SBS & L accounts (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
if i've followed this thread correctly;
does this not pose a question as to where £20+ m has been moved ?
does this not pose a question as to where £20+ m has been moved ?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just to clear something up - the option to buy the Higgs Charity shares. First off there is no accusation of wrong doing here, but the circumstances are unclear and do not seem to match other information available. I am sure there is an explanation
According to the SBS&L 2008 accounts that company acquired the option to purchase the 50% of the shares in ACL held by the Higgs Charity. According to those 2008 statements it involved the payment of £1m. PWKH as clerk to Trustees of the Charity has confirmed that the option was agreed with and owned by CCFC Ltd and could not be transferred assigned or sold to any one else without the Charity Trustees permission. No permission has been given as confirmed by PWKH. Also if the accounts for the Charity and CCFC Ltd in 2008 are checked there is no evidence that either received £1m for the option from SBS&L. Why was the option stated at £1m in the SBS&L individual company accounts when it couldnt be owned by that company apparently? there is no doubt that the Group owned it but how did it cost £1m and who from, who was paid the £1m? In the 2010 accounts the value of that option in the SBS&L accounts was written down to nil value. The option is not mentioned at all in the 2012 accounts
I have assumed in my postings above that the transaction took place through the amount shown as invested by the Funds, (this might not be the case) and therefore have excluded it from the cash amount owed to the SISU funds at 31/05/11
My understanding is that the option has never been activated because it can not be whilst the club owes ACL money. The 2012 discussions between Charity and SISU were not on the basis of the option being activated as I understand it. I would suggest it has no value now.
According to the SBS&L 2008 accounts that company acquired the option to purchase the 50% of the shares in ACL held by the Higgs Charity. According to those 2008 statements it involved the payment of £1m. PWKH as clerk to Trustees of the Charity has confirmed that the option was agreed with and owned by CCFC Ltd and could not be transferred assigned or sold to any one else without the Charity Trustees permission. No permission has been given as confirmed by PWKH. Also if the accounts for the Charity and CCFC Ltd in 2008 are checked there is no evidence that either received £1m for the option from SBS&L. Why was the option stated at £1m in the SBS&L individual company accounts when it couldnt be owned by that company apparently? there is no doubt that the Group owned it but how did it cost £1m and who from, who was paid the £1m? In the 2010 accounts the value of that option in the SBS&L accounts was written down to nil value. The option is not mentioned at all in the 2012 accounts
I have assumed in my postings above that the transaction took place through the amount shown as invested by the Funds, (this might not be the case) and therefore have excluded it from the cash amount owed to the SISU funds at 31/05/11
My understanding is that the option has never been activated because it can not be whilst the club owes ACL money. The 2012 discussions between Charity and SISU were not on the basis of the option being activated as I understand it. I would suggest it has no value now.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Could it be likely that this is part of the accounts are in a mess TF statement ?
The option is back in ltd and has now been sold to Otium ?
The option is back in ltd and has now been sold to Otium ?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Questions on the 2012 SBS&L accounts you could ask
- what was the actual amount of cash "invested" by 31/05/12?
- how much has been invested by the Funds/SISU since 31/05/12?
- How did the Funds " investment" decrease from £29,679,942 in 2011 to £28,554,706 in 2012 if nothing was ever repaid?
- how does this equate to claims of £60m being invested ?
- interest actually paid has increased from £465k in 2011 to £981k in 2012 is this all to ARVO? the total charge for the year was £1.26m
- What rate of interest is paid on the ARVO loans?
- Which third party was £361,320 directors fees paid to and why is this related party not disclosed in the financial statements?
- why were administrative expenses so high in 2011?
- Is the directors report statement accurate and is it what would actually happen when it states Coventy city football club "must focus on the necessity to have its own stadium"?
- who actually controls the Group? SISU or ARVO? ARVO now has a charge over all the assets, the right to appoint its own directors and not have them removed, are a major creditor, has rights over shares etc
- what are the wage costs now - have directors fees £500K decreased or increased.
- It seems that the football side made a loss after player sales of £4.1m (or £6.9m before sales of players) is that correct? In 2013 then we had few player sales so were losses £7m for that year? Does this point to need to sell players in future?
- what players were sold in 2012 accounts to achieve proceeds of 3,159,732 and a profit of 2,840,854?
- The £755k received since the year end related to what players?
- what players did we buy for £984,440?
- the cashflow discloses that there was £6.275m in new loans but also that were £4.625 in loans repaid. Who to?
- audit fees are down from £34800 to £24000 but what was the £27000 spent on non audit services - taxation?
- if the lease/licence at the Ricoh was £1.3m why does the charges for property leases show as £1.66m
- what were the equipment disposals in the year that had an original cost of £1.2m
- the fixed asset investments show a cost of nil after a reduction for impairment including the 901 shares in Otium and yet ARVO can convert its £6m loan in to 12.5 % of the Otium shares issued (that must value otium at £48m? ). So how do the shares in otium have no value?
- Which group undertakings did SBS&L owe £1.8m in 2011 which has now been cleared
- Debtors owed to the group increased by £900k to £1.2m what did this include ? Was it players sales, proize money etc?
- At 31/05/12 there was £498K in bank and £315k in escrow account, does that confirm wont pay not couldnt pay?
- if you look at the Prozone disposal far from making a profit over the two years owning it they made losses on the deal?
- when will May 2013 accounts be filed
- what was the actual amount of cash "invested" by 31/05/12?
- how much has been invested by the Funds/SISU since 31/05/12?
- How did the Funds " investment" decrease from £29,679,942 in 2011 to £28,554,706 in 2012 if nothing was ever repaid?
- how does this equate to claims of £60m being invested ?
- interest actually paid has increased from £465k in 2011 to £981k in 2012 is this all to ARVO? the total charge for the year was £1.26m
- What rate of interest is paid on the ARVO loans?
- Which third party was £361,320 directors fees paid to and why is this related party not disclosed in the financial statements?
- why were administrative expenses so high in 2011?
- Is the directors report statement accurate and is it what would actually happen when it states Coventy city football club "must focus on the necessity to have its own stadium"?
- who actually controls the Group? SISU or ARVO? ARVO now has a charge over all the assets, the right to appoint its own directors and not have them removed, are a major creditor, has rights over shares etc
- what are the wage costs now - have directors fees £500K decreased or increased.
- It seems that the football side made a loss after player sales of £4.1m (or £6.9m before sales of players) is that correct? In 2013 then we had few player sales so were losses £7m for that year? Does this point to need to sell players in future?
- what players were sold in 2012 accounts to achieve proceeds of 3,159,732 and a profit of 2,840,854?
- The £755k received since the year end related to what players?
- what players did we buy for £984,440?
- the cashflow discloses that there was £6.275m in new loans but also that were £4.625 in loans repaid. Who to?
- audit fees are down from £34800 to £24000 but what was the £27000 spent on non audit services - taxation?
- if the lease/licence at the Ricoh was £1.3m why does the charges for property leases show as £1.66m
- what were the equipment disposals in the year that had an original cost of £1.2m
- the fixed asset investments show a cost of nil after a reduction for impairment including the 901 shares in Otium and yet ARVO can convert its £6m loan in to 12.5 % of the Otium shares issued (that must value otium at £48m? ). So how do the shares in otium have no value?
- Which group undertakings did SBS&L owe £1.8m in 2011 which has now been cleared
- Debtors owed to the group increased by £900k to £1.2m what did this include ? Was it players sales, proize money etc?
- At 31/05/12 there was £498K in bank and £315k in escrow account, does that confirm wont pay not couldnt pay?
- if you look at the Prozone disposal far from making a profit over the two years owning it they made losses on the deal?
- when will May 2013 accounts be filed
Last edited:
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
- if the lease/licence at the Ricoh was £1.3m why does the charges for property leases show as £1.66m
The club shop in town & the Allard way facility?
Were the offices, boxes & shop at the Ricoh coverde by the rent?
The club shop in town & the Allard way facility?
Were the offices, boxes & shop at the Ricoh coverde by the rent?
Over to you then Les? Should we not hold our breath?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I will state from the start there is no reason why interest should not be charged on loans
Thought it would be interesting to see the interest burden on the group over the years.
2009 paid 196k
2010 paid 554k
2011 paid 1.033m (in this year ARVO advanced 2m in finance there is no detail as to when the loan was received)
2012 paid 1.264m (in this year the ARVO debt had grown to 8.025m there is no detail as when the additional loan was received)
2013 unknown (but we are told that since 31/05/12 that a further 9.2m has been advanced to the Group)
From the information we have that means ARVO are now owed 17.225m. If we assume that interest remains as similar proportion to capital as in 2012 that means interest charges to ARVO could be 2.7m per annum. How is that viable?
Thought it would be interesting to see the interest burden on the group over the years.
2009 paid 196k
2010 paid 554k
2011 paid 1.033m (in this year ARVO advanced 2m in finance there is no detail as to when the loan was received)
2012 paid 1.264m (in this year the ARVO debt had grown to 8.025m there is no detail as when the additional loan was received)
2013 unknown (but we are told that since 31/05/12 that a further 9.2m has been advanced to the Group)
From the information we have that means ARVO are now owed 17.225m. If we assume that interest remains as similar proportion to capital as in 2012 that means interest charges to ARVO could be 2.7m per annum. How is that viable?
Last edited:
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
I agree that there is no reason why they shouldn't charge interest, however does it not call into question the accuracy of the constantly regurgitated statement "Sisu have taken nothing out of the Football Club"?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
well if you look in the 2012 the amount owed to SISU funds reduced from £29,679,942 in 2011 to £28,554,706 in 2012 ...... isnt that a repayment of part?
hopesprings
Well-Known Member
Surely the football league should be looking at this
stupot07
Well-Known Member
From the 2011/12 seasons.
In comparison to their annual revenue, many clubs have significant debt, though it is invariably provided by the owners, as opposed to the bank: Brighton £120 million, Leicester £86 million, Nottingham Forest £85 million, West Ham £73 million, Ipswich Town £73 million and Cardiff City £72 million.
The highest net interest payable recorded in the accounts were from Leicester City £5.3 million, Ipswich Town £3.5 million, Cardiff City £3.3 million, West Ham £3.2 million and Hull City £2.1 million. It should be noted that interest paid is not necessarily equal to the interest payable figure in the profit and loss account, as it is sometimes only added to debt (and so not actually paid), as was the case with Leicester, Ipswich and Cardiff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
From the 2011/12 seasons.
The highest net interest payable recorded in the accounts were from Leicester City £5.3 million, Ipswich Town £3.5 million, Cardiff City £3.3 million, West Ham £3.2 million and Hull City £2.1 million. It should be noted that interest paid is not necessarily equal to the interest payable figure in the profit and loss account, as it is sometimes only added to debt (and so not actually paid), as was the case with Leicester, Ipswich and Cardiff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Had their owners claimed to have taken nothing out as well?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The important thing is the amount of interest legally due to be paid.... ie what is incurred. It might be added to debt but that is just the same as incurring the full charge
Adding to debts is just making things worse because you end up paying interest on interest you couldnt afford in the first place. For a L1 team to be potentially paying 2.7m in interest is just crazy
Adding to debts is just making things worse because you end up paying interest on interest you couldnt afford in the first place. For a L1 team to be potentially paying 2.7m in interest is just crazy
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Dunno, but I know a fee fans were hoping to have a Leicester type takeover when we entered into administration....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
So the better owner is the one who has turned an average Championship team into a mid table League 1 team, whilst only taking out £1.26m in interest a year. As opposed to the crap owner who turns an average Championship team into a promotion chasing Championship team whilst taking out £5m?
Right now I now who I would rather running my club.
I also know which club has the brighter future.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
There you go making assumptions. I'm not saying who is the better own or not. Just pointing out that other teams have lots of debt and pay interest.
That £80m+ debt leicester have wracked up is in just 3 years....having gone through this crap I never want the club to be put in this position again, so I would rather not have Leicester's owners thanks.
Excluding wages, the highest other expenses were reported by West Ham £26 million, Leicester City £19 million and Birmingham City £18 million, largely due to higher player amortisation (the annual charge for writing-off players’ transfer fees)......
......
Leicester made nearly £30m losses that season...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vJCJFqhDXhU/UfojpOrpGuI/AAAAAAAAGyk/mOJkm7Ia5cQ/s1600/Chp+P&L+3.jpg
But hey ho, as long as we're doing ok in the championship we'll turn a blind eye on all that....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
There you go making assumptions. I'm not saying who is the better own or not. Just
pointing out that other teams have lots of debt and pay interest.
That £80m+ debt leicester have wracked up is in just 3 years....having gone through this crap I never want the club to be put in this position again, so I would rather not have Leicester's owners thanks.
Excluding wages, the highest other expenses were reported by West Ham £26 million, Leicester City £19 million and Birmingham City £18 million, largely due to higher player amortisation (the annual charge for writing-off players’ transfer fees)......
......
Leicester made nearly £30m losses that season...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vJCJFqhDXhU/UfojpOrpGuI/AAAAAAAAGyk/mOJkm7Ia5cQ/s1600/Chp+P&L+3.jpg
But hey ho, as long as we're doing ok in the championship we'll turn a blind eye on all that....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
So what are you trying to say Sisu are doing ok ?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Did you read the sentence of the post or what?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
There you go making assumptions. I'm not saying who is the better own or not. Just pointing out that other teams have lots of debt and pay interest.
That £80m+ debt leicester have wracked up is in just 3 years....having gone through this crap I never want the club to be put in this position again, so I would rather not have Leicester's owners thanks.
Excluding wages, the highest other expenses were reported by West Ham £26 million, Leicester City £19 million and Birmingham City £18 million, largely due to higher player amortisation (the annual charge for writing-off players’ transfer fees)......
......
Leicester made nearly £30m losses that season...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vJCJFqhDXhU/UfojpOrpGuI/AAAAAAAAGyk/mOJkm7Ia5cQ/s1600/Chp+P&L+3.jpg
But hey ho, as long as we're doing ok in the championship we'll turn a blind eye on all that....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
There are basically two ways to run a football club.
1. Spend excessively and eventually it will pay off, providing the owner is willing to put in enough in the mean time. (the Cardiff, Leicester, QPR approach).
2. Spend within means and build slowly and gradually. Be sensible with transfers and managerial appointments. (the Swansea approach).
What our owners have done, and continue to do is a half arsed attempt at both.
2008-09 It was approach 1, spend a decent amount on the team, owners seem willing to cover losses.
2009 Attitude changes and its cost cutting, selling players without replacements, club has to become self sufficient cry the owners.
2010 Switch back to the supportive owner role, allowing Aidy to bring in his team. Sisu are committed to funding the club to the Premiership.
2011 In comes the Orange. Starts cutting costs all over the place. CCFC needs to be making a profit he claims.
2012 Tim states he will provide the manager with a bounce back budget.
Our owners have never had a clue on how to run the club.
If you have no plan you will always fail.
Sisu didn't have a proper plan in place in 2008 and they don't in 2013.
The owners of Leicester seem to have a plan, regardless of whether they make it to the premiership or not I would put my mortgage on them being in a better position than us in a few years.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It seems disproportionate rate of interest when compared with the likes of West Ham Utd
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I think you make good points about the lack of a coherent or consistent plan, but, I disagree with your assertion about Leicester. There is no way that £80m of debt can ever translate into a good position in future years.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
You forgot the option 3.
3) spend beyond your means, achieve little then wait till it blows in your face - Portsmouth and Coventry. Birmingham look to be close to following us, and forest are almost fortunate Doherty past away....
Sisu are awful owners, however the 1 good thing they have done is finally address the unsustainable wage bill. IMO opinion something they should have done as soon as they took over along with renegotiating the rent/buying half of ACL.
And I completely agree with your point about the lack of a coherent plan.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
You forgot the option 3.
3) spend beyond your means, achieve little then wait till it blows in your face - Portsmouth and Coventry. Birmingham look to be close to following us, and forest are almost fortunate Doherty past away....
Sisu are awful owners, however the 1 good thing they have done is finally address the unsustainable wage bill. IMO opinion something they should have done as soon as they took over along with renegotiating the rent/buying half of ACL.
And I completely agree with your point about the lack of a coherent plan.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
See, I don't agree with this bit..."If you have no plan you will always fail"...as long as you have a clear definition of what success & failure look like you can succeed purely through focused hard work. Sometimes you can even over-achieve. A carefully constructed plan means you either deliver the objective, or you don't - but you still only over-achieve with focused hard work.
My point is that SISU objectives & plans do not necessarily mean success in footballing terms...& their hardest work seems to be pushing the limits of "normal business practice" & preparing court battles!