Expert accountant also says Sisu are "throwing good money after bad" as hedge fund continues to fund club
Visit The Coventry Telegraph for More...
Visit The Coventry Telegraph for More...
The mammoth sum Coventry City owners Sisu would need to walk away without loss (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter Newsbot
- Start date
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I think some people will be lost for words in this thread. The CET have ran a story, in which the owners get praise for the way they are running the club.
Doesn't fit with the conspiracy at all, very strange.
Next we will have an article from Les Using his access to the owners in order to question, some of their decisions!
Doesn't fit with the conspiracy at all, very strange.
Next we will have an article from Les Using his access to the owners in order to question, some of their decisions!
Still nothing positive for the fans to be optimistic about, no end to the misery that looks set to continue. We truly are a sinking ship, with owners that are intent and seemingly keen to go down with her no matter the cost. As for they deserve a break from the fans, they have still been in control and have without doubt have mismanaged the club from day 1. To be in this position today is surely a lot worse than the day they took over, on and off the field.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
How the fuck do sisu need 101m? That's not right. On administration and liquidation a lot of that was lost one way or another wasn't it.
We need osb on this article as I trust him a lot more than this CT "expert"
We need osb on this article as I trust him a lot more than this CT "expert"
Sub
Well-Known Member
made me laugh that did !! there is more chance of burge not kicking a goal kick into the stands every game !
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
much of this was balance sheet acquired for nothing - therefore i think OSB will confirm they have put nowhere near this amount in
I think it is still nearer 40+m
The 101 m includes all accumulated interest to themselves aswell
I think it is still nearer 40+m
The 101 m includes all accumulated interest to themselves aswell
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
I'm not understanding this. The club has made a small profit for the last two years, which they have done by selling assets to cover costs. Those costs include paying SISU/AVRO several million in interest every year at rates between 10 and 14%. What money is being put in, rather than taken out? Possibly I'm misunderstanding - could someone please explain?
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
But I thought sisu were bleeding us dry? Taking out all the money? Using the club as a tax loss? Who is this sisu lover?
Seriously though, bit weird for the CT to run this article, when we've had Simon Jordan 3 part specials against the owners recently.
Seriously though, bit weird for the CT to run this article, when we've had Simon Jordan 3 part specials against the owners recently.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Yes, there has been some excellent work done in the past on the accounts, and which showed the amount put in is around 35m.
Nick
Administrator
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just a few facts
1)Firstly the preference shares in Otium are owned by ARVO and SBS&L (15m:50m). So any capitalisation of "loans" was not by SISU or the original investors as such. The 50m is entirely internal to the group so does not represent money put in as loans at all. ARVO have taken up £3.295m pref shares for cash and converted some of their loan also, so the majority of the £15m converted for them is also internal "debt"
2)The amount changed in to preference shares represents paper loans created by the group situation as follows
SISU introduce £28m to SBS&L (loan £28m created)
SBS&L loan £28m to CCFC H Ltd (2nd loan £28m created)
CCFC H Ltd loans CCFC Ltd £28m (3rd loan £28m created)
so from a single amount of £28m 3 loans totalling £84m are created
In addition on take over of the club the original debt between CCFC Ltd & CCFC H Ltd £36m was left sitting there. What was converted to preference shares was the old debt plus the movement creating a "loan" between SBS&L and CCFC H Ltd
There was only the £28m introduced by SISU investors as loans not £28m plus £65m preference shares
The converted preference shares might say 65m on the Otium accounts but they cost SISU/ARVO/SBS&L nothing at all so if they are disposed at £nil there is no loss to SISU/ARVO. The amount invested by ARVO is still owing, the amount invested by SISU still sits there in the same place it has always been.
Bottom line is that Otium as a company is unsaleable imo ....... you would buy the football assets and take on the football debts nothing else
3)Total loans that were put in to the group from external sources (the word external is important because that includes ARVO/SISU investors/ Banks/advances against sale of Prozone etc.) Source the filed accounts of SBS&L group. To get to what external sources have put in, including SISU, you have to look at the Group situation not swerve from one set of accounts to another to try suit an argument
The amounts "invested"/loaned from all sources are as follows
Year.........Loan received................Loan repaid................. Pref Shares issued for Cash
2008.................11039686................................. 0
2009.................12862369.......................2594038
2010...................3526120........................ 864641
2011..................11080888......................1563141
2012....................6275000......................4625236
2013....................5378000......................1178999
2014....................2808000..................................0 ............................3295000
2015................................0................................. 0 .............................1021192
2016..................... 530000................................. 0
..........................53500063.................... 10826055..........................4316192
Included in the above are loans from other sources the amount of capital outstanding 31/05/2016 SISU investors 28.5m and ARVO £7.8m (they had put in around £13m cash and converted some to shares) plus £530k to SISU Master Fund.
Included in the amounts of loans were items I do not believe were in cash because of how the purchase of the club in 2008 was structured £9m plus the introduction of the option in to SBS&L at £1m when nothing was actually paid to AEHC and the option could not be moved from CCFC Ltd. Actual cash put in was probably around £31m. Not small amounts but since 01/06/14 the total support given has been £530k. it is on the £31m that SISU/ARVO stand to make any loss nothing else, it is on that amount that any negotiation to go would be centred, the true value of CCFC is much, much, less of course
Come on think about it ?, on average SISU have funded CCFC to the tune of £11.2m pa , it just does not make sense !. To make a loss there must be a SISU/ARVO cost in the first place, that means putting money or cost in kind in to the group/club. There is no evidence of it in the cash flow statements filed at Companies House in accounts signed by Fisher & Auditors above what is detailed above. £101m its a nonsense
If SISU never put in the cash or even costs in kind in the first place then can someone please show me how they or anyone else could claim they are owed or could make a loss of £101m? The claim is misleading the article flawed in my opinion - cant be bothered to comment on some of the other analysis included, other than to say I am annoyed by its content
Fisher will love this as something to deflect questions. The information is there and freely available if time and care is taken to find it & understand
1)Firstly the preference shares in Otium are owned by ARVO and SBS&L (15m:50m). So any capitalisation of "loans" was not by SISU or the original investors as such. The 50m is entirely internal to the group so does not represent money put in as loans at all. ARVO have taken up £3.295m pref shares for cash and converted some of their loan also, so the majority of the £15m converted for them is also internal "debt"
2)The amount changed in to preference shares represents paper loans created by the group situation as follows
SISU introduce £28m to SBS&L (loan £28m created)
SBS&L loan £28m to CCFC H Ltd (2nd loan £28m created)
CCFC H Ltd loans CCFC Ltd £28m (3rd loan £28m created)
so from a single amount of £28m 3 loans totalling £84m are created
In addition on take over of the club the original debt between CCFC Ltd & CCFC H Ltd £36m was left sitting there. What was converted to preference shares was the old debt plus the movement creating a "loan" between SBS&L and CCFC H Ltd
There was only the £28m introduced by SISU investors as loans not £28m plus £65m preference shares
The converted preference shares might say 65m on the Otium accounts but they cost SISU/ARVO/SBS&L nothing at all so if they are disposed at £nil there is no loss to SISU/ARVO. The amount invested by ARVO is still owing, the amount invested by SISU still sits there in the same place it has always been.
Bottom line is that Otium as a company is unsaleable imo ....... you would buy the football assets and take on the football debts nothing else
3)Total loans that were put in to the group from external sources (the word external is important because that includes ARVO/SISU investors/ Banks/advances against sale of Prozone etc.) Source the filed accounts of SBS&L group. To get to what external sources have put in, including SISU, you have to look at the Group situation not swerve from one set of accounts to another to try suit an argument
The amounts "invested"/loaned from all sources are as follows
Year.........Loan received................Loan repaid................. Pref Shares issued for Cash
2008.................11039686................................. 0
2009.................12862369.......................2594038
2010...................3526120........................ 864641
2011..................11080888......................1563141
2012....................6275000......................4625236
2013....................5378000......................1178999
2014....................2808000..................................0 ............................3295000
2015................................0................................. 0 .............................1021192
2016..................... 530000................................. 0
..........................53500063.................... 10826055..........................4316192
Included in the above are loans from other sources the amount of capital outstanding 31/05/2016 SISU investors 28.5m and ARVO £7.8m (they had put in around £13m cash and converted some to shares) plus £530k to SISU Master Fund.
