Pressley

[Realist]

I read in the Telegraph there are some calling for Pressley to be sacked. Is this really true? I'd be gobsmacked if this were the case. I'm not sure what the expectations were at the start of the season, I thought we'd likely go down with the 10pt deduction. We are trying to get by with a small squad, and without Clarke due to no fault of the manager, and Wilson who is injured.

[adge]

He was onto a winner from the start as nobody expected anything other than maybe relegation. That probably won't happen and we will escape and the real test will be next year when Pressley may get found out and his world could come crashing down if he does not have a good start. Leon Clark papered over a lot of the cracks but he is now gone and the players who were doing well for him were already here. Jury is still out on some of his questionable players that he himself has brought in.

[The Yid]

Only a fucktard of epic proportions would call for Pressley to be sacked.

[dog rout 21]

Given that a large number of our fans are window licking mongs, what did you expect?

[slobbydan sillibic]

Why do they lick windows..? do they have nice hats...?

[The Yid]

Given that a large number of our fans are window licking mongs, what did you expect?

I suppose your right. I did see the Twitter mongs were wishing each other 'Happy Transfer Embargo Day' on Friday. You'd think they take pleasure in there being problems.

Hope SISU ruined their weekend.

[billythefish]

To be fair to anyone managing the club it is hard to know what a good job is. With any club that has spent time in the top leagues there is an expectation from some fans to get back asap. With the problems that the club have then anything better than relegation is a realistic benchmark. Personally I think he is doing a decent job and whilst there is the worry about a high turnover on his signings then I would rather he got players in and then if not up to expectations then wave them on their way. Trying to sell the club to players must be quite challenging so cant imagine that getting the right players is that easy in itself.

[Timbo]

Clarke leaving and Wilson getting injured knocked the wind out of our sails. Our style of play doesn't suit blustery conditions or poor pitches. Pressley needs to consider a plan B but we have a thin squad and he's had a bit of bad luck with signings (Delfouneso and Donnelly).

Its not unusual for a teams form to go once any realistic chances of promotion are gone. The trouble is when you are in the top half of the table for so long you can fail to realise that you are still not that far off the relegation spots.

[adge]

We should strike while the Iron is hot!................

http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/ ... ndex.shtml

[billythefish]

Madness to sack anyone that soon into a job but funny none the less!

[AD]

Given that a large number of our fans are window licking mongs, what did you expect?

I suppose your right. I did see the Twitter mongs were wishing each other 'Happy Transfer Embargo Day' on Friday. You'd think they take pleasure in there being problems.

Hope SISU ruined their weekend.

Interesting reading. All costs down, mainly player salaries but that would be due to the realignment with league 1 status over the year. Most worringly, turnover down £4.4m nearly 40%. And let's not forget this is only up to May. So we were still getting half decent crowds at the Ricoh. So imagine how much revenue will have been lost since? The rental due on the stadium looks like good value now doesn't it!

Also ARVO loans are now due payable within one year. However that doesn't necessarily mean they'll call them in, just when the agreement to pay falls at the end of the year. They could easily extend it, although more likely they'll call it in, but offer another loan, with higher interest, to pay the original. Nice work if you can get it. Also taken on more preference shares, so able to pull the fast one of securing their own debt ahead of other parties like last time.

In comparison ACL show a profit over £750k for the same period. Yes, at the time CCFC were still playing at the place, but CCFC had stopped paying them, although the accounts show a debt owed to them by the club of £590k so that may include economic assumptions bill will be paid when in likelihood they will be a bad debt.

All in all, it'll be next years accounts that will be interesting as it will start to truly show the effects. Both will suffer financially, but going on this the effect will be much, much more significant on CCFC.

[AD]

Madness to sack anyone that soon into a job but funny none the less!

Has been a change of Chairman so that may be a factor. His record has been poor though.

[The Yid]

Given that a large number of our fans are window licking mongs, what did you expect?

I suppose your right. I did see the Twitter mongs were wishing each other 'Happy Transfer Embargo Day' on Friday. You'd think they take pleasure in there being problems.

Hope SISU ruined their weekend.

Interesting reading. All costs down, mainly player salaries but that would be due to the realignment with league 1 status over the year. Most worringly, turnover down £4.4m nearly 40%. And let's not forget this is only up to May. So we were still getting half decent crowds at the Ricoh. So imagine how much revenue will have been lost since? The rental due on the stadium looks like good value now doesn't it!

Also ARVO loans are now due payable within one year. However that doesn't necessarily mean they'll call them in, just when the agreement to pay falls at the end of the year. They could easily extend it, although more likely they'll call it in, but offer another loan, with higher interest, to pay the original. Nice work if you can get it. Also taken on more preference shares, so able to pull the fast one of securing their own debt ahead of other parties like last time.

In comparison ACL show a profit over £750k for the same period. Yes, at the time CCFC were still playing at the place, but CCFC had stopped paying them, although the accounts show a debt owed to them by the club of £590k so that may include economic assumptions bill will be paid when in likelihood they will be a bad debt.

All in all, it'll be next years accounts that will be interesting as it will start to truly show the effects. Both will suffer financially, but going on this the effect will be much, much more significant on CCFC.

ACL's 'revenue' is topped up by them allocating approximately £1m into the accounts which is part of a 'fine' paid by Isle of Capri to leave Ricoh complex. So although they did get the cash injection from that, real terms account would actually be a loss - not profit. They are not financially viable without the club... it's delusional to think they are.

Although both will suffer financially in future - SISU's money is their own to waste - but ACL's?? Funded by more public money which could go to far better use.

[AD]

Given that a large number of our fans are window licking mongs, what did you expect?

I suppose your right. I did see the Twitter mongs were wishing each other 'Happy Transfer Embargo Day' on Friday. You'd think they take pleasure in there being problems.

Hope SISU ruined their weekend.

Interesting reading. All costs down, mainly player salaries but that would be due to the realignment with league 1 status over the year. Most worringly, turnover down £4.4m nearly 40%. And let's not forget this is only up to May. So we were still getting half decent crowds at the Ricoh. So imagine how much revenue will have been lost since? The rental due on the stadium looks like good value now doesn't it!

Also ARVO loans are now due payable within one year. However that doesn't necessarily mean they'll call them in, just when the agreement to pay falls at the end of the year. They could easily extend it, although more likely they'll call it in, but offer another loan, with higher interest, to pay the original. Nice work if you can get it. Also taken on more preference shares, so able to pull the fast one of securing their own debt ahead of other parties like last time.

In comparison ACL show a profit over £750k for the same period. Yes, at the time CCFC were still playing at the place, but CCFC had stopped paying them, although the accounts show a debt owed to them by the club of £590k so that may include economic assumptions bill will be paid when in likelihood they will be a bad debt.

All in all, it'll be next years accounts that will be interesting as it will start to truly show the effects. Both will suffer financially, but going on this the effect will be much, much more significant on CCFC.

ACL's 'revenue' is topped up by them allocating approximately £1m into the accounts which is part of a 'fine' paid by Isle of Capri to leave Ricoh complex. So although they did get the cash injection from that, real terms account would actually be a loss - not profit. They are not financially viable without the club... it's delusional to think they are.

Although both will suffer financially in future - SISU's money is their own to waste - but ACL's?? Funded by more public money which could go to far better use.

No - its a contractual agreement to pay a severance fee, essentially to replace the rental income they would be getting with the casino there while they search for new tenants. In real terms its exactly correct. Whether they get new tenants is another matter, but that impact in real terms will be in future accounts, not these.

I expect their accounts for next year to not be pretty, as they have effectively wasted a year trying to get a sensible solution to the issue that is equitable for all sides. They may also include a bad debt provision for SISU's underhandedness. But the other areas of the business like conferences and exhibitions remain largely unaffected, as those people couldn't give a shit if a football club plays there. Now they are moving forward on an alternative strategy, which won't show the mitigation of having no football club until the accounts to 31 May 2015 at the earliest, which won't be published until Feb/Mar 2016.

But the club? There would have been a significant loss due to relegation in these accounts, but next years will have the loss of revenue from an average of around 14k fans to 2k. That's an 85% decrease. And there is a massive reduction in replica shirts around too, so that's massive too. It'll be horrendous

And it isn't SISU's own money to waste - you know as well as I do it's going in as secured loans with high interest payments, which ARE being serviced in the accounts. So they are still getting money back from it and will be the only ones to get anything if it all goes tits up. It will ultimately cost the club. It's delusional to think otherwise.

And I'll say it again - the council gave NO public funds to the stadium operators. They took out a loan at a rate ACL couldn't achieve, and gave the money to ACL with a mark-up, so they're actually MAKING money from the deal.

[The Yid]

You're right - this years accounts are not really telling us anything for either party. I understand the severance few idea, but they replaced the tenant almost immediately, so any gap certainly wouldn't have amounted to the full value.

So once the difference was covered, what happened to the rest of it? If they kept it as an asset - why on earth did they need the council to bail them out? And if not, then clearly this depositing into the accounts yearly can be the only place it would be... Unless of course the new casino occupants pay a hugely lower rent and the severance fee makes up the difference... But equally that is unsustainable.

As for the debts, the SCMP in place would suggest that not all the losses can be attached to the club, but don't know the exact detail of what and how it works.

And finally if no public money went into ACL - then certainly finance taken by council instead means less money can be taken to invest in other areas.

[AD]

Yes, the tenant was replaced by G almost immediately, so how the £1m affects that is unclear. it could be any of the things you mention, and the new tenants may well be paying less (and may be looking to renegotiate too if the matchday crowds aren't there). But as Capri left in 2009 yet this provision is still in the accounts, it seems an anomaly. Why add it in now? Agreement over a settlement has taken this long maybe? Unlikely to be an apportionment over the remainder of the leases life - £1m is far too big - although looking at previous years would quickly make this apparent but I don't have them. If it was then it is possible the same may be in next year, as a lease is unlikely to be less than 10 years taking the lease to 2015 at least.

Similarly there will of course be the issue in 2015 over the naming rights. Will the lack of a club make it nigh on impossible to obtain a new sponsor? Will the location and essentially a massive billboard visible from the M6 be a draw, and will a new strategy keep the entertainment side sufficiently high to make it appealing?

Personally, I expect any new sponsor to be at a much reduced value regardless, even if the club came back - the initial name of the Ricoh has stuck and will be hard to shift. So either a new sponsor will see fewer benefits from the naming, or Ricoh will remain but not pay as much as it has achieved the main benefit from it - it has little extra benefit to gain.

Re: the bailout/loan. The money was required to pay Yorkshire Bank for the mortgage. If they were looking to demand payment due to the uncertainty as was suggested (and IMO part of the SISU plan to create that uncertainty and make the bank jumpy) that extra cash didn't get near to covering it, and the cash situation was worsened without the money from the club. So as a major stakeholder the council was able to provide ACL with the funds at a rate cheaper than elsewhere by taking out a loan with its own purchasing power. Thus it secured its financial stake in the Arena, and was able to make a small profit from interest. It's why I can't understand the judicial review - it can clearly be defended on both appropriation of funds, protecting commercial interests and even as a business decision.

I have seen the statement on the website re: the accounts, and it is clearly looking at winning over the average fan with little or no knowledge of financial and accounting semantics. The old "We've put in equity not debt" is purely semantics, just as it was when they declared the club debt free when it wasn't. The problem is that when it becomes clear a big backlash comes your way, as they found to their cost last time.

Does it mean less finance can be raised? Although the amount of debt they have and gearing will have increased, for lenders the credit score and keeping up with payments are more important. If you've taken out money and have consistently paid in back on time, that is considered good practice and increases the likelihood of lending to you in future (until such point as you stop paying it back on time). So not really.