Mild-Mannered Janitor
Kindest Bloke on CCFC / Maker of CCFC Dreams
The Directors emoluments are interesting.......not bad money eh.
SISU 2016 Accounts (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
Mild-Mannered Janitor
Kindest Bloke on CCFC / Maker of CCFC Dreams
and a nice Employee Trust for only a few of them, no doubt well earned from all the investments they are running,
4waspsting
Active Member
Not really a great profit, it can soon be turned into a loss when they have no one left to sell
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
These are for SISU, not CCFC
I refer you to my point about being 'less clued up'. Your honour, I rest my case!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Did a little more digging. All complicated stuff and somewhat tenuous so am happy to be corrected
Early SISU Capital Partners accounts 2009, 2008 etc seem to reveal that the annual fee was 2% of funds committed (it would seem not the recoverable value). This covered the original A - E funds invested in SBS&L. From 2004 until 2009 income due to SISU Capital Partners was being recognised in the SCPLLP accounts. After that income not recognised except in 2013
The latest accounts show 75m under management. That's possible fee income at 2% of around 1.5m less any adjustments. For a period of time 2010 to 2015 (except 2013) these fees were not recognised on the basis that the market needed to improve and there needed to be physical funds to pay out. I assume that the liability was being rolled up in the funds accounts to be paid when it can be although SCPLLP accounts said it wasn't claimed at the time and written off that year
The total shown as "invested" in CCFC by the equity funds is £28m but we know that around 10m of that does not represent actual cash (for reasons I have explained many times before). So from those specific funds is derived an income of £360k. ie (28m - 10m ) x 2%
The balance of funds I am guessing relates to ARVO who have invested around 13m into CCFC but around 5m has been converted to shares leaving 8m loans still outstanding. ARVO didn't come on the scene until 2010/11.
That would all seem to imply a fund split of perhaps Funds A- E 18m and ARVO 57m under management. (unless the A-E funds invested in more than CCFC )
If the CCFC "investment" were to be crystallised as a loss then a number of things would have to happen. The value of funds committed under management would drop by the 18m from A-E funds, the £8m invested as loans by ARVO plus the amount converted to shares £5m less anything recoverable under the loan security. That would leave say under £50 committed funds under management and put a £500k hole in annual fees going forward but also any fees accrued but not recognised for previous years would go too if that was to happened (possibly worth over £2m to SISU Capital). Not to mention explaining to investors where the investment had gone pear shaped, the effect on reputation, and a massive struggle to recoup such large amounts elsewhere.
Might explain why they don't want to crystallise losses, and why they are holding out for a deal.
final thoughts connected. Is TF worried about the protests because he has potential investors who are wary of doing a deal for a club at war with its supporters (major source of income) and that any deal done he gets a nice fat commission on. Will the investment be reduced by any surplus cash flow (sales land/players) to soften the blow on loan losses but also to provide money to the funds to pay the SCPLLP 2% fees?
All largely conjecture I know, not a specialist in Hedge fund investing so I might be misinterpreting the accounts wrongly
Early SISU Capital Partners accounts 2009, 2008 etc seem to reveal that the annual fee was 2% of funds committed (it would seem not the recoverable value). This covered the original A - E funds invested in SBS&L. From 2004 until 2009 income due to SISU Capital Partners was being recognised in the SCPLLP accounts. After that income not recognised except in 2013
The latest accounts show 75m under management. That's possible fee income at 2% of around 1.5m less any adjustments. For a period of time 2010 to 2015 (except 2013) these fees were not recognised on the basis that the market needed to improve and there needed to be physical funds to pay out. I assume that the liability was being rolled up in the funds accounts to be paid when it can be although SCPLLP accounts said it wasn't claimed at the time and written off that year
The total shown as "invested" in CCFC by the equity funds is £28m but we know that around 10m of that does not represent actual cash (for reasons I have explained many times before). So from those specific funds is derived an income of £360k. ie (28m - 10m ) x 2%
The balance of funds I am guessing relates to ARVO who have invested around 13m into CCFC but around 5m has been converted to shares leaving 8m loans still outstanding. ARVO didn't come on the scene until 2010/11.
That would all seem to imply a fund split of perhaps Funds A- E 18m and ARVO 57m under management. (unless the A-E funds invested in more than CCFC )
If the CCFC "investment" were to be crystallised as a loss then a number of things would have to happen. The value of funds committed under management would drop by the 18m from A-E funds, the £8m invested as loans by ARVO plus the amount converted to shares £5m less anything recoverable under the loan security. That would leave say under £50 committed funds under management and put a £500k hole in annual fees going forward but also any fees accrued but not recognised for previous years would go too if that was to happened (possibly worth over £2m to SISU Capital). Not to mention explaining to investors where the investment had gone pear shaped, the effect on reputation, and a massive struggle to recoup such large amounts elsewhere.
Might explain why they don't want to crystallise losses, and why they are holding out for a deal.
final thoughts connected. Is TF worried about the protests because he has potential investors who are wary of doing a deal for a club at war with its supporters (major source of income) and that any deal done he gets a nice fat commission on. Will the investment be reduced by any surplus cash flow (sales land/players) to soften the blow on loan losses but also to provide money to the funds to pay the SCPLLP 2% fees?
All largely conjecture I know, not a specialist in Hedge fund investing so I might be misinterpreting the accounts wrongly
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
If you are referring to the SISU Capital profit then you misunderstand because it doesn't depend on selling any CCFC players at all
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
As Nick says weeman these are SISU Capital Group not Otium or SBS&L - those for Otium etc are due 28/02/2017
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
OSB
Apologies for this but I must ask.
If less and less fans are attending CCFC matches. Whatever their reasons for doing so.
Is it correct that you are saying that that fan attendance levels will not have an impact on SISU's decision making regarding getting rid of the club or not?
Apologies for this but I must ask.
If less and less fans are attending CCFC matches. Whatever their reasons for doing so.
Is it correct that you are saying that that fan attendance levels will not have an impact on SISU's decision making regarding getting rid of the club or not?
Last edited:
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Great and thanks ever so much osb so in your opinion what would it take for sisu to go? Are they engineering for a deal somewhere because it seems to me there is no plan beyond a year to year basis and to cut cloth accordingly. Find it's level etc.
My point is they can't stay forever and I'm assuming when there are so short term and selling any player possible and selling Ryton etc that it's just stalling for time and for someone to offer them a way out? And if so how much are we looking at?
My point is they can't stay forever and I'm assuming when there are so short term and selling any player possible and selling Ryton etc that it's just stalling for time and for someone to offer them a way out? And if so how much are we looking at?
Sky Blues
Active Member
I said back in 2013 that CCFC had become a zombie club - and now I have that confirmed by our financial director (Apologies I missed your earlier confirmation OSB58). Sadly, that doesn't make me any happier about the situation.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
What NOPM? There has been no noticeable change in attendance since it "started". It's not a thing. There are not a significant amount of people boycotting the club. In the low hundreds at absolute most.
The club lost less fans after Sixfields than an average unsuccessful season. They've lost the average amount since coming back that they have every season (about 10%).
The whole thing is myth.
The other side of course is that everything Sisu has done has had negligible impact as well. We have slid slowly, rather than collapsed.
The issue isn't crowds, it's success on the pitch. Until we have a successful-ish season we will keep losing roughly 10% of the crowd each year.
I hope I'm wrong but I've never heard fisher ever say "they want ccfc to get back into the premiership"
Here lies the problem, Sisu are happy to just let the club tick over and drift. There is no plan for the future.
Colin Steins Smile
Well-Known Member
The zombie club business model doesn't give us any hope of ever being successful. It makes me wonder "what's the point of supporting CCFC"? Unless you get enjoyment out of seeing a poor quality football team with no prospects of success. Depressing! It feels like a deliberate strategy to punish us supporters.
4waspsting
Active Member
No i just meant general business not a great profit for a high profile business
Nick
Administrator
It isn't a myth is it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So if you were born in Rochdale, Crewe, Bury, Accrington I guess you'd never have supported the local team and stuck it out.
I would.
Nick
Administrator
Standard "must be happy" line.
As much as it pains me to say this I'm 51 and I think the same
Life is too short to worry every week about the state of CCFC and its owners
Fisher has made it pretty clear his feelings towards the supporters
I'm amongst a number of friends and family who have reached the conclusion that this isn't how a club should be run and whilst these people are here we won't go again
Supporting Cov was great when I was younger as you knew we had the chance of beating anyone, we've had a boat load of chairmen and top profile managers and players and look at us now?
A sorry basket case of a club hanging on to its very existence, run by an unsympathetic uncaring organisation which has destroyed its fan base leaving us to argue amongst ourselves
Jimmy Hill's Chin
Well-Known Member
I look forward to the time that following our club is more like Match of the Day and less like the Dragon's Den.
Jimmy Hill's Chin
Well-Known Member
Clear from these accounts that SISU have money to invest should they wish to. The fact is they choose not to invest.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Is it ?
Sisu invest other people's money not their own. There is no indication of other parties wanting to invest. They have never invested any of their own money except for the 100 euros in each of the original funds .
I'm sure all of those have seen some glimmer of hope in one league or another over the last 15 years.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
And a standard reply to that question.
So what would you do and how?
Nick
Administrator
Nothing I'm perfectly happy.
I'd get contacts in their world, I'd aim for their investors, id try and damage sisu rather than ccfc.
I certainly wouldn't try and starve ccfc thinking sisu would be bothered.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Little more information
SISU Capital Group turnover
The argument has been that management charges have been made against CCFC by SISU Capital. The other side of this is that SISU Capital Group would have to record that as turnover.
