Club Accounts 2016/2017 (2 Viewers)

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
Wasnt really that quick, it took a good few hours.

Strangely I asked him straight away if that's right and he ignored me but then repeated it.

Can see why they need to, people will be thinking 76p of every £1 the fans spend goes to SISU. Dangerous.

What's he mean - "If my figures are correct"?
OK, it would therefore appear that #CCFC had interest payable instead of paid of £1.8 million in 2016/17. If my figures are correct,
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
Because you said 'some' might be Anderson, I think he was there for around 4 months of that year, and you intimated that Deering wouldn't have much if any. Wouldn't you agree the Directors have been a failure, are they worth £175k, especially if Fisher was part time?

I did not intimate Deering had any - I said I think she represents SISU mainly. If the latter is correct then that might be why there is a reference to a "third party"
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
There is a chance this years ends figures (2018) will improve compared to last years (2017) results as revealed today.

2018 -
1) Will Probably show an increase in Matchday revenue as our average gate will probably exceed last years from league 1 prices having remained unchanged.
(if we get into play offs) banking on some big gates. Slight positive that no one really expected.
Gates of 4/5/6 k havnt really materialised (albeit our average will have been inflated somewhat by Accrington att.)

2) As some have pointed out there have been player sales: Stevenson, Thomas, Harries, and the youth kid who went to man utd for a little fee will show in 2018.

3) Our profits from this year from FA cup wont be far short/or similar to what we earned from Winning Checkatrade! possible exclusion will be TV money. We earned proabably more in prize money from FA cup than we did from Checkatrade.

4)Possibly trigger payments for Maddison goals/Appearances/England U21/, Wilson possible England Call up. before May 31st.

The other thing is there arnt many clubs who make a profit as such in the EFL, the clubs cut their cloth accordingly but are still in debt, thus are financed.

Debt is an essential part of any Business or arganisation or even Governement for that matter. (all about your credit ratings) and how you finance your debt. Sisu being a hedge fund will be ok in this front.
Unless you are apple that has no debt and is totally Cash Rich they are the exception.

Going forward nothing other than the normal concerns stand out/stadium/matchday revenue/Academy location.

All fair points if they happen or match our expectations of value.

However if the FA cup matches the checkatrade that doesn't actually improve 2018 over 2017.

The player add ons are maybe events. If Madison is sold that could be significant but is likely to be after 31 May 2018. I will be interested to see if the player sale figures materialize at the amounts guessed at here, I suspect they won't.

However to break even and to not increase the level of debt the results for 2018 need to improve by a net amount of 2.7m. That's still a big ask
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
It is still a debt though isn't it, do you think a fairy godmother is going to pay it off?
You can be certain that the accrued debt is what keeps Sisu hear.
Every day it gets bigger and effectively locks Sisu more into the club.
I'm no accountant but wouldn't debt in the club show a a positive on the balance sheet if it's assumed it will be paid at some point, even if it never will.
Rolling that on, if they did leave or liquidate the club then that positive is lost.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Anderson left 19 September 2016
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
You can be certain that the accrued debt is what keeps Sisu hear.
Every day it gets bigger and effectively locks Sisu more into the club.
I'm no accountant but wouldn't debt in the club show a a positive on the balance sheet if it's assumed it will be paid at some point, even if it never will.
Rolling that on, if they did leave or liquidate the club then that positive is lost.

You would have to do an assessment of the debt owed and an impairment review to show the amount at fair value. That value would be the recoverable amount......
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
You can be certain that the accrued debt is what keeps Sisu hear.
Every day it gets bigger and effectively locks Sisu more into the club.
I'm no accountant but wouldn't debt in the club show a a positive on the balance sheet if it's assumed it will be paid at some point, even if it never will.
Rolling that on, if they did leave or liquidate the club then that positive is lost.
It’s litigation that’s keeping them here, nothing else. Once all avenues have been exhausted they’ll be out of here like a scalded cat.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
No, I think it's misleading and factually incorrect and as a Football Finance expert he would surely know that?

Can you phone up about my mortgage people to tell them there's no difference between paid or not? ;)

I think it is misleading and for the purposes of a headline.

Why isn't the fans money allocated against wages for example. That's what the fans really go see.... The players and the team.

Also he ignored that it has yet to be paid but the fans money has already been used
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member

Londonccfcfan

Well-Known Member
All fair points if they happen or match our expectations of value.

However if the FA cup matches the checkatrade that doesn't actually improve 2018 over 2017.

The player add ons are maybe events. If Madison is sold that could be significant but is likely to be after 31 May 2018. I will be interested to see if the player sale figures materialize at the amounts guessed at here, I suspect they won't.

However to break even and to not increase the level of debt the results for 2018 need to improve by a net amount of 2.7m. That's still a big ask

The checkatrade in 2017 and the FA Cup run this year have been bonuses.
Yes it doesn’t improve it, but it doesn’t make it worse either. Both unexpected windfalls that you can hope for at beginning of season but far from something you can budget for.
 

Londonccfcfan

Well-Known Member
Once all avenues have been exhausted they’ll be out of here like a scalded cat.

