On the word of club being in debt name me 1club that is not in debt.I would say they are bad in the way they don't like talking with people and try to get things done behind the backs of others, but financially they have backed us since they took over, issue with the ground is 3 parties with 1 being the council just being completely twats.
But easier to fall even lower.It's easier to do 'well' on the pitch when you plunge to depths you haven't been for over half a century.
Honestly, aside from the Wasps/Ricoh debacle they've been pretty good owners since we came back from Northampton. Backed the managers and got the club running in a self sufficient manner. In the 7 years before Northampton they were dreadful.
On the word of club being in debt name me 1club that is not in debt.
On the word of club being in debt name me 1club that is not in debt.
Please no! It sends shivers down my spine thinking that some thought that he was a football manager/coach when in reality he should have just been driving it.Yeah the Thorn era was a joke, yet was strangely backed by the fans
Where is she getting it back from? This 50, 60 millionPoor owners. Joy might wake one morning and decide she can't be arsed. Asks for her 50, 60, 70 million (pick whichever figure you believe) back and we are Bury. I can never see us owning our own ground be it Ricoh or fancy shiny new stadium with current ownership and it's relationship with CCC and Wasps. We are treading water.
That’s just plain wrong. Absolutely blame them for their mistakes but when things just go right it’s not blind luckOur recent success is despite Sisu not because of them. They’ve took a back seat due to the shambolic period of the Ken Dulieus of this world running the club. How anyone can make a case other than that they’re some of the worst owners in the English leagues is beyond me.
We’ve lost a lot of pieces and I like the analogyI am no Sisu fan by any stretch of the imagination but at this point i would rather have them than be in Burys situation.
Yes they have made some apparent monumental mistakes and every body loves a scapegoat, i think their blackmail attempt for ACL was underestimated by them and the sneaky Council played a better sneaky hand by bringing those cloggers in from London but by Shitsu taking the club/team to Northampton at least the rent was lowered.
Its like a long game of chess i guess and at the minute I am not sure which team is winning
On the word of club being in debt name me 1club that is not in debt.
No, it’s a good manager, still nothing to do with them.That’s just plain wrong. Absolutely blame them for their mistakes but when things just go right it’s not blind luck
Tell you what (and I mean no disrespect to Rochdale!) but the fact they have twice the amount of gross assets than us is pretty sobering!Depends what you mean by debt. Every trading company, football or otherwise, is going to owe something even if it is just to their accountant for preparing the accounts. I think the point is whether the debt is sustainable and capable of being fully repaid.
Based on 2018 accounts
Rochdale has more assets than liabilities (+2.6m) so a positive balance sheet (total gross assets £4m) and has very little debt (421k in structured loans that are being repaid) and money in the bank (1.2m). They have an annual turnover 5.5m including player sales (750k). They have been in League 1 since 2014. Made a loss of 300k in 2018 but a profit of 1.4m in 2017. They own their ground via a subsidiary company, the ground valued at original cost not on current valuation
To compare to ourselves. CCFC (Otium) has a negative balance sheet of 19.8m and debt to owners that is unstructured and repayable on demand of £16m (which is not being repaid and growing annually because oif the interest charged and not paid) there was £682K in the bank. Gross assets total £2m. We have a turnover of £6m plus player sales £1m. Promoted to League 1 in 2018. Made a loss in 2018 of £2.5m and have never made a profit in the last decade. CCFC have no long term security of tenure anywhere other than Ryton
The difference is CCFC is only sustainable in the way they operate if supported by the owners and are reliant on player sales to reduce that dependency. Rochdale have structured debt that is being repaid, do not make big losses and do it on a smaller turnover, are not reliant on their owners but do also rely on player sales.
Different expectations of each club i think it is fair to say but I would suggest one is being run sustainably the other is not
Tell you what (and I mean no disrespect to Rochdale!) but the fact they have twice the amount of gross assets than us is pretty sobering!
its actually probably much more than twice. the original cost of the ground plus improvements is included at a value after depreciation of £200k ......... got to think it is worth much more than that no matter what state Spotland is in. Oh and the football club pay an annual rent of £100k to the subsidiary.
