They wouldn’t if a plan B didn’t include the Ricoh.
sbs&l group accounts 2018 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Wasps know the club is powerless. A chance to get shot of them without any PR fallout.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Frankly for an academic who lectures on football finance he has got a lot wrong from the Twitter account I have seen.
Might have been 56m losses for the group since sisu got here but the club in its current form is otium not sbsl. The old losses went with the administration in effect. But just so no one is surprised otium accounts will show much more not because otium has made massive losses since 2013 but because of clever and legal accountancy.
There are 45 m loans and interest not 39m. But 29m is locked into sbsl and not a liability of otium.
Otium is the club not sbsl that is just an investment vehicle or holding company. Sbsl doesn't own the efl share.
The rents are for the stadium and the academy.
Wages increased in part because of a league calculation on pension outside of the club's control. If the wages are 82 % of turnover then the interest charge can't be covered can it. We know that because it hasn't been paid it has been added to debt so hasn't cost the fans anything yet.
The 500k loan is a revolving facility and was this that was repaid not other loans. That facility has increased in size in each of the last three years.
Yes there is a contingent asset of 650k but is that enough when we know of Maddison sale to Leicester?
Apart from that it's fine .....
Last edited:
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Agreed. What annoys me is that Boddy & Fisher deny that in the media (there is only plan A the Ricoh) and some people swallow it hook line and sinker.
It is clear too if push comes to shove that the EFL will allow a groundshare in the the reasonable hope and expectation a Ricoh deal can be made before too long, by which I mean up to 2 years, though most likely one.
It is also obvious that piling nearly £2m interest on the club every year isn't sustainable, it is done to build debt on the books. What in your opinion is a realistic interest charge on Otium considering what has been put in?
Last edited:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The club has no ability to stop SISU’s legals. It did however voluntarily leave in 2013 but the EFL rubber stamped it. Like punishing a child for their parent’s crimes.
Colin Steins Smile
Well-Known Member
Really appreciate your analysis OSB of the accounts.
I have a question regarding the value of the club as an ongoing trading entity to SISU. My question relates to the rate of interest that the SISU charge to it's companies and despite the fact they do not receive any repayment of the accrued amount.......is this figure of value to SISU as a debt and are they able to offset this against the Corporation Tax bill for SISU overall?
Therefore, indirectly reducing their liability to HMRC
Happy_Martian
Well-Known Member
Hmm, silly thought (no need to shoot me down over it). Wonder if by refusing to deal with the club over the rent, are Wasps trying to distress Otium to a point where they can put in a silly bid for the club and beat SISU at their own game ? Some money back for investors would be better for Joy than having the club be dissolved with zero to show for it.
Happy_Martian
Well-Known Member
There was general talk a couple of years ago about CCFC being used as a tax relief tool for SISU. But that got shouted down.
Nick
Administrator
Could be at the moment which ever way you look the road for sisu seems blocked, Nuneaton ground, unavailable, as is Butts Park Arena and the EFL stipulation of having to play our home games within 6 miles of the city centre for example Ryton on Dunsmore is 5.9 miles from Broadgate so other than BPA I don’t know anywhere within that 6 mile boundary suitable.,But I’m certain sisu will have done their homework they ain’t daft. I think it’s still a case of who blinks first
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
SISU have a charge over the club's most valuable asset which is Ryton, so no
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
They’d be massively incompetent if they weren’t. The fact they’re leaving this late is pretty incompetent as it is.
Nick
Administrator
We don't know it has been left this late though?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Well then, we’ll all stop worrying about being kicked out the league.
Nick
Administrator
More worried about the plan b!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It doesnt really matter what i think. They charge around 16% pa for what is basically risky lending. You could argue it is a bit high but there is no formula of the right interest rate
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It isnt SISU making the loan it is ARVO. Assuming they feel it is recoverable then the ARVO fund value increases as the debt increases. SISU of course manage the funds so i assume take a management fee based on performance from that fund (i am not saying from Otium)
It would be a tax charge not a tax relief in the hands of ARVO at the moment if they have to pay tax
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Going to be pedantic fp sorry
it is ARVO with the charge not SISU although everything points to SISU controlling ARVO
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes sorry you're rightGoing to be pedantic fp sorry
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Anything is a holding pattern until the legals finish.
Either Sisu will have a route to the Ricoh, or they will have to face the reality of needing to build a new ground/sell up to someone who will.
While I’d love us to wait it out in Cov, I’d take a couple of years elsewhere to save the club in the mean time. (Of course as a current iFollow fan it’s easy for me to say that).
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
Worrying. I thoight we were ok for a league 1 side
Will the mcnulty 1.5m help?
Will the mcnulty 1.5m help?
ovduk78
Well-Known Member
Isn't the Maddison money likely to be paid in instalments and could therefore be in more than 1 set of accounts? That will probably be the same for the McNulty fee.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
How is that represented on the books because surely it’s a debt? Our spending seems to go in one lump and we surely pay that in instalments.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Surely only define payments are accounted, those contingent on appearances etc. won't show.
Ps there is a "contingent asset of fees due on player sales" of £650k in the report.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The Madders sell on cash would all be due on sale though right?
ovduk78
Well-Known Member
Leicester will be paying Norwich for Maddison in instalments over a couple of years so any money owed to us by Norwich will also be paid in instalments and not in a lump sum. I would expect, although I am not an accountant, that each instalment that we receive through the financial year is added together and included in player sales.
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
On the offal report of the accounts they are now acknowledging that there is a plan B re the ground
Nick
Administrator
Wasn't it obvious they would have to look for alternatives?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I see the CT have done their own analysis............. i gave up as soon as they said Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Limited had made an operational loss of £1.6m. It hasnt the group has, SBS&L doesn't trade at all, Otium made the loss............. usual lack of understanding dont know why i was surprised. Even misquotes the audit report by quoting Fisher in the strategic report......... the clue is that section is signed by Fisher :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
Last edited: