italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Yes, offers above £40M. LOL
Chesterfield sold (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter smileycov
- Start date
Yes, offers above £40M. LOL
Nick
Administrator
Don't think you are in that much of a position to call others apologists and go on about deflection. :emoji_laughing:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
If you don't like the actual details then you would say that, wouldn't you ?
Why not just say the only comments allowed on this board are to slag off Wasps and not upset Sisu ?
We could both retire from posting then and you could just cream in the advertising revenues.
Nick
Administrator
Maybe because you actually go out of your way to apologise for Wasps and deflect from them and post essays deflecting from them that you clearly haven't written yourself?
It's nothing to do with actual details is it, it's the fact you were being ironic which is yes, a fact and yet again you can't see it.
You can try and play the "comments aren't allowed to upset SISU" line all you want, I will say the same as the other times you have said which was "Why not create a thread about them?" which you never do?
So there you are, deflecting from what was said onto trying to make out people can't upset SISU on here to get away from what Grendel said, rather than just reply to him and prove him wrong.
Hence, "you aren't in much of a position to call others and go on about deflection".
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
No if the buyer is taking on the 130K debt he pays you £70k (200 less 130) you walk away with that. If buying just the assets you walk away with £200k and the £130 debts
But no one in their right mind would take on the shares of Otium because it means you are taking on all its assets and all its liabilities as disclosed in the accounts. That is assets 2.3m and liabilities of £16.9m. Which is why the net asset value of Otium is £0
But SISU are not, if they were selling at all, asking for a net asset value. They are asking for a settlement. Way above asset value or worth
No way have SISU put £75m cash in to the club, up until 31/05/16 it is around £33m at the most
Hoffman consortium was after the assets of the football club it wasn't taking on the borrowing debt at all
Chesterfield 2016 accounts provide some interesting detail including a breakdown of turnover and a breakdown of administrative expenses
CFC 2001 LTD - Filing history (free information from Companies House)
Last edited:
Old Warwickshire lad
Well-Known Member
Nice thought, but we all know that any player worth money will be sold, as soon as they get a half decent offer. And Mark Robins will leave, as soon as he gets what he considers a better offer.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Chairman's statement is interesting, very informal, sounds more like a post on here than something to be recorded in accounts. That said, it does make it feel a bit less detached.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
very chatty style, obviously irked by some things.
Pages 28 & 29 are interesting. On the basis that football club incomes and costs tend to be similar in terms of type its interesting to extrapolate them to CCFC (Otium). There is a lot of discussion about the direct costs and administration costs that Otium disclose (1.1m and 1.8m in last accounts). Judging by these Chesterfield accounts then the figures which are not too dissimilar at 500k and 2.2m the room for SISU to be taking large sums of money from the club would seem to be next to none. Staff costs were also similar at 4.1m compared to our 4.3m Even turnover before player sales is comparable CCFC/Otium 5.4m and Chesterfield 5.5m
Yet they make profits and we make 2m losses
Last edited:
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
The Ricoh
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Thats what I'm saying.
Why take on the debts of the owners when you buy the asset?
With the house example you wouldn't obviously, but surely that's what Sisu are doing by asking for more than the asset value.
It's not as if they owe other people and have responsibilities to pay them. They owe it to themselves and the mess up was entirely within their control.
Nick
Administrator
Which is what Grendel said about Wasps / ACL, isn't it?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
If explaining what has happened is apologising for them, then guilty as charged.
The threads come and go and get lost in history.
Make a sticky 'SISU OUT' if we all want Sisu out as is continually suggested. It would stop continued regurgitation.
Although you would need to agree to do that for it to happen. (Effectively also wanting Sisu out yourself).
In reality I suggest you are scared to upset the SISU applecart regardless if you support them or not for legal reasons.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No because obviously ACL is worth more than they paid even including the debt that they took on.
In CCFC case they aren't.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
As a non-accountant I found the Chesterfield accounts to be easier to understand, with income and expenditure more clearly labelled. It appears that Chesterfield include incoming transfer fees as turnover, CCFC do not. Why is that?
CCFC accounts include interest of £2.4m, Chesterfield £244k
Nick
Administrator
You have access to make threads, I have told you time and time again to make a thread about SISU but you don't seem to. Why not? Instead you try to give it this line, like a worn out record.
There are probably hundreds of thousands of posts on this website that would upset the SISU applecart, so again you are talking bollocks.
In reality I suggest you are scared to discuss the points raised, so give it the SISU nonsense to yet again deflect from it.
It is only you and a few others that keep trying to regurgitate the same nonsense, it didn't work the first time and doesn't work now funnily enough.
Nick
Administrator
No, it's exactly the same.
Buying the actual assets and then the debt, whether they take it all on,try and get it cut down to 50p for the £ or something or try to get it all written off is what has to be agreed / decided.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Yes I know what you mean - more detail simply put
No great mystery to the transfer fees one classes it as normal trading the other doesn't and shows it as a separate item
Interesting that a club that owns £12.7m in property and has a net asset balance sheet of £1.85m is worth a deal of £10m (however that is structured - but unlikely to be £10m upfront, and we don't know if that is just for assets or for the shares) and one that owns £350k in property has a net deficit of £14.8m is thought to be worth £20m upfront by its owners.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Your now starting to talk like Sisu.
ACL were not in administration so it was a straight deal.
Sisu tried to force it into administration so they could get it cheap.
For the loan read it as the initial kitting out of the stadium (£21M).
Sometimes there is a deal to be done rather than take our club to oblivion to achieve it.
Nick
Administrator
Who said it was in Administration? I didn't say anything about administration so what are you on about now?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
50p in the pound infers that, surely ?
Nick
Administrator
I meant trying to do a deal on the debt. If SISU reckon there's 30 million debt somebody could offer them 15m to see if they would accept that. As opposed to buying it all, or attempting them to write it off.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
the £21m was no such thing. The fitting out of the stadium was a separate item of over £5m
The £21m was dressed up as a one off lease premium instead of paying an annual rent of £1.9m. It actually matched the prudential borrowing the Council had to repay I believe (I haven't rechecked)
also you said previously that they underpaid for the shares at £5.7m - on what basis?
The £21m was dressed up as a one off lease premium instead of paying an annual rent of £1.9m. It actually matched the prudential borrowing the Council had to repay I believe (I haven't rechecked)
also you said previously that they underpaid for the shares at £5.7m - on what basis?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's their debt, run up and owed to themselves, so why would anybody do that ?
If it was owed to the tax man or a supplier then the club would have a commitment to pay it.
I guess this is the problem where Sisu want something back and the buyer can't see anything for it so won't buy us.
Just need to wait until Sisu finish court action and finally pi55 off before this nightmare ends.
Nick
Administrator
It's the same with anything if people have put money in, they will want to try and get as much back as they can so it's to then see what they would take to go.
It's like mortgaging something up to pay yourself some money back you have put in, why not just write it off?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I think I agree.
They still see a chance of getting something back through the courts and thats the problem buyers have to offer against.
Once that has gone we will see how compassionate they are to CCFC when we will see their full wrath.
Nick
Administrator
The problem Hoffman had is that it looked as if he wanted to take all of the things that were worth anything and completely ignore any of the debts.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Any money given to Sisu to satisfy their losses means the buyers now have debt in the club and no assets to show for it.
Which means less money to spend on players if they are going to run the business properly.
Can't understand people on here having a go at potential buyers who don't want to buy off the debt as all it will do is continue our financial problem.
Nick
Administrator
Why would there be debt if they had paid SISU off?
That would happen with Hoffman, who wanted to give SISU payments every so often.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I don't see that as a problem, it is common sense. Why take on a mess someone else created?
Nick
Administrator
It's clearly going to be rejected straight off isn't it?
Isn't any debt classed as a "mess somebody else created"?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The payments would more than likely be made from the club.
However, wherever the payments came from, it would indirectly be at the expense of investing in the club and players.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Hence the problem of nobody able to buy it due to Sisu expectations.
The mess (debt) is solely with Sisu so no need to satisfy the tax man, bank loans or unpaid suppliers.
Nick
Administrator
You aren't making sense.
If SISU were paid off and whatever was agreed to get rid of their debt it would be gone.
Yes, Hoffman offered to pay them a % of future income.
What sort of point are you trying to make? Surely the debt that Wasps are paying off will detract from players, from somebody else's mess?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The only way you should buy CCFC is by buying the assets only. The money would be paid to Otium. Then Otium would settle its debts out of that money (eg pay ARVO loan off). No one in their right mind would buy the debt baggage that SISU have created and the interest burden that goes with it
To do that you form a new company and put funds in to it so it can buy the assets. This can be shares issued, loans either interest or non interest bearing or a mix of all three. So to buy the assets of CCFC then the New Co could have loans of its own but it is not going to be the £12m + that was outstanding the last accounts plus the quasi loans that are the preference shares of £65m
The preference shares are an important obstacle that you would not want because they have first claim on any surpluses distributable. So you would not take those on.
The deal proposed included performance payments which only become liabilities contingent on certain events happening in a certain timescale (eg promotion to Premiership) so are not liabilities until that happens
If you leave SISU with the loans still in place or the preference shares that will leave them with a lot of influence on the company. For that reason alone you want a clean break and would buy only the assets
People should also take on board that buying the assets does include some liability because it is a FA & EFL requirement that any football liabilities are taken on by new owners (eg unpaid players wages) So it is not a pure asset purchase
To do that you form a new company and put funds in to it so it can buy the assets. This can be shares issued, loans either interest or non interest bearing or a mix of all three. So to buy the assets of CCFC then the New Co could have loans of its own but it is not going to be the £12m + that was outstanding the last accounts plus the quasi loans that are the preference shares of £65m
The preference shares are an important obstacle that you would not want because they have first claim on any surpluses distributable. So you would not take those on.
The deal proposed included performance payments which only become liabilities contingent on certain events happening in a certain timescale (eg promotion to Premiership) so are not liabilities until that happens
If you leave SISU with the loans still in place or the preference shares that will leave them with a lot of influence on the company. For that reason alone you want a clean break and would buy only the assets
People should also take on board that buying the assets does include some liability because it is a FA & EFL requirement that any football liabilities are taken on by new owners (eg unpaid players wages) So it is not a pure asset purchase
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Paid off by who ?
Surely it would be part of the package of buying the club.
Are you saying that a buyer would give Sisu say £20M to satisfy the debt and get nothing for it ?
Then separately buy the club so it has no debt.
Why in hells name would someone do that ?
No, the whole package bought will include the debt and need to be financed by the club in the future.