I spoke to someone in a high position within the club and he told me that both Wembley matches and the odd chunk of money from player sales etc basically goes to cover the clubs running losses year on year , if you imagine we need say 12k attendance l to cover running costs ( maybe 15k if they throw a few quid in for some half decent transfers ) and we get maybe 7-8k on average gate over the season , then it doesnt take a genius to work out we need to cover losses with things like this. ( not saying those numbers are what we are talking about, but our gate doesn’t cover costs by some margin ) He said robins gets his budget and cup runs and player sales have little impact on that , it just plugs the gap for the losses the club make
I would largely agree with this, maybe not the figures quoted but they were only examples any way. The Principle is correct
Most clubs do not prepare their budgets on the expectation of cup success. It would be a nonsense because there is no real way of reaching a prudent figure. I would think that the EFL would also be questioning things if a club did include
All monies have to be paid to the club, in this case Otium. That means the cashflow of player transfers or anything else is applied to the operating cashflow of the club first. That means the owners can only withdraw funds once everything else has been cleared. If they didn't pay the bills as they fell due or by arrangement with the creditors then it could be argued that the club was trading insolvently or even fraudulently.
Administrative costs described in the accounts is a companies act title to a group of overheads paid out by a business. That would be things like rent, rates, insurance, depreciation, etc There is some detail in the Otium accounts in note 3. Accounting & Companies Act rules define the administration costs that must be disclosed - and it is not all costs. The term does not describe monies paid to SISU or to an Administrator
There is no evidence of SISU taking out more than they have put in over the last couple of years. In 2016 & 2017 they put in £500k each year in 2017 they took out £112k. The interest on the loans has not been drawn down but is accrued, increasing the liabilities of the club. Given the amount of interest owed why would they need to hide fees in other parts of the accounts? There would also need to be some detail in the notes of SBS&L
The current profitability or otherwise of the Club is entirely under the control of the current owners. That has no relationship to previous owners or even the early years. Otium started from zero in 2011. The majority of the debt and balance sheet deficit has been created by SISU
In the 2017 accounts it has accumulated P&L acc losses of 82.7m on the balance sheet, of that since 2011 there is 7.9m in interest that has been accrued not paid, 61m that relates to old CCFC Ltd & CCFC H historic debt that was transferred to Otium to create the preference shares that really (IMO) didn't really exist except in clever accounting, and further provisions of 8.6m relating to moving things around then writing off old amounts from the administration. Basically all legal but all paper transactions
Operating, Otium has made 6.2m losses since 2013/14 before interest
Final thought if Maddison is sold for 22m and we get 3.3m we can only use 60% of that next season. The amount recd could allow the accounts to show a positive, it could leave a cash surplus. That surplus could be applied to repaying some of the capital loans owed to the investors. That would improve the balance sheet and reduce future interest liabilities .......... and make a potential sale either more attractive to any one looking to buy in or a little easier to achieve. Would it be such a bad thing for the owners to pay back some of the loan capital if it makes the club more attractive to new owners?