Auditors query Coventry City FC as a going concern (2 Viewers)

Tonylinc · Mar 12, 2015

It is my honest opinion that the future of CCFC would be best served by a partnership with Wasps PROVIDED that a suitable financial arrangement can be made with them regarding all income streams. Any negotiator has to convey to the parties that both sides need each other and that each can add value to the other. All talk of a new stadium has to be dropped (an idiotic idea anyway) and the JR abandoned (doomed to failure in any event). Both sides must come to the table in an air of conciliation and reconciliation for the process to work.

duffer · Mar 12, 2015

Tonylinc said:
It is my honest opinion that the future of CCFC would be best served by a partnership with Wasps PROVIDED that a suitable financial arrangement can be made with them regarding all income streams. Any negotiator has to convey to the parties that both sides need each other and that each can add value to the other. All talk of a new stadium has to be dropped (an idiotic idea anyway) and the JR abandoned (doomed to failure in any event). Both sides must come to the table in an air of conciliation and reconciliation for the process to work.

I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with your opinion Tony, but it's certainly well put.

I think the truth of it is that it would probably need new owners at the club for that to happen. I'm sure that wouldn't much upset anyone, regardless of all other opinions!

Grendel · Mar 12, 2015

Tonylinc said:
That's OK but unlike you I think that negotiating now would be better than waiting. The reason I say that is that Wasps have yet to fully assess their investment and there must be some doubts as to its profitability so, "strike while the iron is hot", as it were.

Yes it's always been the case.

Any organisation that said ccFC should own the stadium without the biuffwr of a holding company would be unfit for purpose.

No fan wants that.

cloughie · Mar 12, 2015

Tonylinc said:
It is my honest opinion that the future of CCFC would be best served by a partnership with Wasps PROVIDED that a suitable financial arrangement can be made with them regarding all income streams. Any negotiator has to convey to the parties that both sides need each other and that each can add value to the other. All talk of a new stadium has to be dropped (an idiotic idea anyway) and the JR abandoned (doomed to failure in any event). Both sides must come to the table in an air of conciliation and reconciliation for the process to work.

Now that statement of reconciliation is what Coventry is known for

Unfortunately it is what sisu are known for never being prepared to do

thekidfromstrettoncamp · Mar 12, 2015

Shame but susi dont do humility .

The Gentleman · Mar 12, 2015

Grendel said:
Yes it's always been the case.

Any organisation that said ccFC should own the stadium without the biuffwr of a holding company would be unfit for purpose.

No fan wants that.

Grendel, have you been drinking again or have your fingers been stung by hornets?

The Gentleman · Mar 12, 2015

duffer said:
In fairness, we're not a million miles away on this. Of course, this presupposes that SISU can hold a straightforward negotiation, and as I'm sure you've pointed out having a JR pointing at the council that may well impact Wasps isn't going to help.

My honest opinion mate, for what it's worth, is that Fisher genuinely believes that Wasps have signed a bad deal and is planning to sit tight to watch it unravel whilst spinning a line on the new stadium. If I'm right, I genuinely don't know if that's smart or crazy.

The one thing that's certain is that we're in a bad place whilst all this plays out.

I don't think it's that bad of a deal, especially if we'd of signed it but I don't want to go round that house again.

I don't think Fisher believes anything that comes out of his own mouth and do believe that Sisu got out smarted with the Wasps move. The problem is that Sisu think that all they can do is wait it out but this benefits anyone, least of all CCFC. Now is a perfect time to take the bull by the horns and get round the Ricoh table but sadly, this is not the 'Sisu' way and talk of JR2 is evidence of that. We, as usual get shafted in all of this, which is why my blood boils when I hear Fisher, Waggot and the rest of the shower of shit talk about what is best for CCFC.

Grendel · Mar 12, 2015

The Gentleman said:
Grendel, have you been drinking again or have your fingers been stung by hornets?

If you have a business and a property with the business you always have 2 limited companies and the business leases to the property.

This really is basic accounting advice and for obvious reasons.

Deleted member 5849 · 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.

