speedie87
Well-Known Member
i reckon its a mistake and someone has published the wrong version!
CCFC 2018/2019 Accounts Thread! (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter torchomatic
- Start date
i reckon its a mistake and someone has published the wrong version!
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
That would be so funny
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
My thinking is the club must be getting near to be a sellable asset once inside the Championship.
I just think at least breaking even is an important thing to show amongst owners of certain professional sporting clubs in Coventry at the moment, with everything what's going on.
Got a feeling things are going to come to a conclusion within the next 12 months or so.
I just think at least breaking even is an important thing to show amongst owners of certain professional sporting clubs in Coventry at the moment, with everything what's going on.
Got a feeling things are going to come to a conclusion within the next 12 months or so.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity,does anyone know when the bond needs to be paid back by the London rugby club?
Or how far there is left for repayment?
Or how far there is left for repayment?
speedie87
Well-Known Member
june 2022
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
I think what has been said before on here by posters that refinancing looks off the table. Read the phrase junk bonds being thrown around by many websites.
I just wonder if the Ricoh management company is worth anything at all as well as a sellable asset to any company.
Again, a long (250 year) lease involved but this would require a sporting club with a sizeable following to fill the stadium which is going to cost a lot of money for any buyer.
I think it's safe to assume now planting an out of town sporting club in there is just not viable option.
I just wonder if the Ricoh management company is worth anything at all as well as a sellable asset to any company.
Again, a long (250 year) lease involved but this would require a sporting club with a sizeable following to fill the stadium which is going to cost a lot of money for any buyer.
I think it's safe to assume now planting an out of town sporting club in there is just not viable option.
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
AndyH the Accrington owner made some great points on twitter this morning, don't know how to get them onto here though.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I've always said they'll sell when we get to the Championship, though I've also always added the caveat that my predictions on these matter have been 100 percent incorrect.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Always good when I click on the twitter link only to find I’m blocked by an account I’ve never interacted with and only just found out exists!
CanadianCCFC
Well-Known Member
Deleted, what was it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No it’s £8 million and £8 million interest plus the other non secured loans
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Had a bit more time to analyse the accounts in more detail
Part 1
a reasonably detailed summary in order of the financial statements pages. Covering both Otium and SBS&L
- The club changed auditors from BDO (top 6 accountants) to Edwards based in Walsall
- No changes in directors on either company Fisher Otium, Fisher & Deering SBS&L
- Strategic reports focus largely on the team performance. Mentions the move to Birmingham but no mention of the sites for a new stadium.
- Only material creditors being the owners
- Continue to explore the possibilities of playing at the Ricoh next season (better be quick because they have to confirm to EFL by end of March and they need to get the season ticket sales started
- According to the directors report since 31/05/2019 £3.3m receivable by club on player sales. Perhaps explains why there is no great panic over keeping going at St Andrews
- Audit report is clean and unqualified but does explain the risks regarding going concern. That club likely to need further funding from the owners, that no agreement has been reached to return to Ricoh (that would be by 27th February 2020 not the year end 31/05/19), that no agreement will mean staying at St Andrews
- Turnover was up by £320k at £6.292m. Turnover is made up of Match Receipts £2.545m, Broadcasting £1.720m Other commercial income £1.996m. Healthy figures for the average L1 teams
- Direct costs are £1.499m down £83k from last year. Direct wages costs included in those figures have decreased from £361K to £51k. Is this reduction in staff?, reclassification? The other costs I assume are matchday costs, shop costs, cost of merchandise, costs of hospitality packages etc
- Gross profit was up from £4.39m to £4.76m
- Administration costs (day to day running costs including wages) were up from £6.0m to nearly £7m at £6.977m – more detail on costs further on
- This left the operating loss of £2.215M which has increased from £1.616m in 2018.
- There is then the interest on loans to be deducted which would have left losses of £4.3m Interest costs increased by £ 223k to £2.095m
- However, transfer dealings this year and previous have credited the club with profits of players totalling £4.381m. Mainly the add on Maddison money and the sale of McNulty. Can the club maintain this level of player sales to balance the books? Looks like the McCallum sale will buffer the 2019 figures. Keep in mind that this is the profit on sale not necessarily the cash received which could be spread of a longer period of time. There is also the potential for further adds on’s depending on the contract agreed
- Overall a small profit of £69,916. A big improvement on previous years indeed the first profits in a long time. It is to be welcomed. However it is also clear evidence that the club has to sell to survive, this has worked well but can also bite you
- The balance sheet has pretty much stood still overall
- The club invested £1.039m in new players during the year (Chaplin & Bakayoko to name two). The cost of writing down the player contracts went up from £89k to £446k and is a consequence of being able to buy early in the year or previous year players on a relatively short contract of 2 years and letting players go who were still contracted
- The club also purchased equipment of £114k and some of the equipment is depreciated over 3 years not longer which increased the depreciation charge in the accounts to £67k from £34k
- The club has a stock of goods for resale of £10k there was none last year. Mainly shop stock I would guess
Part 1
a reasonably detailed summary in order of the financial statements pages. Covering both Otium and SBS&L
- The club changed auditors from BDO (top 6 accountants) to Edwards based in Walsall
- No changes in directors on either company Fisher Otium, Fisher & Deering SBS&L
- Strategic reports focus largely on the team performance. Mentions the move to Birmingham but no mention of the sites for a new stadium.
- Only material creditors being the owners
- Continue to explore the possibilities of playing at the Ricoh next season (better be quick because they have to confirm to EFL by end of March and they need to get the season ticket sales started
- According to the directors report since 31/05/2019 £3.3m receivable by club on player sales. Perhaps explains why there is no great panic over keeping going at St Andrews
- Audit report is clean and unqualified but does explain the risks regarding going concern. That club likely to need further funding from the owners, that no agreement has been reached to return to Ricoh (that would be by 27th February 2020 not the year end 31/05/19), that no agreement will mean staying at St Andrews
- Turnover was up by £320k at £6.292m. Turnover is made up of Match Receipts £2.545m, Broadcasting £1.720m Other commercial income £1.996m. Healthy figures for the average L1 teams
- Direct costs are £1.499m down £83k from last year. Direct wages costs included in those figures have decreased from £361K to £51k. Is this reduction in staff?, reclassification? The other costs I assume are matchday costs, shop costs, cost of merchandise, costs of hospitality packages etc
- Gross profit was up from £4.39m to £4.76m
- Administration costs (day to day running costs including wages) were up from £6.0m to nearly £7m at £6.977m – more detail on costs further on
- This left the operating loss of £2.215M which has increased from £1.616m in 2018.
- There is then the interest on loans to be deducted which would have left losses of £4.3m Interest costs increased by £ 223k to £2.095m
- However, transfer dealings this year and previous have credited the club with profits of players totalling £4.381m. Mainly the add on Maddison money and the sale of McNulty. Can the club maintain this level of player sales to balance the books? Looks like the McCallum sale will buffer the 2019 figures. Keep in mind that this is the profit on sale not necessarily the cash received which could be spread of a longer period of time. There is also the potential for further adds on’s depending on the contract agreed
- Overall a small profit of £69,916. A big improvement on previous years indeed the first profits in a long time. It is to be welcomed. However it is also clear evidence that the club has to sell to survive, this has worked well but can also bite you
- The balance sheet has pretty much stood still overall
- The club invested £1.039m in new players during the year (Chaplin & Bakayoko to name two). The cost of writing down the player contracts went up from £89k to £446k and is a consequence of being able to buy early in the year or previous year players on a relatively short contract of 2 years and letting players go who were still contracted
- The club also purchased equipment of £114k and some of the equipment is depreciated over 3 years not longer which increased the depreciation charge in the accounts to £67k from £34k
- The club has a stock of goods for resale of £10k there was none last year. Mainly shop stock I would guess
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
part 2
- Cash at bank at the year end had decreased from £682k to £56k. Must have made things tight over the summer months but that would have been buffered by Chaplins sale in the summer of 2019
- Creditors overall decreased from £21.8m to £21.4m. These figures include what is owed to the owners
- Overall the balance sheet is £19.7m negative. Which means they do not have the assets to cover the liabilities – they are 19m short. This is not the deficit on the SBS&L accounts which is £48.5m however the original funding claimed to have been put in of £28m+ is not secured on Otium so is not a liability of Otium/CCFC
- Operating lease charges show a figure of £535k down from £574k in 2018. This includes the Ricoh rent but also the Higgs centre and any other leases paid by the group. There is no split
- Audit fees shown on Otium show fees down by 10k at 12k in total – perhaps why the change
- Employees in total have increased by 10 to 362 but is related to the part time stewards so unlikely in itself to increase the costs by much.
