fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
HE WAS ON THE BOARD THAT THE PRESENT OWNERS APPOINTED YOU MORON
Breaking- New Consortium Bid (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Briles
- Start date
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just a few thoughts
The bid was £7m + I assume that is the cash up front and there are add ons. Trouble is i think the starting point is what it takes to settle out ARVO & SISU Master fund. Those two entities are owed £8.9m as at 31/05/2018 plus interest £7m. Not saying all the interest is covered by a deal but the capital has to be. Nor am i saying any purchaser takes responsibility for the Otium debts, but the "assets" acquired have to realise at least the outstanding capital on the loans to enable what would be left of Otium to settle them.
If SISU decide to sell, and there is no evidence to suggest they want to, then the actual worth of the Club is irrelevant because what they seek is akin to a ransom payment. There are people talking of £20m as the club value, I dont see it personally, however they are probably in the right ball park for what SISU want out of it to go.
The assets. Ryton, Frankly irrelevant what the investment value is if you are buying it to continue as a training ground. Now SISU could retain the training ground to realise that investment value but they will need to provide an alternative which would not have an investment value. Either way figures of 6m or 7m for training facilities to be acquired are way above what the true value to a football club is. The valuation placed on Ryton in the Otium accounts was 350k before depreciation
The bid would be to acquire the assets less football creditors of Otium i believe. What Sisu invested in SBS&L is irrelevant and you would not acquire the loan debts. So what are we looking at
- the golden share, not actually saleable but it is the right to play in EFL so effectively the goodwill of Otium.
- trademark & intellectual property
- Ryton
- fixtures & fittings Equipment etc in the accounts at under £60k book value
- player & management contracts. Yes it would include junior players (you could value by using the agreed FA compensation calculation). The value is an opinion not a calculation so room to bargain, but you would factor in length of contract left etc. You might not want to take on all contracts (are player contracts covered by TUPE? or would EFL insist you do?)
- adds ons from previous player transactions (apparently some were going to be given to SISU). Until it happens there is no value
against that you have the following
- football creditors (player wages, other clubs,EFL etc)
- liability under players contracts
- Junior players? - if it were me i would be discounting the value of the junior players because of the number that never make it, that never go to other clubs, simply drop from the professional game
This is what SISU bought in 2013 from the CCFC Ltd administrator for 1.5m (Ryton was an asset of CCFC H so not sold by administrator)
Proof of funds. I am guessing there is some semantics going on. Hoffman says he can provide proof of funds if SISU want to talk (but not until then) SISU say there was no proof of funds in the offer letter. Both correct and both playing with words.
Bid was never going to succeed, but they have tried. Is there anyone else in the market for an asset poor, loss making football club? The alternative if no one tries is that we accept SISU Capital isnt it
Personally I would take all offers off the table. The interest from Hoffman in a sense provides a safety net for SISU if they did need to cut and run. Clearly at the moment Seppala feels confident - so my concern is why?
The bid was £7m + I assume that is the cash up front and there are add ons. Trouble is i think the starting point is what it takes to settle out ARVO & SISU Master fund. Those two entities are owed £8.9m as at 31/05/2018 plus interest £7m. Not saying all the interest is covered by a deal but the capital has to be. Nor am i saying any purchaser takes responsibility for the Otium debts, but the "assets" acquired have to realise at least the outstanding capital on the loans to enable what would be left of Otium to settle them.
If SISU decide to sell, and there is no evidence to suggest they want to, then the actual worth of the Club is irrelevant because what they seek is akin to a ransom payment. There are people talking of £20m as the club value, I dont see it personally, however they are probably in the right ball park for what SISU want out of it to go.
The assets. Ryton, Frankly irrelevant what the investment value is if you are buying it to continue as a training ground. Now SISU could retain the training ground to realise that investment value but they will need to provide an alternative which would not have an investment value. Either way figures of 6m or 7m for training facilities to be acquired are way above what the true value to a football club is. The valuation placed on Ryton in the Otium accounts was 350k before depreciation
The bid would be to acquire the assets less football creditors of Otium i believe. What Sisu invested in SBS&L is irrelevant and you would not acquire the loan debts. So what are we looking at
- the golden share, not actually saleable but it is the right to play in EFL so effectively the goodwill of Otium.
