This bit I find curious
TF reiterated no interest, dividends, nor management fees, taken out of the Club by owner-investor
and
Reiterating that Sisu had taken no funds out of the Club, TF asked JM why he had written, representing Sky Blue Trust, in a recent column in the Coventry Telegraph that Sisu were taking £1million per year in interest charges out of the club, stating that this was obviously incorrect and misleading. TF expressed his disappointment that SBT chose to mislead supporters with obviously incorrect information
Definition of payment 1.
the action or process of paying someone or something or of being paid.
synonyms: remittance, remission, settlement, discharge, clearance, liquidation
You see the 2014 accounts and 2013 accounts both list substantial interest charges 2.66m and 1.81m respectively. nearly all payable re "other loans". Of course those "other loans" are all from SISU investors and ARVO
The 2013 accounts showed that the amount of interest accrued but not paid was 2.018m yet the 2014 accounts show that 2.051m was outstanding 31/05/14.
There is no actual movement of cash per the cashflow statements to 31/05/14 showing interest actually paid out. Hardly surprising as the club didn't have sufficient cash flow to pay it out. So you might expect that the interest owed at 31/05/13 2.018m would have 2.66m charged in the 2014 accounts added to it and there would be a liability carried forward of 4.678m in respect of interest due. Except from the accounts we know only 2.051m was carried forward
The interest was of course due to the SISU investor loans but mainly to ARVO. Again the details are in the accounts. SISU acts as agent for the investors with absolute discretion over all matters and Seppala & Coleman (the directors of SISU Capital) seem to control ARVO because they both sign such things as court documents for ARVO. In deed they have been involved with both SISU Capital Ltd and ARVO Master Fund since at least 1998. Technically you can argue ARVO & SISU are separate but are they not under common control by the same two people?
It looks to me like the interest fell due and was settled by ARVO accepting preference shares in
settlement. (otherwise known as payment?) Or put another way a chunk of the interest was paid but not in cash. Are Seppala or Coleman beneficiaries under ARVO Master Fund - no idea but they do seem to have some control of that fund
Whilst TF is technically correct, it is really just clever use of words. He knows it but no one pressed him on it ....... or are they more intent on Trust bashing. Yes it would seem that SISU have not taken anything out but cant help feeling the words are being chosen very carefully
- what happens to the interest that was carried forward 31/05/14? what about the interest accruing since that date? Will ARVO keep accepting shares in settlement? Is this all just storing up problems for the future? Why did the SISU investors not charge interest before 2012 what changed and why? If those preference shares are worthless (we have been told) why accept more in settlement of further interest charges? If the shares are worthless and there is no prospect of recovering either the interest or the preference shares why create either in the first place? How are these transactions reported to SISU or ARVO investors? Do SISU Capital earn their fees as a percentage of accrued income or valuation movements?:thinking about:
All a little misleading isn't it and far from clear what has been done with our clubs finances
