hutch1972
Well-Known Member
Owning the cub wouldn't make any difference to bring the case, but I see your point about possible amounts.
I suppose for every day they own us, they could get more.
Owning the cub wouldn't make any difference to bring the case, but I see your point about possible amounts.I can only think that there is a higher level of compensation from the legal action if they still own the club. Nothing else makes sense.
I thought that to offset tax on another company it had to be the same trade ?The losses that are made in the CCFC structure come under a portfolio of funds or businesses, buy showing losses in one of the portfolios you can offset the corporation tax owed on the profits made by your other investments in that porfolio. The more losses you can show mean the better returns in your other interests is as I understand it, waiting to be corrected by OSB. If you are running a cash neutral business that has heavy debts surely that means you earn more money in the others as the debts are owed to your own company all be it offshore.
The losses that are made in the CCFC structure come under a portfolio of funds or businesses, buy showing losses in one of the portfolios you can offset the corporation tax owed on the profits made by your other investments in that porfolio. The more losses you can show mean the better returns in your other interests is as I understand it, waiting to be corrected by OSB. If you are running a cash neutral business that has heavy debts surely that means you earn more money in the others as the debts are owed to your own company all be it offshore.
The losses that are made in the CCFC structure come under a portfolio of funds or businesses, buy showing losses in one of the portfolios you can offset the corporation tax owed on the profits made by your other investments in that porfolio. The more losses you can show mean the better returns in your other interests is as I understand it, waiting to be corrected by OSB. If you are running a cash neutral business that has heavy debts surely that means you earn more money in the others as the debts are owed to your own company all be it offshore.
If I remember, he said it was bollocks.
Maybe they've realised that if it is a good investment for someone else, then it is also a good investment for them.
The best way to get a good return on thier investment is to run the club properly. With the appointment of Mark Robins they seem to be doing this.
If there had been a new owner in March and they had appointed Robins and things had happened as they have been we would all be singing from the rooftops.
Personally I am prepared to let them continue. They seem to be doing things right.
Maybe they've realised that if it is a good investment for someone else, then it is also a good investment for them.
The best way to get a good return on thier investment is to run the club properly. With the appointment of Mark Robins they seem to be doing this.
If there had been a new owner in March and they had appointed Robins and things had happened as they have been we would all be singing from the rooftops.
Personally I am prepared to let them continue. They seem to be doing things right.
It would appear to everyone else , it would make sense for them to go . however , as they're here for 'none football reasons' i suspect it suits them to stay , for only reasons known to themselves .There definitely seems to be something happening and the signs are encouraging what with signings and Robins clearly throwing his lot behind an immediate return to Div 1. But we're dealing with sisu here, and when they've been asked to 'name their price', why haven't they leaped at it? You have to ask, why would they hang on if getting the best offer is no longer an issue! 'Name you price'...why haven't they?! We all know that getting rid of sisu would hail a new start for City, and I'm sure there would be a heightened sense of excitement, and the momentum could be incredible. This seems to be a no-brainer for sisu...but they just don't see it.....unless there's something we just don't get, and CCFC is a massive asset for sisu in their eyes, but how is it!! I'm baffled...
When did you have your lobotomy?
Where did this c*nt come from?Maybe they've realised that if it is a good investment for someone else, then it is also a good investment for them.
The best way to get a good return on thier investment is to run the club properly. With the appointment of Mark Robins they seem to be doing this.
If there had been a new owner in March and they had appointed Robins and things had happened as they have been we would all be singing from the rooftops.
Personally I am prepared to let them continue. They seem to be doing things right.
Maybe they've realised that if it is a good investment for someone else, then it is also a good investment for them.
The best way to get a good return on thier investment is to run the club properly. With the appointment of Mark Robins they seem to be doing this.
If there had been a new owner in March and they had appointed Robins and things had happened as they have been we would all be singing from the rooftops.
Personally I am prepared to let them continue. They seem to be doing things right.
A message we can all get behind, that!Indeed! SISU IN!!
Who?This guy Cashmore who's going to put money in and others yet to be named have serious money behind them
Top, bottom, it makes no difference to sisu...they are a law unto themselves that no one understands!!You don't sell at the bottom of the cycle :woot:
Maybe vastly oversimplifying...but the reason SISU hang on looks clear to me.
If you agree with the view that the club has significant debts, then it makes complete sense that SISU don't want a quick sell.
Even if they owe 40 million to their creditors, it is a 'good' debt if they are able to make small operating profits year on year (which they have been doing through cutting costs and player sales).
You could take the view that they are trying to take very few financial risks, and just get that small, slow burn year on year profit. The debt will come good in 40 years.
That's a great way to run a hedge fund: the creditors have supposedly invested millions, which will be realised over a long period of time with interest.
I think most of us agree though that it is not a good way to run a football club - slow servicing of a debt at the cost of our league status and an overall devaluing of our business.
SISU won't 'cut their losses' because they need their debt to be fully realised - so Hoffman et al need to buy the whole debt, whatever that is.
Do we know if Hoffman's consortium has the resources to do this, assuming SISU report £40-60m of debt on their books?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By your comment do you believe we are at the bottom or not ,personally I think we can still go farther yetYou don't sell at the bottom of the cycle :woot:
...'so Hoffman et al need to buy the whole debt, whatever that is'...presumably this would be included in 'name your price'...or it means nothing!
By your comment do you believe we are at the bottom or not ,personally I think we can still go farther yet
I go more on form than hope.Oh god...i hope you are wrong on that one!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was told that OSB has to wear Sunglasses when he reads them.It wouldn't surprise me if our accounts are somewhat colourful, to say the least.
If theres one thing being a Cov supporter has taught me its that things can always get worse!By your comment do you believe we are at the bottom or not ,personally I think we can still go farther yet
Didn't Marc McNulty have a fair bit of interest?
Doesn't really mean a lot. Remember many clubs were after Malaga when we bought him !
A bit like starbucks were doing I guess. Vertically integrated with the coffee beans producer and then sold the coffee beans at a ridiculous price to themselves so that the coffee beans producer made a healthy profit in a lower tax environment and the coffee shop side of the business broke even.I just thought of another way it would be advantageous to make a tax loss. Imagine an international company has to have an on-shore company to operate. Tax rates are high in this country, so it charges fees from an offshore company so that the on-shore one makes a loss. It then pays much less tax or nothing offshore.
However, I still cannot think of a scenario where the company wants to make a real trading loss.
Oh thank god you're ok. I was so worried about you after they released Lameiras. I'll let Interpol know you're alive and well!!There definitely seems to be something happening and the signs are encouraging what with signings and Robins clearly throwing his lot behind an immediate return to Div 1. But we're dealing with sisu here, and when they've been asked to 'name their price', why haven't they leaped at it? You have to ask, why would they hang on if getting the best offer is no longer an issue! 'Name you price'...why haven't they?! We all know that getting rid of sisu would hail a new start for City, and I'm sure there would be a heightened sense of excitement, and the momentum could be incredible. This seems to be a no-brainer for sisu...but they just don't see it.....unless there's something we just don't get, and CCFC is a massive asset for sisu in their eyes, but how is it!! I'm baffled...
Doesn't really mean a lot. Remember many clubs were after Malaga when we bought him !
Actually I'm not at all surprised...he's way too good for Div 2 football, and I look forward to seeing where he emerges next...Oh thank god you're ok. I was so worried about you after they released Lameiras. I'll let Interpol know you're alive and well!!
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?