I would say they are bad in the way they don't like talking with people and try to get things done behind the backs of others, but financially they have backed us since they took over, issue with the ground is 3 parties with 1 being the council just being completely twats.
Are SISU bad owners? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Fergusons_Beard
- Start date
On the word of club being in debt name me 1club that is not in debt.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
But easier to fall even lower.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Yeah the Thorn era was a joke, yet was strangely backed by the fans
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
sure I am miles off, but clubs that I have read recently that are run at a profit ?
Palace, Norwich, West Brom, Swansea ?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Bayern Munich
Cavan O'Doherty
Well-Known Member
Our recent success is despite Sisu not because of them. They’ve took a back seat due to the shambolic period of the Ken Dulieus of this world running the club. How anyone can make a case other than that they’re some of the worst owners in the English leagues is beyond me.
Adge
Well-Known Member
Please no! It sends shivers down my spine thinking that some thought that he was a football manager/coach when in reality he should have just been driving it.
skyblue025
Well-Known Member
Poor owners. Joy might wake one morning and decide she can't be arsed. Asks for her 50, 60, 70 million (pick whichever figure you believe) back and we are Bury. I can never see us owning our own ground be it Ricoh or fancy shiny new stadium with current ownership and it's relationship with CCC and Wasps. We are treading water.
John_Silletts_Nose
Well-Known Member
Not going to read the whole thread, but do we know who owns CCFC?
EFL, under Harvey, said that they had seen who are the owners but were unable to say anything. Do we know more now?
EFL, under Harvey, said that they had seen who are the owners but were unable to say anything. Do we know more now?
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Where is she getting it back from? This 50, 60 million
stevefloyd
Well-Known Member
I am no Sisu fan by any stretch of the imagination but at this point i would rather have them than be in Burys situation.
Yes they have made some apparent monumental mistakes and every body loves a scapegoat, i think their blackmail attempt for ACL was underestimated by them and the sneaky Council played a better sneaky hand by bringing those cloggers in from London but by Shitsu taking the club/team to Northampton at least the rent was lowered.
Its like a long game of chess i guess and at the minute I am not sure which team is winning
Yes they have made some apparent monumental mistakes and every body loves a scapegoat, i think their blackmail attempt for ACL was underestimated by them and the sneaky Council played a better sneaky hand by bringing those cloggers in from London but by Shitsu taking the club/team to Northampton at least the rent was lowered.
Its like a long game of chess i guess and at the minute I am not sure which team is winning
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
That’s just plain wrong. Absolutely blame them for their mistakes but when things just go right it’s not blind luck
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
We’ve lost a lot of pieces and I like the analogy
As I see it with this owner we, that’s the club and us the fans are always going to be dangling on a string, not sure of the on going business strategy that’s if there is one. In the years since taking us on sisu have gone from what seemed a swanky thriving outfit in Mayfair and downsized to a fraction of that, had two apparent owners Sepalla and Coleman who has now up sticks and gone, what’s next, I wouldn’t put anything past her.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Depends what you mean by debt. Every trading company, football or otherwise, is going to owe something even if it is just to their accountant for preparing the accounts. I think the point is whether the debt is sustainable and capable of being fully repaid.
Based on 2018 accounts
Rochdale has more assets than liabilities (+2.6m) so a positive balance sheet (total gross assets £4m) and has very little debt (421k in structured loans that are being repaid) and money in the bank (1.2m). They have an annual turnover 5.5m including player sales (750k). They have been in League 1 since 2014. Made a loss of 300k in 2018 but a profit of 1.4m in 2017. They own their ground via a subsidiary company, the ground valued at original cost not on current valuation
To compare to ourselves. CCFC (Otium) has a negative balance sheet of 19.8m and debt to owners that is unstructured and repayable on demand of £16m (which is not being repaid and growing annually because of the interest charged and not paid) there was £682K in the bank. Gross assets total £2m. We have a turnover of £6m plus player sales £1m. Promoted to League 1 in 2018. Made a loss in 2018 of £2.5m and have never made a profit in the last decade. CCFC have no long term security of tenure anywhere other than Ryton
The difference is CCFC is only sustainable in the way they operate if supported by the owners and are reliant on player sales to reduce that dependency. Rochdale have structured debt that is being repaid, do not make big losses and do it on a smaller turnover, are not reliant on their owners but do also rely on player sales.
Different expectations of each club i think it is fair to say but I would suggest one is being run sustainably the other is not
Last edited:
Adge
Well-Known Member
No, it’s a good manager, still nothing to do with them.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Tell you what (and I mean no disrespect to Rochdale!) but the fact they have twice the amount of gross assets than us is pretty sobering!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
its actually probably much more than twice. the original cost of the ground plus improvements is included at a value after depreciation of £200k ......... got to think it is worth much more than that no matter what state Spotland is in. Oh and the football club pay an annual rent of £100k to the subsidiary.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
tidy little ground, reminds me of the Butts in some ways. Like the Butts I 'd imagine it punches above it's weight regarding non football revenue.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I don't think they've been good since we came back from Northampton, improvements since we got relegated from League one certainly.
