Coventry City publish Accounts for Year Ended 31st May 2021 (2 Viewers)

[FulltimeWum]

Fulham paid over £20 million for Mitrovic.

 

---

[wingy]

We used to lose something like between £11M and £14M last time we were here.

 

[13th_choice_seamer]

If we should get promoted to the promise land this will look like a blip.

The club has lost money in something like 28 out of the last 30 seasons, so not sure what your definition of a "blip" is....

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

£4m losses after over a decade of cost cutting. Cleary Sisu aren’t up to the job on their own terms.

I don’t disagree but they are the only show in town

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Are they covering losses or funding through further loans? What’s the deferred interest payments standing at now?

the balance sheet is horrific

i don’t see what you are saying and again where will they fund a stadium build?

Investment from others I reckon but I have no idea

 

[samccov1987]

Reality is this season is probably as good as it’s going to get for the foreseeable. We still have a chance of playoffs but likelihood is we fall short.

Then the asset strip and rebuild begin; Hamer will be sold & Gyokeres too if a decent offer comes in. We’ll look to replace them for similar outlay to their original fees but as always transfers can be a lottery.

We’re paying down slowly Sisus original investment but it’s another five years at least until we’re in a position for them to sell us on. In that time we’re more likely to go down than up.

With the Ricoh legal saga resolved in the courts my hope is they score a modern training ground at the uni. A stadium build is surely beyond their want and means.

 

[13th_choice_seamer]

Does anyone know how much of the pre-administration debt was carried forward under the "new" owner's balance sheet post-admin? Assuming they wrote off £50m (conservative estimate), added to the £56m in debt to SISU-run funds means that they've as-good-as written off £100m on CCFC....so much for the owners not supporting the club.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

But Hilsner & DaCosta were supposed to be that

You can't polish a turd
(although you can roll it in glitter, apparently)

 

[Grendel]

Does anyone know how much of the pre-administration debt was carried forward under the "new" owner's balance sheet post-admin? Assuming they wrote off £50m (conservative estimate), added to the £56m in debt to SISU-run funds means that they've as-good-as written off £100m on CCFC....so much for the owners not supporting the club.

No that’s nonsense I think OSB has calculated the total investment is something like £32 million in 15 years

 

[cc84cov]

Yea are we in the shit or not?

The January window should of told
You that mate

 

[cc84cov]

So basically, Mark Robins has performed a gods miracle over the last 4 years with zero investment and putting up with another groundshare thrown in.

we could be winning this league with some investment and financial backing. Maybe now some fans will give robins some slack. He is literally fighting with one hand tied behind his back.

Yep how much longer does he put up with is my worry

 

[cc84cov]

Are we not building a new ground then

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Are we not building a new ground then

Ask grendel he knows all

 

[rexo87]

So basically Hamer or Gyok will be sold in the summer to cover the losses. Not exactly a shock

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[cc84cov]

So basically Hamer or Gyok will be sold in the summer to cover the losses. Not exactly a shock

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

I was just saying this to H on here today

 

[The Philosopher]

Are we not building a new ground then

I think, weirdly, that SISU more likely has to.

They are a hedge fund that controls the investments of other institutions / individuals. So long as the investments “yield a return” on paper then all is well, hence the “£2m” in interest. At the moment, SISU are showing an investment asset of (guessing) £50-£100m that is “increasing” by the interest that they apply. On paper, the investment pool is yielding a return.

The problem would come to a head should they be forced to sell for less than how they value the club or “investment asset” on their books. I guessed elsewhere that this would be £60m. Ie, if the club is sold for £30m cash, then the investment asset cannot be shown as £60m anymore, there would be a £30m black hole.

Another scenario would be if SISU’s investors called in their money (like a run on a bank if you will). That would be a huge problem to SISU. Somewhere in the SISU accounts structure CCFC is shown as an appreciable asset which yields £2m per year plus and their investment spread shows as positive. It’s a bit of a ponzi but difficult to explain - a risky strategy for SISU that could bite them.

Tangible assets that have fixed long term rental yields are safer and easier to demonstrate. That’s why SISU were so desperate to get the Ricoh as it was and why they need to build a new ground.

There will be taxpayer funding, I believe, to help build a new ground. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest a promise has been given by the council to help either by grants / soft loans / help getting sports investment / whatever and whatever money SISU put in will be a fraction of what the net worth of the asset will eventually be shown to be.

CCFC is a problematic investment for SISU atm. However, they have scenarios where it could go the right way.

-Promotion to prem (unlikely but it happens (Blackpool a few years back))

-A couple of players become worth £30m each (unlikely but what did Bristol sell that player for recently)

-Get given £60m towards a ground they can then value at £100m (exaggerated figures)

-combination of the above

Or

Sell out for whatever they show CCFC to be worth on their investment spread. I’m going £60m.

 

[SBAndy]

Not ideal by any means but could be worse. Quick fag-packet calculation suggests we should be relatively near break even this FY, notwithstanding significant cost increases.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Sorry but talk of 100m or even 50m invested in hard cash by our owners is complete and utter nonsense.

The club is otium entertainments group since the administration. In terms of hard cash put in then otium owes the owners in round terms 10m plus 11.5m of high rate interest.

ARVO put in around 6m that was converted to preference shares

The amount in sbsl accounts show 28m owed to investors in that company but only 18m of that was hard cash.

The rest of the fabled huge investment, the conversion to preference shares is sourced via clever use of the group situation to create paper losses and by not writing off the losses when sisu bought in. It was not hard cash put in by the owners.

Actual investment of hard cash is much lower at low 30m

50m to 100m is complete rubbish

 

[The Philosopher]

Sorry but talk of 100m or even 50m invested in hard cash by our owners is complete and utter nonsense.

The club is otium entertainments group since the administration. In terms of hard cash put in then otium owes the owners in round terms 10m plus 11.5m of high rate interest.

ARVO put in around 6m that was converted to preference shares

The amount in sbsl accounts show 28m owed to investors in that company but only 18m of that was hard cash.

The rest of the fabled huge investment, the conversion to preference shares is sourced via clever use of the group situation to create paper losses and by not writing off the losses when sisu bought in. It was not hard cash put in by the owners.

Actual investment of hard cash is much lower at low 30m

50m to 100m is complete rubbish

I’ve said the same previously.

Not mentioned £100m of hard cash.

Pay better attention.

They’ve (SISU) invested some cash, converted the GR debt and other debt to shares to keep the golden share. It was conditional I believe.

Now. The clear point is that they’ve has to show ROI so their debt position cannot be written down / sold for less than their investment is shown. This may be £47m or it may be higher it may be lower but I don’t think it’s in any way conceivable that they will write off / sell at their 11/18/28 mGBP

 

[Kingokings204]

zero investment? are we still paying league 2 wages to the players?

no we aren’t but we in the bottom 3 budgets for this league. Or close to. (Not sure exactly)

the point is our best players will be sold this summer to cover the losses and we will all be moaning when we are in a relegation scrap next season. Other owners are at least covering losses during the pandemic. We aren’t even having that.

 

[SheafIsGod]

This is why we need to get promoted this season. All saleable assets will be shipped out in the summer to the first bid if not and we’ll be back to square one.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

The number employed has also increased by 15 (only 1 on the admin side)

In among everything else, this has been missed. It suggests investment to grow the club is not forthoming, which means we'll have a lower income ceiling.

Now, arguably, the first year or two we go up you need to invest in the playing squad so you stay up and consolidate, but at some point the club has to be grown. Especially if your stated objective includes a new stadium, suggesting you want to grow the club as a whole...

 

[oldskyblue58]

"Pay better attention "

It was a poster before you that suggested they had invested circa £100m so get over yourself.

The only comment I will make on your assertions is that whilst they are possible scenario there is very little that I agree with for reasons I have explained in detail several times previously.

 

[13th_choice_seamer]

Other owners are at least covering losses during the pandemic. We aren’t even having that.

Might be wrong here but don't the accounts state that owner funding kept the club going during Covid when we couldn't gets fans into the ground?

 

[Grendel]

Might be wrong here but don't the accounts state that owner funding kept the club going during Covid when we couldn't gets fans into the ground?

Owner borrowing not direct funding has been used and high rates of interest - also the EFL loan

 

[13th_choice_seamer]

Owner borrowing not direct funding has been used and high rates of interest - also the EFL loan

It's just that the report itself says that

"The group (CCFC) is reliant on shareholders and the group's forecasts indicate that additional funding will be required during the next 12 months. The group has received written confirmation from its shareholders of their intention to provide additional financial support when requested." Page 10 under "Material uncertainty..."

Is this a bit of clever wording?

 

[skybluegod]

Reading just posted losses of 35 million.

 

[Grendel]

It's just that the report itself says that

"The group (CCFC) is reliant on shareholders and the group's forecasts indicate that additional funding will be required during the next 12 months. The group has received written confirmation from its shareholders of their intention to provide additional financial support when requested." Page 10 under "Material uncertainty..."

Is this a bit of clever wording?

They are securing additional loans hasn’t this already been done?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Me too. You’re a little contradictory grendel. The owners are supporting the club by covering the losses. But you don’t think they are supporting the club. Which is it?

Might be wrong here but don't the accounts state that owner funding kept the club going during Covid when we couldn't gets fans into the ground?

In a sense yes, but in another, no.

The money they've put in keep us afloat, BUT they do that for a price. It's loans, not capital. And they charge pretty high interest rates on it. So it's not out of generosity. They could charge zero interest, or the BoE rate if they so chose, but they don't. That is to the long term detriment to the club. And though you might say "they're not taking all that interest" then that works in their favour too, because that interest accrues interest by itself so they're actually due even more long term.

If you look at the amount of interest owing, to SISU et al it makes a massive hole in our balance sheet that affects out ability to move in the market and also attract investors to replace them, because they want such a high return.

 

[clint van damme]

Reading just posted losses of 35 million.

Apparently they pay out £243 for every £100 of income!

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

you constantly on these issues seem very defensive regarding the club owners

perhaps you’d like to ask them how they propose to fund a new stadium build looking at these figures. I’d be fascinated by the response - I suspect as well this year trading wise will be even worse

Given fans are allowed back in this year and we've had the highest attendances in many years, plus the other income associated with that, that should make incomings a lot better. It does of course then depend on the wages of the players we've brought in, like Waghorn, Gyokeres, Sheaf etc.

 

[wingy]

Given fans are allowed back in this year and we've had the highest attendances in many years, plus the other income associated with that, that should make incomings a lot better. It does of course then depend on the wages of the players we've brought in, like Waghorn, Gyokeres, Sheaf etc.

Coservatively £1,7M transfers /salaries £3-.4M

 

[Grendel]

Coservatively £1,7M transfers /salaries £3-.4M

Also the rent at the CBS and the annual repayments for the EFL loan - the extra revenue will be eaten up by extra spend

 

[Ccfcisparks]

Also the rent at the CBS and the annual repayments for the EFL loan - the extra revenue will be eaten up by extra spend

We will have at least £2m extra in gate receipts though

 

[13th_choice_seamer]

In a sense yes, but in another, no.

The money they've put in keep us afloat, BUT they do that for a price. It's loans, not capital. And they charge pretty high interest rates on it. So it's not out of generosity. They could charge zero interest, or the BoE rate if they so chose, but they don't. That is to the long term detriment to the club. And though you might say "they're not taking all that interest" then that works in their favour too, because that interest accrues interest by itself so they're actually due even more long term.

If you look at the amount of interest owing, to SISU et al it makes a massive hole in our balance sheet that affects out ability to move in the market and also attract investors to replace them, because they want such a high return.

Understand that theory but given that, in reality, CCFC will never be in a position to repay the loans, regardless of interest, the whole load is effectively shareholder funding.