Something not right (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter robbieray
- Start date
BrisbaneBronco
Well-Known Member
The debt is fiction made up by SISU, so nothing to write off.
They can easily say we write off 32m debt which then appears again as management fee's in next years accounts
These Twats are so full of shite, they need locking up and never allowed to go near another business again.
Fuckin crooks - afuckinledgedly!!!!
They can easily say we write off 32m debt which then appears again as management fee's in next years accounts
These Twats are so full of shite, they need locking up and never allowed to go near another business again.
Fuckin crooks - afuckinledgedly!!!!
skyblueexile
Well-Known Member
whats not right - for the first time I 100% agree with telegraph
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Or is it £16m (£400k)?
mark82
Super Moderator
The contract was never actually changed.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Coincidental that their offer of settlement to ACL is for roughly the same as ACL's final offer?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just a couple of things
Keep in mind this is a group situation that has one of its companies in administration
Old debts - a large chunk of the debt relates to monies SISU took on at a discount when they came in but they did not discount in the accounts of CCFC Ltd. So in reality are nothing more than paper figures. Those old debts still exist in CCFC H as far as the info we have goes
ARVO - the debt that is owed to them was the crystalisation of a security charge. IT does not mean ARVO ever put 10.25 (including at least 2m in interest charged) in to CCFC Ltd. So they are writing off that charge BUT there is a similar charge on CCFC H that still exists ......so their debt still exists
the CCFC H accounts for the 5 years to 31/05/11 had already made provisions against the amount that company was owed by CCFC Ltd. So whilst the debt still existed legally CCFC H already valued it at nil and had taken the loss in the 5 years of SISU ownership already
The bulk of the SISU money has been put in via SBS&l putting money in to CCFC H who then put the money in to CCFC Ltd. CCFC H will still owe SBS&L that money but will not be owed any thing by CCFCLtd.
Would guess the SBS&L debt is probably legals etc that have been allocated to CCFC Ltd to load it with debt as such the Group will still owe them
It is SBS&L that is head of the Group and still owes SISU investors the money they put in. The full SISU money is still owed by the Group
SBS&L owns Otium which owns CCFC H which owns CCFC Ltd
They have "written off" amounts in CCFC Ltd which if this were a single stand alone company would mean that SISU/ARVO have lost the money. BUT it is not a single company it is a group and the money is owed elsewhere by other members of the group.
Clever accounting but the "write downs" of loans/debts do not actually represent loss of physical asset that it might seem
makes a nice headline though doesnt it
Keep in mind this is a group situation that has one of its companies in administration
Old debts - a large chunk of the debt relates to monies SISU took on at a discount when they came in but they did not discount in the accounts of CCFC Ltd. So in reality are nothing more than paper figures. Those old debts still exist in CCFC H as far as the info we have goes
ARVO - the debt that is owed to them was the crystalisation of a security charge. IT does not mean ARVO ever put 10.25 (including at least 2m in interest charged) in to CCFC Ltd. So they are writing off that charge BUT there is a similar charge on CCFC H that still exists ......so their debt still exists
the CCFC H accounts for the 5 years to 31/05/11 had already made provisions against the amount that company was owed by CCFC Ltd. So whilst the debt still existed legally CCFC H already valued it at nil and had taken the loss in the 5 years of SISU ownership already
The bulk of the SISU money has been put in via SBS&l putting money in to CCFC H who then put the money in to CCFC Ltd. CCFC H will still owe SBS&L that money but will not be owed any thing by CCFCLtd.
Would guess the SBS&L debt is probably legals etc that have been allocated to CCFC Ltd to load it with debt as such the Group will still owe them
It is SBS&L that is head of the Group and still owes SISU investors the money they put in. The full SISU money is still owed by the Group
SBS&L owns Otium which owns CCFC H which owns CCFC Ltd
They have "written off" amounts in CCFC Ltd which if this were a single stand alone company would mean that SISU/ARVO have lost the money. BUT it is not a single company it is a group and the money is owed elsewhere by other members of the group.
Clever accounting but the "write downs" of loans/debts do not actually represent loss of physical asset that it might seem
makes a nice headline though doesnt it
Last edited:
dazzabulldog
New Member
Acl need to refuse to except vca and help put ccfc into liquidation. This is the only way we will keep ccfc in the city and oust sisu. The Fl have proved they are spineless.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I'm sure that Fisher said that all external creditors(ACL mainly) would be paid in full?
Doesn't look that way from what Appleton is saying.
Doesn't look that way from what Appleton is saying.
mark82
Super Moderator
I'm not normally for liquidation but it would maybe be the quickest and cleanest way out this situation. Reform 2 steps lower at conference level (although I seem to remember that rule had been changed and there may be a minimum level to reform).
mattylad
Member
Yes I said Otium owe to SISU but perhaps Otium owe to SBS&L is more accurate.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
We all thought the debt was around the 30-35 million mark when SISU via Mr Appleton suddenly announced we are in 75 million pounds worth of debt.
This figure has never been satisfactorily explained.
Do the maths what we are left with.
IMO somewhere near the figure SISU originally claim to have put in prior to the overnight doubling of the debt.
All part of the plan to get out of the lease and put more pressure on ACL
This figure has never been satisfactorily explained.
Do the maths what we are left with.
IMO somewhere near the figure SISU originally claim to have put in prior to the overnight doubling of the debt.
All part of the plan to get out of the lease and put more pressure on ACL
Exactly if they don't accept it they will only get 0.5p in the pound . Sounds like a bit if a threat to me off who is supposed to be an impartial administrator. Tossers the lot of 'em.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
so 1 years rent in compensation to ACL for breaking the lease but will only pay 25% of the debts including that year. Regarding writing off the debts this is the worst case scenario for ccfc, if they had paid the money instead of writing it off then we would owe sisu significantly less. It couldn't be worse and it's hard to see why acl would accept 500k.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
He did and specifically clarified that ACL would get every penny.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
To be fair these details help ACL a bit when they turn down the CVA.
They will then need to legally challenge the liquidation.
They will then need to legally challenge the liquidation.
Bennets Afro
Well-Known Member
If Ltd is liquidated before the GS is issued, then Les Reid said that the FL can give it to whoever they want. Haskell anyone????
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
one thing is for certain 60.95m of debt has not disappeared from the Group ........... and in this context it is the bigger picture of the group that is important not the individual company of CCFC Ltd
(using CT figures of 24.7 + 7.5 +11.5+ 7+ 10.25 = 60.95)
(using CT figures of 24.7 + 7.5 +11.5+ 7+ 10.25 = 60.95)
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
the figure of £32m rings a bell, is this the debt figure from when SISU first took over? if so they are just wiping out a debt that in real terms doesn't exist for them as I'm certain they didn't give Robinson etc their money back.
why are ACL now being made a p in the £ offer when Fisher assured us they would be paid in full, couldn't be that he wasn't being totally truthful?
why are ACL now being made a p in the £ offer when Fisher assured us they would be paid in full, couldn't be that he wasn't being totally truthful?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I agree, it was just I was pulled up on it yesterday , when we were debating the need to sell to breakeven.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Am sure the SISU argument is they'd be paid every penny... according to what their final deal laid on the table for acceptance or not, was.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
No doubt their will be a 'perfectly normal business' explanation
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
The deal that they rejected?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
OSB-how do SISU justify to their investors the need to put in tens of millions of pounds to build a football stadium on top of all that has gone in?
Sisued
New Member
Didnt appleton say the creditors would be paid in full which is why he accepted the SISU bid?
How is it the best deal for the creditors when Haskell said he'd made a generous offer for SISUs debt and SISU will just wipe the debt clean? As a creditor SISU get nothing? Surely even if Haskell was offering just 1p per pound its a better deal for the debt?
How is it the best deal for the creditors when Haskell said he'd made a generous offer for SISUs debt and SISU will just wipe the debt clean? As a creditor SISU get nothing? Surely even if Haskell was offering just 1p per pound its a better deal for the debt?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Because the moment SISU walk away outright with anything less than all of their money they crystallise a loss.
These write offs wouldn't have happened with someone else bidding though.
Appleton didn't say the creditors would be paid in full but he did say he accepted the bid that was best for the unsecured creditors, I completely reject this though