covcity4life
Well-Known Member
shows how bad the original ricoh deal was..damn
thank you sisu....for now.
thank you sisu....for now.
£61m of debt wiped out in latest CCFC accounts (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Or we could look at it and say ..where would be be and what would we have if you did it all right from the off..61 million..my god
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I heard something about around 40 million of debt getting wiped off. As an explanation of how building a new stadium could be feasible.
Ie only 10 million of existing debt.
Spend 30 million in a new stadium. Sell the lot in the future for a profit.
To be honest I couldn't comprehend the idea of SISU writing off 40 million never mind 60 million!!!
I also await OSB's take on this.
Specifically has that 60 million completely gone is it written off. Are CCFC only 10 million in debt full stop?
Ie only 10 million of existing debt.
Spend 30 million in a new stadium. Sell the lot in the future for a profit.
To be honest I couldn't comprehend the idea of SISU writing off 40 million never mind 60 million!!!
I also await OSB's take on this.
Specifically has that 60 million completely gone is it written off. Are CCFC only 10 million in debt full stop?
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
With that level of secrecy I'm surprised LR hasn't organised a campaign for an independent inquiry.
tisza
Well-Known Member
good I thought I was misreading something as well. isn't this write off something that Appleton referred to at the time of the administration? wasn't it old historical debt rather than anything put into the club by SISU?
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
we are in no different place today versus yesterday
yesterday there was 61m of debt that they were never getting back
Today there is a 61m charge to the P&L - which is written off
no difference at all, and no relevance to what they would actually ask for in any negotiations
yesterday there was 61m of debt that they were never getting back
Today there is a 61m charge to the P&L - which is written off
no difference at all, and no relevance to what they would actually ask for in any negotiations
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
So still 46 million in debt and rising every year? New stadium is still in feasible to me then.
Truly staggering numbers Involved here
Almost Incomprehensible and worthy of weighing against escaping a rent of £400K over 43yrs
The big number everyone seems to have focused on Is a bit of a red herring Isn't It
That was always going to have to be eradicated
SO No, No plaudits for Fisher there,no back slaps, he was right to keep quiet
Does the reduced debt open up the prospect of a takeover,either friendly or hostile or staged to themselves?
Almost Incomprehensible and worthy of weighing against escaping a rent of £400K over 43yrs
The big number everyone seems to have focused on Is a bit of a red herring Isn't It
That was always going to have to be eradicated
SO No, No plaudits for Fisher there,no back slaps, he was right to keep quiet
Does the reduced debt open up the prospect of a takeover,either friendly or hostile or staged to themselves?
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
didnt sound from the article like it will be rising though. trying to make club self sufficient.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Having now read OSB and Godiva's explanation. I am back to the view that a new stadium is not feasible
Surely with the announcement of the accounts this is the moment for the CET and Observer to question how SISU achieve their end game with the debt CCFC will have on top of the 46 million debt by building a new stadium.
1.3 million interest a year I would guess rising to 2.5 million?
Surely with the announcement of the accounts this is the moment for the CET and Observer to question how SISU achieve their end game with the debt CCFC will have on top of the 46 million debt by building a new stadium.
1.3 million interest a year I would guess rising to 2.5 million?
Still a huge debt - but the debt is only worth anything if paid back. As it is owned by the shareholders and not by an external bank (or council), there's no risk of the loans being recalled.
You can't say from the balance sheet and P/L statement alone if a new stadium is more or less feasible. That would depend on the business plan.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I think it went up instead of down matey
Also if we build a new stadium it will go up by at least another 20 million
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
speculate to accumulate.
our losses will be less this year than sixfields season, profit should be up though now we out manouvered the council and have a good rental deal.
i just dont think we are hemorrhaging money.
our losses will be less this year than sixfields season, profit should be up though now we out manouvered the council and have a good rental deal.
i just dont think we are hemorrhaging money.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Told ya, pointless looking at the accounts for simpletons like me. They try and tell us they've written off 60 million and the OSB and Godiva come an tell us they haven't and we are still 40 million in debt to SISU.
Still confused.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
From the headline it suddenly became feasible to me.
If we had 10-20 million debt I could just about see how it may work.
New stadium + investment in team 50-60 million debt.
Get near the plays off for the prem sell the dream 60-80 million.
Starting at 40-50 million debt and then going up to 80-90 million. Doesn't work for me
lifelongcityfan
Well-Known Member
Make your mind up...are we reducing losses or increasing profit? given that we are not making a profit we are losing money...the wilso cash will only last so long...where is the new investment ( speculation) coming from??
From TF himself:
Please read the following message to Coventry City supporters on the latest sets of accounts...
Tim Fisher, Chairman of Coventry City Football Club
The club’s accounts have been filed on time and I have absolutely no doubt that when our supporters see the headline figures they could be quite concerned – I wouldn’t blame them.
I believe, as everyone will know, that the events of 2013/14 were nothing short of extraordinary covering both a company liquidation and a ground share. The question asked is - did the club really lose £70 million in the 2013/14 season? The answer is, of course, no it didn’t. Far from it.
Otium bought all the business of both Holdings and Ltd. However, the Football League ‘golden share’ agreement did not allow for any additional debt to be taken onto the balance sheet of Otium.
Therefore, almost £61 million of loans from the owner has been converted from debt to equity, while a further £3 million was provided as equity, demonstrating a clear commitment from the owner – as funds provided after July 2013 were in the form of equity rather than additional debt.
Because of the extraordinary events of the liquidation of CCFC Ltd, the rejection of the CVA and the purchase by Otium, technical accounting rules dictate that, a figure of around £61 million be charged into the ‘profit and loss’ section of the accounts while more than £3 million of additional funding can also be seen as a purchase of equity. The directors make it clear in the accounts that this is not reflective of the true profit and loss of the company.
They do show an operating loss of £6.87million. This is less than the previous year despite the extraordinary circumstances including ground sharing and the points deduction. I think many were expecting a bigger loss but the operating loss was actually an improvement on the previous year at the Ricoh Arena. The club worked hard to restructure the whole business and, again, that has put us on a much more sound footing than was previously the case.
Despite that, it’s only right that we recognise the distress and anxiety caused to our supporters by the move to groundshare so we are, by no means, trying to deflect from that.
Moving forward, we are back at the Ricoh Arena – as tenants. The tenancy agreement has seen a slight increase in the revenue we can generate on match day. But, long term, this is not enough.
We still need to be able to access all match day and non-match day revenue and that is why stadium ownership is absolutely essential. It is critical under the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) in League One and Financial Fair Play in the Championship that we can increase the number of revenue generating opportunities at our disposal.
From the point of view of the current year’s accounts, we do forecast a much healthier set of numbers. We have not drawn down any funding from the owner/creditor for this season and are shifting the club into a position where it can be self-sustaining.
That, in turn, will lead to long term success on the pitch and that is what we are all striving to see.
Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...ity-accounts-2316093.aspx#cZgCEzkwAuvZ70Ub.99
Please read the following message to Coventry City supporters on the latest sets of accounts...
Tim Fisher, Chairman of Coventry City Football Club
The club’s accounts have been filed on time and I have absolutely no doubt that when our supporters see the headline figures they could be quite concerned – I wouldn’t blame them.
I believe, as everyone will know, that the events of 2013/14 were nothing short of extraordinary covering both a company liquidation and a ground share. The question asked is - did the club really lose £70 million in the 2013/14 season? The answer is, of course, no it didn’t. Far from it.
Otium bought all the business of both Holdings and Ltd. However, the Football League ‘golden share’ agreement did not allow for any additional debt to be taken onto the balance sheet of Otium.
Therefore, almost £61 million of loans from the owner has been converted from debt to equity, while a further £3 million was provided as equity, demonstrating a clear commitment from the owner – as funds provided after July 2013 were in the form of equity rather than additional debt.
Because of the extraordinary events of the liquidation of CCFC Ltd, the rejection of the CVA and the purchase by Otium, technical accounting rules dictate that, a figure of around £61 million be charged into the ‘profit and loss’ section of the accounts while more than £3 million of additional funding can also be seen as a purchase of equity. The directors make it clear in the accounts that this is not reflective of the true profit and loss of the company.
They do show an operating loss of £6.87million. This is less than the previous year despite the extraordinary circumstances including ground sharing and the points deduction. I think many were expecting a bigger loss but the operating loss was actually an improvement on the previous year at the Ricoh Arena. The club worked hard to restructure the whole business and, again, that has put us on a much more sound footing than was previously the case.
Despite that, it’s only right that we recognise the distress and anxiety caused to our supporters by the move to groundshare so we are, by no means, trying to deflect from that.
Moving forward, we are back at the Ricoh Arena – as tenants. The tenancy agreement has seen a slight increase in the revenue we can generate on match day. But, long term, this is not enough.
We still need to be able to access all match day and non-match day revenue and that is why stadium ownership is absolutely essential. It is critical under the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) in League One and Financial Fair Play in the Championship that we can increase the number of revenue generating opportunities at our disposal.
From the point of view of the current year’s accounts, we do forecast a much healthier set of numbers. We have not drawn down any funding from the owner/creditor for this season and are shifting the club into a position where it can be self-sustaining.
That, in turn, will lead to long term success on the pitch and that is what we are all striving to see.
Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...ity-accounts-2316093.aspx#cZgCEzkwAuvZ70Ub.99
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes you are right it will cost less now than when we were at sixfields. The debt will still be rising though.
With the Wasps deal and failed JR's I don't think SISU's actions could every be considering outmanoeuvring anyone but themselves.
SkyBlueSid
Well-Known Member
I'm no accountant either but OSB's initial analysis tends to cast doubt on this being any sort of good news.
Who are the club's accountants, I wonder. Penn & Teller?
Who are the club's accountants, I wonder. Penn & Teller?
Just one question: What amount of investment did the owner of Leicester make over three years to take them to the PL?
Was it £130m?
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
thats because you are bias though don. i am just calling it as i see it, i am no accountant so prob have it all wrong of course.
more turnover
less loss
should = profit moving forwards
as for debt seems thats not one i can tackle, leave it to the matheletes on here
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Probably, also announced that Cardiff are 170 million in debt to Tan the other day. All for chasing one year in the premier league.
It didn't - well not in terms of cash.
It seems the net cost - in cash - was around £3.3m.
Also remember some cost of administration and buy-out is included.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I think without looking their billionaire owner absorbed their 100 million existing debt and bought their stadium? I think....
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
As of next year one year in the Prem and finishing bottom earns you £100 million
Last edited:
SkyBlueSid
Well-Known Member
I would presume that the astronomical costs of hiring sharp-suited lawyers to pursue unwinnable court actions will be in this year's accounts. We shall find out this time next year. Maybe.
Is there not fresh exposure to ARVO of around £5M as well
I have to say I'm shooting from the hip a bit here as I haven't thoroughly absorbed all of the Info yet
And finally - no management charges.
(I wasn't expecting any as it was a financial instrument used to distribute cost while SBS&L, CCFC ltd and CCFC H were sharing the same bank account.)
So nothing to suggest a single penny is leaving the club going into the pockets of sisu.
(I wasn't expecting any as it was a financial instrument used to distribute cost while SBS&L, CCFC ltd and CCFC H were sharing the same bank account.)
So nothing to suggest a single penny is leaving the club going into the pockets of sisu.
tisza
Well-Known Member
I find this extraordinary and misleading that these 61 million loans came from the owners. is there any evidence that they have put over 100 million into the club? I see nothing in the historic accounts which show where sisu have put in this extra 61 million.
hill83
Well-Known Member
It was only a couple of divs who constantly mentioned this anyway.
The loans to ARVO went up from £4,9m to £8,2m = £3,3m. In addition interests £1,4m was added to the loan, not paid out.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You'd imagine that even with the Wilson money the club will be in a break even position at best this year.