Do the numbers add up? (2 Viewers)

robbiethemole · Oct 13, 2016

taken from CT interview

How is the club performing financially?

Mr Fisher took the opportunity to address the ‘scare stories’ around the financial situation at the club and listed the following:

Revenues

Year ending (May 31) 2014: £3.8m

2015: £4.8m

2016: £5.4m

Operating loss last year: £3.8m

Operating loss this year: £1.7m

EBIT/profit after player trading last year: Loss of £1m

EBIT/profit after player trading this year: +£700K

He said: “As a business we are travelling in the right direction. This business model is not ideal and we need to be breaking even before player trading.

“The stated aim is to get away from selling footballers when we need to but only sell players when it is the right time for the football club and not because of any short fall in the profit / loss. Every League One club is dependent on player trading.”

Nick · Oct 13, 2016

It isn't from a CT interview, it's from the SCG meeting minutes isn't it a few days ago?

stupot07 · Oct 13, 2016

Nick said:
It isn't from a CT interview, it's from the SCG meeting minutes isn't it a few days ago?

Yes it is.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/index.php?posts/1180378

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

robbiethemole · Oct 13, 2016

apologies my mistake

stupot07 · Oct 13, 2016

robbiethemole said:
apologies my mistake

Not your fault Robbie, Simon's just a bit late to the party thats all.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Nick · Oct 13, 2016

I will leave this one seperate rather than merging it, as it is more specific about the numbers from it so would be interesting to see if they do.

If OSB or somebody has discussed the numbers, can somebody link me to it and I can merge them into here

ccfcway · Oct 13, 2016

it looks like revenue doesn't include player sales ?

surely thats part of revenue ?

wingy · Oct 13, 2016

So playing budget equates to just over 40% of turnover if my mental arithmetic is sound based on the £2.3 M quoted

dongonzalos · Oct 13, 2016

Thought it should be 60%?

Grendel · Oct 13, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Thought it should be 60%?

No that's the maximum allowed. That's why talks of budget are bollocks. A team could have the biggest budget in the league under FL rules but actually spend the least.

wingy · Oct 13, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Thought it should be 60%?

No
As we don't have the essential incomes such as parking, f & b, sponsorship etc
Yet I did think it would be around 50%
Take out the academy fee of £600K
Leaving £2.5M going on the rest.

stupot07 · Oct 13, 2016

wingy said:
No
As we don't have the essential incomes such as parking, f & b, sponsorship etc
Yet I did think it would be around 50%
Take out the academy fee of £600K
Leaving £2.5M going on the rest.

the £600k fa academy grant will make up part of the revenue, so really you need to take the whole £1.2m out that's spent on thr academy - some of this will include academy players salaries (outlined in the EPPP framework) so probably separate from the first team wage bill.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Sky Blue Kid · Oct 13, 2016

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-chairman-says-butts-12021425

skybluetony176 · Oct 13, 2016

I can't help but feel that Tim releasing these figures to quash rumours of the club being in financial trouble is a bit of a red herring. The rumour about financial trouble as understood it was about SISU being in financial trouble not CCFC.

ccfcway · Oct 13, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-chairman-says-butts-12021425

simple solution to this. CCFC put fwd a plan @ butts and see if it gets approved or rejected.

Sick of this he said she said. Just get it done

skybluedan · Oct 13, 2016

Nothing with these bastards adds up , these fuckers have been making money the whole time they've been here imo hence why the cunts will not let go And now fuckin builders? they have took the piss since they got here and have got away with it , sly, snakey gypsy bastards

chinamans view · Oct 13, 2016

skybluedan, I think you are right, they just juggle the figures to put on paper for all to see but they are making money for sure

skybluedan · Oct 13, 2016

chinamans view said:
skybluedan, I think you are right, they just juggle the figures to put on paper for all to see but they are making money for sure

Of course they are mate , here for nine years losing money that's great buisness ffs no way , appelton all of them
For me apart from the obvious cunts involved , feel so let down by the football league for having the wool pulled over there eyes and just not doing fuck all for us ..... I just want to start fires

dongonzalos · Oct 13, 2016

People are getting paid salaries.

matesx · Oct 13, 2016

skybluedan said:
Nothing with these bastards adds up , these fuckers have been making money the whole time they've been here imo hence why the cunts will not let go And now fuckin builders? they have took the piss since they got here and have got away with it , sly, snakey gypsy bastards

Potty mouth

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Oct 14, 2016

So after player sales we have actually made a profit. From that, it looks like we got around £2-2.5 million upfront for Maddison.

Brylowes · Oct 14, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
I can't help but feel that Tim releasing these figures to quash rumours of the club being in financial trouble is a bit of a red herring. The rumour about financial trouble as understood it was about SISU being in financial trouble not CCFC.

The fact he did this is unprecedented as far as SISU are concerned, and in doing so IMO shows
Things have changed, I've no doubt they are on the ropes,

Captain Dart · Oct 14, 2016

SkyBlue_Bear83 said:
So after player sales we have actually made a profit. From that, it looks like we got around £2-2.5 million upfront for Maddison.

No, Fisher said the club is running at a loss (of £1M), no profit has been made unless player sales come through as projected.
The club has not posted a profit for decades. The club will not make a profit until and unless it is shown in the accounts.
The figure in the accounts you will see in end Feb 2017 is a £1M loss, for the trading year ending May 2016.
The projected profit is something that will not be confirmed until end Feb 2018 for the trading year ending May 2017.
That projection may or may not be accurate because there is still the next 4 1/2 months trading to account for and expectation for transfer income is as yet unfulfilled.

Ashdown · Oct 14, 2016

One way or another they will ensure we always run at a loss !

skybluetony176 · Oct 14, 2016

Brylowes said:
The fact he did this is unprecedented as far as SISU are concerned, and in doing so IMO shows
Things have changed, I've no doubt they are on the ropes,

It definitely makes me think that when SISU's financial situation started getting discussed on here there's a chance that we were looking in the right direction.

Gosford Green · Oct 14, 2016

I was surprised at the figures being released, I think they are on the ropes definitely. They no longer can say it is just a few people sitting in dark rooms conspiring against them as flak is coming from all angles, even Nick, Grendel and Les Reid will struggle to put esteemed ex managers and former players as part of this embargo conspiracy.

Though It has only gone more national recently since they banned the CT, journo's look after their own.

Nick · Oct 14, 2016

Gosford Green said:
I was surprised at the figures being released, I think they are on the ropes definitely. They no longer can say it is just a few people sitting in dark rooms conspiring against them as flak is coming from all angles, even Nick, Grendel and Les Reid will struggle to put esteemed ex managers and former players as part of this embargo conspiracy.

Though It has only gone more national recently since they banned the CT, journo's look after their own.

What embargo conspiracy?

Gosford Green · Oct 14, 2016

Nick said:
What embargo conspiracy?

Fisher thinks that there is an embargo against the club. Parties lined up against the club (or SISU).
I think we are at 8 now at the last count.

Nick · Oct 14, 2016

Gosford Green said:
Fisher thinks that there is an embargo against the club. Parties lined up against the club (or SISU).
I think we are at 8 now at the last count.

Oh, so nothing to do with the telegraph sitting on Twitter all day trying to get in touch with ex players etc to make stories out of it?

Wasn't the Embargo he mentioned about the council etc, rather than the Telegraph or ex players?

Brylowes · Oct 14, 2016

Nick said:
Oh, so nothing to do with the telegraph sitting on Twitter all day trying to get in touch with ex players etc to make stories out of it?

Wasn't the Embargo he mentioned about the council etc, rather than the Telegraph or ex players?

Yeah he said the club is facing a political embargo, or something like that.

Captain Dart · Oct 14, 2016

Nick said:
What embargo conspiracy?

The 'political embargo' Fisher claimed exists in his conference call.
Can you or anybody tell me what this consists of bearing in mind Cllr Duggins stated that CCC must and will follow planning rules faithfully.

dongonzalos · Oct 14, 2016

You would think that if the club wanted to prove the council were treating them unfairly. They would get the planning app in ASAP for 25k at the Butts. Accompanied by a viable plan of how it is to be funded.
We would all get behind them. All the MP's Sports ministers, FA FL. Would see a plan in place and there would be an overwhelming surge of support from the fans.
It would turn things massively in SISU's favour.
Also was it not stated in here it would be the Government who would have the final say anyway not local council?

Nick · Oct 14, 2016

Captain Dart said:
The 'political embargo' Fisher claimed exists in his conference call.
Can you or anybody tell me what this consists of bearing in mind Cllr Duggins stated that CCC must and will follow planning rules faithfully.

He also said that Wasps and the rental deal was nothing to do with the council, he then said they could help if their legal costs were paid up.

Who knows what's going on that we don't know about

stupot07 · Oct 14, 2016

Captain Dart said:
The 'political embargo' Fisher claimed exists in his conference call.
Can you or anybody tell me what this consists of bearing in mind Cllr Duggins stated that CCC must and will follow planning rules faithfully.

To be honest though, with a bespoke build that will likely require significant infrastructure changes, and also sensitivity with the earlsdon nimby's, you really need some political backing and council planning support (look at how much advice they gave wasps) to pull off a development like this. Regardless of whether the council have to follow procedure, they can make it very difficult, so I can understand why fisher thinks its a no go at the minute.

That said I don't believe they would build it anyway.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Captain Dart · Oct 14, 2016

stupot07 said:
To be honest though, with a bespoke build that will likely require significant infrastructure changes, and also sensitivity with the earlsdon nimby's, you really need some political backing and council planning support (look at how much advice they gave wasps) to pull off a development like this. Regardless of whether the council have to follow procedure, they can make it very difficult, so I can understand why fisher thinks its a no go at the minute.

That said I don't believe they would build it anyway.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Firstly there is no conformation from Jon Sharp that Cov are working with CCFC.

Secondly if someone puts in development plans for the Butts the political stance will be tested, but it can't be an embargo only a lack of cooperation.
Why might there be a lack of cooperation, clearly because of SISU's previous negotiating tactics.

Thirdly, even following the rules & regs, the chances of a traffic study meeting regs for a 15,000 capacity stadium without expensive major roadworks is virtually nil. A 5000 capacity stadium would probably only require relatively minor changes.

Finally, none of this will ever happen, it is just posturing.

Do the numbers add up? (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency