skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The strategy failed as the major part off that strategy was securing the Ricoh for themselves. That didn't happen.
The strategy worked tony. It hugely devalued the company to a pathetic amount and yes they would have carried on until bankruptcy occurred.
What sisu hadn't reckoned on was a hedge fund with even less morals than themselves and a council that cared nothing for local community sport (though the history if this catastrophic council should have given them some insight into that aspect).
Do you really think that they could have done the same deal with SISU too completion or would SISU have kept trying to renegotiate the terms at the last moment, back tracking, adding in conditions, putting money down and pay the rest over a gazillion years etc. and mess everyone around until the deal collapsed only for Wasps to come back on he scene and secure a better deal than they had previously negotiated?
Sorry - that looked more like a question than a statement of fact
They had to sell, yes.
But did they have to sell to Wasps or could they have made the same deal with the club?
Why wasn't it possible though?
No it wasn't offered, they were invited to bid on Wasps 50% knowing full well it wasn't possible.
Didn't Wasps have a veto of some sort?
Why wasn't it possible though?
I don't know - and neither do you.
But it was a much better deal than they both wanted to do in 2012, so why wouldn't they?
The strategy failed as the major part off that strategy was securing the Ricoh for themselves. That didn't happen.
Interest, depreciation/amortization, one-off events (and tax).
Wasps would have just veto'd it. intheknow confirmed it on here. It was always about 100% for Wasps wasn't it?
What about this bit - added to LS's reply too? So, who owned 'the option' to exercise it?
'Further the question of ownership of the Option agreement has been made ambiguous by the Joint Liquidators. They claim both that it is the right of the liquidators of CCFC Ltd exclusively to exercise their option to buy and also that the Option was sold to Otium in 2013 out of the Administration of CCFC Ltd. Further, the Option has been reported in the annual accounts of the Sisu company that owns Otium, Sky Blue Sports and Leisure, in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as an asset (valued at £1m). To be absolutely clear the Option was expressly stated to be non-assignable without the express consent of the Trustees, which consent has not been asked for or given. The Trustees were reluctant to enter this morass of conflicting spurious claims'
So why were they going to the CET to invite an offer? Bit naughty isn't it?
I'm sorry - you've lost me. The above is a concise answer though, isn't it? The ownership question arising from the Join Liquidators, no?
No I agree with you, sorry! There was always the mess about the "option" so that is another reason why it wouldn't happen.
So that's 2 good reasons why the invite for CCFC to make a bid on the Higgs share could never have happened isn't it? Yet CCC seemed to be goading CCFC into making a bit and spinning it out in the media at the time.
I haven't got the resources though I will try but I'm sure David Conn stated ccfc was offered for the same deal but it wasn't taken. It was on David Conn Twitter page.
oldskyblue58;844844 Turnover of the group dropped from 14.5m to 12.2m. Of that turnover 8.6m (2014) and 9m in 2013 related to IEC which operates the events said:So the turnover never doubled then? It went down.
no the turnover doubled ish from 2012 to 2013 accounts, which was the period to which that claim was made
2014 is the first full period without any CCFC income whatsoever. Rent strike having started 01/04/13
So, what you're saying is, some posters could be getting their knickers in a twist over the writing down of say, some goodwill ?
Just a few points but will have to be brief because it is self assessment season and got a stack of client tax returns to do.
Firstly clearly Wasps were fully aware of the financials before they purchased. That after all is part of the due diligence process. Not only that but the signatory to the accounts is N Eastwood. So Wasps have taken ownership of these audited figures
The audit reports of ACL & IEC do not carry any qualification in terms of going concern. There is a note describing why the directors feel each is a going concern but the auditors do not draw attention to that note and therefore must agree.
This is the period where most of the costs of the dispute will have hit both in time and money. I would also expect that such PR costs as expected were dumped on ACL not either of the shareholders. These costs will not reoccur.
Turnover of the group dropped from 14.5m to 12.2m. Of that turnover 8.6m (2014) and 9m in 2013 related to IEC which operates the events, conferencing , hospitality etc. Do not get the impression from that when I say it that the fall in turnover related solely CCFC rents & matchday expenses because you can not tell from the accounts - some of the drop was but it will depend on how incomes are allocated, whether events lost or gained between the two years etc.
included in the costs of IEC (and therefore ACL group) are payments made to Compass Group 6.4m for supply of staff, services and management
In 2013 accounts there was included 475k exceptional gain on the refinancing of the loans. Exclude that from 2013 and over the two years and ACL about broke even. (which is what Robertson/Eastwood from Wasps alluded to I believe)
Interest was paid in 2014 of 708K and in 2013 817k. A total of 111k was paid off the outstanding loans in 2014. So payments were being made on the loans. Interest rate on council loan was 5%. Council holds a charge over the lease and all assets of the group
There may have been an increase in operating cash flow (before tax exceptional items and interest) in 2014 of £828K but by the end of the year cash available to the group had decreased by £160k. Still meant they had nearly 700k in the bank 31/05/14
The net assets did decrease by nearly 400k on the balance sheet but this reflects the loss made in the year
ACL employed 17 people 1 less than in 2013. Staff costs were 702k 2014 and 960k in 2013 with 22k being paid to a director, which I suspect covers the start of Chris Robinson employment as CEO
Fixed assets include the old lease at a written down value of 18.3m. the rest 5.3m is fixtures and fittings, equipment etc
Net assets on the balance sheet were 6.9m. but that includes the lease. That lease has now morphed in to a new one of 250 years the terms of which we do not know. So was 5.5m a fair value to sell the total shares at ? ...... your guess is as good as mine
A good part of the reason for disposal is that the Ricoh will need substantial monies spent on it over next few years to keep it up to the competition standard and in order to increase turnovers. to not do so would court a downturn in the turnovers etc. CCC and AEHC simply did not have the money to do it
The Ricoh attracted over 1.2m people even without CCFC. Just as a thought at something like £6k a game in rent just how much money do you think CCFC attracts with crowds of 7000 to benefit ACL and does the rent and 2nd spend actually cover the costs of CCFC being there for ACL. Because if it doesn't then there are problems looming
Otium and SBS&L accounts are due to be filed on or before 28/02/15
sorry its brief- ish but work beckons
no the turnover doubled ish from 2012 to 2013 accounts, which was the period to which that claim was made
2014 is the first full period without any CCFC income whatsoever. Rent strike having started 01/04/13
Turnover is now at around £14m and growing.
ACL current turnover. Well if the lady says current (ie 2014) turnover is £14m without the club then there is no evidence that she is wrong or mistaken. That is £14m without CCFC or the Olympics
Are we saying the rent strike and the strategy involving this is ethically or legally correct?
Read this I dug up:
By 2012, the judge found: “Sisu had no strategy for maintaining a sustainable football club, except one which involved the purchase, at a knockdown price, of at least a 50% share in ACL and thus the Arena” and the purchase of ACL’s bank loan, also “at a knockdown price”. Trying to secure those aims at the lowest cost, Sisu stopped paying the rent, doing so for the last time in March 2012.
“Sisu distressed the financial position of ACL by refusing to pay ACL any rent or licence fee,” the judge found. “... It had the effect of reducing the value of the share in ACL that Sisu coveted. Sisu’s strategy of distressing ACL’s financial position ... was quite deliberate.”
The 49-page judgment is shot through with references to this “rent-strike”. It says: “CCFC [owned by Sisu], fallen into a parlous state as a result of mismanagement, had unilaterally refused to pay the contractual rent it was legally obliged to pay to ACL.
no the turnover doubled ish from 2012 to 2013 accounts, which was the period to which that claim was made
2014 is the first full period without any CCFC income whatsoever. Rent strike having started 01/04/13
Fair enough, but it shows how easily, reactions to financial figure's can be altered, with just a simple write down of an intangible figure, despite profitability being the same.Maybe, but I would start looking at interests figures.
Fair enough, but it shows how easily, reactions to financial figure's can be altered, with just a simple write down of an intangible figure, despite profitability being the same.
Did the judge not also say that the rent was unaffordable and unsustainable?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
What a bunch of lying c-units.
Not to worry though fellas......I'm sure forum favourite double-barrelled PKWH will be along shortly to explain this slight oversight........
I will give you that it happens a lot when new CEO comes in. Kind of makes it easier for him to produce a reasonable result in his first year.
Yes i believe it is what he's saying.So are you saying he makes the previous year look a bit shit so his first full year looks good in comparison.. I presume?
So are you saying he makes the previous year look a bit shit so his first full year looks good in comparison.. I presume?
Yes i believe it is what he's saying.
Now we know why the council sold it to in haste a bidder who was prepared to take it on.
And it clarifies why the council vote to sell was unanimous.
So when are Otium/Sky blue Sports/CCFC's next accounts due, isn't it in a couple of months?
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?