CCFC 2018/2019 Accounts Thread! (7 Viewers)

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
My wishful thinking is that if we get promoted a buyer will come in with an offer Joy cant refuse.
Or there is one waiting, Joy just has to get City back to the Championship. I can see little on going benefit to SISU from being a mid table Championship side.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Fuck me.

Top of the table. Pulling clear. Best time to be a City supporter for many years. I have a great idea. Let's think of a thread that can make people angry and want to have an argument.

Oh well. All a part of being a City supporter.

The accounts have been published and it’s legitimate to discuss them
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
How long until Keiran Maguire tells everybody that millions has been taken from the club and gets everybody frothing?

He will say we are £81 m in debt to Sisu
 

speedie87

Well-Known Member
We’ve actually made a £2m profit if you ignore the interest on the loans which is more a of paper figure than anything else in the accounts
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Eh?

How is it 'not very positive' that we have made a profit for the first time in however long? How many other clubs in the football league made a profit last year?

Would it be more positive if we made a loss?

We havent we’ve made an operating loss which has increased
 

CovUpNorth

Well-Known Member
How many clubs make a profit before transfers? Not to mention its the clubs stated business model. Of course it would be brilliant if we were minions in profit without selling anyone but that's virtually impossible.
giphy.gif
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
We’ve actually made a £2m profit if you ignore the interest on the loans which is more a of paper figure than anything else in the accounts

Page 27 shows a £2m loss operationally which has zero to do with that - match day turnover went down
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
yeah add the £4m player sales and you get my £2m profit

Which is as tenable as wasps making a profit due to the extraordinary share issue item
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Anotization costs much higher? What’s the debt that’s been written down on an asset?

£0.5m on rent which is a lot higher than the stated Ricoh rent amount
 

mark82

Super Moderator
Anotization costs much higher? What’s the debt that’s been written down on an asset?

£0.5m on rent which is a lot higher than the stated Ricoh rent amount

Did they ever confirm what the terms were at the Ricoh for last year?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member

speedie87

Well-Known Member
Which is as tenable as wasps making a profit due to the extraordinary share issue item

They are different as it’s not a one off exceptional item. Hence wasps had to account for it as such. Making money from player sales a normal part of the trade of running a football club. As shown from selling 3 players for millions again this season.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
They are different as it’s not a one off exceptional item. Hence wasps had to account for it as such. Making money from player shares a normal part of the trade of running a football club. As shown from selling 3 players for millions again this season.

It’s not if you are looking at the true value of the business - the business has lost £2.5m yet makes a laughable statement it’s running at a revenue neutral position - it’s had £1.3 m of loans in the previous 3 years unsecured from the master fund as well
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
They are different as it’s not a one off exceptional item. Hence wasps had to account for it as such. Making money from player sales a normal part of the trade of running a football club. As shown from selling 3 players for millions again this season.

It isn't, we cannot rely on profit from players of £4m +, Maddison in particular is a one off and we're very unlikely to bring that sort of money in again.

This isn't me being negative it's just genuine worry for the club's future. We all love to comment on Wasps' poor financial position, ours is not really much better if not worse and it seems a bit like the egos involved have set the two clubs on to a mutually assured suicide.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It isn't, we cannot rely on profit from players of £4m +, Maddison in particular is a one off and we're very unlikely to bring that sort of money in again.

This isn't me being negative it's just genuine worry for the club's future. We all love to comment on Wasps' poor financial position, ours is not really much better if not worse and it seems a bit like the egos involved have set the two clubs on to a mutually assured suicide.

A lot of people on here are like that Shuggs guy on there
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
TBF we’ve been saying we can’t sustain player sales since Wilson went and yet here we are.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
They are different as it’s not a one off exceptional item. Hence wasps had to account for it as such. Making money from player shares a normal part of the trade of running a football club. As shown from selling 3 players for millions again this season.
It's not guaranteed though. This profit is only because Maddison moved on, and that was out of our control. Had he not moved on, would we have had to sell someone below value to plug the gap? Or would we have had to have an inferior squad, and risk starting the cycle we were in before of the swirling plughole?

We've sold players this season, but will have smaller income and (possibly) greater costs. What happens then? At what point do we run out of saleable assets, or we have to sell everybody, fast?
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
Anotization costs much higher? What’s the debt that’s been written down on an asset?

£0.5m on rent which is a lot higher than the stated Ricoh rent amount
Higgs rent?
I'm assuming the some of amortization increase is down to the fact we bought players for cash and it's spread over the length of their contracts
 

speedie87

Well-Known Member
It’s not if you are looking at the true value of the business - the business has lost £2.5m yet makes a laughable statement it’s running at a revenue
neutral position - it’s had £1.3 m of loans in the previous 3 years unsecured from the master fund as well

Yes we’d have made a loss without player sales , but player sales are a main source of trading income for football clubs. You can’t just ignore them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PVA
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
TBF we’ve been saying we can’t sustain player sales since Wilson went and yet here we are.
And I'm realistic enough to know that player sales are an inevitability. It's to Robins' great credit that despite smaller income streams this season, he's got us doing so well, really.

All it takes is one poor choice of manager, though...
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
The increase in turnover we need to even begin to compete in the Championship is huge, well over 100%, where is that coming from?
To a degree, does our business model need us to sell one or two players at peak value on promotion, keep a similar squad to now, and just take the hit of relegation?

Would that actually straighten us out a little financially? Or risk starting the downward spiral again?
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
If we could somehow manage to have a fairly competitive season on a similar budget and come down with more money in the bank and a similar squad it would help the 'who blinks first' strategy our owners seem to have.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
If we could somehow manage to have a fairly competitive season on a similar budget and come down with more money in the bank and a similar squad it would help the 'who blinks first' strategy our owners seem to have.
To an extent, bouncing a bit like, say, Rotherham might be what we need for a while. Given our recent history however, I'd always be worried to loser culture took over again, just when we've rid ourselves of it seemingly.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top