Club Accounts 2016/2017 (15 Viewers)

[Nick]

You’re doing it yourself. You talk about tactics as if he has unlimited resources to sign unlimited players to cover an unlimited number of tactics and possibilities. He can only sign a limited number of players based on a limited budget and that only gives you a limited number ways to set a team up utilising their skills.

Again you presume to know better than a manager not only with all the experience both on the field and touch line already mentioned but also a manager who spends all week every week from preseason working and learning systems that work best within the constraints of the group of players he’s been able to assemble within the constraints of the budget. You seem to think we have a budget that’s allowed us put together a squad of Roy of the Rover type players who can do all things in all areas therefore allowing the manager to turn the team on it’s head at a whim.

They’re clearly not seeing it on what they see week in week out because we haven’t won, lost or drawn every week. Sometimes the tactics that the players are capable of playing work, sometimes they’re indifferent and sometimes they fall. That’s football, get over it. Doesn’t mean that the manager gets it wrong week in week out which is what you’re insinuating, sometimes he gets it wrong but it isn’t week in week out. Sometimes he has to persevere with a player knowing that they will get better like McNaulty, is sticking with him one of his mistakes or actually a success?

Where have I talked about tactics as if he has unlimited budgets? I talk about them like he is a League 2 manager playing against League 2 teams. I am not comparing us with Man City or Chelsea I am comparing us with Accrington, Mansfield, Cheltenham, Colchester etc.

It's all well and good you going on about how his hands are tied but then when the talk gets even slightly towards football you just make yourself look like another Dongo or Captain Dart.

It's a football forum, I will talk about the manager and players in a match thread getting things wrong the same as I will about them getting things right. That's the point of it.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Question for OSB58:

Wasn't converting debt into shares how SISU took over following the last administration? Why does the expert think that's a good idea and any better than just accruing interest on an existing debt? Surely it just has the same effect when the club is sold on?

They converted old debt in to preference shares by clever and legal use of the group situation. They could simply have written it off. But this builds in barriers to anyone looking to force a sale

He thinks it would be a good idea because it takes away the interest charge. It would also mean the balance sheet Net Assets would improve because loans & interest would no longer show as current liabilities

It doesn't actually change a thing. So long as the interest is not being drawn down it is just a paper transaction. SISU have their own reasons for doing what they are and it isn't based on CCFC balance sheet looking good

 

[skybluetony176]

Tony you keep banging on about the managers budget as if you know it. Neither you or Nick do so why don't you both give it a rest

Funny you’re not telling Nick to give it a rest. I agreed with Wingy and Nick jumped on me. Am I not allowed to respond to that?

 

[Nick]

Funny you’re not telling Nick to give it a rest. I agreed with Wingy and Nick jumped on me. Am I not allowed to respond to that?

Reading lessons not working yet then?

Neither you or Nick do so why don't you both give it a rest

 

[oldskyblue58]

Trying to be realistic other than finding a billionaire that doesn't mind throwing millions at the club what is the fix here? We're trying to be self sustaining, hard to argue against from a business perspective, in a field where a large number of our competitors are happy to rack up huge losses year in year out.

Doesn't that mean that the interest would be paid off in one year despite having been accrued over 10 years?

The club has to be self sustaining. I think all clubs should be but that's not the accepted football finance model

I was only referring to the one years interest to be honest but that could be the case either in full or part. Depends on what SISU decide

 

[wingy]

You’re doing it yourself. You talk about tactics as if he has unlimited resources to sign unlimited players to cover an unlimited number of tactics and possibilities. He can only sign a limited number of players based on a limited budget and that only gives you a limited number ways to set a team up utilising their skills.

Again you presume to know better than a manager not only with all the experience both on the field and touch line already mentioned but also a manager who spends all week every week from preseason working and learning systems that work best within the constraints of the group of players he’s been able to assemble within the constraints of the budget. You seem to think we have a budget that’s allowed us put together a squad of Roy of the Rover type players who can do all things in all areas therefore allowing the manager to turn the team on it’s head at a whim.

They’re clearly not seeing it on what they see week in week out because we haven’t won, lost or drawn every week. Sometimes the tactics that the players are capable of playing work, sometimes they’re indifferent and sometimes they fall. That’s football, get over it. Doesn’t mean that the manager gets it wrong week in week out which is what you’re insinuating, sometimes he gets it wrong but it isn’t week in week out. Sometimes he has to persevere with a player knowing that they will get better like McNaulty, is sticking with him one of his mistakes or actually a success?

