Best guess on finances (2 Viewers)

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Just a few thoughts on the finance (only best guesses)

costs
player wages est 40k pw = 2,080,000pa
other staff/directors etc estimate = 500,000
ground rental apparently 7500 per game = 172,500
Interest on borrowings (now increased) previously was approx 1,000,000
other operational costs (stewards, police shop, insurance , league fees, audit etc) say 1,000,000
Academy costs = 500,000 (net spend - gross spend is supposed to be £1m but get grant to offset)
Ryton training ground costs est = 100,000
depreciation charges = 200,000


total estimate = 5,452,500

Income
match income at current levels 2000 x £9 x 23 = 414,000
catering & hospitality estimate 8000 per game = 184,000
TV money say 3 matches at 100k each = 300,000
Advertising and sponsorship = 100,000 (no shirt sponsor yet)
League money say 200,000 (prize money etc)
shop and sundry sales say 300,000

Total income = 1,498,000 (

FFP 60% = 898,800 - but players under 20 at start of season not included in calculation)

Loss 3,954,500

thats before any costs of the dispute with ACL - legals, insolvency advice etc.

If any where close I dont see how it all makes sense to TF............

That looks realistic OSB.
So the other side of the coin is how much profit do they expect to make from acquiring the Ricoh? I thought ACL were making 1m profit per yr, so how long to break even... Many years...
That suggests Sisu would buy ithe Ricoh dirt cheap then sell it on for a very hefty profit (20m+?) .with or without the club.... Paying way under market rate is the only way of getting their money back..
Any views?

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Just some thoughts....... In my mind the club moving back and SISU acquiring the Ricoh are two seperate things

if the club moved back to the Ricoh then crowds bigger, more ticket sales, depending on the rent deal more match day incomes, more sponsorship, probably more TV income, more success more prize money, more shop sales ......... positive thinking I know but that would be the reasons to come back and if costs kept as low then is break even that far away even without ownership?

The Club doesnt need to own the stadium to get the match day income..... it never has had to. They are currently proving that the matchday incomes are not necessarily key to the team performing well and winning (perhaps not the case if to be promoted)

So who needs the ownership? Does CCFC need to run an exhibition and conference centre? Does CCFC need to develop the 14 acres still available?

Would be ideal if the club could benefit from the other income streams by owning it all, but that would still leave SISU/ARVO and its investors owed many millions. So they have to sell either the Ricoh site seperately or with the club. I would think there were more investors interested in the site than the site plus a loss making football club...... especially if ACL prove they can be successful without CCFC. Personally I would keep the site seperate from CCFC if i were SISU and got my hands on the Ricoh - that gives them more options and the possibility of a better return.

Also there is now greater pressure on the Council by SISU to sell the freehold I believe. If the council did sell to SISU then that could leave ACL still in place with a 40 year lease and as they paid a 21m premium at the start no rental income for the owner of the freehold. They would have to buy ACL out too, settle out the Compass contract with IEC (they have repeatedly said they would bring in a new operator), buy out the Compass shares in IEC. If they buy ACL they would be left owing 14m loan to the council. Not a simple or cheap deal to be done. That assumes the council want to sell the freehold in the first place and i do not think there is much apetite for that by CCC

But still comes back to the needs of CCFC (forget what SISU want)...... the club needs income not brick and mortar..... the argument about stadium ownership as a necessity for CCFC is a misnomer....... the club needs to own the matchday income streams whatever they are, and to do so they do not need to own the stadium.

So who is it that needs the stadium.............

 

[fernandopartridge]

Just a few thoughts on the finance (only best guesses)

costs
player wages est 40k pw = 2,080,000pa
other staff/directors etc estimate = 500,000
ground rental apparently 7500 per game = 172,500
Interest on borrowings (now increased) previously was approx 1,000,000
other operational costs (stewards, police shop, insurance , league fees, audit etc) say 1,000,000
Academy costs = 500,000 (net spend - gross spend is supposed to be £1m but get grant to offset)
Ryton training ground costs est = 100,000
depreciation charges = 200,000


total estimate = 5,452,500

Income
match income at current levels 2000 x £9 x 23 = 414,000
catering & hospitality estimate 8000 per game = 184,000
TV money say 3 matches at 100k each = 300,000
Advertising and sponsorship = 100,000 (no shirt sponsor yet)
League money say 200,000 (prize money etc)
shop and sundry sales say 300,000

Total income = 1,498,000

(FFP 60% = 898,800 - but players under 20 at start of season not included in calculation)

Loss 3,954,500

thats before any costs of the dispute with ACL - legals, insolvency advice etc.

If any where close I dont see how it all makes sense to TF............

£46k better than the previously reported £4m p/a losses at the Ricoh (it's a joke before anybody starts wailing)

 

[italiahorse]

£46k better than the previously reported £4m p/a losses at the Ricoh (it's a joke before anybody starts wailing)

Not one of your best. Still prefer the dozens from last week, everyone a classic. Keep it up. :claping hands:

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Was all that down to ACL keeping the pie money and charging high rent?

£46k better than the previously reported £4m p/a losses at the Ricoh (it's a joke before anybody starts wailing)

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Last year's figures - due to unsubmitted accounts - are anyone's guess; but I'd have thought turnover in the region of £6.5m would be sensible.

And now, this year. On current gates; could we be below the £2m level?

If the figures are somewhere near accurate too; it would suggest that the move from The Ricoh to Sixfields cost us some £4.5m+ in turnover; much of which will be ticket sales and therefore primarily profit.

Listening to this interview of Fisher's at the time of the Thorn sacking; primarily between 4:30 and 5:30 - he's looking through 'the square window of positivity' with regards getting better access from ACL to match-day incomes; and this being a strong signal of the club's management getting a 'good grip' on the running of the business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVeeVARs-A8

If my estimate above is anywhere near correct, and by moving to Sixfields, we've lost some £4.5m in turnover, much of it high-yield ticket sales and therefore we've lost a large percentage of the match-day revenues Fisher stated at the time weren't even good enough; surely - according to Fisher's own criteria - that's a signal the club's management are losing their grip? And which window are we staring through now?

And can anyone see two eagles through it?

 

[Jack Griffin]

The reply I had from the Football League on 25/07/13 said this

The Relevant Turnover figure used in the SCMP calculation includes cash invested into the club in the form of equity or donation but does not include money injected into the club through loans.

However for Otium to invest significant funds via equity then there must be the authorised share capital to begin with and I dont think that is more than 1000 which has all been issued and no increase filed at company house. So have SISU improved the FFP by investing more via equity - not on the face of it

I don't believe for a minute SISU wish to pump any more money into the club.. they are intending to run at break even on a low low budget. If they can achieve that at Northampton then they'll just sit there in the expectation someone else will break.. having acedemy players that don't count in the SCMP calc. is part of that equation.. but OSB's rough calc shows just how far they may be from breakeven..

Players not included are youth players on a professional contract (i.e. players that have been in the club’s YD scheme and have been given a pro contract. They must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation.

Billy Daniels Date of Birth: 03.07.94 Yes
Aaron Phillips Date of Birth: 20.11.93 Yes
Jordan Willis Date of Birth: 24.08.94 Yes
Louis Garner Date of Birth: 31.10.94 Yes
Ryan Haynes Date of Birth: 27.09.95 Yes
Leon Lobjoit Date of Birth: 04.01.95 Yes
Ben Maund Date of Birth: 07.05.95 Yes
Lewis Rankin Date of Birth: Unknown surely Yes

 

[shmmeee]

No, I take that back!

I was relying on the explanation from this site: http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/
But I see the site has been updated on July, 10th and now clearly says that any club in league 1 is restricted to 60% of turnover.
I don't know if this is because the rules have been updated or it's just the explanation that's been made clearer.

Um. Small question, I'm sure I'm missing something.

That site lists non-football related income as not countable in FFP doesn't it?

The loop-holes outlined in this presentation/article are all ones the auditing accountants are aware of and are lined up to spot. Where a non-standard practice is used, the accountants will submit an impact assessments to UEFA's Control Body.


-Pure Related Party transaction e.g. PSG sponsor
-Mixed Related Party transaction e.g. Etihad deal
-Declared Related Party transaction e.g. City sale of ‘intellectual property and know how’
-Non football-related income e.g. Real’s Dubai complex, Trabzonspor’s Hydro-Electric power plant
-Changing accounting duration e.g. Liverpool
-Transactions & costs outside club accounts
-Player write-down in season prior to FFP e.g. Man City
-Cancelled provision e.g. Ancelotti at Chelsea
-Exclusions e.g. Youth/Community spend
-Account auditing issues
-State Subsidies
-Membership fees
-Tax differences

So surely all Sisu need is the football income from the stadium as anything else wouldn't be counted. That can't be right can it?

 

[Godiva]

Um. Small question, I'm sure I'm missing something.

That site lists non-football related income as not countable in FFP doesn't it?

So surely all Sisu need is the football income from the stadium as anything else wouldn't be counted. That can't be right can it?

I was wrong in taking back that equity increase count as revenue in the FFP calculation.

OSB asked FL:

The reply I had from the Football League on 25/07/13 said this

The Relevant Turnover figure used in the SCMP calculation includes cash invested into the club in the form of equity or donation but does not include money injected into the club through loans.

However for Otium to invest significant funds via equity then there must be the authorised share capital to begin with and I dont think that is more than 1000 which has all been issued and no increase filed at company house. So have SISU improved the FFP by investing more via equity - not on the face of it

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't believe for a minute SISU wish to pump any more money into the club.. they are intending to run at break even on a low low budget. If they can achieve that at Northampton then they'll just sit there in the expectation someone else will break.. having acedemy players that don't count in the SCMP calc. is part of that equation.. but OSB's rough calc shows just how far they may be from breakeven..

[/I]

when you put it like that its almost like the 10 point deduction's of last season and this season assist shitsu to run the club on an even keel. just speculating of course.