sbs&l group accounts 2018 (3 Viewers)

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
First off these figures are for the group and therefore include otium. Sbs&l is a holding company, does not trade and has few expenses. The group is sbs&l plus otium

Will just put key comments in the order they appear in the accounts, which can be downloaded from companies house

Strategic report. This year no figure given for academy spend they usually like to. Says shareholder is only material creditor but later on you will see Sisu master fund is owed over £1m, not a shareholder and hmrc at £350k is not immaterial. Two lines are devoted to the ricoh lease with no detail of any solution but expect to be at ricoh . The risks and uncertainties section doesn't mention it at all. But concludes company is a going concern

Audit report. Auditors report and are responsible to the shareholders of the company. No one else and certainly not the fans. There is a going concern material uncertainty but it focusses on the financial support the group might need going forward. Last year it said company relied on its owners for support for the next year but this year it says company does not and both years that no intention to call debts in by owners. There is one short sentence about no home ground 2019/20. The auditors will access far more information than I can when expressing their opinion.

So far you get the feeling that the ricoh problems are down graded almost even glossed over. Which raises the questions how and why. What is going on behind the scenes (wouldn't be the first time that has happened)

The figures themselves

Income down 162k
Direct costs up 76k
Administration costs up 228k
Profit on player sales 973k (because there was little cost to get those players that's pretty much what club received)
Interest on the loans was 1.87m was accrued not physically paid over, but it is due and cannot be dismissed as it "is only due to shareholders " (for a start some is due to a non shareholder)
Operating losses increased to 1.6m which means even after player sales of 973k the club is not self sufficient
Net losses after all costs are 2.477m slightly down on 2017.

Balance sheet is negative by 48.6m but keep in mind this is the group and 29m is not due by otium because that 29m is the original investors loan to sbs&l. That original loan is not secured on otium
Interesting that there was 682k in the bank at that time possibly due to the promotion games providing a cash boost.
Received a new loan of 500k from Sisu master fund but repaid 254k
Players purchases in year 109k

Notes to accounts. Usual stuff in going concern note about forecasts and support of owners, written confirmation etc with paragraph on stadium problem saying they are looking at "venues" and negotiations are on going. Except we are told no talks with wasps aren't we? What do they mean venues?

Turnover discloses match income 2.43m and other income 3.54m total 5.97m down from 6.13m. But we were in league 2 and that income is better than a lot of teams in that division plus we had nearly 1m in player sales. The other thing again demonstrated is that the income we have is not just match day income. The accounts try to make a distinction about ticketing and other match day income but that's erroneous, simple fact is there are other incomes and Boddy has proven the club can put on non match day events if it wants to. The "missing" incomes would also come with costs which of course are ignored in the claim of being disadvantaged

Land lease costs dropped from 603k to 546k possibly because of the relegation, fisher said rent had been cheaper in league 2

Wages are for the group but in reality relate to otium
No directors remuneration paid at all
Wage costs up from 4.453m to 4.879m but 220k related to league pension costs so not in control of club. Possibly promotion bonuses explain some of the rest?
Wages very competitive for a league 2 club, bigger than some total turnovers in that division.

The notes reveal that sbs&l owes otium 847k accumulated over a number of years. No explanation as to why I assume otium paid sbs&l expenses as holding company has no income. So how does Otium get repaid ? And it is money otium should have to cover it's own needs. Perhaps explain why it has been necessary over last three years to put money in but not expecting to in future

Group now owes 6.9m in interest alone to ARVO and sisu master fund. Or rather otium does, plus 9m in capital. There is no cash flow to pay these sums back so it is rolled up each year

Apparently there is a possible liability for appearance costs on players 100k and interestingly that a contingent asset for monies due on players sold before year end is 650k . Were we not told Madison alone brought in more than that during 2018/19? They must know the figure?

Overall not great figures for a promotion year. The club further in debt, is not self sufficient and no obvious venue to play next season has been agreed.

Make of it what you will. But I am left feeling these accounts raise more questions than provide answers. Also that they include the very minimum of information. There are contradictions in the information. Just my opinion
 

Last edited:

Nick

Administrator
How would the auditor not be that interested on whether it is going to be physically possible to trade next year? Does it say who the auditor is? (ie is a bit reputable company?)

Surely the Auditor knows something we don't? ie if a deal will be done or if there is a rock solid Plan B lined up just in case? (by solid, I mean confirmed an ready to go rather than good!)
 

MatthewWallis

Well-Known Member
What do the land lease costs include? The Ricoh obviously, but I thought it was around £150k? What’s the rest?
 

Nick

Administrator
You have to think the auditors know something we don’t

I am not sure whether to be comforted by that or not.

You would think they wouldn't have been sent pictures of the stadium mockup and fallen for it.
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
I am not sure whether to be comforted by that or not.

You would think they wouldn't have been sent pictures of the stadium mockup and fallen for it.

Ha. With a note saying it will ready in 3 weeks
 

Nick

Administrator
According to wikipedia, these are the players for that season in and out with fees

In

Biamou
McDonald
Tom Davies

Out

Harries
G Thomas
Charlie McCann (lad to Man Utd)
Charles-Cook
Stevenson

McNulty went in the July so wouldn't have been in those accounts I don't think?

Would loan fees be covered in transfer fees?
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
What do the land lease costs include? The Ricoh obviously, but I thought it was around £150k? What’s the rest?

Ricoh and higgs I would think. So perhaps some the stadium based match day costs included in the rent licence
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
How would the auditor not be that interested on whether it is going to be physically possible to trade next year? Does it say who the auditor is? (ie is a bit reputable company?)

Surely the Auditor knows something we don't? ie if a deal will be done or if there is a rock solid Plan B lined up just in case? (by solid, I mean confirmed an ready to go rather than good!)

All good questions Nick, it is questions I would ask a client in trouble like this

BDO are one of the biggest auditors around

They have far more information than any of us will ever know to be able to express their opinion
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
According to wikipedia, these are the players for that season in and out with fees

In

Biamou
McDonald
Tom Davies

Out

Harries
G Thomas
Charlie McCann (lad to Man Utd)
Charles-Cook
Stevenson

McNulty went in the July so wouldn't have been in those accounts I don't think?

Would loan fees be covered in transfer fees?

The accounts make reference to the Thomas transfer as the major source of player sale profit.

Loans will be included if a fee is paid but in league 2 those are not significant
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Were we not owned by SISU, would they be any different?
No way to tell. Different owners would make different decisions. For example not all owners charge interest on loans
 

Nick

Administrator
The accounts make reference to the Thomas transfer as the major source of player sale profit.

Loans will be included if a fee is paid but in league 2 those are not significant

It was only Nazon, JMD, Barrett and JCH anyway!
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Sisu must have a plan B lined up. You'd have to think that meant the EFL were in on it too which makes their statements interesting.
 

Nick

Administrator
Sisu must have a plan B lined up. You'd have to think that meant the EFL were in on it too which makes their statements interesting.

Think the EFL will have been in on things from the start. They have always said that are in contact a lot providing updates.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Other points in accounts

Apparently the losses are in line with industry norms .... But aren't we trying to be self sufficient whilst the norm seems to be to rely on owners funds?

Still going on about limited access to non ticketing match day income and no non match day turnover. Even the details in the accounts contradict this but it's been explained before

Strategic report blames the increase in interest on the increase in withholding tax but that tax element actually went down. Interest went up because group charged more interest by ARVO and Sisu master fund

If you take the loan and interest outstanding out of the equation then the implication of the comments is that the group is positive financially on the balance sheet but
Balance sheet negative 48.6m less borrowing 37.4m less interest 6.9m that's still over 4m negative due to other parties

Sisu disclosed as controlling party because they manage the funds they are not disclosed as owners
 

Londonccfcfan

Well-Known Member
Hmmm, interesting set of accounts.

I certainly thought were running at close to break even or at minimal loss at least.

What concerning is we had an excellent FA cup run reached 5th Round of off FA cup. Prize money/tv/gate receipts would have been close to 750k.
Also got promotion via lucrative play offs. So a bit miffed how the losses increased.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
A lot of Fisher speak in the text. :)
 

speedie87

Well-Known Member
Clubs don’t make much money from playoffs the fa take a cut and include loads of costs to be deducted and then it’s split between the 4 clubs involved

Plus none of the club games were on tv which is where the big £ comes from
 
Last edited:

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
First off these figures are for the group and therefore include otium. Sbs&l is a holding company, does not trade and has few expenses. The group is sbs&l plus otium

Will just put key comments in the order they appear in the accounts, which can be downloaded from companies house

Strategic report. This year no figure given for academy spend they usually like to. Says shareholder is only material creditor but later on you will see Sisu master fund is owed over £1m, not a shareholder and hmrc at £350k is not immaterial. Two lines are devoted to the ricoh lease with no detail of any solution but expect to be at ricoh . The risks and uncertainties section doesn't mention it at all. But concludes company is a going concern

Audit report. Auditors report and are responsible to the shareholders of the company. No one else and certainly not the fans. There is a going concern material uncertainty but it focusses on the financial support the group might need going forward. Last year it said company relied on its owners for support for the next year but this year it says company does not and both years that no intention to call debts in by owners. There is one short sentence about no home ground 2019/20. The auditors will access far more information than I can when expressing their opinion.

So far you get the feeling that the ricoh problems are down graded almost even glossed over. Which raises the questions how and why. What is going on behind the scenes (wouldn't be the first time that has happened)

The figures themselves

Income down 162k
Direct costs up 76k
Administration costs up 228k
Profit on player sales 973k (because there was little cost to get those players that's pretty much what club received)
Interest on the loans was 1.87m was accrued not physically paid over, but it is due and cannot be dismissed as it "is only due to shareholders " (for a start some is due to a non shareholder)
Operating losses increased to 1.6m which means even after player sales of 973k the club is not self sufficient
Net losses after all costs are 2.477m slightly down on 2017.

Balance sheet is negative by 48.6m but keep in mind this is the group and 29m is not due by otium because that 29m is the original investors loan to sbs&l. That original loan is not secured on otium
Interesting that there was 682k in the bank at that time possibly due to the promotion games providing a cash boost.
Received a new loan of 500k from Sisu master fund but repaid 254k
Players purchases in year 109k

Notes to accounts. Usual stuff in going concern note about forecasts and support of owners, written confirmation etc with paragraph on stadium problem saying they are looking at "venues" and negotiations are on going. Except we are told no talks with wasps aren't we? What do they mean venues?

Turnover discloses match income 2.43m and other income 3.54m total 5.97m down from 6.13m. But we were in league 2 and that income is better than a lot of teams in that division plus we had nearly 1m in player sales. The other thing again demonstrated is that the income we have is not just match day income. The accounts try to make a distinction about ticketing and other match day income but that's erroneous, simple fact is there are other incomes and Boddy has proven the club can put on non match day events if it wants to. The incomes also come with costs which of course are ignored.

Land lease costs dropped from 603k to 546k possibly because of the relegation, fisher said rent had been cheaper in league 2

Wages are for the group but in reality relate to otium
No directors remuneration paid at all
Wage costs up from 4.453m to 4.879m but 220k related to league pension costs so not in control of club
Wages very competitive for a league 2 club, bigger than some total turnovers in that division.

The notes reveal that sbs&l owes otium 847k accumulated over a number of years. No explanation as to why I assume otium paid sbs&l expenses as holding company has no income. So how does Otium get repaid ? And it is money otium should have to cover it's own needs. Perhaps explain why it has been necessary over last three years to put money in but not expecting to in future

Group now owes 6.9m in interest alone to ARVO and sisu master fund. Or rather otium does, plus 9m in capital. There is no cash flow to pay these sums back so it is rolled up each year

Apparently there is a possible liability for appearance costs on players 100k and interestingly that a contingent asset for monies due on players sold before year end is 650k . Were we not told Madison alone brought in more than that during 2018/19? They must know the figure?

Overall not great figures for a promotion year. The club further in debt, is not self sufficient and no obvious venue to play next season has been agreed.

Make of it what you will. But I am left feeling these accounts raise more questions than provide answers. Also that they include the very minimum of information. There are contradictions in the information. Just my opinion
Yeah I noticed that cash in bank figure and thought that sounded funny
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
How would the auditor not be that interested on whether it is going to be physically possible to trade next year? Does it say who the auditor is? (ie is a bit reputable company?)

Surely the Auditor knows something we don't? ie if a deal will be done or if there is a rock solid Plan B lined up just in case? (by solid, I mean confirmed an ready to go rather than good!)
It's BDO who are a big accountancy ("big 6"), certainly well known but I have some misgivings about 3rd party audit
 

Nick

Administrator
People on social media seem upset that the club seem to be looking at other options than the Ricoh. Did they really expect them not to?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
People on social media seem upset that the club seem to be looking at other options than the Ricoh. Did they really expect them not to?
Probably the same people that will tell you Wasps are business geniuses for moving the club halfway across the country.

What do people expect? We all know the legals won't be dropped so should the club just bet everything on Wasps changing their mind?
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
I take that to mean "not much"

Like I said who knows the example was only a for instance. Could be different could be better or even worse
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Yes because it is the losses of otium that is the club losses Not the sbs&l group

because if you wanted to buy the club as it is then you buy only otium who have 9m in loans and nearly 7m in interest.

Just an an article with no real understanding

But even then you wouldn't buy the company only the assets
Thanks buddy
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
It would be remiss of any director not to have other options
 

Magwitch

Well-Known Member
Like Nick I’m thinking there must be a plan B, there has to be but then I think why would Wasps go with a plan B when plan A looks to be working for them. So hard to gauge where this will go but I can’t see Wasps altering their end the legals stance.
 

Nick

Administrator
Like Nick I’m thinking there must be a plan B, there has to be but then I think why would Wasps go with a plan B when plan A looks to be working for them. So hard to gauge where this will go but I can’t see Wasps altering their end the legals stance.
Why would wasps have any say in the plan b?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Yes because it is the losses of otium that is the club losses Not the sbs&l group
The self appointed football finance expert Kieran Maguire has made the same claim that the club is £56m in debt. Frustrating as people will now quote him and it will be seen as fact.

He seems to struggle with the situation here, not sure why but errors in his statement have been pointed out to him before but he will never accept he has made a mistake.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top