There are claims on here that the club's accounts show that SISU have not taken any money out of CCFC. That is simply not true. And before anyone asks, yes, I am an accountant (ex-KPMG) as well as being a professor in a business school.
While it is incorrect to conclude from the accounts that SISU have not taken any money out of CCFC, it is equally the case that the accounts do not show that SISU have taken money out of CCFC. In other words, it could be that SISU have taken money out, but the accounts are simply not shown at a level of granularity that would prove it to be the case (or not). In short, we simply don't know.
To clarify my point in relation to previous comments by OSB and others, the accounts show that SISU have not received any dividend (in fact such a dividend would be illegal) or interest payments from the club. However, the absence of a dividend or interest payment does not necessarily imply, in and of itself, that SISU have not taken any cash out of the business. There are many ways for an owner to take cash out of the business other than through a dividend or interest payment. Moreover, those other ways wouldn't have to show up as a separate line item in the published accounts.
For example, consider the 2014 accounts which show that the club's direct operating costs were 1.1m. According to note 4 of the accounts, the 1.1m charge covers "match expenses and the direct costs relating to commercial activities". In the same year, the club reported "administrative expenses" of 4.1m. What were these admin expenses? Certainly they are not salaries because salaries are reported as a separate line item with an amount of 5.3m.
I am not saying necessarily that any of the 4.1m in "admin expenses" represent "management charges" or other types of expenses paid to SISU. On the other hand, neither am I ruling that out as a possibility. We simply DO NOT KNOW for sure because the accounts do not provide a sufficient level of detail for us to say one way or another what these numbers actually represent.
That's not to say that the accounts are materially misstated or in violation of financial reporting standards. Rather, we do not have enough detail from the published accounts about all the club's transactions in order for us to draw any firm conclusions.
For example, it was previously alleged (*) that under the club's previous ownership (Richardson and Robinson) the club had overstated its expenses paid to former players for the services they provided in entertaining corporate clients on a match day. Because the accounts are shown at a highly aggregated level, there would have been no way for me, OSB or anyone else to ascertain that from the published accounts.
* This allegation appeared on a now defunct fans forum. I am not saying that the allegation is necessarily true; rather I am using it for illustrative purposes.
