Finance update (14 Viewers)

Forums New posts
C

CrawleySkyBlue

Well-Known Member
This was prior to the stadium purchase. Albeit and the likelihood is that it was involved in the wider financing ahead of the stadium purchase.

The Club would have been discussing/negotiating the stadium purchase with Frasers for a while you'd have thought. Could be that the club needed to show proof of funds and this formed part of that. It could also be that some of the £15m was used to fund other operations of the club, as well as used to part fund the stadium acquisition. We know there is the charge over the stadium, so there is clearly some debt involved somewhere too.

Interesting that the cash has been put in from RCMA in the form of equity, rather than from Doug himself. Previous investment into the club was in the form of the £30m interest free loan from Doug King.
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
CrawleySkyBlue said:
Interesting that the cash has been put in from RCMA in the form of equity, rather than from Doug himself. Previous investment into the club was in the form of the £30m interest free loan from Doug King.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, what is the significance of this?
 
Briles

Briles

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
In your opinion, what is the significance of this?
Click to expand...
Could be that Equity capital is considered "secure funding," which allows clubs more headroom to report losses. Which would make sense given that dougs said we are still a loss making club
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Briles said:
Could be that Equity capital is considered "secure funding," which allows clubs more headroom to report losses. Which would make sense given that dougs said we are still a loss making club
Click to expand...

Thanks for trying to explain, don't really understand it but that's my problem!
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Briles said:
Could be that Equity capital is considered "secure funding," which allows clubs more headroom to report losses. Which would make sense given that dougs said we are still a loss making club
Click to expand...
Isn't every club in the Championship loss making?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Are Wrexham?
 
C

CrawleySkyBlue

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
In your opinion, what is the significance of this?
Click to expand...
Still thinking about this. Ultimately I think it is a positive thing for the club as long as DK’s intentions remain in line with ours (the fans), which I have no reason to doubt or question.

Better for the club’s cash flow (no interest repayments - albeit the loan he’s put into the club so far are interest free), no requirement for the club to repay the principal amount either. There’s probably a benefit in terms of financial fair play rules in here somewhere (PSR for championship clubs) in that the balance sheet is stronger if the investment is used wisely (no liability sitting on the balance sheet!). A quick google of PSR rules talks about losses being covered by equity/secured funds and this being a positive (but I’m no expert on PSR and haven’t read anything in great detail). So I’d assume a benefit here but unsure on the specifics.

Ultimately the only way the owners can get back this equity investment is via dividends or selling the club for a profit. This could only be achieved if the club is performing well (or alternatively in a bad scenario for us, if there’s a fire sale of assets if looking for a quick exit… no signs of this happening), so again shows a level of commitment from DK and his wider company portfolio.
 
C

CrawleySkyBlue

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Are Wrexham?
Click to expand...
2024 and 2023 accounts show losses of 2.7m and 5.1m.

But the club is owned by an American company (Wrexham Holdings LLC). Don’t know how the Group is structured in that there could be other trading companies in the Group that are linked with the club that when on consolidation show a different set of results. We don’t have access to the consolidated LLC accounts.

It’s a bit like how we’re now structured. Covcityco Ltd is the ultimate parent company and owns Coventry city football club limited (essentially the football club being the team, its ability to play in the EFL and the club’s trading operations), Coventry arena retail Ltd (the trading operations of the stadium), Coventry arena propco limited (proprietor of the stadium lease), Coventry arena opco ltd (proprietor of other leases around the Arena) and Coventry arena ipco ltd (dormant).

Deliberately complicated for a reason unfortunately

* should caveat this with, unless anything has changed since the acquisition of stadium companies in that DK may have moved things around internally between the separate companies. Albeit, I imagine it’s remained the same unless there are specific benefits of doing so, such as maybe PSR or tax. But from a risk perspective, better for the assets to be in separate companies (that along with tax reasons and financial flexibility are why propco/opco companies are generally used).
 
Last edited:
C

CrawleySkyBlue

Well-Known Member
An intriguing update for you, clearing up some of the confusion on the price the club paid for the Arena. This is based on the Frasers Group plc half year results to 26 Oct-25 (released in Dec-25). The half year results are unaudited.

The club’s purchase of the Arena cost £50m. (Not the reported (or made up) £40m figure quoted)

Covcityco Ltd acquired the entire share capital of Coventry Areana Opco Limited, Coventry Arena Propco Limited, Coventry Arena Retail Limited and Coventry Arena Ipco Limited. This confirms that the club acquired 100% of the Arena (for those who thought Mike Ashley or Frasers retained any ownership stake in the Arena).

As at 26 Oct-25, the club had only paid £7.5m to Frasers. (Note that I can't be 100% on this figure exactly as this is the figure quoted in the cashflow as 'Proceeds in relation to disposal of subsidiaries'. There could be amounts from other Frasers' subsidiaries disposals in this figure (if indeed there were any), but the half year accounts are not overly detailed. So in theory the club may have paid less than £7.5m up until Oct-25.)

And finally, the Arena had a trading loss of £1.4m in the 4 month period from May-25 to Aug-25.

These are the figures reported by Frasers. The £50m price is also confirmed in the post balance sheet event note of the Sports Direct most recent set of audited accounts.

Make of this what you will.
 
Last edited:
C

CrawleySkyBlue

Well-Known Member
I expect the Cov financial statements to be filed on companies house in February (assuming the same timelines as previous years). The end of Feb also being the statutory deadline to file the accounts.

These accounts will be to 31 May 2025. I’d expect a comment in the directors’ report and in the post balance sheet note regarding the acquisition of the arena. Albeit I expect it will be limited in its context. Reminder that the arena was acquired in August-25, ie post year end for this set of accounts.
 
C

CrawleySkyBlue

Well-Known Member
CovRes said:
Would it be wide of the mark to assume that we're paying Frasers in installments, rather than taking out a commercial loan?

It may explain why, when asked about removing the Frasers advertising, King answered that they would remain for some time to come.
Click to expand...
We don’t have the details to confirm 100%, but that sounds entirely plausible. There’s a fixed charge between Coventry arena propco limited and frs estates Ltd - like a mortgage. Definitely paying in instalments (the Frasers cash flow confirms they’ve only actually received £7.5m (max) to Oct-25). How the rest of the £42.5m is to be paid and over what term, we do not know.

And yes, the advertising would definitely have formed part of the agreement/negotiations.
 
B

Bigelvesy

Well-Known Member
£50 million is interesting, thats how much Frasers paid, not necessarily how much we paid.
But i also remember some comment from Doug that after they (frasers) bought it they invested more too to tidy it up a bit and that had to be factored into the price we paid.

So IMO either doug is a master negotiator and/or frasers werent willing to put even more money in and so sold it for less than the bought and spent on it

or

we owe frasers more than they paid themselves
 
viridisman

viridisman

Well-Known Member
Bigelvesy said:
£50 million is interesting, thats how much Frasers paid, not necessarily how much we paid.
But i also remember some comment from Doug that after they (frasers) bought it they invested more too to tidy it up a bit and that had to be factored into the price we paid.

So IMO either doug is a master negotiator and/or frasers werent willing to put even more money in and so sold it for less than the bought and spent on it

or

we owe frasers more than they paid themselves
Click to expand...
Frasers paid nowhere near 50m for it.
I believe they purchased it for £17m
 
C

CrawleySkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Bigelvesy said:
£50 million is interesting, thats how much Frasers paid, not necessarily how much we paid.
But i also remember some comment from Doug that after they (frasers) bought it they invested more too to tidy it up a bit and that had to be factored into the price we paid.

So IMO either doug is a master negotiator and/or frasers werent willing to put even more money in and so sold it for less than the bought and spent on it

or

we owe frasers more than they paid themselves
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Covcityco Ltd acquired the companies named above for consideration of £50m.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Evo1883 said:
I guess alot cheaper than it would cost to build a new one from scratch though , with casino and hotel and large parking space
Click to expand...

More than double what Wasps paid for it though, which really drives home Sisus stupidity.
 
C

Cally Fedora

Well-Known Member
Here is the inconvenient truth here. Despite the feel good factor of owning the stadium it is a mistake. It’s a loss making money pit. Renting was the sweet spot. Decent revenues with little cost. The CBS could easily turn out to be a massive mill stone around our neck.
 
COVKIDSNEVERQUIT

COVKIDSNEVERQUIT

Well-Known Member
Cally Fedora said:
Here is the inconvenient truth here. Despite the feel good factor of owning the stadium it is a mistake. It’s a loss making money pit. Renting was the sweet spot. Decent revenues with little cost. The CBS could easily turn out to be a massive mill stone around our neck.
Click to expand...

Just remind us of what attendance we were getting under Sisu and Fraser. 🤔
 
COVKIDSNEVERQUIT

COVKIDSNEVERQUIT

Well-Known Member
Cally Fedora said:
Here is the inconvenient truth here. Despite the feel good factor of owning the stadium it is a mistake. It’s a loss making money pit. Renting was the sweet spot. Decent revenues with little cost. The CBS could easily turn out to be a massive mill stone around our neck.
Click to expand...

Just to add, now that we Own the arena we get all the Revenue, food and drink the hotel the casino and the car parking and any concerts in the stadium or in the indoor arena, should be a big improvement in the account next year.
 
C

CrawleySkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Cally Fedora said:
Here is the inconvenient truth here. Despite the feel good factor of owning the stadium it is a mistake. It’s a loss making money pit. Renting was the sweet spot. Decent revenues with little cost. The CBS could easily turn out to be a massive mill stone around our neck.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true. Could be true, but I’d imagine based on the forecasts DK/the club are looking at, DK thinks the stadium is worth owning rather than renting. DK will have factored risk into this, ie if forecasts are off by x%, how does this impact the overall analysis (net present value of the arena/club). If this wasn’t DK’s view, he ultimately wouldn’t have done a deal to buy the ground.

Also massively depends on the rental agreement and what the club were managing to earn as revenue vs what was stadium revenue retained by Frasers. Also it is worth remembering and thinking about what could happen if we couldn’t agree a suitable rental deal. Removing risks in the business model is a good idea if cost effective.

Also lots of other tangible and intangible benefits of owning the stadium. In terms of branding and commercials (eg advertising, sponsorship), I’d think owning the ground has only improved the perception of our brand (also due to us winning football matches). Feel good factor equals more ticket sales, more merch sales, which equals easier conversations with sponsors, advertisers, kit manufacturers. Other benefits include how the club has seemingly been able to better use the arena on match days (fan village), moving of away fans/more home fan seating, better control of bookings of the arena and conference centre etc. Of course, winning football matches creates this positive loop too though.

So whilst the arena has historically always been loss making, this does not mean it always will be. The arena has never had an average attendance of 30k for a full season, so there’s a good start at turning things around.

Ultimately we’re not close enough to the numbers and the internal management information and assumptions to know the answer. So not saying you are necessarily wrong, but there are lots of things to think about for which we only have a snippet of information.

From what I have seen based on the club’s finances and footballing performances, which have both improved since DK has taken over, I’m happy to give DK the benefit of the doubt in that he’s trying to do the right thing for the club and that the deal to buy the arena was the best option for the club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 14 (members: 5, guests: 9)
    Top