But there whole recruitment policy in the league one relegation year was appalling, compounded by the appointment of Slade and aided and abetted by Mowbray spending close season chasing a player quite clearly out of our league in Kelvin Wilson.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Who employed him?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
As i have said before the club is not self sufficient. It required loans from the owners in 2016 £530k ,2017 £500k and 2018 £500k simply to pay the day to day bills. However rather than leaving all the funds in the company they repaid some of their loans £112k in 2017 and £255k in 2018 when cash flow allowed
The net player sales made a big contribution to keeping CCFC going. The player sales less player purchases funded the club by £2.7m in 2015 £2.2m in 2016 in £180k 2017 in £870k 2018. or 5.95m in total. That was used to fund operating the club but we still made losses in those years even ignoring the interest on the loans
They have done, in reality, just enough to keep the business paying its bills, and the prime reason for that is not a kindling of empathy or passion for the club or being better owners...... its because without the club their whole legal strategy and therefore their investment comes crashing down around their ears
They have neither backed any manager in that time other than to keep their distance or kept the club self sufficient. Any player purchases have been through necessity just to have a squad and funded by the sales of other players and the adds ons from former players based on the managers decisions on who to sell or keep. But those sales also helped pay the overheads. This season is no different, without the sales of Chaplin and Bayliss we had a small budget and would have been in trouble with SCMP rules, much of the profit will simply pay for running the club.
Last edited:
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Awful isn’t it although some good planning by the club to ensure transfer fees are maximised and sell on deals are included
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
Does anyone have a realistic figure of what the Council/Higgs wanted for their halves of the Ricoh? I seem to remember talk at the time being £30m but may have been chinese whispers bs from fans.
Adge
Well-Known Member
And Coleman,Thorn,Venus,Slade.....
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
deal that was agreed with charity in 2012 was £1.5m plus £4m spread over 10 years, SISU walked away from it and offered £2m the Charity walked away from that. It never got further than that. Further than that in 2014 SISU offered £2.8m for the charity shares when the Wasps sale was going on, with certain clauses in addition. The Charity rejected it and took 2.77m from wasps
Any deal with CCC was not about the sale of the CCC shares in 2012 as far as i remember. The heads of Terms agreed August 2012 are attached. Frankly i think these are muddled and not at all sure how it would have worked.
https://www.ccfc.co.uk/contentassets/2ec0f8e40f044ad0a54d3635ef5fac67/council-hot_signed_2aug12.pdf
Council walked away from that, which they were entitled to do. Heads of terms are not legally binding. Without the deal for the charity shares there is no way to proceed in any case
The council accepted 2.77m from Wasps for their ACL shares in 2014
As far as i am aware SISU never made a bid for the CCC shares when wasps sale going on, i believe Seppala said at the time that they wouldnt interfere
Any deal with CCC was not about the sale of the CCC shares in 2012 as far as i remember. The heads of Terms agreed August 2012 are attached. Frankly i think these are muddled and not at all sure how it would have worked.
https://www.ccfc.co.uk/contentassets/2ec0f8e40f044ad0a54d3635ef5fac67/council-hot_signed_2aug12.pdf
Council walked away from that, which they were entitled to do. Heads of terms are not legally binding. Without the deal for the charity shares there is no way to proceed in any case
The council accepted 2.77m from Wasps for their ACL shares in 2014
As far as i am aware SISU never made a bid for the CCC shares when wasps sale going on, i believe Seppala said at the time that they wouldnt interfere
Nick
Administrator
The clause stuff is PWKH's go to line.
He forgets that he had said he would never do a deal and was trying to tell / persuade the council not to as well.
The bloke is up there with the rest of them for being a poisonous little prick. His family of lawyers can threaten again if they want
Cavan O'Doherty
Well-Known Member
Ironically ‘things are going right’ whilst we’re playing at St Andrews, that’s not right at all. Things may be going well on the pitch due to Robins and his team, but the pitch we are playing on is partly down to those that own the club.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
That to me is why SISU are not good owners, the club's asset base is worse than when they took over.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Interesting that the actual buyer of the extended lease wasn't any of the CCFC related companies, i.e. SBSL, CCFC Ltd, CCFC H Ltd but SISU Capital. Perhaps it's a good thing that the deal did fall through.
I think the appointment of Dave Boddy as chief executive has helped massively as he seems like a genuine guy who cares for he club as well as being mindful of the business side of things to ensure we are operate at a level which does not put the club at risk.
Pre-2015 they were woeful owners and we just needed to get rid but recently there have been some positive signs in terms of on field matters and an acknowledgement of the matters behind closed doors but there is still some way to go to sort out the off field mess.
Pre-2015 they were woeful owners and we just needed to get rid but recently there have been some positive signs in terms of on field matters and an acknowledgement of the matters behind closed doors but there is still some way to go to sort out the off field mess.