DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
I know that we do.
How long, accountability ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dongonzalos
- Start date
I know that we do.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
How was the clock ticking?
Did Geoffrey Robinson force them to appoint Coleman and spend millions on shit at gunpoint?
As stated the debt was low and Sisu showed no intention of renegotiating the rent, or in fact managing the club in any fashion until relegation woke them up. Joy herself admits that. If I buy a house and leave it to rot for 6 years should I get the council to pay to fix it up again?
They took a gamble, made some fair coin through interest and "management fees" and it didn't pay off. Typical City finance: Capitalism for the poor, Socialism for the Rich. Profit is the reward for risk, not a guaranteed right.
cloughie
Well-Known Member
some do seem to miss the point that Sisu take Miss-management fees yet that it is their investors who are loosing money not sisu
Many seem to believe that management fee's are money going into sisu pockets.
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
what if ?
you were a sisu investor ?
you were a sisu investor ?
duffer
Well-Known Member
A lazy insult and entirely without evidence, as is usual from you Grendel. Typical of someone who can't answer a straight question but seeks instead to divert any argument in the hope that people won't notice what a fool he's made of himself. Kind of a SISU trick, now that I think of it...
But anyway, why listen to a man who admits he would screw over the charity and the taxpayer as long as SISU get the Ricoh.
The same man who says that the club is a cash cow for the council, but has not one sliver of evidence to back that up.
The fellow who believes that every problem with the club comes down to the fact that the rent is too high.
It's been pointed out enough times that even our current owners didn't see the rent as an issue until years after they took over. Yet for you Grendel, the rent is the cause of all of our woes. And you've got the nerve to accuse me of having a peculiar obsession?
There are a few here who can make reasonable arguments as to why we might look beyond SISU for the club's failure. You're not one of them though. You're a broken record. Bye.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Hopefully one day you will understand what is going on.
We can't prove that they have or haven't taken money out as they haven't published the accounts since 2011. It is now 2014. So what would you say they have to hide? And before you say that the crap going on with CCFC LTD and more stopped them from publishing the accounts can you please explain what happened to the 2012 accounts as they were well overdue.
SISU accounts and investors accounts are different. SISU have been taking 2.6m approx mismanagement charges. This would be paid by the investors. This would be paid to SISU. 1.2m interest would be paid to the investors. OOOOPS no money left so added to the debt. But investors left hanging on with the promise of the Ricoh.......and that is if they know what is going on.
Or we can go with what you 'know'. SISU not taking out investors money to pay for their mismanagement fees. So this would mean that after 6 and half years at about 2.6m a year the fund would owe SISU about 17m. Wouldn't this make SISU a part owner and of more than 10% so they would have to inform the FL?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Council in turmoil? You would be the happiest person on this earth. I wouldn't give a shit as long as all laws had been kept to.
Losses for a charity that helped save our club and helps local children? How much lower can you go? You would be happy for a local charity to lose millions so a hedge fund can profit? And the ground wouldn't even belong to our club. It would belong to faceless investors. You are either a WUM or you seriously lack morals. Not sure which one it is.
ACL liquidation? Labo has admitted finally that all his allegations against ACL are just guesses. No proof. But yes they have tried their best to send ACL to the wall. Same again. Half charity.
Yes, I hope one day I will understand what is going on - and that one day you will also understand what is going on.
The management fee you keep referring to is a cost distribution tool between companies in a group - charged by ccfc holding to ccfc limited.
You ask what happened to the 2012 accounts? Well, I think they released accounts for SBS&L and OTIUM a few months ago? Didn't OSB do an autopsy back then?
Forget accounts for holding and limited - those companies are being liquidated.
Your last paragraph confuses me. Yes, sisu are being paid by their investors, but we don't know how much. As that money is not channelled through SBS&L or OTIUM it will not have any impact on sisu ownership at all. There are no indication anywhere that sisu own a single share in SBS&L or in OTIUM.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So what about the accounts for 2012 that were late for CCFC Ltd? Yes they don't have to declare them now. Don't make it right though. Yet we should just forget about them.