- Wages costs increased from £4.879m to £5.321m in total. Less was paid in to pensions (decrease £220k) but so wages & salaries actually (inc NI) went up by £665k.
- The interest charge increased by £220k because the ARVO etc loans cost more
- With all the accumulated losses over the years there is no tax to pay on the profit
- The capital element on the ARVO/SISU Master Fund loans has decreased by £254k which indicates a part repayment of £254k. No reason why an owner cannot take money out if they choose to
- The interest element increased from £7.169m to £7.701m. Given that the interest charge in the P&L was £2.1m that means not all of the charge was rolled up and carried forward. Do the calculation and the owners paid down £1.56m of accumulated interest. Again no reason why they should not if they choose to but it does mean less available to the manager
- What is unusual is the inclusion of the management profit & loss which is a detailed report not usually released and certainly not filed by other clubs at Companies House. Having checked today it seems that part of the financials reports has been taken down from the club website, it certainly hasnt been filed at Companies House. Highlights not dealt with above are as follows
- There is a break down of the turnover. Match receipts despite a decent season dropped by £150k to £2.54m. Broadcasting income jumped by £480k to £1.72m Other commercial income stayed static at £2m
- There were redundancy costs in both 2016 and 2019. In 2019 the cost was £112k
- There is the first evidence of any management charges being paid £42,792 in both years. Not unreasonable and certainly not large figures
- Generally the costs of utilities, repairs and maintenance are down
- There legal & professional fees of £72k in 2019 and £47k in 2018. This could be all legal fees but it could also be agents costs. On top of that there are consultants fees 32k in 2019 and 14k in 2018 – no further explanation in accounts
- Boardroom expenses are 48k up from 45k in 2018
- There is no cash flow statement in the Otium accounts. It is included in the SBS&L ones. What it shows is that over the year the group was cash low negative by 625k after paying out for players and equipment but also repaying part of the loans and interest. The closing position of cash still showed £56k in the bank
- SBS&L accounts has useful info but it is Otium that is the trading part of the group. Not all of the liabilities owed by the group are owed by Otium.
- Outstanding to SISU investment funds £28.5m – owed by group but not secured on Otium/CCFC
- Otium owes ARVO £7.482m for which ARVO has a charge over Otium assets
- Otium owes SISU Master Fund £1.167m no charge registered at Companies House
The worry is what happens if the player sales do not come through. This year (2019) looks good on the face of it and is to be welcomed but the club has to keep churning out gems that others want to buy just to keep going. I still remain concerned if we remain at St Andrews and get promoted (dont get me wrong i would love promotion) that we will struggle to compete and finance it. If it fails next season that could have serious financial implications, including having to sell star players off cheaply. Worrying and caring about your team is part of being a fan i guess
PUSB
- Cash at bank at the year end had decreased from £682k to £56k. Must have made things tight over the summer months but that would have been buffered by Chaplins sale in the summer of 2019
- Creditors overall decreased from £21.8m to £21.4m. These figures include what is owed to the owners
- Overall the balance sheet is £19.7m negative. Which means they do not have the assets to cover the liabilities – they are 19m short. This is not the deficit on the SBS&L accounts which is £48.5m however the original funding claimed to have been put in of £28m+ is not secured on Otium so is not a liability of Otium/CCFC
- Operating lease charges show a figure of £535k down from £574k in 2018. This includes the Ricoh rent but also the Higgs centre and any other leases paid by the group. There is no split
- Audit fees shown on Otium show fees down by 10k at 12k in total – perhaps why the change
- Employees in total have increased by 10 to 362 but is related to the part time stewards so unlikely in itself to increase the costs by much.
- Wages costs increased from £4.879m to £5.321m in total. Less was paid in to pensions (decrease £220k) but so wages & salaries actually (inc NI) went up by £665k.
- The interest charge increased by £220k because the ARVO etc loans cost more
- With all the accumulated losses over the years there is no tax to pay on the profit
- The capital element on the ARVO/SISU Master Fund loans has decreased by £254k which indicates a part repayment of £254k. No reason why an owner cannot take money out if they choose to
- The interest element increased from £7.169m to £7.701m. Given that the interest charge in the P&L was £2.1m that means not all of the charge was rolled up and carried forward. Do the calculation and the owners paid down £1.56m of accumulated interest. Again no reason why they should not if they choose to but it does mean less available to the manager
- What is unusual is the inclusion of the management profit & loss which is a detailed report not usually released and certainly not filed by other clubs at Companies House. Having checked today it seems that part of the financials reports has been taken down from the club website, it certainly hasnt been filed at Companies House. Highlights not dealt with above are as follows
- There is a break down of the turnover. Match receipts despite a decent season dropped by £150k to £2.54m. Broadcasting income jumped by £480k to £1.72m Other commercial income stayed static at £2m
- There were redundancy costs in both 2016 and 2019. In 2019 the cost was £112k
- There is the first evidence of any management charges being paid £42,792 in both years. Not unreasonable and certainly not large figures
- Generally the costs of utilities, repairs and maintenance are down
- There legal & professional fees of £72k in 2019 and £47k in 2018. This could be all legal fees but it could also be agents costs. On top of that there are consultants fees 32k in 2019 and 14k in 2018 – no further explanation in accounts
- Boardroom expenses are 48k up from 45k in 2018
- There is no cash flow statement in the Otium accounts. It is included in the SBS&L ones. What it shows is that over the year the group was cash low negative by 625k after paying out for players and equipment but also repaying part of the loans and interest. The closing position of cash still showed £56k in the bank
- SBS&L accounts has useful info but it is Otium that is the trading part of the group. Not all of the liabilities owed by the group are owed by Otium.
- Outstanding to SISU investment funds £28.5m – owed by group but not secured on Otium/CCFC
- Otium owes ARVO £7.482m for which ARVO has a charge over Otium assets
- Otium owes SISU Master Fund £1.167m no charge registered at Companies House
The worry is what happens if the player sales do not come through. This year (2019) looks good on the face of it and is to be welcomed but the club has to keep churning out gems that others want to buy just to keep going. I still remain concerned if we remain at St Andrews and get promoted (dont get me wrong i would love promotion) that we will struggle to compete and finance it. If it fails next season that could have serious financial implications, including having to sell star players off cheaply. Worrying and caring about your team is part of being a fan i guess
PUSB
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Did wonder whether the redundancy cost was some sort of pay off for Oggy. I know they've appointed a goalkeeping coach but not sure that was necessarily Oggy's previous role exclusively.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
- There legal & professional fees of £72k in 2019 and £47k in 2018. This could be all legal fees but it could also be agents costs. On top of that there are consultants fees 32k in 2019 and 14k in 2018 – no further explanation in accounts
Would hope the consultant fees are these land agents etc who are finding all these sites. At the fees quoted you'd hope they're getting a decent number of days work from them!
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Its a far better situation OSB from a few years back. There has been a sustained effort by all to turn things around responsiby while growing the team under MR's.
As for competing in the Championship, I think we would easily do so. Many of the existing squad are good enough. Receipts will increase and 2 0r 3 fold if we get back to the Ricoh.
I will still maintain SISU have an exit strategy once we reach the Championship where will will be worth more of a punt than a number on the back of a fag packet!
As for competing in the Championship, I think we would easily do so. Many of the existing squad are good enough. Receipts will increase and 2 0r 3 fold if we get back to the Ricoh.
I will still maintain SISU have an exit strategy once we reach the Championship where will will be worth more of a punt than a number on the back of a fag packet!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Utter rubbish
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Time will tell then Grendel to see if I'm right? Bookmark it and I will gloat later....
What you reckon they are for Nick and Shmmeee? :emoji_briefcase::emoji_busts_in_silhouette:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
We will have the lowest wage bill by a mile so what you are basically saying is all other clubs have the wage structure wrong? We’d be half of the next lowest safe in that league even being optimistic
Nick
Administrator
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
I suggest you think a little deeper than just your assumption. But like I said I'll gloat later.
Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
So are the accounts telling us that CCFC have ultimately paid £1.81m back to ARVO/SISU as a mix of capital and interest payments? I've calculated that amount from the two statements below, taken from OSBs reading of the accounts:
"The capital element on the ARVO/SISU Master Fund loans has decreased by £254k which indicates a part repayment of £254k. No reason why an owner cannot take money out if they choose to"
"Do the calculation and the owners paid down £1.56m of accumulated interest. Again no reason why they should not if they choose to but it does mean less available to the manager"
"The capital element on the ARVO/SISU Master Fund loans has decreased by £254k which indicates a part repayment of £254k. No reason why an owner cannot take money out if they choose to"
"Do the calculation and the owners paid down £1.56m of accumulated interest. Again no reason why they should not if they choose to but it does mean less available to the manager"
Income was either£8M or£11M last time,expenditure £22M.
Pretty sure it was£8M
The SBSL cash flow shows a total interest paid figure of £1.477906 but have not done the sums to see how much is internal funding
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Yes in some ways it is much better
Its only better so long as we have multi million pound player sales in the year and the owners do not draw down the interest and/or loans owed which is now accruing at £2m pa. In each of the years since 2014/15 we have made operating losses, those operating losses have steadily increased every year since 2016/17. The model relies on the ability to sell players on, what happens if CCFC cant or cant get the right price or cant get enough combined sales to cover the bills. If operating losses are increasing so is the requirement for cash to pay the bills, which restricts the budget for player purchases
Whilst the financial control does look better i query the driver behind it. To me it was brought about by SISU no longer having access to major funds so the tap was turned off - that drove the "responsible" finances. There was no choice. Btw i am far from against better financial control. Thankfully it has worked because we have a manager achieving wonders. Next season it gets tougher still. But until we got some momentum from Cup and League success i should imagine its been touch and go, even now it isnt without its problems
My concern though was about promotion and staying at St Andrews together. I dont believe you will see crowds double or triple if that happens. Income from the EFL will increase yes, crowds will grow but not to the extent you suggest (could fall off if we start losing) but the costs will also grow particularly wages and largely unaffected by results. Incomes in the Championship in a report done for 2018 season were on a decline. In 2019 we got £6m in turnover, possibly less this season. Increase by a factor of 3 and thats income of £18m - average wage bill in the championship is probably that at least simply to survive, ours is 5.3m in 2019 Then there are the other overheads and direct costs to pay for not to mention the interest. That means £4m player sale simply to stand still and pay the bills
Championship 2018 Finances – Revenue - FINANCIAL FOOTBALL NEWS
The players, well some of our better ones are loans or coming to end of contract that other teams have taken an interest in. In which case we are relying on bringing in players who quickly adapt or progress to the higher level or paying out funds currently in short supply. It is one thing asking players from the academy or development squad to step up to L2 or L1 quite another asking them to compete against a large number of Ex Premier League players for a season. Loan players will play a part but the higher you go the more costly they become. Yes we have small core of players that could step up but what about the depth of squad needed
I do not share your optimism, that doesnt mean we should not go for it though - we have to strive to be the best we can be. You maybe right, and i am being over cautious guess we wait see
Last edited:
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Your assumption, and it is a reasonable one to make, is that out playing budget goes up. There is nothing to say sisu can’t provide MR with a league one squad on a league 1 budget and say if he works wonders and keeps us up he gets much more money the next year. A season in the championship without increasing expenditure could go some way to sorting things out.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep
Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
Ah right, i was just interested to understand the figures quoted as it seems like a potentially large sum to have been taken out of the club's earnings if so? I don't know if previous years have shown a similar pattern or not but clearly the interest overall continues to pile up.
Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
I wonder why the change this time around?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I would think it makes no difference to otium whether capital or interest is drawn. Assuming that interest is compounded. Both would be accruing further interest if not paid down. Drawing down either should reduce the interest total in future years
The reasoning for drawing interest not capital is probably because drawing down interest would be income for arvo which means showing income achieved to investors and ability of the managing agents (sisu) to draw down fees from arvo related to that income.
The reasoning for drawing interest not capital is probably because drawing down interest would be income for arvo which means showing income achieved to investors and ability of the managing agents (sisu) to draw down fees from arvo related to that income.