Monkeh Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 If you want to put in your £££ x Millions like the other directors year on year............... Interesting listening to CS on Radio Brizz this morning..........he mentioned how the figure includes things like depreciation of which AG is the biggest factor IMO also how players are counted as depreciaitng assets so the finl figure is swollen but the fact remains that CCC wages are too high for most clubs to carry on with He also made an interesing ref to Ipswich making a similar loss last year but a small profit this year.....the main reason for this......transfer activity of course...selling Wickham for £m+ for a start............ what price NM & uncle now me wondered? If maynard wanted to move to liecester then we would of had 6 million (if the rumour is to be believed) and some one offered stupid money for albert and I'm talking 5 million + here then they would of been off and city would be showing a 1 million pound profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Out of curiousity, how much debt do we have?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Scotty Murray Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 This can carry on as long as Steve Lansdown continues to fund us! We now owe him £23.6m + interest. As long as he stays, we are fine. If he goes, we will need a new investor to put in around £40m to pay off Steve Lansdown or we would be in administration. Basically, this is the same situation for pretty much any football club so no need to panic too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 This can carry on as long as Steve Lansdown continues to fund us! We now owe him £23.6m + interest. As long as he stays, we are fine. If he goes, we will need a new investor to put in around £40m to pay off Steve Lansdown or we would be in administration. Basically, this is the same situation for pretty much any football club so no need to panic too much. Unless he writes off his debts, which he has alluded to. As long as Steve still takes a keen interest and remain solvent alls good. If there ever comes a time where Steve has lost all his money and is in Dire Straits! Then I hope for us he can sell to someone who has City's interests at heart. because I am not entirely sure if anyone on our current board is rich enough (Money rich) to take on Steve Debts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Youell Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claverham_Red Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.u...ll/15935151.stm Marvin Elliot signed a contract extension under the radar this past summer, didn't he? Can anyone confirm this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.u...ll/15935151.stm Marvin Elliot signed a contract extension under the radar this past summer, didn't he? Can anyone confirm this? he did it was announced about a month or so ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claverham_Red Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 he did it was announced about a month or so ago Thought as much. BBC with the wrong facts, again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Unless he writes off his debts, which he has alluded to. As long as Steve still takes a keen interest and remain solvent alls good. If there ever comes a time where Steve has lost all his money and is in Dire Straits! Then I hope for us he can sell to someone who has City's interests at heart. because I am not entirely sure if anyone on our current board is rich enough (Money rich) to take on Steve Debts I'm pretty sure he does that at the AGM, i.e. he asks the rest of the shareholders to take a diluted shareholding and he buys up more, effectively increasing his shareholding and wiping out the debt. Could be wrong though.. not a financial expert thats for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 This can carry on as long as Steve Lansdown continues to fund us! We now owe him £23.6m + interest. As long as he stays, we are fine. If he goes, we will need a new investor to put in around £40m to pay off Steve Lansdown or we would be in administration. Basically, this is the same situation for pretty much any football club so no need to panic too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Nobody in their right mind would pay Steve's debts for him - much better, from a purchaser's POV, to buy the club from an Administrator and let Steve keep his debts. As the main creditor Steve would have no interest in the club going ito Administration - in effect he owns the club anyway and there's no point in letting an administrator make decisions and extract a large fee for doing it. The only way (IMO) we can go into Administration is if both Steve and HL get into trouble - which seems very unlikley. Not that I know, but I would imagine that Steve will find some way of engineering a write off at some point and when he does I expect that he'll manage to offset the cost against tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Nobody in their right mind would pay Steve's debts for him - much better, from a purchaser's POV, to buy the club from an Administrator and let Steve keep his debts. As the main creditor Steve would have no interest in the club going ito Administration - in effect he owns the club anyway and there's no point in letting an administrator make decisions and extract a large fee for doing it. The only way (IMO) we can go into Administration is if both Steve and HL get into trouble - which seems very unlikley. Not that I know, but I would imagine that Steve will find some way of engineering a write off at some point and when he does I expect that he'll manage to offset the cost against tax. The debt owed to Steve would be part of any sale of the club if it ever happened, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfunk Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Unless he writes off his debts, which he has alluded to. As long as Steve still takes a keen interest and remain solvent alls good. If there ever comes a time where Steve has lost all his money and is in Dire Straits! Then I hope for us he can sell to someone who has City's interests at heart. because I am not entirely sure if anyone on our current board is rich enough (Money rich) to take on Steve Debts [/ quote]i I seriously doubt Lansdown would write off our debt to him.Why would he be charging interest on the debt if he was considering writing it off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 The debt owed to Steve would be part of any sale of the club if it ever happened, You just need to read the balance sheet - this club has a value of minus £21m. For the club to be sold then a price would need to be agreed, and believe me, nobody is going to pay £40m (say) for a club that's weighed down by debt and burning money like we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 You just need to read the balance sheet - this club has a value of minus £21m. For the club to be sold then a price would need to be agreed, and believe me, nobody is going to pay £40m (say) for a club that's weighed down by debt and burning money like we are. thats all ifs and buts tho' take chelsea or man city both had quite big debts when sold to wealth investers thats the sort of thing we would be after, After all once we get the new ground we would have all the inferstructre and catchment area to be succsessful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfunk Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 The football world need to realise the days of ever increasing wages and ever increasing ticket/catering prices are over the gravy train has derailed (the board gravy train also has to end also).The board earn, i believe in the region of £120,000 each per annum, for what exactly I`m not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 thats all ifs and buts tho' take chelsea or man city both had quite big debts when sold to wealth investers thats the sort of thing we would be after, After all once we get the new ground we would have all the inferstructre and catchment area to be succsessful Minus £21m total debts and this year's loss of £11.5m are harsh facts, not iffs or buts. Only my opinion, but i don't think that even with a new stadium we will ever be as an attractive a proposition to a super-rich buyers as Chelsea or Man City - big City clubs in football mad areas and both with tradition, a name and a huge fan base. If the Sultan of Brunei discovers a liking for Natch or the Wurzels then you might well be right. Up to that point, we should all include a line about Steve's health and wealth in our nighly prayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 This can carry on as long as Steve Lansdown continues to fund us! We now owe him £23.6m + interest. As long as he stays, we are fine. If he goes, we will need a new investor to put in around £40m to pay off Steve Lansdown or we would be in administration. Basically, this is the same situation for pretty much any football club so no need to panic too much. Could you (or anyone else) explain how this fits in with FFP? AFAIK, FFP means owners cannot bankroll ever increasing losses- that is a key reason for it. I'm pretty sure the turnover to wages ratio required for clubs at this level is less than 100% of turnover- I'd have thought 70% and even that's pushing it a bit... Take for example FFP at League One=60-%, League Two=55%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Could you (or anyone else) explain how this fits in with FFP? AFAIK, FFP means owners cannot bankroll ever increasing losses- that is a key reason for it. I'm pretty sure the turnover to wages ratio required for clubs at this level is less than 100% of turnover- I'd have thought 70% and even that's pushing it a bit... Take for example FFP at League One=60-%, League Two=55%. I believe that we're 'moving towards' rather than actually implementing it for next year, but if someone can correct me then fine. The devil, as they say, will be in the detail and all depends on what the rules are and importantly how turnover' is defined. For example: does turnover include sponsorship? If it does then all Steve will need to do you be to sponsor City's shirts for say £10m a year. Moving on, will parachute payments be classed as turnover, some of which can be spent or is it just for clearing Prem-acquired debt? There are loads of similar issues. One thing I can guaratee is that the lawyers and accountants employed by the big clubs will be a lot smarter than UEFA and FA legislators - although FFP sounds good in theory, I reckon it won't work in practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 I believe that we're 'moving towards' rather than actually implementing it for next year, but if someone can correct me then fine. The devil, as they say, will be in the detail and all depends on what the rules are and importantly how turnover' is defined. For example: does turnover include sponsorship? If it does then all Steve will need to do you be to sponsor City's shirts for say £10m a year. Moving on, will parachute payments be classed as turnover, some of which can be spent or is it just for clearing Prem-acquired debt? There are loads of similar issues. One thing I can guaratee is that the lawyers and accountants employed by the big clubs will be a lot smarter than UEFA and FA legislators - although FFP sounds good in theory, I reckon it won't work in practice. That's cleared a few things, thanks. Like you say, there will be grey areas but AFAIK chairman openly sponsoring kits wouldn't suffice.I think though- again may be wrong- turnover would be classed as ticket revenue, tv revenue, sponsorship and transfer revenue. Of course, were a club to get into debt for sustainable reasons- e.g. building a new ground, developing a youth academy- that may be seen as 'more acceptable.' I wouldn't underestimate UEFA/FA/FL resolve on this matter, though time will tell. In Germany, they have had FFP for quite some while or some kind of equivelant system or so I've read and it seems to have held up relatively well there. Actually, I think FFP is not such a bad thing. Revenue in football is increasing but so are wages- the latter at such an alarming rate that something was necessary. Is FFP the answer? I don't know but the current system if left unchecked was surely heading for a major burst of a bubble sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 We may have big losses, but you do have to question the board at the time allowing this to happen. It's one thing supporting your manager, but another to allow these debts to spiral. They know how much is going to be going out, after allowing contracts to be signed and for how long. They also have a rough guide based on season ticket sales and predicted income, what amount will be coming in. Talk of becoming a selling club is daft imho. An over reaction based on 3 years of loose reins. Yes...get them under control, and release players at the end of the season when contracts are up, but please do not change the whole structure drastically. The whole 1982 debacle has hung over this Club like a bad smell for years. IMHO, it's made us over cautious in the past. I hope we don't go down the same path again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 The football world need to realise the days of ever increasing wages and ever increasing ticket/catering prices are over the gravy train has derailed (the board gravy train also has to end also).The board earn, i believe in the region of £120,000 each per annum, for what exactly I`m not sure. They earned £199,192 in 2010. As part of the cost cutting programme, they earned £277,343 in 2011. Hang on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Selling club........as if how long since we actually sold a player for a decent fee, most clubs sell the odd player every few seasons for millions which helps, we've made such signings that gives little re-sale value. We have players with value at the moment, but that hasn't always been the case. In generall Coppell and Johnson have left us with more bad than good, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Actually, I think FFP is not such a bad thing. Revenue in football is increasing but so are wages- the latter at such an alarming rate that something was necessary. Is FFP the answer? I don't know but the current system if left unchecked was surely heading for a major burst of a bubble sooner or later. Oh, I think it's a good thing - it's just the short term implications for city that I worry about. Not that it's likely to happen but would like to see a limit on the activities of Sky and the re-distribution of whatever TV money there is. Football, IMO, started going to the dogs once they got involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 They earned £199,192 in 2010. As part of the cost cutting programme, they earned £277,343 in 2011. Hang on... The board only had 4 people on it last year that's grown about 8 this year so the money we is going to grow you plum they are not going to do it for free as they all haven't got steve's wealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Selling club........as if how long since we actually sold a player for a decent fee, most clubs sell the odd player every few seasons for millions which helps, we've made such signings that gives little re-sale value. We have players with value at the moment, but that hasn't always been the case. In generall Coppell and Johnson have left us with more bad than good, Wrong again, Coppell signed Adomah and Cisse who are now starring in our side, any fees from them will more than offset the other 2 Coppell signings. As for Johnson 3 of the current side are the only players in the squad that even had a sniff of an enquiry during the september window and one of them is worth twice as much as when we signed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshyshaw Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 People are forgetting that this isn't a conventional business here. If this was then a turnaround specialist will have been bought in years ago and city would be pushing the commercial aspect of the club to bring in new investors. We, just like everyone else in the ccc, rely on getting to the prem in the near future. There is no need to worry right now, if we were here for another 5 years then maybe there would have to be some sales and a re-think in ambitions. Investing in January, and in McInnes in general will mean that we can make the promised land and these debt's will be wiped with the new commercial value of the club. Its ok to rely on Lansdown for now, if he wanted an exit stategy, owing to his stake in the club, it would take at least 5 years to implement. Prem within 5 years is a realistic goal imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humble Realist Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Why don't the club just copy n paste their quotes from the previous year when commenting on our huge loss YET again. The club needs to take stronger action or just state 'steve lansdown is bankrolling the club'. Pretending every year we are addressing it is embarassin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Am I being a little naieve here? On the official site (near the bottom) it says we had a turnover of £11.9million but staff costs of £15.9million - to me that's a negative difference of £4million, so where's the £11million loss come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.