- trademark & intellectual property
- Ryton
- fixtures & fittings Equipment etc in the accounts at under £60k book value
- player & management contracts. Yes it would include junior players (you could value by using the agreed FA compensation calculation). The value is an opinion not a calculation so room to bargain, but you would factor in length of contract left etc. You might not want to take on all contracts (are player contracts covered by TUPE? or would EFL insist you do?)
- adds ons from previous player transactions (apparently some were going to be given to SISU). Until it happens there is no value
against that you have the following
- football creditors (player wages, other clubs,EFL etc)
- liability under players contracts
- Junior players? - if it were me i would be discounting the value of the junior players because of the number that never make it, that never go to other clubs, simply drop from the professional game
This is what SISU bought in 2013 from the CCFC Ltd administrator for 1.5m (Ryton was an asset of CCFC H so not sold by administrator)
- Goodwill £1
- Business intellectual property £1
- FL and FA shares £2
- Benefit of any continuing player contracts £466,742
- Equipment £1
- IT System £5000
- The debts and the benefit of all guarantees, indemnities and security rights in respect of them including rates rebate £1,000,000 (apparently Rates rebate £400k +)
- The benefit of all and any actual, potential or contingent rights, claims and causes of actions £1
- The benefit of any licences (excluding property licences) £1
- The business records £1
- All other property rights and assets owned £28,254
Proof of funds. I am guessing there is some semantics going on. Hoffman says he can provide proof of funds if SISU want to talk (but not until then) SISU say there was no proof of funds in the offer letter. Both correct and both playing with words.
Bid was never going to succeed, but they have tried. Is there anyone else in the market for an asset poor, loss making football club? The alternative if no one tries is that we accept SISU Capital isnt it
Personally I would take all offers off the table. The interest from Hoffman in a sense provides a safety net for SISU if they did need to cut and run. Clearly at the moment Seppala feels confident - so my concern is why?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
you misunderstand then. Seppala can carry on knowing there is definite interest at £7m that doesnt want to go away, so worst comes to worst that is available to her. She can park it and do what she wants as usual. Even creates a minimum for other interested parties if they were around
As for for safety net for Trust, Council, Wasps, that's got a big hole in it because she emphatically said no (which is all she had to do last time because she had her plans in place) and from what i can see this time around the PR for the consortium has not been that positive.
All a waste of time and effort
As for for safety net for Trust, Council, Wasps, that's got a big hole in it because she emphatically said no (which is all she had to do last time because she had her plans in place) and from what i can see this time around the PR for the consortium has not been that positive.
All a waste of time and effort
Nick
Administrator
It's what I have been saying for months... Some parties have gone all in on the hope that Joy will just suddenly give a shit about CCFC and say "Oh of course Gary, take the club from me and good luck for the future".
Of course it has a hole in it, I have been pointing the massive hole out but it still keeps happening!
It's as if the hole is purposely there for them to blindly walk into.... (no innuendo intended)
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
What’s the sum we think SISU have invested?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What I don’t understand is why Hoffman allows the offer to be so public it’s showing your hand upfront. Then apparently we have Elliot saying if the owners will see us we can offer more!
Also the strange incident last year when Hoffman allowed a penniless chancer on his consortium when he said he had sight of funds - I assume off the chancers business advisor - the chap with a silly hat
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Think you have demonstrated the problem & reason G
[
But he resigned didn’t he, along with others, don’t know if that makes him a good guy or a bad guy.
Nick
Administrator
What does it say on your script?
I would have thought it should be a good guy / saviour of CCFC.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
One would have to assume that this plays little part in the decision to hold onto the club. When valuing an asset one has to look at potential future P/L, not historic cost. I imagine (but don't know, clearly) that SISU think:
1) Continuing to hold CCFC strengthens their hand in compensation claims.
2) Continuing potential of player sales from current business model.
3) Potential for promotions and increased income.
On 3 they only need 1 year in the Premiership without investing heavily in a squad fit to compete to make more than the £7m being offered. So long as the club isn't costing them to hold, no matter how small the probability of crystalising, it makes sense to not sell when they know they have a floor of £7m on the table when they want to sell up.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
See I get that. I was more thinking that their investment would be a starting point in negotiations. I’m sure it was quoted sometime ago that they’d invested between 15-20 million in the club
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Definitely would be with the consortium then!
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Interesting angle really, actually makes continuing with legal action more viable than less, underwritten by Hoffman the white knight!
The big question is ... what happens to the legals?
I assume the deal must include dropping them.
Otherwise SISU sells CCFC and continues to sue WASPs / CCC
But if it includes dropping legals SISU do not have a problem anyway.
If the Consortium are banking on the legals being dropped and WASPs allowing use of the stadium, I assume they are saying to SISU this is where your earn out comes from if you go with us.
Would be a good deal for WASPs anyway as legals dropped, they have a paying tenant and a training ground.
Now who could be a prime target as a joint investor in the Consortium?
:emoji_thinking:
I assume the deal must include dropping them.
Otherwise SISU sells CCFC and continues to sue WASPs / CCC
But if it includes dropping legals SISU do not have a problem anyway.
If the Consortium are banking on the legals being dropped and WASPs allowing use of the stadium, I assume they are saying to SISU this is where your earn out comes from if you go with us.
Would be a good deal for WASPs anyway as legals dropped, they have a paying tenant and a training ground.
Now who could be a prime target as a joint investor in the Consortium?
:emoji_thinking:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
He can’t put a bid together properly. He conducts his business through the media. He was involved with Sisu when they were at their worst in terms of actually running the club. He hangs out with Joe Elliot. He believed Dale Evans. He’s called Gary.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
If awkward_question == True:
Print(‘What about the Council?’)
If (input() == ‘What can they do?’) or (input() == ‘Where’s your proof?’):
Exit()
Nick
Administrator
Nah, you should just stick to saying conspiracy over and over. If in doubt you can use one of your dad's completely out of context and unrelated quote lists.
SkyblueBri
Well-Known Member
At present all I want is for my club to continue to exist next season and onwards. I would take Gengis Khan as a owner if he really wanted to run the club. At present I cannot see any future for us. Sisu wont sell, do not care about the club and will continue the legals onto the end, We are stuffed
GaryJones
Well-Known Member
Thanks!
vow
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
Hoffman is more interested in raising his own profile in the knowledge that SISU will not sell whatever the price, so puts in public undervalued bids.
Keeps him in the media spotlight.
He can’t put a bid together properly. He conducts his business through the media. He was involved with Sisu when they were at their worst in terms of actually running the club. He hangs out with Joe Elliot. He believed Dale Evans. He’s called Gary.
Other Gary's are available :happy:
Other Gary's are available :happy:
vow
Well-Known Member
...Glitter?
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure that a deal to sell would have to include dropping the legals. The new owner would have no interest in the legals, and would be unencumbered by them. Wasps and ccc would not be able to use any threat of legal action from a third party with no association with ccfc as a reason to not agree new deals for continued use of the stadium. Surely?
I did not say the new owner would be encumbered with them
I was saying WASPS / CCC want the legals dropped as they continue to impact on them. They also need to start about now at looking at refinancing the bonds
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That would be prime CCFC. Sell the club to Hoffman but don't drop the legals and Wasps still refuse to talk.
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
Literally all the consortium have to do is go to the Telegraph and say "We're all the members, here's our net worths, take some pictures". Boom, instant credibility and potential proof of funds/ability to run the club in the public eye.
Nick
Administrator
Why wouldn't they just take that to SISU if their aim was to buy the club?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
That much is true, it costs someone money, invested to boot their egos presumably.
However what would happen if no particular extra investment was provided on promotuion, could a yo-yo club be financially sound and attract aspiring players?
Gibbo
Well-Known Member
This is one measure that is in the eye of the beholder. Un
the Proof of Funds point is well expressed and should be noted by readers
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Of course wasps and ccc want the legals dropped, but if there was a new owner the legals would be absolutely nothing to do with ccfc and could not be used as a bargaining chip by anyone.
Gibbo
Well-Known Member
The last para - this has always bugged me as well