ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Joy, TF and CA had a piss up.
And we will do when he works it out what it means and explains it to us. Otherwise some will go "look it proves they take money out", some will say " look I told you we were paying for court costs" with no actual proof that's what's happened.
What do you think it means?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
How do you know it's not a big deal ?If OSB, who has studied the accounts in great detail, doesn't know how is anyone else going to know?
You could flip your question round and ask why OSB raised it now (not suggesting anything to be clear just saying its not a big deal).
Did the anomaly prove Juggy right? I must have missed that bitDid anyone else notice,
This thread completely lost it's way at 1-47 this afternoon.
The same time OSB58 pointed out an anomaly in the accounts.
Funny that,
Two days of posts about the accounts, and then it's Juggy's a Lemo bootboy.
:angelic:
I have no idea , there's probably a perfectly rational explanation, just surprised that there was noAnd we will do when he works it out what it means and explains it to us. Otherwise some will go "look it proves they take money out", some will say " look I told you we were paying for court costs" with no actual proof that's what's happened.
What do you think it means?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I have no idea , there's probably a perfectly rational explanation, just surprised that there was no
comment on it ,before that post all the talk was accounts.
After that post it was Juggy's a bootboy.
Well you certainly missed my point.Did the anomaly prove Juggy right? I must have missed that bit
If OSB isn't worried, I'm not worried. He's been looking at the accounts for years, if millions were disappearing off someone it would have been spotted.How do you know it's not a big deal ?
I cant explain it no doubt there is a good reason.
No I am not saying anything is wrong only that I do not understand the entries
No, you didn't really have one.Well you certainly missed my point.
I did ,it just doesn't fit your train of thoughtNo, you didn't really have one.
Well I'm not worried either,If OSB isn't worried, I'm not worried. He's been looking at the accounts for years, if millions were disappearing off someone it would have been spotted.
I have no idea , there's probably a perfectly rational explanation, just surprised that there was no
comment on it ,before that post all the talk was accounts.
After that post it was Juggy's a bootboy.
Juggy's username on here was Leamingtonbootboy no ones having a pop at him by calling him "boot boy".I have no idea , there's probably a perfectly rational explanation, just surprised that there was no
comment on it ,before that post all the talk was accounts.
After that post it was Juggy's a bootboy.
If OSB 58 or anyone else for that matter had bought up an issue with the council,wasps or HiggsWhat is it you want comment on? Lets look at the points in the article.
He starts off complaining about season ticket prices. They have indeed gone up this year but they were massively discounted last year. If you take a longer term view it tells a different story: 16/17 £299 15/16 £249 14/15 £299 12/13 £299 11/12 £286 10/11 £286 09/10 £310 08/09 £292 07/08 £292 06/07 £292.
Factor in inflation and they are significantly cheaper now than 10 years ago.
Next he complains the prices have gone up but the player budget will remain the same. He suggests this is because money is going to SISU or to pay legal fees. However the accounts show SISU have had to put in £780K this season as the club didn't generate enough to cover the budget. They have had a repayment of £250K from the Maddison sale. The accounts also clearly state SISU, not the club, are funding legal action.
Then he states SISU have invested £60m but he doesn't believe that figure. Well SISU converted £60m of debt into shares so the figure is correct, well actually the figure is £60,898,116.
He then does some maths where he decides we've up £10m in transfers since dropping to L1 which has disappeared. Bigi, Clarke and Keogh were under £1m each, Maddision £2m and Wilson £3m. So that's less than £8m before you take off the transfer and loan fees for players coming in. Again, look at the accounts and this is not true.
Onto ticket revenues. He has worked out its £3.5-4m for the season just gone but as we have 'only' spent £2.5m on the player budget he is again suggesting money is missing. Total attendance is 298,234. That would mean £11.74 - £13.41 per head. That's way higher than we've had in the past in a season when ticket prices were considerably lower.
Since they converted the debt to shares we have lost £4.4m and £1.9m. There simply isn't 'spare' money that isn't accounted for. What he's saying simply doesn't tally with the evidence available.
It's pretty amazing that a paper would actually print that drivel even as an opinion piece. Next on the Coventry Telegraph, it's a column from Jedward about the economic case for Brexit.What is it you want comment on? Lets look at the points in the article.
He starts off complaining about season ticket prices. They have indeed gone up this year but they were massively discounted last year. If you take a longer term view it tells a different story: 16/17 £299 15/16 £249 14/15 £299 12/13 £299 11/12 £286 10/11 £286 09/10 £310 08/09 £292 07/08 £292 06/07 £292.
Factor in inflation and they are significantly cheaper now than 10 years ago.
Next he complains the prices have gone up but the player budget will remain the same. He suggests this is because money is going to SISU or to pay legal fees. However the accounts show SISU have had to put in £780K this season as the club didn't generate enough to cover the budget. They have had a repayment of £250K from the Maddison sale. The accounts also clearly state SISU, not the club, are funding legal action.
Then he states SISU have invested £60m but he doesn't believe that figure. Well SISU converted £60m of debt into shares so the figure is correct, well actually the figure is £60,898,116.
He then does some maths where he decides we've up £10m in transfers since dropping to L1 which has disappeared. Bigi, Clarke and Keogh were under £1m each, Maddision £2m and Wilson £3m. So that's less than £8m before you take off the transfer and loan fees for players coming in. Again, look at the accounts and this is not true.
Onto ticket revenues. He has worked out its £3.5-4m for the season just gone but as we have 'only' spent £2.5m on the player budget he is again suggesting money is missing. Total attendance is 298,234. That would mean £11.74 - £13.41 per head. That's way higher than we've had in the past in a season when ticket prices were considerably lower.
Since they converted the debt to shares we have lost £4.4m and £1.9m. There simply isn't 'spare' money that isn't accounted for. What he's saying simply doesn't tally with the evidence available.
I agree they shouldn't, very irresponsible a reporter would never have got away withIt's pretty amazing that a paper would actually print that drivel even as an opinion piece. Next on the Coventry Telegraph, it's a column from Jedward about the economic case for Brexit.
If OSB 58 or anyone else for that matter had bought up an issue with the council,wasps or Higgs
(Could be anything ) this thread would be 40pages by now .
It's not my opinion on SISUs accounts, it's my opinion that people read his post and for some reason
Passed it by. IMO
It's pretty amazing that a paper would actually print that drivel even as an opinion piece. Next on the Coventry Telegraph, it's a column from Jedward about the economic case for Brexit.
I'm lost, is it something we should be worried about / asking questions about or not?
Thanks OSB, like NW said could it be linked to staggered payments?
Also wouldn't the auditor pick up if there has been an accounting error? Surely thats their job? Wouldn't the club have to justify the discrepancies with the auditor before sign off?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
So maybe Simon Gilbert or Les Reid should try and get some answers, 3 million isYes it should be clarified/asked but I am pretty certain it wont be answered given that they never have before. Plus it mainly actually relates to Companies that no longer exist
Yes I am concerned there appears to be £3m unexplained in the clubs cash flow. I am not however making any accusation of wrong doing
It's pretty amazing that a paper would actually print that drivel even as an opinion piece. Next on the Coventry Telegraph, it's a column from Jedward about the economic case for Brexit.
Because it's an >>>opinion<<< piece?
There's no reason why you couldn't submit a piece offering your opinion on the situation.
Because it's an >>>opinion<<< piece?
There's no reason why you couldn't submit a piece offering your opinion on the situation.
Because it's an >>>opinion<<< piece?
There's no reason why you couldn't submit a piece offering your opinion on the situation.
That's a wee bit juvenile for a sensible poster like yourself, do you not think theyAs I've been ordered to comment else I love SISU and all its little babies, I'll ask a question that will be naive, and show I'm not an accountant
Player sales usually have clauses dependent on certain things happening. When CCFC sell, we never see our former players score a hattrick in the Lunar Cup final to pay out.
Could the initial figure be a figure taking into account, in some way, those clauses, and the money received being what was *actually* received?
That's a wee bit juvenile for a sensible poster like yourself, do you not think they
Should be accountable for there actions as custodians of our club.
It's an opinion piece that is littered with supposed 'facts'. It's an opinion based on imaginary facts,
If you're going to include "facts" in your opinion piece, then they should be factual.An opinion has to be factual? That's a new one on me.
Are you going to write an opinion piece and submit it to CT? It would allow you to constructively demonstrate the issues with this piece.
If you're going to include "facts" in your opinion piece, then they should be factual.
Juggys maths are way wide of the mark, and people who don't know much about the situation will read the "opinion" piece and take it as "fact".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?