D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Hoffman's (disclosed / publicised) offers were based on a wing and a prayer.
Hoffman's (disclosed / publicised) offers were based on a wing and a prayer.I don't believe that any creditable auditor would allow them to say they have £60m (or whatever it is) of fully recoverable debt in CCFC. I think a figure of around £20m is more likely but Hoffman's offers were getting around that figure. I think they're waiting for more up front than he was prepared to pay though.
I had a quick search and found this from Jan 2017 last year from an interview with Simon Jordan which was reported in the CTI think it was Fisher said that.
And FWIW I don't really believe it myself...
But you can't hold on to debt forever if it's unlikely to be paid back auditors would say it's nonsense. In simple terms it's like me saying I've got £20 in my pocket because I lent someone £20 in 2001 but they since moved to Brazil and we've lost contact.I had a quick search and found this from Jan 2017 last year from an interview with Simon Jordan which was reported in the CT
It makes sense based on what I know of Hedge Funds and the reptiles that run them
Mr Jordan said: “The only way you are going to get your club back is if the club goes back into administration, faces potential liquidation, comes out the other side in non-league.
“Or if Sisu manage by some turn of fate to get the club further up the pyramid and find an exit strategy that brings in owners who have a better understanding of football and a better understanding of Coventry City than the current ones.
“It would seem to me, somehow, the fans and the owners have got to come together. It sounds idealistic, but it may give Coventry a chance to bring back some of the halcyon days like winning the FA Cup.
“The problem with a hedge fund is they look after other people’s money. They have made an investment in a football club and they are in it now.
“The difficulty is they can’t get out of it, and if they do get out of it they have to book a vast loss.
“The fact they’re not having to book a loss right now because it’s still a going concern is probably one of the reasons they keep holding onto this club. They’re waiting for these losses to become less of a problem to the hedge fund, ultimately that loss cannot be crystallised.”
Yeah I'd be pretty sure that the original private equity stake is long gone and written off.But you can't hold on to debt forever if it's unlikely to be paid back auditors would say it's nonsense. In simple terms it's like me saying I've got £20 in my pocket because I lent someone £20 in 2001 but they since moved to Brazil and we've lost contact.
what does that mean OSB?I know we all focus on not wanting to crystallise losses but just remember that a reported SISU speciality is creating and utilising losses................. they are not just about simple client investments
Love that .
Now that's what I call dumbing down! It's got so bad someone made a video about our finances...
Love that .
Nice gentle bedtime story voice and choice of soothing music to make the medicine go down .
I still find the wage totals puzzling ?
Getting closer to parity between playing staff and general employees with passing years.
Are they in some way extraordinary or simply down to running a Cat 2 academy ?
Approaching that H but not paid, just applied, although we do pay some/certain interest to various sources. AFAIKI found the bit about the annual interest amount staggering (listened to this a few days ago - wasn't it approx. £2M per year to ARVO of our total £7M income (apologise if that was inaccurate; whatever, it is clearly hampering what we can do on the pitch in terms of wages and recruitment)
But you can't hold on to debt forever if it's unlikely to be paid back auditors would say it's nonsense. In simple terms it's like me saying I've got £20 in my pocket because I lent someone £20 in 2001 but they since moved to Brazil and we've lost contact.
I see that whoever made this is confusing ARVO with a defunct aircraft manufacturer AVRO. It's a common mistake and one that I find annoying.
Not taken just addedRather than Arvo Master Fund Caymen Islands. Who are connected to Huntsmen and SISU. Joy Seppala is involved in all 3. People who say SISU haven't taken money out of the club are right, but another connected company has, 2m in the latest published accounting period.
what does that mean OSB?
Does that include the fees they pay for loan players and / or agent fees?player purchases total 8.2m but that doesn't value players brought in as free agents
Does that include the fees they pay for loan players and / or agent fees?
For your attention ccfcricohOk I will bite :banghead:
The you tube thing was written by Keiran Maguire, Football Finance Expert
Maybe if you read this post ccfcricoh it's in response to the same video in your thread .
Just a few corrections all from the published accounts
- Club acquired by SISU 22 February 2008 not in 2007
- Clubs do not have to split their income, indeed due to the size of some clubs in L2 they do not have to provide any details at all. So not something the directors or owners are doing wrong in splitting turnover two ways not three. Most clubs in L2 even some L1 you wont find that information, not even a two way split
- The club wages bill is for all staff, managers, all players, coaching staff, directors etc and you have to use the figure in the notes to the accounts to get the right percentages because some of the wages cost is included in the direct costs figure in the CCFC accounts
- highlighting how high the percentage of wages to turnover was in 2013/14 is pointless that's the Northampton year and as such is an exception. Therefore not a good comparison. Most years the percentage of total wages costs to turnover has been between 80% to 90% of turnover. Not unusual for any football club.
- the club has never made an operating or net profit in the last 10 years. Player sales are not classed as operating income because the purchase is classed as an asset disposal. If you include player sales then you should arguably include the interest because the club can not operate without either the sales proceeds or the money put in by ARVO and now SISU Master Fund. Not many clubs are profitable even fewer manage to be profitable most years in the EFL - Walsall comes to mind as one
- misses out the most valuable asset we have right now - Ryton
- loss of turnover is not as simple as the owners fault or not owning a ground. Plenty of clubs don't own their ground. Income also drops because the FA & EFL distributions drop the lower down the leagues you go as do opportunities for things like sponsorship and prize money. You could have the best owners around and still get relegated.
- not all the interest payable 13.2m since SISU took over was due to ARVO. That ARVO interest which was, has never actually been paid out.
- Otium wasn't formed until April 2011 so ARVO didn't "invest" before then
- THE CLUB IS OTIUM........ not Otium & SBS&L. Therefore the club owes one of the owners (ARVO) £8.6m capital plus £5.6m interest at 31/05/2017 not £42m. Legally the debt that is owed by SBS&L is outside of the club. SBS&L has no charge in place over Otium to secure the money it owes to the original investment funds
- It is ARVO not AVRO
other facts
Since SISU acquired CCFC
- player sales total 18.4m
- player purchases total 8.2m but that doesn't value players brought in as free agents
I would much prefer fans knew what is rather than someone pick bits to suit an agenda. Especially when the information is easily available. I actually think such a presentation is a good idea
following on from the recent filing at Companies House that Maguire and others highlighted as some great mystery, comes this
View attachment 9299
As I explained previously the first filing removed the claim that Otium directors were trying to find out who was in control. The second form filed confirms what we have all known - its SISU Capital. Never was going to be any great mystery to it.
More accurate would be to state it as Seppala who owns 75% of SISU Capital and Coleman who owns the other 25% of the same. Both of course also sign documents for ARVO. To my mind it should follow through to a person because a company is incapable of thought or decisions.
Ultimately someone has responsibility however.I also thought that no one can own more than 10% of the club without being publicly named, so isn't it likely these funds are a collaboration between wealthy individuals designed to hide their activities.
I thought ARVO was originally set up by Sepalla &c. to invest in Huntsman.
The Huntsman Connection
I also thought that no one can own more than 10% of the club without being publicly named, so isn't it likely these funds are a collaboration between wealthy individuals designed to hide their activities.
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?