Auditors query Coventry City FC as a going concern (3 Viewers)

antineorevolutionery · Mar 12, 2015

Apologies if this has already been posted (article is six days old), but just received an email from ACCA (I'm an accountant) and one of the main headlines was this link. Sad to see that we're being used as an accountancy case study, but at least a few more people will now be aware of our plight I guess.

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2398461/auditors-query-coventry-city-fc-as-a-going-concern

SkyBlueCharlie · Mar 12, 2015

antineorevolutionery said:
Apologies if this has already been posted (article is six days old), but just received an email from ACCA (I'm an accountant) and one of the main headlines was this link. Sad to see that we're being used as an accountancy case study, but at least a few more people will now be aware of our plight I guess.

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2398461/auditors-query-coventry-city-fc-as-a-going-concern

The final paragraph in the report is quite interesting and/or confusing.

"However, greatly improved terms at the Ricoh Arena offer an improved outlook for the current financial year. The current short-term deal includes £100,000 annual rent, access to half of food and drink revenue, and a portion of parking fees on matchdays."

I was under the impression that one of the main areas of contention was that the club had NO access to either food and beverages or match-day parking under the current arrangement.

skybluefred · Mar 12, 2015

Brings it into the cold light of day when accountant's start asking questions.

CJ_covblaze · Mar 12, 2015

SkyBlueCharlie said:
The final paragraph in the report is quite interesting and/or confusing.

"However, greatly improved terms at the Ricoh Arena offer an improved outlook for the current financial year. The current short-term deal includes £100,000 annual rent, access to half of food and drink revenue, and a portion of parking fees on matchdays."

I was under the impression that one of the main areas of contention was that the club had NO access to either food and beverages or match-day parking under the current arrangement.

I'm sure it was stated by both sides at some point that the club gets a split of the F&B. IIRC the club got 900 car parking spaces as part of the pre Sixfields deal.

lewys33 · Mar 12, 2015

I wish we knew the exact terms on the deal for the Ricoh. Do we take that article as fact? If that is true then I can't see how we could get much better than that even with a new stadium (we would rent the new one anyway).

robbiethemole · Mar 12, 2015

Coventry City Football Club Ltd, went into liquidation during a bitter rent dispute with the former owners of the Ricoh Arena stadium, where the club plays.
During the period, £5.6m of administration expenses were accrued as David Rubin & Partners IPs Paul Appleton and Stephen Katz completed work on the defunct subsidiary

taken from the article............................fucking Appleton aint gone short has he, the twat. What a waste of money.

italiahorse · Mar 12, 2015

If the 50% revenues are true then the club need to get this for the long term.
There is no way then that a new stadium would be any better.
Then we can to start to get other commercial incomes built up although in this league who's interested?

But hey lets not do any of that and just continue with the JR and concentrate our efforts on a new stadium.

italiahorse · Mar 12, 2015

robbiethemole said:
Coventry City Football Club Ltd, went into liquidation during a bitter rent dispute with the former owners of the Ricoh Arena stadium, where the club plays.
During the period, £5.6m of administration expenses were accrued as David Rubin & Partners IPs Paul Appleton and Stephen Katz completed work on the defunct subsidiary

taken from the article............................fucking Appleton aint gone short has he, the twat. What a waste of money.

£5.6M ?
Isn't that about what Wasps paid for the Ricoh ?

duffer · Mar 12, 2015

italiahorse said:
£5.6M ?
Isn't that about what Wasps paid for the Ricoh ?

Indeed, perhaps it's a pity it wasn't offered to CCFC for the same amount, eh. They still might not have bought it in fairness, but I guess we'll never know now.

Similarly, Wasps would be finished if their benfactor walked away and stopped funding them.

italiahorse · Mar 12, 2015

duffer said:
Indeed, perhaps it's a pity it wasn't offered to CCFC for the same amount, eh. They still might not have bought it in fairness, but I guess we'll never know now.

Similarly, Wasps would be finished if their benfactor walked away and stopped funding them.

Who in their right mind would trust our owners with the Ricoh?
I bet they would charge us more the £100K for the pleasure.

hutch1972 · Mar 12, 2015

italiahorse said:
£5.6M ?
Isn't that about what Wasps paid for the Ricoh ?

