Will Gary Hoffman... (27 Viewers)

[Nick]

It's not 'Joy' that owns the club though, is it? It's the Arvo Master Fund ultimately SISU.

But I think we're all arguing over the same thing. Technically they are investing by purchasing players using income from the previous year. But I consider investment to be something in excess of standard income. I certainly wouldn't say SISU have invested in CCFC in recent years.

Is your sarcasm meter not working?

Technically "they" as in SISU didn't invest if it is using income brought in.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

I think most peoples take on investment would be putting in monies above and beyond the normal day to day running of the business. Not sure i see much evidence of that

They have not done that in years. Last time a SISU entity put money in that we know about was a net amount of £387,557 in 2017 £530,000 the year before that. Prior to that the cash injections stopped 2013 - before the administration. From what i can see the 2017 figure had to go in because they had run out of cash flow. 2016 went in on the same basis but the annual cashflow recovered because of the subsequent sale of Maddison (a £2.5m sale value created an annual cash surplus of £750k - think about it) . SISU were acting as bankers of last resort. Is that investment? Before that the last time they put any cash in (ARVO, SISU etc) was 2013 as far as i can see. If they didnt put those funds in then CCFC go bust because it cant meet its day to day trading liabilities, most people despite the semantics would not see that as investing

Player sales is the normal trade of a football club isnt it? Several statements have come from MR etc saying that the player sales and add ons have constituted our player budget (not 100% accurate because surely ticket sales etc count too) where would we be without them. It might be the budget but has the budget been spent in full? All part of a football business that is apparently based on self sufficiency ie not needing the benefit of owner, outside or third party investment. Player sales have been necessary simply to continue in business, player purchases necessary at a cost in L1 simply because L1 quality costs and we traded players to create funds within the business to be able to do it - we got lucky in a sense

Yes you can make an argument that the original investment kept the club alive to create things like the Maddison sale, but you could then argue that the fans did pretty much the same year on year out. In fact their "investment" in recent years far outstrips SISU's. But at what point does that original investment become dead? It is afterall no longer CCFC Ltd or CCFCH Ltd. There is no direct CCFC connection or security for the £28m investment shown in SBS&L. I think most would agree that the "investment" was a disaster, despite it keeping CCFC going. Would the club really cease to have existed when they came in ?

Then you look at what is being said...... the club must be self sufficient. Well that implies no funds from the owners doesn't it? . SISU haven't taken any money out ...... not quite true as funds look to have been extracted 2017, 2013 & 2012. SISU haven't taken any funds out ....... the club hasnt had the funds to allow extraction above what has been disclosed. SISU haven't taken any dividend ...... legally they cant there are no distributable reserves. SISU Have put millions in..... well yes but most has been in clever use of inter company balances. SISU have invested in the squad? ...... mute point and you could argue that in a sense but we needed players in simply to trade - is normal trading actually investment or reinvestment?. If SISU's investment in the team is time and effort, then how much has MR invested? he and his team brought those players in and moved others on didn't they?

Where SISU have "invested" (and not in cash) is by allowing Robins to get on with the job, to bring the players needed in and to move players on. Hard to value that..... if successful it is value, get relegated and it isn't. So if investment is time & effort, has MR made a large investment in CCFC too?

its all semantics and you can take your own spin on things to suit your point of view

Keep it simple...... Have SISU invested hard cash this season? There is no evidence either way the indications are that they havent put addition funding in. We do not know, they might even on the basis of the Maddison sale add ons have extracted funds, - they are entitled to, but we wont know until next February 2020

 

[oldskyblue58]

As for Hoffman buying half the Ricoh ...... sorry i think that is pure fantasy. He doesnt have those sort of funds and any connection that did would be in control not him

What does buy half the Ricoh mean ? Half the lease? Half of ACL? Half of ACL 2006? Half of Wasps Holdings? The lease is valued at £60m................

In any case once he had done that then he would have to buy CCFC ............ the figures would be huge. Just out of interest who or what entity would pick up the interest bill?

