£61m of debt wiped out in latest CCFC accounts (1 Viewer)

wafw1971 · Mar 5, 2015

Simple question.

Can someone show me in basic hierarchy chart which company belongs where, SISU at the top then whoever below them then whoever is below them, just to show me where Otium sit.

Once this is done can some other clever soul show me who owes who on the chart to make it clear to non accounting type people because I am fucking confused.

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2015

covcity4life said:
thats because you are bias though don. i am just calling it as i see it, i am no accountant so prob have it all wrong of course.

more turnover
less loss
should = profit moving forwards

as for debt seems thats not one i can tackle, leave it to the matheletes on here

You say bias if they had wiped the 60 million and were 10 million in debt I was about to believe they are going to build a new stadium!

However they are 46 million in debt. Also I think it is rising. You said outmanoeuvred the council, do you honestly believe that, the way this has panned out?

If we now owned ACL for less than the original deal I would agree with you. We don't the council have washed their hands of the hassle and we are in a worse bargaining position than we have ever been without getting what we wanted.

Godiva · Mar 5, 2015

wafw1971 said:
Simple question.

Can someone show me in basic hierarchy chart which company belongs where, SISU at the top then whoever below them then whoever is below them, just to show me where Otium sit.

Once this is done can some other clever soul show me who owes who on the chart to make it clear to non accounting type people because I am fucking confused.

It's not really relevant.

Sisu is calling the shots. That's all we need to know.

wafw1971 · Mar 5, 2015

Godiva said:
It's not really relevant.

Sisu is calling the shots. That's all we need to know.

I agree that Sisu is calling the shots but I don't agree that's all we need to know, I want to know who owns who, who owes who and how much debt CCFC is actually in and I think it would be easier to understand if we could see it explained in a chart.

covcity4life · Mar 5, 2015

dongonzalos said:
You say bias if they had wiped the 60 million and were 10 million in debt I was about to believe they are going to build a new stadium!

However they are 46 million in debt. Also I think it is rising. You said outmanoeuvred the council, do you honestly believe that, the way this has panned out?

If we now owned ACL for less than the original deal I would agree with you. We don't the council have washed their hands of the hassle and we are in a worse bargaining position than we have ever been without getting what we wanted.

they got us out of the rent deal, and secured a new rental deal with access to revenue to boot. by hook or crooke they did outmaneuver the council.

wafw1971 · Mar 5, 2015

covcity4life said:
they got us out of the rent deal, and secured a new rental deal with access to revenue to boot. by hook or crooke they did outmaneuver the council.

Is that the same Council that then sold the stadium right from under our feet to a Rugby club. Unbelievable.

Captain Dart · Mar 5, 2015

wafw1971 said:
Simple question.

Can someone show me in basic hierarchy chart which company belongs where, SISU at the top then whoever below them then whoever is below them, just to show me where Otium sit.

Once this is done can some other clever soul show me who owes who on the chart to make it clear to non accounting type people because I am fucking confused.

Don't know if this is up to date..
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...imeline/356-ccfc-company-and-group-structures

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2015

covcity4life said:
they got us out of the rent deal, and secured a new rental deal with access to revenue to boot. by hook or crooke they did outmaneuver the council.

You must then think that, that is more beneficial to us than actually buying ACL like Wasps did. I would suggest the hook or crooke effectively ruled us out of owning ACL.

wafw1971 · Mar 5, 2015

Captain Dart said:
Don't know if this is up to date..
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...imeline/356-ccfc-company-and-group-structures

Thank you, but that is still so confusing. On that chart who owes who?

Godiva · Mar 5, 2015

Captain Dart said:
Don't know if this is up to date..
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...imeline/356-ccfc-company-and-group-structures

It is.

chiefdave · Mar 5, 2015

Danceswithhorses said:
Made a similar post (#36).
Why would they not want us to know this until now ?
It appears that they've only divulged the info, after the accounts have been filed and scrutinized.

Think we know the answer to this now. Fisher wasn't shouting about it as they haven't actually written the money off, just shifted it from one column to another.

Astute · Mar 5, 2015

wingy said:
I'm staggered that It appears to have cost us around £10M to operate as a club last season

And all in the name of devaluing the Ricoh on behalf of Wasps

fernandopartridge · Mar 5, 2015

The rental deal agreed with ACL certainly is good. You wonder whether it was negotiated by ACL with the Wasps deal in mind, it was never going to be their problem to give up 50% of match day income.

I personally think the club should drop the pursuit of a new stadium and pursue 100% of CCFC match day revenues and £100k rent. Whilst 365 day income would be welcome the cost of achieving it means the pay off may never happen.

covcity4life · Mar 5, 2015

dongonzalos said:
You must then think that, that is more beneficial to us than actually buying ACL like Wasps did. I would suggest the hook or crooke effectively ruled us out of owning ACL.

the council would not allow us to buy. heck they sold it to franchise rugby club just to hurt ccfc

wake up. you are so bias

wafw1971 · Mar 5, 2015

SISU

Sconset Capital LP plus L Brody 100%

Master Fund 9.9% Sky Blue Sports & Leisure 91.9% Arvo 0%

Otium Entertainment Group (Golden Share)

So who owes who?

skybluetony176 · Mar 5, 2015

covcity4life said:
the council would not allow us to buy. heck they sold it to franchise rugby club just to hurt ccfc

wake up. you are so bias

Yes. The council turned down SISU offer after SISU offer. It was an avalanche of offer's and CCC turned down every one the bastards just to spite SISU.

PS. What planet are you on?

Astute · Mar 5, 2015

covcity4life said:
the council would not allow us to buy. heck they sold it to franchise rugby club just to hurt ccfc

wake up. you are so bias

And I suppose it is the fault of CCC that Fisher said that they were not interested in the Ricoh as there would still be an outstanding mortgage :facepalm:

M&B Stand · Mar 5, 2015

covcity4life said:
the council would not allow us to buy. heck they sold it to franchise rugby club just to hurt ccfc

wake up. you are so bias

He's glad they did it.

Danceswithhorses · Mar 5, 2015

chiefdave said:
Think we know the answer to this now. Fisher wasn't shouting about it as they haven't actually written the money off, just shifted it from one column to another.

Sounded to good to be true

crowsnest · Mar 5, 2015

Ownership:

Sconset Capital LP (96%) plus L Brody (4%) = Sky Blue Sports & Leisure

Sky Blue Sports & Leisure (90.1%) plus Arvo Master Fund (9.9%) = Otium Entertainment Group

Otium Entertainment Group (Golden Share)

shmmeee · Mar 5, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
I have only had a quick look but I think I must be seeing something other to the CT

For starters Otium is not the parent company at all it is still the subsidiary of SBS&L. Otium is the trading company not SBS&L

Next thing - if you are looking at the debt to ARVO and SISU then you have to look at the group debt of SBS&L not Otium. The Debt to SISU investors is still 28.5m and there is 656K in accrued interest on top of that in relation to a number of years.

On top of that ARVO are owed 8.2m plus accrued interest of 1.39m

The actual external share capital of the group remains at £13698

It looks on a very brief glance that the old loans included in the CCFCH accounts dating back to pre 2008 have been converted to shares in Otium. These loans should in my opinion have been written off in 2008.

Net debt of the Group remains at £41m

Now you could look at Otium as a seperate company. Otium bought the assets of CCFc Ltd and owned CCFC H Ltd. Prior to CCFC H being wound up then its assets and liabilities were shifted to Otium. That included the old loan liability which would appear to have been converted to shares in Otium. those shares being Class B shares now owned by SBS&L B shares have no voting rights. What the conversion does is to move liability to equity and to permit the owners to portray a write off of loans that had no value anyway.

Its playing with figures. Think about it Otium only started to trade in 2013 how would it have £61m in debt to convert in to shares. Keep in mind be it SBS&L or London Wasps it is the external liabilities that count. SBS&L Group has a balance sheet of MINUS 39m

Will take a more detailed look and come back with some analysis, but this really isnt writing off the debts

Also the CT article I read appears to be inaccurate in a number of places

Bollocks. Knew it was too good to be true, fricken Telegraph getting my hopes up.

covcity4life · Mar 5, 2015

M&B Stand said:
He's glad they did it.

sums up the council fans does that.

Noggin · Mar 5, 2015

Godiva said:
And finally - no management charges.

(I wasn't expecting any as it was a financial instrument used to distribute cost while SBS&L, CCFC ltd and CCFC H were sharing the same bank account.)

So nothing to suggest a single penny is leaving the club going into the pockets of sisu.

isn't administration expenses of over 5mill management charges? or am I misunderstanding?

shmmeee · Mar 5, 2015

covcity4life said:
sums up the council fans does that.

What, holding opinions that only exist in your head? Yeah, seems about right.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 5, 2015

covcity4life said:
sums up the council fans does that.

You are either childish beyond my understanding, a WUM, or residing within an environment of institutional care. Or a combination thereof

chiefdave · Mar 5, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
The rental deal agreed with ACL certainly is good.

It's certainly better than it was but is it good enough for us to be competitive. Other clubs get 100% of matchday revenue and non matchday revenue. We need to compete against them. Of course you can ignore some of the revenues as most grounds don't have all the facilities the Ricoh has but I don't see any chance of Wasps offering us access to the kind of revenues we need to be anywhere close to a level playing field with other clubs.

And that's before you even consider that some of those other clubs, who have access to more revenue than us, are still losing millions and being propped up by their owners. While Fisher talks a lot of rubbish I think he is right to say that with the sort of deal, even in a best case scenario, we will get from Wasps we are looking at top end L1, bottom end Championship.

Godiva · Mar 5, 2015

Noggin said:
isn't administration expenses of over 5mill management charges? or am I misunderstanding?

No, it covers items that are not staff cost - like rent, phone bill, auditors, depreciation to name a few.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 5, 2015

chiefdave said:
It's certainly better than it was but is it good enough for us to be competitive. Other clubs get 100% of matchday revenue and non matchday revenue. We need to compete against them. Of course you can ignore some of the revenues as most grounds don't have all the facilities the Ricoh has but I don't see any chance of Wasps offering us access to the kind of revenues we need to be anywhere close to a level playing field with other clubs.

And that's before you even consider that some of those other clubs, who have access to more revenue than us, are still losing millions and being propped up by their owners. While Fisher talks a lot of rubbish I think he is right to say that with the sort of deal, even in a best case scenario, we will get from Wasps we are looking at top end L1, bottom end Championship.

I'd say a candid discussion with Wasps would soon find if any common ground existed. If CCFC move from the Ricoh, then there's no rental or match-day incomes to argue over. As such, rather than run the risk of losing this income; Wasps could be susceptible to a deal including revenues, or revenue sharing for football-related fare.

If I were Fisher; by now, I'd have started that dialogue. Then either two things happen. A deal is agreed and the club is in a better place. Or Wasps refuse, at which point we have a stance we can all debate. Personally, I think it would be poor of Wasps not to revenue share with their tenant. But it would be out there for us to consider.

Alas, I fear nothing is happening - yet again. When will SISU learn that discussions are so much better than litigation or a stand-off - as that appears to be where they are

fernandopartridge · Mar 5, 2015

wafw1971 said:
SISU

Sconset Capital LP plus L Brody 100%

Master Fund 9.9% Sky Blue Sports & Leisure 91.9% Arvo 0%

Otium Entertainment Group (Golden Share)

So who owes who?

chiefdave said:
It's certainly better than it was but is it good enough for us to be competitive. Other clubs get 100% of matchday revenue and non matchday revenue. We need to compete against them. Of course you can ignore some of the revenues as most grounds don't have all the facilities the Ricoh has but I don't see any chance of Wasps offering us access to the kind of revenues we need to be anywhere close to a level playing field with other clubs.

And that's before you even consider that some of those other clubs, who have access to more revenue than us, are still losing millions and being propped up by their owners. While Fisher talks a lot of rubbish I think he is right to say that with the sort of deal, even in a best case scenario, we will get from Wasps we are looking at top end L1, bottom end Championship.

How much will it cost to access non match day revenues either at the Ricoh or elsewhere? When does that investment pay for itself?

shmmeee · Mar 5, 2015

Godiva said:
No, it covers items that are not staff cost - like rent, phone bill, auditors, depreciation to name a few.

That Telegraph article gets curiouser and curiouser then, why on earth would they be mentioned in the same sentence as interest that's not being taken?

skyblueinBaku · Mar 5, 2015

Godiva said:
It is.

Sisu seem to have disappeared, as has the football club in the latest 'family tree'.

Godiva · Mar 5, 2015

Godiva said:
No, it covers items that are not staff cost - like rent, phone bill, auditors, depreciation to name a few.

From the accounts I can dig out items like:
- Provisions from amounts due from group undertakings (whatever that means) - £0,75m
- Impairment of Goodwill - £2,2m
- Land & Buildings - £0,3m

shmmeee · Mar 5, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
How much will it cost to access non match day revenues either at the Ricoh or elsewhere? When does that investment pay for itself?

Can I check we're talking about the same thing here. Isn't non match day revenue basically other events that are nothing to do with us? Outside of owning our own ground, why would anyone sell some of their profits from events unless the price was massive? Seems strange to me, we'd basically be acting like investors in a non-football business. If that's the case, I can't see what's stopping us from doing it with any business, never mind the Ricoh.

Seems like something that you'd need to own at least a bit of a ground to get to me.

shmmeee · Mar 5, 2015

Godiva said:
From the accounts I can dig out items like:
- Provisions from amounts due from group undertakings (whatever that means) - £0,75m
- Impairment of Goodwill - £2,2m
- Land & Buildings - £0,3m

Is that the rent for Sixfields?

Godiva · Mar 5, 2015

skyblueindorset said:
Sisu seem to have disappeared, as has the football club in the latest 'family tree'.

The football club is the company Otium.
Sisu never owned the club - they act on behalf of the shareholders.

£61m of debt wiped out in latest CCFC accounts (1 Viewer)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency