letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
And Brum did it for the love of Coventry.
The love in on here for Brum was quite sickening.
19/20 Accounts (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Frostie
- Start date
The love in on here for Brum was quite sickening.
Irish Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Historically, when having promotion winning seasons in the third and fourth divisions, we have averaged well over 20k. The first season back in the third division under Robins we averaged over 12k. We never even made the top 6 that season. It's hard to believe that in a season where we were rarely, if ever,out of the top 6, where we lost only once at home and three times in total, where we were playing some scintillating football, that crowds would not have have rapidly increased from the, say, 12k they could have expected first game of the season at home to Southend. They may not have averaged 20k by the season's end but they would have been significantly higher than the 12k of the previous season.
slowpoke
Well-Known Member
And you are forgetting it was Sepalla’s decision to go to the EU courts that led to the decision by Wasps to not do a deal and she knew that would happen and what has that achieved, I think sisu’s boastful mantra “we batter people in court” bit her on the arse.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The love of £65 grand a game
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The average crowd 2019/20 season at st Andrews was 6677.
There would have been a definite increase in crowds for the last 5 home games I would agree.
To increase the season average to 12000 would mean over 31000 for each of the 5 missing games. Possible but very very unlikely. Yes the final game could have been pushing 20000 but it would not have made a substantial difference to the finances after you deduct direct and other costs.
Would the average have been higher had we stayed at the Ricoh certainly in my opinion. Would the seasons average have been over 12000 more likely. The last game would probably be well over 20k
But none of this happened because of actions by the stake holders involved and that includes decisions and choices made by SISU. The effect of that has been to worsen the clubs financial position before the pandemic hit
There would have been a definite increase in crowds for the last 5 home games I would agree.
To increase the season average to 12000 would mean over 31000 for each of the 5 missing games. Possible but very very unlikely. Yes the final game could have been pushing 20000 but it would not have made a substantial difference to the finances after you deduct direct and other costs.
Would the average have been higher had we stayed at the Ricoh certainly in my opinion. Would the seasons average have been over 12000 more likely. The last game would probably be well over 20k
But none of this happened because of actions by the stake holders involved and that includes decisions and choices made by SISU. The effect of that has been to worsen the clubs financial position before the pandemic hit
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Which in turn was about 45% of our gate reciepts.
Did us a favour my arse.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well it was presumably that or be kicked out of the league
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Or, you know, play at the Ricoh
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Which is a bit tricky to do when the people who own it say 'no'
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Bit tricky when the owners of the club also said no
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Ignore me Pete.
What a cretin I am , it doesn't even relate to to this year's activity.
If he's put you on ignore, he won't be able to read this Wingy
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Without knowing all the ins and outs of the discussions can we even accurately apportion blame?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well you did in your first statement
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well it's pretty clear we made efforts at negotiations which would be curious if the owner had no intention of staying there
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well given previous last minute withdrawals having agreed deals I’d say that’s very likely
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If the club were asked to be liable for tens of millions of pounds would you not see that as just cause to call it off?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
which again means you are taking word of mouth insinuation with no concrete evidence
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Which was hush hush and lambasted until Linnell denied it, then “according to his sources” wasn’t an issue 18 months down the line, suggesting it was originally one
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying they were. But from your perspective the owners are guilty until proven innocent which clouds your judgement
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
He’s right though - Seppalla knew what her actions would lead to, but it all resorts back to the council screwing us over by selling the Ricoh to the third party parasites in the first place
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Which may or may not be the case but there is a suggestion a deal was struck at the start of last season and “someone” withdrew which left “someone else” very disappointed at his / her boss
also there is the small matter that any conflict in that direction was caused by the European appeal
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
There is a difference between 'she did all the legals which made Wasps not want us to stay' (which is correct though was also her right to pursue) and 'she didn't want us to stay there'
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So she wanted us to stay the last time we moved?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Northampton as I said at the time was a very deliberate ploy to get the stadium on the cheap. In the case of Birmingham even Eastwood said initially that he understood the legal action and didn't majorly object to it. Then the financial pressure and general failure of the Wasps project a few years down the line changed their perspective. All we have heard thus far on the breakdown of talks last year was that there was some sticking point originating from the Wasps side, not ours.
If concrete evidence comes out to the contrary I will gladly change my view
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Birmingham was the same. Believe what you like but if she had the interests of the club why would she have taken the Eu action at all.
If you need concrete evidence before you question Seppalla and her judgment this conversation is pointless
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Pure guesswork for coming season 2021/22 but
Turnover
Match day income (if opened up ) say 4m
Central distributions £7m
Commercial income etc £3m
Total in region of £14m ?
Player sales - who knows ? Transfer market will not be easy and i don't see MR wanting to lose his star players, if there is a potential income of £14m does he have to? There are not many players in the squad of great value. Of course CCFC might benefit from events elsewhere.
Will admin costs rise accordingly certainly.
Wages - more expensive players, championship loading, staying in, championship bonuses etc (2020 = £6.5m ) you would have to expect close to £10m ?
