oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
First off these figures are for the group and therefore include otium. Sbs&l is a holding company, does not trade and has few expenses. The group is sbs&l plus otium
Will just put key comments in the order they appear in the accounts, which can be downloaded from companies house
Strategic report. This year no figure given for academy spend they usually like to. Says shareholder is only material creditor but later on you will see Sisu master fund is owed over £1m, not a shareholder and hmrc at £350k is not immaterial. Two lines are devoted to the ricoh lease with no detail of any solution but expect to be at ricoh . The risks and uncertainties section doesn't mention it at all. But concludes company is a going concern
Audit report. Auditors report and are responsible to the shareholders of the company. No one else and certainly not the fans. There is a going concern material uncertainty but it focusses on the financial support the group might need going forward. Last year it said company relied on its owners for support for the next year but this year it says company does not and both years that no intention to call debts in by owners. There is one short sentence about no home ground 2019/20. The auditors will access far more information than I can when expressing their opinion.
So far you get the feeling that the ricoh problems are down graded almost even glossed over. Which raises the questions how and why. What is going on behind the scenes (wouldn't be the first time that has happened)
The figures themselves
Income down 162k
Direct costs up 76k
Administration costs up 228k
Profit on player sales 973k (because there was little cost to get those players that's pretty much what club received)
Interest on the loans was 1.87m was accrued not physically paid over, but it is due and cannot be dismissed as it "is only due to shareholders " (for a start some is due to a non shareholder)
Operating losses increased to 1.6m which means even after player sales of 973k the club is not self sufficient
Net losses after all costs are 2.477m slightly down on 2017.
Balance sheet is negative by 48.6m but keep in mind this is the group and 29m is not due by otium because that 29m is the original investors loan to sbs&l. That original loan is not secured on otium
Interesting that there was 682k in the bank at that time possibly due to the promotion games providing a cash boost.
Received a new loan of 500k from Sisu master fund but repaid 254k
Players purchases in year 109k
Notes to accounts. Usual stuff in going concern note about forecasts and support of owners, written confirmation etc with paragraph on stadium problem saying they are looking at "venues" and negotiations are on going. Except we are told no talks with wasps aren't we? What do they mean venues?
Turnover discloses match income 2.43m and other income 3.54m total 5.97m down from 6.13m. But we were in league 2 and that income is better than a lot of teams in that division plus we had nearly 1m in player sales. The other thing again demonstrated is that the income we have is not just match day income. The accounts try to make a distinction about ticketing and other match day income but that's erroneous, simple fact is there are other incomes and Boddy has proven the club can put on non match day events if it wants to. The "missing" incomes would also come with costs which of course are ignored in the claim of being disadvantaged
Land lease costs dropped from 603k to 546k possibly because of the relegation, fisher said rent had been cheaper in league 2
Wages are for the group but in reality relate to otium
No directors remuneration paid at all
Wage costs up from 4.453m to 4.879m but 220k related to league pension costs so not in control of club. Possibly promotion bonuses explain some of the rest?
Wages very competitive for a league 2 club, bigger than some total turnovers in that division.
The notes reveal that sbs&l owes otium 847k accumulated over a number of years. No explanation as to why I assume otium paid sbs&l expenses as holding company has no income. So how does Otium get repaid ? And it is money otium should have to cover it's own needs. Perhaps explain why it has been necessary over last three years to put money in but not expecting to in future
Group now owes 6.9m in interest alone to ARVO and sisu master fund. Or rather otium does, plus 9m in capital. There is no cash flow to pay these sums back so it is rolled up each year
Apparently there is a possible liability for appearance costs on players 100k and interestingly that a contingent asset for monies due on players sold before year end is 650k . Were we not told Madison alone brought in more than that during 2018/19? They must know the figure?
Overall not great figures for a promotion year. The club further in debt, is not self sufficient and no obvious venue to play next season has been agreed.
Make of it what you will. But I am left feeling these accounts raise more questions than provide answers. Also that they include the very minimum of information. There are contradictions in the information. Just my opinion
Will just put key comments in the order they appear in the accounts, which can be downloaded from companies house
Strategic report. This year no figure given for academy spend they usually like to. Says shareholder is only material creditor but later on you will see Sisu master fund is owed over £1m, not a shareholder and hmrc at £350k is not immaterial. Two lines are devoted to the ricoh lease with no detail of any solution but expect to be at ricoh . The risks and uncertainties section doesn't mention it at all. But concludes company is a going concern
Audit report. Auditors report and are responsible to the shareholders of the company. No one else and certainly not the fans. There is a going concern material uncertainty but it focusses on the financial support the group might need going forward. Last year it said company relied on its owners for support for the next year but this year it says company does not and both years that no intention to call debts in by owners. There is one short sentence about no home ground 2019/20. The auditors will access far more information than I can when expressing their opinion.
So far you get the feeling that the ricoh problems are down graded almost even glossed over. Which raises the questions how and why. What is going on behind the scenes (wouldn't be the first time that has happened)
The figures themselves
Income down 162k
Direct costs up 76k
Administration costs up 228k
Profit on player sales 973k (because there was little cost to get those players that's pretty much what club received)
Interest on the loans was 1.87m was accrued not physically paid over, but it is due and cannot be dismissed as it "is only due to shareholders " (for a start some is due to a non shareholder)
Operating losses increased to 1.6m which means even after player sales of 973k the club is not self sufficient
Net losses after all costs are 2.477m slightly down on 2017.
Balance sheet is negative by 48.6m but keep in mind this is the group and 29m is not due by otium because that 29m is the original investors loan to sbs&l. That original loan is not secured on otium
Interesting that there was 682k in the bank at that time possibly due to the promotion games providing a cash boost.
Received a new loan of 500k from Sisu master fund but repaid 254k
Players purchases in year 109k
Notes to accounts. Usual stuff in going concern note about forecasts and support of owners, written confirmation etc with paragraph on stadium problem saying they are looking at "venues" and negotiations are on going. Except we are told no talks with wasps aren't we? What do they mean venues?
Turnover discloses match income 2.43m and other income 3.54m total 5.97m down from 6.13m. But we were in league 2 and that income is better than a lot of teams in that division plus we had nearly 1m in player sales. The other thing again demonstrated is that the income we have is not just match day income. The accounts try to make a distinction about ticketing and other match day income but that's erroneous, simple fact is there are other incomes and Boddy has proven the club can put on non match day events if it wants to. The "missing" incomes would also come with costs which of course are ignored in the claim of being disadvantaged
Land lease costs dropped from 603k to 546k possibly because of the relegation, fisher said rent had been cheaper in league 2
Wages are for the group but in reality relate to otium
No directors remuneration paid at all
Wage costs up from 4.453m to 4.879m but 220k related to league pension costs so not in control of club. Possibly promotion bonuses explain some of the rest?
Wages very competitive for a league 2 club, bigger than some total turnovers in that division.
The notes reveal that sbs&l owes otium 847k accumulated over a number of years. No explanation as to why I assume otium paid sbs&l expenses as holding company has no income. So how does Otium get repaid ? And it is money otium should have to cover it's own needs. Perhaps explain why it has been necessary over last three years to put money in but not expecting to in future
Group now owes 6.9m in interest alone to ARVO and sisu master fund. Or rather otium does, plus 9m in capital. There is no cash flow to pay these sums back so it is rolled up each year
Apparently there is a possible liability for appearance costs on players 100k and interestingly that a contingent asset for monies due on players sold before year end is 650k . Were we not told Madison alone brought in more than that during 2018/19? They must know the figure?
Overall not great figures for a promotion year. The club further in debt, is not self sufficient and no obvious venue to play next season has been agreed.
Make of it what you will. But I am left feeling these accounts raise more questions than provide answers. Also that they include the very minimum of information. There are contradictions in the information. Just my opinion
Last edited:
