Fisher Lost The Plot (6 Viewers)

stupot07 · Dec 28, 2016

Gosford Green said:
Copied from OSB (again)

First year of trading for Otium and started to trade August 2013 - anything before that would be included in the full group accounts.
Turnover 3.4m
Direct costs 1.03m
staff costs 4.48m
administration costs (including 2.2m write of goodwill) 5.16m*
Profit on player sales 373k
Interest charges 2.098m
Exceptional charge 60.9m

*You are still struggling in explaining that one.
The direct costs would be matchday expenses.

Thats a different set of accounts. Not looked them so I don't know. I know that OSB has said there is no evidence of money being paid to sisu and that of there was it would have to be highlighted by the auditors. Specifically on the one CaptainDart posted thr 2015 accounts and the £2.9m, then that is explained by thr non staffing costs. Looking at walsalls, their's are around £2.2m but they don'thave the added expense of a cat 2 academy - they have the cheaper cat 3.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

letsallsingtogether · Dec 28, 2016

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
This is the bit I still can't reconcile. You - and others - now acknowledge you can't believe a word Fisher states, yet still judge other parties so harshly for not being able to negotiate a deal with him. And every deal his duplicity and slight-of-hand blows, has cost the club ever more dear

Couldn't agree more MMM.
Funny none of those posters have replied to you.
Maybe they don't actually believe he is full of shit?

Gosford Green · Dec 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
Thats a different set of accounts. Not looked them so I don't know. I know that OSB has said there is no evidence of money being paid to sisu and that of there was it would have to be highlighted by the auditors. Specifically on the one CaptainDart posted thr 2015 accounts and the £2.9m, then that is explained by thr non staffing costs. Looking at walsalls, their's are around £2.2m but they don'thave the added expense of a cat 2 academy - they have the cheaper cat 3.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

These are accounts available for everyone to view, what they file at companies house, they are not audited accounts.
There is no way of knowing the breakdown of the admin charges as access to the bought ledger is required.

Maybe their was additional information or directors notes.

No one has explained the high admin costs, or at least made a decent excuse for them. You are all slacking, come on lads you can do better than this.

stupot07 · Dec 28, 2016

Gosford Green said:
These are accounts available for everyone to view, what they file at companies house, they are not audited accounts.
There is no way of knowing the breakdown of the admin charges as access to the bought ledger is required.

Maybe their was additional information or directors notes.

No one has explained the high admin costs, or at least made a decent excuse for them. You are all slacking, come on lads you can do better than this.

The accounts have to be audited by an independent auditor before being submitted to companies house.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Gosford Green · Dec 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
The accounts have to be audited by an independent auditor before being submitted to companies house.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Are you sure on that? Most companies only submit accounts prepared by their own accountants, is thus something that football clubs have to conform to?

Though in hindsite, a turnover above a certain amount could mean audited accounts.

stupot07 · Dec 28, 2016

Gosford Green said:
Are you sure on that? Most companies only submit accounts prepared by their own accountants, is thus something that football clubs have to conform to?

Though in hindsite, a turnover above a certain amount could mean audited accounts.

As far as I can remember all of our accounts have been independently audited.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 28, 2016

www.gov.uk/audit-exemptions-for-private-limited-companies

Captain Dart · Dec 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
Looks like they have their outgoings listed in just 2 categories - staffing (wages) and administrative expenses, you have to therefore assume that admin expenses are anything not wage relegated so will include - rent, matchday costs, agents fees, transfer fee, utililities, consumables, shop stock (we ran our own then), some of academy costs, travel/hotel costs,etc, business rates, room hire, tax, insurance, medical bills, didn't we pay for sixfields pitch in those accounts?, etc.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Section 4 says, Direct Operating Costs (a different category and £1.5m) includes match expenses and the direct costs relating to commercial activities, this seems to cover everything you have listed with the exception of the Academy, which we know is about £600,000. Agreed these accounts may include some carry over from Sixfields, I seem to remember the club having to pay to relay the Sixfields pitch at a cost of approximately £150,000. That still leaves over £1M which is hard to explain.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Dec 28, 2016

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
This is the bit I still can't reconcile. You - and others - now acknowledge you can't believe a word Fisher states, yet still judge other parties so harshly for not being able to negotiate a deal with him. And every deal his duplicity and slight-of-hand blows, has cost the club ever more dear

Just cause Fisher is a dick doesn't give everyone else involved a free pass to be dicks also.

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 28, 2016

Not being a accountant don't know how this works with CCFC but.....

Audit exemption
Not all companies have to have their accounts audited and certain companies such as dormant companies or small companies may qualify for exemption.

Qualifying criteria for audit exemption currently states that a company must meet two of the following:

an annual turnover of no more than £6.5 million
assets worth no more than £3.26 million
50 or fewer employees on average.

However, these guidelines are subject to review and change so please visit Gov.uk for up-to-date information.

stupot07 · Dec 28, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Not being a accountant don't know how this works with CCFC but.....

Audit exemption
Not all companies have to have their accounts audited and certain companies such as dormant companies or small companies may qualify for exemption.

Qualifying criteria for audit exemption currently states that a company must meet two of the following:

an annual turnover of no more than £6.5 million

assets worth no more than £3.26 million

50 or fewer employees on average.

However, these guidelines are subject to review and change so please visit Gov.uk for up-to-date information.

All of our recent accounts have been audited. Looking at those excemptions we wouldnt meet them because we employ too many people

Looking at the Football League site, if you don't get them audited you have to submit a report to thr FL with supplementary info within 14 days.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Astute · Dec 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
Looks like they have their outgoings listed in just 2 categories - staffing (wages) and administrative expenses, you have to therefore assume that admin expenses are anything not wage relegated so will include - rent, matchday costs, agents fees, transfer fee, utililities, consumables, shop stock (we ran our own then), some of academy costs, travel/hotel costs,etc, business rates, room hire, tax, insurance, medical bills, didn't we pay for sixfields pitch in those accounts?, etc.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You would have thought that something that should take 3 weeks wouldn't take years to still show no signs of happening.

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
All of our recent accounts have been audited. Looking at those excemptions we wouldnt meet them because we employ too many people

Looking at the Football League site, if you don't get them audited you have to submit a report to thr FL with supplementary info within 14 days.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Don't know about point 1) but point 2) we deffo qualify. Any assets have already been stripped. 3) how many players on wages? bare bones training ground staff. How many office staff 6-8? rest is rented....ooppps forgot about the leeches(Lawyers that must account for 15-20)....Stand corrected on point 3)

Astute · Dec 28, 2016

SkyBlue_Bear83 said:
Just cause Fisher is a dick doesn't give everyone else involved a free pass to be dicks also.

And it doesn't give everyone a free pass to believe everything Fisher said about them to be true. For instance when Fisher said that the judges got it wrong in law. Every judge in a proper case has agreed. All he has ever got is the right to appeal.

So according to Fisher Higgs were at fault, CCC was at fault, Wasps were at fault, the judges were at fault and now us supporters are at fault. Whereas SISU are fault free. Poor old SISU.

Yes, no side of this has come out looking good. But how much of it was caused by SISU acting the way they have? And some still say that SISU were OK to act morally wrong but everyone else should have played it straight.

Captain Dart · Dec 28, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Don't know about point 1) but point 2) we deffo qualify. Any assets have already been stripped. 3) how many players on wages? bare bones training ground staff. How many office staff 6-8? rest is rented....ooppps forgot about the leeches(Lawyers that must account for 15-20)....Stand corrected on point 3)

It states in the Strategic Report in the accounts that "Legal costs for the Judicial Review actions were not paid by either Otium or SBS&L"

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 28, 2016

Captain Dart said:
It states in the Strategic Report in the accounts that "Legal costs for the Judicial Review actions were not paid by either Otium or SBS&L"

Who paid for them then?... I may be wrong but, weren't they known as SISU's legal team

Captain Dart · Dec 28, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Who paid for them then?... I may be wrong but, weren't they known as SISU's legal team

It has been speculated that 3rd party finance is behind the action. This sort of thing.
Litigation Finance | Association of Litigation Funders

stupot07 · Dec 28, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Don't know about point 1) but point 2) we deffo qualify. Any assets have already been stripped. 3) how many players on wages? bare bones training ground staff. How many office staff 6-8? rest is rented....ooppps forgot about the leeches(Lawyers that must account for 15-20)....Stand corrected on point 3)

In our last accounts we had:
105 players and management
20 admin / commercial
289 stewards part time.

So 414 employees

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

ecky · Dec 28, 2016

Nick said:
Just saying who owns CCFC doesn't explain how my ticket money is going to them though does it?

Eventually it all ends up in the same pot

georgehudson · Dec 28, 2016

SP07 you seem remarkably well informed for an internet forum member,
toot toot here comes Billy Bullshit again...................................

Nick · Dec 28, 2016

georgehudson said:
SP07 you seem remarkably well informed for an internet forum member,
toot toot here comes Billy Bullshit again...................................

What's he bullshitting about?

Astute · Dec 29, 2016

Nick said:
What's he bullshitting about?

105 players and management?

We had people pretending to be players and no fookin management.

singers_pore · Dec 29, 2016

Godiva said:
There's nothing in the cash-flow to suggest money goes to Sisu.

The club's report does not contain a cash flow statement. I cannot be bothered correcting all the other ridiculous things you have said (e.g., you said that the club's accounts are subject to more scrutiny than those of BT). You are a real numpty.

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2016

Grendel said:
Why? Clubs in league two survive with sub 2,000 crowds.

Had time to do some more research on your Grendull fact that you never replied to anyone questioning it.

So of these clubs that can survive in league two with sub 2000 crowd's without putting money in. There's Barnet, who have had huge investment. Morecambe, who had to release a statement last month as to why they haven't been paying the players and staff and give reassurances that the issue is being sorted (cashflow issue, I guess having a sub 2K average gate doesn't help) and Accrington Stanley who had to do some major refinancing last year to keep operating. Hardly surviving without financial input.

So basically as ISB said, SISU will have to put money in going by the evidence. Do you acknowledge that or do you have proof to the contrary? I'm guessing neither.

jas365 · Dec 29, 2016

Gosford Green said:
These are accounts available for everyone to view, what they file at companies house, they are not audited accounts.
There is no way of knowing the breakdown of the admin charges as access to the bought ledger is required.

Maybe their was additional information or directors notes.

No one has explained the high admin costs, or at least made a decent excuse for them. You are all slacking, come on lads you can do better than this.

From the info I have access to it's not possible to explain the admin costs, but the accounts definitely were audited in 2015. The accounts show audit fees of £16000 and non audit fees of £4500.

The accounts still show heavy losses though, so how on earth we are going to arrive at the £1m profit Fisher hinted at I don't know (unless we received more for Maddison than is assumed).

Captain Dart · Dec 29, 2016

georgehudson said:
SP07 you seem remarkably well informed for an internet forum member,
toot toot here comes Billy Bullshit again...................................

That information is in the published accounts which you can download from CCFC website or Companies House website. Here is the part of the SBS&L accounts he got his info. from.

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2016

Would we be averaging as low as 2K in L2? I'd say 4-5K would be more realistic which would put us mid-table in terms of attendances so would quite possibly be self sustaining. Of course that is only self sustaining as in can keep plodding along, not enough to mount a serious promotion push.

Drop again to the conference and 1-2K should be enough to be self sustaining, especially if we move to the Butts.

Of course if the averages are that low a move to the Butts becomes more viable. Even more so if we drop to the conference as the ground could very quickly and cheaply be brought up to the required standard.

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 29, 2016

chiefdave said:
Would we be averaging as low as 2K in L2? I'd say 4-5K would be more realistic which would put us mid-table in terms of attendances so would quite possibly be self sustaining. Of course that is only self sustaining as in can keep plodding along, not enough to mount a serious promotion push.

Drop again to the conference and 1-2K should be enough to be self sustaining, especially if we move to the Butts.

Of course if the averages are that low a move to the Butts becomes more viable. Even more so if we drop to the conference as the ground could very quickly and cheaply be brought up to the required standard.

What would be the point. If we drop out of the FL we lose the "Golden Share" and become worthless.

Otis · Dec 29, 2016

chiefdave said:
Would we be averaging as low as 2K in L2? I'd say 4-5K would be more realistic which would put us mid-table in terms of attendances so would quite possibly be self sustaining. Of course that is only self sustaining as in can keep plodding along, not enough to mount a serious promotion push.

Drop again to the conference and 1-2K should be enough to be self sustaining, especially if we move to the Butts.

Of course if the averages are that low a move to the Butts becomes more viable. Even more so if we drop to the conference as the ground could very quickly and cheaply be brought up to the required standard.

Which as I have said several times, probably suits Sisu. No need for massive ground improvements or to build a new stadium.

Are we happy them dismantling our club though until we become so small we can exist on 2,000 crowds?

What has happened to us these past 20 years has been scandalous and that's not just these current owners.

Fisher Lost The Plot (6 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency