CCFC Accounts - Your questions answered (1 Viewer)

hill83

Well-Known Member
This is on the Official site if anyone is interested

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/accounts-coventry-city-q-a-060314-1402035.aspx

Following the publication of Coventry City Football Club's accounts please read our Q&A based around your questions
The accounts for Sky Blues Sports & Leisure and Otium Entertainment Group to the end of May 2013 were filed with Companies House last Friday and have become available to the public this week.


That has sparked several questions from supporters, which we have answered below.

Were the accounts filed on time?


Yes.


How were the accounts signed off if the club is still losing money?


Accounts are regularly signed off when companies are losing money. There simply need to be assurances that future costs are expected to be met.


Does that mean it is just ‘saddling the club with debt’?


No. When a business is funded it must be through either equity or debt. You can’t just write cheque after cheque without there being some record of the money. The recent funding from SISU has been as equity, with earlier funding as debt. This is a Football League requirement.


But it’s not debt in the way that most people think of as a standard loan or mortgage. Again, SISU have stated that while there is money owed, they have no intention of requiring the debt to be repaid upon demand.


So while people talk about the club being saddled with debt, that’s simply not the case but is, instead, money that has been ploughed into the club to keep it afloat.


Despite lots of rumour and speculation, no other party has ever shown the wherewithal to do that.


Why do SISU continue to fund the club – especially now the club is playing home games at Sixfields in front of 2,000 supporters?


Playing at Sixfields was not a step the club took lightly. The club were being told that they could not play at the Ricoh Arena in the run up to this season starting and that the owners of the Ricoh Arena would only ever deal with the administrator.


Had the club not agreed a groundshare, the club’s place in the Football League was in serious jeopardy.


Sixfields is a temporary solution and while extremely painful from an emotional and financial point of view, it is where the club will be until we build and own our very own stadium.


The future for Coventry City and, indeed, every football club is to own its own stadium and the revenues it generates. With those revenues, coupled with strong management of the club’s costs, there is the opportunity to make this is a self-sustaining club.


That is the only way forward for the football club and Financial Fair Play rules make that even more the case.


Surely the money being lost by playing at Sixfields is hurting the club financially?


Most of the supporters have taken the decision not to attend Sixfields and we understand the heartache it has caused. In terms of finances, it is abundantly clear that revenues from ticket sales have been hit.


But we will have to continue to take the short-term hit on revenues because, ultimately, building our own stadium moving forward is the only way the club can survive in the long-term.


The club needs to be in a position where there is no reliance on other parties but is a complete master of its own destiny. By owning its own ground, the revenues that come with it and getting close to a break-even point that will be the case.


The accounts appear to cast doubt over the club’s ability to continue as a going concern – what does that mean?


Most clubs – certainly at League One level – will have that wording in their accounts. The point here is that most football clubs are losing, not making, money and, therefore, this phrase in the accounts reflects that.


That has been the case at Coventry City for many, many years and that is what we want to change through stadium ownership, tighter control on costs and maximum investment in the team and Academy in accordance with Financial Fair Play to give us the best possible chance of success.


Until such a point that we build and own our own stadium, the club will rely on a commitment from SISU to cover those losses which they have shown, once again, they are willing to do.


 

AJB1983

Well-Known Member
CCFC accounts questions answered

On offal now....

Two things
1. They mention about the club being a going concern as normal for football clubs, but seemingly from osb58's summary there is a massive loan due to be paid back to arvo in December this year.....this is a real problem.
2. Sorry to go on about it, but it also says that the 'club were told that they couldn't play at Ricoh'......that's simply not true.
Acl dealt with administrator as the 'football club' were in admin and he was supposedly running it. To suggest that was wrong is ignoring the fact that the football league deducted points and awarded golden share to the 'new' owners. If the football club weren't in admin just a 'non trading property subsidiary' then those events wouldn't have happened.
 

AJB1983

Well-Known Member
Just started a simultaneous thread on this, but..

Two things
1. They mention about the club being a going concern as normal for football clubs, but seemingly from osb58's summary there is a massive loan due to be paid back to arvo in December this year.....this is a real problem.
2. Sorry to go on about it, but it also says that the 'club were told that they couldn't play at Ricoh'......that's simply not true.
Acl dealt with administrator as the 'football club' were in admin and he was supposedly running it. To suggest that was wrong is ignoring the fact that the football league deducted points and awarded golden share to the 'new' owners. If the football club weren't in admin just a 'non trading property subsidiary' then those events wouldn't have happened.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
Random Question: "Yeah but new stadium"

Another random question: "New stadium though"
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
The truth is a little more subtle.

CCFC Ltd owned the lease and therefore the administrator would have been liable for the rent once appointed. What happened was that the administration process required CCFC Ltd to leave the premises, that way no liability to the administrator. However CCFC H, SISU, Otium, did not have the rights in law to be there because they were saying they didn't own the lease. Without disclaiming the lease ACL could not simply tear that lease up and let someone else use it, especially as the League share was not with CCFC H, Otium or SISU at that time.
All playing with the law and words I am afraid and both sides for different reasons have don't it from time to time
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The truth is a little more subtle.

