Chelsea interest in Callum Wilson (1 Viewer)

[steve82]

Hooray! Back on topic.

Might as well close thread unless West Ham fancy smashing their transfer record should Arnautovic get his move.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

---

[robbiekeane]

Which is why I suggested to Fans groups to at least try and put a Q and A out with facts to clear them up.

Just found this on the telegraph in an article too:



The fans are confused basically because people are purposely trying to mislead them about things like that to get them to boycott / get angry / protest.

It's what pisses me off. People purposely bullshit to try and put others off going to watch their team play. People then repeat it as fact to their mate who then also get wound up and rant.

It’s also easy to put people off or “bullshit them” when they are just crying out to blame all things evil and bad in the world on a pantomime protagonist.

If it’s not SISU it’s the EU

 

[luwalla]

I’ve been a multi corporate member at coventry for about 15 years , I also had some small sponsorship on pitch side advertising for ... so I know some of the people up there quite well now and do get to hear what’s happening. Not pretending to know any more or less than some of the others on here , but this is how it is

The sale of players pretty much goes to cover previous year losses and current ‘ the club needs to be self sufficent” costs. I was amazed when we spent the money we did this season on players like Chaplin and bakayako & offered the wages we did to get players like ogogo, and junior brown etc.

Don’t get me wrong I want SISU gone as next as the next man, but we all know that ticket sales is pretty much all we have to drive regular revenue & roughly how many people we need to cover costs - and how many we actually get up there ! So They could have quite easily said , you make do with academy or cheapos ( which clearly wasn’t the case, regardless of how those signings turned out )

So ‘put up With them’ or despise them you need to accept that we lose money and player sales is what plugs the gap & anything we get to spend from those sales is a bonus with SISU in charge

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

I’ve been a multi corporate member at coventry for about 15 years , I also had some small sponsorship on pitch side advertising for ... so I know some of the people up there quite well now and do get to hear what’s happening. Not pretending to know any more or less than some of the others on here , but this is how it is

The sale of players pretty much goes to cover previous year losses and current ‘ the club needs to be self sufficent” costs. I was amazed when we spent the money we did this season on players like Chaplin and bakayako & offered the wages we did to get players like ogogo, and junior brown etc.

Don’t get me wrong I want SISU gone as next as the next man, but we all know that ticket sales is pretty much all we have to drive regular revenue & roughly how many people we need to cover costs - and how many we actually get up there ! So They could have quite easily said , you make do with academy or cheapos ( which clearly wasn’t the case, regardless of how those signings turned out )

So ‘put up With them’ or despise them you need to accept that we lose money and player sales is what plugs the gap & anything we get to spend from those sales is a bonus with SISU in charge

I am on board with that. It is a sensible model, albeit one that would be much more beneficial if we owned our own ground. Don't know the accounts as well as I might, but it is the 'admin charges/interest' that I fear hamstring us.

 

[christonabike]

I’ve been a multi corporate member at coventry for about 15 years , I also had some small sponsorship on pitch side advertising for ... so I know some of the people up there quite well now and do get to hear what’s happening. Not pretending to know any more or less than some of the others on here , but this is how it is

The sale of players pretty much goes to cover previous year losses and current ‘ the club needs to be self sufficent” costs. I was amazed when we spent the money we did this season on players like Chaplin and bakayako & offered the wages we did to get players like ogogo, and junior brown etc.

Don’t get me wrong I want SISU gone as next as the next man, but we all know that ticket sales is pretty much all we have to drive regular revenue & roughly how many people we need to cover costs - and how many we actually get up there ! So They could have quite easily said , you make do with academy or cheapos ( which clearly wasn’t the case, regardless of how those signings turned out )

So ‘put up With them’ or despise them you need to accept that we lose money and player sales is what plugs the gap & anything we get to spend from those sales is a bonus with SISU in charge

Are you "Radford leather fashions" by any chance?:woot:

 

[Nick]

I am on board with that. It is a sensible model, albeit one that would be much more beneficial if we owned our own ground. Don't know the accounts as well as I might, but it is the 'admin charges/interest' that I fear hamstring us.

The interest isn't really being paid. Just totted up.

