fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
HE WAS ON THE BOARD THAT THE PRESENT OWNERS APPOINTED YOU MORON
HE WAS ON THE BOARD THAT THE PRESENT OWNERS APPOINTED YOU MORONFor some reason Hoffman attracts this kind of adverse comment, mystery to me too, especially what over the years the present owners have put us through.
you misunderstand then. Seppala can carry on knowing there is definite interest at £7m that doesnt want to go away, so worst comes to worst that is available to her. She can park it and do what she wants as usual. Even creates a minimum for other interested parties if they were around
As for for safety net for Trust, Council, Wasps, that's got a big hole in it because she emphatically said no (which is all she had to do last time because she had her plans in place) and from what i can see this time around the PR for the consortium has not been that positive.
All a waste of time and effort
you misunderstand then. Seppala can carry on knowing there is definite interest at £7m that doesnt want to go away, so worst comes to worst that is available to her. She can park it and do what she wants as usual. Even creates a minimum for other interested parties if they were around
As for for safety net for Trust, Council, Wasps, that's got a big hole in it because she emphatically said no (which is all she had to do last time because she had her plans in place) and from what i can see this time around the PR for the consortium has not been that positive.
All a waste of time and effort
But he resigned didn’t he, along with others, don’t know if that makes him a good guy or a bad guy.HE WAS ON THE BOARD THAT THE PRESENT OWNERS APPOINTED YOU MORON
[
But he resigned didn’t he, along with others, don’t know if that makes him a good guy or a bad guy.
Sisu-out.mp3What does it say on your script?
I would have thought it should be a good guy / saviour of CCFC.
What’s the sum we think SISU have invested?
See I get that. I was more thinking that their investment would be a starting point in negotiations. I’m sure it was quoted sometime ago that they’d invested between 15-20 million in the clubOne would have to assume that this plays little part in the decision to hold onto the club. When valuing an asset one has to look at potential future P/L, not historic cost. I imagine (but don't know, clearly) that SISU think:
1) Continuing to hold CCFC strengthens their hand in compensation claims.
2) Continuing potential of player sales from current business model.
3) Potential for promotions and increased income.
On 3 they only need 1 year in the Premiership without investing heavily in a squad fit to compete to make more than the £7m being offered. So long as the club isn't costing them to hold, no matter how small the probability of crystalising, it makes sense to not sell when they know they have a floor of £7m on the table when they want to sell up.
Is Hoffman moving job's again and/or needs to up his profile like he has around previous bids?
I suggest you look at the Accrington Stanley owner's comments in the other thread,
This tells me that success in the Championship is unsustainable under the current ownership model.
you misunderstand then. Seppala can carry on knowing there is definite interest at £7m that doesnt want to go away, so worst comes to worst that is available to her. She can park it and do what she wants as usual. Even creates a minimum for other interested parties if they were around
As for for safety net for Trust, Council, Wasps, that's got a big hole in it because she emphatically said no (which is all she had to do last time because she had her plans in place) and from what i can see this time around the PR for the consortium has not been that positive.
All a waste of time and effort
What's that based on? I don't know too much about the personal background of Hoffman other than being a City fan and being from a financial background.
Sisu-out.mp3
tin-foil-hat.gif
Run:\ I don't remember that
If awkward_question == True:
Print(‘What about the Council?’)
If (input() == ‘What can they do?’) or (input() == ‘Where’s your proof?’):
Exit()
Thanks!He can’t put a bid together properly. He conducts his business through the media. He was involved with Sisu when they were at their worst in terms of actually running the club. He hangs out with Joe Elliot. He believed Dale Evans. He’s called Gary.
Exactly.Already got three chairmanships !!
Thanks!
...Glitter?Other Gary's are available :happy:
I’m not sure that a deal to sell would have to include dropping the legals. The new owner would have no interest in the legals, and would be unencumbered by them. Wasps and ccc would not be able to use any threat of legal action from a third party with no association with ccfc as a reason to not agree new deals for continued use of the stadium. Surely?The big question is ... what happens to the legals?
I assume the deal must include dropping them.
Otherwise SISU sells CCFC and continues to sue WASPs / CCC
But if it includes dropping legals SISU do not have a problem anyway.
If the Consortium are banking on the legals being dropped and WASPs allowing use of the stadium, I assume they are saying to SISU this is where your earn out comes from if you go with us.
Would be a good deal for WASPs anyway as legals dropped, they have a paying tenant and a training ground.
Now who could be a prime target as a joint investor in the Consortium?
:emoji_thinking:
I’m not sure that a deal to sell would have to include dropping the legals. The new owner would have no interest in the legals, and would be unencumbered by them. Wasps and ccc would not be able to use any threat of legal action from a third party with no association with ccfc as a reason to not agree new deals for continued use of the stadium. Surely?
That would be prime CCFC. Sell the club to Hoffman but don't drop the legals and Wasps still refuse to talk.I’m not sure that a deal to sell would have to include dropping the legals. The new owner would have no interest in the legals, and would be unencumbered by them. Wasps and ccc would not be able to use any threat of legal action from a third party with no association with ccfc as a reason to not agree new deals for continued use of the stadium. Surely?
Literally all the consortium have to do is go to the Telegraph and say "We're all the members, here's our net worths, take some pictures". Boom, instant credibility and potential proof of funds/ability to run the club in the public eye.
I suggest you look at the Accrington Stanley owner's comments in the other thread,
This tells me that success in the Championship is unsustainable under the current ownership model.
This is one measure that is in the eye of the beholder. UnNo proof of funds sisu say. Hoffman says there was
Be nice if proven which one chatting shit
the Proof of Funds point is well expressed and should be noted by readersJust a few thoughts
The bid was £7m + I assume that is the cash up front and there are add ons. Trouble is i think the starting point is what it takes to settle out ARVO & SISU Master fund. Those two entities are owed £8.9m as at 31/05/2018 plus interest £7m. Not saying all the interest is covered by a deal but the capital has to be. Nor am i saying any purchaser takes responsibility for the Otium debts, but the "assets" acquired have to realise at least the outstanding capital on the loans to enable what would be left of Otium to settle them.
If SISU decide to sell, and there is no evidence to suggest they want to, then the actual worth of the Club is irrelevant because what they seek is akin to a ransom payment. There are people talking of £20m as the club value, I dont see it personally, however they are probably in the right ball park for what SISU want out of it to go.
The assets. Ryton, Frankly irrelevant what the investment value is if you are buying it to continue as a training ground. Now SISU could retain the training ground to realise that investment value but they will need to provide an alternative which would not have an investment value. Either way figures of 6m or 7m for training facilities to be acquired are way above what the true value to a football club is. The valuation placed on Ryton in the Otium accounts was 350k before depreciation
The bid would be to acquire the assets less football creditors of Otium i believe. What Sisu invested in SBS&L is irrelevant and you would not acquire the loan debts. So what are we looking at
- the golden share, not actually saleable but it is the right to play in EFL so effectively the goodwill of Otium.
- trademark & intellectual property
- Ryton
- fixtures & fittings Equipment etc in the accounts at under £60k book value
- player & management contracts. Yes it would include junior players (you could value by using the agreed FA compensation calculation). The value is an opinion not a calculation so room to bargain, but you would factor in length of contract left etc. You might not want to take on all contracts (are player contracts covered by TUPE? or would EFL insist you do?)
- adds ons from previous player transactions (apparently some were going to be given to SISU). Until it happens there is no value
against that you have the following
- football creditors (player wages, other clubs,EFL etc)
- liability under players contracts
- Junior players? - if it were me i would be discounting the value of the junior players because of the number that never make it, that never go to other clubs, simply drop from the professional game
This is what SISU bought in 2013 from the CCFC Ltd administrator for 1.5m (Ryton was an asset of CCFC H so not sold by administrator)
Ok some of the players were registered in CCFC H so the player values are likely a fair bit higher. It isnt an accurate comparison - a "distressed company", assets already moved to CCFC H Ltd etc
- Goodwill £1
- Business intellectual property £1
- FL and FA shares £2
- Benefit of any continuing player contracts £466,742
- Equipment £1
- IT System £5000
- The debts and the benefit of all guarantees, indemnities and security rights in respect of them including rates rebate £1,000,000 (apparently Rates rebate £400k +)
- The benefit of all and any actual, potential or contingent rights, claims and causes of actions £1
- The benefit of any licences (excluding property licences) £1
- The business records £1
- All other property rights and assets owned £28,254
Proof of funds. I am guessing there is some semantics going on. Hoffman says he can provide proof of funds if SISU want to talk (but not until then) SISU say there was no proof of funds in the offer letter. Both correct and both playing with words.
Bid was never going to succeed, but they have tried. Is there anyone else in the market for an asset poor, loss making football club? The alternative if no one tries is that we accept SISU Capital isnt it
Personally I would take all offers off the table. The interest from Hoffman in a sense provides a safety net for SISU if they did need to cut and run. Clearly at the moment Seppala feels confident - so my concern is why?
Of course wasps and ccc want the legals dropped, but if there was a new owner the legals would be absolutely nothing to do with ccfc and could not be used as a bargaining chip by anyone.I did not say the new owner would be encumbered with them
I was saying WASPS / CCC want the legals dropped as they continue to impact on them. They also need to start about now at looking at refinancing the bonds
The last para - this has always bugged me as wellJust a few thoughts
The bid was £7m + I assume that is the cash up front and there are add ons. Trouble is i think the starting point is what it takes to settle out ARVO & SISU Master fund. Those two entities are owed £8.9m as at 31/05/2018 plus interest £7m. Not saying all the interest is covered by a deal but the capital has to be. Nor am i saying any purchaser takes responsibility for the Otium debts, but the "assets" acquired have to realise at least the outstanding capital on the loans to enable what would be left of Otium to settle them.
If SISU decide to sell, and there is no evidence to suggest they want to, then the actual worth of the Club is irrelevant because what they seek is akin to a ransom payment. There are people talking of £20m as the club value, I dont see it personally, however they are probably in the right ball park for what SISU want out of it to go.
The assets. Ryton, Frankly irrelevant what the investment value is if you are buying it to continue as a training ground. Now SISU could retain the training ground to realise that investment value but they will need to provide an alternative which would not have an investment value. Either way figures of 6m or 7m for training facilities to be acquired are way above what the true value to a football club is. The valuation placed on Ryton in the Otium accounts was 350k before depreciation
The bid would be to acquire the assets less football creditors of Otium i believe. What Sisu invested in SBS&L is irrelevant and you would not acquire the loan debts. So what are we looking at
- the golden share, not actually saleable but it is the right to play in EFL so effectively the goodwill of Otium.
- trademark & intellectual property
- Ryton
- fixtures & fittings Equipment etc in the accounts at under £60k book value
- player & management contracts. Yes it would include junior players (you could value by using the agreed FA compensation calculation). The value is an opinion not a calculation so room to bargain, but you would factor in length of contract left etc. You might not want to take on all contracts (are player contracts covered by TUPE? or would EFL insist you do?)
- adds ons from previous player transactions (apparently some were going to be given to SISU). Until it happens there is no value
against that you have the following
- football creditors (player wages, other clubs,EFL etc)
- liability under players contracts
- Junior players? - if it were me i would be discounting the value of the junior players because of the number that never make it, that never go to other clubs, simply drop from the professional game
This is what SISU bought in 2013 from the CCFC Ltd administrator for 1.5m (Ryton was an asset of CCFC H so not sold by administrator)
Ok some of the players were registered in CCFC H so the player values are likely a fair bit higher. It isnt an accurate comparison - a "distressed company", assets already moved to CCFC H Ltd etc
- Goodwill £1
- Business intellectual property £1
- FL and FA shares £2
- Benefit of any continuing player contracts £466,742
- Equipment £1
- IT System £5000
- The debts and the benefit of all guarantees, indemnities and security rights in respect of them including rates rebate £1,000,000 (apparently Rates rebate £400k +)
- The benefit of all and any actual, potential or contingent rights, claims and causes of actions £1
- The benefit of any licences (excluding property licences) £1
- The business records £1
- All other property rights and assets owned £28,254
Proof of funds. I am guessing there is some semantics going on. Hoffman says he can provide proof of funds if SISU want to talk (but not until then) SISU say there was no proof of funds in the offer letter. Both correct and both playing with words.
Bid was never going to succeed, but they have tried. Is there anyone else in the market for an asset poor, loss making football club? The alternative if no one tries is that we accept SISU Capital isnt it
Personally I would take all offers off the table. The interest from Hoffman in a sense provides a safety net for SISU if they did need to cut and run. Clearly at the moment Seppala feels confident - so my concern is why?
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?