19/20 Accounts (8 Viewers)

[CCFCSteve]

Lets see if we can simplify things regarding the loss. (refer to my previous post on this thread 131 for thoughts on calculations)

The loss was £3,385,242 in 2020 (2019 was a profit £69,916) For both years that is the figures after including any interest charged on loans whether repaid physically or not

Estimated break down of loss

1)Move to Birmingham (see post 131) - all estimates
- Calculated lost turnover £875k
- Calculated increase in direct costs £161k
- Calculated increase in lease costs £600k

Sub total or estimated minimum cost of Birmingham move £1,636,000

2) other items affecting the loss (see published financials)
- increase in wage costs £1,213,509
- increase in amortisation of player contracts £441,266
- increase in interest cost paid to owner related entities £198,123
- decrease in profit on player sales £562,219
- savings made on other overheads (£332,875) (balancing figure as no detailed breakdown provided this year)

3) Government employment grant received( £333,000)

Total of 1, 2 & 3 = £3,385,242

In 2019 SISU related companies extracted from Otium/CCFC capital of £253,448 and interest of £1,477,906 total =£1,731,354
In 2020 SISU Master Fund made an interest bearing loan of £1,635,397. effectively putting back the amounts drawn in 2019

At the end of the 2020 financial year there was £1,149,176 in the bank (2019 £56,603). Two thoughts on this. firstly that must mean only £542k had been used of the loan funds to fund the business in 2019/20. Secondly given the pandemic and the bonuses due (£711k )it was perhaps prudent to keep a cash fund available to Otium.

The logic of that in my opinion is that SISU remain a funder of last resort. Any player purchases and operating costs are still intended to be funded from normal CCFC trading and player sales. The club is supposed to be self sustaining - clearly it is not. The owners support has not been to provide additional funds for player funding but has been as the auditors report says by not calling in the existing loans and sourcing additional working capital if it has to.

Any successful player dealing is down to MR and his management team (so are any duds that are signed)

The balance sheet is now a negative £23.1m that is £3.4m worse than 2019

Expect 2021 financials to be at least as bad.

Not pretty but as you indicate OSB the losses and debt are racking up due to significant (exorbitant) annual interest charges. You remove those and the cost of being at St Andrew’s (in terms of additional costs and lost income) and the picture looks a fair bit better. I’m still hoping that with championship tv cash, and being back at the Ricoh/CBS arena we will be in a stronger position in future...albeit this might not be reflected until the 2022 accounts are filed

...or maybe I’m a little too glass half full !

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

I absolutely agree with that about reducing income but I’m not sure it was a choice this time but more as a consequence of many peoples intransigence. I think it’s a fair ask shmmee has put that any shortfall would be covered by the owner and whether a loan at a high interest rate is the only way this can be done.

The owners put in £1.635m during the financial period and there was still £1.141m in the bank at the year end so did the owners cover the cost of St Andrews or squeeze the budget? Looks like the latter to me

Owners do not have to charge interest at all, or they can charge a lower interest, or they could simply put the money in as shares or an outright gift. Its their choice to charge a high interest (even given that this perhaps reflects the risky nature of the loan)

 

[oldskyblue58]

Given the pandemic and the struggle of the club you might think there was a possibility of the owners forgoing the interest for a year to help the club cope .............. not holding my breath on that one though

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Given the pandemic and the struggle of the club you might think there was a possibility of the owners forgoing the interest for a year to help the club cope .............. not holding my breath on that one though

It’s a point to push though isn’t it?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Not pretty but as you indicate OSB the losses and debt are racking up due to significant (exorbitant) annual interest charges. You remove those and the cost of being at St Andrew’s (in terms of additional costs and lost income) and the picture looks a fair bit better. I’m still hoping that with championship tv cash, and being back at the Ricoh/CBS arena we will be in a stronger position in future...albeit this might not be reflected until the 2022 accounts are filed

...or maybe I’m a little too glass half full !

Hopefully when full crowd numbers are allowed we begin to see that. But that i think will need the team playing well and staying in the Championship. My own opinion is it is going to take more than a couple of seasons to recover from the period 2019 to 2021

 

[Frostie]

Yeah no chance of 20k in Birmingham, even under Mowbray when we were competing it was 15k

Likewise everyone keeps peddling that we'd have had 20k+ average at the Ricoh & it's just farcical.

 

[shmmeee]

Likewise everyone keeps peddling that we'd have had 20k+ average at the Ricoh & it's just farcical.

You don’t think we’d have sold 20k for our first title winning run in in a lifetime?

 

[Frostie]

It’s a point to push though isn’t it?

One for your next meeting perhaps?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

One for your next meeting perhaps?

We don’t meet with the owner or the perceived owner, we meet with the club. I think it is a point that should be considered in how that conversation happens. Like osb says for the pandemic year could the rate be nil?

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

You don’t think we’d have sold 20k for our first title winning run in in a lifetime?

We’d have got to 30k quicker at the Ricoh. But we’d have been around 15k by Sunderland 9k a game better off like.

but those last 5 games regardless of ground would have increased sharply

 

[Frostie]

You don’t think we’d have sold 20k for our first title winning run in in a lifetime?

No. On the odd one off game maybe but to average it over the season like some claim is ridiculous.

I think people forget that when we have averaged high(ish) attendances it's always been in the Premier League & Championship where the numbers are swelled by the away attendance too.
If you exclude ourselves, the average away attendance in League One is a pitiful 800 & that includes for Sunderland taking over 2,500 per game too.

 

[Grendel]

We don’t meet with the owner or the perceived owner, we meet with the club. I think it is a point that should be considered in how that conversation happens. Like osb says for the pandemic year could the rate be nil?

If they wanted it to be it would be - it isn’t

 

[shmmeee]

No. On the odd one off game maybe but to average it over the season like some claim is ridiculous.

I think people forget that when we have averaged high(ish) attendances it's always been in the Premier League & Championship where the numbers are swelled by the away attendance too.
If you exclude ourselves, the average away attendance in League One is a pitiful 800 & that includes for Sunderland taking over 2,500 per game too.

Sorry not talking about over a season, but those last five games. I think we’d have seen over 20k average for those.

 

[Frostie]

Sorry not talking about over a season, but those last five games. I think we’d have seen over 20k average for those.

Ah, fair enough & plausible.

It's more the comments of "We'd have averaged 3 x more over the course of a season" types I'm talking about. Just not possible, we have a completely apathetic fanbase & given our history most would have expected us to screw it up anyway!
Maybe a couple of the more glamorous of those final games could have been 20k+ but they never happened anyway.

 

[shmmeee]

Ah, fair enough & plausible.

It's more the comments of "We'd have averaged 3 x more over the course of a season" types I'm talking about. Just not possible, we have a completely apathetic fanbase & given our history most would have expected us to screw it up anyway!
Maybe a couple of the more glamorous of those final games could have been 20k+ but they never happened anyway.

No evidence but I worry the run in is important for attracting and locking in new fans for the following years. I worry that we, in typical City fashion, managed to get promoted the one season that didn’t happen.

That said, if we hit 10k STs then it looks good for 18-20k average next year which would be ahead of my predictions based on a normal season so maybe I’m worried for nothing.

 

[slowpoke]

Touché to an extent - however once again history shows their presence really was created by the actions of the clubs hierarchy and an engineered move which if successful would have looked smart but it wasn’t - it failed with dire consequences

in the end it’s not just the accounts is it? Seppalla creates enemies through her actions. Yes you could argue she has to create returns but again her image and that of her company is hard nosed aggression in the face of adversaries

She therefore will take strategic risks and has used the club as collateral in the process and no doubt will continue to

You can only measure someone’s success over achievements in the actual performance of the organisation. She’s entering a 15th year at the helm.