Don't know who you're referring to Moff but mine are based on words from Fishers own mouth giving enough info to have a decent stab.
My suppositions ain't usually far of the mark.

 

[Moff]

Funny you’re not telling Nick to give it a rest. I agreed with Wingy and Nick jumped on me. Am I not allowed to respond to that?

Tony I did say why don't you both give it a rest.
You are both, and Nick this is to you as well, arguing constantly about whose guess work is right on the budget. No one knows for sure, its a pointless winless argument as you are both entrenched in your own views, which fair enough you base on your own assumptions of the matter, but without proof we cant ever ascertain what it is, and so the argument goes on.

 

[Liquid Gold]

If you two don't pack it in then Moff's going to turn this car round.

 

[Moff]

Don't know who you're referring to Moff but mine are based on words from Fishers own mouth giving enough info to have a decent stab.
My suppositions ain't usually far of the mark.

Wingy, I am not sure if I have ever commented on your suppositions

 

[Moff]

If you two don't pack it in then Moff's going to turn this car round.

Right now!
I wont tell them again!

(Am I showing the strain of having the kids at home on a snow day and hoping to get away from bickering mistakenly logged into SBT)

 

[Grendel]

History tells us that the budget is never as good as a large section allow themselves (usually with help from one individual in the club) to believe. This happens season after season and the same section are also usually disappointed when we don’t reach their misplaced expectations. This isn’t knowing better, it’s just paying attention to our history and not making presumptions to the contrary.

Again you are confusing budget with % spend against that budget.

 

[ccfcrob]

Funny you’re not telling Nick to give it a rest. I agreed with Wingy and Nick jumped on me. Am I not allowed to respond to that?

Exactly what side of who's bed did you wake up on this morning!!!

 

[skybluetony176]

Again you are confusing budget with % spend against that budget.

No I’m not. I know the difference and whether it’s budget or percentage of budget the two things are still linear. Is our percentage spent any different from the majority of teams at this level or are we to believe that we’re the exception and every other team spends 100% of budget except us for some strange reason?

If the majority of teams in the lower leagues are spending for arguments sake 80% of their budget then budget is still relevant regardless of whether it’s budget or a percentage of budget. It’s still a linear amount and dismisses your argument that budgets are irrelevant. Budget will always relate to actual spend.

If you look over the last few years our actual budget and where that falls in the league typically reflect where we finish in the league, last season being a slight exception. Unlike the suggested amounts we are led to believe especially early in the season. That is the point being made in the first place by Wingy.

People hold onto “facts” like that same as they do about “facts” like 76p in the pound and judge everything from that starting point. They’re all obviously wrong.

 

[Nick]

No I’m not. I know the difference and whether it’s budget or percentage of budget the two things are still linear. Is our percentage spent any different from the majority of teams at this level or are we to believe that we’re the exception and every other team spends 100% of budget except us for some strange reason?

If the majority of teams in the lower leagues are spending for arguments sake 80% of their budget then budget is still relevant regardless of whether it’s budget or a percentage of budget. It’s still a linear amount and dismisses your argument that budgets are irrelevant. Budget will always relate to actual spend.

If you look over the last few years our actual budget and where that falls in the league typically reflect where we finish in the league, last season being a slight exception. Unlike the suggested amounts we are led to believe especially early in the season. That is the point being made in the first place by Wingy.

People hold onto “facts” like that same as they do about “facts” like 76p in the pound and judge everything from that starting point. They’re all obviously wrong.

Yet you are going off on a thread about last years accounts but saying it's an exception?

Can you find the links of people holding onto these "facts"? Especially as you keep trying to use me an example for pointing out things about Robins, which is mainly from this season and it's hardly a rare view to see people questioning certain decisions and choices he has made.

It's already been shown we had a bigger wage bill by over a million for the team that finished 14th the year we went down.

Isn't it Wingy going off things Fisher has said? The actual accounts show it's above 70% spend on wages (granted, all staff) of turnover.

 

[wingy]

No I’m not. I know the difference and whether it’s budget or percentage of budget the two things are still linear. Is our percentage spent any different from the majority of teams at this level or are we to believe that we’re the exception and every other team spends 100% of budget except us for some strange reason?

If the majority of teams in the lower leagues are spending for arguments sake 80% of their budget then budget is still relevant regardless of whether it’s budget or a percentage of budget. It’s still a linear amount and dismisses your argument that budgets are irrelevant. Budget will always relate to actual spend.

If you look over the last few years our actual budget and where that falls in the league typically reflect where we finish in the league, last season being a slight exception. Unlike the suggested amounts we are led to believe especially early in the season. That is the point being made in the first place by Wingy.

People hold onto “facts” like that same as they do about “facts” like 76p in the pound and judge everything from that starting point. They’re all obviously wrong.

If it's true that budget was around £2.3M on players for the whole season then it is possible that to that point It in January it was £1.8M
There was plenty of speculation on here about whether we'd hit the right numbers for FFP/SCMP.
We didn't sell anyone in January and got loaned £500K, I have no scientific way of knowing If I'm accurate but going on the snippets TF does reveal.
There were loads of comments about whether there was any budget left for whichever manager came in if they came in etc, some from the media some out of the Club.

 

[Nick]

If it's true that budget was around £2.3M on players for the whole season then it is possible that to that point It in January it was £1.8M
There was plenty of speculation on here about whether we'd hit the right numbers for FFP/SCMP.
We didn't sell anyone in January and got loaned £500K, I have no scientific way of knowing If I'm accurate but going on the snippets TF does reveal.
There were loads of comments about whether there was any budget left for whichever manager came in if they came in etc, some from the media some out of the Club.

If it was 2.3M on players, that leaves 2.1M on other staff surely?

 

[stupot07]

If it's true that budget was around £2.3M on players for the whole season then it is possible that to that point It in January it was £1.8M
There was plenty of speculation on here about whether we'd hit the right numbers for FFP/SCMP.
We didn't sell anyone in January and got loaned £500K, I have no scientific way of knowing If I'm accurate but going on the snippets TF does reveal.
There were loads of comments about whether there was any budget left for whichever manager came in if they came in etc, some from the media some out of the Club.

Its not just about budget though, its about cash flow. We don't start the season with £2.3m in hard cash, so things like attendance fluctuations, or when payments for sponsorship, etc are due, plus tyey have to factor in the summer months were therr is little cash coming through the doors.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[wingy]

If it was 2.3M on players, that leaves 2.1M on other staff surely?

Just had a look from the club site I make it £1.8M.
Is that implausible IDK, but I would assert as I said earlier it must be getting close to parity between the two.

 

[stupot07]

If it was 2.3M on players, that leaves 2.1M on other staff surely?

Indeed.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[wingy]

Its not just about budget though, its about cash flow. We don't start the season with £2.3m in hard cash, so things like attendance fluctuations, or when payments for sponsorship, etc are due, plus tyey have to factor in the summer months were therr is little cash coming through the doors.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

So doesn't that make Fishers comments on the subject redundant?

 

[Nick]

Just had a look from the club site I make it £1.8M.
Is that implausible IDK, but I would assert as I said earlier it must be getting close to parity between the two.

I went off the Total 4.45m. It's hard to say but it seems a lot to pay everybody else?

 

[shmmeee]

They converted old debt in to preference shares by clever and legal use of the group situation. They could simply have written it off. But this builds in barriers to anyone looking to force a sale

He thinks it would be a good idea because it takes away the interest charge. It would also mean the balance sheet Net Assets would improve because loans & interest would no longer show as current liabilities

It doesn't actually change a thing. So long as the interest is not being drawn down it is just a paper transaction. SISU have their own reasons for doing what they are and it isn't based on CCFC balance sheet looking good

BRB off to tell my mortgage company all that interest they say I owe is “just a paper transaction”.

How far do you reckon I’ll get?

 

[stupot07]

So doesn't that make Fishers comments on the subject redundant?

Does anyone actually believe that fisher says? Are you sure when he said "hit rock bottom", he didn't just mean league two is rock bottom? There's no way we had the lowest wage bill in our relegation season.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[wingy]

Does anyone actually believe that fisher says? Are you sure when he said "hit rock bottom", he didn't just mean league two is rock bottom? There's no way we had the lowest wage bill in our relegation season.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Stuart I'm not saying we did, am I?
He was inferring in context as far as I could tell that wages are cheap down here and that was a benefit to us, I assume meaning recruiting wise.

 

[no_loyalty]

I went off the Total 4.45m. It's hard to say but it seems a lot to pay everybody else?

Just a thought, but could we still be paying off ex manager's?

 

[stupot07]

Stuart I'm not saying we did, am I?
He was inferring in context as far as I could tell that wages are cheap down here and that was a benefit to us, I assume meaning recruiting wise.

Ah sorry Wingy! Got the wrong end of the stick. I totally agree with you, wages are peanuts in this league, which benefits us as a club with more revenue, being able to cut costs whilst still having one of the biggest budgets in the league.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[wingy]

Just a thought, but could we still be paying off ex manager's?

Pressley settled, not exactly sure when though.
May have last year as he did a big interview with CT.

 

[Londonccfcfan]

Does anyone actually believe that fisher says? Are you sure when he said "hit rock bottom", he didn't just mean league two is rock bottom? There's no way we had the lowest wage bill in our relegation season.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Situation must have been bad though and our budget wasn't great, evidence of the troubles that lie ahead was the Vincelot sale!

Surely to sell him one of best players the season before (true warrior) for 50k was scandalous and borderline desperation!

 

[oldskyblue58]

BRB off to tell my mortgage company all that interest they say I owe is “just a paper transaction”.

How far do you reckon I’ll get?

Not very but then I would have expected you to understand the point I was making.

Your mortgage company have reasonable expectation of collecting the payments due it or to take action to repossess.

No body really believes that Ccfc can repay the growing debt and interest burden ..... even Sisu I would think. So the point of the transaction is not getting a repayment from the day to day football activities. With no reasonable prospect of repayment and no payments being made then it amounts to nothing more than a debit and credit in the accounts. A paper transaction. Yes it is legally due but Ccfc do not have enough cash to pay normal bills let alone 11% interest on a growing liability.

The point lies with defensive measures to stop bids and to satisfy in some way Sisu investors

If the shares in Otium were sold then the purchaser would need to come to some discount of the liability and the removal of the preference shares. But no one sensible would do that, they would buy the football assets and liabilities and leave the loans and shares behind. Unlikely the net football assets would clear those liabilities

Unlike your mortgage which is linked to bricks and mortar the loans in Otium have legal being but are largely uncollectable

 

[oldskyblue58]

Wages

In 2017 there were 398 employees.of that 11 were commercial or admin. Staff I would guess that cost no more than around 350k. There were stewards employed and that I believe to be the wages cost included in direct costs circa 280lk. In addition there were director payments 77k .

So of the 4.4m wages paid around 700k relates to something other than football staff and players. The amount spent the wages directly involved in the teams & academy would seem to be around 3.7m

In terms of SCMP budget then assuming 1m for the cup run the seasons budget was 5.1m x 60% or around 3m it would seem to me. I excluded the cup run because that is not in the main received until the end of the season.

Now given that the total available to pay players at all levels and all management and coaching staff at all levels is 3.7m then I struggle to see how the actual wages spend on the first team was as big as the SCMP. So the club operates to some other budget and comparison of the SCMP provided by the EFL and referred to by fisher is a nonsense. He refers to it to bend the truth because personally I do not believe the club spends to it. Not only that but the SCMP doesn't even cover all players

 

[oldskyblue58]

How much does the club get as a grant for the academy?

Does the 622k spend trigger the grant and mean no more is needed to be spent. Is it cost 622k+ less the grant = the academy spend

Or is it
622k+ spend plus the grant = total spend ?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

How much does the club get as a grant for the academy?

Does the 622k spend trigger the grant and mean no more is needed to be spent. Is it cost 622k+ less the grant = the academy spend

Or is it
622k+ spend plus the grant = total spend ?

I think you'll find the deal is that we ask the questions, you do the answers.

 

[Nick]

How much does the club get as a grant for the academy?

Does the 622k spend trigger the grant and mean no more is needed to be spent. Is it cost 622k+ less the grant = the academy spend

Or is it
622k+ spend plus the grant = total spend ?

Might be wrong but I think I read in the past they put it in and we match it so it's both? Might have just been on here though so don't quote me.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Might be wrong but I think I read in the past they put it in and we match it so it's both? Might have just been on here though so don't quote me.

So that would mean out of a total spend of 7m excluding interest around 1m relates to the academy. That's a big chunk of the total spend.

Academy spend 1m
Wages other than academy say 3.5m
Rent and match day costs 400k
Other direct and admin costs 2.1m

Sorry but another question..... Does it stack up?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

So that would mean out of a total spend of 7m excluding interest around 1m relates to the academy. That's a big chunk of the total spend.

Academy spend 1m
Wages other than academy say 3.5m
Rent and match day costs 400k
Other direct and admin costs 2.1m

Sorry but another question..... Does it stack up?

The direct and admin costs have seemed high for a while, especially as we have outsourced the programmes, shop, ticketing. Apart from the training ground what big items would go in here? Are you suggesting this doesn't stack up?