£61m of debt wiped out in latest CCFC accounts (6 Viewers)

[oldfiver]

wont even be that oldfiver because the P&L account is currently at minus 76m. I think he probably meant makes a distributable profit. The rest of what he said still makes sense

It would seem that the right to 15% accrues over the years irrespective until such time as distributable profits are available to pay it - cant see that ever happening to be honest

You are quite correct I was looking on the wrong page. £12m or £76m doesnt really matter though. What it is NOT is when the business makes a profit but when it has made a profit to extinguish the P&L deficit.

Would you agree that in the treatment of the £60m write off they have in fact put them selves further back in the queue to receive anything?

 

---

[Jonty1]

wont even be that oldfiver because the P&L account is currently at minus 76m. I think he probably meant makes a distributable profit. The rest of what he said still makes sense

It would seem that the right to 15% accrues over the years irrespective until such time as distributable profits are available to pay it - cant see that ever happening to be honest

Its all cloud cuckoo land but it does lock any profit a new investor might foresee in to SISU & ARVO.

Not sure that makes sense. It looks like the debts were taken on from holdings. I'm guessing from the accounts they provided a guarantee for these debts to secure the business including the golden share and they had to ensure Holdings was solvent otherwise they risked a further points penalty. Any agreement for the golden share would not allow the new club 'Otium' to take on the debts and so the charge in the accounts reflects the obligation under the guarantee which was satisfied by the issue of preference shares. It cannot benefit the owners to have preference shares instead of debt. I think they had to do it this way to secure the golden share and satisfy the Football league.

Not too many profitable clubs around and certainly not many profitable ones that boast the best things have been in years and are a minimum of 11m in interest bearing debt - let alone preference shares

I have to assume this is all being done to benefit the investors first and foremost not the club

 

[oldfiver]

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/ne...edium=Email&utm_source=AA.DCM.Editors_Updates

 

[Noggin]

Yes it is interesting, especially coming from an outsider expert. His explanation on the shares and dividends was very good.
But him being an outsider means he doesn't know everything related to this club.
He recognize the low revenue was from a season at Sixfields, but fail to recognize we'd moved back and the revenue will gone up considerably by next set of accounts.
He also says interests has been paid out, when clearly it hasn't - it's been added to the debt and some even converted to shares.

Regarding the stadium situation he says on one hand the clubs situation is comparable to Stockport, on the other hand he says effects of a new stadium wears off in a couple of years. I would have loved some more details on both situations as he kind of indicated we're lost if we stay and we're lost if we move.

while revenue will have gone up considerably it will still be a very big loss (unless the wage bill is hugely less, which we are told isn't the case) there is the Wilson Money and more ticket revenue but ticket sales have still been poor, we haven't had the big away premier league payday that we had last year and many of the season tickets were at sixfield prices. If we are 3 mill better off that is still a big loss and the year after is likely to be much worse. No big player sales to come this season presumably and attendances are still falling (though people do seem to think we are at new dawn again, I hope they are right but I think delusion continues to reign).

If the new stadium isn't happening we arn't a going concern (not that I believe we are if it is going ahead). Of course Fisher has said in the accounts that they are planning to build so it must be true as he surely wouldn't lie on the accounts.

 

[stupot07]

Yes it is interesting, especially coming from an outsider expert. His explanation on the shares and dividends was very good.
But him being an outsider means he doesn't know everything related to this club.
He recognize the low revenue was from a season at Sixfields, but fail to recognize we'd moved back and the revenue will gone up considerably by next set of accounts.
He also says interests has been paid out, when clearly it hasn't - it's been added to the debt and some even converted to shares.

Regarding the stadium situation he says on one hand the clubs situation is comparable to Stockport, on the other hand he says effects of a new stadium wears off in a couple of years. I would have loved some more details on both situations as he kind of indicated we're lost if we stay and we're lost if we move.

But they were almost 2 unrelated points.

Stockport was about being the only other football club who are the junior partner in their stadium, and who have gone rapidly down hill because of lack of revenues.

We know full well that new stadium appeal wears off after a bit as we saw that since we moved in to the ricoh. Lost 4k in 3 seasons despite investment when sisu came in. (Yes a lot of the subsequent reduction has been due to the decline)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Godiva]

while revenue will have gone up considerably it will still be a very big loss (unless the wage bill is hugely less, which we are told isn't the case) there is the Wilson Money and more ticket revenue but ticket sales have still been poor, we haven't had the big away premier league payday that we had last year and many of the season tickets were at sixfield prices. If we are 3 mill better off that is still a big loss and the year after is likely to be much worse. No big player sales to come this season presumably and attendances are still falling (though people do seem to think we are at new dawn again, I hope they are right but I think delusion continues to reign).

If the new stadium isn't happening we arn't a going concern (not that I believe we are if it is going ahead). Of course Fisher has said in the accounts that they are planning to build so it must be true as he surely wouldn't lie on the accounts.

2014 produced a loss of £9.4m
Remove £2m as this was a one time write off of Goodwill.
Remove £2m as this is interests that is not paid out but added to debt/converted to equity.
That leaves a cash-flow result of -£5.4m
Staff cost will have been reduced even more. Rent of ground is reduced. Gate receipt must be at least £1m better. Add F/B share. And of course the proceeds from Wilson.

It looks like we're closer to be cash-flow neutral than you suggest. Providing we don't go down this year, then next season could actually be the first season in decades we're not dependent on hand-outs from the club owners.

 

[Godiva]

But they were almost 2 unrelated points.

Stockport was about being the only other football club who are the junior partner in their stadium, and who have gone rapidly down hill because of lack of revenues.

We know full well that new stadium appeal wears off after a bit as we saw that since we moved in to the ricoh. Lost 4k in 3 seasons despite investment when sisu came in. (Yes a lot of the subsequent reduction has been due to the decline)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

The points he made regarding renting/owning the stadium were related as he tried to equal our present situation to Stockport (and see where the are now) and a potential future situation if we build and own a new stadium. He basically said we're lost either way. My point is that he generalizes when it comes to something outside our balance sheet, and thus fail to take into account the special circumstances for our club. That doesn't make him wrong, but it makes his observations on the matter less ... erm ... 'scientific'.

For example - yes, the attendances will take a few seasons to find its natural level, but sisu's plan seem to be to maximize non-match day profit making us less dependent on declining gate receipts.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

2014 produced a loss of £9.4m
Remove £2m as this was a one time write off of Goodwill.
Remove £2m as this is interests that is not paid out but added to debt/converted to equity.
That leaves a cash-flow result of -£5.4m
Staff cost will have been reduced even more. Rent of ground is reduced. Gate receipt must be at least £1m better. Add F/B share. And of course the proceeds from Wilson.

It looks like we're closer to be cash-flow neutral than you suggest. Providing we don't go down this year, then next season could actually be the first season in decades we're not dependent on hand-outs from the club owners.

The notes say ARVO have already put another £1m into Otium since 31st May.

 

[skybluetony176]

The points he made regarding renting/owning the stadium were related as he tried to equal our present situation to Stockport (and see where the are now) and a potential future situation if we build and own a new stadium. He basically said we're lost either way. My point is that he generalizes when it comes to something outside our balance sheet, and thus fail to take into account the special circumstances for our club. That doesn't make him wrong, but it makes his observations on the matter less ... erm ... 'scientific'.

For example - yes, the attendances will take a few seasons to find its natural level, but sisu's plan seem to be to maximize non-match day profit making us less dependent on declining gate receipts.

I thought the SISU plan was to deliberately decline the gate receipts seeing as they're proposing a smaller stadium (no 30k crowd's when Chelsea visit for a cup draw etc) and they "plan" to build it in the wrong town which is likely to create a situation where fans turn their backs on the club in huge numbers.

 

[Godiva]

The notes say ARVO have already put another £1m into Otium since 31st May.

Yes, but it doesn't say when and why. It does say how though - by issuing new shares (so not an additional loan).

It could well be in the pre-season and it could well be to offset the SMCP budget (which is based predominantly on previous season - that was the Sixfield season - revenue).
Fresh equity is like revenue in the SMCP calculation.

 

[stupot07]

The points he made regarding renting/owning the stadium were related as he tried to equal our present situation to Stockport (and see where the are now) and a potential future situation if we build and own a new stadium. He basically said we're lost either way. My point is that he generalizes when it comes to something outside our balance sheet, and thus fail to take into account the special circumstances for our club. That doesn't make him wrong, but it makes his observations on the matter less ... erm ... 'scientific'.

For example - yes, the attendances will take a few seasons to find its natural level, but sisu's plan seem to be to maximize non-match day profit making us less dependent on declining gate receipts.

Yep, he kept going on about £1.40 in the £1 is wages, but without really acknowledging that was anomaly because we were playing in front of 2k at 2/3rds ticket price at Northampton and have also further reduced the wage bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

The points he made regarding renting/owning the stadium were related as he tried to equal our present situation to Stockport (and see where the are now) and a potential future situation if we build and own a new stadium. He basically said we're lost either way. My point is that he generalizes when it comes to something outside our balance sheet, and thus fail to take into account the special circumstances for our club. That doesn't make him wrong, but it makes his observations on the matter less ... erm ... 'scientific'.

For example - yes, the attendances will take a few seasons to find its natural level, but sisu's plan seem to be to maximize non-match day profit making us less dependent on declining gate receipts.

Didn't ACL try to maximize non-match day profit and ended up losing £400k? So what makes anybody think that Sisu can make a profit on a far inferior venue? Pure delusion.

 

[Godiva]

Didn't ACL try to maximize non-match day profit and ended up losing £400k? So what makes anybody think that Sisu can make a profit on a far inferior venue? Pure delusion.

I believe they ended up losing £400t because they lost their main tenant.

 

[steveecov]

Is there a player wage cap in league 2? Shouldn't be relevant; just a Q

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Yes, but it doesn't say when and why. It does say how though - by issuing new shares (so not an additional loan).

It could well be in the pre-season and it could well be to offset the SMCP budget (which is based predominantly on previous season - that was the Sixfield season - revenue).
Fresh equity is like revenue in the SMCP calculation.

It says between June and August, and it will be because either we're a great investment, or because we needed the money. I thought SCMP was based on the current season projections, not the former season. See edit.

edit : The process is interactive with clubs providing the Football League with projections for the spending for the coming season. During the season the clubs provide regular updates on their Turnover and wage bill.

 

[Godiva]

Is there a player wage cap in league 2? Shouldn't be relevant; just a Q

Yes - similar system to the one in League one - only it's 55% (in L1 it's 60%).

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Yep, he kept going on about £1.40 in the £1 is wages, but without really acknowledging that was anomaly because we were playing in front of 2k at 2/3rds ticket price at Northampton and have also further reduced the wage bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

How is it possible to pay 1.40 for every pound in? We would have been in embargo due to FFP

 

[stupot07]

How is it possible to pay 1.40 for every pound in? We would have been in embargo due to FFP

Dunno, the wage bill was much higher than our turnover, but that was all employees. Having said that, the FL gave us rules that we could only pay up to 75% of wages of he outgoing player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

while revenue will have gone up considerably it will still be a very big loss (unless the wage bill is hugely less, which we are told isn't the case) there is the Wilson Money and more ticket revenue but ticket sales have still been poor, we haven't had the big away premier league payday that we had last year and many of the season tickets were at sixfield prices. If we are 3 mill better off that is still a big loss and the year after is likely to be much worse. No big player sales to come this season presumably and attendances are still falling (though people do seem to think we are at new dawn again, I hope they are right but I think delusion continues to reign).

If the new stadium isn't happening we arn't a going concern (not that I believe we are if it is going ahead). Of course Fisher has said in the accounts that they are planning to build so it must be true as he surely wouldn't lie on the accounts.

I think our revenue at the Ricoh in 12/13 was something like 6.5 million compared to 3 million at Sixfields last season, if we can get to something close to that this year than add the Wilson transfer fee we could be close to breaking even for the season.

 

[Godiva]

How is it possible to pay 1.40 for every pound in? We would have been in embargo due to FFP

Because the owners converted some old debt to equity - and injected fresh money as equity. That would all count as 'extra revenue' in the FFP calculation, but not in the Profit & Loss statement.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

I believe they ended up losing £400t because they lost their main tenant.

I thought we were talking about non-match day,you know 24/7,365 day revenue. Thats what everybody talks about,and thats what Sisu keep peddling,

 

[Grendel]

I thought we were talking about non-match day,you know 24/7,365 day revenue. Thats what everybody talks about,and thats what Sisu keep peddling,

You seem to be confusing revenue and profit.

 

[SimonGilbert]

Sorry guys, been busy picking through other elements of the accounts and writing follow-ups.

There will be more to come next week.

So far I've reported the numbers as Mr Fisher and the publicly available accountants have presented them. There will be independent analysis next week - then you can judge what you believe the true position to be for yourselves.

Are there specific questions, to save me scrolling through hundreds of posts?

I must hold my hands up and say I switched Otium and SBSL around in my original story. It has since been corrected. I do make mistakes from time to time.

I addressed the issues of legal fees, the £30m loan to SBSL and how a new stadium would be financed in articles written today.

As you know, there is a lot to pick through and a lot to write - but there's only one of me. Impossible to cover it all in one go, and probably not very useful. Small digestible chunks seem to be what most readers prefer.

Plenty more to come - and I promise you the accounts will be scrutinised thoroughly by someone with a great deal more expertise than I.

 

[Godiva]

Sorry guys, been busy picking through other elements of the accounts and writing follow-ups.

There will be more to come next week.

So far I've reported the numbers as Mr Fisher and the publicly available accountants have presented them. There will be independent analysis next week - then you can judge what you believe the true position to be for yourselves.

Are there specific questions, to save me scrolling through hundreds of posts?

I must hold my hands up and say I switched Otium and SBSL around in my original story. It has since been corrected. I do make mistakes from time to time.

I addressed the issues of legal fees, the £30m loan to SBSL and how a new stadium would be financed in articles written today.

As you know, there is a lot to pick through and a lot to write - but there's only one of me. Impossible to cover it all in one go, and probably not very useful. Small digestible chunks seem to be what most readers prefer.

Plenty more to come - and I promise you the accounts will be scrutinised thoroughly by someone with a great deal more expertise than I.

You should browse OldSkyBlue58's posts. That will give you a good indication on what to focus on.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/members/1400-oldskyblue58

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

You seem to be confusing revenue and profit.

No Grendel I'm not profit= Revenue(turnover)-expenses

 

[Grendel]

Alan isn't happy Simon - looks like you are back on the tea run next week

 

[Jonty1]

The basic premise of your article looks ok based on my interpretation of the accounts-what is it you think you got wrong?

 

[steveecov]

SISU is not Joy Tim Steve Ken Jo or anyone else that pops up as a face. I think the investors have decided to draw a line in the sand. They are not football fans. and they certainly are not Sky Blue. I think there really has to be someone else lurking.

 

[steveecov]

Q&A Unwanted record. The biggest town or city not to have a football league club, Wakefield. They have rugger tho.

 

[Noggin]

I think our revenue at the Ricoh in 12/13 was something like 6.5 million compared to 3 million at Sixfields last season, if we can get to something close to that this year than add the Wilson transfer fee we could be close to breaking even for the season.

we won't though will we? our average attendances will be 2 or 3k lower in the league (as well as the average ticket price) and we won't have had the 3 good cup runs (which presumably have prize money as well as the massive attendances) where we played Tottenham, Arsenal, away, Birmingham and Crewe (over 30k) at home and while we were struggling somewhat for sponsorship etc we hadn't alienated all local business like we have now and while of course the Wilson money is going to be alot more than we got that year we did get a mill for Bigi and there was a couple of other sales I think, Arsenal game must have been worth a mill alone.

 

[dongonzalos]

Yes, but you would expect Fisher to spin it over the top - what is Simons excuse?

What exactly do you mean by over the Top
What did he say and what is it now that people think?

 

[dongonzalos]

Interesting comments from football expert Keiran Maguire on CWR this morning at 21:32

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jrjph

The future isn't that bright with or without the new stadium it would seem and relies on consistently unearthing star players to sell on

Finally we are starting to get near the reality

This is what journalist should really be looking into....

 

[Grendel]

Q&A Unwanted record. The biggest town or city not to have a football league club, Wakefield. They have rugger tho.

That is incorrect but never mind - in fact it's woeful - are you drunk?

 

[Godiva]

What exactly do you mean by over the Top
What did he say and what is it now that people think?

This is what TF said in his statement:

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.

(http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...ity-accounts-2316093.aspx#DoDoU3OUphtW85E6.99)

That went into the Headline of Simons article:

Coventry City owners Sisu wipe £61m of debt from club's accounts

(http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-sisu-wipe-8777372)

Right - so an amazing +£60m of debt has been wiped from the clubs account and converted to equity!

Then look at the accounts of the whole group (SBS&L + Otium), you will find that in 2013 the total group debt was just £47m.
Move to the left to 2014 and the group debt is now £40m.

Looking at the debt owed to sisu's initial investors (Sconset?) the debt is exactly the same in 2013 and 2014 (£28.6m).

 

[mighty quinn]

SISU is not Joy Tim Steve Ken Jo or anyone else that pops up as a face. I think the investors have decided to draw a line in the sand. They are not football fans. and they certainly are not Sky Blue. I think there really has to be someone else lurking.

Think sisu have had a change of heart .maybe they have woke up to the fact that the only way to get any return is to get to at least the championship. and you won't get there on the cheap. Bums on seats is what we need .I think the penny just may have dropped or am I fooling myself.