Some saving on the lease costs (£250k)
Direct costs perhaps increase because paying full season of stewarding and contribution to pitch etc say £2m
other overheads say £2m
interest charges 2.3m (could be more if SISU had to source more finance last season)
Will we make a loss - i would think so and it will only be because SISU do not actually receive the interest that it will be manageable.
However the key thing is not the profit but the cashflow. There are players to replace, capital expenditure on things like Ryton & club shop, i assume we start repaying the EFL loan which is due over 3 years (£1m pa). All of which is on top of the normal operating cashflows
I cant help thinking that people expecting major signings are missing what they are being told by the club and the financial statements already filed. The playing budget is still going to be very tight and i do not see SISU being anything other than a bank of last resort for operating cashflow (as they have been for several years now).
If there is a cashflow surplus at end of 2021/22 season will SISU extract some of it by repaying interest and/or capital?
Thats my take on it - but all complete guesswork
Last edited:
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
I know the accounts were whilst we were a League 1 club, but as we are now championship our losses would be quite low compared to the rest of the division.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
This is what Fisher said in the 2020 financials on the lease situation
Clearly the two sides were talking before the pandemic hit. We can see for ourselves that the club was suffering financially at St Andrews even if it wasnt suffering on the pitch. The missing 5 games would not have got rid of the losses, and those losses were greater than the SISU interest charges. For a club trying to be self sufficient, with already tight budgets not a good place to be. So I think we can be sure there were substantial losses at CCFC pre pandemic.
Wasps have in place a deal with Delaware North (replaced Compass - August 2018) that they claim gives them a better return. This in turn allows them to offer a better share to CCFC without it hurting their own financial position. It isnt rocket science.
What does a better share of non ticketing match day income actually mean. At one point we apparently had 15% of turnover because the net profit was split 50:50. So what is the split now? Is it a split of turnover or net profit? Is it before or after costs? Looks to me like it doesn't have to be much bigger split to CCFC to be substantially different. BUT what will it actually result in for CCFC in hard cash?
To think that this deal was not equally important for both clubs would be quite wrong. Wasps needed the income flows and CCFC simply could not support the losses/extra costs at St Andrews
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Its entirely possible from that statement we are paying 3 fold what we were paying before we left and now get 16% of turnover
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Not really. She knew what would happen if she chased that particular wild goose and did it anyway.
The only person with a legal responsibility to CCFC above all other orgs was her. That’s where the buck stops.
“Oh no
Other people acted in their own interest and not mine, pls understand 
“
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Edit to the above post number 306
all that follow are estimates to be able give examples
Say that the non ticket matchday income is £1m net of VAT (that is £1.2m gross or £52k including VAT per league game or for 15k average gate a spend of approx. £3.50 per person)
Take out the direct costs say 35%
Take out contribution to overheads and operating costs 20%
That leaves 45% to split or £450k
For example say CCFC share of that were
At 15% (old share) that is 68K (7% of turnover)
At 50% split that is £225k (23% of turnover)
At 75% split that is £338k (34% of turnover)
Unless the Turnover is all the responsibility of CCFC then in each scenario the figure appearing in the CCFC accounts is £68K, £225K and £338K respectively.
Of course if the full turnover is CCFC's (and the figure in the accounts) then so too would the responsibility to pay the direct costs and overhead contributions (an additional expense in the accounts). The net effect would still be £68K £225K or £338k in the examples
The point is that they can claim a higher or better deal but the actual amounts are not going to make massive differences in the scheme of things. £338K for example would be enough to pay under 3 weeks of the League 1 wages bill in 2019/20. Not a negative but not a huge gain either
obviously depends on the actual percentages and the amount of non ticket match day income, but you get the idea
all that follow are estimates to be able give examples
Say that the non ticket matchday income is £1m net of VAT (that is £1.2m gross or £52k including VAT per league game or for 15k average gate a spend of approx. £3.50 per person)
Take out the direct costs say 35%
Take out contribution to overheads and operating costs 20%
That leaves 45% to split or £450k
For example say CCFC share of that were
At 15% (old share) that is 68K (7% of turnover)
At 50% split that is £225k (23% of turnover)
At 75% split that is £338k (34% of turnover)
Unless the Turnover is all the responsibility of CCFC then in each scenario the figure appearing in the CCFC accounts is £68K, £225K and £338K respectively.
Of course if the full turnover is CCFC's (and the figure in the accounts) then so too would the responsibility to pay the direct costs and overhead contributions (an additional expense in the accounts). The net effect would still be £68K £225K or £338k in the examples
The point is that they can claim a higher or better deal but the actual amounts are not going to make massive differences in the scheme of things. £338K for example would be enough to pay under 3 weeks of the League 1 wages bill in 2019/20. Not a negative but not a huge gain either
obviously depends on the actual percentages and the amount of non ticket match day income, but you get the idea
Last edited:
Grendel and similar will certainly get ( perhaps ) slightly more than 0%?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It really doesnt matter but it’s folly to claim the move has not caused significant financial damage to the football club and it was an action that could have been avoided - although I have not met Seppalla I have met some who’ve worked in the club for her and they present a very good blame game apportionment which always has them as an innocent victim
It really is a bit too much Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleo to me
mark82
Moderator
You're making a lot of assumptions without knowing any facts. Equally as bad.