I was surprised when someone said the season ticket revenue was only paid out on a game by game basis from Ticketmaster - that seems really odd
It is the case yep
That’s amazing it’s that figure - pretty much zero investedjust clarify.
over the period of MR's current tenure SISU have invested minus £54k. In those years there have been loans put in eg 2020 during pandemic £1.6m but also monies extracted eg 2019 £1.7m. In essence they have in the years up until 31/05/2021 put in very very little
What they have done is to act as bank of last resort when cash flow got out of shape and the club was short. But then extracted any such funding asap. Hence some of the loans from SISU Master Fund not ARVO
It’s on my list of questions for next forumthat's absolutely ridiculous if that's the case
That’s amazing it’s that figure - pretty much zero invested
And to agree his budgetsIn terms of cashflow yes pretty much. In 2021 accounts they kept back 2.4m so they could pay out during the following year. That money was accumulated by restricting the playing budget.
As such it means at 31/05/21 at least the owners did need to put funds in to keep the club going and the club could meet its liabilities.
Each year end they will try to keep a pot back to pay up coming liabilities
Btw I am not critical of the way the club arranges its operations. I also think, though I don't agree with , some of the historical stuff was very clever. It damn near worked, the stubbornness that was associated was unforgiveable though.
As for Seppala having to come to Coventry to check on things financially is a little thin. Access to all she needs to know can be done remotely and I am certain she has staff doing that including her trusted associate who is also a director of sbs&l . But she can access at any time herself I am sure.
Surely her visit yesterday was about renewal of MR contract.
I doubt it because they'll just see it as something that can be repeated again, why would they move on?Question for the more financially knowledgable:
My understanding is that from a cash flow perspective we’re sustainable in that we operate self sufficiently. Sisu cover short term shortfall and charge interest; this interest pays off the initial money invested when they took us over all those years ago. Profit on Player sales does the same thing.
So if we do get some crazy bids for the big three are we near to the point where they have paid off the initial bad investment and can consider moving on?
But net net since MR has been in charge they are 54k up apparentlyThe club borrowed nearly £2 million from the Master Fund the year before last and this charge raised this January
Sorry link doesn’t work but can be seen on companies house
just clarify.
over the period of MR's current tenure SISU have invested minus £54k. In those years there have been loans put in eg 2020 during pandemic £1.6m but also monies extracted eg 2019 £1.7m. In essence they have in the years up until 31/05/2021 put in very very little
What they have done is to act as bank of last resort when cash flow got out of shape and the club was short. But then extracted any such funding asap. Hence some of the loans from SISU Master Fund not ARVO
i would not have thought that to be right - strange if it is
But net net since MR has been in charge they are 54k up apparently
so apart from short term loans which they get back immediately, they’ve not actually invested anything.
Therefore we have been self sufficient, no?
On the field we are back to where we started when they took over.Can someone explain to me how it’s all good or it’s all bad and not something in the middle??????
It's the same almost everywhere Gwell no as without the loans we’d have had no cash - it then gets paid back with interest when we sell players
It's the same almost everywhere G
Abramovich was held up as the perfect owner, making donations of £1.6B rather than loans
Now it appears he wants them back
Football is a business like no other
It's the same almost everywhere G
Abramovich was held up as the perfect owner, making donations of £1.6B rather than loans
Now it appears he wants them back
Football is a business like no other
But the issue with SISU is that they've never actually grown the club's capacity to build its revenues, in fact it's gone in the opposite direction. It still I suspect punches below its weight on commercial income when compared with what might be considered peers.
The commercial aspect of the club desperately needs looking at as it's a revenue stream the club should be maximising.
Simply blaming its shortcomings on a small headcount just isn't good enough now we're an established Championship club.
It is the case yep
Ok what I’ve been told is wrong thenJ can’t see how it is unless we’ve agreed some arrangement that way to save on fixed fee payment of services m
It’s actually absurd when you think about it. If they operated that with every club and they went into liquidation every club would lose their season ticket revenue
Ok what I’ve been told is wrong then
Question for the more financially knowledgable:
My understanding is that from a cash flow perspective we’re sustainable in that we operate self sufficiently. Sisu cover short term shortfall and charge interest; this interest pays off the initial money invested when they took us over all those years ago. Profit on Player sales does the same thing.
So if we do get some crazy bids for the big three are we near to the point where they have paid off the initial bad investment and can consider moving on?
I'm sure such an arrangement would need to be regulated by the FSA or whatever their new equivalent isDon’t see why you are so prickly - I can’t believe this is standard operating from them. They hold all the money? Are any premier league clubs using them? Seems bizarre
I’m not being prickly sorry if it came across like that. If it can’t possibly the case then I’ve been told something that’s wrongDon’t see why you are so prickly - I can’t believe this is standard operating from them. They hold all the money? Are any premier league clubs using them? Seems bizarre
By who?I’m not being prickly sorry if it came across like that. If it can’t possibly the case then I’ve been told something that’s wrong
Agreed, likewise blaming it on the non 24/7 stadium access red herring. It would be interesting to compare to other clubs with average gates of around £20k.
I do a bit of work with the commercial department of a Championship club with gates more or less the same as ours.
The guys there are pretty slick and make us look amateur in comparison. Although that's not particularly difficult when our team is more or less the same as it was in L2.
Yep. Agreed. as I said, I’m not a Joy fan.All she's doing is taking a vested interest into a company within her wider portfolio. That doesn't equate to being a fan.
There's a fundamental difference and sadly, as shown by comments on this thread, most posters can't seem to distinguish between the two.
I do a bit of work with the commercial department of a Championship club with gates more or less the same as ours.
The guys there are pretty slick and make us look amateur in comparison. Although that's not particularly difficult when our team is more or less the same as it was in L2.
She fakes it brilliantly with her knowledge of the players past and present. As you say I’m sure it’s an actYep. Agreed. as I said, I’m not a Joy fan.
It’s covered by credit cards legalisation , if goods are paid by credit card the consumer has the right to have a refund if the goods are not received , so until the game goes ahead the merchandiser will not release the monies to the clubJ can’t see how it is unless we’ve agreed some arrangement that way to save on fixed fee payment of services m
It’s actually absurd when you think about it. If they operated that with every club and they went into liquidation every club would lose their season ticket revenue
It’s covered by credit cards legalisation , if goods are paid by credit card the consumer has the right to have a refund if the goods are not received , so until the game goes ahead the merchandiser will not release the monies to the club
So for example last weeks game at home to Huddersfield the club would only have just received monies that were paid last year
there are insurances that be purchased but these are costly and few companies offer especially with covid
What grendel is wrong - no!!!!It’s covered by credit cards legalisation , if goods are paid by credit card the consumer has the right to have a refund if the goods are not received , so until the game goes ahead the merchandiser will not release the monies to the club
So for example last weeks game at home to Huddersfield the club would only have just received monies that were paid last year
there are insurances that be purchased but these are costly and few companies offer especially with covid
What grendel is wrong - no!!!!
The club receive that cash straight away , there is a high percentage paid by credit card thoughSo what for cash and debit card buyers?
The club receive that cash straight away , there is a high percentage paid by credit card though
Do they take cash? They don’t for away ticketsWell I still don’t get it. Debit cards loan purchases and cash purchases aren’t impacted.
So no it makes no sense and certainly won’t apply to clubs who deal with this themselves
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?