Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I thought ML said it was commonplace not to file accounts on time.
Accounts - just a heads up (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
I thought ML said it was commonplace not to file accounts on time.
Astute
Well-Known Member
But since when did our club do things in any way that is commonplace?
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
FYI http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-file-accounts-time-6757125
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
H
Huckerby
Guest
Yay they're hear for the long run
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Simon who spoke to ML on this matter.
When he said it was a long term plan can he not be asked how that long term plan works out.
How do SISU expect to get a return on their investment by borrowing 20-30 million on top of the current 36 million debt?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I am glad that the club have hit the deadline. We have enough problems as it is and I can think of no good reason why the filing would be delayed. Companies House would hard to persuade that there should be a delay after the last three years accounts have been late. To have missed it would have been embarrassing for the owners directors and club, a big PR mistake if nothing else. Could hardly argue the club is in good shape in terms of financial control if they cant hit a simple deadline that you have 9 months to achieve. The thing that worried me most, particularly after recent results, was the possibility of an embargo when it might be vital to bring in a further loan player or two to make sure we are mid table
Assuming the usual caveats will be in the accounts and auditors report regarding going concern then that means a funding plan for the club must be in place to at least end of February 2015. But the full details will be available soon enough
Will be interesting to contrast the two sets of companies, SBS&L Group and ACL Group. How did the dispute affect each, how does it back up what each have said, what do the auditors of each conclude in their reports etc
Assuming the usual caveats will be in the accounts and auditors report regarding going concern then that means a funding plan for the club must be in place to at least end of February 2015. But the full details will be available soon enough
Will be interesting to contrast the two sets of companies, SBS&L Group and ACL Group. How did the dispute affect each, how does it back up what each have said, what do the auditors of each conclude in their reports etc
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
I did.
Match day revenues from the club's own stadium is the long term plan. Along with moving up the league structure. According to Mr Labovitch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Simon. Were you able to keep a straight face?
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Is it SISU or Seppala that are funding this though? They act as agents for investors they are not the investors. SISU do not own the shares, have not provided the loans themselves.
The statements in the accounts from directors and auditors have always stated that funding would be dependent on revenues and other Football related activity (player sales?). In the 2012 accounts the notes and audit report stated there is no contractual certainty with the shareholders and other lenders to provide funding or not call in loans. The 2012 audit report reads
"notwithstanding this intention there is no contractual certainty that such funding will be made available nor that the loans will not be called for repayment"
Will 2013 be similar?
The statements in the accounts from directors and auditors have always stated that funding would be dependent on revenues and other Football related activity (player sales?). In the 2012 accounts the notes and audit report stated there is no contractual certainty with the shareholders and other lenders to provide funding or not call in loans. The 2012 audit report reads
"notwithstanding this intention there is no contractual certainty that such funding will be made available nor that the loans will not be called for repayment"
Will 2013 be similar?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the reply.
At some point they will intend to get a seizable chunk of their investors money back.
We will be talking some 60 million. A 12k stadium and a league one or championship club. Will not sell for anywhere near that.
We currently pay 1 million a year in interest. That will have to go up.
We also pay management fees. So once wages are paid. We will have no profit to sign players or chip away at the debt.
I appreciate you must maintain a healthy relationship with him or you will get nothing.
However you are one of the few people with access and working for the CET you probably want to represent your readers views.
Is their anyway ML, TF or JS can be pinned down on this question a bit more.
People are attending consultation groups etc etc.
Yet nobody has been convinced, or to be honest actually had this long term plan explained in any detail.
If they explain it and it makes sense they may change a lot of people's opinions about the prospect of a new stadium. Including the council so it is in their interest to explain it.
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Do you buy the Coventry Telegraph?
SIR ERNIE
Well-Known Member
SISU don't have to explain anything to the fans. We're not their customers, we mean nothing to them. Their investors are their customers. In fact that's the root cause of this whole shambles imo.
Anything SISU announce to the fans needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. All this bullshit about a new stadium and long term plan to earn money from a successful football club is now bollox. Maybe it wasn't 6 or 7 years ago but now we're struggling in League one, it's total bollox. SISU will never turn this football club around. That's not even a plan.
Their position is that they've gambled their investors money on getting the Ricoh for peanuts. 'Invest £1m and Joy will turn it into £10m for you.'
It's that or nothing.
Shit or bust.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Question for osb:
ML states in that article that "sisu have never taken any money out".
But that's not exactly true is it? (interest charges)
ML states in that article that "sisu have never taken any money out".
But that's not exactly true is it? (interest charges)
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It hasn't really gone anywhere, in essence it hasn't gone out.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
Asked if the move to Sixfields and plans to build a new home could ever be financially viable, he said: “It means in the short term you take a hit in attendances, naturally."
why "naturally" ?, just negotiate a shirt term loan deal with an empty stadium in COVENTRY
why "naturally" ?, just negotiate a shirt term loan deal with an empty stadium in COVENTRY
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Interest has been paid and according to cash flow statements has been paid out. However interest is not due to SISU or its investors, but at least some of it is due to ARVO (that has connections through Seppala to SISU Capital).
The disposal of Prozone saw the purchasers take over the inter company debt that was owed by Prozone to SBS&L (ie the new owners were then owed it) That is a settlement of that debt to SBS&L, and it looks like at least part reduced the amount due to the investor loans in SBS&L. In the accounts to 2011 SISU investors loans to SBS&L were £29,269,942 by 31st May 2012 the figure was £28,554,706.
It doesn't look like the ccfc part of the business repaid those loans but it is the group situation that is important.
SISU Capital make their money on the administration of their clients investments so they would take a slice of that pot not directly from SBS&L. However the knock on from that is that the investors funds have a bigger gap to make up each year in any sale of their investment just to stand still. Depending on the level of involvement in ARVO SISU or Seppala could get a share of the interest ARVO earns.... but can not say for certain as there are no real details on ARVO - so might not be the case
So Sisu don't take anything directly on the face of it, but the loan to ARVO bares interest that is at least part paid each year.
Looks to me like a little bit of playing with words in my opinion. The football club did not repay any loans (but has paid interest on loans) it didn't have funds to make capital repayments..... but the SBS&L group certainly seems to have repaid something to the investors because the investor loan debt decreased in value between 2011 and 2012.
The disposal of Prozone saw the purchasers take over the inter company debt that was owed by Prozone to SBS&L (ie the new owners were then owed it) That is a settlement of that debt to SBS&L, and it looks like at least part reduced the amount due to the investor loans in SBS&L. In the accounts to 2011 SISU investors loans to SBS&L were £29,269,942 by 31st May 2012 the figure was £28,554,706.
It doesn't look like the ccfc part of the business repaid those loans but it is the group situation that is important.
SISU Capital make their money on the administration of their clients investments so they would take a slice of that pot not directly from SBS&L. However the knock on from that is that the investors funds have a bigger gap to make up each year in any sale of their investment just to stand still. Depending on the level of involvement in ARVO SISU or Seppala could get a share of the interest ARVO earns.... but can not say for certain as there are no real details on ARVO - so might not be the case
So Sisu don't take anything directly on the face of it, but the loan to ARVO bares interest that is at least part paid each year.
Looks to me like a little bit of playing with words in my opinion. The football club did not repay any loans (but has paid interest on loans) it didn't have funds to make capital repayments..... but the SBS&L group certainly seems to have repaid something to the investors because the investor loan debt decreased in value between 2011 and 2012.
Last edited:
Mark Labovich in technically accurate but intentionally misleading weasely words shocker.
printed without challenge in the telegraph shocker.
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
Worth noting that "misquoted" claim has disappeared from the minutes of the SCG meeting on the official club website.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and that should show the validity we should now put in the new minutes now they go through the sisu spin and mislead machine.
I know you can hardly criticize if you want to maintain a happy relationship but it isn't worth it. When he says something that is obviously nonsense, or obviously intended to mislead, please call him on it, don't print his comment without correction, it just misleads your audience, if that means you get less access so be it. At least you could have respect from yourself and others in what you put out.
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
Should I also have taken out Chris Robinson's statement that ACL was a profitable business when I interviewed him?
It's my job to report what is being said. It's up to the readers to form opinions on those comments.
Reporting someone else's view does not mean we subscribe to it.
However, I'm always happy to listen to suggestions about what fans would like to know.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can't you just tell labovitch that he's a lying c@@t?
Is that a suggestion that he told a pokey Simon?
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Did you ask him how disenfranchising 90% of the fan base was going to influence match day incomes moving forward; and how many fans they now genuinely think will return to any venue with SISU still at the helm?
Seriously, they must have a figure for their planning. I'd love to know what it is. I hope it's more accurate than Fisher's Sixfields estimate, which was out by what? 300%?
That's a misrepresentation of what I just said, I didn't ask you to take out what he said, so the suggestion that I feel differently about something said by someone representing acl is poor, you are just trying to make out im bias, please don't fall into the trap of responding to polite, respectful and constructive (at least thats my attempt) critique in this way because thats what Les Reid did, I absolutely think you are right to print what he says, I also think you did well and asked good questions in that article but his responses were pure spin that I'm sure you know. I'd like anytime you are given pure spin as a response to challenge what is said.
Edit - I realise the misundering might have come from me saying don't print his comment without correction, I don't mean don't print it, I mean don't print it and say nothing afterwards.
When he says sisu have not taken any money out ask about management fees and interest paid on loans, challenge his response to your question about how can the move to sixfields a new home ever be financially viable, because he certainly did not answer you.
Also did you record the interview where he said he was misquoted? because he basically called you are liar afterwords, put this sort of stuff in your articles, make sure your readership know how much we should trust this mans word, because people don't, people whose views on things just come from the paper have very distorted views because they hear so much spin (which isn't from you, but from the people you quote) without realising it shouldn't be trusted.
Last edited:
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
I didn't mean to come across as being confrontational. That was absolutely not my intent.
I appreciate the input.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I'm sure OSB can provide the figures.Thanks and I appreciate what you do and realise you are between a rock and a hardplace, I don't want you think I'm insulting you, just feel that the local medias desire to stay friendly with the club, doesn't easily allow for the full facts to get to the readership that don't waste their lives arguing on messageboards like a few of us and people get easily manipulated.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
My question on the attendance level certainly needs attending. Every project viability or business plan begins with known incomes, from which operational costs are deducted. Match day attendance is the only known income, as cup runs and TV monies are variable and staccato.
Current attendance levels make any project non viable. So where's the science behind increasing attendances back to whatever levels exist in their viability plan? I'm was a season ticket holder. They have me, and thousands like me on a database. They know who's going to Sixfields. They know who's not. There's been no engagement with the latter with regards potential attendance to put into any business plan.
They simply would not start constructing a new facility without viability plan, which in itself would be meaningless without input from those who provide the income. It's all not there. Like the site. Like the announcements.
Every bit of evidence points to this 'project' being no more than bluster. And if it is, it needs to be demonstrated as such, as it points toward the move out of the city as being wholly unnecessary
Current attendance levels make any project non viable. So where's the science behind increasing attendances back to whatever levels exist in their viability plan? I'm was a season ticket holder. They have me, and thousands like me on a database. They know who's going to Sixfields. They know who's not. There's been no engagement with the latter with regards potential attendance to put into any business plan.
They simply would not start constructing a new facility without viability plan, which in itself would be meaningless without input from those who provide the income. It's all not there. Like the site. Like the announcements.
Every bit of evidence points to this 'project' being no more than bluster. And if it is, it needs to be demonstrated as such, as it points toward the move out of the city as being wholly unnecessary
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes.........
duffer
Well-Known Member
Fwiw, and imho etc., I think Simon's done a good job here with both his recent interviews.
In essence, to me, it seems that both Labovitch and the new ACL chap, Robinson, have said something along the lines of "we've got a plan, and the future's rosy". When challenged as to the fiscal realities aren't they are both just going to say "wait and see"?
On that basis I think judgement as to the probabilities for success for the Ricoh without CCFC, and CCFC without the Ricoh is something we've got to determine for ourselves.
Personally, I think ACL have got the better chance - mostly on the basis that I just can't see how the figures for a new stadium coupled to the existing debt add up. But that is just my opinion, others may differ.
Of course, I think the best solution is that SISU pull their heads out of their arses and take the cheap rental deal and then negotiate from there. But they won't, at least until the JR is all done, imho.
In essence, to me, it seems that both Labovitch and the new ACL chap, Robinson, have said something along the lines of "we've got a plan, and the future's rosy". When challenged as to the fiscal realities aren't they are both just going to say "wait and see"?
On that basis I think judgement as to the probabilities for success for the Ricoh without CCFC, and CCFC without the Ricoh is something we've got to determine for ourselves.
Personally, I think ACL have got the better chance - mostly on the basis that I just can't see how the figures for a new stadium coupled to the existing debt add up. But that is just my opinion, others may differ.
Of course, I think the best solution is that SISU pull their heads out of their arses and take the cheap rental deal and then negotiate from there. But they won't, at least until the JR is all done, imho.