 

[shmmeee]

That will change every year and have loads of variables, do you want the club to come out and say how much the club needs to make from players going every year?

The last published accounts player sales were way down compared to the year before. Obviously since then we sold McNulty so will see in the next set released if it has gone up.

SISU have still been putting smaller loans in as well.

Yes I do if they want fans to stop worrying. Whether they want that is their call.

My point is you don’t know, I don’t know. So to come out and say you do know and anyone asking is a moron is a little silly.

We have been told everything from we need millions a year, to Maddison sale secured us, to we are self sufficient. Is it really that crazy that people are confused?

 

[Nick]

Yes I do if they want fans to stop worrying. Whether they want that is their call.

My point is you don’t know, I don’t know. So to come out and say you do know and anyone asking is a moron is a little silly.

We have been told everything from we need millions a year, to Maddison sale secured us, to we are self sufficient. Is it really that crazy that people are confused?

Because it's different every year, we get a promotion and a day at Wembley and we need less from player sales. We have a good cup run and we generate more.

People are choosing to ignore facts to rant. Even when facts are presented to them.

People are confused because there are people trying to purposely confuse and mislead them. They hear third hand propaganda that sisu take all the money and that's that.

There's been years of people going to the press to push things, "Boycott so SISU don't get your money". It's intentional. It's the same as years ago there were people on a Live Footy Programme calling for Administration, everybody then thought that.

You have the media giving oxygen to people like "PSB Group" and "Jimmy Hill Way". People listen to it and take things as fact, they then tell their mates.

There was a bloke in the gym I used to go to who believed everything hook, line and sinker. His mate told him it, who had heard it from people like that.

 

[the rumpo kid]

I’ve been a multi corporate member at coventry for about 15 years , I also had some small sponsorship on pitch side advertising for ... so I know some of the people up there quite well now and do get to hear what’s happening. Not pretending to know any more or less than some of the others on here , but this is how it is

The sale of players pretty much goes to cover previous year losses and current ‘ the club needs to be self sufficent” costs. I was amazed when we spent the money we did this season on players like Chaplin and bakayako & offered the wages we did to get players like ogogo, and junior brown etc.

Don’t get me wrong I want SISU gone as next as the next man, but we all know that ticket sales is pretty much all we have to drive regular revenue & roughly how many people we need to cover costs - and how many we actually get up there ! So They could have quite easily said , you make do with academy or cheapos ( which clearly wasn’t the case, regardless of how those signings turned out )

So ‘put up With them’ or despise them you need to accept that we lose money and player sales is what plugs the gap & anything we get to spend from those sales is a bonus with SISU in charge

The classic catch 22, people won't go if the team isn't great, and it can't be great if people won't go.

 

[stevefloyd]

I would imagine ifollow has lopped a few off the gates

 

[oldskyblue58]

I’ve been a multi corporate member at coventry for about 15 years , I also had some small sponsorship on pitch side advertising for ... so I know some of the people up there quite well now and do get to hear what’s happening. Not pretending to know any more or less than some of the others on here , but this is how it is

The sale of players pretty much goes to cover previous year losses and current ‘ the club needs to be self sufficent” costs. I was amazed when we spent the money we did this season on players like Chaplin and bakayako & offered the wages we did to get players like ogogo, and junior brown etc.

Don’t get me wrong I want SISU gone as next as the next man, but we all know that ticket sales is pretty much all we have to drive regular revenue & roughly how many people we need to cover costs - and how many we actually get up there ! So They could have quite easily said , you make do with academy or cheapos ( which clearly wasn’t the case, regardless of how those signings turned out )

So ‘put up With them’ or despise them you need to accept that we lose money and player sales is what plugs the gap & anything we get to spend from those sales is a bonus with SISU in charge

I largely agree the last sentence, there is little we can expect with SISU in charge other than keeping going (but even then there is a current doubt on that!)

However some of what you are being told is misleading.

Sale of players forms part of the current years results. We make annual net losses so none of the player sales can be said to offset previous years losses or indeed carried forward to the next year. Total losses continue to increase year on year, its a long time since CCFC made a net profit that would decrease previous year losses.