If you break down the turnover in the latest set of accounts then it is declared as income from 2% Priority profit share that SISU Capital Partnership LLP taken from the funds managed (A-E & Arvo) 1.27m plus the fees for SISU Capital International 90k. Total 1.37m
Can the individual funds charge CCFC management charges? I wouldn't think so they provide no services, but perhaps there is some way. Are the management charges in some way included in the 2%, it could be but why reduce what is contractually due to cover additional fees due/taken?
The 2% is, it looks like, a standard contract charge for management set up well before the "investment" in CCFC and covers all of the £75m funds currently committed it would seem
The funds have to realise cash to pay the 2% charge and in some years there has been no charge at all because it wasn't capable of being paid. What has been realised by the funds in respect of CCFC?
The object of these funds is capital growth apparently - that's looking to be a sick joke isn't it.
Not sure where that all leads to be honest but on face value I cant see any management charges paid direct to SISU Capital ltd. If the individual funds made the charge then that is transactions with shareholders and I would argue details should be disclosed in the CCFC accounts as related party transactions
Nor can I see any other income direct from CCFC like transfer fees etc
SISU Capital Group turnover
The argument has been that management charges have been made against CCFC by SISU Capital. The other side of this is that SISU Capital Group would have to record that as turnover.
If you break down the turnover in the latest set of accounts then it is declared as income from 2% Priority profit share that SISU Capital Partnership LLP taken from the funds managed (A-E & Arvo) 1.27m plus the fees for SISU Capital International 90k. Total 1.37m
Can the individual funds charge CCFC management charges? I wouldn't think so they provide no services, but perhaps there is some way. Are the management charges in some way included in the 2%, it could be but why reduce what is contractually due to cover additional fees due/taken?
The 2% is, it looks like, a standard contract charge for management set up well before the "investment" in CCFC and covers all of the £75m funds currently committed it would seem
The funds have to realise cash to pay the 2% charge and in some years there has been no charge at all because it wasn't capable of being paid. What has been realised by the funds in respect of CCFC?
The object of these funds is capital growth apparently - that's looking to be a sick joke isn't it.
Not sure where that all leads to be honest but on face value I cant see any management charges paid direct to SISU Capital ltd. If the individual funds made the charge then that is transactions with shareholders and I would argue details should be disclosed in the CCFC accounts as related party transactions
Nor can I see any other income direct from CCFC like transfer fees etc
Last edited:
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Of course their bothered don't they want one of their businesses to make money?
As for targeting in their world we are already doing that where we can, just not that easy.
Oh and who is trying to starve them?
All the protesters I know go to the games therefore keeping CCFC going.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Totally agree with this course of action but you're right, it's not easy to find out you they're involved with/ who's involved with them.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Which is why it is so important to keep any challenge to what they are doing factual and accurate. To do otherwise allows them to misdirect, cover up and bat away the real questions.
The whole thing is deliberately complicated and confusing - people who post on these forums and others making claims that are without basis or claimed as fact when they are no such thing only confuse most fans further - which only helps TF/SISU obscure things. Stick to what we know and challenge them on it.
Have an opinion by all means but be prepared to accept others might differ. If you claim something as fact be prepared to back it up as to why it is
Far too many big assumptions made as fact, and far too much bad mouthing of fellow fans by those who actually don't know or understand what they claim to. Just creates division amongst the one group that should be united - the fans. It does Fishers work for him
The whole thing is deliberately complicated and confusing - people who post on these forums and others making claims that are without basis or claimed as fact when they are no such thing only confuse most fans further - which only helps TF/SISU obscure things. Stick to what we know and challenge them on it.
Have an opinion by all means but be prepared to accept others might differ. If you claim something as fact be prepared to back it up as to why it is
Far too many big assumptions made as fact, and far too much bad mouthing of fellow fans by those who actually don't know or understand what they claim to. Just creates division amongst the one group that should be united - the fans. It does Fishers work for him
robbiethemole
Well-Known Member
thanks to osb for all the leg work to try and understand all the accounts but the bottom line is.....................................how much to buy the fuckers out???
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Thanks and I agree with your bottom line......... right now I think the owners expectations would be too high
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Shadow directors are also banned but we seem to have one in Seppala along with a host of anonymous investors. I don't know how the FL can determine there is not a conflict of interest with other clubs. Always been alack of transparency for me.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Few points from this.
Firstly, despite the occasional posts from randoms here, the chances of your average Joe meeting high flying finance people are pretty low.
Secondly, we don't know who the investors are, and likely neither do they. We don't even know if there are any investors in CCFC specifically (other than Brody). Would you be happy to target any old random with money in Sisu?
Thirdly, what if, hypothetically speaking, Joy decided to take out any action against Sisu on CCFC, say by liquidating them or moving them to Northampton again, or whatever. Would you then want to leave Sisu alone as it would hurt the club? Because that's a pretty easy out for her. She doesn't give a shit about us, we do. It's like one of those scenes in a superhero movie where the bad guy has kidnapped the girlfriend.