Where has the £30 million lost/spent gone: (2 Viewers)

I can't make my mind up. The thing that baffles me is that he seems to suggest that they have reduced the squad size to bring the wage bill at 70% of the income, ie. letting the main three go in the summer. My question is, why did we make these signings in the first place if we knew we couldn't afford to sustain paying their wages? Why did the club not offer the players contracts with a view of making money from transfer fees further down the line.

I just don't understand why they say that they were working to reduce the outgoings but still made signings like they did anyway.

I too am intrigued to see what OSB has to say about this.

Frankly I have to say this is the first piece of pro-SISU propaganda that doesn't appear filled with lies. It's also nice to see Tim Fisher display some (appears) honest facts...

Edit: then I read some of the comments which points to more issues:

£9m - they would have known this up front in their due diligence
£5m prozone - not mentioned
other mortgages may be £2m

Also £16m losses over 3 years versus about £16m in the 6 years previous, in a period when from the start of sisu we were streamlining - ????

I would say nearer a £10m real loss that they did not identify at the due diligence stage - and would suggest a reasonable price for any buy out

It is pretty much as expected. Read the FAQ-2 Money Talks here: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/11316-FAQ-2-Money-Talks
(and while you're at it ... read the other two FAQ's as there are bits on FFP and other strategy issues).

The thing that baffles me is that he seems to suggest that they have reduced the squad size to bring the wage bill at 70% of the income, ie. letting the main three go in the summer. My question is, why did we make these signings in the first place if we knew we couldn't afford to sustain paying their wages? Why did the club not offer the players contracts with a view of making money from transfer fees further down the line.

Click to expand...

Making those signings were good acqusitions but as Ranson didn't manage to include a one-year extension option in Kings conctract and didn't sell Westwood and Gunnar last January those players could leave for free. That was poor business management and nails to Ransons coffin.
(I am sure the current board is doing their best to sell Cranie and Clingan this month to avoid repeating history).

SISU out!! Right?

Didn't really pinpoint where the money had been spent exactly. Are they just trying to wind us up even more? Terrible

Sorry, I don't buy the statement that our net position on transfers is a negative sum. Perhaps when comparing that we have expended compared to that which are currently in receipt of against common staged payment transfers; but this would leave a large sum sitting as future potential income. As such, tell us what the value of this 'pot' is and be truly transparent.

All of this conjecture, of course, wouldn't be necessary if SISU hadn't cloaked every, and I mean every, transaction under the auspices of an 'undisclosed' sum

Propoganda of the highest order! Tried to read it with an open mind but it made me very angry!

did they get 5-6million for the sale prozone ??

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

Sorry, I don't buy the statement that our net position on transfers is a negative sum. Perhaps when comparing that we have expended compared to that which are currently in receipt of against common staged payment transfers; but this would leave a large sum sitting as future potential income. As such, tell us what the value of this 'pot' is and be truly transparent.

All of this conjecture, of course, wouldn't be necessary if SISU hadn't cloaked every, and I mean every, transaction under the auspices of an 'undisclosed' sum

Click to expand...

The total acquisition cost will be used for each player, not just the transfer fee paid.

Thoughts & questions

Yes SISU investors took on a net amount of debt circa 9m - but that is split between £16m debts and £7m assets (assets that included players and my guess is they hoped to improve the asset value part by cashing in on a few players and reduce their exposure to debts taken on)

Ownership of the stadium would be good but it isnt the reason for the losses - over paying the playing staff is, there is a direct correlation between achieving on the pitch and crowd size also. Based on the achievements of the team over last ten years the players have been grossly overpaid ( someone tell me how wages at 111% of turnover is sustainable ? that has nothing to do with stadium ownership) Plus there are alternatives to owning the stadium - own the income streams. Plus how much do they think the interest on the loan to buy the stadium would be - somewhat more than £1.2m rent I reckon.

I dont think that SISU are taking large sums out of the club. When they get paid for players that money funds the day to day running. It isnt like there is a pot sitting there waiting to be taken - costs exceed income thats why we have losses those costs cannot be deferred, there isnt anything to take out.

Is it unfair to make the "constant accussations" - no because up until now no one has taken any time to tell us what is going on - what did they expect ? or do they have no idea of human nature or the fact most supporters do not or want to understand the high finances. The picture SISU have painted by their silence is one that gravely worries and upsets the supporters.

"for the avoidance of doubt" - well i have a doubt - "SISU has not taken any dividend or capital repayments" You see SISU are not entitled to anything the investors are, they cant take a dividend it would be illegal under company law, they might not have taken capital repayments but what about interest charged or rolled up (accrued)? Didnt up to 31/05/10 but things can change

"SISU have never had a penny they have kept CCFC going" - did they have a choice to do otherwise? Certainly they have applied the brakes in financing recently. Dont get me wrong the club needs to stand its own two feet, cannot continue with losses - but SISU didnt continue funding out some esoteric beneficence to the supporters, they are hard nosed business people who make decisions for the benefit of their investors

Cost in excess of £30m - well only if they dont get any of their loans back. So they paid out 9m in 2008 to get in to the club (not immediately because the accounts show that as debts taken over and there would have been schemes of payment if not why not). Then 2m till end of season - so by 31/05/08 £11m owed - thats what it says in the accounts. Apparently losses were £16m until 31/05/11. Is that CCFC or the SBS&L Group ? CCFC losses 2009 £7.6m 2010 £3 therefore losses 2011 £5.4m ...... or SBS&L 2008 loss £3.9m 2009 £8.2m 2010 £5.8m = total of 17.9m so that in 2011 we made a profit as a group ? This is important because SISU invested in the Group not just CCFC

How does the sale of Prozone come into this - how much of SISU's funds were used to support that business - what about the costs of settling out Ranson - what are the costs of settling out other staff or managers.

I think you have to look at the whole group to analyse SISUs involvement not just CCFC

In theory the financing gap is not the losses because the losses include the write downs of player contracts which does not involve movements in funds for the ones they took over in 2007 and as he states players are not paid for all in one go. So what is the financing gap TF? What is the turnover in 2011 accounts, and what have we saved off the wages since then ? Are they funding £500k pm or £300K or less ? or more?

If we go down the %age wages to turnover is 55% in league 1 - still a way to go I think in savings. Break even was at the end of the season we were told by KD but now it is as soon as possible ? Perhaps SISU understand the correlation between achievement on the pitch and attendances might ease their cashflow ? Perhaps they might now understand the owners (custodians of the club) must have a good relationship with the fans (paying customers that greatly affect cashflow by voting with their feet)?

Am pleased to see there has been improvements/additions to fixed assets - what was the £1m spent on exactly

I am interested to know that the player dealings is a net outlay - all the figures that have been bandied about indicate a small net surplus - please explain in detail how this net outlay is made up TF. Dann sold £3.5m plus 700k add on, Fox sold £2m ? Juke 1.5m rising to £2.3m Gunnar £500K Best £500K? Perhaps it might be a good idea to not do undisclosed fees so we can actually start to believe in what we are told ? Is this net outlay the cashflow currently or the profit on the deals - there is a difference

Yes clubs dont always receive the full cash in one go but it is receivable and factored into the cashflows and budgets of the business. Perhaps our player negotiations need to be better? Therefore the full sale is in the calculation of losses in the accounts but perhaps the cashflow needs to be bridged. Basically SISU might need to bridge funding now knowing that there are funds to come later when they wont need to cover any cashflow shortfall

Does TF's statement answer the questions - partly but it doesnt go far enough and raises more questions. I applaud the effort now go on from it TF. You have chosen to try explain things I welcome that but you cant stop now, there is much more we want to know

Just my take on things

PUSB

I thougt it was a very good article, but because the expenditure has not been itemised there is still a lot of suspision.

I'm no finance guy, but I'll try & list all the income & expenditures that I can think of,f if anyone can see a big hole in what I put please shout...

Income
=====
1) Championship TV fees
2) Ticket sales
3) Shirt and other sponsorship
4) Advertising around the ground
5) Club shirts & other gear at shop
6) Matchday program sales
7) Player transfers out, in credit this season I think, there were fees for Turner & Juke, there will be stage payments for transfers in past years, e.g. Scott Dann & Daniel Sturridge, but that'll be a complex web.
7) Skyblue world sales


Expediture
=======
1) Player & Management salaries, that was running at or near 100% of turnover & is not untypical of the badly run footie clubs in the country.
1) Directors fees & salaries. Ranson took £1/2 M out of the club, there may be salaries for Fisher & Delieu we won't know the score till the next accounts are published, but then we'll get some overall numbers.
2) Loan interest, Ransons company charged interest, they had (but paid off) loan on Ryton, they may have a loan on future season ticket sales. Up to last accounts SISU were not charging interest on money they put in.
3) Tax, HMRC want 50% income tax for the players and there is VAT on anything purchased, including services.
4) Player transfers, in credit this season, but remember there are some agents fees even for a free transfer & the club bought in Cody McDonald this season, there will be stage payments for transfers in past years, maybe even Cranie & Keogh, but that'll be a complex web.. outsiders can't get details
5) Rent for the Arena, its £1.2M p.a. isn't it?
6) Travel & accomodation for away matches.
7) Matchday staff wages.
8) Web site & program production & editorial.
9) Design & production of Club shirts & other gear
10) Other office and sales staff.
11) Various promotional & community activites
12) Cost of running Academy & Ryton

I'm sure there are more items, if I see/told of something wrong I'll revise..

oldskyblue58 said:

Thoughts & questions

Am pleased to see there has been improvements/additions to fixed assets - what was the £1m spent on exactly

PUSB

Click to expand...

