How close is a takeover really...? (2 Viewers)

[standupforcity]

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...

 

---

[hill83]

 

[dongonzalos]

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.

 

[Kingokings204]

Maybe it's who is buying the club that they have a problem with?

Maybe they are in too deep just like a gambler? They can't walk away now

Maybe they get more compo if they stay on?

Maybe we are a tax offset for them?

Who knows

 

[higgs]

Bottom of the football league pyramid now maybe seen sense that unless we are in the championship they will have massive losses if they sell now.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Ricketts]

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.

 

[hill83]

Personally I am prepared to let them continue. They seem to be doing things right.

Brave

 

[skybluetony176]

Nothing will happen for at least a year IMO. I can't see them selling until the end of next season at the earliest myself. We'll either be promoted and their expectations of what the club is worth will be higher making them more likely to be interested in offers. Plus they will feel that they can save face as they haven't sold at the bottom of the cycle. Or if we don't get promoted they might then throw the towel in and be willing to talk with someone, although I wouldn't hold my breath on that one because of the aforementioned saving face by not selling at the bottom of the cycle.

The longer this attempted takeover has gone on the more I'm convinced that Hoff missed the boat this season and that SISU would have been more receptive before Xmas when they didn't know what they were dealing with. Once relegation was confirmed it was too late as SISU knew what they would be dealing with next season.

Hope I'm wrong but I think that the possibility of any takeover is dead in the water for another 12 months.

 

[zuni]

I feel it's all over

 

[hill83]

Hope I'm wrong but I think that the possibility of any takeover is dead in the water for another 12 months.

I'd snap my own hand off for that to be right. 12 months is nothing.

 

[Suffolk sky blues]

Very strange God knows.one thing they regret buying ccfc.so why not walk away.

 

[NortonSkyBlue]

Brave

Yes respect! How about a Go Wasps!!! Ricketts?

 

[mrtrench]

Because naming a price weakens their negotiations. If they state, say, £50m and the buyers would have gone up to £55m they lose £5m. If they keep silent they can refuse £49m and the next bid may exceed their price - which of course they accept.

Also, they are not losing any more money; they may believe that by remaining owners of the club it strengthens their cases in court; they are holding fans to ransom - they don't care too much if we don't perform well on the field - all that matters is the money. As long as a drop in revenue doesn't lead to an increase in investment they don't care too much - and they always have the possibility that one day a manager does something remarkable; or we reap wads in player sales.

 

[Nick]

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.

What's being done right? Only thing I can see looking better is recruitment and it's not down to them.

Heavy night on the gear last night?

 

[hutch1972]

Brave

My God, very brave.
For me , even if we reach the prem in 3 years I will NEVER forgive or forget how they have reduced this club to rubble.
Thanks to them and others we currently have what could be called a part time set up in all but name. It's going to take more than a couple of signings to change that.

 

[skybluetony176]

I'd snap my own hand off for that to be right. 12 months is nothing.

Depends on what type of twelve months we have. If it's a twelve months like the last it could be a disaster for the club.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Maybe CCFC is used as a tax loss vehicle?

 

[hutch1972]

What's being done right? Only thing I can see looking better is recruitment and it's not down to them.

Heavy night on the gear last night?

While we're on recruitment, ok we have signed players but if the ones offered new contracts don't stay , effectively that would mean £0 investment.

 

[Nick]

Maybe CCFC is used as a tax loss vehicle?

How does that work? People keep saying that but don't explain it.

 

[Nick]

While we're on recruitment, ok we have signed players but if the ones offered new contracts don't stay , effectively that would mean £0 investment.

I don't think anybody has been shouting about investment, just the money we do have been better spent and a bit of a plan.

 

[hutch1972]

How does that work? People keep saying that but don't explain it.

You would need someone from HMRC to answer that one.
Tax and business laws in the UK are a minefield and it wouldn't surprise me if our accounts are somewhat colourful, to say the least.

 

[skybluetony176]

While we're on recruitment, ok we have signed players but if the ones offered new contracts don't stay , effectively that would mean £0 investment.

Which is a good point. Yes last years squad got us relegated but the signings we have made it's not exactly like we swooped in and signed them ahead of any teams in higher leagues than us or any of the teams that you'd expect to be pushing for promotion and playoff places from league two next season. On the face of it they may seem like good signings and we're ahead of the game but we're yet to see who's leaving, who they were actually replacements for an which direction those players move.

Like you also point out when compared to transfer fees received there may have been no investment what so ever. It's more likely that the Wembley windfall has given MR some tools to start early than SISU giving him the tools to do the job.

 

[mrtrench]

Maybe CCFC is used as a tax loss vehicle?

By an offshore fund - very likely.

 

[Nick]

By an offshore fund - very likely.

How does it work?

 

[rybccfc]

What's being done right? Only thing I can see looking better is recruitment and it's not down to them.

Heavy night on the gear last night?

Dont allways agree with nick, but that is bang on and funny af!

 

[Nick]

Which is a good point. Yes last years squad got us relegated but the signings we have made it's not exactly like we swooped in and signed them ahead of any teams in higher leagues than us or any of the teams that you'd expect to be pushing for promotion and playoff places from league two next season. On the face of it they may seem like good signings and we're ahead of the game but we're yet to see who's leaving, who they were actually replacements for an which direction those players move.

Like you also point out when compared to transfer fees received there may have been no investment what so ever. It's more likely that the Wembley windfall has given MR some tools to start early than SISU giving him the tools to do the job.

Didn't Marc McNulty have a fair bit of interest?

 

[mrtrench]

Maybe CCFC is used as a tax loss vehicle?

Could you explain to me how it is ever an advantage to lose money, even if you avoid tax, because I don't understand it? Here's my maths: If the holding company were onshore and if it were not a fund (neither of which are true - but let's just imagine for a minute): If SISU were paying the highest rate of corporation tax and made a profit of £100 they would have to pay £21 in tax. However the proposition is that they would prefer to lose £100 on CCFC to avoid paying £21. The only time it makes sense to me is when tax rates are greater than 100%.

 

[mrtrench]

How does it work?

An offshore fund? Well first, it's a fund - so the profits don't even belong to SISU, they belong to the owners of the fund. SISU only profits from fees, which are probably a percentage of the value of the fund. And secondly, because it's offshore, they don't pay tax anyway.

 

[Nick]

An offshore fund? Well first, it's a fund - so the profits don't even belong to SISU, they belong to the owners of the fund. SISU only profits from fees, which are probably a percentage of the value of the fund. And secondly, because it's offshore, they don't pay tax anyway.

I meant the tax loss stuff

You said very likely, but then your other reply says its not!

 

[mrtrench]

I meant the tax loss stuff

You said very likely, but then your other reply says its not!

You need a sarcasm emoji.

The only time that a tax loss makes sense IMO (and Old Sky Blue may know others) is when you lose money (and you never want to do that) you recognise it in the P/L immediately. So for example, if I have to buy a machine for £100 which has 5 years of use in it, the fair way to account would be to charge £20 to P/L every year. But if I wanted to cook the books I would put the £100 to P/L immediately as I buy it. That's not legal in the UK.

 

[Nick]

You need a sarcasm emoji.

The only time that a tax loss makes sense IMO (and Old Sky Blue may know others) is when you lose money (and you never want to do that) you recognise it in the P/L immediately. So for example, if I have to buy a machine for £100 which has 5 years of use in it, the fair way to account would be to charge £20 to P/L every year. But if I wanted to cook the books I would put the £100 to P/L immediately as I buy it. That's not legal in the UK.

Put a wink, I realised when I saw your 2nd reply

 

[mrtrench]

Put a wink, I realised when I saw your 2nd reply

Yeah, but that's not very 'dry' is it? Honestly, I thought the proposition so absurd that it would be obvious - not having a go.

 

[Nick]

Yeah, but that's not very 'dry' is it? Honestly, I thought the proposition so absurd that it would be obvious - not having a go.

You say that on a website where somebody thought Tim Fisher engineered the checkatrade win...

 

[mrtrench]

You say that on a website where somebody thought Tim Fisher engineered the checkatrade win...

Ah well, I believe that. He did it as a tax loss vehicle.

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

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.