Nick
Administrator
So it doesn't actually say they expected it for free then if it doesn't say zero? Less than wasps isn't zero is it?
Have sisu received the management fees? I thought it was moving money?
Back to being the biggest club in Coventry? (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
So it doesn't actually say they expected it for free then if it doesn't say zero? Less than wasps isn't zero is it?
Have sisu received the management fees? I thought it was moving money?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
"There is no disclosure of any management charges in the SBS&L accounts."
That could mean anything to me.
I refuse to believe Sisu are not taking money out of CCFC to cover the debt that seems to be back after administration should have removed it.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Another reason why they wont be in a rush to boom or bust if the JR goes tits up for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
There is never any advantage in having debt but if you do have it in one of your businesses you can use it against profits in another.
So the debt in CCFC will be used to minimise taxes in another Sisu company.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's hardly the same thing as money going out of CCFC into SISU's bank account.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I'll let you know when I see the accounts.
Until then I refuse to believe they do it for nothing so the only question is how much ?
Agreed StuAnother reason why they wont be in a rush to boom or bust if the JR goes tits up for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Looking at it dispassionately until we become successful and making good profit and some other part of the portfolio offers the same option as we do now the status quo prevails.
Nick
Administrator
Haven't people seen them to confirm it?
No wonder these away fans you talk to always agree with you, they are probably misinformed.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
What away fans agree with me ?
I only listen to them talking about the great stadium we have and wouldn't bore them with details that we don't actually have one.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Its ironic how he goes on about people lapping up the bs from SISU when he continue to regurgitate his own bs when people much more knowledgeable in the field have said he is wrong.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I've seen nothing to suggest where this money has gone.
People ? You mean person and even OSB58 cannot be 100% sure himself with Sisu CCFC related accounts.
Well those that exist !!
Nick
Administrator
So you have seen no proof they have taken any money you mean?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
So in summary there's zero evidence that SISU are taking money out and the likes have OSB have stated they aren't yet you are going to choose to ignore that in the hope that there's something in a future set of accounts that supports your point of view.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You made he statement they take money out.
Back the statement up with some evidence or shut up,
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Ive shown you the evidence from previous years. Can you show me where that money went?
If you can't then you need to stop protecting them and ask the question.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
The evidence you have shown us is from where OSB says it's the movement between holdings to ltd and vice versa and that it balances as neutral across the group accounts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Is what SISU are proposing going to be cheap? It doesn't sound like it's going to be cheap so it won't be for the same reasons Wasps moved will it?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The evidence you have shown us is from where OSB says it's the movement between holdings to ltd and vice versa and that it balances as neutral across the group accounts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Of course it does.
But that probably means taking it out of CCFC account and putting it into Sisu investors accounts.
Sisu investors are not going to let CCFC run with debt unless they get something out of it.
You guys can turn a blind eye to Sisu business practices but I want them out.
TF the sooner the better.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No it doesn't - here's OSB's analysis of the same accounts in that blog. Movement of money between holdings and ltd not to sisu. Nowhere in the accounts does it suggest money has been taken out. Even OSB has said this numerous times.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/17823-CCFC-Holdings-Ltd-Accounts-2011
We all know sisu are shits, but you have no proof they are taking money out. Sisu's investors money will be spread against numerous funds, so their likely to get their money back/payments through those.
We're not turning a blind eye, we're saying there is no evidence. Unless you have evidence to back it up then it's just supposition, OSB has been through all the accounts for years and he says there's no evidence that has been done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No it doesn't - here's OSB's analysis of the same accounts in that blog. Movement of money between holdings and ltd not to sisu. Nowhere in the accounts does it suggest money has been taken out. Even OSB has said this numerous times.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/17823-CCFC-Holdings-Ltd-Accounts-2011
We all know sisu are shits, but you have no proof they are taking money out. Sisu's investors money will be spread against numerous funds, so their likely to get their money back/payments through those.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Serious question. If we have cleared our debts after administration, what is the £2.1M loan interest payable in the 2014 Otium accounts?
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/documents/otium-signed-accounts144-2316099.pdf
stupot07
Well-Known Member
OSB would be better explaining this, but only 1 of the group business was in admin, not the whole lot - a subsidiary to SBS&L. The group wad made of 3 companies - SBS&L, Holding and Ltd and only one them (the one with the golden share and lease) went in to admin. You have to remember we were out in admin because of the rent dispute not because sisu had run out of money and couldn't afford to keep us as a going concern. We haven't cleared all our debts, just a large proportion of them.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/54673-commentary-on-SBS-amp-L-group-2014-accounts
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
OSB would be better explaining this, but only 1 of the group business was in admin, not the whole lot - a subsidiary to SBS&L. We haven't cleared all our debts, just a large proportion of them.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/54673-commentary-on-SBS-amp-L-group-2014-accounts
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I may be wrong but something not right and I'm not clever enough to get into the detail.
Can someone also explain the last paragraph in section 18 because I fear the worse ?
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/documents/otium-signed-accounts144-2316099.pdf
I'm applying simple logic here and ask the following questions.
If a company goes into administration and comes out of it with debtors satisfied by a lesser amount.
Does that not mean that the buyer of the company starts with zero debt in that company?
If so, how come we still have £36M debt and other debt in the form of Preference shares ?
I quote ODB58 ....
"Bottom line is that the Group still owes ARVO and SISU investors substantial funds 36.7m and the preference shares are in reality a lower level of debt but still a debt of sorts."
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
OSB is the best person to ask. But any debt in SBS&L and Holdings would have remained despite Ltd going into admin. So if that debt was sitting there and not in Ltd it will be still owed to sisu. And the CVA was rejected so LTD never came out of admin, sisu just bought assets from ltd. ltd was being liquidated.
You're getting confused with the "club being in admin" and the CCFC company as a whole being in admin.
SBS&L and Holdings were never in admin, only LTD. I think, all 3 companies would have needed to be in admin in order to wipe out the debt.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
OSB would be better explaining this, but only 1 of the group business was in admin, not the whole lot - a subsidiary to SBS&L. The group wad made of 3 companies - SBS&L, Holding and Ltd and only one them (the one with the golden share and lease) went in to admin. You have to remember we were out in admin because of the rent dispute not because sisu had run out of money and couldn't afford to keep us as a going concern. We haven't cleared all our debts, just a large proportion of them.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/54673-commentary-on-SBS-amp-L-group-2014-accounts
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I could be wrong but wasn't it actually a small portion of the debt? Wasn't it also the historical debt i.e. the debt that we already had before SISU turned up? Wasn't it also true that the FL had to insist that this debt was written off rather than transferred to Otium in exchange for the Golden Share? Hence the scramble by SISU and the administrator to try and prove that the golden share laid in one of the other companies?
As I recall this was probably the only favour the FL actually did for the club otherwise the debt still would have been current.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Given up on the management fee argument then?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yeah I think you're right, I seem to remember it be more than it actually was.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Why have we suddenly changed from talking about management fees to raking over the dodgy administration process again?
You have to stop thinking of CCFC having debt as CCFC isn't a single entity, you have to look at the multiple companies involved. From a quick glance at that document Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd had a debt of £60.9m to its shareholders (i.e. SISU funds, Avro etc). In purchasing the assets of that company, including the assets that we would consider to form the football club, Otium Entertainment Group Ltd have also taken on that liability.
So when Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd completed administration and liquidation (has that even happened yet) the debt no longer sat in that company so wouldn't be written off.
In essence if we'd owed £60m to someone like the bank or Geoffrey Robinson it would most likely have stayed in Holdings and wiped out. As it was owed to our owners its been transferred over for them to reclaim in the future if and when there is ever that much money in the company.
You have to stop thinking of CCFC having debt as CCFC isn't a single entity, you have to look at the multiple companies involved. From a quick glance at that document Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd had a debt of £60.9m to its shareholders (i.e. SISU funds, Avro etc). In purchasing the assets of that company, including the assets that we would consider to form the football club, Otium Entertainment Group Ltd have also taken on that liability.
So when Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd completed administration and liquidation (has that even happened yet) the debt no longer sat in that company so wouldn't be written off.
In essence if we'd owed £60m to someone like the bank or Geoffrey Robinson it would most likely have stayed in Holdings and wiped out. As it was owed to our owners its been transferred over for them to reclaim in the future if and when there is ever that much money in the company.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It was along those lines. So lets say Robinson was owed £15m (totally made up figure BTW) but accepted £1.5m to walk away SISU only actually paid £1.5m but the £15m debt stayed on the books but was now owed to SISU.
It was the money to ACL that had to be paid wasn't it? Hence why they didn't agree to the CVA. They could reject the CVA to try and force a change of ownership whilst knowing they would still get the same amount back.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Yeah I think you're right, I seem to remember it be more than it actually was.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
IIRC it was about a third (maybe a little less) of the overall debt so not a small amount of money but small share of the overall debt.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
My memory was that money had to be paid out but also historical debt had to be written off as well. Could be wrong but I'm sure the debt wasn't written of willingly. I seem to remember that TF or ML tried to pass the credit for it happening to SISU only for it to be quickly pointed out that they weren't actually given a choice.
Also didn't ACL reject the CVA because they said that the Admin process was flawed when PA not only couldn't find the golden share but it turned out that players had been registered to Ltd despite SISU and PA insisting that no player had ever been registered to Ltd?
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Not yet. But they are accumulating interest to the "not real debt" that will have to be paid or start being paid at some point.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Or written off. Most likely if and when the club is sold a pence in the pound offer will be made on the debt, as when SISU took over. Having the debt still on the books is to their advantage when the other option is just to write it off any not receive a penny.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So there's no advantage to accumulate interest to the debt pile in that case. So why are they?