Honestly, aside from the Wasps/Ricoh debacle they've been pretty good owners since we came back from Northampton. Backed the managers and got the club running in a self sufficient manner. In the 7 years before Northampton they were dreadful.
Who employed him?No, it’s a good manager, still nothing to do with them.
Honestly, aside from the Wasps/Ricoh debacle they've been pretty good owners since we came back from Northampton. Backed the managers and got the club running in a self sufficient manner. In the 7 years before Northampton they were dreadful.
Awful isn’t it although some good planning by the club to ensure transfer fees are maximised and sell on deals are includedAs i have said before the club is not self sufficient. It required loans from the owners in 2016 £530k ,2017 £500k and 2018 £500k simply to pay the day to day bills. However rather than leaving all the funds in the company they repaid some of their loans £112k in 2017 and £255k in 2018 when cash flow allowed
The net player sales made a big contribution to keeping CCFC going. The player sales less player purchases funded the club by £2.7m in 2015 £2.2m in 2016 in £180k 2017 in £870k 2018. or 5.95m in total. That was used to fund operating the club but we still made losses in those years
They have done, in reality, just enough to keep the business paying its bills, and the prime reason for that is not a kindling of empathy or passion for the club...... its because without the club their whole legal strategy and therefore their investment comes crashing down around their ears
They have neither backed any manager in that time other than to keep their distance or kept the club self sufficient. Any player purchases have been through necessity just to have a squad and funded by the sales of other players and the adds ons from former players based on the managers decisions on who to sell or keep . This season is no different, without the sales of Chaplin and Bayliss we had a small budget and would have been in trouble with SCMP rules
And Coleman,Thorn,Venus,Slade.....Who employed him?
deal that was agreed with charity in 2012 was £1.5m plus £4m spread over 10 years, SISU walked away from it and offered £2m the Charity walked away from that. It never got further than that. Further than that in 2014 SISU offered £2.8m for the charity shares when the Wasps sale was going on, with certain clauses in addition. The Charity rejected it and took 2.77m from wasps
Any deal with CCC was not about the sale of the CCC shares in 2012 as far as i remember. The heads of Terms agreed August 2012 are attached. Frankly i think these are muddled and not at all sure how it would have worked.
https://www.ccfc.co.uk/contentassets/2ec0f8e40f044ad0a54d3635ef5fac67/council-hot_signed_2aug12.pdf
Council walked away from that, which they were entitled to do. Heads of terms are not legally binding. Without the deal for the charity shares there is no way to proceed in any case
The council accepted 2.77m from Wasps for their ACL shares in 2014
As far as i am aware SISU never made a bid for the CCC shares when wasps sale going on, i believe Seppala said at the time that they wouldnt interfere
Ironically ‘things are going right’ whilst we’re playing at St Andrews, that’s not right at all. Things may be going well on the pitch due to Robins and his team, but the pitch we are playing on is partly down to those that own the club.That’s just plain wrong. Absolutely blame them for their mistakes but when things just go right it’s not blind luck
Tell you what (and I mean no disrespect to Rochdale!) but the fact they have twice the amount of gross assets than us is pretty sobering!
deal that was agreed with charity in 2012 was £1.5m plus £4m spread over 10 years, SISU walked away from it and offered £2m the Charity walked away from that. It never got further than that. Further than that in 2014 SISU offered £2.8m for the charity shares when the Wasps sale was going on, with certain clauses in addition. The Charity rejected it and took 2.77m from wasps
Any deal with CCC was not about the sale of the CCC shares in 2012 as far as i remember. The heads of Terms agreed August 2012 are attached. Frankly i think these are muddled and not at all sure how it would have worked.
https://www.ccfc.co.uk/contentassets/2ec0f8e40f044ad0a54d3635ef5fac67/council-hot_signed_2aug12.pdf
Council walked away from that, which they were entitled to do. Heads of terms are not legally binding. Without the deal for the charity shares there is no way to proceed in any case
The council accepted 2.77m from Wasps for their ACL shares in 2014
As far as i am aware SISU never made a bid for the CCC shares when wasps sale going on, i believe Seppala said at the time that they wouldnt interfere
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?