Correction
Accountancy Age had referred to £5.6m of administration expenses incurred. Instead, they were administrative expenses. The reference has been removed. Accountancy Age apologises for any confusion caused.

steveecov · Mar 12, 2015

If ever a book was written; "How To...Run A Football Club", They'd cite SISU and Coventry City and they'd conclude...Do the exact opposite.

skybluetony176 · Mar 12, 2015

Grendel said:
If you have a business and a property with the business you always have 2 limited companies and the business leases to the property.

This really is basic accounting advice and for obvious reasons.

But aren't you assuming that these two companies are going to be linked in some way? Isn't there a chance that the reality is that these 2 companies could be so separate that we may gain no benefit at all or even be better off with the deal we currently have?

skybluetony176 · Mar 12, 2015

steveecov said:
If ever a book was written; "How To...Run A Football Club", They'd cite SISU and Coventry City and they'd conclude...Do the exact opposite.

Unless your attention is to run it into the ground.

Godiva · Mar 12, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Correction
Accountancy Age had referred to £5.6m of administration expenses incurred. Instead, they were administrative expenses. The reference has been removed. Accountancy Age apologises for any confusion caused.

I don't care much for their excuses - I want an address to where I can send an invoice!

Godiva said:
No, Appelton didn't receive £5.6m. 'Administration cost' is not only the cost of the administration case, it includes overheads, insurances, travel, office costs etc. But it is extraordinary high as it includes a write of of Goodwill by some £2m+. I am not even sure that Appeltons Fee is in there - it could well be part of the total amount Otium paid for the assets in CCFC ltd, and in that case it would be a cost that was within the total Goodwill posted in the accounts as an asset (from where a hefty amount was subsequently written off).

Edit: The administration cost also include the £460k to ACL as dictated by the FL.

oldfiver · 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

Update

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

Jonty1 · Mar 12, 2015

steveecov said:
If ever a book was written; "How To...Run A Football Club", They'd cite SISU and Coventry City and they'd conclude...Do the exact opposite.

Problem is that there are few clubs that are that well run if winning leagues is the success measure. Most clubs run at a loss and whichever way you look at it unless you have a very wealthy benefactor(or are one of the largest global brand clubs) it is hard to sustain the success without continued Investment.

SISU have invested in the region of £50m and bought a club whose wages(let alone other costs) exceeded their Revenue and this has continued throughout their ownership. This is unsustainable and in order to survive they have reduced wages, sold off key players and reduced other costs. The consequence of this is a low cost squad who are struggling to maintain their League 1 status and the company is still making losses.

I'm sure we can all feel we could do better given £50m to spend but if the success doesn't come it's an impossible business model to sustain without more Investment and even then there is no guarantee of success. The Football business model is an odd beast and when the fans turn against the owners and directors it becomes impossible. I think it actually needs everyone to pull together but not sure the fans can get in to a positive mood until the success on the pitch returns-catch 22!

Terry Gibson's perm · Mar 12, 2015

The Gentleman said:
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?

Is the bit that always confuses me locally wherever they build this new ground they are up against The Ricoh which is established , couldn't have better access from the motorway system and whenever I have been in the conference bit is very nice. Compare this to a lego stadium built wherever and if they say they can put housing on the rest of the site a house builder would buy the land and put extra houses where their ground would be and also who wants to live next to a football ground?

The Gentleman · Mar 12, 2015

Grendel said:
If you have a business and a property with the business you always have 2 limited companies and the business leases to the property.

This really is basic accounting advice and for obvious reasons.

I'm a bit unsure about what this has to do with your shit spelling?

Grendel · Mar 12, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
But aren't you assuming that these two companies are going to be linked in some way? Isn't there a chance that the reality is that these 2 companies could be so separate that we may gain no benefit at all or even be better off with the deal we currently have?

No that is a separate debate.

The argument often used that CCFC will not own their own ground is ridiculous. It would be financial suicide to not separate them.

The argument you use regarding the holding company and its rent arrangement also is a bit self defeating. You and others pour scorn on the idea 365 day revenue - the pie money - has real value in a Lego stadium. So surely the stadium is worthless anyway without the main tenant?

skybluetony176 · Mar 12, 2015

Grendel said:
No that is a separate debate.

The argument often used that CCFC will not own their own ground is ridiculous. It would be financial suicide to not separate them.

The argument you use regarding the holding company and its rent arrangement also is a bit self defeating. You and others pour scorn on the idea 365 day revenue - the pie money - has real value in a Lego stadium. So surely the stadium is worthless anyway without the main tenant?

You are assuming that SISU are going to it the same way other clubs do, such as Arsenal. What are you basing this assumption on? You say it would be financially suicidal not to. For who? The club that SISU have already made financially suicidal decisions for or for SISU's investors, AKA the only group of people outside of her family that the person making the decisions care for?

If it's a competition between CCFC and SISU's investors of who benefits from an arrangement that SISU make it's pretty clear CCFC are going to be a poor second.

Grendel · Mar 12, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
You are assuming that SISU are going to it the same way other clubs do, such as Arsenal. What are you basing this assumption on? You say it would be financially suicidal not to. For who? The club that SISU have already made financially suicidal decisions for or for SISU's investors, AKA the only group of people outside of her family that the person making the decisions care for?

If it's a competition between CCFC and SISU's investors of who benefits from an arrangement that SISU make it's pretty clear CCFC are going to be a poor second.

You are avoiding the main principal of the discussion. If the club owned a stadium and a new owner purchased would they separate the two companies? The answer as you well know is yes.

Como · Mar 13, 2015

Still missing the main point, we have a very cheap deal at the Ricoh. How does having a little bit extra income match a much higher rent. How is that going to be paid?

letsallsingtogether · Mar 13, 2015

Grendel said:
No that is a separate debate.

The argument often used that CCFC will not own their own ground is ridiculous. It would be financial suicide to not separate them.

The argument you use regarding the holding company and its rent arrangement also is a bit self defeating. You and others pour scorn on the idea 365 day revenue - the pie money - has real value in a Lego stadium. So surely the stadium is worthless anyway without the main tenant?

The thing is the Ricoh is running at a loss so why do sisu think it will be any better for them.
They could end up with 2 loss making businesses goes against all they stand for?

Astute · Mar 13, 2015

Grendel said:
You are avoiding the main principal of the discussion. If the club owned a stadium and a new owner purchased would they separate the two companies? The answer as you well know is yes.

Maybe the main principal of the discussion for many isn't how you see it. And how can you say what a new owner would do?

4waspsting · Mar 13, 2015

I bet they re raking it in with the pies,i'd rather eat my toenails

skybluetony176 · Mar 13, 2015

Grendel said:
You are avoiding the main principal of the discussion. If the club owned a stadium and a new owner purchased would they separate the two companies? The answer as you well know is yes.

You're avoiding my point completely. Most likely because you're point is based on an assumption. All I'm asking is what are you basing that assumption on. Clearly you're basing it on nothing, it's another of you're estimated facts.

Grendel · Mar 13, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
You're avoiding my point completely. Most likely because you're point is based on an assumption. All I'm asking is what are you basing that assumption on. Clearly you're basing it on nothing, it's another of you're estimated facts.

No I am using sensible business practice. As for your point sorry I missed it as I didn't see a point made - just as usual a pitiful attempt at point scoring.

As for estimated facts it's not me that's assuming the ownership structure would result in huge expensive rents.

That's coming from the same sources that talk about excessive management fees being paid - which is a figment of imagination.

skybluetony176 · Mar 13, 2015

Grendel said:
No I am using sensible business practice. As for your point sorry I missed it as I didn't see a point made - just as usual a pitiful attempt at point scoring.

As for estimated facts it's not me that's assuming the ownership structure would result in huge expensive rents.

That's coming from the same sources that talk about excessive management fees being paid - which is a figment of imagination.

Sensible business practice? SISU? Kind of losing you're own argument there!

I suspect you're deliberately missing the point its that simple so I'll dumb it down for you.

