FulltimeWum
Well-Known Member
Fulham paid over £20 million for Mitrovic.
The club has lost money in something like 28 out of the last 30 seasons, so not sure what your definition of a "blip" is....If we should get promoted to the promise land this will look like a blip.
I don’t disagree but they are the only show in town£4m losses after over a decade of cost cutting. Cleary Sisu aren’t up to the job on their own terms.
Investment from others I reckon but I have no ideaAre they covering losses or funding through further loans? What’s the deferred interest payments standing at now?
the balance sheet is horrific
i don’t see what you are saying and again where will they fund a stadium build?
But Hilsner & DaCosta were supposed to be that
Does anyone know how much of the pre-administration debt was carried forward under the "new" owner's balance sheet post-admin? Assuming they wrote off £50m (conservative estimate), added to the £56m in debt to SISU-run funds means that they've as-good-as written off £100m on CCFC....so much for the owners not supporting the club.
The January window should of toldYea are we in the shit or not?
Yep how much longer does he put up with is my worrySo basically, Mark Robins has performed a gods miracle over the last 4 years with zero investment and putting up with another groundshare thrown in.
we could be winning this league with some investment and financial backing. Maybe now some fans will give robins some slack. He is literally fighting with one hand tied behind his back.
Ask grendel he knows allAre we not building a new ground then
I was just saying this to H on here todaySo basically Hamer or Gyok will be sold in the summer to cover the losses. Not exactly a shock
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
I think, weirdly, that SISU more likely has to.Are we not building a new ground then
I’ve said the same previously.Sorry but talk of 100m or even 50m invested in hard cash by our owners is complete and utter nonsense.
The club is otium entertainments group since the administration. In terms of hard cash put in then otium owes the owners in round terms 10m plus 11.5m of high rate interest.
ARVO put in around 6m that was converted to preference shares
The amount in sbsl accounts show 28m owed to investors in that company but only 18m of that was hard cash.
The rest of the fabled huge investment, the conversion to preference shares is sourced via clever use of the group situation to create paper losses and by not writing off the losses when sisu bought in. It was not hard cash put in by the owners.
Actual investment of hard cash is much lower at low 30m
50m to 100m is complete rubbish
zero investment? are we still paying league 2 wages to the players?
In among everything else, this has been missed. It suggests investment to grow the club is not forthoming, which means we'll have a lower income ceiling.The number employed has also increased by 15 (only 1 on the admin side)
Might be wrong here but don't the accounts state that owner funding kept the club going during Covid when we couldn't gets fans into the ground?Other owners are at least covering losses during the pandemic. We aren’t even having that.
Might be wrong here but don't the accounts state that owner funding kept the club going during Covid when we couldn't gets fans into the ground?
It's just that the report itself says thatOwner borrowing not direct funding has been used and high rates of interest - also the EFL loan
It's just that the report itself says that
"The group (CCFC) is reliant on shareholders and the group's forecasts indicate that additional funding will be required during the next 12 months. The group has received written confirmation from its shareholders of their intention to provide additional financial support when requested." Page 10 under "Material uncertainty..."
Is this a bit of clever wording?
Me too. You’re a little contradictory grendel. The owners are supporting the club by covering the losses. But you don’t think they are supporting the club. Which is it?
In a sense yes, but in another, no.Might be wrong here but don't the accounts state that owner funding kept the club going during Covid when we couldn't gets fans into the ground?
Reading just posted losses of 35 million.
Given fans are allowed back in this year and we've had the highest attendances in many years, plus the other income associated with that, that should make incomings a lot better. It does of course then depend on the wages of the players we've brought in, like Waghorn, Gyokeres, Sheaf etc.you constantly on these issues seem very defensive regarding the club owners
perhaps you’d like to ask them how they propose to fund a new stadium build looking at these figures. I’d be fascinated by the response - I suspect as well this year trading wise will be even worse
Coservatively £1,7M transfers /salaries £3-.4MGiven fans are allowed back in this year and we've had the highest attendances in many years, plus the other income associated with that, that should make incomings a lot better. It does of course then depend on the wages of the players we've brought in, like Waghorn, Gyokeres, Sheaf etc.
Coservatively £1,7M transfers /salaries £3-.4M
We will have at least £2m extra in gate receipts thoughAlso the rent at the CBS and the annual repayments for the EFL loan - the extra revenue will be eaten up by extra spend
Understand that theory but given that, in reality, CCFC will never be in a position to repay the loans, regardless of interest, the whole load is effectively shareholder funding.In a sense yes, but in another, no.
The money they've put in keep us afloat, BUT they do that for a price. It's loans, not capital. And they charge pretty high interest rates on it. So it's not out of generosity. They could charge zero interest, or the BoE rate if they so chose, but they don't. That is to the long term detriment to the club. And though you might say "they're not taking all that interest" then that works in their favour too, because that interest accrues interest by itself so they're actually due even more long term.
If you look at the amount of interest owing, to SISU et al it makes a massive hole in our balance sheet that affects out ability to move in the market and also attract investors to replace them, because they want such a high return.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?