Ranson/Coleman made improvements to facilities at Ryton, that accounts for half of it, apparently.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...ining-ground-set-for-facelift-92746-20770183/

For me, any club who has sold, lost, or got rid of...

------------Best---------King------------
----------------Mifsud-------------------
----Gunnar----Osbourne--Tabb-------
Fox ------Dann----Turner-----??????
-------------Westwood-----------------


and bought our current team and ended up SPENDING MONEY, needs to go, simple as that.

Only Keogh of the current crop would get anywhere near that team in my opnion. (Craine as Clingan well, but they are also off for free)

oh, and they got the club for FREE, so, unless they sell it for FREE, how can they say they have lost 30 million..

If Hoffman gives them £5 milion for the club, they have the sale of pro zone, shop income, tv income etc..... The £30 million figure soon dissapears

Hi All / Nick- Been away for a good while, but back in the real world now. I have not even watched a game for over 6 months, even on the box. After 33 continuous years of being the biggest footie fan in the world (my house at least) I woke up one day & thought I did not like it anymore. Long boring story from there.........

Well, having now got a flavour of where we (CCFC) are I see a light at the end of the preverbial tunnel, whether it be good or bad. To put it simply, something has to give.

My main concern however is the continuing flawed Football Business model for lower tier Clubs. This article, altough a blatant effort on spin, as eleuded to above, it does highlight certain glaring issues. Putting simply, lower tier Football Clubs are at serious risk without investors willing & able to continue losing money, ala Scumster up the M69.
The income vs outgoings balance sheet for CCFC is a shocking example. I still believe that until Player wages fall to a more sensible level, lower tier Football will continue to struggle financially. The current renumeration for 'average' (being very polite) is crazy.

Anyway, I am back in the fold & pleased to see a small body of Supporters getting off their backside & showing controlled dissent against our owners. I personally admit I was wrong about SISU. I genuinely beleived that they could not be this stupid for so long. I sit on my arse corrected!

Wishing all well, & look forward to getting stuck into some debate. I will be attending the Ricoh again from now on & understand that the ball rarely has snow on it anymore so the usual 'cricked' neck ailment is unlikely to return.

Play up Sky Blues & do you remember Cov 5 vs Norwich 4? Dreamt about that game the other night.

(post nearly off topic.... nowt new there then :facepalm:

I'mARealWizard said:

....because it doesn't survive on free air for 4 years?

Click to expand...

They have not and willnot be £30 million out of pocket...

Wonder how much of this money has gone to paying off directors !

ccfcway said:

They have not and willnot be £30 million out of pocket...

Wonder how much of this money has gone to paying off directors !

Click to expand...

Directors Remuneration In the accounts from 2008 to 2010 there is only one Director that has been paid – RR. He was paid via Arley Group £169750 (2008) £294500 (2009) £303125 (2010). There is nothing in the accounts so far published that indicates any other directors have been paid. Just to be clear disclosure is required by the Companies Act and if not done would be disclosed by the independent auditors in their report. Total cost of RR’s services & interest to 31/05/10 £1.23m

Click to expand...

It's from the FAQ-2 Money talks ...

a large percentage of our income is from the premiership - I think around 1.5m
its around 4-5m from ticket sales
another million or so from championship tv deal
and a couple of million or so other income

Going down , and our revenue would halve

ccfcway said:

For me, any club who has sold, lost, or got rid of...

------------Best---------King------------
----------------Mifsud-------------------
----Gunnar----Osbourne--Tabb-------
Fox ------Dann----Turner-----??????
-------------Westwood-----------------


and bought our current team and ended up SPENDING MONEY, needs to go, simple as that.

Only Keogh of the current crop would get anywhere near that team in my opnion. (Craine as Clingan well, but they are also off for free)

Click to expand...

Osbourne?? Really?? I think you are clutching at straws a little.

take him out then

any others, ?

skybluesam66 said:

a large percentage of our income is from the premiership - I think around 1.5m
its around 4-5m from ticket sales
another million or so from championship tv deal
and a couple of million or so other income

Going down , and our revenue would halve

Click to expand...

As it stands yes I would think it would significantly reduce - but on the other hand if we actually started winning and got promoted that may not be the case. But what am i saying we are talking CCFC :facepalm:

ccfcway said:

For me, any club who has sold, lost, or got rid of...

Click to expand...

But you cannot just accumulate players forever. Every player will need to be sold, lost, or got rid of at some point. I'd argue any day of the week that the problem was that SISU often held onto players for too long; cashing in earlier on some of the players would have kept the books ticking over, maintained confidence, and allowed some of the money to be reinvested in keeping the squad strong.

kg82 said:

Propoganda of the highest order! Tried to read it with an open mind but it made me very angry!

Click to expand...

It's clear to me the Telegraph was told write something positive about SISU or else their 'special relationship' with the club would end.

It is refreshing to read the 2 press releases (ownership and £30M) and I hope it is the start of better communication by the board.

There is no pleasing some, and let us be honest, the anti-SISU brigade will never be satisfied. However the 2 press releases are both interesting and welcome from the "average" fans perspective.

What is clear is that without SISU pumping money into the club we would be in a far greater mess than we are. Yes SISU have made mistakes (Ray Ranson and Ken Delieu being the most obvious) but it is clear they inherited a dog's dinner in terms of excessive wages and a cost base out of all control (Project Premier League), as a result of which they have been portrayed the bad guys by having to cut deep to try and redeem the financial status of the club, propping up the excesses and shortfall with capital injection.

I am sure there are inevitably more questions to be asked if we are to scrutinise every word in the press releases, but standing back and assessing the substantive message, I for one am grateful we have had an owner prepared to stump up cash rather than let the club collapse - other's however would rather see the club collapse?

And before the posts start, these comments have nothing to do with Hoffman etc. I am simply assessing the SISU financial commitment, which by any measure is significant.

Cue - anti SISU brigade.....

Lets be honest the people who want SISU out will never be happy whatever they say has happend to the money & yet again the club is accused of not talking to the fans & when it does it gets accused of not telling the truth so it simply cant win. Im not sticking up for SISU but whatever they do now they cant win with certain fans.

Until Hoffman or someone else show they have the money & do things the right way to try & buy the club without it being played out in public then like it or not SISU keep us going so lets support our team & let Hoffman & whoever sort out buying the club.

Over the following three seasons – up until the end of the 2010/11 campaign, net transfer spending was neutral with spend on new arrivals costing £6m and departures bringing in the same sum.
Arrivals included Keiren Westwood, Freddy Eastwood, Aron Gunnarsson, David Bell, James McPake, Sammy Clingan, Michael McIndoe, Martin Cranie, Chris Hussey, Richard Wood, Gary Deegan, Carl Baker, Lukas Jutkiewicz, Clive Platt and Richard Keogh. Departures included the sales of Dele Adebola, Scott Dann, Robbie Simpson, Danny Fox, Leon Best, Jay Tabb and Gary Borrowdale.


This is the only bit I do not believe. Love how they say up to the "10/11" season so they don't have to include the sales of Turner and Juke in that list.
Still think SISU's net spend will be an outlay with those two transfers added on?

CCFC said:

Over the following three seasons – up until the end of the 2010/11 campaign, net transfer spending was neutral with spend on new arrivals costing £6m and departures bringing in the same sum.
Arrivals included Keiren Westwood, Freddy Eastwood, Aron Gunnarsson, David Bell, James McPake, Sammy Clingan, Michael McIndoe, Martin Cranie, Chris Hussey, Richard Wood, Gary Deegan, Carl Baker, Lukas Jutkiewicz, Clive Platt and Richard Keogh. Departures included the sales of Dele Adebola, Scott Dann, Robbie Simpson, Danny Fox, Leon Best, Jay Tabb and Gary Borrowdale.


This is the only bit I do not believe. Love how they say up to the "10/11" season so they don't have to include the sales of Turner and Juke in that list.
Still think SISU's net spend will be an outlay with those two transfers added on?

Click to expand...

You would hope the departures / arrivals would free up some cash from a salary perspective? - the departures being on considerably greater wages than the arrivals.

thorn in my side said:

You would hope the departures / arrivals would free up some cash from a salary perspective? - the departures being on considerably greater wages than the arrivals.

Click to expand...

For that period I seriously doubt it. The likes of Borrowdale and Tabb won't have been on as much as Eastwood or Morrison.

I'd guess the wages only started coming down in the last season or so.