Auditors raise concernc over CCFC Finances (11 Viewers)

Sub

Well-Known Member
Auditors raise concerns over Coventry City FC finances

Read More http://www.birminghampost.net/midla...ity-fc-finances-65233-31277506/#ixzz1z462Qsol

Auditors have raised doubts over the finances of struggling football club Coventry City after it revealed growing losses.

The Sky Blues were relegated to the third flight of English football last year and saw losses grow to £6.7 million last year, compared to £3.1 million in 2010.
The club’s perilous financial position – which recently saw a transfer embargo forced upon it, similar to that imposed on Birmingham City – led auditors of its latest accounts to add an emphasis of matter – a note attached to the accounts to reveal concerns about parts of the statement.
Auditors from BDO said there was a “fundamental uncertainty” over a series of key issues.
They are concerned about a host of issues including falling revenue following demotion to League One, ongoing talks to reduce rent costs at the Ricoh Arena and difficulties in slashing wage costs.
dot.gif



In his report auditor Julian Rye said: “These conditions ... indicate the existence of a fundamental uncertainty which may cast significant doubt over the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
Accounts for Coventry City FC for the year to May 31 show the club actually increased turnover across the year, despite a fall in matchday income, but failed to cut staff costs and saw pre-tax losses increase to £6.7 million.
Auditors say uncertainty exists over the directors’ ability to make cuts to payroll costs, as agreements are yet to be forthcoming.
They say directors of the club anticipate raising the necessary cash flow to allow manager Andy Thorn to compete in the transfer market, but “the realisation of such cash flows is not yet certain”.
Meanwhile, the company has received written confirmation from a group of shareholders and other significant funders on their intention to support the company, but auditors said there was no “contractual certainty” over this.
The company turned over £10.3 million, up from £9.3 million the year before, but only made a profit of £72,209 on the sale of player registrations, compared to more than £4.7 million a year earlier.
Directors have pledged to “reduce the cost base while improving revenue earnings capacity”, but in the last year the number of players and management staff actually increased, from 94 to 108, and total staff costs rose from £10.3 million to £10.4 million.
Income from match receipts fell from £4.4 million to £3.9 million, but revenue from commercial activities – television, sponsorship and advertising, rose from £4.9 million in 2010 to £6.3 million last year.
Net liabilities stand at £54.9 million, compared to £46.2 million in 2010.
Coventry are tenants in their Ricoh Arena home, and have defaulted on the rent, and the club’s venture capitalist owner Sisu is currently in key talks to reduce the burden.
Reports claim Coventry City Council, which funded the arena’s construction and is its 50 per cent owner, is rejecting Sisu’s requests to reduce the £1.2 million annual rent, and calling on the financiers to sell the club if they cannot improve its calamitous fortunes.
Meanwhile, Coventry have been struggling on the pitch and the club’s owners have had to sell the likes of defender Ben Turner and midfielder Aron Gunarsson in recent years to boost the balance sheet.
The transfer embargo on the club was lifted a week ago by the Football League, enabling them to make signings ahead of the new season on August 18 – a luxury Birmingham City cannot enjoy.


Read More http://www.birminghampost.net/midla...ity-fc-finances-65233-31277506/#ixzz1z47Iv1Qi
 

davebart

Active Member
There is very little of this which makes any sense whatsoever.

Why would staff numbers increase when they are trying to reduce the wage bill?

Why did they make no money from selling players - surely the money from Juke alone would be more than 72K

How do you lose more money while reducing wages?

Presumably Nett Liabilities of 54.9m explains that??? not bad for a club that was said to be debt free three years ago, but the interest charged by the creditors will probably account for the increased losses.
 

Skybluefaz

Well-Known Member
How much of the staff wage budget is being hiked up by directors recieving ridiculously high salaries?

That can be the only reason they could not cut personnel spend.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
to be honest there will be similar comments on many football club accounts made by the auditors. Maybe not as strong on some but it is to be expected in a sector of business that regularly run on a basis of costs exceeding income and ever increasing debt.

However the Birmingham Post is to be applauded in the way it has reported it. Only thing they haven't explained enough is the net debt and how the holding company SBS&L fit into it.

Nothing in the CT yet then ? :facepalm:
 

davebart

Active Member
to be honest there will be similar comments on many football club accounts made by the auditors. Maybe not as strong on some but it is to be expected in a sector of business that regularly run on a basis of costs exceeding income and ever increasing debt.

However the Birmingham Post is to be applauded in the way it has reported it. Only thing they haven't explained enough is the net debt and how the holding company SBS&L fit into it.

Agree entirely.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
There is very little of this which makes any sense whatsoever.

Why would staff numbers increase when they are trying to reduce the wage bill?

Why did they make no money from selling players - surely the money from Juke alone would be more than 72K

How do you lose more money while reducing wages?

Presumably Nett Liabilities of 54.9m explains that??? not bad for a club that was said to be debt free three years ago, but the interest charged by the creditors will probably account for the increased losses.


You miss the fact that the accounts shows the status per May 2011. More than a year ago.
Everything that has happened since are not reflected in the freshly printed accounts.

But maybe now more fans will understand why Ranson, Hoffman and Elliott had to go?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Yes Godiva, Ranson and the ProZone which formed a quarter of our turnover that year leaving was excellent.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Yes Godiva, Ranson and the ProZone which formed a quarter of our turnover that year leaving was excellent.

I don't care about Prozone ... this is a football club, not a software developer company. Anyway, the club received 5 years profit for Prozone, not a bad deal.

But I am very happy Ranson (and Hoffman and Elliot) is gone ... he (they) was (were) directly responsible for the mess reflected in the accounts.
Do you want them back to 'finish the job'?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
I think it's important to remember this is april 2010 - march 2011 figures so doesn't include the sales of turner and juke and the payments for dann and Gunnarsson.

I presume this accountancy period would include paying off Coleman and paying compensation to Colchester for boothroyd and possibly paying Boothroyd off when he was sacked. Also I'm sure the likes of king, carsley and Sheff would have had decent signing on bonus's.
 

Ashdown

Well-Known Member
The manipulation of those figures is what disturbs me though, this huge administrative payment and loan interest charges etc............borrowings now being lodged against the club using other lenders. How can the costs have possibly risen, we are down to the bare bones throughout. The snoz might point to a £500,000 fall in matchday income but its a drop in the ocean and what exactly do you expect from hard pressed fans.
SISU very cleverly move funds between the companies they have set up to manipulate things to read however they want, I don't doubt that if we sold out every week SISU would introduce another provisional adjustment next year to ensure it looked like we were still making losses.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
I don't care about Prozone ... this is a football club, not a software developer company. Anyway, the club received 5 years profit for Prozone, not a bad deal.

But I am very happy Ranson (and Hoffman and Elliot) is gone ... he (they) was (were) directly responsible for the mess reflected in the accounts.
Do you want them back to 'finish the job'?

I'd like £4m a year back that's for sure.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
The manipulation of those figures is what disturbs me though, this huge administrative payment and loan interest charges etc............borrowings now being lodged against the club using other lenders. How can the costs have possibly risen, we are down to the bare bones throughout. The snoz might point to a £500,000 fall in matchday income but its a drop in the ocean and what exactly do you expect from hard pressed fans.
SISU very cleverly move funds between the companies they have set up to manipulate things to read however they want, I don't doubt that if we sold out every week SISU would introduce another provisional adjustment next year to ensure it looked like we were still making losses.

Look into OSB's posts in the finance section.
The administration costs are 'tainted' by a one-time write-off. The club still does not pay interests on loans to the sisu funds - but as the external debts starts to raise, then interests paid goes up.
It has nothing to do with manipulation.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
No, Godiva, but the fact remains that in League One our turnover will conceivably be at least a few million pounds lower than it was in 2011. Even if you cut both the wage bill and the administrative costs in half, you still come out making substantial losses; which is where ProZone becomes significant-its losses are negligible in comparison and its contribution to turnover was significant even then, and would be far more so now. I simply don't share your views and optimism.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Haha our own footballing benefits from ProZone are debatable, I don't question that ;) Numbers don't lie though and it still seems a very popular tool across most football clubs.
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
This is the part most 'supporters' should heed - "despite a fall in matchday income, ..."


Oh come off it: if we had 25,000 each game it wouldn't make a pin prick in our supposed "debts" (which are mostly inside SISU anyway...)
 

dazzled2u

New Member
Explains the lack of Band Bang Bang - more along the lines - splutter splutter fizzle :(

The previous year wasn't as bad as the prize assets were sold off - others vanished for nothing as they wouldn't offer a decent contract. I really don't understand the short sighted nature of SISU. From purely a business point of view if in charge you would off good contracts to keep you star assets - then if needed you sell you assets for top price and recoup the cost of the contract. Don't let them walk out of the door for nothing! So many players walked for nothing - we could of made in excess of £7million on Westwood and Gunerson if they were in contract.
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
You miss the fact that the accounts shows the status per May 2011. More than a year ago.
Everything that has happened since are not reflected in the freshly printed accounts.

