Petition To check legality of CCFC purchase to the FL (1 Viewer)

[SkyBlueSwiss]

But surely you accept 75% of people on here do not attend anyway. Do a poll of season ticket holders only and them see the result.

Fisher has said CCFC Ltd will not play at the Ricoh and that strictly speaking should be true as imam sure they are trading insolvently and so will be liquidated in accordance with British laws governing such matters.

Sorry, I forgot to answer the first part of your response:
At the forums, I would assume that almost 100% were either season ticket holders or regulars at the Ricoh, and they voted 95% against SISU/Fisher by a show of hands. That seems pretty conclusive to me.
Over 12,000 people signed the Telegraph poll, and while quite clearly a large number were not season ticket holders or people who regularly attended games, I must assume that several thousand of that 12,000 were paying supporters.
I could be wrong, but I believe you are fighting an unwinnable rear-guard action here Grendel, and you are going to have to accept that SISU/Fisher have alienated a significant portion of the paying fan base to the extent that they will indeed not pay one penny more until SISU are gone.

Clearly there will be more people who will go if we pay at the Ricoh - despite Fisher's most strenuous protests I assume - than if we truly go into ground-sharing mode, but I would indeed not be surprised if the numbers were halved over the prior season, and if the team does badly (which I think is a serious possibility given the stated objectives of both the club and the new manager), then I think we will see crowds of less than a thousand if groundsharing and under 3,000 if playing at the Ricoh.
You do not seem to realise just how many bridges have been burned. For instance, we international crowd are more active and numerous than you stay-at-home stick-in-the-muds know. There are thousands of us, and we pay our "season tickets" in the form of internet access to the Player. We buy shirts and scarves etc. and sometimes we actually get to games when we are in the UK. Some were shareholders before SISU forced the recall of the shares. You might dismiss us because we are not season ticket holders, but SISU know better than to scorn us and they solicit our money as avidly as they solicit your season ticket money Grendel. There are thousands of us all over the world and though you disparage us we are worth a lot of money to the club.

 

---

[wingy]

Plural........

 

[grego_gee]

I do try to be polite, though some posters make that difficult!
A question: We have done nothing but make significant losses since we were somewhat roughly and forcefully acquired by SISU.
And yet, the accounts that have been submitted show that CCFC Ltd. were charged many millions for "management fees" by other SISU-owned companies. Now let us be very clear; you are an intelligent person, and we both know full well that "management fees" simply means that money is taken out of one group entity to the benefit of another group entity without having to go through the bothersome routine of declaring dividends, ESPECIALLY when there are no profits to be distributed.
I have been an international accountant for over 40 years, and you can believe me when I tell you I understand transfer pricing issues, and I know exactly what forms of intercompany charges there are, how they are applied, how different countries apply different rules and how corporations try to get around them. The truth of the matter is that "management fees" are rarely truly justified. In the same manner "intercompany interest" is rarely justified as the loans on which the interest charges are based would usually be considered as hidden equity and therefore not subject to an interest charge.
To my mind, the "management fees" and the "intercompany interests" charged to the CCFC Ltd are as artificial as the structures SISU has put in place to "lie and cheat" their way out of fulfilling their obligations to an entity that was set up to save our football club from it's own stupidities under prior ownerships.

I pick on these charges because they are an easy target to identify from the accounts, but as OSB and others have pointed out, these are just the tip of the financial iceberg in the group accounts and the accounts of the football club. (e.g. ask yourself why the contracts of the players were in holding when all the expense of playing football was in Ltd., then think on the transfer fees received since SISU have been the owners).

So, given all of this, why is it your opinion that SISU have hardly taken anything out of the club?
My opinion is that they have taken millions out of the club when the club has never made a profit since they have been owners.

Yes good points Swiss,
but SISU have never made any pretense that they were a charity.
Their reason for being involved is for money!
My referrence to 1p in every 5p was in relation to the direct sales that people are contemplating withholding on ticket sales and merchandise.
That is where the notonepenymore campaign would be aimed.
The point I am making is that money cannot be withheld from SISU without withholding far more from the club!
20% would be a normal margin on such sales and even that would account for £2m in a turnover of £10m.
"management fees" and "intercompany interest" are a fact of life do you really think it would be any different if we were owned by Haskell or even ACL?
Even if a much higher margin was taken even at 100% margin you still could not withhold 1p from SISU without withholding 1p from the club.

imp:

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Yes good points Swiss,
but SISU have never made any pretense that they were a charity.
Their reason for being involved is for money!
My referrence to 1p in every 5p was in relation to the direct sales that people are contemplating withholding on ticket sales and merchandise.
That is where the notonepenymore campaign would be aimed.
The point I am making is that money cannot be withheld from SISU without withholding far more from the club!
20% would be a normal margin on such sales and even that would account for £2m in a turnover of £10m.
"management fees" and "intercompany interest" are a fact of life do you really think it would be any different if we were owned by Haskell or even ACL?
Even if a much higher margin was taken even at 100% margin you still could not withhold 1p from SISU without withholding 1p from the club.

imp:

Agreed, SISU is here for the money, which automatically makes them the worst kind of owners of a football club. Surely you see that?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Agreed, SISU is here for the money, which automatically makes them the worst kind of owners of a football club. Surely you see that?

I see that, I struggle to see an alternative not here for the money however. Find me one and I'd welcome them with open arms.

 

[grego_gee]

Agreed, SISU is here for the money, which automatically makes them the worst kind of owners of a football club. Surely you see that?

Maybe I missed some earlier posting!

How many other owners in the English league aren't in it for the money?

imp:

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Maybe I missed some earlier posting!

How many other owners in the English league aren't in it for the money?

imp:

Sorry for the late reply - I have actually been to bed in the meantime!
I believe that most football club owners are in it for the prestige and the glamour, and certainly not for the money.
Very few football clubs make money, but nearly all football clubs lose money, so most owners probably are not in it for the money. Is Abramivic in it for the money? The Glaziers? You tell me.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Sorry for the late reply - I have actually been to bed in the meantime!
I believe that most football club owners are in it for the prestige and the glamour, and certainly not for the money.
Very few football clubs make money, but nearly all football clubs lose money, so most owners probably are not in it for the money. Is Abramivic in it for the money? The Glaziers? You tell me.

Abramovic,his plaything
Glaziers now youre talking cash cow and how