Sorry pal I was waiting for you to show up
I think based on his soundbites you have to accept my analysis. Lol
Now please carry on and debunk it bearing in mind what he's said and timing of sales, winnings or injections. B-)
Sorry pal I was waiting for you to show upSo that would mean out of a total spend of 7m excluding interest around 1m relates to the academy. That's a big chunk of the total spend.
Academy spend 1m
Wages other than academy say 3.5m
Rent and match day costs 400k
Other direct and admin costs 2.1m
Sorry but another question..... Does it stack up?
Yet you are going off on a thread about last years accounts but saying it's an exception?
Can you find the links of people holding onto these "facts"? Especially as you keep trying to use me an example for pointing out things about Robins, which is mainly from this season and it's hardly a rare view to see people questioning certain decisions and choices he has made.
It's already been shown we had a bigger wage bill by over a million for the team that finished 14th the year we went down.
Isn't it Wingy going off things Fisher has said? The actual accounts show it's above 70% spend on wages (granted, all staff) of turnover.
Are you suggesting the academy doesn't take £1m to run? Given the detailed audit and inspection you have to go through, you would assume they have to give a detailed spending plan and the would think the fa grant would be dependent on the matched funding? You have to remember its from u7's through to u23's, will include venue hire, staff, medical staff, analysts, transport, teachers, insurance, utilities, scouting, cpd, etcSo that would mean out of a total spend of 7m excluding interest around 1m relates to the academy. That's a big chunk of the total spend.
Academy spend 1m
Wages other than academy say 3.5m
Rent and match day costs 400k
Other direct and admin costs 2.1m
Sorry but another question..... Does it stack up?
Don't quote me on it!!!I am querying what is actually spent on the academy.
I did find a set of accounts for another club that gave a breakdown of what could be in admin costs and it wasn't too dissimilar to Ccfc. Will try find it again.
Are you suggesting the academy doesn't take £1m to run? Given the detailed audit and inspection you have to go through, you would assume they have to give a detailed spending plan and the would think the fa grant would be dependent on the matched funding? You have to remember its from u7's through to u23's, will include venue hire, staff, medical staff, analysts, transport, teachers, insurance, utilities, scouting, cpd, etc
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Just trying to balance it with what is spent on the rest of the operation. Because given the pot we have that affects the amount spent on first team players. I know it won't be cheap
Not very but then I would have expected you to understand the point I was making.
Your mortgage company have reasonable expectation of collecting the payments due it or to take action to repossess.
No body really believes that Ccfc can repay the growing debt and interest burden ..... even Sisu I would think. So the point of the transaction is not getting a repayment from the day to day football activities. With no reasonable prospect of repayment and no payments being made then it amounts to nothing more than a debit and credit in the accounts. A paper transaction. Yes it is legally due but Ccfc do not have enough cash to pay normal bills let alone 11% interest on a growing liability.
The point lies with defensive measures to stop bids and to satisfy in some way Sisu investors
If the shares in Otium were sold then the purchaser would need to come to some discount of the liability and the removal of the preference shares. But no one sensible would do that, they would buy the football assets and liabilities and leave the loans and shares behind. Unlikely the net football assets would clear those liabilities
Unlike your mortgage which is linked to bricks and mortar the loans in Otium have legal being but are largely uncollectable
Last season was an exception as to where we finished compared to our budget. I don’t believe for a minute we had a bottom four budget but I said all along no way we had a top of the table budget either as many were insisting. I said from the off recruitment indicated we had a less competitive budget, mid table was my guess and that proved to be about right while others insisted otherwise. We didn’t finish mid table because of recruitment in the managerial department. Fair play to TM he knew it was time to go and did it with dignity not taking anything in the process, Venus’s new manager bounce flattered to deceive and he stayed in the post to long and Slades disasterous appointment was the final nails in the coffin, you’re talking about a manager who couldn’t win a raffle if he was sold the only ticket. If Robins had have been appointed of the back of TM resigning I don’t doubt for a minute we’d have stayed up at the least or finished mid table somewhere in line with our budget.
I really don’t need to provide links, it’s the same every season and you know it is. You choose to pretend it isn’t but it is and you know it. Insistence of us having higher turnover and therefore higher budget than the majority of clubs (especially this season) in this league has been rife every season and used as a basis of argument to sack every manager from some quarters whether that be MR this season or TM in our best season for decades.
Wage bill or employment costs? Didn’t we also have to pay of Anderson, Venus and Slade in the last accounts? Did that contribute to the rise? You’re also seem to be assuming that because we paid out more that made us competitive in the player market. Another point I kept making last season was that wages seemed to rise sharply in league one last season and our budget didn’t rise at the same rate. Made that point repeatedly last season when explaining why I didn’t believe we had as a competitive budget as we did the previous season.