Or what they will pay at some stage !!!

duffer · Mar 12, 2015

italiahorse said:
If the 50% revenues are true then the club need to get this for the long term.
There is no way then that a new stadium would be any better.
Then we can to start to get other commercial incomes built up although in this league who's interested?

But hey lets not do any of that and just continue with the JR and concentrate our efforts on a new stadium.

It's 50% of matchday revenue (of which about 100% is down to the team playing there, presumably). So not 50% of the total revenue. Presumably a new stadium would at least give us access to the total revenue stream. Wasps have bought that for themselves at the Ricoh of course, and with their accounts they'll need it too.

If you think a long term rent deal with access to just 50% per cent of the matchday revenue is a good deal for the club, then I'm glad you're not negotiating for us, personally.

But hey, let's not actually read the article before rushing to comment, eh.

stupot07 · Mar 12, 2015

What is it 50% of? The profit on F&B's and car parking? Given that ACL told us they only make c10% on F&B's (c£110k profit on 16k attendances) we're not likely to be making that much it its 5% based on 8k attendances.

It's one of those that sounds good, but we don't know what the reality is.

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

italiahorse · Mar 12, 2015

duffer said:
It's 50% of matchday revenue (of which about 100% is down to the team playing there, presumably). So not 50% of the total revenue. Presumably a new stadium would at least give us access to the total revenue stream. Wasps have bought that for themselves at the Ricoh of course, and with their accounts they'll need it too.

If you think a long term rent deal with access to just 50% per cent of the matchday revenue is a good deal for the club, then I'm glad you're not negotiating for us, personally.

But hey, let's not actually read the article before rushing to comment, eh.

Yes lets do what we have done up to know and say we get absolutely nothing.

duffer · Mar 12, 2015

italiahorse said:
Who in their right mind would trust our owners with the Ricoh?
I bet they would charge us more the £100K for the pleasure.

Possibly, but then what would they benefit from keeping the club down by doing this? They'd lose money on both ends - the club makes more if it's successful, and ACL which they'd also own makes more from hosting a successful club.

stupot07 · Mar 12, 2015

duffer said:
Possibly, but then what would they benefit from keeping the club down by doing this? They'd lose money on both ends - the club makes more if it's successful, and ACL (which) they'd also own makes more from hosting a successful club.

They'd be far more likely to sell, and sell to a decent owner as a package.

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

duffer · Mar 12, 2015

italiahorse said:
Yes lets do what we have done up to know and say we get absolutely nothing.

Or let's think about what we're actually saying before we write it. You'd tie us into a long term rent deal with Wasps, for just 50% of the matchday revenue? Seriously?

italiahorse · Mar 12, 2015

duffer said:
Or let's think about what we're actually saying before we write it. You'd tie us into a long term rent deal with Wasps, for just 50% of the matchday revenue? Seriously?

Almost certainly, particularly as we have put absolutely nothing into the infrastructure or taken on any debt.

duffer · Mar 12, 2015

italiahorse said:
Almost certainly, particularly as we have put absolutely nothing into the infrastructure or taken on any debt.

Wasps haven't put anything into the infrastructure either, they've just bought the operating company. If CCFC weren't playing at the Ricoh there wouldn't be any matchday income to share. I'm honestly surprised that anyone would think this is a good deal, or that CCFC could thrive on these terms.

italiahorse · Mar 12, 2015

duffer said:
Wasps haven't put anything into the infrastructure either, they've just bought the operating company. If CCFC weren't playing at the Ricoh there wouldn't be any matchday income to share. I'm honestly surprised that anyone would think this is a good deal, or that CCFC could thrive on these terms.

Never said it was a good deal more like better than we could expect.
Never said we would thrive.

I think the point I'm making is that we have no option but to stay at the Ricoh so lets negotiate and not fight Wasps.

The Gentleman · Mar 12, 2015

duffer said:
Wasps haven't put anything into the infrastructure either, they've just bought the operating company. If CCFC weren't playing at the Ricoh there wouldn't be any matchday income to share. I'm honestly surprised that anyone would think this is a good deal, or that CCFC could thrive on these terms.

