Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
I guess the one silver lining is that we're not £60m or £70m in debt but £39m.
Woo hoo! Weeman is getting smashed tonight!!!
Woo hoo! Weeman is getting smashed tonight!!!
commentary on SBS& L group 2014 accounts (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The average gate dropped 33% for year 1 and dropped much further again at Sixfields. I don't believe the wage bill and other admin costs have any way near followed the drop in income. I said yesterday that I can't see us breaking even this season even with the Ricoh return. Gates are too low, we're carrying too many players or carrying too many of the same type of player.
Absolutely
Up to a third of the squad and thus the budget £800k
Our Player wage bill Is now 25%of the Championship years and direct costs have been pared back
Last edited:
Mild-Mannered Janitor
Kindest Bloke on CCFC / Maker of CCFC Dreams
The real situation is that the ARVO picture has been recovered with extra costs/fees/interest (not yet taken out in cash) whilst all the other creditors got shafted. Was always going to be the case.
I still don see their exit strategy though unless we get things right on the pitch and someone else wants to take on the debt or we get taken on by another foreign company who can make the most of the losses to offset tax liabilities.
I still don see their exit strategy though unless we get things right on the pitch and someone else wants to take on the debt or we get taken on by another foreign company who can make the most of the losses to offset tax liabilities.
My interpretation is slightly different. If we accept Otium is the Club then 'the club' has £9.6m of debt and otherwise it is mainly funded by £64m of Equity(increasing by 15% each year). With £76m of negative reserves it will take a huge amount of profit to be earned before the Preference shares can be redeemed and a huge amount of further profit needed before SBSL sees any return on its Investment in the Ordinary shares. Unless there is a cross guarantee in place which does not seem likely, based on the absence of any disclosure, then it is highly unlikely the debt of £29m in SBSL can be repaid for some considerable time. The key thing being that the debt due from the club to SBSL was converted in to Preference share capital and therefore cannot now be demanded. To link this debt to the club doesn't therefore seem right other than the fact as you say it is part of the same group but the reality is it is highly unlikely to be paid certainly not for some considerable time(unless they can sell the shares.....for £29m-is this likely??). It seems unlikely SBSL could use its controlling position to change this. I can't think of any scenario where that would be the case.
It has to be in the interests of SISU overall to load all these ' staff and admin costs' against the club. I would imagine that it has to be for tax avoidance purposes on profits elsewhere in the group ?! Otherwise if this was a sole operation, it would require 'real' funding and be a basket case of a company that would have gone under again by now.
OSB will correct me if wrong but if the costs were being reimbursed "elsewhere in the group" this would have to be shown in the notes
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
But how many look at the details?
The sound bite gets reported & read & spread by word of mouth...& most walk away happy in their own ignorance.
PUSB
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
I didn't report the club was debt free.
Mild-Mannered Janitor
Kindest Bloke on CCFC / Maker of CCFC Dreams
The management fees being charged as per the accounts
The creditors had to take a reduced amount from the administration per pound of debt they were owed
real situation is that the former major creditor has now built up the same value of debt that they had previously even though they had a reduced pence in the pound reduction as part of the administration whilst others could not do that
What management fees? How much is that? Are you suggesting sisu take out money to themselves?
The major creditors are the shareholders. ACL didn't take a hit on money owed to them - but the lease was broken and rent is now >£1m lower per year.
albatross
Well-Known Member
OSB58 , as an exercise of pure conjecture and looking at SISU's investments as a whole i.e. across the group (not just the companies that as direct associated with CCFC) is there any benefit to them pursuing this strategy?
A clever bloke like you will know why SISU persist with all this supposedly endless funding of a hopeless Midlands football club. Why don't you give your version as to why they won't bail out and what advantages there are to them in continuation and why do they load all these charges against the club ? Please don't say they still think they are going to storm through the leagues to the Premiership with kids and short term loanees !
So, if I was in sisu's shoes?
Well, I would be very pleased it wasn't my own money, but money from rich investors, who have placed a tiny percentage of their wealth into a risk taking hedge fund. A lottery ticket. I believe the original funds each had more than 10 investors, and if the numbers in the accounts are to be trusted (???) then each investor has bought their lottery ticket at around £500.000. I don't think losing half a million will ruin any sleep.
But so far the original investors money isn't totally lost - as SBS&L still exist and the 'loans' is still sitting in the balance sheet at full value.
Then there's ARVO. The clubs bank. They are in a different position as they need to keep funding the club with either loans or equity. If the club runs out of money then even the smallest outside creditor would be able to serve a wind up petition. The extreme consequence would be that ARVO lost their entire investment (+£9m). But again - if ARVO is a lottery ticket for more than 10 rich people, then none of them would hurt seriously.
But of course nobody want's to keep pouring money into a failed enterprise. So the management has been told to devise a strategy that will end (or minimize) the endless stream of postcards: 'All is fine, send more money'. That strategy seem to be three phased: 1: Cut wages and staff to match the income, 2: increase revenue and 3: Increase value of club.
The recent accounts suggest the club could potentially become independent of ARVO's hand outs. That require we stay up and next year get some increased revenue from player sales and/or a cup fixture away against a 'big name' and/or increased gate receipts.
So, if I was in sisu's shoes I would bite my time.
I don't think they are going anywhere soon.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
That pretty much concurs with that I've said in the past, though I thought they might off load after 3 or 4 years of better than break even, just servicing the ARVO interest. If they stay like that taking £1 or £2M pa out then the club stays in D3 unless it gets lucky (or gets a bad manager).
I also think they have an alternative strategy which involves finding an investor willing to fund a stadium development inside a bigger site, but to do that they need a site which is local and fits in with an outside investors strategy (a housing site or high-tech science park are probably the only games in town). I don't think they have either a suitable site or the investment lined up, though I would expect they've talked to a few potential investors and investigated a few sites.
Neither of the above futures is guaranteed, the plug could be pulled at any time.
Last edited by a moderator:
They haven't taken out a single penny!
All interests has been added to the loans or converted to equity.
