Grendel
Well-Known Member
The point is it’s a reflection of owner strategy
Why are people talking about the move to Birmingham leading to lost revenue like its some massive surprise that has only been revealed now the accounts have been published? Wasn't it obvious to everyone the move would have an impact on revenue?
Grasping at straws a bit there even 6000 at £20 is a loss of £2.2 million but what do you think the gates would have been in the crunch games v Rotherham, Pompey and Sunderland plus the FA cup tie v Brum.Would think 6,000 fans would be closer.
Grasping at straws a bit there even 6000 at £20 is a loss of £2.2 million but what do you think the gates would have been in the crunch games v Rotherham, Pompey and Sunderland plus the FA cup tie v Brum.
It’s something like £6 in income per person rather than £20 in terms of children and senior etc but its still a lot of moneyGrasping at straws a bit there even 6000 at £20 is a loss of £2.2 million but what do you think the gates would have been in the crunch games v Rotherham, Pompey and Sunderland plus the FA cup tie v Brum.
Why is it ok to show purchases as losses but not use sales as income??? You can’t have it both ways grendelThe point is it’s a reflection of owner strategy
The point is it’s a reflection of owner strategy
Why is it ok to show purchases as losses but not use sales as income??? You can’t have it both ways grendel
Im not just referring to that I am referring to the losses incurred as a direct result of owner strategy
Sisu also can’t have it both ways. They can’t on the one hand complain about lack of income and a requirement to sell assets when their own strategy has helped create that
You make frequent claims about a stronger bond but it’s never actually manifested itself in action. Compassionate owners don’t behave the way she does. Perhaps it’s done with a smile now but she’s as ruthless and reckless as ever
As you do not know what it would have cost to stay at the Ricoh you cannot comment on their strategy
How many clubs without a rich benefactor do not rely on player sales and other conventional revenue streams?
She gets a cut for introducing investors and gets a cut of their profits on an investment. So she does invest in the club it just depends how you look at it.
Also you still don't know whether she invests some of her money in the club. She would be stupid not to on 14 per cent interest on a loan.
The club has been a basket case for years. You wanting to sack managers ever 5 minutes is no way to resolve the problem around finances.
Well I think it would be unlikely to have cost the amounts we are talking here. Of course both sides will have a different interpretation of events and what occurred but given one party has “form” it’s natural to be sceptical
The club has achieved some success on the pitch. This clearly has given them some leverage but if it becomes a struggle again a lot of that goodwill will vanish
I wouldn’t know I also wouldn’t know what owners charge 14% on loan interest every time a loan is made
If you read the notes the interest rate also carries with holding tax as the monies go to a non UK taxpayer
As the loan is mainly unsecured no chance of being repaid quickly, similarly the interest there is verly little impact on cash flows
VC introducers and managers tend to only get paid on a successful outcome - I would have thought that would have to be a positive thought in her strategy
What is significant about the bonuses?
Would it be the method of delivery , to do with taxation issues or something completely separate?
Whilst not arguing the losses, isn’t it worth pointing out that we lost 5 home games on 2019?Not good, obviously a small Covid related impact but to an extent that would be netted off with a late season reduction in costs.
Lease charges up by approx £0.6m coupled with a reduction in matchday income of circa £1.2m shows that as a minimum St Andrews lost the club £1.8m compared with 2019, it's likely greatly understated as had the club topped the league all season at the Ricoh, you'd be looking at a 3 fold increase in gates compared with St Andrews. Without the profit on whichever player it was it would have been catastrophic.
Not good, obviously a small Covid related impact but to an extent that would be netted off with a late season reduction in costs.
Lease charges up by approx £0.6m coupled with a reduction in matchday income of circa £1.2m shows that as a minimum St Andrews lost the club £1.8m compared with 2019, it's likely greatly understated as had the club topped the league all season at the Ricoh, you'd be looking at a 3 fold increase in gates compared with St Andrews. Without the profit on whichever player it was it would have been catastrophic.
I think Grendel is saying in our situation we need owners who have an emotional attachment to the club.
That SISU are fucking up in how they run the club financially.
That SISU are milking the club through interest on loans.
That without a big player sale or legacy funds from such sales the club are financially fucked.
That the move to Birmingham was possibly self inflicted.
I think that's the gist?
What is significant about the bonuses?
Would it be the method of delivery , to do with taxation issues or something completely separate?
Id Expect an organisation who runs the club to not rely on asset sales to minimise escalating losses and also not to have adopted a strategy of revenue deterioration by removing the club from its home
Sisu have had 14 years at the club. Good or bad in your view?
Scary to think about what might happen if we go down. We need Sisu to go and fast
Only one party ?
Touché to an extent - however once again history shows their presence really was created by the actions of the clubs hierarchy and an engineered move which if successful would have looked smart but it wasn’t - it failed with dire consequences
in the end it’s not just the accounts is it? Seppalla creates enemies through her actions. Yes you could argue she has to create returns but again her image and that of her company is hard nosed aggression in the face of adversaries
She therefore will take strategic risks and has used the club as collateral in the process and no doubt will continue to
You can only measure someone’s success over achievements in the actual performance of the organisation. She’s entering a 15th year at the helm.
We have made zero progress on stadium 1 or stadium 2. We are increasing debts year on year. The success on the pitch though welcome has actually only bought us back to where we were (actually I think we were 7th when she took over). I suppose the termination of the original lease was a success of sorts but the price of that was a heavy one in reality. She’s seen 2 administrations, appointed incompetent and ridiculous board members and been part of 2 relegations which both occurred with notable slashing of budgets and dire managerial appointments.
She I’m sure will claim some form of 5th amendment on the Ranson years but that was her choice.
It’s perfectly legitimate to look at her with distrust. Her tenure has not been good for the club in my opinion. I accept the Northampton move was clever and strategically thought out but it failed.
I’m sure she will claim this move was not engineered but really? I’m afraid the alienation of all around her makes it difficult to believe that the European appeal wasn’t done for spiteful reasons and also was certainly done with no regard for the club.
The club would have been in an impossible position had it not been allowed back to Coventry - it would be in the last year of a 3 year deal which was probably the best option and as we have seen is financially not stacking up.
It’s obvious she’s not going anywhere - the club isn’t worth anything and no one will buy it for a price she would want.
Is that a good thing? In my opinion no - we are back where we started and in an ideal world she’d be moved on
I absolutely agree with that about reducing income but I’m not sure it was a choice this time but more as a consequence of many peoples intransigence. I think it’s a fair ask shmmee has put that any shortfall would be covered by the owner and whether a loan at a high interest rate is the only way this can be done.Im not just referring to that I am referring to the losses incurred as a direct result of owner strategy
Sisu also can’t have it both ways. They can’t on the one hand complain about lack of income and a requirement to sell assets when their own strategy has helped create that
You make frequent claims about a stronger bond but it’s never actually manifested itself in action. Compassionate owners don’t behave the way she does. Perhaps it’s done with a smile now but she’s as ruthless and reckless as ever
Do you think we have already reached our ceiling under the current ownership?
Whilst not arguing the losses, isn’t it worth pointing out that we lost 5 home games on 2019?
That’s significant in itself - and I’m convinced that on the roll we were on we’d have hit 20k by the end of the season.
ultimately they do seem to show that promotion and the Wilson sale stopped us falling off a cliff given the pandemic. I dread to think what would have happened had we played the season out in league one. Especially with that wage bill.
But then if you include the turnover for those 5 games you also have to include the costs. I think there would have been an increase in crowds but not sure we would have got to 20k from an average of 6677
Fair point. We were up to 13 for the Rotherham game. We only hit top after the Sunderland game.But then if you include the turnover for those 5 games you also have to include the costs. I think there would have been an increase in crowds but not sure we would have got to 20k from an average of 6677
I’m more talking when it became evident we were going to win the league. We’d have packed any stadium in the last home game when we’d have lifted the trophy.Yeah no chance of 20k in Birmingham, even under Mowbray when we were competing it was 15k
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?