Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (121 Viewers)
- Thread starter Alkhen
- Start date
- Status
They can't win though...
People were going mental on here at the very prospect of O'Hare or Gyokores leaving.
Then when we had the difficulties at the start of the season with the pitch/stadium, it was all their fault for not offloading a player for £6-10m
steve cooper
Well-Known Member
Just gone back and looked at the full game. The only one of our goals where there could have been a case for offside is our 3rd, where McNulty who played the ball to Max looks fractionally offside.
Our 1st goal, again McNulty was in an offside position but not interfering.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Who was?
All the sensible posters on here were saying we needed to sell this window.
This constant portrayal of fans who aren’t happy as some unrealistic morons who want us to spunk cash we don’t have is frankly insulting.
Most fans are bought into the idea of buying low selling high and incremental improvement. But the last two windows that’s not what’s happened. We’ve undersold at the last minute and failed to bring in the bare minimum needed for the squad.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The day you actually work out what people are saying, and stop ascribing meanings to them that suit your one-man crusade to smash the system is the day you're entitled to behave like a spoiled infant who thinks the world is against him.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Sell 51% and the proceeds go first to sbs&l technically as that is who owns 90.1% of otium ordinary shares. But
The funds, due to the ARVO charge over the otium shares, would have to be applied to the high interest rate loans due to them. From what we can calculate that is now sitting at around 30m.
The problem with that is that means sbs&l is making a loan to otium, which most likely means a new loan at high interest rate and probably secured on all otium assets
Anyone therfore investing at 51% would be investing in a debt laden company no different to how it looks now. Just moving from one sisu entity to another.
Sell a player and it would require sisu permission to leave any of the funds in otium hardly 51% control for the investors
The funds, due to the ARVO charge over the otium shares, would have to be applied to the high interest rate loans due to them. From what we can calculate that is now sitting at around 30m.
The problem with that is that means sbs&l is making a loan to otium, which most likely means a new loan at high interest rate and probably secured on all otium assets
Anyone therfore investing at 51% would be investing in a debt laden company no different to how it looks now. Just moving from one sisu entity to another.
Sell a player and it would require sisu permission to leave any of the funds in otium hardly 51% control for the investors
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
From what I remember Forte wasn't offside when he headed in to make it 2-2, then there was a case for the goal that made it 3-1 to us being offside. We hammered them for most the game really but those were big moments. Also seem to recall the pen in the first leg being soft.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Spot on. The problem was we couldn’t get some players off the payroll that we’d hoped. Walker, Waghorn and Hilssner cost us (according to some) 28k per week (£1.5m per year with extras).
Dom went for £1.4.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Hyam went because of cash flow, not budget deficit.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
No one is saying that sisu want to sell at 20m. Just about everyone is saying they won't get offered what they want or need.
What that means is that we are stuck with them for the foreseeable future. Unless Ashley can twist sisu's arm once he owns the stadium. He won't make a move on that though until he has control of the stadium first.
I expect ACL to be out of administration by the end of this month but certainly before Xmas
What that means is that we are stuck with them for the foreseeable future. Unless Ashley can twist sisu's arm once he owns the stadium. He won't make a move on that though until he has control of the stadium first.
I expect ACL to be out of administration by the end of this month but certainly before Xmas
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
All of these things are easily overcome if both sides agree a framework - as you well know.
Not sure your point gets us anywhere other than highlighting the technical set up.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
As I’ve said before, yes.
Not saying he didn’t
But I’m sure it CCFC has said to SISU “got the bills down by 1.5m. Here’s the cash flow forecast, can you bridge the pitch money” they might have had some success.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
And what do you think they want or need?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Completely just a feeling but he’s getting near 60 now. Judging by what he offered Derby and wanting something of a pet project I’m not sure he’ll hang around for long before making a move for the club.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
What?
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
You in ‘Spoons right now?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I will keep it simple for you.
Having received 30m it means sisu entities will still be owed 60m just that all the debt will be sitting in sbs&l
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
SISU have to draw a line either because they couldn’t or wouldn’t fund the cash deficit caused by the pitch and delayed fixtures.
Much easier to borrow money if you can show you are prudent. This applies to all walks of life.
Waghorn etc still on the books with no transfer value wouldn’t show the investors (SISU)…..
anyway.
CBA
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your clarity.
If SISU receive £30m it is well within their gift to move their debt around to show in whichever fund or entity that the Arvo master fund (or whatever) holds controlling stake in a venture that has a 49% stake in an entity which yields x% per annum and can be settled for £30m at a time to be agreed.
Unless I’m mistaken, the funds and companies involved all have SISU as the vehicle of ultimate control.
Tell me it’s not possible, without the phrase “it’s not easy”
It’s an asset swap. It’s not particularly difficult.
Last edited:
And if this is the case is it what the co-sponsers for the stadium purchase would have expected, wanted or accepted?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I wouldn't recommend such a deal but who knows.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
I’ve no idea.
It just seemed to me to be a logical solution in line with what their accounts seem to show and snippets from plausible ITKs.
Lots on here are suggesting alternate scenarios (SISU prefer relegation because it suits their model) being my comedy fave.
I like the strategy and to try to understand the moving parts of it all.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
You really must go to Specsavers
Well this is where their hand has been shown as to what's acceptable.IMO
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Nobody has said this…. Best way to describe it is - we have a model that works in league one or two. They have no intention of deviating from that model in the Championship regardless of the consequences
If you think this place wasn't absolutely apoplectic at the thought of O'Hare going to Burnley, particularly after the "bigger club" comments, you're trying to re-write history.
And if you think people will be behind a potential sale of Gyokeres in January you're equally in dreamland (incidentally i also think it would be a disaster for the club)
Colin Steins Smile
Well-Known Member
SISU are in a fix. The reported figures that will be part of an investment portfolio in CCFC is higher than I feel can be realised. This is partly due to the very high rate of interest that SISU charge.
As others have constantly stated on here the actual amount SISU has externally invested into CCFC since 2012 is minimal. The question for SISU is whether they are prepared to show a balance sheet loss on CCFC? That would require a bit of explaining to their investors, which I doubt they'll be in a hurry to do.
Now is the obvious time for them to sell, but I think SISU are seriously compromised having not secured the arena. Their strategy has failed.
As others have constantly stated on here the actual amount SISU has externally invested into CCFC since 2012 is minimal. The question for SISU is whether they are prepared to show a balance sheet loss on CCFC? That would require a bit of explaining to their investors, which I doubt they'll be in a hurry to do.
Now is the obvious time for them to sell, but I think SISU are seriously compromised having not secured the arena. Their strategy has failed.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I don’t think I’m the one trying to rewrite history here. People may not have wanted to lose players but everyone knows that’s our model and as long as the squad kept moving forwards people would accept it.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
If they wanted pl money they've got a very funny way of going about it
Grendel
Well-Known Member
At last a moment of self realisation
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Who put 10p in you?
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Clueless
- Status