Included in the amounts of loans were items I do not believe were in cash because of how the purchase of the club in 2008 was structured £9m plus the introduction of the option in to SBS&L at £1m when nothing was actually paid to AEHC and the option could not be moved from CCFC Ltd. Actual cash put in was probably around £31m. Not small amounts but since 01/06/14 the total support given has been £530k. it is on the £31m that SISU/ARVO stand to make any loss nothing else, it is on that amount that any negotiation to go would be centred, the true value of CCFC is much, much, less of course
Come on think about it ?, on average SISU have funded CCFC to the tune of £11.2m pa , it just does not make sense !. To make a loss there must be a SISU/ARVO cost in the first place, that means putting money or cost in kind in to the group/club. There is no evidence of it in the cash flow statements filed at Companies House in accounts signed by Fisher & Auditors above what is detailed above. £101m its a nonsense
If SISU never put in the cash or even costs in kind in the first place then can someone please show me how they or anyone else could claim they are owed or could make a loss of £101m? The claim is misleading the article flawed in my opinion - cant be bothered to comment on some of the other analysis included, other than to say I am annoyed by its content
Fisher will love this as something to deflect questions. The information is there and freely available if time and care is taken to find it & understand
Last edited:
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
It's from Simon Guilbert, we know it's all made up. He got kicked out of the Coventry City Fans Forum yesterday for the same reason, he makes shit up!
Nick
Administrator
That's what I don't get about this article at all. People will now think that SISU have actually ploughed in £101m of their money!
Does this make me cool with the anti sisu people for pointing out it's bollocks?
Is that 530k the loan that was a bit more originally for the rolling credit or whatever they called it?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
That's what I don't get about this article at all. People will now think that SISU have actually ploughed in £101m of their money!
Does this make me cool with the anti sisu people for pointing out it's bollocks?
Is that 530k the loan that was a bit more originally for the rolling credit or whatever they called it?
Yes Nick the total was 750k of which 220k repaid - seems the net figure is shown in the accounts
The club is in a mess, no matter which way you turn it, Fisher will play on this article and no doubt use it to answer some questions and misdirect. But in all reality it doesn't makes sense and the facts are the facts without the sales of Maddison, Wilson, Clarke and the young kid to Everton the books would be seen in a completely different light. Going forward players like Stevenson, Harries, DKE and Haynes are not going to generate the money the previous 4 named did, so Tim should be asked who and what funding will be needed to carry on.
If Tim turns up to answer questions the fans should ask the what are repercussions of relegation on the club, 1st team, academy, stadium, training facility, recruitment etc.... And secondly whats the plan to fund and compete going forward, do they have a plan for promotion and plan b if its not gained, do they least have a structure to stay in L2.
If Tim turns up to answer questions the fans should ask the what are repercussions of relegation on the club, 1st team, academy, stadium, training facility, recruitment etc.... And secondly whats the plan to fund and compete going forward, do they have a plan for promotion and plan b if its not gained, do they least have a structure to stay in L2.
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I also suspect due the solvency rules to come out of administration the EFL would not allow CCFC to transfer the loan and insisted that it became shares. SISU needed to retain the amounts to support the amount that's owed to investors I would guess
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Here is a thought for you (not a good one)
there are, ignoring Wembley, 5 home games left. If we assume an average of 8000 fans per game and a match income of £10 ph net of VAT that gives net income at £400k
Annual costs say have decreased to £1m direct costs £3.3m wages and £1.5m administrative = 5.8m that equates to £111k pw. Between now and 31/05/17 (accounts year end is about 11 weeks. That's total costs of at least £1.22m
That's a gap of £822k to be recovered by other sources of income & Wembley £600k - depending on when such items are received.
Not going to leave much in the pot for squad building by 31/05/17 and of course the next season doesn't start until August so got to cover June & July costs. Transfer window doesn't open till 01/07/2017
Going to be tight if you ask me
there are, ignoring Wembley, 5 home games left. If we assume an average of 8000 fans per game and a match income of £10 ph net of VAT that gives net income at £400k
Annual costs say have decreased to £1m direct costs £3.3m wages and £1.5m administrative = 5.8m that equates to £111k pw. Between now and 31/05/17 (accounts year end is about 11 weeks. That's total costs of at least £1.22m
That's a gap of £822k to be recovered by other sources of income & Wembley £600k - depending on when such items are received.
Not going to leave much in the pot for squad building by 31/05/17 and of course the next season doesn't start until August so got to cover June & July costs. Transfer window doesn't open till 01/07/2017
Going to be tight if you ask me
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
So in your humble opinion OSB what might get sisu moneywise to perhaps start talking ?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
firstly someone with more money than sense .............. and probably whatever is sufficient to clear ARVO. Clearing ARVO could be done by them claiming Ryton and perhaps a small amount of cash
Personally I wouldn't pay them more than a couple of million to take the football assets and liabilities (ie not the loans, pref shares etc).
Will they be interested at that I doubt it
Personally I wouldn't pay them more than a couple of million to take the football assets and liabilities (ie not the loans, pref shares etc).
Will they be interested at that I doubt it
What about previous player sales - do you know if any money will come in before 01/07/2017?
I am sure cash are strapped, but is it any different from previous years?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
likely to be based on achievements Godiva...... there may be some but Wilson has been injured, Maddison doesn't make the first team squad much and Sambou is not first team. Doubt much add ons have been generated who else would there be?.
There might be other costs like paying off Slade and to be honest I have assumed big cost savings 2016 showed total costs excluding interest at £7.3m. Not likely to be the same ST take up as previous years either.
Point I am making is that Wembley doesn't seem to provide an additional pot it covers the costs needed to survive to next season
There might be other costs like paying off Slade and to be honest I have assumed big cost savings 2016 showed total costs excluding interest at £7.3m. Not likely to be the same ST take up as previous years either.
Point I am making is that Wembley doesn't seem to provide an additional pot it covers the costs needed to survive to next season
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I suspect that's why bids for Stevenson Haynes Willis etc. We're turned down in January and they are looking to secure early sales in the summer.
They will release all out of contract players which I think leaves not too many on the payroll. Some, like Reid, that will be on top high a wage will also be encouraged to get a new club.
Covkid1968#
Well-Known Member
Given our club is a basket case, given we own nothing of any note (increasingly devalued golden share apart), given its clear we are miles from the bottom of this pile of shit and given that ultimately the fans are the club.
Are we not now getting to the stage (and I know its been batted around before) that we start to give some serious thought and our considerable efforts into a Phoenix club that ultimately becomes Coventry City in the coming years. It would have to rightfully reclaim the history once this shell of a shambles of a club has fully died....which is seeming increasingly likely.
Didn't Tom A buy or set up a small dormant limited company and register certain CCFC related names a couple of years ago?
I'm not saying lets do it - I'm just saying that a group of people who know a lot more than I do about these things should at least be formulating and planning for a plan B now!!! Because if we leave it another year before we start planning our famous old club looks like it might be teetering on the brink of non league football.
Desperate times people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are we not now getting to the stage (and I know its been batted around before) that we start to give some serious thought and our considerable efforts into a Phoenix club that ultimately becomes Coventry City in the coming years. It would have to rightfully reclaim the history once this shell of a shambles of a club has fully died....which is seeming increasingly likely.
Didn't Tom A buy or set up a small dormant limited company and register certain CCFC related names a couple of years ago?
I'm not saying lets do it - I'm just saying that a group of people who know a lot more than I do about these things should at least be formulating and planning for a plan B now!!! Because if we leave it another year before we start planning our famous old club looks like it might be teetering on the brink of non league football.
Desperate times people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
probably but it is still going to be tight and the player sales will as always get lost in simply paying our way
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I get the feeling the Telegraph are sick of being out in the cold, hence the 'positive' story to try and get back in the SISU's good books.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
I have to say that I'm surprised by it Dongo. You'd expect such an article to appear in the Observer as opposed to the CET. The cynic in me says they know they've been classified as 'pro-everything but CCFC' and are addressing it but that could be a little harsh to do so.
Interesting article all the same. Wonder what the real CCFC financial commentator, OSB, would make of the comments.
Moff
Well-Known Member
He doesn't make things up, he is a poor journalist, often producing lazy poorly researched articles, from a one eyed view. That's why he gets grief.
For balance Les Reid is the same.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Obvs didn't get to the end of the thread to see the main man himself has commented :nailbiting::banghead: