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.
Not going to get in to a technical discussion on this and frankly bore everyone else to death
- firstly what I have always said is that there is nothing in the published accounts to show SISU have extracted any funds. Simple fact. Which is also what Nick has repeated to be fair.
- could it be possible that there has been some payments yes, but people on here are stating it as fact that they are and that is incorrect, as you say we don't know for certain - but the accounts disclose nothing
- as SISU/JS exert significant influence over the CCFC and SBS&L Group activities you might expect disclosure under the Companies Act of such transactions as related party transactions
- If the directors do not disclose then the auditors should if they exist
- do we know for certain no we don't but there is no evidence for assertions by posters here that they have.
Do I disregard the possibility no. Frankly given this is the same owners etc that misplaced shares, couldn't say where their assets were, disclosed and valued an asset in a company that had no right to it, then I am very wary of what is actually published. Certainly the note about related parties does make me think the issue has been fudged
The 2014 figure of 4.1m admin expenses. Some of the expenses are broken down in note 3. There is £1.5m included as impairment of goodwill. There are lease and rent payments £800k. there are £200k of other expenses disclosed Then add in costs of insurance, shop costs, costs of the Ryton training ground, travel, other normal expenses and the figure to be explained is not so great. But it doesn't exclude the possibility no, nor does it confirm it.
On a practical level why hide such things then put through interest charges that (a) can not be paid out (b) increase the losses that get no present tax advantage (c) increase debt be it loans or preference shares (d) makes doing day to day business more difficult (e) when interest gives an "investment" return and a slice to SISU I would expect in any case.
I accept the possibility but I have never said other than there is no evidence of it in the published accounts. And there isnt