Lets see what comes out of the "mediation" and if that fails CCC have to disclose a number of documents, it currently has kept to its self, to the Courts.

What If they win their litigation claim for compensation. Not beyond the realms of possibility they may and do have a case and could win this would they leave then?
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
I think what is worrying is that CET set the highlights on the situation improving (slightly) however this clearly isn't the case as liabilities are increasing by some significant margins

As usual the CT fail to understand some of the things in the accounts I am afraid.

The headline is completely wrong Profits up losses down? Complete rubbish.

Have the finances improved when it actually made a bigger loss £2.7m and increased the level of debt whilst operating a cash flow deficit?

The sbs&l accounts don't show a operating profit for sbs&l but for the sbs&l group within which the only trading part is otium

The wages details given by the CT are incorrect as they are on the Ccfc website. See my post above

Auditors refer to the note about going concern made by the directors and draw attention to it and agree with it.

Etc etc ..

I do wish they would question things more even just sometimes. Bigger total losses and increased interest bearing debt (whether or not paid out) is not in my book a sign of improving finances. One off cup success should not hide the real trends. Ccfc remain in financial trouble with only limited help from its owners and then only if they really have to.
 
Last edited:

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
I did not intimate Deering had any - I said I think she represents SISU mainly. If the latter is correct then that might be why there is a reference to a "third party"
I didn't suggest that you had intimated that Deering had any, I would be surprised if she was paid anything, surely you're not suggesting she should be paid, what does she do?

If there are payments to third parties acting as Directors shouldn't they be listed as Directors?

You seem reluctant to say you think the Directors have performed badly, seems a bit odd, Anderson and Venus clearly failed, Deering doesn't do anything, just leaves part time Fisher, is he any good?
 

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
Don’t understand all this accountancy milarky so tend to keep away from these threads, thank god for Oldskyblue58 to put some meat on the bones. But one thing he said was Otium look like showing signs of financial distress and they might struggle to continue as a going concern so what if sisu put Otium into administration could that put us ( the club) with a 10 point deduction maybe more not a very healthy position to be in if you’re in division 4.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Once all avenues have been exhausted they’ll be out of here like a scalded cat.

Lets see what comes out of the "mediation" and if that fails CCC have to disclose a number of documents, it currently has kept to its self, to the Courts.
Ahhh! The old smoking gun theory again. What documents are these then? Another Rizzla paper with a cryptic clue again? Maybe a king size Rizzla this time.

I hope something can happen in mediation for the benefit of the club but ultimately it would have to benefit SISU/ARVO and I can’t see mediation delivering that as it’s not the purpose of it. I suspect that their was big sighs in the SISU/ARVO camp when mediation was asked for by the judge.
 

better days

Well-Known Member
Don’t understand all this accountancy milarky so tend to keep away from these threads, thank god for Oldskyblue58 to put some meat on the bones. But one thing he said was Otium look like showing signs of financial distress and they might struggle to continue as a going concern so what if sisu put Otium into administration could that put us ( the club) with a 10 point deduction maybe more not a very healthy position to be in if you’re in division 4.
SISU's current tactics appear to be to try to have a successful season in the hope that they will get a buyer to pay something like the figure they have been demanding
Simon Jordan the ex Palace director was quoted a year or so back as saying he'd spoken to the owners but he was incredulous at the figure quoted
I've heard from others in the game that other potential buyers have looked at us but came to the same conclusion. Especially as we don't own the ground and the training centre has a charge over it
It's unlikely that SISU will put us into Administration as there is a value in our club especially if we have a promotion season this year
It's just not the value SISU put on it
Perhaps their tactics are to try to get some sort of settlement from the legal case then look to sell to the highest bidder
Sometimes people outside can think there is a grand plan when more often than not it's down to incompetent management at board level blundering from crisis to crisis
There are interested buyers but only at a more realistic price
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
As usual the CT fail to understand some of the things in the accounts I am afraid.

Have the finances improved when it actually made a bigger loss £2.7m and increased the level of debt whilst operating a cash flow deficit?

The sbs&l accounts don't show a operating profit for sbs&l but for the sbs&l group within which the only trading part is otium

The wages details given by the CT are incorrect as they are on the Ccfc website. See my post above

Auditors refer to the note about going concern made by the directors and draw attention to it and agree with it.

Etc etc ..

I do wish they would question things more even just sometimes. Bigger total losses and increased interest bearing debt (whether or not paid out) is not in my book a sign of improving finances. One off cup success should not hide the real trends. Ccfc remain in financial trouble with only limited help from its owners and then only if they really have to.
So is NOPM working? :emoji_thinking:
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
No time to look at present but first skim shows..

£2m less on sale of players but operating loss down ~£600K.

Financially going well, the players not sold are retained as assets and probably improved in value.

Just need Norwich to sell Maddison for a huge fee in the summer and next season there will probably be a small profit.

Even though SISU are c**ts they know how to fix the finances.. but their methods involve pain.
I said this in the first few months after they came in...that they would deconstruct then reconstruct to make the club run soundly in finance terms. Struth - I had no idea they would go as far as they have to achieve it..!

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top