CCFC Ltd owned the lease and therefore the administrator would have been liable for the rent once appointed. What happened was that the administration process required CCFC Ltd to leave the premises, that way no liability to the administrator. However CCFC H, SISU, Otium, did not have the rights in law to be there because they were saying they didn't own the lease. Without disclaiming the lease ACL could not simply tear that lease up and let someone else use it, especially as the League share was not with CCFC H, Otium or SISU at that time.
All playing with the law and words I am afraid and both sides for different reasons have don't it from time to time

So it's the same as the "the council cost us 10 points" then? A situation they brought about that meant a third party had to legally take an action. Therefore not their fault.

I bet Joy Seppala was that kid at school that threw crisp packets at you then ran off shouting "you dropped it!"
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
I've merged the two threads which were on the same topic.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Playing at Sixfields was not a step the club took lightly. The club were being told that they could not play at the Ricoh Arena in the run up to this season starting and that the owners of the Ricoh Arena would only ever deal with the administrator.

The club were not told that, what happened is that ACL wouldn't deal with Otium while CCFC Ltd was under control of administrator. it really is not the same thing.
 

SkyBlueScottie

Well-Known Member
On offal now....

Two things
1. They mention about the club being a going concern as normal for football clubs, but seemingly from osb58's summary there is a massive loan due to be paid back to arvo in December this year.....this is a real problem.
2. Sorry to go on about it, but it also says that the 'club were told that they couldn't play at Ricoh'......that's simply not true.
Acl dealt with administrator as the 'football club' were in admin and he was supposedly running it. To suggest that was wrong is ignoring the fact that the football league deducted points and awarded golden share to the 'new' owners. If the football club weren't in admin just a 'non trading property subsidiary' then those events wouldn't have happened.

Why is the loan to Arvo a massive problem?

You are wrong about the administrator.
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
cannot argue that a new stadium will stand us in good stead.

council wont sell us rich and wont let us build within coventry. wankers

sorry state of affairs continues....
 

AJB1983

Well-Known Member
Why is the loan to Arvo a massive problem?

You are wrong about the administrator.

How are CCFC going to repay it with crowds of less than 2000 every week? with another loan?

Interesting points from osb58 re admin, but time and again fisher said the club is holdings.... But the football club as far as everyone else were concerned was is admin. If the football club weren't in admin then we wouldn't have been deducted points and the golden share be up for grabs? Even fisher said in a forum "the quicker the football club is out of admin then we can move on", just seconds after saying CCFC ltd isn't the football club.

We all know sisu put the club into admin just to buy it back again so that the lease was broken. Only reason.
Admin through the acl application would have probably meant different ownership, although the way sisu moved stuff about would have made it insanely difficult I reckon, one company holding golden share, another holding players etc...

Anyway, long and short of it, CCFC still owe a massive amount of money to owners, CCFC still losing massive amounts of money due to owners actions, CCFC will lose/owe even more if stupid new stadium is built.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Leaving aside the issues of whether the right boxes were ticked etc to do it what essentially makes the loan from CCC a loan a the loan that is a huge debt but the money from SISU investors or ARVO not a loan but investing their own money and not really a debt

Is it not the case that it is loans from the owners in both cases?
 

SkyBlueSid

Well-Known Member
This is where they are making a huge, and in my view, incorrect assumption:

" But we will have to continue to take the short-term hit on revenues because, ultimately, building our own stadium moving forward is the only way the club can survive in the long-term.
The club needs to be in a position where there is no reliance on other parties but is a complete master of its own destiny. By owning its own ground, the revenues that come with it and getting close to a break-even point that will be the case."


The so-called 'hit' is not short term. But they seem to assume that on the day the new stadium opens its doors (if you believe it will ever exist) all the stay-away fans will come flocking back, buying season tickets, eating pies and drinking beer. Everything will revert to the days of 15000 gates as if Sixfields never happened. I doubt it!

After 4 or 5 years of sub-2000 crowds, all those erstwhile punters will have found other ways to spend their Saturdays - most already have. So when (if) the new place opens in 2017 or 2018, crowds will still be poor, probably 3000-odd. Those revenues Fisher talks about are as mythical as his 7000 gates at Northampton, his record is poor on such predictions.

Are they really so far up their own backsides that they cannot consider this as a reality? I can't believe they are that naïve, which is why I can't believe they will build a stadium that will very likely attract such meagre support.
 

Lorksalordy

New Member


Surely the money being lost by playing at Sixfields is hurting the club financially?



Most of the supporters have taken the decision not to attend Sixfields and we understand the heartache it has caused.

This is the equivalent of "I hear what you are saying" being said in a meeting whilst actually meaning "I heard some words from you but am totally fucking ignoring them". If they even remotely understood or cared then we would not still be there,
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
This is where they are making a huge, and in my view, incorrect assumption:

" But we will have to continue to take the short-term hit on revenues because, ultimately, building our own stadium moving forward is the only way the club can survive in the long-term.
The club needs to be in a position where there is no reliance on other parties but is a complete master of its own destiny. By owning its own ground, the revenues that come with it and getting close to a break-even point that will be the case."


