is additional directors pay shown in the SBS&L accounts so that would be Fishers £100k I assume unless Deering was paid too
The operating loss, is highlighted by the director, showing a reduction of 644k compared to 2016. However it is still a loss of £1,108,529. Better but not really something to shout about. Moving in right direction.
There were few player sales in the year a total profit of £252K (2016 £2.478m ). This is a worry because player trading is necessity to keep the club going. At the end of the season there was a big exodus of players and certainly at that time average contract length was say 2 years? All very well retaining players but the club actually needs a regular significant sale to stay afloat. Player trading is still part of operating.
Interest payable was 1.86m (including withholding tax) in 2016 there was a catch up on a number of years withholding tax so the reduction is not as significant when comparing one year with one year. The loan debt has not decreased so we can expect the interest to remain at this magnitude if not grow in years to come. The ARVO interest and SISU Master Fund Interest has been rolled up and carried forward not paid out. Just adds to the balance deficit, the net liabilities of 17m
Overall Otium made a net loss of £2.714m compared to £1.745m in 2016. Otium has not improved overall ............it is deeper in the hole. It performed £1m worse than in 2016 because there were no player sales of significance primarily but also due to relegation. Crowds dropped and have dropped further this season
The club (Otium) has total assets of £2.025m compared to £2.315m in 2016
Against that the club owes £19.34m compared to £16.919m in 2016
Net deficit 17.319m deeper in the hole by 2.7m in 2017. Will that have improved in 2018 figures in L2, lower crowds, less success (so far) etc?
The club has paid out a total of £602k in rent compared to £491k in 2016. Neither figure would be just to the Ricoh
Player additions owned by Otium were £75K whilst disposals had a value of £340k (including profit of £252k). The club also spent 27k on new equipment (possibly for ticketing? at least in part)
Excluding related party loans and interest the current liabilities have increased from 4.47m in 2016 to 5.05m in 2017
Related parties loans have increased by £388k. That's loans from ARVO or SISU related entities. The increase this year has been from SISU Master Fund Ltd of 500k less repayment £112k
Player add ons that are expected £125k those that maybe payable £100K. Hardly significant funds. Hardly the sort of significant funds receivable we were told to expect
Like many clubs lower down it is hand to mouth and reliance on the goodwill of others including the owners. What if that changes? The company is worthless with increasing debt levels and interest burden.
Otium is still showing signs of financial distress and must deal with it in L2. There is no quick fix on the horizon
Last edited:
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
And Harries.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Sky Blue Sports & Leisure the immediate holding company and non trading
This company balance sheet shows net liabilities of £46.12m (total assets of just over 2m) that has increased from 43.4m in 2016.
It includes loan creditors of 28.5m due to the SISU shareholder funds and further 7.7m secured loan due to ARVO and 917k due to SISU Master Fund Ltd. Add to those figures the interest accrued but not yet paid out of £5.63m. Interest rates seem to be ARVO 11.67% on capital, Original fund holders 0%, SISU Master Fund Ltd 11.3% on capital.
Directors remuneration is 175,781 for the group down from 215,500 in 2016.
The cashflow shows the £500k loan coming in and the repayment of £112k. What it also shows is that despite Wembley and the loan the club was cash flow negative by £481k and had £298k in the bank 31/05/2017......... a date followed by a couple of months with no income
What I do not understand is the Intangible and Tangible assets notes. In theory all trading assets are owned by Otium so the group should show the same figures you would think. They don't and by some distance - even alluding to disposals and additions that are not in the Otium accounts.
This company is worthless to anyone but SISU. No one would seek to buy it even for £1
Overall the figures of both companies do not really make great reading. Has the situation changed for the better ?.................
Worrying
This company balance sheet shows net liabilities of £46.12m (total assets of just over 2m) that has increased from 43.4m in 2016.
It includes loan creditors of 28.5m due to the SISU shareholder funds and further 7.7m secured loan due to ARVO and 917k due to SISU Master Fund Ltd. Add to those figures the interest accrued but not yet paid out of £5.63m. Interest rates seem to be ARVO 11.67% on capital, Original fund holders 0%, SISU Master Fund Ltd 11.3% on capital.
Directors remuneration is 175,781 for the group down from 215,500 in 2016.
The cashflow shows the £500k loan coming in and the repayment of £112k. What it also shows is that despite Wembley and the loan the club was cash flow negative by £481k and had £298k in the bank 31/05/2017......... a date followed by a couple of months with no income
What I do not understand is the Intangible and Tangible assets notes. In theory all trading assets are owned by Otium so the group should show the same figures you would think. They don't and by some distance - even alluding to disposals and additions that are not in the Otium accounts.
This company is worthless to anyone but SISU. No one would seek to buy it even for £1
Overall the figures of both companies do not really make great reading. Has the situation changed for the better ?.................
Worrying
Last edited:
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
If it wasn't to Directors it wouldn't be in that section would it? Pretty much every line of expenditure will be a mixture of paid and accrued, so I'm just assuming they have expressly made that point as they are embarrassed about the amount.
So I think its agreed the cost is mainly for Fisher, do you think he's worth it?
Last edited:
Esoterica
Well-Known Member
So now we've got all the good news out the way, hit us with the bad news too!
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
in agreement, the only difference being is that this is a football club - and not Toys R us
What that means, is that for most clubs (we are probably an exception in terms of upside) the future could be very different from the past
so if we could somehow get a couple of promotions, things do change a great deal
there is a big if there however
What that means, is that for most clubs (we are probably an exception in terms of upside) the future could be very different from the past
so if we could somehow get a couple of promotions, things do change a great deal
there is a big if there however
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Is there a largish payment due for transfer dealings sometime? The club reduced its activity in the market last season but by selling Stevenson it effectively resumed.
It is odd that the transfer deal figures crashed so much, I fully expected a similar number to the previous season to come in and I said as much.
Maybe some money came in past the accounting date which will show up next year?
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
'Against that the club owes £19.34m compared to £14.604m in 2016'
That's a big increase in a year, isn't it ? Is this partly/largely due to interest levels 'owed' to owners b@*%$*$s
That's a big increase in a year, isn't it ? Is this partly/largely due to interest levels 'owed' to owners b@*%$*$s
Covstu
Well-Known Member
I think what is worrying is that CET set the highlights on the situation improving (slightly) however this clearly isn't the case as liabilities are increasing by some significant margins
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Sorry typo on my part should read as above. The worsening is the 2.7m loss in the year
Still not good though
oucho
Well-Known Member
It would be the decrease in operating loss that caught their eye.
I do remember a certain Tim Fisher stating "the next set of accounts will show us breaking even" - real name, we had an operating loss of over £1million.....
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Thats the point though - why should a football club or any sports club think that basic financial principles do not apply or be allowed to operate in that way. There is for any club bar a select few in the Premier just as much chance of a bad year. You really shouldn't operate a multi million pound business, any business, on a maybe