We have made zero progress on stadium 1 or stadium 2. We are increasing debts year on year. The success on the pitch though welcome has actually only bought us back to where we were (actually I think we were 7th when she took over). I suppose the termination of the original lease was a success of sorts but the price of that was a heavy one in reality. She’s seen 2 administrations, appointed incompetent and ridiculous board members and been part of 2 relegations which both occurred with notable slashing of budgets and dire managerial appointments.

She I’m sure will claim some form of 5th amendment on the Ranson years but that was her choice.

It’s perfectly legitimate to look at her with distrust. Her tenure has not been good for the club in my opinion. I accept the Northampton move was clever and strategically thought out but it failed.

I’m sure she will claim this move was not engineered but really? I’m afraid the alienation of all around her makes it difficult to believe that the European appeal wasn’t done for spiteful reasons and also was certainly done with no regard for the club.

The club would have been in an impossible position had it not been allowed back to Coventry - it would be in the last year of a 3 year deal which was probably the best option and as we have seen is financially not stacking up.

It’s obvious she’s not going anywhere - the club isn’t worth anything and no one will buy it for a price she would want.

Is that a good thing? In my opinion no - we are back where we started and in an ideal world she’d be moved on

Well said sir.

 

[speedie87]

Given the pandemic and the struggle of the club you might think there was a possibility of the owners forgoing the interest for a year to help the club cope .............. not holding my breath on that one though

Just accruing for it isn’t really doing any harm though.

 

[skybluetony176]

So basically things are as bad as they’ve ever been but now Grendull cares as he likes to use Robins ability to work with the owners (or get the owners to work with him if you prefer) as a bat to beat Robins with so in stark contrast to to the last ten years he has to make them out to be the worst owners in the world.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Hopefully when full crowd numbers are allowed we begin to see that. But that i think will need the team playing well and staying in the Championship. My own opinion is it is going to take more than a couple of seasons to recover from the period 2019 to 2021

OSB what do you expect our administrative costs to be at a guess for this upcoming season and against that, how much do you expect the club's turnover to absorb such overheads given the increase in commercial revenue earned from the move back to the Ricoh/CBS?

I presume we'll still operate at a loss (unless we receive a significant surplus from a player sale), it'd just be interesting to see as a benchmark how much commercial revenue will need to be accrued each season (supplemented by broadcasting revenue/solidarity payments) to at the very least ensure we aren't making substantial losses whilst in the Championship and how realistic it would be to sustain that.

 

[djr8369]

Nobody really thinks they expect the interest to be paid off in full, do they? The club isn’t going to make enough to pay it all and an incoming buyer would surely expect some or all of it to be written off. It seems to me what debt is paid will be to third party investors.

For SISU it seems like it must be convenient to them (else why not sell the club or liquidate or whatever?) so would it be useful as a tax write off or something? I find it hard to believe they think the club will ever bring in enough money to get their investment back unless we fluke it to the prem.

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

The blokes a lunatic. He just spouts any old shite that suits his agenda.

 

[oldfiver]

Without player sales we’d have lost far more than many clubs I’d guess - COVID had little impact remember

OXFORD UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

OXFORD UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

You would not be a happy supporter here

 

[oldfiver]

This isn’t championship accounts

STOKE CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

STOKE CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

these are

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

STOKE CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

STOKE CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

these are

I would welcome the view of the accountants that are members of this site on Stoke.
In terms of the accounts for Stoke City, which show income of circa £50m, but operating costs of £141m and profit of player sales of £3.1m .....leading to a loss of £88m.
Surely, SCFC don’t have physical assets of £88m.....are they trading illegally? Secondly, would they be claiming their squad as an asset?
It will be interesting to see how they attempt to keep trading.

 

[Frostie]

I would welcome the view of the accountants that are members of this site on Stoke.
In terms of the accounts for Stoke City, which show income of circa £50m, but operating costs of £141m and profit of player sales of £3.1m .....leading to a loss of £88m.
Surely, SCFC don’t have physical assets of £88m.....are they trading illegally? Secondly, would they be claiming their squad as an asset?
It will be interesting to see how they attempt to keep trading.

They'll get a questionable valuation on the stadium & then sell it to themselves probably.
Normal, accepted practice somehow.

 

[fernandopartridge]

They'll get a questionable valuation on the stadium & then sell it to themselves probably.
Normal, accepted practice somehow.

It's already been reported in the press that that is what the plan is. Of course there is precedent now.

 

[chiefdave]

Nobody can really deny that being at the Ricoh, unless its a stupid deal, is better financially than being at St Andrews. But that hides the bigger issue really which is the basket case that football clubs are. How many clubs would survive if they were treated the same way as other businesses?

The difference between St Andrews and the Ricoh is, in the grand scheme of Championship finance, a drop in the ocean. So what people really want is someone to come in, spend tens of millions more than the club generates and if promotion to the Prem doesn't follow walk away and write that money off while the next big spender comes in. Its just not sustainable.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Stoke's operating expenses went up £37m year on year although it's down to an impairment of the value of the playing squad due to covid 19. I don't think CCFC has done the same with its squad, has it?

 

[Frostie]

Stoke's operating expenses went up £37m year on year although it's down to an impairment of the value of the playing squad due to covid 19. I don't think CCFC has done the same with its squad, has it?

Yeah, apparently approx £75m is amortisation & impairment & this doesn't count toward FFP.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

No. On the odd one off game maybe but to average it over the season like some claim is ridiculous.

I think people forget that when we have averaged high(ish) attendances it's always been in the Premier League & Championship where the numbers are swelled by the away attendance too.
If you exclude ourselves, the average away attendance in League One is a pitiful 800 & that includes for Sunderland taking over 2,500 per game too.

2,499 once Astute is excluded from the calculations

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Nobody can really deny that being at the Ricoh, unless its a stupid deal, is better financially than being at St Andrews. But that hides the bigger issue really which is the basket case that football clubs are. How many clubs would survive if they were treated the same way as other businesses?

The difference between St Andrews and the Ricoh is, in the grand scheme of Championship finance, a drop in the ocean. So what people really want is someone to come in, spend tens of millions more than the club generates and if promotion to the Prem doesn't follow walk away and write that money off while the next big spender comes in. Its just not sustainable.

The problem is a few clubs do have that privilege and then encourage stupidity from the rest.

 

[oldfiver]

Stoke's operating expenses went up £37m year on year although it's down to an impairment of the value of the playing squad due to covid 19. I don't think CCFC has done the same with its squad, has it?

Read the full accounts it says they do

Derby appear not to have followed this and generally accepted practice

 

[wingy]

The owners put in £1.635m during the financial period and there was still £1.141m in the bank at the year end so did the owners cover the cost of St Andrews or squeeze the budget? Looks like the latter to me

Owners do not have to charge interest at all, or they can charge a lower interest, or they could simply put the money in as shares or an outright gift. Its their choice to charge a high interest (even given that this perhaps reflects the risky nature of the loan)

You say there was surplus Cash,yes?

Two questions.
Was part of that to cover sheaf or a condition to display we weren't being crafty?
2) if we were cash positive why the delay on submitting and the ineffectual /pointless embargo ,or have I just been dumb?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

You say there was surplus Cash,yes?

Two questions.
Was part of that to cover sheaf or a condition to display we weren't being crafty?
2) if we were cash positive why the delay on submitting and the ineffectual /pointless embargo ,or have I just been dumb?

Accounts were cause everyone was in a pandemic

 

[wingy]

Accounts were cause everyone was in a pandemic

Ignore me Pete.
What a cretin I am , it doesn't even relate to to this year's activity.