Why are we loosing 1m a month?

What has happened in the last couple of years for us to be loosing this crazy amount each month?

Looking over the accounts up until May 2011, we had an income of just under £16m, with wages (including NI) pretty much 100% of this figure.

What do we spend the extra million on?

Transfer fees, agent fees, maintaining the stadium it all adds up.

Majority of it is players wages.

the Fact of the matter is: WE ARE! and VT is lending CCFC the money to maintain this with 7% interest on top.

What has happened in the last couple of years for us to be loosing this crazy amount each month?

Looking over the accounts up until May 2011, we had an income of just under £16m, with wages (including NI) pretty much 100% of this figure.

What do we spend the extra million on?

ive asked on 4 different occasions,ive been told its the debt,but to me we knew about that,so im a bit confused,and wonder if its the truth,our gates are not going to increase in the near future so to me this is as good as it gets,

malaysians.

Up until the last years of the reign of Mr Ridsdale it was always clear we needed to make £5m in the transfer market each year. This was the mantra until we turned down £6m for ledley and started spending money we didn't have on players like chopra when we were moving into the new stadium and struggling to pay for the stadium work. The chopra money came from Ray Ranson and meant that the money from the next big sale went to him. Rather than selling and paying that debt off the Malaysians decided to try to keep our best players and fund the shortfall themselves. A particularly expensive year happened when Dave Jones brought in his expensive loan players and also meant the cupboard was bare in terms of people to sell. The large wage bill and lack of transfer profit now adds up to 12m per year shortfall.

The long term way to solve it is to bring in cheaper younger players who you hope will increase in value or graduates from the academy. In the short term the gap would need to be filled by selling the best players.

Alternatively you could let the Malaysians carry on footing the bill until they get bored.

For the record, I’m pro investment.

From our losses last season, would I be totally wrong to suggest, if VT paid off all the debts we would save £2m per year. We would also get the Premier Club money.

Any other money we would not be paying out Dave Jones Wages etc?

Looking at the transfer fees last year there was little between income/ outgoings and we lost some high profile players.

we have a shit board

losing

we have a shit board

try being a bit more positive with response or dont bother as it doesnt bring anything to the debate

For the record, I’m pro investment.

From our losses last season, would I be totally wrong to suggest, if VT paid off all the debts we would save £2m per year. We would also get the Premier Club money.
Any other money we would not be paying out Dave Jones Wages etc?

That is a good point, the last time I looked PMG were taking £80,000 p/m from the Premier Seat Money which is paid into an account they control.

Also they charge 7% interest but unlike Langston/Sam Hammam and Vincent Tan they actually take it out in cash.

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

we have a shit board

try being a bit more positive with response or dont bother as it doesnt bring anything to the debate

You don't have to be positive?

You just need to back up your point with some facts, figures or even some reasonable debate?

I understand it wasn't the most helpful comment - but If thats his opinion then tough. Although it would be a bit more helpful if there was something to go on and create a better thread.

We have a poor board because............. ?

For the record, I’m pro investment.

From our losses last season, would I be totally wrong to suggest, if VT paid off all the debts we would save £2m per year. We would also get the Premier Club money.

Any other money we would not be paying out Dave Jones Wages etc?

The 2m per month is interest on VTs loans I assume? That would improve the annual loss definitely but it isn't an actual outgoing because we aren't paying the interest and there is no understanding of how future VT spending will appear in accounts only that over 25m in existing loans is expected to be turned into equity. So the shortfall for future seasons may be new loans of similar or larger amounts.

There are no new plans on the pmg debt so they would just carry on letting the premier club money pay off this debt.

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

Debt tends to grow if you don't get rid of it.

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

Debt tends to grow if you don't get rid of it.

I think there is some double accounting going on in that £80m figure. The Malaysians have invested £40m and have been here for only 2 years. At £1m p/m losses the maximum they would have paid out to cover monthly losses is £24m.

I guess the other £16m has gone on repayment of historical debt, such as those companies (like shine) who were owed substantial amounts for building the stadium.

Further £10m of the '£80m' is monies taken in advanced season ticket sales, which doesn't have to be paid back. By the time you work through that £80m (and calculate in the Langston settlement) the actual figure is more like £45-50m, £40m of which is owed to VT.

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

Debt tends to grow if you don't get rid of it.

