Breakdown of this £30m 'investment' (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
I know I've seen this issue discussed within other treads which then return to their original topic; but does anyone have a definitive break-down of what this much cited £30m comprises?

Does it include transfer fees, if so is that value 'contraed' by incoming funds - which to the best of my knowledge is a relationship which currently sits in SISU's favour?
 
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
No, sorry. I am referring to the £30m SISU claim they have invested in the club since taking the reigns. I very much suspect it's a figure comprised of smoke, mirrors,half-truths, and accounting slight-of-hand; but I wanted to know if anyone has ever challenged them to show it's composition
 
kg82

kg82

Well-Known Member
Ah, then no! I have no idea! I'm guessing a fair chunk went on Ryton and they were buying players at first?
 
D

DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe

New Member
I do know that the total wage bill last calendar year was £8.5m (including all CCFC staff). They were trying to drop that down to £4m for this year, not sure how they got on.
 
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
With regards the player investments, well since they took over in December '07 I recall, I think they've invested something like £8m in player transfers, yet recouped circa. £9m. These figures being those I can recollect so not gospel I hasten to add! So for me, they cannot cite monies they have spent on transfers without offsetting that which they have recovered via transfers and discussing the net position. To not do so is disingenuous.

Moreover, I wonder if they might be including the values of contracts signed during their tenure. In other words, a player on £6K a week on a three year contract being considered a £936K 'investment'; when in actuality the weekly outlay will be offset by weekly income.

If gate receipts continue to generate any income, of course...
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
I suppose there was a deal with the co-op bank & other creditors at the start of their ownership, but I think you are right, they are claiming turnover & running costs as investment whilst ignoring the income from the business.

The football economy shows 2006/7 turnover at just under £10M/year, so £30M for 3 1/2 years is about right.
http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/coventry-city-football-club-ltd
 
C

crowsnest

Well-Known Member
They are not ignoring income.

By investment they mean how much money has been given to the business since they became the owners.
You don't invest in individual items in a business. It all goes together as one big pot.

Everything from running the acadamy to paying ex-employee pensions is part of the business and if there is a shortfall then someone has to provide the money. (£13m deficit in pension scheme when sisu took over).

If you keep making a loss and no one funds it you run out of cash - then admin.
 
SkyBlue_Bear83

SkyBlue_Bear83

Well-Known Member
Didn't they spend a wad of cash improving the academy and training facilities when they first came? In transfers I would say they have sold as much as they have bought, so the rest would just be covering wages and any other running costs.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
So, crowsnest if I get you right, the £30M is normal running costs not new money. Which is exactly MMM's point, they are trying to misrepresent the normal costs of the business as extra money put in to improve the situation of the club.
 
C

crowsnest

Well-Known Member
Jack Griffin said:
So, crowsnest if I get you right, the £30M is normal running costs not new money. Which is exactly MMM's point, they are trying to misrepresent the normal costs of the business as extra money put in to improve the situation of the club.
Click to expand...

NO, people are redefining the word investment as only being money spent to improve the situation - ie transfer money on new players.

If you buy a football club and put £30m in over 3 years (most in first few years - pay off bank, outstanding football creditors) then you have invested £30m. The fact the the club is no futher forward 3 years later is down to bad management on and off the pitch.

So, if any new owners come in they will have to put money in just to stand still as the club does not make enough from tickets, tv etc to pay the running costs.
 
johnniericoh

johnniericoh

Member
An earlier post suggests the wage bill has come down from £8.5M pa to £4.0M- whilst this is very prudent and a sign of good housekeeping does it not result in:

  • current players disgruntled with reduced wage
  • current players unwilling to extend contracts
  • prospective players unwilling to sign
I don't think today's players play for fun so the above could be a problem that is festering under the surface.

PUSB
 
G

georgehudson

Well-Known Member
breakdow of this £30m 'investment'

If sisu dared, or even were, willing, to explain the 30m, t'would be all smoke screen & mirrors time, but if they did attempt it, it would make an interesting scrutiny, however that would seem as unlikely as 'a floating titanic'.
The TRUE SKY BLUES, are left with having to listen to 'sisu's' apologetic and purile drivel.

I seem to remember that they (sisu), trotted out the - losing 4m per annum, then we had a good cup run (chelski), and @ the end of that season we were told that we lost 9m, perhaps this was more 'creative accounting' nevertheless we, as CCFC, do we have to accept that they really are 'fit and proper persons' to run a football club ?
PUSB
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
johnniericoh said:
An earlier post suggests the wage bill has come down from £8.5M pa to £4.0M- whilst this is very prudent and a sign of good housekeeping does it not result in:

  • current players disgruntled with reduced wage
  • current players unwilling to extend contracts
  • prospective players unwilling to sign
I don't think today's players play for fun so the above could be a problem that is festering under the surface.

PUSB
Click to expand...

Potentially, depends on how you do it. Blackpool had some of these problems, especially after promotion, but got a decent enough side together on a budget and got themselves up due to good management.

The problem is not reducing the wage bill results in:

- Club losing more money
- Less to spend on transfers
- Having to sell players
- Reduced fan base
- etc. etc.

There's no easy answers here. Interestingly enough IIRC the last accounts have the wage bill rising compared to the ones before. I have them somewhere but am being to lazy to look it up, I'm sure it does rise though, by about a million.
 
Disorganised1

Disorganised1

New Member
Probably still paying off all the managers we've sacked
 
ccfcchris

ccfcchris

Well-Known Member
Disorganised1 said:
Probably still paying off all the managers we've sacked
Click to expand...


Perhaps that's why we are still losing so much money each month. I understand SISU needing to get the club on a sounder financial footing but it winds the hell out of me that no matter what they do we still lose something like 500k a month.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
ccfcchris said:
Perhaps that's why we are still losing so much money each month. I understand SISU needing to get the club on a sounder financial footing but it winds the hell out of me that no matter what they do we still lose something like 500k a month.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it just? All we can do is get people uptempo Ricoh and spend money on the club. Otherwise cutting costs is the only option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top