So what keeps TF here if he is not even paid expenses. The question printed doesn't cover all the bases does it nor does the one about investment. Has he investment in Sconset or ARVO, directly or indirectly or does he act for clients, associates who have and gets remunerated that way? Could it haver anything to do with all directors fees having been paid to third parties 2015,2014 per the accounts
Written confirmations - this is an interesting link as to their worth
http://www.onhandcounsel.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66:what-comfort-is-a-comfort-letter-recent-case&catid=7:doingbusiness&Itemid=29
So operational loss in 2016 for Otium is 1.7m? that still doesn't account for the interest charges. After player sales profits in 2015 the loss was 1.1m per the accounts so how did it show profits of £400k ? how can the reply be correct? Doesn't what he says indicate player trading profits in 2016 of 2.4m - was it all in cash has it all been received? was that all Maddison ?
Question 6 was about revenues not cost savings, so actually TF hasn't answered the question. Have revenues grown? If they haven't then any improvement is down to cost cutting and our biggest cost is wages.........
Mediation only works if all sides want it to, not sure Wasps or CCC want to right now - I think they prefer to tighten the screw. That said SISU/CCFC have always left things to the last minute so is it really high on their agenda? All sides playing brinksmanship for their own agendas if you ask me - mediation any time soon very unlikely
So looks like there will be players to be sold to cover the operational losses again especially if attendance targets are being missed
Not sure why the opening of just the one stand for a crowd of 1000 was queried - makes sense for the club to do exactly that - they still made a loss even so
So finally they have twigged it is possible to put on events away from the home ground. So what has stopped them doing this years ago (or even hiring space at the Ricoh ) to raise income from non match day sources? (I suspect I know the answers). Joint ventures do not give the club 100% of the income, how big can the events at CRL be and that affects the amount of cash it could provide doesn't it?
Given past history it would be quite easy to believe no alternative training ground or stadium has been identified wouldn't it
What is it at Ryton that makes it unsuitable? If they have to buy replacement before selling who bridges that finance? Do Sport England require improved or straight replacement?
I would think given the ages of the squad that we are within the SCMP budget. However is there cash available to spend given the overall budget of the club can not be being met. If cash not available then to be self sufficient means what ever the SCMP budget nothing can be spent.
Given we are losing 4 or 5 players in January and the possible need to sell to cover losses then the manager has to bring in players doesn't he ? and may have to play around with budgets to do it. It is cash being available that is key not the SCMP budget
I am curious as to why the enquiry by the Trust gets such a hostile reaction - what else is going on? it was an offer to discuss a possible way out for SISU, all they needed to say was the club is not for sale - I think TF protests too much
But what actual progress has been made with the Academy situation - seems to me none
assumption of extension is interesting given how little CCFC contribute %age wise to Wasps turnover. CCFC are no longer the must have there. Still they push the new stadium and access to non matchday income - means that Wasps have to plan future without CCFC and take anything they can get as a bonus
Strange they appear to be able to drive forward the Ryton situation but little else?
SISU seems pretty litigation based to me
So Ms Deering represents the shareholders interests - Sconset, ARVO & Brody? and is a paid employee of SISU (we knew that didn't we). Not unusual no but why do it now, why wasn't someone from SISU on the Board years ago?
The original private equity funds are no longer shareholders. If it is unlikely to be repaid in the next 12 months why is it classed as due in under 1 year? Surely the directors know that? Has the loan switched to Sconset - as I said elsewhere I would guess it sits in Sconsets books at nothing like £28m. In any case the Club never received 28m in cash from Sconset or the original funds
It makes it seem that £15m of preference shares issued is an influx of capital/ cash - it isn't it is capitalisation of existing loans/interest and the capitalisation of old debt of CCFC H that for some reason was reintroduced in to Otium - have never understood why the FL would insist on the last bit. The preference shares put a barrier up to any sale so why do it?
So no change in capital structure but there is new loans - which is it. We know of a new loan in 2015 accounts it seems there is another in 2016?
Cant help thinking that the questions were made to match the answers. It is also a useful way of not actually getting challenged on the replies isn't it
As always there is truth in the replies ....... but
and yes it is TF, yes it is analysing what he said, but he is the one running CCFC isn't he and we are CCFC fans are we not?