the £60m debt still includes the old debt that was there before SISU arrived.
The deal with creditors when SISU came in was to write off £35m of it. That never happened in the CCFC Ltd accounts. So SISU got the benefit of reducing creditors when they took over by £35m but have left the debt in CCFC Ltd
SISU having their cake twice
As was said by some on the CET forum and vehemently denied by some.....
Anything to say, Torchy??!
How can they exploit that?
The creditors are surely named in the internal books - creditor list.
Are you saying they essentially bought the debt for nothing? SO instead of the creditors being owed the £35m, they were now owed it?
Go through the accounts you will see it doesnt all match from one company to the next. In the Group accounts inter company accs contra out ...... have said before the amount SISU have invested is not the creditors in CCFC Ltd but the amount disclosed in the SBS&L accounts.
At 31/05/11 - in the accounts we are led to believe that CCFC Ltd owe group relationships £52m (with approx 5.2m other creditors) but the SBS&L accounts disclose that monies actually received from SISU and ARVO at that date were £31.7m. Funds are chanelled through CCFC H from SBS&L.
Look at the CCFCH accounts in 2011. That company owns 100% of CCFCLtd - money is chanelled through it by SISU to ccfc. so you would expect a debt owing by CCFCltd to CCFCH, there isnt one it has been written off. But CCFC H owes group undertakings £47.3m at 31/05/11.
so according to the accounts at 31/05/11 we have CCFC Ltd owing other group members £52m
BUT CCFCH holdings is not showing anything as owing to it and SBS&L (individual accs)shows £1.8m owed to it and SBS&L group accounts £nil
CCFC H shows it owes £47.m to group members neither CCFC Ltd nor SBS&L show any such figure owed to it
In the accounts for CCFC Ltd accounts the amount owed to group starts at 43.7m and increases to 52.1m =8.4m movement in year . In the CCFCH accounts for same period there is a provision against amounts irrecoverable from subsidiary (CCFC L) of £8.4m that creates the loss in ccfch for that year ...... ie they have basically written it off in one company not the other.
It is hard to put this all in laymans terms. But trust me there is a lot of smoke & mirrors going on........ and since the very start of their ownership
the £60m debt still includes the old debt that was there before SISU arrived.
The deal with creditors when SISU came in was to write off £35m of it. That never happened in the CCFC Ltd accounts. So SISU got the benefit of reducing creditors when they took over by £35m but have left the debt in CCFC Ltd
SISU having their cake twice
All accounts are signed off by auditors - there must be an explanation that satisfy them, or what am I missing?
The other questions for me is will the administrator be able to make anything of the accounts? Or do they not need to? Will ACL be able to challenge anything based on this level of complexity/creativity?
SISU seem to have made this as complex as possible, and when this happens there is only one body that knows the real answers.......SISU again.
The rabbit warren goes deeper Alice, but just how deep - we'll probably never know.
All accounts are signed off by auditors - there must be an explanation that satisfy them, or what am I missing?
Thank you for that enlightenment OSB
Perhaps all the posters who were shouted down when saying what OSB just proved, might get apologies from certain posters!.....Then again, I won't hold my breath!
thats a fair point isnt it Godiva:thinking about:
I think so - and as a professionel auditor yourself I was hoping you could think of some explanations.
Was some of the debts written off by creditors but with a clause that it would be repaid in full if the club got promoted to PL? Would that serve as an explanation?
simple answer i do not know what they were told or what other evidence they made their assessment on
i wanted to not enough roomyou needed to post more of the newspaper to make your point
only ever said it was smoke and mirrors Godiva made no claims of illegality.
Think everyone would agree SISU never put £60m in to the club
only ever said it was smoke and mirrors Godiva made no claims of illegality.
Think everyone would agree SISU never put £60m in to the club
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?