I think there is some double accounting going on in that £80m figure. The Malaysians have invested £40m and have been here for only 2 years. At £1m p/m losses the maximum they would have paid out to cover monthly losses is £24m.

I guess the other £16m has gone on repayment of historical debt, such as those companies (like shine) who were owed substantial amounts for building the stadium.

Further £10m of the '£80m' is monies taken in advanced season ticket sales, which doesn't have to be paid back. By the time you work through that £80m (and calculate in the Langston settlement) the actual figure is more like £45-50m, £40m of which is owed to VT.

Didn't we lose £12mil two seasons ago (the season we had Bellers), was that from wages or transfer fees?

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

Debt tends to grow if you don't get rid of it.

I think there is some double accounting going on in that £80m figure. The Malaysians have invested £40m and have been here for only 2 years. At £1m p/m losses the maximum they would have paid out to cover monthly losses is £24m.

I guess the other £16m has gone on repayment of historical debt, such as those companies (like shine) who were owed substantial amounts for building the stadium.

Further £10m of the '£80m' is monies taken in advanced season ticket sales, which doesn't have to be paid back. By the time you work through that £80m (and calculate in the Langston settlement) the actual figure is more like £45-50m, £40m of which is owed to VT.

Didn't we lose £12mil two seasons ago (the season we had Bellers), was that from wages or transfer fees?

The losses come all sorts including interest charged by Langston even though they never get paid

The Bellamy wages would have certainly punched a great big hole into our finances.

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

Well look at it this way , they took over a company tht is loosing money every month, with players on high wages . What he has done is effectively reduce this wage bill by getting rid of dead wood. this will not imidiatly show a big reduction in debt as many have had to be paid compensation to leave and many players we have had to leave their contract run out. In the short term your not likely to see a massive reduction in outgoings but in the long term it stabalises our club.

When they took over they couldnt just come in and say hey all of you are paid over the odds i want you all to take a wage cut. They couldnt just sell all these players as not many clubs wanted them. and we have seen that we have been slowly but surely been replacing our players with players of simular or better ability but at lower wages. None of us would of been happy if we sold our squad and got players on lower wages who arnt as good as we would loose money in terms of our finishing position in the league etc. What they have done now is to invest in players who have resale values. In the short term you dont see any financial benifit of this but long term you will see a benifit. Just look at their transfers more recently we have got rid of parkin and replaced him on around the same wages with gunnerson . Parkin is a worse player (and yes i know hes a diffrent position) and has no real value.gunnerson on the other hand is a player who would easily fetch 1m.weve gone from buying players who are older and on high wages to actual assets to the club. there is never a quick fix in debt problems. Its all about finding the right balance is reducing the debt and investing in the business. Just this year alone we have reduced the wage bill by 20000 a week by releasing players. thats 1m a year reduction in running costs over the year.

I reckon it was Parkin's kebab bill

I reckon it was Parkin's kebab bill

Idiot.....it was clearly the Gregg's bill. I actually liked Parkin, admittedly he was funny on the ball as in he slipped over it, but he actually made a bit of an impact when he came on.

I struggle to understand this monthly loss because if it is real and VT is pumping that much money in each and every month how is it being accounted for.

In the 4 months immediately after the Malaysians initial investment 4 secured mortage charges were registered in the clubs financial records at Companies House. In the 18 months since the last mortgage was registered nothing, so does that mean that any monies since have been loaned on an unsecured basis?

Alternatively does it mean that VT is acting only to gaurantee any monies advanced by a bank and interest is being paid to them.

I'm no accountant but it does getting me thinking how £1m+ each month isn't being secured in some way.

Anyone got some thoughts on this.

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

Debt tends to grow if you don't get rid of it.

I think there is some double accounting going on in that £80m figure. The Malaysians have invested £40m and have been here for only 2 years. At £1m p/m losses the maximum they would have paid out to cover monthly losses is £24m.

I guess the other £16m has gone on repayment of historical debt, such as those companies (like shine) who were owed substantial amounts for building the stadium.

Further £10m of the '£80m' is monies taken in advanced season ticket sales, which doesn't have to be paid back. By the time you work through that £80m (and calculate in the Langston settlement) the actual figure is more like £45-50m, £40m of which is owed to VT.

I make the debt about 36m to Langston, at least 26m to Malaysians and about 10m to pmg and Ranson. I cant work out what the rest would be.

Season ticket sales are only 15,000x£300 = 4.5m

I am assuming the 26m loans to Malaysians is added to the money they used to buy shares and bail out the club in the six months before they officially bought their shares to make it up to the 40m usually quoted as being part of the 100m investment.

So if you convert Langston from a £36m debt to a £10m debt then total debt I can account for goes from £72m to £46m.

Last edited by bspark on Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

Debt tends to grow if you don't get rid of it.

I think there is some double accounting going on in that £80m figure. The Malaysians have invested £40m and have been here for only 2 years. At £1m p/m losses the maximum they would have paid out to cover monthly losses is £24m.

I guess the other £16m has gone on repayment of historical debt, such as those companies (like shine) who were owed substantial amounts for building the stadium.

Further £10m of the '£80m' is monies taken in advanced season ticket sales, which doesn't have to be paid back. By the time you work through that £80m (and calculate in the Langston settlement) the actual figure is more like £45-50m, £40m of which is owed to VT.

I make the debt about 36m to Langston, at least 26m to Malaysians and about 10m to pmg and Ranson. I cant work out what the rest would be.

Season ticket sales are only 15,000x£300 = 4.5m

I am assuming the 26m loans to Malaysians is added to the money they used to buy shares and bail out the club in the six months before they officially bought their shares to make it up to the 40m usually quoted as being part of the 100m investment.

I'm confused, how do we owe money to the Malaysians if they've invested £40mil into the club?

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

Debt tends to grow if you don't get rid of it.

I think there is some double accounting going on in that £80m figure. The Malaysians have invested £40m and have been here for only 2 years. At £1m p/m losses the maximum they would have paid out to cover monthly losses is £24m.

I guess the other £16m has gone on repayment of historical debt, such as those companies (like shine) who were owed substantial amounts for building the stadium.

Further £10m of the '£80m' is monies taken in advanced season ticket sales, which doesn't have to be paid back. By the time you work through that £80m (and calculate in the Langston settlement) the actual figure is more like £45-50m, £40m of which is owed to VT.

I make the debt about 36m to Langston, at least 26m to Malaysians and about 10m to pmg and Ranson. I cant work out what the rest would be.

Season ticket sales are only 15,000x£300 = 4.5m

I am assuming the 26m loans to Malaysians is added to the money they used to buy shares and bail out the club in the six months before they officially bought their shares to make it up to the 40m usually quoted as being part of the 100m investment.

I'm confused, how do we owe money to the Malaysians if they've invested £40mil into the club?

Because at least 26m of the investment is interest bearing loans to the club.

40million in debt before they took over 80million now ask yourselfs it and what have they done about it or even try to plug the holes, i have no answers for it

Debt tends to grow if you don't get rid of it.

I think there is some double accounting going on in that £80m figure. The Malaysians have invested £40m and have been here for only 2 years. At £1m p/m losses the maximum they would have paid out to cover monthly losses is £24m.

I guess the other £16m has gone on repayment of historical debt, such as those companies (like shine) who were owed substantial amounts for building the stadium.

Further £10m of the '£80m' is monies taken in advanced season ticket sales, which doesn't have to be paid back. By the time you work through that £80m (and calculate in the Langston settlement) the actual figure is more like £45-50m, £40m of which is owed to VT.

I make the debt about 36m to Langston, at least 26m to Malaysians and about 10m to pmg and Ranson. I cant work out what the rest would be.

Season ticket sales are only 15,000x£300 = 4.5m

I am assuming the 26m loans to Malaysians is added to the money they used to buy shares and bail out the club in the six months before they officially bought their shares to make it up to the 40m usually quoted as being part of the 100m investment.

I'm confused, how do we owe money to the Malaysians if they've invested £40mil into the club?

Because at least 26m of the investment is interest bearing loans to the club.

So....the investment isn't from their pockets?

It's from their pockets but only loaned to the club with expectation that it will be repaid unless they go ahead and convert it into equity.

It's from their pockets but only loaned to the club with expectation that it will be repaid unless they go ahead and convert it into equity.

Ah, right got you. I interpret investment as, for example, giving a small shop £10,000 for 20% of its business and help the business expand, not loans, or is it loans aswell as investment?

So....the investment isn't from their pockets?

So to speak yes but in loans some people think these malaysians are jesus but there not in it for us there in it to try make money with or without the fans views