The player transactions & wages this year would have benefited from the sale of McNulty and the Maddison add ons. Which is perhaps why MR was able to spend on bringing players in rather than searching for free transfers. The problem comes if we have these players on longer contracts on better wages but no significant player sales to offset the cost

Before someone says it no the interest isn't paid but that's cash flow not profit calculation. For profit calculation it is a full cost. Similarly the player sales might not be received in one payment again that's cash flow not profit calculation. For profit calculation the full sale value is included (add ons based on what ifs would not be until the year received)

Nor could it be said that the player sales cover previous years cash flow (which in any case are at break even generally so dont need much in the way of covering) Cash flow covers what is and what will be going forward

In the absence of any other support from the owners then substantial player sales are important to keep the club going. Which is why it is disappointing that so many of the players brought in this season have proven to be under performing. It means more sales will need to happen, unless there is a Callum Wilson windfall or we can off load the duds

No we do not all know that ticket income is our only regular income driver. That is quite wrong. This is a fiction first propagated by Fisher. There is a previous thread that i created detailing why But we dont have any other income....... but for simplicity i will let the clubs own accounts signed by Fisher rebutt that fiction



only 40% of Turnover is from match day receipts. Turnover compares reasonably well with other clubs eg Walsall, Fleetwood, etc

Since 2017 Boddy has come in and proven there is access to some other income by putting on events.

The Turnover figure excludes player sales or profit

the statement "We only get ticket income" is simply wrong

 

[fernandopartridge]

I largely agree the last sentence, there is little we can expect with SISU in charge other than keeping going (but even then there is a current doubt on that!)

However some of what you are being told is misleading.

Sale of players forms part of the current years results. We make annual net losses so none of the player sales can be said to offset previous years losses. Indeed total losses continue to increase year on year, its a long time since CCFC made a net profit.

The player transactions & wages this year would have benefited from the sale of McNulty and the Maddison add ons .

Before someone says it no the interest isn't paid but that's cash flow not profit calculation. For profit calculation it is a full cost. Similarly the player sales might not be received in one payment again that's cash flow not profit calculation. For profit calculation the full sale value is included (add ons based on what ifs would not be until the year received)

Nor could it be said that the player sales cover previous years cash flow (which in any case are at break even generally so dont need much in the way of covering) Cash flow covers what is and what will be going forward

In the absence of any other support from the owners then substantial player sales are important to keep the club going. Which is why it is disappointing that so many of the players brought in this season have proven to be under performing. It means more sales will need to happen, unless there is a Callum Wilson windfall

No we do not all know that ticket income is our only regular income driver. That is quite wrong. This is a fiction first propagated by Fisher. There is a previous thread that i created detailing why but for simplicity i will let the clubs own accounts signed by Fisher rebutt that fiction

View attachment 11342

only 40% of income is from match day receipts. Turnover compares reasonably well with other clubs eg Walsall, Fleetwood, etc

Cheers, you've confirmed something I asked in earlier thread about how transfer fees are accounted

 

[oldskyblue58]

I am on board with that. It is a sensible model, albeit one that would be much more beneficial if we owned our own ground. Don't know the accounts as well as I might, but it is the 'admin charges/interest' that I fear hamstring us.

All clubs have administration costs. in the case of CCFC in the last accounts they total £1.568m and partially disclosed as follows


To those figures you have to add in things like all the costs of Insurance, repairs, Academy costs, running Ryton, grounds keeping, rates, etc

Having taken a look at other clubs then the figures are reasonably similar. All clubs will have these sort of costs

Interest is an amount demanded on the ARVO and SISU International loans. It is not actually paid over so doesnt affect cash flow. However it is a full charge against the profit & loss Account each year, it is an amount legally due to the lender. The amount of interest not paid is added to what is owed to those two parties. In 2017 CCFC were making losses even before the cost of these loans

 

[fernandopartridge]

NEWS: Coventry City FC and parent company publish latest set of accounts

Here's an example of a basic breakdown.

Then you have a reply:



How simple do people want it to be?

It's the same as when SISU's accounts were published and people went apeshit not realising they weren't the clubs.

Unless people are willing to at least try and understand, there's not much point.

