Nick
Administrator
because you challenge it with incorrect statements and bullshit
because you challenge it with incorrect statements and bullshitIt's like chinese whispers on here with Nick making a comment and everybody running with it.
Have the forum but accept there are other views/opinions.
You can't put a post up and when it's challenged go crying to your mum.
because you challenge it with incorrect statements and bullshit
Lapdogs? Is it maybe just the case that a lot of people think you are wrong.Which incorrect statement ?
You need to point it out or your lapdogs will start salivating !!
They didn't pay anything, technically the bond holders did.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Lapdogs? Is it maybe just the case that a lot of people think you are wrong.
Incorrect statements ie management fees etc that you roll out. On my phone so can't go back.
Your statement was taking them, it was one of many in accuracies. Added to the hypocrisy you can see why people disagree.Nobody has disproved they are not taking management fees.
It adds to the debt, whether and when they take them is another matter.
Your statement was taking them, it was one of many in accuracies. Added to the hypocrisy you can see why people disagree.
Theres £2M in the Otium accounts unexplained to me.
I don't trust them having fiddled the books previously.
When they have gone I will see what they take and then reflect my stance on this.
Drop the hypocrisy statement, Northampton is different to Wasps so its bollocks.
Sisu used us for their own gain and you went along with it like a lemming in a Sisu fur coat.
Which incorrect statement ?
You need to point it out or your lapdogs will start salivating !!
We are at the Ricoh with Wasps for at least the next 10 years so we might as well build from there.
Theres £2M in the Otium accounts unexplained to me.
A very serious accusation to an organisation known for its zest for court action. I do hope you can back this up with solid evidence.
Sorry but where are the facts from to back up the ten year statement?
You mean the same £2m that OSB has explained to you on a number of occasions including on this thread. Yawnarama
Seriously you are a grown man. How can anybody ever have credibility in what you say if you resort to such childish crap?
Yes thats the one. The £2M interest and other payments that may or may not affect our future ability to be bought.
You explain it ? I bet you can't.
Happy New Year all
Not got a lot of time to get involved in this right now. Its my busiest month of the year with the self assessment deadline. So will just make a couple of statements that are based on the audited accounts that have been filed.
Bear in mind that the owners are specialists in debt. Also no debt was ever actually purchased only shares or assets. Group companies can legally move assets, losses, liabilities around the internal group if they see fit and the paperwork is correct - sometimes it will require the permission of a 3rd party creditor
- there is no evidence of management fees being taken outside of the group companies. The only management fees were between CCFC ltd (paid) and CCFC H Ltd (received) and that meant the monies stayed within the group.
- any management fees paid to 3rd parties including SISU or ARVO would be payments to a related party and should have been disclosed under the Companies Act in the notes to the accounts
- Interest has either been paid by the group to ARVO, The Arley Group (Ranson), or to the purchasers of Prozone who advanced funds to the SBS&L group
- the accumulated total amount "invested" by SISU investors goes as follows
2008 11.03m
2009 23.73m
2010 24.1m
2011 29.7m
2012 28.6m
2013 28.6m
2014 28.6m
- SISU investors have not put any more money in since 2012. According to the accounts they did not accrue any interest until 2012. That's accrue it was rolled up as a creditor/liability not physically paid out.
- It would seem that between 2011 and 2012 what they were owed decreased by £1.125m. So something has been repaid following sale of Prozone it would seem
by 31/05/13 ARVO had made loans to the Group of 13.3m. The following year some of this and the accrued interest was converted in to some of the preference shares that were issued. There is no reason why ARVO should not charge interest for the use of its money. It is not a substitute for management charges - for one thing ARVO are not involved in the management. Is ARVO 100% owned by SISU Capital who knows. The interest rate would appear to be well over 10% but the security for the money lent is pretty poor - interest rates reflect the security
At 31/05/2014 external debt for the group (it is the external debt that is important not what Otium owes SBS&L or even the shares SBS&L owns in Otium) stood at 36.7m plus preference shares of 14.2m. There were a lot more preference shares issued but the balance were issued internally from Otium to SBS&L. The preference shares are not voting capital but in effect a type of debt. SBS&L group is in the hole for over £50m. As otium are the only trading element then effectively that's Otium's hole
Got to be careful with some terminology too. Otium is trading within its cash flow means - cash neutral. that means it spends the cash it receives. That is not necessarily the same as saying the accounts are at breakeven. For instance the £1m in interest each year is being rolled up in to creditors and not actually paid out (up till 31/05/14) so no cash spent on it but it will appear as a cost on the accounts
Losses of the group
2008 3.9m
2009 8.2m
2010 5.8m
2011 16.1m
2012 4.0m
2013 7.2m
2014 8.3m
equates in total to the "hole" the group are in
There has been a lot of realignment going on in the accounts. All perfectly legal if somewhat difficult to keep a track of. Bottom line however is that CCFC or Otium or SBS&L or whatever you like to call it all is still a basket case
Did the losses from CCFC H need to be transferred to Otium? Personally I don't see why and I have an even harder time believing the FL insisted on it.... but that's just my opinion it could be the case that they did. But why laden a new set up with old historical debt that really was just figures on paper? Makes it harder to sell on surely?