But maybe now more fans will understand why Ranson, Hoffman and Elliott had to go?

Yeah we really turned the corner under the magnificunt board of Clouting, Dulieu, Igwe and Brody, didn't we? DIDN'T WE? Erm, hello? Godiva, where've you gone...?
 

Ashdown

Well-Known Member
Godiva...............Can you explain this one off write off for us in simple English:
What does it represent?
Is it like the banks and PPI write downs?
Will it happen again?
Can it be revoked?
If it didn't exist , the figures for this year would be okay wouldn't they?
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
This is the part most 'supporters' should heed - "despite a fall in matchday income, ..."
The most likely cause being a reduction in season ticket price.
The short sighted effect increasing season ticket sales by around 2500,while looking impressive and allowing them to borrowagainst
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
The most likely cause being a reduction in season ticket price.
The short sighted effect increasing season ticket sales by around 2500,while looking impressive and allowing them to borrowagainst
sorry on phone add the meaning of which their inability to fund cost as crowd figures would most likely been achieved regardless.
In short their inability to fund reduced our matchday income ...and most likely achieved only a boost to Compass
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Oh come off it: if we had 25,000 each game it wouldn't make a pin prick in our supposed "debts" (which are mostly inside SISU anyway...)

Our average crowds in 2010-11 were around the 17,000 mark. This brought in turnover at the £4 million mark from match receipts, and contributed in part to the £8 million commercial revenues (which includes merchandise, supporters lottery etc). Suppose we got a full house every week in League One-so assume that turnover from match receipts doubles to £8 million-this compensates nicely for the lost ProZone money. However, solidarity payment reductions and TV reductions are such that relegation loses us the same if not a slightly bigger amount in commercial revenues. As such, would our turnover shift much from £12 million in this fantasy scenario? Essentially, no. Total salaries of £11m and 'administrative costs' of £13m have us doomed to lose £15 million on a yearly basis-again, in the wild scenario that the Ricoh sells out every week. Now I'm sure that salary costs have been cut appreciably, and into the millions is more than likely in relation to 2011, but turnover has taken a massive hit which means that the operating losses don't take a dent.

Players would need to be sold for stupid fees (and nobody remains who could fetch more than a few million at most) just to paper over the cracks for a year. Higher crowds will make losses shorter, of course they would, but even selling out every week, we still stand to lose huge sums potentially on a par with the 2011 losses. Even if administrative costs were zero we would still stand to lose several million pounds.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
The manipulation of those figures is what disturbs me though, this huge administrative payment and loan interest charges etc............borrowings now being lodged against the club using other lenders. How can the costs have possibly risen, we are down to the bare bones throughout. The snoz might point to a £500,000 fall in matchday income but its a drop in the ocean and what exactly do you expect from hard pressed fans.
SISU very cleverly move funds between the companies they have set up to manipulate things to read however they want, I don't doubt that if we sold out every week SISU would introduce another provisional adjustment next year to ensure it looked like we were still making losses.

Look into OSB's posts in the finance section.
The administration costs are 'tainted' by a one-time write-off. The club still does not pay interests on loans to the sisu funds - but as the external debts starts to raise, then interests paid goes up.
It has nothing to do with manipulation.

Godiva...............Can you explain this one off write off for us in simple English:
What does it represent?
Is it like the banks and PPI write downs?
Will it happen again?
Can it be revoked?
If it didn't exist , the figures for this year would be okay wouldn't they?

You should read this thread http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/17826-SBS-amp-L-accounts-2011

What happens between CCFC H and CCFC ltd is not important (like the write-off), it's much more important how the group perform as a whole.

And again please remember the accounts are the reflection of the status more than a year ago. Nothing that has happened since june 2011 have impact on the accounts published!
Anything that happened in last season up till May 2012 will be in the next accounts that will be published sometime next spring.
But almost anything that DID happen in last season are as consequence of what is in the newly published accounts.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
No, Godiva, but the fact remains that in League One our turnover will conceivably be at least a few million pounds lower than it was in 2011. Even if you cut both the wage bill and the administrative costs in half, you still come out making substantial losses; which is where ProZone becomes significant-its losses are negligible in comparison and its contribution to turnover was significant even then, and would be far more so now. I simply don't share your views and optimism.

You cannot run a company on turnover - you need profit to be sustainable.
Prozone was sold for something like £7m - a lot of money, when the owners pockets are empty and there are still more bills to pay.

PS - there's absolutely no optimism in my posts these days.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top