Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You need turnover to make profit. At least properly read through what I say prior to dismissing it. The figures don't lie-we are worse off without ProZone than with it.
You miss the fact that the accounts shows the status per May 2011. More than a year ago.
Everything that has happened since are not reflected in the freshly printed accounts.
But maybe now more fans will understand why Ranson, Hoffman and Elliott had to go?
Yeah we really turned the corner under the magnificunt board of Clouting, Dulieu, Igwe and Brody, didn't we? DIDN'T WE? Erm, hello? Godiva, where've you gone...?
You need turnover to make profit. At least properly read through what I say prior to dismissing it. The figures don't lie-we are worse off without ProZone than with it.
My point is simple: The accounts published shows the results of having Ranson, Hoffman and Elliott running the show.
All they have done since the takeover is there in the reports: The increasing losses, the increasing liabillities, the decreasing assets ... everything they have done is reflected there in the accounts. There are no better evidence, no better hard core facts ... just look at the numbers.
The loss made on ProZone is a) A fraction of the millions and millions lost and b) Purely down to what Ranson's payout cost. Had he opted for £200k less, there would have been £100k profit. At the end of the day, it's essentially a break-even business operating within a huge loss making company, and as such its contribution to club finances was significant. Still, if you're happy with us giving up £4 million then I don't hold it against you.
You are likely to get lynched on here with that sort of talk.
see the CT have put up an article ........... they really do not understand it do they
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...oventry-city-as-losses-spiral-92746-31280028/
Interview TF and dont really ask anything.
take this bit of the article
They say directors of the club anticipate raising the necessary cash flow to allow manager Andy Thorn to compete in the transfer market, but “the realisation of such cash flows is not yet certain”
isnt what the accounts say ..... what it says is
"In common with other clubs, the Football club anticipates continuing to be active in the transfer market with its squad the directors anticipate generating positive cash flows from such player transfer activity" ....... now does that sound like buying or selling players to you ?
same with this bit of the article
"He pointed out that he auditor only signed off the accounts of Sky Blues Sports & Leisure after a guarantee from ultimate owners Sisu that it would continue covering losses and fund the club for the next 12 months."
The auditors report refers to intention not guarantee and ends that paragraph with
No withstanding this intention, there is no contractual certainty that such funding will be made available
but as the CT says they know what is going on :facepalm:
Thank you, I aprreciate that. We got £7m for a £4m asset - I am content with that.
see the CT have put up an article ........... they really do not understand it do they
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...oventry-city-as-losses-spiral-92746-31280028/
Interview TF and dont really ask anything.
take this bit of the article
They say directors of the club anticipate raising the necessary cash flow to allow manager Andy Thorn to compete in the transfer market, but “the realisation of such cash flows is not yet certain”
isnt what the accounts say ..... what it says is
"In common with other clubs, the Football club anticipates continuing to be active in the transfer market with its squad the directors anticipate generating positive cash flows from such player transfer activity" ....... now does that sound like buying or selling players to you ?
same with this bit of the article
"He pointed out that he auditor only signed off the accounts of Sky Blues Sports & Leisure after a guarantee from ultimate owners Sisu that it would continue covering losses and fund the club for the next 12 months."
The auditors report refers to intention not guarantee and ends that paragraph with
No withstanding this intention, there is no contractual certainty that such funding will be made available
but as the CT says they know what is going on :facepalm:
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?