I think saying the Ricoh is worth £48.5m is misleading. The long lease is worth 48.5m with Wasps owning it at the date of the valuation in the opinion of expert professional valuers for the purposes of providing security for a bond issue. It is not the sale value of the lease. Nor is it the value of the shares in ACL before the sale to Wasps. The lease forms part of the assets owned by ACL but the value of ACL shares (effectively the Ricoh) must also include all of the known liabilities of ACL too plus an assessment of its future as it stood without a major long term tenant of the stadium - when sold by CCC/AEGC. The value of ACL now is totally different to what it was before the sale to Wasps. Like it or not what went on with CCFC depressed the value and left ACL vulnerable and the opportunity was missed by the CCFC owners - I think they overplayed their hand badly
Hope that helps
The interest is being accumulated but not being paid out, management fees is the movement of funding within the group accounts so is cost neutral.
OSB has explained all this a number of times. We are completely wrapped up in debt that's what happens when you've spent a couple of decades spending beyond your means.
The interest is being accumulated but not being paid out, management fees is the movement of funding within the group accounts so is cost neutral.
OSB has explained all this a number of times. We are completely wrapped up in debt that's what happens when you've spent a couple of decades spending beyond your means.
You're just rehashing an old argument from this thread Fromm month ago
You're just rehashing an old argument from this thread Fromm month ago
Lapdogs? Is it maybe just the case that a lot of people think you are wrong.
Incorrect statements ie management fees etc that you roll out. On my phone so can't go back.
We are at the Ricoh with Wasps for at least the next 10 years so we might as well build from there.
Sorry but where are the facts from to back up the ten year statement?
What's the plan then ?
So is this where you answer a question, with a diverting question?
I dont know what the plan is. You obviously think you do, as you have stated above that we are at the Ricoh with Wasps for at least another ten years.
Again I will ask, what facts is this based on? as you are either in the know? or its another assumption? or in other words unfactual.
It will never be our home whilst Wasps are there. Those oversized Wasps signs show us quite categorically who are the main men.
When they fuck off somewhere for money then maybe it will be ours again.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Most that don't like them don't have season tickets or merchandise. They are not making money off the back of them being here. They are not coming on to a CCFC forum gloating and trying to wind people up. You're the only one. Due to these reasons your arguments have no credibility. This thread had quitened down until your inflammatory comments. Therefore I would suggest you are being divisive.
I'm not gloating I'm a CCFC season ticket holder of many (many) years. Why would I.
I'm just stating it as I see it. Unfortunately it's not liked by some as it hits a few nerves.
My logic is that at some point we will have to work with them so I'm just dispelling some myths.
Which myths were they?
New stadium myth and debt will not be a problem myth.
Also the one where Wasps will be going in the near future and we don't need to work with them.
Certainly the one that Sisu actually made a reasonable bid for the Ricoh.
Perhaps the one where the Ricoh is not our home because Wasps own it and not ACL.
I could go on without even mentioning the ones that Moff is on about.
Just to clear a few things & add the odd opinion (ie facts unless I say it is my opinion)
b) personal opinion but those waiting for Wasps to go bust I think are going to be waiting a very long time. CCFC do not have the resources to wait that out.
f) my opinion is that SISU have deliberately created debt in order to make a sale difficult. That points to other objectives other than success on the pitch imo.
g) it is early days for things like TV revenues for rugby, that is just like it was for the Premier League now look at it. Look at how much more coverage the European games are getting this season for instance. Picking on one "fact" does not prove worth or value or size. Like it or not interest in top class Rugby is growing. Also the structure of finance is very different in Rugby to football that will keep losses down. Do you see them paying out massive transfer fees ?
h) Wasps are not reliant on just the Rugby related income - that accounts for 1/3rd of the revenues Wasps holdings have. CCFC & Wasps account for around 1/3rd of the footfall at the stadium too. That insulates the rugby club to some degree from being dependent on crowd numbers. CCFC are entirely dependent on crowd numbers
o) will they ever have to repay the bonds? I do not see why people are so certain they have to find £34m in 5 years time. There are other ways round that problem.
p) interest payments. Yes they have to pay interest on the bonds, but they no longer have to pay interest as a group on other loans. Not to mention part of the bond issue money was put on deposit to meet the first three interest payments
First of all thanks for the time you took on the post, some very interesting and valuable information in there.
Just a few things I wanted to ask/raise about a couple of your points.
b) I think there are very few who want Wasps to go bust, but a lot who would prefer them to be back in their London heartlands, whether that is very unlikely or not. At the moment, not. by the time they have moved all the players in to this area and then the training ground the possibility of them scuttling back to London becomes harder and harder financially. Just do not see it happening in the short or mid term and the longer they are here the harder it will be
f) Why do you believe SISU have deliberately created debt in order to make a sale difficult? What could their other objectives be? For me CCFC has always been a tool in this not the objective. Once Ranson and Onye quit messing about then there was only one objective and it wasn't promotion for the club. Had things gone well in 2008 & 2009 they would have flipped the club taken a profit and moved on. Even in 2012 I do not think they would have retained ownership of the stadium. I think they ring fenced the club with debt to keep prying hands off it, with that debt owed to the owners they, imo then went after the stadium. Thing about English law is that it is very often a clear process one step leads to another
g) Yes European Rugby is on the TV more this season, but that is predominantly due to the new competition and the fact they negotiated a new deal. As a long term Rugby fan, I disgaree that revenues will grow massively for Rugby from things such as TV income. It is still a minority sport, apart from the internationals doesnt command a huge TV audience, and will never do so. The sport is played less at schools, except Public ones, and so todays youth what with all the other interests they have, apart from sport are barely interetesed in the game. It has never and will never have a huge uptake of new fans. I don't largely disagree about minority sport and take up to be honest Thing is for Wasps those revenues don't have to grow massively, they can drive the other side of the business and just aim for breakeven on the rugby club. There are not many (any ?) rugby clubs with the same off field income potential. I don't think Wasps have to achieve massive take up of the sport in players or spectators to be successful financially. The more comfortable they are financially the less likely to fail or move
I dont disagree that it has grown in the past few years, but as a long standing Northampton Saints fan, with a knowledge of the game, I dont see it growing a greta deal more than it is now. Attendances will remain pretty similar, and have done so for many years with only slight increases, which eventually will plateau. Time will tell I guess but happy to bow to your closer involvement in rugby
As for paying massive transfer fees, they cant as they havent the revenue, and are are also financially goverened. They dont and will never have the pull, appeal, nor spending power of football. The point here wasn't that they should it was exactly what you have said. The influence of the Premier League driving transfer fees is what has driven many clubs in to massive debt and that filters through the leagues especially with the new rules on player valuations. That as it stands cant happen in rugby and therefore the financial requirements of success are not so heavy
h) I fully agree that Wasps are not solely reliant on match day incomes, but surely they must have made projections as part of their buisness model? I personally think they will be disapointed with figures for this season, and can see, with or without sucess, crowds dwindling further. The City does not seem to have a huge appetite for top Class Rugby that the Council thought it had when selling to Wasps, and due to this I feel that Wasps will be disapointed on their returns on this front. It may not be a huge problem to their finances but it all makes a difference and will have to be covered elsewhere. They may be disappointed they may dwindle, but its not a given. but its early days and I would think that their targets to hit are more likely over a 5 year period than 18months two years. As you say they have to make it up elsewhere to drive the event, conference and exhibition income. That takes a hit I would think that will be a bigger problem. My own guess is that the crowds will level out over a season at around 10k then it becomes a question of how that 10k is exploited financially something CCFC can't do
o) What do you see as the ways round paying the bonds that Wasps have? Surely the money has to come from somewhere, or just new debt? they could issue more bonds, they could float on the AIM or even get a single investor .... there are options but it will depend on the performance of the whole group
p)Whilst it is true that Wasps put part of the bond issue money on deposit to meet the first three interest payments, they also paid a significant sum back to Mr Richardson, which i presume the club will have to find from somewhere? paid him out of the bond issue money and I believe what is left owing to him is presently interest free..... he can waive his right to interest if he wants to. Also could he be seen as a buffer financially if things don't go quite to plan .... would he put more in again
As with your post, some of this is my own personal opinion, and I am just posting back as I am both interested in your views and also welcome them.
no problem with reasoned discussion like this Moff. Some seem to think I get everything right, I don't, and no reason why what I put should not be challenged just the same as anyone else
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?