I would say that 10 years is a long time in football (jesus, the last 7 have felt like a lifetime). So, what would you say was a good deal for us in our current state?

Before you go down the 'CCC should have offered us the same deal', I could and would counter with the fact that Sisu had 7 years to buy and didn't and round and round we go.

So what would be a good deal in our current position?

RFC · Mar 12, 2015

Why don't those who are so concerned ask Ann Lucas & CCC WHY they'd been negotiating with Wasps 6 months before the Sky Blues returned to the Ricoh?

Also why CCFC we'ren't offered the some or a similar deal to buy?

Or why they totally refused to renegotiate the crazy £1:28 million rent but lured the club back naively for just £100,000 before the Wasps deal went through?

Strikes me the majority are looking in the wrong direction!

The club will not survive or be attractive to a prospective purchaser unless they (or the owners) own their own ground and have full access to all revenue streams 365 days a year.

Ann Lucas and her cronies would block any move by CCFC to purchase land and build a stadium within the City boundaries, forcing the club to look elsewhere outside the City, WHY?

I could go on but it just gets even more boring, never mind, the local elections are coming up and hopefully she'll get her just desert??????????

duffer · Mar 12, 2015

italiahorse said:
Never said it was a good deal more like better than we could expect.
Never said we would thrive.

I think the point I'm making is that we have no option but to stay at the Ricoh so lets negotiate and not fight Wasps.

Fair comment, there's logic to the last point in particular.

Honestly though italia, and I'm not saying this to provoke, if I was in Fisher's shoes I think I'd want to sit tight a bit and see how the Wasps thing plays out. I'm far from convinced that it's a certainty that it's going to be the success that it's claimed to be.

I know you disagree, you don't even have to say it!

What I'll point to here is the uncertainty regarding attendances at Wasps when the novelty and the free tickets run out, the Compass contract that seems to suggest that the return from F&B is somewhat ambiguous, and the risk that Wasps benefactor pulls out and the club goes pop that way.

duffer · Mar 12, 2015

The Gentleman said:
I would say that 10 years is a long time in football (jesus, the last 7 have felt like a lifetime). So, what would you say was a good deal for us in our current state?

Before you go down the 'CCC should have offered us the same deal', I could and would counter with the fact that Sisu had 7 years to buy and didn't and round and round we go.

So what would be a good deal in our current position?

Unless there's access to income streams from ACL, then there probably isn't a good deal to be had from the club's point of view, I'd suggest.

It's why the otherwise utterly daft idea of the new stadium actually might have some tiny amount of merit...

The Gentleman · Mar 12, 2015

RFC said:
Why don't those who are so concerned ask Ann Lucas & CCC WHY they'd been negotiating with Wasps 6 months before the Sky Blues returned to the Ricoh?

Also why CCFC we'ren't offered the some or a similar deal to buy?

Or why they totally refused to renegotiate the crazy £1:28 million rent but lured the club back naively for just £100,000 before the Wasps deal went through?

Strikes me the majority are looking in the wrong direction!

The club will not survive or be attractive to a prospective purchaser unless they (or the owners) own their own ground and have full access to all revenue streams 365 days a year.

Ann Lucas and her cronies would block any move by CCFC to purchase land and build a stadium within the City boundaries, forcing the club to look elsewhere outside the City, WHY?

I could go on but it just gets even more boring, never mind, the local elections are coming up and hopefully she'll get her just desert??????????

No, you're the fucking plum who IS boring.

So you are saying we should only be asking questions of CCC?

What about the previous reduced rent offers you seemed to have forgot?

Why didn't Sisu make and see through an offer to buy the Ricoh in the 7 years they've been here?

Would a tinpot shed out in the middle of nowhere be used 365 days a year?

Does Ann Lucas do anything in Coventry other than stroking a white cat and hatching plans to outwit CCFC?

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL HERE TALKING SHIT?

italiahorse · Mar 12, 2015

duffer said:
Fair comment, there's logic to the last point in particular.

Honestly though italia, and I'm not saying this to provoke, if I was in Fisher's shoes I think I'd want to sit tight a bit and see how the Wasps thing plays out. I'm far from convinced that it's a certainty that it's going to be the success that it's claimed to be.

I know you disagree, you don't even have to say it!

What I'll point to here is the uncertainty regarding attendances at Wasps when the novelty and the free tickets run out, the Compass contract that seems to suggest that the return from F&B is somewhat ambiguous, and the risk that Wasps benefactor pulls out and the club goes pop that way.

I agree that TF may be playing poker and sitting it out. But from experience he is not a good player.
If Wasps do get secure the gamble is lost.
At this moment in time they must feel uncertain so now is the time to play ......... maybe

The Gentleman · Mar 12, 2015

duffer said:
Unless there's access to income streams from ACL, then there probably isn't a good deal to be had from the club's point of view, I'd suggest.

It's why the otherwise utterly daft idea of the new stadium actually might have some tiny amount of merit...

So because we blew the chance of access to all streams, then this is the best deal we can get for the long term (say 10 years)?

Como · Mar 12, 2015

£100 grand to rent the Ricoh has to be cheap no matter which way you look at it.

A new stadium, the figure of £35m has been mentioned, obviously nothing like the Ricoh complex that cost three times that.

So what would be the rent for that year round. Even 5% is getting on for £2m.

And what would all these year round incomes be? They would need to be significant just to pay for the extra rent.

albatross · Mar 12, 2015

The statement about a going concern is factually correct. It is the responsibility of the auditors to point out if there is a danger to the company failing within the next accounting period. It is in the Accounts.

CCFC would never own the Ricoh , CCFC were never going to be allowed to purchase, not due to the council , ACL or anyone else but due to the SISU and their business model. They would have to rent from a SISU company , also in the public domain and on the record and reported this week.

skybluetony176 · Mar 12, 2015

£5.6M to Appleton, lost revenue (on-going because an unknown amount of fans are sticking firm to. NOPM) from the Sixfields piss take, their own ongoing legal bill, the councils on going legal bill, the cost of employing consultants in the building development industry to maintain the charade of the new ground. They're fucking idiots. Talk about biting your nose of to spite your face. Fuck me, forget buying the Ricoh. By the time these idiots are finished racking up bills in the pursuit of god knows what it is they want now they could have bought the Ricoh and funded us back to premier league status.

They have to go before they bury us with themselves.

Grendel · Mar 12, 2015

albatross said:
The statement about a going concern is factually correct. It is the responsibility of the auditors to point out if there is a danger to the company failing within the next accounting period. It is in the Accounts.

CCFC would never own the Ricoh , CCFC were never going to be allowed to purchase, not due to the council , ACL or anyone else but due to the SISU and their business model. They would have to rent from a SISU company , also in the public domain and on the record and reported this week.

Wasps rent through Wasp (Holdings) so I am stuggling to see your point here

albatross · Mar 12, 2015

Grendel said:
Wasps rent through Wasp (Holdings) so I am stuggling to see your point here

Just responding to the OP and then to RFC (its nearly a reflex reaction now)

chiefdave · Mar 12, 2015

stupot07 said:
What is it 50% of? The profit on F&B's and car parking? Given that ACL told us they only make c10% on F&B's (c£110k profit on 16k attendances) we're not likely to be making that much it its 5% based on 8k attendances.

That's a key point, is it 50% of revenue or 50% of profit. Two very different things and of course it's only matchdays anyway.

RFC said:
Why don't those who are so concerned ask Ann Lucas & CCC WHY they'd been negotiating with Wasps 6 months before the Sky Blues returned to the Ricoh?

Also why CCFC we'ren't offered the some or a similar deal to buy?

Some of us have and got refused an answer under a claim of it being confidential.

RegTheDonk · Mar 12, 2015

Grendel said:
Wasps rent through Wasp (Holdings) so I am stuggling to see your point here

Regardless of how Wasps operate, he's reaffirming the point that CCFC would rent via SISU - despite Fisher, Lab et all always saying the club must own its own stadium.

The Gentleman · Mar 12, 2015

RegTheDonk said:
Regardless of how Wasps operate, he's reaffirming the point that CCFC would rent via SISU - despite Fisher, Lab et all always saying the club must own its own stadium.

Would have been interesting to see what rent we would have been charged by a Sisu related company and what % of revenues came our way and to the Sisu related company

Auditors query Coventry City FC as a going concern (3 Viewers)

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency