Losses (2 Viewers)

It's less a case of how much in debt we are - more a case of who we're in debt to.

If I remember rightly then the only money we owe is to SISU - rather than the taxman or local businesses.

The only time we'd end up in admin would be if SISU pulled out and demanded their money back.

I'm no expert at this kind of thing, so happy to be put right by someone more in the know.

Ok - I think we must have cut losses somewhat?

I think the losses were 500k-ish per month before the likes of King, Carsley, McIndoe etc were cut from the wage bill.

Forest are losing £1m per month.

Fisher said "We have brought the player wages bill down to below 70 per cent of club turnover", so that is probably on course for break even next year if City stay up.

If they go down the turnover will collapse and not only that the wages are capped at 60% of turnover in League One, however on the plus side City will be a big fish in the League One pond, our turnover will be bigger than most in the League (but not all, Huddersfield avrerage 14K for instance and I bet they don't pay £1M for their stadium).

stupot07 said:

Forest are losing £1m per month.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source ?
That seems to be pretty much...

CCFC Germany said:

Do you have a source ?
That seems to be pretty much...

Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...that-the-future-is-the-derby-way-6329938.html

Yep our debts are to certain key unammed investors in SISU. SISU are selling our top players and putting the money into seperately created businesses in order to dissasociate that money from the core club debt, in order to give those investors some money back, allowing SISU to specifically chose who to give the money to. Instead of reinvesting it back into the club or distributing prorata between the debters. If we still have those players if we go into administration they would not be able to dictate who gets paid from the sales, thus they want to sell the players first. They dont want us to go into adminstration as it would look bad on SISU as investors. They dont want to hand the club over to the hoff untill they have sold every player with a possible suitor so they minimise the impact on their investors. They have no alligence to CCFC, their business and alligence is rightly to their investors. It scares me what state the club will be in when they hand it over. They will still have most of the core debt and no assets left.

dongonzalos said:

Yep our debts are to certain key unammed investors in SISU. SISU are selling our top players and putting the money into seperately created businesses in order to dissasociate that money from the core club debt, in order to give those investors some money back, allowing SISU to specifically chose who to give the money to. Instead of reinvesting it back into the club or distributing prorata between the debters. If we still have those players if we go into administration they would not be able to dictate who gets paid from the sales, thus they want to sell the players first. They dont want us to go into adminstration as it would look bad on SISU as investors. They dont want to hand the club over to the hoff untill they have sold every player with a possible suitor so they minimise the impact on their investors. They have no alligence to CCFC, their business and alligence is rightly to their investors. It scares me what state the club will be in when they hand it over. They will still have most of the core debt and no assets left.

Click to expand...

Suppose Hoffmann's consortium were offering a return to SISU, let's say it's the £10 million we hear quoted quite a bit. Would this money on the table immediately not be preferable to selling the remaining scraps of the squad which a) Would take longer to achieve and b) Would not raise as much immediately usable income to feed back to the investors? Happy to stand corrected, but from where I'm standing anything that can be sold, has been sold, or mortgaged, leaving very few assets of real worth. Relegation simply decreases the value of these assets further-so I don't see the merits in them staying.

dongonzalos said:

Yep our debts are to certain key unammed investors in SISU. SISU are selling our top players and putting the money into seperately created businesses in order to dissasociate that money from the core club debt, in order to give those investors some money back, allowing SISU to specifically chose who to give the money to. Instead of reinvesting it back into the club or distributing prorata between the debters. If we still have those players if we go into administration they would not be able to dictate who gets paid from the sales, thus they want to sell the players first. They dont want us to go into adminstration as it would look bad on SISU as investors. They dont want to hand the club over to the hoff untill they have sold every player with a possible suitor so they minimise the impact on their investors. They have no alligence to CCFC, their business and alligence is rightly to their investors. It scares me what state the club will be in when they hand it over. They will still have most of the core debt and no assets left.

Click to expand...

Some of that doesnt make any sense

CCFC Ltd owns all player registrations (they are CCFC assets and only CCFC ltd is registered with FL to sign players). If a player is sold CCFC is owed that money. That money is not generally paid up front but over a year or two dependent on terms and events. If money due to CCFC is put into a seperate company then that seperate company has a loan from CCFC that it would need to repay. Couldnt just be claimed as theirs. So on the basis they dont get the money all now and a debit must match a credit how does what you say work. Certainly doesnt disassociate any debt and could be easily challenged as being detrimental to other creditors. Not to mention CCFC needs the money to pay the wages because even with the player sales we are making a loss and therefore dont have the cash to pay wages and overheads in full let alone hive it off

SISU are financing the cash flow shortfall - that is not the whole cashflow but the bit that isnt covered by the total income (including player sales) Without the player sales CCFC ltd would have far bigger cash flow shortfalls to finance.

Of course they are using the player sales to repay debts - would not be selling the players if they didnt need to pay debts. Tell me a team that never has done that . If we take as true that SISU are owed more now than 12 months ago how are they taking out more than they put in ?

There are strict rules for insolvency that restrict who gets paid - SISU have to be mindful of that especially as given the professions of some of the Board.

Administration would normally be controlled by the largest single creditor - which is ? SISU who already control the club makes no sense at all for them to put or allow the club to go into administration, they lose far more by that than they gain. Had they wanted admin why not do it ages ago when they had less to lose ?

As for Hoffman why do you think talks are going on at the moment - to sort out their repayment perhaps ? It might suit GH to see players sold because he would need to pay SISU less. That assumes a deal can be done and that SISU actually want to go.

There is no excess cash flow to repay investors it is used to pay day to day bills and old debts like Everton for Juke

conspiaracy conspiracy .......... show me the proof

OSB - you are being far too logical. Don't you know SISU are raking in millions from all the assets they have stripped? After all weren't all our players going to be sold in January so SISU could take all the money and run off to the hills with it? Why cannot people accept that the club loses money every month and that shortfall has to be plugged somehow - either internally by player sales or externally by the owners putting more money in and increasing the debt/loan that is owed to them. If we were getting crowds of 30,000 and making money and SISU were still selling off players and not signing new ones then I would subscribe to the conspiracy theory, as it is we are, along with many other clubs, bumping along the bottom barely keeping our heads above water.

As for Hoffman - personally I don't think there is any offer on the table, the deal he is trying to pull together is very complex, involving too many disperate parties. The most telling comment was the recent one on here from the Clerk of the Higgs Charity who said a: they had had no discussions with Hoffman nor had any planned and b: for any sales of ACL both the charity and the council have to agree to any deal. Takeover may be some way off if ever.

dongonzalos said:

Yep our debts are to certain key unammed investors in SISU. SISU are selling our top players and putting the money into seperately created businesses in order to dissasociate that money from the core club debt, in order to give those investors some money back, allowing SISU to specifically chose who to give the money to. Instead of reinvesting it back into the club or distributing prorata between the debters. If we still have those players if we go into administration they would not be able to dictate who gets paid from the sales, thus they want to sell the players first. They dont want us to go into adminstration as it would look bad on SISU as investors. They dont want to hand the club over to the hoff untill they have sold every player with a possible suitor so they minimise the impact on their investors. They have no alligence to CCFC, their business and alligence is rightly to their investors. It scares me what state the club will be in when they hand it over. They will still have most of the core debt and no assets left.

Click to expand...

That is a right load of old nonsense. Why deliberately devalue the club by asset stripping unless they can emerge with a profit. What they have on their hands is a big debt, they can't hide the money it all gets accounted for, if they pull the plug and go into admin. SISU will get back only a fraction of the money they've put in so far (around £30M).

They are selling players to cover the losses till such a time as they can see out current contractual committments and move to a break even position, once they've achieved that the clubs value increases and someone might see it as worth investing. Hoffman will probably face some competition for buying the club if this happens, so it is in his interests to conclude a deal relatively soon.

Those 3 last post are the most sensible I've read on here for some time! :claping hands:

OSB I regulary read your posts with great respect you obviously do your home work and have considerable financial knowledge. I therefore ask your opinion if some (maybe a sizeable chunk) of our day to day running costs could be interest paid to SISU dressed up as management charges.Tim Fisher was certainly very vague in stating what our current monthly shortfall is. I ask this as I once looked at purchasing a franchise which seemed so cheap but the management charge was extortionate to cover all manor of items.

ccfcno9 said:

OSB I regulary read your posts with great respect you obviously do your home work and have considerable financial knowledge. I therefore ask your opinion if some (maybe a sizeable chunk) of our day to day running costs could be interest paid to SISU dressed up as management charges.Tim Fisher was certainly very vague in stating what our current monthly shortfall is. I ask this as I once looked at purchasing a franchise which seemed so cheap but the management charge was extortionate to cover all manor of items.

Click to expand...

No-one can know as ultimately the accounts are a closed shop but it doesn't take a genius to work out with a squad of 30 players, lease rents, commercial staff to pay the club is still losing money and will continue to do so unless the supporters decide to turn up for once.

thanks I,ll be renewing my ST whatever anyway

ccfcno9 said:

thanks I,ll be renewing my ST whatever anyway

Click to expand...

So will I but we are very much in the minority.

At the moment we apparently run at a loss of 7.5 million a year,that's due to wages and rent mainly,we have to bear in mind we dnt have any income coming in and won't do next year because we loaned 6000 season ticket income already and the money from the shop will just cover the interest of that loan providing we get 6000 season ticket sales,I don't get sisu staying if there wasn't anything for them that's why I think Hoffman and co must have tempted sisu with something,there's nothing here for sisu otherwise.

canleykid said:

At the moment we apparently run at a loss of 7.5 million a year,that's due to wages and rent mainly,we have to bear in mind we dnt have any income coming in and won't do next year because we loaned 6000 season ticket income already and the money from the shop will just cover the interest of that loan providing we get 6000 season ticket sales,I don't get sisu staying if there wasn't anything for them that's why I think Hoffman and co must have tempted sisu with something,there's nothing here for sisu otherwise.

Click to expand...

???????....7.5m?????

The figure I was told by TIM fisher to explain where thirty million pound had gone in four years

Fisher himself said losses were running around £5M/yr, but costs have been cut since then.

The gap between income and costs for the following three seasons until the 31st May 2011 (the date of our most recent financial year end) totalled another £16m.
The financing gap was filled by SISU providing further funding month after month.

Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...he-money-gone-92746-30209621/2/#ixzz1nEtlm39J

Click to expand...

Jack Griffin said:

Fisher himself said losses were running around £5M/yr, but costs have been cut since then.

Click to expand...

and the fact our wage bill is below 70% of the turnover.

canleykid said:

The figure I was told by TIM fisher to explain where thirty million pound had gone in four years

Click to expand...

You were told that figure, or you worked it out by dividing £30m by 4?

He said sisu had spent 30 million over the last four years so the average was 7.5 million over four years it shud be less now the thing is we will never no the truth only wat they say

That was the average per year over four years to explain 30 million loss,I'm not saying we've lost 7.5 million this season just an average over the four years,we may be losing 300 k a month now cos were paying peanuts but a couple of seasons ago we were paying 8 and 10 grand a week wages apparently

So we have halved the budget we are paying for players wages from what we were paying when we were finishing 18th 19th and worse. yet people still think we have the worse manager in history because we are in the relegation zone. Amusing.

Why is that amusing? People judge from what they see some see a poor tactician, weak leadership, inept motivational skills. No one has ever said the worsening financial position hasn't been the major factor in our demise. However, this also does not make the manager exempt from some culpability. In worsening financial times companies need skilled leaders not unqualified managers using the club as a form of apprentiship.

kduffy said:

Why is that amusing? People judge from what they see some see a poor tactician, weak leadership, inept motivational skills. No one has ever said the worsening financial position hasn't been the major factor in our demise. However, this also does not make the manager exempt from some culpability. In worsening financial times companies need skilled leaders not unqualified managers using the club as a form of apprentiship.

Click to expand...

When you see stuff like that though you must think it is a bit much to suggest he is the worse manager we have ever had when despite all the above we are 3 points from safety

dongonzalos said:

When you see stuff like that though you must think it is a bit much to suggest he is the worse manager we have ever had when despite all the above we are 3 points from safety

Click to expand...

Not as much to suggest he would make West Ham 10 points better off. Sorry but for me that was your David Steele or Michael Fish moment - lampooned for ever by a rather ridiculous statement.

kduffy said:

Not as much to suggest he would make West Ham 10 points better off. Sorry but for me that was your David Steele or Michael Fish moment - lampooned for ever by a rather ridiculous statement.

Click to expand...

Ha ha, I still believe it. I think if he was in charge of a squad with that luxury and type of player he would have them passing everyone off the park. They would do what swansea, norwich and QPR did but because they have a better class of player they would win the league like the likes , Newcastle, Sunderland. Big Sam will take them up but it will be bloody ugly

dongonzalos said:

Ha ha, I still believe it. I think if he was in charge of a squad with that luxury and type of player he would have them passing everyone off the park. They would do what swansea, norwich and QPR did but because they have a better class of player they would win the league like the likes , Newcastle, Sunderland. Big Sam will take them up but it will be bloody ugly

Click to expand...

So a man who has no managerial qualifications, never managed a team 10 years after retirement can succeed better than one of the most experienced and respected managers in the game. Right.