Wingy is going of things Fisher has said, as are those who look at our presumed budget in any season and comparing it to league position. Nobody else from the club is repeatedly making these misleading sound bites are they so they can’t be getting it from anyone else can they. Difference is Wingy is taking it with a pinch of salt and not pointing at the presumed budget, pointing at our league position and then pointing blame at the manager because they’re using it as a means to measure league position as failure.
Then you get some people saying nonsense like "budget doesn't matter". Nick is just a "see no evil" type when it comes to the club.
Hard evidence shows a poorer league position this season than it really should be, this club should be top 3.
SISU have got our club relegated twice and are attacking any potential partner.
Anyone with half a brain can see the problem.
Tough.What are you on about?
Who has ever said budget doesnt matter? Can you find me a link to me saying that or stop making things up?
Why are you making things up? Why did you need 2 accounts to make things up in the first place and why won't you ever reply to any messages asking you about it? What's the deal with that?
I'm a football fan, hence I talk about football, tactics, the way teams setup for us and against us. Why are you on a football forum and why did you need both Captain Dart and Jack Griffin and then you still didn't talk about football? The closest you get is posting telegraph links days after it has been discussed.
I won't expect an answer.
Tough.
The debt has nothing to do with resisting a takeover. As a private company the owner can reject or accept a bid regardless of the reported level of debt in the accounts.
I know it is a shareholders decision.
But even so it provides a convenient additional barrier doesn't it. It puts potential investors off and secures the total assets of company to a minority shareholder third party that having the same money in shares does not. With the money in loans then Otium is practically unsaleable, it would be more attractive if the debt was actually in shares. The main purpose is for SISU investors but it is also a signal that Otium is not for sale. Pre empts interest and therefore saves wasted time
If you were looking to sell Otium you would convert most of the debt to equity leaving sufficient loan to cover the claim on the assets and possibly not even charge interest
No, it isn't an additional barrier. The debt is so large it is practically meaningless as it will never be repaid. Any potential buyer will have to negotiate with SISU over the pennies on the pound. If the debt gets bigger, it just means that SISU will get fewer pennies on the pound.
They're not all bad then.I believe all that matters is what ARVO have spent. There are 2 ways out, sell all assets and cut losses, sell club with assets to new owner for hefty percentage of expenditure and bonus clauses over the next few years. Originally when SISU took the club on they paid off the tax (about £8M), took the assets and liabilities and had a clause to pay directors about £6M if they reached the premier league, there were also some liabilities on Geoffrey over rent shortfall which he had to meet as SISU effectively stitched him up good and proper.
I agree with you ref: sale, but there must be a point to them adding to it however?No, it isn't an additional barrier. The debt is so large it is practically meaningless as it will never be repaid. Any potential buyer will have to negotiate with SISU over the pennies on the pound. If the debt gets bigger, it just means that SISU will get fewer pennies on the pound.
It is a lovely thing they did there. :emoji_grin:They're not all bad then.
This is getting as clear as mud.pennies in the £ is not going to come in to it. Just my opinion but no one in their right mind is going to buy Otium shares ,which in any case are valued at no more than £1. The reason no one will buy those shares is because of the ARVO loan and annual interest burden plus the preference shares which add further restriction should the club ever have distributable reserves or arrange things so there might be
Potential for deals has been steered in a particular direction by the barrier of loans & preference shares. In addition the interest being charged adds value to any potential claim for compensation should they win the case and maximises the amount going to ARVO
The reason ARVO has secured its loans on all assets of the Otium and SBS&L (including shares owned in OTIUM) and inserted a clause giving it say so on any asset disposal is to shape any future claims for compensation but also any future sale. That way the sale is structured to be one of assets less football liabilities not shares or a discounted share valuation of Otium. Which means that ARVO recovers full asset value against its loans and Otium has its football debts paid - there isn't apparently much else owing.
Do it as a share disposal and ARVO are left with a loan on which it is earning paper interest with no reasonable likelihood of recovery or a discounted amount of loan either in the name of ARVO or the new owners (depending if ARVO settled at pennies in £) perhaps earning interest. Why would they do that if they can get greater value in an asset sale? Either way I think that a share sale is less attractive to ARVO - who have the final say on any deal. Not to mention I can see no reason why a potential purchaser would want to deal with the loans & preference shares - they do not need to, and certainly do not need to take on the Otium history, you would require a clean break.
In that sense the loans and preference shares are a barrier to an Otium share disposal. Why? because even assuming no legal win & compensation ARVO maximise their potential return in the circumstances. Yes they can just say yes or no but the loans steer everything in a particular direction and away from a share disposal for the benefit of ARVO
pennies in the £ is not going to come in to it. Just my opinion but no one in their right mind is going to buy Otium shares ,which in any case are valued at no more than £1. The reason no one will buy those shares is because of the ARVO loan and annual interest burden plus the preference shares which add further restriction should the club ever have distributable reserves or arrange things so there might be
Potential for deals has been steered in a particular direction by the barrier of loans & preference shares. In addition the interest being charged adds value to any potential claim for compensation should they win the case and maximises the amount going to ARVO
The reason ARVO has secured its loans on all assets of the Otium and SBS&L (including shares owned in OTIUM) and inserted a clause giving it say so on any asset disposal is to shape any future claims for compensation but also any future sale. That way the sale is structured to be one of assets less football liabilities not shares or a discounted share valuation of Otium. Which means that ARVO recovers full asset value against its loans and Otium has its football debts paid - there isn't apparently much else owing.
Do it as a share disposal and ARVO are left with a loan on which it is earning paper interest with no reasonable likelihood of recovery or a discounted amount of loan either in the name of ARVO or the new owners (depending if ARVO settled at pennies in £) perhaps earning interest. Why would they do that if they can get greater value in an asset sale? Either way I think that a share sale is less attractive to ARVO - who have the final say on any deal. Not to mention I can see no reason why a potential purchaser would want to deal with the loans & preference shares - they do not need to, and certainly do not need to take on the Otium history, you would require a clean break.
In that sense the loans and preference shares are a barrier to an Otium share disposal. Why? because even assuming no legal win & compensation ARVO maximise their potential return in the circumstances. Yes they can just say yes or no but the loans steer everything in a particular direction and away from a share disposal for the benefit of ARVO
This is getting as clear as mud.
Is there some kind of competing interest here ?
For all those on here blaming the budget set by SISU last season, the real problem was that TM blew the budget signing the likes of Rose, Jones etc then playing a formation that had no need for them i.e .wing-packs with the likes of Adjei, Sordell and the WBA lad (forget his name, CBA to check) as a forward three. We were fucked the moment that we signed a bunch of players who didn't fit into the system he was using - we had lack of cover in key positions and surplus players in positions we were not fielding. As much as I loathe SISU I do not think you can lay our relegation last season primarily at their door - they gave TM/MV a budget which that duo misused. If we'd have spent it according to the system we were playing, we would have stayed clear of relegation at the very least.
The management of the club, Venus/Fisher messed up just as much, they kept on a manager who had lost all interest in the job because he signed up to get promotion and that was never going to happen with the budget he was given. You know as well as I do that you have to be interested in a job to perform well. In the end there were 3 managers that season because another error was made appointing Slade.
So TM signed players for players in positions he wasn't going to use, because he was disinterested? If he was disinterested, why did he stay in the job at all? He didn't need the money.
You threw in a mention to Slade there which was totally irrelevant. OK that appointment failed but look back to when he was appointed in late Dec 2016, you won't find many posters back saying it was anything other than a good move.
can't you make up completely unfounded assertions old chap?
Yes I too thought Slade was OK to start with, but on the other hand I and the other posters on this board are only interested spectators and not part of the management team that was responsible for making the critical decision to appoint him.
Corrected that for you
So you agree it wasn't an unreasonable decision to appoint Slade.
Venus talked him into staying the disinterest was all over comments made to the media, can't you read between the lines old chap?
Yes I too thought Slade was OK to start with, but on the other hand I and the other posters on this board are only interested spectators and not part of the management team that was responsible for making the business critical decision to appoint him.
I seem to remember at the time the appointment of Russell Slade wasn’t too unpopular.Corrected that for you
So you agree it wasn't an unreasonable decision to appoint Slade.
Didn't Simon Jordan say that the issue when he looked at the possibility of buying the club was the need for the owners to crystalize the past losses?I know it is a shareholders decision.
But even so it provides a convenient additional barrier doesn't it. It puts potential investors off and secures the total assets of company to a minority shareholder third party that having the same money in shares does not. With the money in loans then Otium is practically unsaleable, it would be more attractive if the debt was actually in shares. The main purpose is for SISU investors but it is also a signal that Otium is not for sale. Pre empts interest and therefore saves wasted time
If you were looking to sell Otium you would convert most of the debt to equity leaving sufficient loan to cover the claim on the assets and possibly not even charge interest
I think it was Fisher said that.Didn't Simon Jordan say that the issue when he looked at the possibility of buying the club was the need for the owners to crystalize the past losses?
At the moment Avro can persist with the fantasy that the debt owed to them by CCFC is going to be recoverable at some point
Funds usually charge their investors a percentage of the funds they have under management
So they can continue to charge the full percentage to each investor and also avoid the need to write down the money owed by CCFC
I don't have any inside info but that's my best guess of why things are shown as they are
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?