As expected, City make a loss.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57326945

At least there's still a contigency in there to cover the worst outcome of the Sala enquiry. Without that we could have made a modest profit.

 

More or less as expected. I can't imagine any Championship club making a profit in the period concerned and the 20/21 losses will be even greater.

I don't know if FFP rules have been relaxed to take into account circumstances beyond the control of clubs.

Thank goodness for VT and his continued support.

I assume the umbongo has been cleared to enable us to rebuild the squad.

 

Accounts have been filed and looking at the receipt datestamp on the document at Companies House, they were with them on the 21st May. Embargo should lifted by now but I haven't seen that stated officially anywhere yet.

The problem is that this set of accounts is to May 2020 only - arguable it's been worse since financially this current year.

It doesn't augur well for the year to May 2021 which has just ended and wont be filed until next February at the earliest.

 

Its worth noting that Keith Morgan has pointed out the clubs net liabilites are incorrect in the bbc report and in fact are 24m

 

The net liabilities are just the difference between assets (£123M) and the gross liabilities (£147M) - viz the £24M quoted.

That's different to the annual operating profit (loss) for any given accounting year.

 

I am aware of two Championship clubs who made a £3m profit in 2019/20. One was Hull and the other was ......

Was the amount of the contingency provision stared?

 

Was it Derby?
Sheffield Wednesday?

 

It states that full provision has been made.....so 15 million, I guess....unless there's some interest as well?

 

Furter - if you look into the accounts, the Sala contingency is actually £20.7M to cover the transfer fee, agents fees, costs and legal expenses.

 

Let's be honest we are very lucky to have Tan.

 

I know it's only money and not about the actual game we enjoy, but an interesting take on the latest accounts.................

https://footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/2021/06/cardiff-would-have-broken-even-without.html

 

The financial pressure on VT will have only increased after another year of Covid. I dread to think what the 2021 figures will look like.

The sooner we get 2021/22 tickets on sale the better to give the club some actual income, even if we are allowed a max 10,000 to attend to begin with.

The downside will be having to bring admin/sales staff back off furlough and create an expenses stream, followed by match day staff once games recommence.

You can see why a big offer for Moore, say the £15m mentioned, would be attractive to the club, if not a necessity.

 

Scary that we made a loss during our year in the PL.
That and the lack of revenue from player sales. And certainly the lack of profit. Most sales income has been moving on expensive buys
Its something I hope they're looking at.
If we go up again I'd happily spend very little and chuck the cash at the debt. Ok, we come back down, but financially stronger.

 

Interesting point to bear in mind regarding the carry over of the £20M sala contingency is that it's only a balance sheet item and not actually cash. It's just a prudent accounting contingency to future proof the balance sheet should the decision go against the club.

City do not have the cash at bank to meet an impending obligation either in part or fully and would have to borrow it - that source is unlikely to be Tan. If the money has to be paid, it would probably be phased over a few years and the borrowings and interest accrued on it would follow that path.

Of course if the decision goes totally for City (unlikely), then that would improve the club's balance sheet no end. That's nothing to do with the annual P&L sheets which will be unnaffected either way and will still have to operate within the FFP rules.

 

Sparkey, that's not entirely true. The provision sits in the Balance Sheet but the cost of the provision will be in the P&L. but it's true that the provision os not cash and if called upon the cash will nee to be raised. but I sincerely hope that there was insurance cover for a lot/all of it. I've always assumed that the lack of guilt or agreement is entirely due to the insurers stating that there should be no admission.

 

Agreed Furter. Although a Balance Sheet contingency, viz not actual cash which would have to be raised, I'm assuming the loss has already been included as an historic item within the P&L and would not feature as a new loss in the future. The insurance (max £16M for any one occurance) is an interesting point. If the CAS decision went against City then you'd assume the loss would be covered by insurance anyway, so why the need for the provision?

 

Prudence, dear boy, prudence!!!! Plus allowing it now might help with FFP, assuming there'll be some sort of consideration given for this year due to COVID.

 

Stop calling me Prudence!!

 

ok pru

 

What did you say Shirley?