All clubs have administration costs. in the case of CCFC in the last accounts they total £1.568m and partially disclosed as follows

View attachment 11343
To those figures you have to add in things like all the costs of Insurance, repairs, Academy costs, running Ryton, grounds keeping, rates, etc

Having taken a look at other clubs then the figures are reasonably similar. All clubs will have these costs

Interest is an amount demanded on the ARVO and SISU International loans. It is not actually paid over so doesnt affect cash flow. However it is a full charge against the profit & loss Account each year, it is an amount legally due to the lender. The amount of interest not paid is added to what is owed to those two parties. In 2017 CCFC were making losses even before the cost of these loans

Any idea why the operating lease charges are so high? Is Ryton owned by another SISU controlled entity? Or is it that other associated costs with renting the Ricoh are lumped in?

 

[zuni]

How if we get fair size gates and pay little for renting the ground are we not a force regards players then if sisu are not short changing us? Is it the managers and recruitment teams at fault?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Operating leases would include the rent for Ricoh but also the Higgs plus any other sites they might use. Some associated costs may well be included

Ryton is owned by Otium but ARVO has a charge over it and all other assets

 

[oldskyblue58]

How if we get fair size gates and pay little for renting the ground are we not a force regards players then if sisu are not short changing us? Is it the managers and recruitment teams at fault?

Biggest cost the club has is staff costs .............. what you make of recruitment is up to you

SISU are not putting much in but so far no one has proven they are taking much out. The accounts indicate there is not much financial room for them to take much out. If the room existed they would draw the interest down and reduce the liability that is growing and increasing interest charges. The cash flow is simply not there to do so, indeed in 2016 & 2017 SISU provided two small loans to make sure there was a balanced cash flow. If they were milking it then surely the first thing you would do is to reduce that rather than put in loans you probably wont get back

 

[Nick]

Eddie Howe has ruled out Wilson going in this window.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Can we have our exciting signing anyway?

 

[mark82]

Eddie Howe has ruled out Wilson going in this window.

Of course, doesn't mean it definitely won't happen though. If a good offer comes in and Wilson wants to go we all know how the selling clubs hand can be forced.

 

[Spurs 'City Away Kit' Kit]

Eddie Howe has ruled out Wilson going in this window.

He has to say that really unless Wilson put in a transfer request otherwise fans would see it as Wilson being put in the shop window. It also makes it clear that any offer has to be enough to make it worthwhile selling him.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Only City have ever sold a player we wanted to keep. Close thread.

 

[NortonSkyBlue]

All clubs have administration costs. in the case of CCFC in the last accounts they total £1.568m and partially disclosed as follows

View attachment 11343
To those figures you have to add in things like all the costs of Insurance, repairs, Academy costs, running Ryton, grounds keeping, rates, etc

Having taken a look at other clubs then the figures are reasonably similar. All clubs will have these sort of costs

Interest is an amount demanded on the ARVO and SISU International loans. It is not actually paid over so doesnt affect cash flow. However it is a full charge against the profit & loss Account each year, it is an amount legally due to the lender. The amount of interest not paid is added to what is owed to those two parties. In 2017 CCFC were making losses even before the cost of these loans

I don't think any fan ever got in to their team by virtue of a balance sheet or the financials performance of the holding company.
Oh for the days when the players on the pitch were the only thing that mattered.
I genuinely believe that those that choose not to go are not boycotting anything but using it as a reason to excuse to make themselves feel better.
Can you imagine the argument that Coventry City may not be playing in Coventry again? Well for some that has been the case for years.

 

[vow]

I’ve been a multi corporate member at coventry for about 15 years , I also had some small sponsorship on pitch side advertising for ... so I know some of the people up there quite well now and do get to hear what’s happening. Not pretending to know any more or less than some of the others on here , but this is how it is

The sale of players pretty much goes to cover previous year losses and current ‘ the club needs to be self sufficent” costs. I was amazed when we spent the money we did this season on players like Chaplin and bakayako & offered the wages we did to get players like ogogo, and junior brown etc.

Don’t get me wrong I want SISU gone as next as the next man, but we all know that ticket sales is pretty much all we have to drive regular revenue & roughly how many people we need to cover costs - and how many we actually get up there ! So They could have quite easily said , you make do with academy or cheapos ( which clearly wasn’t the case, regardless of how those signings turned out )

So ‘put up With them’ or despise them you need to accept that we lose money and player sales is what plugs the gap & anything we get to spend from those sales is a bonus with SISU in charge

FFS, m8 stop with this rational thought process, please....

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The interest isn't really being paid. Just totted up.

No it isn't, but it still has to be accounted for and the club has to make allowances to show it can service that debt and interest should it actually be called in, even if everyone expects it to be deferred. So it does hamstring to a small degree.

Most businesses working on credit are quite happy, and often prefer, to defer payment for a while as long as they have the cashflow without it so they can compound it. It's how credit card and loan companies make the majority of their earnings and the premise of most pensions and investments - it's the amount of time it's kept in rather than the rate of return so it has time to accrue.

If the club were to be sold you can guarantee the owners would want all that compound interest paid, and at that point they will have made a pretty penny from it.

 

[zuni]

Biggest cost the club has is staff costs ..............

That's a good point, but how big are our staff overheads outside the squad, minimal ticket staff . And shop is outsourced and is it compounded by the size of the management fees... Would love to know what Fisher actually does to deserve renumeration for

 

[Nick]

No it isn't, but it still has to be accounted for and the club has to make allowances to show it can service that debt and interest should it actually be called in, even if everyone expects it to be deferred. So it does hamstring to a small degree.

Most businesses working on credit are quite happy, and often prefer, to defer payment for a while as long as they have the cashflow without it so they can compound it. It's how credit card and loan companies make the majority of their earnings and the premise of most pensions and investments - it's the amount of time it's kept in rather than the rate of return so it has time to accrue.

If the club were to be sold you can guarantee the owners would want all that compound interest paid, and at that point they will have made a pretty penny from it.

They wouldn't be able to call it in as there's nothing really to call in. Aren't they ongoing based on SISU saying they won't call anything in?

 

[Nick]

Biggest cost the club has is staff costs ..............

That's a good point, but how big are our staff overheads outside the squad, minimal ticket staff . And shop is outsourced and is it compounded by the size of the management fees... Would love to know what Fisher actually does to deserve renumeration for

There are lots more staff than just tickets and players.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

They wouldn't be able to call it in as there's nothing really to call in. Aren't they ongoing based on SISU saying they won't call anything in?

Yeah, as part of the going concern there will be a conversation between auditors and owners as to whether they intend to call in a debt/interest and they'll probably say no, but it's not legally binding. Just a sort of gentleman's agreement (needs a new name in the modern day that really).

I had to look up how much interest is owed from the accounts and got this.

Interest payable within the year from within the accounting period £1.8m

Accrued interest on related party loans due within one year £5.6m
Related party loans due within one year £8.6m
Total - £14.2m - secured by debenture by ARVO

That's quite a bit for a business with turnover of £6.1m and 300k in the bank

Other quick things of note were that the club had only 11 administrative and commercial staff on average during the period, and that £75k was paid to third parties for directors services (during the period in question Timmy and Venus for about 7 months) so it would appear Timmy saying he doesn't get paid is the usual half-truth you can expect from him. What he means is he personally isn't paid directly by the club.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Yeah, as part of the going concern there will be a conversation between auditors and owners as to whether they intend to call in a debt/interest and they'll probably say no, but it's not legally binding. Just a sort of gentleman's agreement (needs a new name in the modern day that really).

I had to look up how much interest is owed from the accounts and got this.

Interest payable within the year from within the accounting period £1.8m

Accrued interest on related party loans due within one year £5.6m
Related party loans due within one year £8.6m
Total - £14.2m - secured by debenture by ARVO

That's quite a bit for a business with turnover of £6.1m and 300k in the bank

Other quick things of note were that the club had only 11 administrative and commercial staff on average during the period, and that £75k was paid to third parties for directors services (during the period in question Timmy and Venus for about 7 months) so it would appear Timmy saying he doesn't get paid is the usual half-truth you can expect from him. What he means is he personally isn't paid directly by the club.

No it isn't, but it still has to be accounted for and the club has to make allowances to show it can service that debt and interest should it actually be called in, even if everyone expects it to be deferred. So it does hamstring to a small degree.

Most businesses working on credit are quite happy, and often prefer, to defer payment for a while as long as they have the cashflow without it so they can compound it. It's how credit card and loan companies make the majority of their earnings and the premise of most pensions and investments - it's the amount of time it's kept in rather than the rate of return so it has time to accrue.

If the club were to be sold you can guarantee the owners would want all that compound interest paid, and at that point they will have made a pretty penny from it.

anyone buying Otium Entertainment Group Ltd would want their head looking at. No one would take the debt on. A purchaser i would recommend to buy the assets and take on the football related creditors (a requirement by FA & EFL). Leave the liabilities loans and baggage behind. Wouldnt affect CCFC new co or the new owners how the sale proceeds were distributed.

The reason they can take on debt past the value of the assets is because it is not commercial lending the sense of a bank. I would guess that the interest is charged in order to deter any interest from 3rd parties whilst the court actions etc are going on. It also guarantees who controls Otium in an insolvency. So its not really normal lending. So long as the owners say to themselves the lenders that its ok then the serviciability isnt really a problem so long as the other creditors are paid as they fall due.

Not sure you can assume Fisher got any part of the directors fees to 3rd parties it could have been a company owned by Venus - so was he being misleading about that ? we dont know for sure he could have but he might not

 

[robbiekeane]

nick any chance you can split this thread up? I keep trying to check this if there is any more news on wilson and it's not that anymore.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

anyone buying Otium Entertainment Group Ltd would want their head looking at. No one would take the debt on. A purchaser i would recommend to buy the assets and take on the football related creditors (a requirement by FA & EFL). Leave the liabilities loans and baggage behind. Wouldnt affect CCFC new co or the new owners how the sale proceeds were distributed.

The reason they can take on debt past the value of the assets is because it is not commercial lending the sense of a bank. I would guess that the interest is charged in order to deter any interest from 3rd parties whilst the court actions etc are going on. It also guarantees who controls Otium in an insolvency. So its not really normal lending. So long as the owners say to themselves the lenders that its ok then the serviciability isnt really a problem so long as the other creditors are paid as they fall due.

Not sure you can assume Fisher got any part of the directors fees to 3rd parties it could have been a company owned by Venus - so was he being misleading about that ? we dont know for sure he could have but he might not

I agree entirely on what I'd offer for the club were I in a position to do so. I'd only be willing to take on the third party creditors and debt. The point is would SISU accept that? We've seen from previous offers no they won't and increasingly the amount they are owed is down to interest on the money they put in originally rather than actual capital.

Happens all the time with owners selling up and saying how philanthropic they are by waiving x amount of what they're owed when in fact most of it is actually interest on the money they've put in and they're still getting back more than their investment + inflation.

Of course the only reason they can do this is because the funding is related to the owners - were it not the club isn't a going concern, or even solvent. And therein lies the danger that at any point they could, if they so chose, call it in and put us out of business immediately. It's highly unlikely to happen as it wouldn't be in their best interests but the risk is there.

Apologies to everyone else for hijacking the thread.

 

[Captain Dart]

Operating leases would include the rent for Ricoh but also the Higgs plus any other sites they might use. Some associated costs may well be included

Ryton is owned by Otium but ARVO has a charge over it and all other assets

With the huge interest charges over the club ARVO effectively owns all assets thrice over if not more!

 

[Gibbo]

All these figures showing the permanent loss situation beg the question I have never had satisfactorily answered (for all the many attempts on here to do so).

That is, apart from off-setting taxes, just what is the SISU strategy? Please do say in 3-4 sentences max , so that precludes an answer from OSB (whose answers I usually loose the thread of). And before you say that they want to sell on at a profit, we all know that they bought a pup when they invested in CCFC as the business construct is so bad. As it is , the business is unsaleable except at a knock down price. Bemused as to why they don't just cut their losses and exit. Apart from the tax offset, is there any benefit at all to them maintaining it as a going concern, given what the purpose of a hedge fund is? Can they rig the value of their asset to boost the value of their fund?

But I know nothing....Short answers only

 

[oldskyblue58]

Just my guess but ......to distress other parties in the hope of a settlement (via courts or otherwise) then to cash in the assets of the club by selling on - all of which means they can repay ARVO/investors with interest

short enough?