What makes you so sure that SISU will adopt the model you keep going on about for CCFC? What are you basing this on? Is it a rule set out by the FL for instance? Is it because you've read it in a detailed business plan that SISU have published regarding the new stadium and how it's going to be set up? Or have you looked at how other teams do it and ASSUMED that is how SISU will do it? If it's the latter what are you basing that ASSUMPTION on?

oldfiver · Mar 13, 2015

Grendel said:
You are avoiding the main principal of the discussion. If the club owned a stadium and a new owner purchased would they separate the two companies? The answer as you well know is yes.

Best practice these days is to seperate the trading company from the property owning company - thus protecting the property asset

Small businesses often put the property into the owners pension fund which is a tax free zone. It charges the trading company rent - tax deductible from trading profits - and the rental income also goes into a tax free zone.

chiefdave · Mar 13, 2015

Como said:
Still missing the main point, we have a very cheap deal at the Ricoh. How does having a little bit extra income match a much higher rent. How is that going to be paid?

The problem is we don't know what we will pay and what we will get in return. Until we know that how can we decide what is the better option?

stupot07 · Mar 13, 2015

chiefdave said:
The problem is we don't know what we will pay and what we will get in return. Until we know that how can we decide what is the better option?

And that counts for both a new stadium and any long term deal with wasps. I doubt they will be happy with £100k pa rent indefinitely.

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

chiefdave · Mar 13, 2015

stupot07 said:
And that counts for both a new stadium and any long term deal with wasps. I doubt they will be happy with £100k pa rent indefinitely.

It does indeed. Although I have a suspicion that if ACL isn't profitable when our deal is due for renewal we will be expected to pay more in rent. We also know there is no way Wasps are going to give us 365 revenues, and fairly unlikely we will even get all the revenue we generate.

Astute · Mar 13, 2015

Grendel said:
No I am using sensible business practice. As for your point sorry I missed it as I didn't see a point made - just as usual a pitiful attempt at point scoring.

As for estimated facts it's not me that's assuming the ownership structure would result in huge expensive rents.

That's coming from the same sources that talk about excessive management fees being paid - which is a figment of imagination.

Or costs arising from when Appleton was looking into our club which was about the cost of a 50% share in the arena? Another good way of looking after our clubs or SISU's money.

Astute · Mar 13, 2015

chiefdave said:
It does indeed. Although I have a suspicion that if ACL isn't profitable when our deal is due for renewal we will be expected to pay more in rent. We also know there is no way Wasps are going to give us 365 revenues, and fairly unlikely we will even get all the revenue we generate.

Wasps paid for the 365 revenue. SISU wouldn't. So who should get it?

Yes we all want our club to have it. But what logical reason is there that we should have it?

rupert_bear · Mar 13, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Sensible business practice? SISU? Kind of losing you're own argument there!

I suspect you're deliberately missing the point its that simple so I'll dumb it down for you.

What makes you so sure that SISU will adopt the model you keep going on about for CCFC? What are you basing this on? Is it a rule set out by the FL for instance? Is it because you've read it in a detailed business plan that SISU have published regarding the new stadium and how it's going to be set up? Or have you looked at how other teams do it and ASSUMED that is how SISU will do it? If it's the latter what are you basing that ASSUMPTION on?

Stumped him there, hasn't been back for over 3 hours now.

chiefdave · Mar 13, 2015

Astute said:
Wasps paid for the 365 revenue. SISU wouldn't. So who should get it?

Yes we all want our club to have it. But what logical reason is there that we should have it?

That's not what is being argued. The argument is that we are better off staying at the Ricoh on the deal we are on now. That deal will see us bottom end of the championship at best although if you look at Stockport, the only other club in our situation, that would be wildly optimistic.

We need to find a way out of a situation which will slowly see the club die hence why I have previously said SISU, or anyone else that ends up owning us, should look at all possible options with solid financial projections to find the best way out of this mess.

Just settling for staying as a tenant as Wasps for decades to come with very limited access to revenues is not, in my opinion, the answer.

Auditors query Coventry City FC as a going concern (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known 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

Active 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