So CCFC Ltd is a non trading property subsidiary ....... (2 Viewers)

J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Is falsifying accounts a civil or criminal offence?

Who were the auditors for CCFC group & subsiduary accounts filed since SISU took over BTW?
 

skyblueinBaku

Well-Known Member
If the accounts are wrong, why were they signed off by the auditors and the Board of Directors? Surely someone should have spotted the mistake - or is that too simplistic a view?
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Grant Thornton up to and including 2007 accounts then BDO Stoy Hayward since. Would they both have not spotted something so fundamental to their report ?

Also the responsibility to prepare accounts and file accounts that are true and fair is the Directors not the auditors.
 

grego_gee

New Member
was told that landlords are obliged to mitigate their claim and therefore it wouldnt be the full 42 years. No info as to what it would be

"post 31" is just proposing what I think is the SISU plan. Of course if they maintain that the accounts are prepared on the wrong basis then the 75% creditor rule is all over the shop because the debt owed by ccfc ltd to ccfc h and SBSL would need to be recalculated. (could be all over shop in %age terms anyway depending on value of ACL claim)

Then we are maybe in to the realms of who makes the best outright offer to buy..............

Thanks ob,
Is the landlord mitigation bit not related to finding another tenant? Surely there are plenty of teams out there looking for a new home? Six months ought to find one?:)

Anyway aren't they free to fill it with concerts? We were never an exclusive tenant?

btw is ACL's claim (that details future debt) in published documents?

:pimp:
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
was told that landlords are obliged to mitigate their claim and therefore it wouldnt be the full 42 years. No info as to what it would be

"post 31" is just proposing what I think is the SISU plan. Of course if they maintain that the accounts are prepared on the wrong basis then the 75% creditor rule is all over the shop because the debt owed by ccfc ltd to ccfc h and SBSL would need to be recalculated. (could be all over shop in %age terms anyway depending on value of ACL claim)

Then we are maybe in to the realms of who makes the best outright offer to buy..............

Its correct. They have to mitigate, however, I believe a good starting point would be the revised terms they offered SISU ie £400k rather than £1.2m. Thats £800k less than the original terms of the lease. Over X years (isnt it a 99 year lease ?!) could be very significant.

The fact is if SISU purchase they have stated they wont play at the Ricoh and therefore this admission means ACL should be good to claim for a large sum.

Very good points earlier. I think the ARVO security is still unclear. If they lent money to Holdings and Limited guranteed the debt then in my view they could only come after Limited if Holdings is unable to pay ie insolvent.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Something that worries me in all this is that the administrator seems to have listed ACL's claim against CCFC Ltd as £636,000. (I've abstracted a bit of the Administrator's report, the final appendix, attached).

That makes it a bit tricky when it comes to creditor voting, if votes are cast on this basis. ACL will always be outvoted by SISU and its clones if this is how the CVA to leave admin is decided. Have to say that I'm no expert though!
 

Attachments

  • Admin_Creditors.jpg
    Admin_Creditors.jpg
    77.2 KB · Views: 19

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Something that worries me in all this is that the administrator seems to have listed ACL's claim against CCFC Ltd as £636,000. (I've abstracted a bit of the Administrator's report, the final appendix, attached).

That makes it a bit tricky when it comes to creditor voting, if votes are cast on this basis. ACL will always be outvoted by SISU and its clones if this is how the CVA to leave admin is decided. Have to say that I'm no expert though!

This is most probably based on the statement of affairs which is prepared by...you guessed it...the accountancy genius' that are the directors (former) of ccfc !

The real value of the claim will have to be determined. I can assure you that unless whoever buys the club returns to the Ricoh and pay the same rent as per the previous lease, it will run into millions.
 

grego_gee

New Member
Something that worries me in all this is that the administrator seems to have listed ACL's claim against CCFC Ltd as £636,000. (I've abstracted a bit of the Administrator's report, the final appendix, attached).

That makes it a bit tricky when it comes to creditor voting, if votes are cast on this basis. ACL will always be outvoted by SISU and its clones if this is how the CVA to leave admin is decided. Have to say that I'm no expert though!

Strange that! Why on earth would that worry you?

:pimp:
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Strange that! Why on earth would that worry you?

:pimp:

On the off chance that the clown in the hat isn't some sort of smiley representing bitter irony, I'll explain...

It would worry me because it might leave CCFC in the hands of the same buffoons who have brought the club to the verge of extinction.

That is the same people whose best plan for survival is to move the club to an undisclosed location outside the city, for an uncertain period of time, until they can build a new stadium in an unknown location.

I would think that would worry most fans, but maybe it's just me.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
This is most probably based on the statement of affairs which is prepared by...you guessed it...the accountancy genius' that are the directors (former) of ccfc !

The real value of the claim will have to be determined. I can assure you that unless whoever buys the club returns to the Ricoh and pay the same rent as per the previous lease, it will run into millions.

If it works that way, then I reckon it's good news. And on that happy thought, I'm calling it a night. Cheers. :)
 

cofastreecity

New Member
So CCFC Ltd is a non trading property subsidiary, always has been TF says. CCFC H pays all the bills and has always run the football side. CCFC Ltd per TF doesnt have a bank account all bank accounts have always been in CCFC H. Or so the story goes.

and yet CCFC H has funded CCFC Ltd to the tune of £45m and SBS&L has funded CCFC Ltd by £14.5m. Figures that surely must be based on what is in the accounts, accounts the director says contains errors and were prepared on the wrong basis, an argument the administrator has to investigate and admits might be the case. So how can you say the accounts are wrong but make a claim based on those accounts if you know they are wrong?

CCFC ltd has never had a bank account, or if it has it has never been used because all that is there is a non trading property subsidiary that owns a lease and the rights under the golden share. Doesnt that and the previous paragraph imply that all other payments, liabilities/assets etc are actually for CCFC H and any payments classed previously as on behalf of CCFC Ltd were actually payments for CCFC H and should not therefore be included in the inter company debt of £45m? If the bank account is not used how did CCFC H and SBS&L pay nearly £60m into ccfc Ltd and to what purpose?

So using TF's argument that CCFC H always has run the club. That leaves CCFC Ltd as legally responsible for the rent and licence payments, the rates probably and some building insurance possibly plus an audit fee. There is very little else to account for. But you would not leave those costs locked in to CCFC Ltd, because the losses would be non trading for tax purposes, so you would recharge them (maybe excluding the audit fee) to CCFC H. That would pretty much leave CCFC Ltd at a break even situation every year. Not requiring any funding from either CCFC H, SBS&L or ARVO.

We moved to The Ricoh 2005. The accounts to 31/05/05 for CCFC Ltd showed an inter company debt due to CCFC H of 9m. It is unclear if TF is arguing that CCFC Ltd since 1995 or since the new stadium move that CCFC ltd was a non trading property subsidiary but lets assume it is since the move in 2005. If the only costs are the ones related directly to the lease and licence (as detailed above) and if for commercial & tax reasons those costs are recharged to CCFC H in full (ie any payment of rent by CCFC H is settling a debt it owes CCFC Ltd not a loan) then how could that 9m inter company debt in 2005 have changed ?

This of course ignores the effect of any adjustment that may be necessary because liabilities were discounted in 2007/08. It also ignores any adjustment for the years 1995 to 2005 if the basis was wrong there then the starting position is nil and there could be no debt owed to CCFC H by CCFC Ltd

You cant have it both ways in my opinion. Either the accounts are right and CCFC Ltd owe CCFC H and SBS&L nearly 60m............... or the accounts basis is wrong and CCFC Ltd owes CCFC H 9m at most (and nothing to SBS&L). That of course would affect any creditor claims for the administration. It also has implications as to where the football trade is.

So which is it?
There are more questions than answers and the Administrator should investigate the current and past directors, I am sure Mr Appleton will do this, however there are wider directors duty issues that will require a much deeper investigation from regulatory bodies which will potentially pull in the owner/s
 

quinn1971

Well-Known Member
There are more questions than answers and the Administrator should investigate the current and past directors, I am sure Mr Appleton will do this, however there are wider directors duty issues that will require a much deeper investigation from regulatory bodies which will potentially pull in the owner/s


Is that appletons job though ? Isn't he here just to oversee the administration. Once he puts forward a preferred bidder and if the football league agree isn't that appletons job done. He'll collect his money and go.
 

Bluegloucester

New Member
Is that appletons job though ? Isn't he here just to oversee the administration. Once he puts forward a preferred bidder and if the football league agree isn't that appletons job done. He'll collect his money and go.
No, he can then look into directors and shadow directors actions leading up to administration.
 

Jim

Well-Known Member
So its up to him how far he wants to dig then.i didn't know that thanks. I bet there's a few nervous people hoping he doesn't look too hard.

Doesn't need to look too hard. Fisher has either signed of false accounts or lied about them over the last few weeks. In trouble either way.....
 

quinn1971

Well-Known Member
Doesn't need to look too hard. Fisher has either signed of false accounts or lied about them over the last few weeks. In trouble either way.....


It's starting to look that way.hope the truth finally comes out everybody involved should be ashamed whats gone on.nobody has done whats best for the club.as much as I want sisu gone acl and the council should be looked at very closely too.
 

Tank Top

New Member
It's starting to look that way.hope the truth finally comes out everybody involved should be ashamed whats gone on.nobody has done whats best for the club.as much as I want sisu gone acl and the council should be looked at very closely too.
Its taken two months for an experienced administrator to sort through Sisu's web of intrigue And still the situation is not clear as to whether the dealings of the football club are above board or not, perhaps a check over by the accountants of the serious fraud squad, could throw some light on the Murky dealings of our owners {"the ones who saved us"}.
Regarding the council ACL. Apart from the price of the rent which is a drop in the ocean in the scale of the argument, what accusations of legal wrong doings can be seriously leveled at them?
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
There is a third option to my OP that I have thought about ....

That the accounts are right up to 2011 or even 2012 (as the drafts produced by TF to the administrator indicate) and the trade is currently in CCFC H for the financial year 2013. This is not of course the argument that has ever been put forward by either TF or the administrator however.

The problem with that scenario is the value of that transfer but more importantly the purpose of such a transfer of trade. Would such a transfer indicate or prove a scheme to prejudice the rights of creditors of CCFC Ltd ? You would have to look at what did the transfer achieve. Will leave others to decide that. It would create problems for both club and FL if it were such a scheme. To avoid that then the owners surely have to argue that it has been the case for a long period of time...... and we are back to my opinion in the OP

just thoughts and an opinion nothing more
 
Last edited:

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member
Happy Saturday......We need people like you......

I hope all the parties are reading this post.

Surely there would be some leverage from the football league, ACL and prospective purchasers. Maybe SISU will be keen to avoid any analysis of the whole financial saga and choose to quit?
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Good!, lets leave it at that then!
I'm not sure that your postulations are conducive to the good health of CCFC!
why not leave the boys to play?

:pimp:

What a very strange thing to say.

Why would someone analysing the finances of SISU in our current predicament. Ever be considered not conducive?
 
O

odysseus

Guest
What a very strange thing to say.

Why would someone analysing the finances of SISU in our current predicament. Ever be considered not conducive?

Indeed an odd thing to say......it is not like the boys playing is conducive to a succesful ccfc. Lge 1 (third division) shit team, dwindling crowds, no ground. 'Boys playing' is great.......
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Indeed an odd thing to say......it is not like the boys playing is conducive to a succesful ccfc. Lge 1 (third division) shit team, dwindling crowds, no ground. 'Boys playing' is great.......

Well I am not sure who exactly it is not conducive to?
 
O

odysseus

Guest
Well I am not sure who exactly it is not conducive to?

Boys.....sisu et al playing with ccfc have over seen probably the greatest decline of an english first class team. We were in the top flight for over 30 years. We potentially have a 32000 seat stadium which should be sold out every home game. We should be playing teams like man utd and arsenal, not teams like gillingham and oldham. The mis management is quite frankly astounding.
 

BrisbaneBronco

Well-Known Member
Boys.....sisu et al playing with ccfc have over seen probably the greatest decline of an english first class team. We were in the top flight for over 30 years. We potentially have a 32000 seat stadium which should be sold out every home game. We should be playing teams like man utd and arsenal, not teams like gillingham and oldham. The mis management is quite frankly astounding.

Agreed, but lets not forget that the foundations for such a decline were laid by BR/MM etc.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top