The so-called 'hit' is not short term. But they seem to assume that on the day the new stadium opens its doors (if you believe it will ever exist) all the stay-away fans will come flocking back, buying season tickets, eating pies and drinking beer. Everything will revert to the days of 15000 gates as if Sixfields never happened. I doubt it!

After 4 or 5 years of sub-2000 crowds, all those erstwhile punters will have found other ways to spend their Saturdays - most already have. So when (if) the new place opens in 2017 or 2018, crowds will still be poor, probably 3000-odd. Those revenues Fisher talks about are as mythical as his 7000 gates at Northampton, his record is poor on such predictions.

Are they really so far up their own backsides that they cannot consider this as a reality? I can't believe they are that naïve, which is why I can't believe they will build a stadium that will very likely attract such meagre support.

I'll let you into a secret: They don't give a shit about the long term success of the club.
 

Noggin

New Member
cannot argue that a new stadium will stand us in good stead.

.

you can do very very easily and in fact we have done over and over again. We haven't seen any good arguments for building a new stadium other than the general a club must own it's own ground to be competitive, which sounds good in a vacuum but when you look at the numbers simply doesn't work for us in the short, medium or long term.
 

DaleM

New Member
I believe ( and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that generally a business is valued at 3x its turnover. So Acl is "worth" 42million ish. Am I right in this assumption ?
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
And it never worked for us last time we owned the stadium ether that is the reason we are in the shit now.


you can do very very easily and in fact we have done over and over again. We haven't seen any good arguments for building a new stadium other than the general a club must own it's own ground to be competitive, which sounds good in a vacuum but when you look at the numbers simply doesn't work for us in the short, medium or long term.
 

mark_ccfc

Well-Known Member
cannot argue that a new stadium will stand us in good stead.

council wont sell us rich and wont let us build within coventry. wankers

sorry state of affairs continues....

The council would sell for a fair price - it's SISU who are tossers, they want the stadium for peanuts.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
I believe ( and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that generally a business is valued at 3x its turnover. So Acl is "worth" 42million ish. Am I right in this assumption ?

No, turnover isn't really relevant when valuing a business. 3 x profit is often viewed as a guide, but really it's a combination of net assets and profitability that should give an indication of possible value.
 

DaleM

New Member
No, turnover isn't really relevant when valuing a business. 3 x profit is often viewed as a guide, but really it's a combination of net assets and profitability that should give an indication of possible value.


So knowing what we now know how much is CCFC worth and how much is ACL worth ?
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
I believe ( and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that generally a business is valued at 3x its turnover. So Acl is "worth" 42million ish. Am I right in this assumption ?

I'd guess half of that If the equation Is true as I believe Compass recieve 50% of turnover as recompense for their contribution in running the place.
 

King of the Lesbians

Well-Known Member
CCFC Ltd owned the lease and therefore the administrator would have been liable for the rent once appointed. What happened was that the administration process required CCFC Ltd to leave the premises, that way no liability to the administrator.

So any club that leases a stadium and goes into admin would be required to leave that stadium?
Never knew that.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
So knowing what we now know how much is CCFC worth and how much is ACL worth ?

CCFC is worth the same as it's been for years, nothing. As a guess I would say ACL somewhere around £11m-£15m, but there are so many one off items in the accounts just presented, it is hard to estimate what the current position is.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
So any club that leases a stadium and goes into admin would be required to leave that stadium?
Never knew that.

I think what's being said is that the administrator would be liable for rent/rates etc, so it's understandable he would want to leave, but I don't believe it's a specific requirement.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
No, turnover isn't really relevant when valuing a business. 3 x profit is often viewed as a guide, but really it's a combination of net assets and profitability that should give an indication of possible value.

On an average I would say that a value of a company is about 15 times earnings per ratio. It also depends on a lot more though. Assets, future profits estimated, how the sector is doing and many more. One thing that frequently makes a company worth more is how much they pay out in dividends. This makes them a less of a risk as part of the profits are paid out to the shareholders.

The company I work for are trading at about 20 times earnings per ratio. They rent most of their properties :eek: The reason for this is that it releases working capital. No short term loans are needed. It is worth over 40b and pays out dividends of about 3%. The reason I know all of this is I do like to have a little dabble in shares.....and have quite a few in the company I work with as I get them cheap :D
 

robbiethemole

Well-Known Member
(The future for Coventry City and, indeed, every football club is to own its own stadium and the revenues it generates.)

Really??? funny, I don't see a mad rush from other clubs for all the free land around the country, to build new stadia!!!

Maybe that's why the location of ours is Top Secret "Eyes Only".

Just look down the end of the Yellow Brick Rd as it goes into Never,Never Land, that's where it's hiding.

Absolute load of bullshitting fookers.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top