So if the charges that SISU put against our club is just a tool how has our club run up debts of 70m as declared by Appleton? Are you saying that they are not real debts?
Yes I hope that the truth comes out so we can all see what has happened to our club. Near on debt free....as agreed by OSB.....to 70m in debt in 6 years needs explaining. That is unless you are saying that Appleton got it wrong.
What charges are sisu putting against the club? The 'tool' has nothing to do with the overall debts, as I said it is simply distributing cost between companies within the group. Overall the net debt is unchanged by the management fees.
I seem to recall OSB calculating the net debt of the group would come down by some £30m (write off) after all assets have been transferred to Otium.
Last edited:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
The problem for me is that I can't see Sisu and our club as the same thing. Yes legally they're the owners but I see them as a separate entity and thanks to their actions since acquiring our club they've made us far worse off than we were before they came in. Don't forget that the previous owners were made up of ordinary fans, not just the previous board. The rent was obviously too high I don't think there is anyone on here who denies this. However Sisu didn't complain or attempt serious negotiations about it until after we were relegated. If they did due dilligence before asking for the shares, why didn't they identify the rent as a priority to be tackled? If they did identify it why did they do nothing about it for so long? These people are supposedly business geniuses so why didn't they make sure that the business foundations were secure before anything else?
Why didn't they identify the purchase of the Higgs share as a priority and if they did why didn't they do anything about it? The Higgs have two seats on the board of ACL the board is made up of 5 members so that's 40% representation we could have had. Then as I understand it if we could have convinced the neutral board member to vote for us we could have put forward a motion to give the club revenue from matchdays. The council were in my opinion more likely to have agreed to a sale of their ACL shares if they could see they had someone they could trust to sell them to. I don't believe that the rent boycott did anything to help generate trust and just antagonised the situation further.
They've struck gold in Elvis who is working wonders in very difficult conditions/circumstances, and comedy gold in Tim Fisher. The fact still remains that we're playing home matches in Northampton and have had our lowest ever attendances under Sisu custodianship of our club.
Should the previous board have sold HR? Probably not but then Sisu should have known what they were buying into and if they did acquire a 'pup' then blame the people who did the due dilligence and advised them to come anywhere near our club. They weren't forced to acquire the club and I seem to remember St. Joe of Coventry urging supporters to give up their shares to Sisu.
Why didn't they identify the purchase of the Higgs share as a priority and if they did why didn't they do anything about it? The Higgs have two seats on the board of ACL the board is made up of 5 members so that's 40% representation we could have had. Then as I understand it if we could have convinced the neutral board member to vote for us we could have put forward a motion to give the club revenue from matchdays. The council were in my opinion more likely to have agreed to a sale of their ACL shares if they could see they had someone they could trust to sell them to. I don't believe that the rent boycott did anything to help generate trust and just antagonised the situation further.
They've struck gold in Elvis who is working wonders in very difficult conditions/circumstances, and comedy gold in Tim Fisher. The fact still remains that we're playing home matches in Northampton and have had our lowest ever attendances under Sisu custodianship of our club.
Should the previous board have sold HR? Probably not but then Sisu should have known what they were buying into and if they did acquire a 'pup' then blame the people who did the due dilligence and advised them to come anywhere near our club. They weren't forced to acquire the club and I seem to remember St. Joe of Coventry urging supporters to give up their shares to Sisu.
Last edited:
That debt was in ccfc limited - it was not the result of the combined group. A major portion of the debt was left-over from when sisu took the club over ... paper money used to build an almost impenetrable wall of debt to protect against hostile takeover - and that worked nicely for sisu last summer!
If remember correctly an OSB analysis showed that most - if not all - of that paper debt left-over was written off now and that the remaining debt is more in line with the actual invested (loaned) capital during sisu's reign.
Management fees never left the group to go into sisu's pockets. There are simply no evidence to support that suggestion.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just to try clear a couple of things
The only management charges that are obvious from the accounts are the ones made by CCFC H to CCFC Ltd. In the last set of accounts published for CCFC H to 31/05/2011 the charge made was 2,686,842. The effect of this on the individual companies is as follows. In CCFC H it is shown as income and disclosed in note 2 to the accounts. In CCFC Ltd that management charge is included in the total for costs and expenses but not separately disclosed. In the SBS&L group as a whole the effect is nil because the entries in CCFC H and CCFC Ltd contra each other. There is no disclosure of any management charges in the SBS&L accounts.
In respect of the £70m debts disclosed by Mr Appleton then this includes approx. £35m debt that existed when SISU came in. In the set up of the deal SISU discounted the group debts in the accounts of SBS&L however the "old" debt was not written down the CCFC Ltd accounts on the take over. The 2008 accounts showed it as still owing to CCFCH although the accounts for CCFC H showed no corresponding debtor owed to it by CCFC Ltd. The plan I assume was for CCFC Ltd to get the team into the Premiership make a huge profit and repay those loans 35m to CCFC H who would repay SBS&L who would repay the SBS&L loans from "investors"....... having purchased the net debt for 9m.
A quirk of how the company law works is that CCFC Ltd was viewed as an entirely separate entity in the administration process and the debt was legally still outstanding. The £70m should not be confused or thought of as the money SISU put in either by their investors or by ARVO. In the last published accounts for SBS&L this stood at 28,554,706 (investors) and 8,025,814 (ARVO) = 36,580,520
The only management charges that are obvious from the accounts are the ones made by CCFC H to CCFC Ltd. In the last set of accounts published for CCFC H to 31/05/2011 the charge made was 2,686,842. The effect of this on the individual companies is as follows. In CCFC H it is shown as income and disclosed in note 2 to the accounts. In CCFC Ltd that management charge is included in the total for costs and expenses but not separately disclosed. In the SBS&L group as a whole the effect is nil because the entries in CCFC H and CCFC Ltd contra each other. There is no disclosure of any management charges in the SBS&L accounts.
In respect of the £70m debts disclosed by Mr Appleton then this includes approx. £35m debt that existed when SISU came in. In the set up of the deal SISU discounted the group debts in the accounts of SBS&L however the "old" debt was not written down the CCFC Ltd accounts on the take over. The 2008 accounts showed it as still owing to CCFCH although the accounts for CCFC H showed no corresponding debtor owed to it by CCFC Ltd. The plan I assume was for CCFC Ltd to get the team into the Premiership make a huge profit and repay those loans 35m to CCFC H who would repay SBS&L who would repay the SBS&L loans from "investors"....... having purchased the net debt for 9m.
A quirk of how the company law works is that CCFC Ltd was viewed as an entirely separate entity in the administration process and the debt was legally still outstanding. The £70m should not be confused or thought of as the money SISU put in either by their investors or by ARVO. In the last published accounts for SBS&L this stood at 28,554,706 (investors) and 8,025,814 (ARVO) = 36,580,520
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
There couldn't be a hostile take over of the club though within a normal trading environment, could there? Can you explain to me how this might happen? SISU demanded all the shares back in 2008, lest you'd forgotten.
Strikes me it could have been designed to protect the club in administration, placing SISU group as primary creditor; and as you say, it worked last summer, didn't it?
Last edited:
It did. But I have pointed to this for some years. I first said it in one of the FAQ's I posted with OSB some 2½ year ago.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I see. So, you're saying that for some time, you think that SISU have been building liability to offer protection in administration? Why would they do that?
As stated, a hostile takeover would be impossible, given the share demand. Surely they didn't have an eye on administration for some time, did they? :thinking about:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
of course the other question is what rate of interest is being paid on ARVO loans ? Actually physically paid out in interest in 2012 SBS&L accounts was £980,737 (was that all to ARVO ?) it looks like it was, with a further £218,893 accrued interest owed to ARVO. Is that the best part of £1.2m interest per year on loans outstanding of just over 8m? is that 15% per year?
Last edited:
rightumpty
New Member
SISU were fully aware of what they were buying into.Don't think for one minute that these people deserve any simpathy for their monstrous treatment of this club and it's supporters. F**k 'em all.
Look - if you took over a basket case like this club 6 years ago you would have a plan. You would also know that there would be a risk it wouldn't play out and so you would know you could end up where you started with an unsustainable business heading for administration. It would be very wise to make sure that should it come to that you would be in control.
Does that suggest sisu were planning to liquidate the club from day 1? Not at all - but it does suggest they knew there was a risk it could go wrong and they implemented that risk in their business model.
Had the plan worked they would have harvested a huge (tax-free?) profit, so clearly that would be the preferred end-game.
rightumpty
New Member
Probably the most sensible article ever written. James you are wise well beyond your years
No one trusts this or any other hedge fund, sadly they have form as vultures and this one as liars......................it's a tough act for anyone to defend, even you !!
L
limoncello
Guest
How do you know how old James is, out of interest?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
You are correct. FP's claim - whilst correct, I don't doubt - holds no water for any purchasing party who has completed due diligence. That's what due diligence is all about - the diligence bit. As once completed and the sale agreement signed, the purchasing party bears responsibility for all contracts, incomes and expenditures they take on. To complete due diligence and thereafter claim the business model is fundamentally flawed - when it hasn't changed - simply hold no water whatsoever. Zero. None.
It is claimed that Akli David - if he did indeed look at the club in 2008 -called it a financial 'basket case'. He could have been right. SISU should have walked away from the club, and allowed root-and-branch restructuring; relating to the rent levels, contracts in place, etc; before coming back to a new business model to move forward with. At that point, other parties would have been interested too, perhaps.
But as things are, over 5 years later; the club is significantly weaker, and other contracted bodies like ACL much stronger - making any deal much, much more complex than it could have been back in 2008. We have wasted 5 years; a time in which our peers who also went through financial turmoil - Leicester, Southampton, Derby, Ipswich and the like have enjoyed a very, very different trajectory
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Is there a loan on Ryton ? That property is charged to ARVO to secure their loans and has been for some time so I do not think so. Is the interest cost on season tickets bourne by the company or the individual? in any case the total deferred income was 1.2m and a big chunk of that would be the sponsorship deals they had in place. Is there anything still outstanding to Ranson or was he paid off from the sale of Prozone? I think there was some interest on the advance for the Prozone sale.
We don't know for sure because there is no real detail but the majority of the interest would seem to be on the ARVO loans.
We don't know for sure because there is no real detail but the majority of the interest would seem to be on the ARVO loans.
Are you saying my analysis is wrong or flawed?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Ah. And they're a hedge fund too, eh?
So, you're saying that promotion and a quick buck was the plan (and I don't disagree with you), but what was the hedge? That is, the fall-back position that still provides a return if the principal investment fails?
There's been rumour on here by those labelled conspiracy theorists, that ownership of the Ricoh (be that freeholdor leasehold), or ACL was that 'hedge'. Do you subscribe to that theory?
Last edited:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I've posted before that the big 40 is nearly upon me so not really a huge secret.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I doubt that on both counts but thank you anyway.
I asked you because you have access to the accounts and expertize to analyse them. I don't.
I think Ryton was mortgaged by Ranson - and he also used factoring of the ST. Thus I asked if any of that could add to the amount of interests paid.
Why would some of the interest on the ARVO loans be accrued?
Last edited:
I think you are an excellent poster, always very articulate and rarely emotional or abusive. I can't agree with much of what you write though as the SISU argument just doesn't stand up in my mind.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Moff
Well-Known Member
Don't talk to me about strikes
Not trying to get a tube are you?