 

[Nick]

I think most peoples take on investment would be putting in monies above and beyond the normal day to day running of the business. Not sure i see much evidence of that

They have not done that in years. Last time a SISU entity put money in that we know about was a net amount of £387,557 in 2017 £530,000 the year before that. From what i can see the 2017 figure had to go in because they had run out of cash flow. 2016 went in on the same basis but the annual cashflow recovered because of the subsequent sale of Maddison (a £2.5m sale value created an annual cash surplus of £750k - think about it) . SISU were acting as bankers of last resort. Is that investment? Before that the last time they put any cash in (ARVO, SISU etc) was 2013 as far as i can see. If they didnt put those funds in then CCFC go bust because it cant meet its day to day trading liabilities, most people despite the semantics would not see that as investing

Player sales is the normal trade of a football club isnt it? Several statements have come from MR etc saying that the player sales and add ons have constituted our player budget (not 100% accurate because surely ticket sales etc count too) where would we be without them. It might be the budget but has the budget been spent in full? All part of a football business that is apparently based on self sufficiency ie not needing the benefit of owner, outside or third party investment. Player sales have been necessary simply to continue in business, player purchases necessary at a cost in L1 simply because L1 quality costs and we traded players to create funds within the business to be able to do it - we got lucky in a sense

Yes you can make an argument that the original investment kept the club alive to create things like the Maddison sale, but you could then argue that the fans did pretty much the same year on year out. In fact their "investment" in recent years far outstrips SISU's. But at what point does that original investment become dead? It is afterall no longer CCFC Ltd or CCFCH Ltd. I think most would agree that the "investment" was a disaster, despite it keeping CCFC going. Would the club really cease to have existed when they came in ?

Then you look at what is being said...... the club must be self sufficient. Well that implies no funds from the owners doesn't it? . SISU haven't taken any money out ...... not quite true as funds look to have been extracted 2017, 2013 & 2012. SISU haven't taken any funds out ....... the club hasnt had the funds to allow extraction above what has been disclosed. SISU haven't taken any dividend ...... legally they cant there are no distributable reserves. SISU Have put millions in..... well yes but most has been in clever use of inter company balances. SISU have invested in the squad ...... mute point and you could argue that in a sense but we needed players in simply to trade. If SISU's investment in the team is time and effort, then how much has MR invested? he and his team brought those players in and moved others on didn't they?

Where SISU have invested (and not in cash) is by allowing Robins to get on with the job, to bring the players needed in and to move players on. Hard to value that..... if successful it is value, get relegated and it isn't. So if investment is time & effort, has MR made a large investment in CCFC too?

its all semantics and you can take your own spin on things to suit your point of view

Keep it simple...... Have SISU invested hard cash this season? There is no evidence either way. We do not know, they might even on the basis of the Maddison sale add ons have extracted funds, - they are entitled to, but we wont know until next February 2020

Allowing Robins to get on with it still isn't really an investment though, it's more what should be standard practise.

As for investing time, I'd say somebody like Accrington's owner is somebody who invests time into the club that makes a difference. I can't see SISU (by SISU I mean Joy / Dermot) being along the same lines.

Not doubt that at points in time they have put money in, personally I much prefer the approach where we use the money the club generates.

 

[WhaleOilBeefHooked]

Is your sarcasm meter not working?

Technically "they" as in SISU didn't invest if it is using income brought in.

You clearly don't understand how business works, Nick.

In financial accounting and business 1-0-1, if you're using funds/profits generated from business, it's called reinvestment. Regardless of whether the funds are profits, or you've dipped into a £20m war chest, if you're buying assets it's an investment.

But as I said, my personal opinion is that they haven't invested - or certainly haven't invested as much as they could have / should have.

 

[Liquid Gold]

As for Hoffman buying half the Ricoh ...... sorry i think that is pure fantasy. He doesnt have those sort of funds and any connection that did would be in control not him

What does buy half the Ricoh mean ? Half the lease? Half of ACL? Half of ACL 2006? Half of Wasps Holdings? The lease is valued at £60m................

In any case once he had done that then he would have to buy CCFC ............ the figures would be huge. Just out of interest who or what entity would pick up the interest bill?

Interesting that the purchase value for half the lease is exactly what it would take to clear London Wasps' debt.

 

[Covstu]

As for Hoffman buying half the Ricoh ...... sorry i think that is pure fantasy. He doesnt have those sort of funds and any connection that did would be in control not him

What does buy half the Ricoh mean ? Half the lease? Half of ACL? Half of ACL 2006? Half of Wasps Holdings? The lease is valued at £60m................

In any case once he had done that then he would have to buy CCFC ............ the figures would be huge. Just out of interest who or what entity would pick up the interest bill?

yep total fantasy and the Interest bill is still the noose around our necks which doesn't seem to be getting any better. Why would SISU leave whilst that liability is still there, would take a large sum to clear that alone never mind purchasing the club, the ground etc etc.. out of most people's reach even the well off

 

[Greggs]

Christ.

The point wasn't how a business should be run, was it?

It's as if you are reading something completely different.

The definition of invest is:



I really don't think it can be made any simpler before it gets patronising.

So have Sisu invested??? Simple as that! Patronising? You're like a broken record, even with multiple people correcting you!

 

[Nick]

So have Sisu invested??? Simple as that! Patronising? You're like a broken record, even with multiple people correcting you!

Nobody is correcting me are they?

Have SISU put money in to pay for the players or is it money from CCFC? You have tried to go down both routes.

 

[WhaleOilBeefHooked]

Nobody is correcting me are they?

Have SISU put money in to pay for the players or is it money from CCFC? You have tried to go down both routes.

You surely can't be serious?

Regardless of whether SISU and CCFC stumped up the cash for players, by very virtue of the fact that SISU ultimately owns CCFC, it doesn't bloody matter.

 

[Nick]

You clearly don't understand how business works, Nick.

In financial accounting and business 1-0-1, if you're using funds/profits generated from business, it's called reinvestment. Regardless of whether the funds are profits, or you've dipped into a £20m war chest, if you're buying assets it's an investment.

But as I said, my personal opinion is that they haven't invested - or certainly haven't invested as much as they could have / should have.

I fully understand enough about business, cheers

Maybe if you understood how reading worked you would see that my point is that SISU haven't invested for players on the pitch, it is using the money that CCFC has generated from promotion / selling players etc.

When I had a business, the business re-invested all the time in things with money it had made. Computers, software, subscriptions. It wasn't me as a person investing, that would be me putting money in from my personal account myself to pay for them.

See the difference?

 

[Greggs]

Nobody is correcting me are they?

Have SISU put money in to pay for the players or is it money from CCFC? You have tried to go down both routes.

For the last 15 years, yes. Finally they have turned the business around so they don't need to use there own money anymore. So, when you say Sisu havent invested, your chatting shit. The pure fact they didn't pocket all of the Maddison money, giving a dividend to their investors, instead letting us use it! I think we need to draw a line with this one. I this we've gotten our wires crossed along they way. Would be a much easier discussion in person though.

 

[Nick]

You surely can't be serious?

Regardless of whether SISU and CCFC stumped up the cash for players, by very virtue of the fact that SISU ultimately owns CCFC, it doesn't bloody matter.

I thought you were an expert in all of this?

He has tried to say that SISU has invested and also that they didn't need to invest because the CCFC is being run well.

There's a difference.

 

[Greggs]

I fully understand enough about business, cheers

Maybe if you understood how reading worked you would see that my point is that SISU haven't invested for players on the pitch, it is using the money that CCFC has generated from promotion / selling players etc.

When I had a business, the business re-invested all the time in things with money it had made. Computers, software, subscriptions. It wasn't me as a person investing, that would be me putting money in from my personal account myself to pay for them.

See the difference?

You really don't

 

[Greggs]

I thought you were an expert in all of this?

He has tried to say that SISU has invested and also that they didn't need to invest because the CCFC is being run well.

There's a difference.

They are the same entity FFS

 

[Nick]

For the last 15 years, yes. Finally they have turned the business around so they don't need to use there own money anymore. So, when you say Sisu havent invested, your chatting shit. The pure fact they didn't pocket all of the Maddison money, giving a dividend to their investors, instead letting us use it! I think we need to draw a line with this one. I this we've gotten our wires crossed along they way. Would be a much easier discussion in person though.

ha, I don't think any wires are crossed. My point is that they haven't invested this season in players, it was the original point I responded to that gives it away. They have put money into the club at points whether it is loans, taking over etc.

Again, not taking money isn't them investing.

 

[Greggs]

I thought you were an expert in all of this?

He has tried to say that SISU has invested and also that they didn't need to invest because the CCFC is being run well.

There's a difference.

Over a 15 year business, you are using one year as an example? You'd be booted out of every boardroom you tried to enter.

 

[Nick]

They are the same entity FFS

They aren't, that's the point.

 

[Nick]

Over a 15 year business, you are using one year as an example? You'd be booted out of every boardroom you tried to enter.

Yes, I am using one year as the example as that is the original point I was disagreeing with.

I'm sure SISU think the same (look at the money they've invested this season)

 

[Greggs]

ha, I don't think any wires are crossed. My point is that they haven't invested this season in players, it was the original point I responded to that gives it away. They have put money into the club at points whether it is loans, taking over etc.

Again, not taking money isn't them investing.

Did Chaplin and Bakayoko get signed from the profit we made selling Mcnulty? Yes. If Sisu had pocketed all that money, fair enough, instead they let the club invest it!

 

[Nick]

You really don't

I know enough to have known that whatever money the business brought in wasn't my personal money by default because it was a different entity. Probably a good job.

 

[Nick]

Did Chaplin and Bakayoko get signed from the profit we made selling Mcnulty? Yes. If Sisu had pocketed all that money, fair enough, instead they let the club invest it!

Which goes back to me saying SISU didn't invest it originally which you have been around the houses about 5 times trying to disagree with. In the meantime contradicting yourself by saying that it didn't need SISU to invest because the club is being run well.

 

[no_loyalty]

SISU could have taken money out of the club to pay back debts/loans but they don't seem to have, so in a way they are leaving money in the club they could have taken. No they have not directly invested this season but they have allowed invetment by not taking funds away. In a way your both right, SISU have not invested this season directly, but allowing the club to use the funds it has generated and taking none for repayments is a sort of investment. For me the bigger worry (ground apart) is where does this seasons sell come from to generate money. Bayless don't seem the same player YET, JJ still to prove he can come back to what he was or better. So stop arguing about extra funds this season, where does next seasons extra funds come from?

Promotion to the Championship

 

[Greggs]

I know enough to have known that whatever money the business brought in wasn't my personal money by default because it was a different entity. Probably a good job.

But the fact is, if you're business is making money, you're more than welcome to take a large dividend of that!

 

[Greggs]

Which goes back to me saying SISU didn't invest it originally which you have been around the houses about 5 times trying to disagree with. In the meantime contradicting yourself by saying that it didn't need SISU to invest because the club is being run well.

So MCnulty was playing for free?

 

[WhaleOilBeefHooked]

I know enough to have known that whatever money the business brought in wasn't my personal money by default because it was a different entity. Probably a good job.

You're literally using semantics to cover up that you're wrong. You're so ridiculously stubborn it's not even funny.

Correct, CCFC and SISU are both entirely separate legal entities.

But SISU ultimately own and control all of the business decisions of CCFC. So to say that SISU have allowed investment through CCFC purchasing players is correct. It doesn't matter if it's profit, it doesn't matter if it's more business loans. Through SISU signing off on the purchases, they have technically re-invested.

 

[Covstu]

Just stop now...... FFS

 

[Greggs]

You're literally using semantics to cover up that you're wrong. You're so ridiculously stubborn it's not even funny.

Correct, CCFC and SISU are both entirely separate legal entities.

But SISU ultimately own and control all of the business decisions of CCFC. So to say that SISU have allowed investment through CCFC purchasing players is correct. It doesn't matter if it's profit, it doesn't matter if it's more business loans. Through SISU signing off on the purchases, they have technically re-invested.

Bang on

 

[Nick]

You're literally using semantics to cover up that you're wrong. You're so ridiculously stubborn it's not even funny.

Correct, CCFC and SISU are both entirely separate legal entities.

But SISU ultimately own and control all of the business decisions of CCFC. So to say that SISU have allowed investment through CCFC purchasing players is correct. It doesn't matter if it's profit, it doesn't matter if it's more business loans. Through SISU signing off on the purchases, they have technically re-invested.

No, I am just being consistent. Nothing to do with semantics to point it out.

Allowing Investment isn't the same as investment. I could sit and allow investment on things all day long and still not use a penny of my own money. The point I use my own cash, is when I begin to invest.

I just said SISU haven't invested, whether you want to spin it as "allowing investment" or something else it still isn't them investing, is it?

We have already been through the "allowing investment" approach. It still isn't them investing.

 

[Greggs]

Just stop now...... FFS

That's me done

 

[Nick]

So MCnulty was playing for free?

No, he was being paid with wages using money the club brought in. What's your point?

If SISU had put money into the club to pay his wages, they would be investing.

It really is that simple.

 

[Greggs]

No, he was being paid with wages using money the club brought in. What's your point?

If SISU had put money into the club to pay his wages, they would be investing.

It really is that simple.

 

[Nick]

It is a bit like that. It's a massive circle you keep going round in

"They invested"
"they didnt need to invest as the business is bringing money in"
"they re-invested"
"sisu is the same entity"

All I pointed out that to start going on about SISU investing this season isn't correct. You have agreed with this at points, you have then disagreed and then agreed again.

 

[Greggs]

It is a bit like that. It's a massive circle you keep going round in

"They invested"
"they didnt need to invest as the business is bringing money in"
"they re-invested"
"sisu is the same entity"

No mate, the circle is in your head. Seems everyone is saying you are wrong....why cant you take the hint??????? Narcissistic episode maybe?

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

Is this going to be the first 100 page thread? Greggs v Nick