|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 12, 2015 16:48:12 GMT
Surely, one of the messages is that you can't afford to spend/waste salaries on players who aren't fit enough/good enough. There are always going to be injuries of course, but a significant portion of Sussex's salary bill in 2015 must have been unproductive.
In passing, do other counties suffer with such frequent and prolonged injuries to their seamers?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 12, 2015 16:52:20 GMT
"... based on what our income looks like going forward and takes into account we will receive less money from the ECB next year." Presumably this is a reference to the start of the claw back on the ECB £1 million 'soft loan', repayable over four years from the regular annual ECB stipend. I know there were some who believed 'soft loan' meant never having to pay it back and we had that discussion on here, I seem to recall. It was only 'soft' in the sense that it wasn't repayable at a punitive rate of interest - but the capital sum was always going to have to be repaid.All those counties who took the million and spent it will presumably be facing the same harsh reality of paying it back and consequent reductions in their ECB grant over seasons 2016-19. The 'loan' wasn't shown in last year's balance sheet, as far as I recall - if it was repayable, then the borrowing should have been disclosed as a liability. If it's got to be repaid, as you suggest BM, then the repayment will hit the bottom line profit. I hope that isn't the case, as it would be very poor accounting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2015 17:00:20 GMT
"... based on what our income looks like going forward and takes into account we will receive less money from the ECB next year." Presumably this is a reference to the start of the claw back on the ECB £1 million 'soft loan', repayable over four years from the regular annual ECB stipend. I know there were some who believed 'soft loan' meant never having to pay it back and we had that discussion on here, I seem to recall. It was only 'soft' in the sense that it wasn't repayable at a punitive rate of interest - but the capital sum was always going to have to be repaid.All those counties who took the million and spent it will presumably be facing the same harsh reality of paying it back and consequent reductions in their ECB grant over seasons 2016-19. The 'loan' wasn't shown in last year's balance sheet, as far as I recall - if it was repayable, then the borrowing should have been disclosed as a liability. If it's got to be repaid, as you suggest BM, then the repayment will hit the bottom line profit. I hope that isn't the case, as it would be very poor accounting. I think the way it worked was that it was effectively an advance on sums that the counties were due to receive in future years. In terms of "paying it back", there is no transfer of money from the counties to the ECB - the counties simply receive a smaller grant in years two, three and four than they would have done if they hadn't applied for the loan/advance in year one. Under those circs, I can see why it wouldn't be disclosed as a 'liability'? Presumably the £1 million would show up in the annual accounts as an inflated annual ECB grant for year one, and as a result the annual accounts over the next three or four seasons will show smaller than usual ECB grants, as the loan is clawed back. And if I'm right about how it works, Toumasi's statement that "we will receive less money from the ECB next year" is slightly disingenuous. "We've already gone and spent some of next year's ECB money" would be nearer the mark. (What did Sussex spend the money on, btw? It wasn't on Mills and Shahzad because under the t&c it had to be spent on projects intended to improve efficiency and profitability, approved in advance by the ECB. New computer systems and a membership recruitment campaign seems to ring a bell?) |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 12, 2015 17:25:48 GMT
I wonder if it was a knee jerk reaction by Zac to use the expression knee jerk again?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 12, 2015 17:26:17 GMT
The 'loan' wasn't shown in last year's balance sheet, as far as I recall - if it was repayable, then the borrowing should have been disclosed as a liability. If it's got to be repaid, as you suggest BM, then the repayment will hit the bottom line profit. I hope that isn't the case, as it would be very poor accounting. I think the way it worked was that it was effectively an advance on sums that the counties were due to receive in future years. In terms of "paying it back", there is no transfer of money from the counties to the ECB - the counties simply receive a smaller grant in years two, three and four than they would have done if they hadn't applied for the loan/advance in year one. Under those circs, I can see why it wouldn't be disclosed as a 'liability'? Presumably the £1 million would show up in the annual accounts as an inflated annual ECB grant for year one, and as a result the annual accounts over the next three or four seasons will show smaller than usual ECB grants, as the loan is clawed back. And if I'm right about how it works, Toumasi's statement that "we will receive less money from the ECB next year" is slightly disingenuous. "We've already gone and spent some of next year's ECB money" would be nearer the mark. (What did Sussex spend the money on, btw? It wasn't on Mills and Shahzad because under the t&c it had to be spent on projects intended to improve efficiency and profitability, approved in advance by the ECB. New computer systems and a membership recruitment campaign seems to ring a bell?) The way you describe it, these are not loans, but a series of diminishing annual grants. As such they constitute a reducing income stream, a fact known to the counties in advance, presumably? I'm now wondering if the cricket budget is being cut because the non-cricket income streams (including these grants) are falling. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 12, 2015 17:30:55 GMT
I hope there's still a little left in the pot for a couple of junior pro contracts. Perfect time to bring some youngsters through.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Oct 12, 2015 17:58:00 GMT
"... based on what our income looks like going forward and takes into account we will receive less money from the ECB next year." Presumably this is a reference to the start of the claw back on the ECB £1 million 'soft loan', repayable over four years from the regular annual ECB stipend. I know there were some who believed 'soft loan' meant never having to pay it back and we had that discussion on here, I seem to recall. It was only 'soft' in the sense that it wasn't repayable at a punitive rate of interest - but the capital sum was always going to have to be repaid.All those counties who took the million and spent it will presumably be facing the same harsh reality of paying it back and consequent reductions in their ECB grant over seasons 2016-19. The 'loan' wasn't shown in last year's balance sheet, as far as I recall - if it was repayable, then the borrowing should have been disclosed as a liability. If it's got to be repaid, as you suggest BM, then the repayment will hit the bottom line profit. I hope that isn't the case, as it would be very poor accounting. Mistakes do happen. This was a rather costly screw up by Mussleburgh Racecourse. sportinglife.aol.co.uk/horse-racing/news/article/22888/10026396/musselburgh-lose-easter-fixture-after-funding-mix-up |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2015 18:05:26 GMT
I think the way it worked was that it was effectively an advance on sums that the counties were due to receive in future years. In terms of "paying it back", there is no transfer of money from the counties to the ECB - the counties simply receive a smaller grant in years two, three and four than they would have done if they hadn't applied for the loan/advance in year one. Under those circs, I can see why it wouldn't be disclosed as a 'liability'? Presumably the £1 million would show up in the annual accounts as an inflated annual ECB grant for year one, and as a result the annual accounts over the next three or four seasons will show smaller than usual ECB grants, as the loan is clawed back. And if I'm right about how it works, Toumasi's statement that "we will receive less money from the ECB next year" is slightly disingenuous. "We've already gone and spent some of next year's ECB money" would be nearer the mark. (What did Sussex spend the money on, btw? It wasn't on Mills and Shahzad because under the t&c it had to be spent on projects intended to improve efficiency and profitability, approved in advance by the ECB. New computer systems and a membership recruitment campaign seems to ring a bell?) The way you describe it, these are not loans, but a series of diminishing annual grants. As such they constitute a reducing income stream, a fact known to the counties in advance, presumably? I'm now wondering if the cricket budget is being cut because the non-cricket income streams (including these grants) are falling. Well look at it this way. Say a county is due to receive a £1.5 m stipend from the ECB each year for five years. That's £7.5 m over the term. In year one, you take your £1.5m but the ECB also offers to loan/advance another £1 million without interest but the terms are that it will be clawed back in years 2,3,4 and 5. So in year one you get £2.5 million. But in years 2,3,4 and 5 you only get £1.25 m per annum, rather than the £1.5m that you would have received if you hadn't taken the advance in year one. At the end of the five year term, you've still received £7.5m in total but have enjoyed the advantages of an improved cash flow, and , if the money has been invested wisely, improved efficiency and profitability. These figures for exemplification only - but in principle I think that's how it works. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Oct 12, 2015 18:08:05 GMT
That is disingenuous isn't it Borderman. I think sometimes these 'suit' types think the average fan is stupid. Most of them are I imagine but I'm not, I have an IQ of over 109, 110, and I imagine your IQ, BM, is even higher what with all that stuff you say and all that stuff you say an all.
Anywho, I wouldn't call it gloomy. Sensible and obvious really - we're only diddy. Keep the ship in financial, independent-ish order. As suggested, a good way to do that is to trust your youth. I'd rather lose sicknote Mills and old man Joyce, who are both big earners, probably, than risk losing Garton and Salt.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 12, 2015 18:30:47 GMT
The way you describe it, these are not loans, but a series of diminishing annual grants. As such they constitute a reducing income stream, a fact known to the counties in advance, presumably? I'm now wondering if the cricket budget is being cut because the non-cricket income streams (including these grants) are falling. Well look at it this way. Say a county is due to receive a £1.5 m stipend from the ECB each year for five years. That's £7.5 m over the term. In year one, you take your £1.5m but the ECB also offers to loan/advance another £1 million without interest but the terms are that it will be clawed back in years 2,3,4 and 5. So in year one you get £2.5 million. But in years 2,3,4 and 5 you only get £1.25 m per annum, rather than the £1.5m that you would have received if you hadn't taken the advance in year one. At the end of the five year term, you've still received £7.5m in total but have enjoyed the advantages of an improved cash flow, and , if the money has been invested wisely, improved efficiency and profitability. These figures for exemplification only - but in principle I think that's how it works. That's a big "if" Isn't Zac claiming that ECB receipts are falling and therefore spending budgets have to be cut?! In the Argus article, he actually says: “It was based on what our income looks like going forward and takes into account we will receive less money from the ECB next year. Those factors means we needed to review what we spend throughout the whole club. The tenor of Zac's interview suggests that the club may have run at a loss for the current year? Let's hope not - we shall see. He implies that he'd rather be stuck in div 2 if that's the way to stay solvent. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Oct 13, 2015 8:00:25 GMT
Well look at it this way. Say a county is due to receive a £1.5 m stipend from the ECB each year for five years. That's £7.5 m over the term. In year one, you take your £1.5m but the ECB also offers to loan/advance another £1 million without interest but the terms are that it will be clawed back in years 2,3,4 and 5. So in year one you get £2.5 million. But in years 2,3,4 and 5 you only get £1.25 m per annum, rather than the £1.5m that you would have received if you hadn't taken the advance in year one. At the end of the five year term, you've still received £7.5m in total but have enjoyed the advantages of an improved cash flow, and , if the money has been invested wisely, improved efficiency and profitability. These figures for exemplification only - but in principle I think that's how it works. That's a big "if" Isn't Zac claiming that ECB receipts are falling and therefore spending budgets have to be cut?! In the Argus article, he actually says: “It was based on what our income looks like going forward and takes into account we will receive less money from the ECB next year. Those factors means we needed to review what we spend throughout the whole club. The tenor of Zac's interview suggests that the club may have run at a loss for the current year? Let's hope not - we shall see. He implies that he'd rather be stuck in div 2 if that's the way to stay solvent.And that is rather worringly in line with Robinson's recent pronouncement "“We get great backing from the board who try to give us what we need whenever they can but we have to respect that the most important thing is that the club survives.” So, taking borderman's hypothesis, it looks as if the soft loan was used to pay for marketing activities that have not really come good, or not yet anyway, and that repayment will therefore reduce the income stream for some time to come. Meanwhile every available penny was spent in an attempt to shore up First division status by buying in the seamers, and investing in Jayawardene and Bailey to ensure one-day success and all the benefits that would bring. A further expensive complication must have been Prior's contract from October 2014, when the ECB central contract ran out, until whatever point this summer was agreed by both parties to bring his career to its conclusion. That does rather look like a series of misjudgments and mistakes, although I have no doubt it will all be shrugged off as bad luck and "no one could have foreseen..." |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Oct 13, 2015 8:28:23 GMT
My farthing's worth:
My understanding is the 'soft loan' will be clawed back/converted into grants, which means there'll be less future money from the ECB within this field. As 17 of the counties took up the £1m loan, presumably many clubs will have a similar problem as Sussex.
It is what each county does with their £1m that is the issue.
I believe Sussex have used around £400k of their money on improving marketing - particularly advertising future matches. Sadly, this has not come off, and why the club are now focusing on their community project. They have realised that only via closely interacting with the locals that new people will be attracted to the ground. It was a costly lesson to learn but placing posters about impending games in bus shelters etc.. does not put 'bums on seats' and is money down a bottomless pit.
A further half or more of the £1m is being spent on the new business 'chalets' in the north east part of the ground. An excellent idea and one which should bring in annual and steady rental income for many years to come. A great shame about the marketing wastage. That money could have been used in a far more lucrative way.
For a non-TMG, rental has to be the way forward. It offers consistent monthly/annual income. One notes the unit next to the club shop is still empty and gathering dust rather than a revenue stream. Surely, this can be rented out? Perhaps, the club are asking too much money?
Yet, plaudits to Zac who has attracted further sponsorship and increased the off-field income by a fair margin. The public parking bays within the ground is a good idea but please, please, convert that terrible eyesore of the former Newbery building into a revenue stream. It is a wasted opportunity.
As the school economics report might say, 'Sussex CCC are fairing well but could do better.'
|
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Oct 13, 2015 14:39:08 GMT
My farthing's worth: My understanding is the 'soft loan' will be clawed back/converted into grants, which means there'll be less future money from the ECB within this field. As 17 of the counties took up the £1m loan, presumably many clubs will have a similar problem as Sussex. It is what each county does with their £1m that is the issue. I believe Sussex have used around £400k of their money on improving marketing - particularly advertising future matches. Sadly, this has not come off, and why the club are now focusing on their community project. They have realised that only via closely interacting with the locals that new people will be attracted to the ground. It was a costly lesson to learn but placing posters about impending games in bus shelters etc.. does not put 'bums on seats' and is money down a bottomless pit. A further half or more of the £1m is being spent on the new business 'chalets' in the north east part of the ground. An excellent idea and one which should bring in annual and steady rental income for many years to come. A great shame about the marketing wastage. That money could have been used in a far more lucrative way. For a non-TMG, rental has to be the way forward. It offers consistent monthly/annual income. One notes the unit next to the club shop is still empty and gathering dust rather than a revenue stream. Surely, this can be rented out? Perhaps, the club are asking too much money? Yet, plaudits to Zac who has attracted further sponsorship and increased the off-field income by a fair margin. The public parking bays within the ground is a good idea but please, please, convert that terrible eyesore of the former Newbery building into a revenue stream. What a waste of an opportunity. As the school economics report might say, 'Sussex CCC are fairing well but could do a lot better.' Did we really spend £400K of our loan on Marketing? Consultants? |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 13, 2015 14:54:38 GMT
My farthing's worth: My understanding is the 'soft loan' will be clawed back/converted into grants, which means there'll be less future money from the ECB within this field. As 17 of the counties took up the £1m loan, presumably many clubs will have a similar problem as Sussex. It is what each county does with their £1m that is the issue. I believe Sussex have used around £400k of their money on improving marketing - particularly advertising future matches. Sadly, this has not come off, and why the club are now focusing on their community project. They have realised that only via closely interacting with the locals that new people will be attracted to the ground. It was a costly lesson to learn but placing posters about impending games in bus shelters etc.. does not put 'bums on seats' and is money down a bottomless pit. A further half or more of the £1m is being spent on the new business 'chalets' in the north east part of the ground. An excellent idea and one which should bring in annual and steady rental income for many years to come. A great shame about the marketing wastage. That money could have been used in a far more lucrative way. For a non-TMG, rental has to be the way forward. It offers consistent monthly/annual income. One notes the unit next to the club shop is still empty and gathering dust rather than a revenue stream. Surely, this can be rented out? Perhaps, the club are asking too much money? Yet, plaudits to Zac who has attracted further sponsorship and increased the off-field income by a fair margin. The public parking bays within the ground is a good idea but please, please, convert that terrible eyesore of the former Newbery building into a revenue stream. What a waste of an opportunity. As the school economics report might say, 'Sussex CCC are fairing well but could do a lot better.' Did we really spend £400K of our loan on Marketing? Consultants? I don't know how much was spent on marketing, but how else could we have achieved "have some o' that" status? If you're not convinced, have a look at the Marketing Consultants' summary of the work they did for the club: www.pleeceandco.com/our-work/bringing-six-appeal-to-sussex-ccc/"Match report: We rebranded both the club itself and their integral 1839 hospitality operation. Visually, we moved them from merely occupying the crease to biffing sixes, from ‘the world’s oldest professional sports club’ to ‘have-some-of-that’ cricketing box office. Pow."  |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 13, 2015 15:29:24 GMT
Did we really spend £400K of our loan on Marketing? Consultants? I don't know how much was spent on marketing, but how else could we have achieved "have some o' that" status? If you're not convinced, have a look at the Marketing Consultants' summary of the work they did for the club: www.pleeceandco.com/our-work/bringing-six-appeal-to-sussex-ccc/"Match report: We rebranded both the club itself and their integral 1839 hospitality operation. Visually, we moved them from merely occupying the crease to biffing sixes, from ‘the world’s oldest professional sports club’ to ‘have-some-of-that’ cricketing box office. Pow." Oh dear.... perhaps they should be renamed Fleece&Co? |
|
