D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Hoffman's (disclosed / publicised) offers were based on a wing and a prayer.
Club Accounts 2016/2017 (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter skybluebeduff
- Start date
better days
Well-Known Member
I had a quick search and found this from Jan 2017 last year from an interview with Simon Jordan which was reported in the CT
It makes sense based on what I know of Hedge Funds and the reptiles that run them
Mr Jordan said: “The only way you are going to get your club back is if the club goes back into administration, faces potential liquidation, comes out the other side in non-league.
“Or if Sisu manage by some turn of fate to get the club further up the pyramid and find an exit strategy that brings in owners who have a better understanding of football and a better understanding of Coventry City than the current ones.
“It would seem to me, somehow, the fans and the owners have got to come together. It sounds idealistic, but it may give Coventry a chance to bring back some of the halcyon days like winning the FA Cup.
“The problem with a hedge fund is they look after other people’s money. They have made an investment in a football club and they are in it now.
“The difficulty is they can’t get out of it, and if they do get out of it they have to book a vast loss.
“The fact they’re not having to book a loss right now because it’s still a going concern is probably one of the reasons they keep holding onto this club. They’re waiting for these losses to become less of a problem to the hedge fund, ultimately that loss cannot be crystallised.”
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
But you can't hold on to debt forever if it's unlikely to be paid back auditors would say it's nonsense. In simple terms it's like me saying I've got £20 in my pocket because I lent someone £20 in 2001 but they since moved to Brazil and we've lost contact.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
At least it means they have a vested interest in promotion, but unfortunately if it happens it will be done on the cheap.
Probably followed by mid table league one for a few years and either a fluky promotion to the Championship or a series of poor or unlucky decisions that take the club down again.
Provided there is no need to invest I can see this going on for another 5 to 10 years before investor patience wears thin.
However the last accounts showed that the investors still have to put in £0.5M pa. so that won't sit well.
Probably followed by mid table league one for a few years and either a fluky promotion to the Championship or a series of poor or unlucky decisions that take the club down again.
Provided there is no need to invest I can see this going on for another 5 to 10 years before investor patience wears thin.
However the last accounts showed that the investors still have to put in £0.5M pa. so that won't sit well.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Yeah I'd be pretty sure that the original private equity stake is long gone and written off.
The issue is more (as alluded to by some) the ARVO loans. The rest is just a convenient excuse if needed.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I wouldn't worry about the debt that sits in SBS&L. No one needs to buy that company, as it stands, to be able to get the club. Almost certainly the £28m pointed to as investment ion SBS&L has been written down to nil within the funds that own the loans & shares
If you were to buy any company it would be Otium (I would need your full name and address however so I could send a team of medics to section you if you chose that action)
The only significant debt that sits in Otium is the loan owed to ARVO. So it is clearly the ARVO debt that is key to acquisition. You would look to purchase the assets and take on the football liabilities (ARVO is not one). The funds paid in to Otium would be appropriated to paying off ARVO because of the charge over all assets they hold. There is a new loan from SISU Master fund Ltd that stood at £387k 31/05/2017 but it is not registered as secured
Total ARVO have put in is just over £16m and some was converted in to preference shares leaving £8.6m outstanding and accruing hefty interest per annum
SISU would be required to write down the value of any loans to recoverable amounts annually in their accounts or investment reports. That doesn't change the amount that Otium owe in any way shape or form.
I know we all focus on not wanting to crystallise losses but just remember that a reported SISU speciality is creating and utilising losses................. they are not just about simple client investments
If you were to buy any company it would be Otium (I would need your full name and address however so I could send a team of medics to section you if you chose that action)
The only significant debt that sits in Otium is the loan owed to ARVO. So it is clearly the ARVO debt that is key to acquisition. You would look to purchase the assets and take on the football liabilities (ARVO is not one). The funds paid in to Otium would be appropriated to paying off ARVO because of the charge over all assets they hold. There is a new loan from SISU Master fund Ltd that stood at £387k 31/05/2017 but it is not registered as secured
Total ARVO have put in is just over £16m and some was converted in to preference shares leaving £8.6m outstanding and accruing hefty interest per annum
SISU would be required to write down the value of any loans to recoverable amounts annually in their accounts or investment reports. That doesn't change the amount that Otium owe in any way shape or form.
I know we all focus on not wanting to crystallise losses but just remember that a reported SISU speciality is creating and utilising losses................. they are not just about simple client investments
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
what does that mean OSB?
SkyBlueSoul
Well-Known Member
Now that's what I call dumbing down! It's got so bad someone made a video about our finances...
Love that .
Nice gentle bedtime story voice and choice of soothing music to make the medicine go down .
I still find the wage totals puzzling ?
Getting closer to parity between playing staff and general employees with passing years.
Are they in some way extraordinary or simply down to running a Cat 2 academy ?
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
I found the bit about the annual interest amount staggering (listened to this a few days ago - wasn't it approx. £2M per year to ARVO of our total £7M income (apologise if that was inaccurate; whatever, it is clearly hampering what we can do on the pitch in terms of wages and recruitment)
Approaching that H but not paid, just applied, although we do pay some/certain interest to various sources. AFAIK
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
I see that whoever made this is confusing ARVO with a defunct aircraft manufacturer AVRO. It's a common mistake and one that I find annoying.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Depends how long the investors have invested their money for in the hedge fund. Also CCFC is probably only one aspect of their portfolio. They haven't lost contact with the investors have they.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Rather than Arvo Master Fund Caymen Islands. Who are connected to Huntsmen and SISU. Joy Seppala is involved in all 3. People who say SISU haven't taken money out of the club are right, but another connected company has, 2m in the latest published accounting period.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Not taken just added
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Ok I will bite :banghead:
The you tube thing was written by Keiran Maguire, Football Finance Expert
Just a few corrections all from the published accounts
- Club acquired by SISU 22 February 2008 not in 2007
- Clubs do not have to split their income, indeed due to the size of some clubs in L2 they do not have to provide any details at all. So not something the directors or owners are doing wrong in splitting turnover two ways not three. Most clubs in L2 even some L1 you wont find that information, not even a two way split
- The club wages bill is for all staff, managers, all players, coaching staff, directors etc and you have to use the figure in the notes to the accounts to get the right percentages because some of the wages cost is included in the direct costs figure in the CCFC accounts
- highlighting how high the percentage of wages to turnover was in 2013/14 is pointless that's the Northampton year and as such is an exception. Therefore not a good comparison. Most years the percentage of total wages costs to turnover has been between 80% to 90% of turnover. Not unusual for any football club.
- the club has never made an operating or net profit in the last 10 years. Player sales are not classed as operating income because the purchase is classed as an asset disposal. If you include player sales then you should arguably include the interest because the club can not operate without either the sales proceeds or the money put in by ARVO and now SISU Master Fund. Not many clubs are profitable even fewer manage to be profitable most years in the EFL - Walsall comes to mind as one
- misses out the most valuable asset we have right now - Ryton
- loss of turnover is not as simple as the owners fault or not owning a ground. Plenty of clubs don't own their ground. Income also drops because the FA & EFL distributions drop the lower down the leagues you go as do opportunities for things like sponsorship and prize money. You could have the best owners around and still get relegated.
- not all the interest payable 13.2m since SISU took over was due to ARVO. That ARVO interest which was, has never actually been paid out.
- Otium wasn't formed until April 2011 so ARVO didn't "invest" before then
- THE CLUB IS OTIUM........ not Otium & SBS&L. Therefore the club owes one of the owners (ARVO) £8.6m capital plus £5.6m interest at 31/05/2017 not £42m. Legally the debt that is owed by SBS&L is outside of the club. SBS&L has no charge in place over Otium to secure the money it owes to the original investment funds
- It is ARVO not AVRO
other facts
Since SISU acquired CCFC
- player sales total 18.4m
- player purchases total 8.2m but that doesn't value players brought in as free agents
I would much prefer fans knew what is rather than someone pick bits to suit an agenda. Especially when the information is easily available. I actually think such a presentation is a good idea
The you tube thing was written by Keiran Maguire, Football Finance Expert
Just a few corrections all from the published accounts
- Club acquired by SISU 22 February 2008 not in 2007
- Clubs do not have to split their income, indeed due to the size of some clubs in L2 they do not have to provide any details at all. So not something the directors or owners are doing wrong in splitting turnover two ways not three. Most clubs in L2 even some L1 you wont find that information, not even a two way split
- The club wages bill is for all staff, managers, all players, coaching staff, directors etc and you have to use the figure in the notes to the accounts to get the right percentages because some of the wages cost is included in the direct costs figure in the CCFC accounts
- highlighting how high the percentage of wages to turnover was in 2013/14 is pointless that's the Northampton year and as such is an exception. Therefore not a good comparison. Most years the percentage of total wages costs to turnover has been between 80% to 90% of turnover. Not unusual for any football club.
- the club has never made an operating or net profit in the last 10 years. Player sales are not classed as operating income because the purchase is classed as an asset disposal. If you include player sales then you should arguably include the interest because the club can not operate without either the sales proceeds or the money put in by ARVO and now SISU Master Fund. Not many clubs are profitable even fewer manage to be profitable most years in the EFL - Walsall comes to mind as one
- misses out the most valuable asset we have right now - Ryton
- loss of turnover is not as simple as the owners fault or not owning a ground. Plenty of clubs don't own their ground. Income also drops because the FA & EFL distributions drop the lower down the leagues you go as do opportunities for things like sponsorship and prize money. You could have the best owners around and still get relegated.
- not all the interest payable 13.2m since SISU took over was due to ARVO. That ARVO interest which was, has never actually been paid out.
- Otium wasn't formed until April 2011 so ARVO didn't "invest" before then
- THE CLUB IS OTIUM........ not Otium & SBS&L. Therefore the club owes one of the owners (ARVO) £8.6m capital plus £5.6m interest at 31/05/2017 not £42m. Legally the debt that is owed by SBS&L is outside of the club. SBS&L has no charge in place over Otium to secure the money it owes to the original investment funds
- It is ARVO not AVRO
other facts
Since SISU acquired CCFC
- player sales total 18.4m
- player purchases total 8.2m but that doesn't value players brought in as free agents
I would much prefer fans knew what is rather than someone pick bits to suit an agenda. Especially when the information is easily available. I actually think such a presentation is a good idea
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
by clever use of group situations and structures including arranging investment structures Hedge funds can generate losses they can use to offset investment profits and reduce tax bills
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Does that include the fees they pay for loan players and / or agent fees?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
it should include agents fees for players purchased or even free transfers brought as acquired
loan players would be a straight revenue cost as would related agents fees and appear on the P&L - so no
For your attention ccfcricoh
It's a response to the same video.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
following on from the recent filing at Companies House that Maguire and others highlighted as some great mystery, comes this
As I explained previously the first filing removed the claim that Otium directors were trying to find out who was in control. The second form filed confirms what we have all known - its SISU Capital. Never was going to be any great mystery to it.
More accurate would be to state it as Seppala who owns 75% of SISU Capital and Coleman who owns the other 25% of the same. Both of course also sign documents for ARVO. To my mind it should follow through to a person because a company is incapable of thought or decisions.
As I explained previously the first filing removed the claim that Otium directors were trying to find out who was in control. The second form filed confirms what we have all known - its SISU Capital. Never was going to be any great mystery to it.
More accurate would be to state it as Seppala who owns 75% of SISU Capital and Coleman who owns the other 25% of the same. Both of course also sign documents for ARVO. To my mind it should follow through to a person because a company is incapable of thought or decisions.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I thought ARVO was originally set up by Sepalla &c. to invest in Huntsman.
The Huntsman Connection
I also thought that no one can own more than 10% of the club without being publicly named, so isn't it likely these funds are a collaboration between wealthy individuals designed to hide their activities.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Ultimately someone has responsibility however.
Same as any company really. If they're big enough it's difficult / well-nigh impossible to find out who owns it if a number of people own shares but... someone's always responsible for the direction.
Don't think it's unfair to suggest Seppala ultimately has responsibility for the direction CCFC go.
Last edited by a moderator:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I think the article says ARVO Master fund was involved in investing in a Huntsman company not sure it was set up only with that intent
There are 5 funds investing in SBS&L and we have no idea who invested or what percentages in each fund. I suspect the best the EFL can do is take assurances from SISU that the rules have been complied with - that is not an accusation that something might be wrong btw. That rule only applies to FA/EFL it has nothing to do with Companies House and the declaration of significant control, which addresses more than control of voting shares. In theory a lender could be in a position of significant control but not own any shares, SISU are caught not because of owning shares but because of exerting influence that Otium & SBS&L are acting on.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Who gives s flying f..k?