oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just thoughts that have come to mind. Not saying they are anything more than something to think about. The way i look at it what follows should be viewed generally as positive
There are a number of problems faced by all the parties involved .......
SISU as owners Well the continuance of SISU as owners must be seriously in doubt. They need to hold on to the club to have any chance of a return on investment. They will need to prove that in the immediate future that CCFC is a viable business. That is going to be hard when they have repeatedly said CCFC is only viable if it has all the income streams ...... ACL are simply not going to let them have those income streams because they do not trust SISU at all. The only solution that SISU have is to successfully prove the lease/licence are illegal ........... that I think is a long shot for all sorts of reasons, but it would perhaps distress ACL to breaking point if they had to repay substantial funds. But time is not on their side because the longer it takes the more they need to fund, equally ACL will press for early conclusion of the admin process and it comes back to SISU cant make CCFC viable. There is no time to build a new ground and come May June July there is no real income for the club but the expenses remain
new owners 64 million dollar question are there any interested ? Possibly now that effectively the club could be on the market, at a low price
Income streams I think people have been missing a trick. The income streams from all sources other than rent and stadium sponsorship now rest in IEC Limited. That company formed April 2012 is owned 77% by ACL and 23% by Compass who paid £4m for their 23%. That would possibly value the company at £17.4m on a very simplistic basis. What it does offer is the possibility of CCFC new owners purchasing the rights to alll (not just matchday income) that IEC has. That would include the turnover in CCFC group accounts with implications for FFP, but it also gives CCFC the profits. All without owning the ground or even 50% of ACL. Would that make CCFC more attractive to a new owner? would that leave ACL/Council?charity in control of the site ? Probably yes to both. The club can drive the income streams and benefit 365 days a year
sale of income steams
Say ACl sell the interest in IEC for £14m. They repay the loan perhaps ? Leaves the balance sheet of ACL group at something like worth £17m, takes away all the leverage that TF etc keep saying is such a threat and makes ACL apparently worthless. It leaves ACL as a landlord with no great costs but reasonably substantial income.
Leases There has been talk of giving CCFC a 99 or 125 year lease. That would make sense, gives the club an asset and so long as there are suitable safeguards to protect club and city why not? However i wonder if we are talking 1 or 2 leases. The council could negotiate a new 99year lease with ACL now. That gives that company worth and an asset. It allows ACL to give CCFC a similar 99 year lease. The reason i suggest 2 leases is that it creates worth while maintaining control for ACL/council for a period until they are sure of any new owners CCFC may acquire.
Charity Well I think we all realise that the charity wants out to do other things. Ideally by getting at least what it has cost. Would the above provide ACL with greater worth and therefore the charity benefits at full value rather than a loss of investment? I do not think they would seek to "rip" the deal off. But the deal can be done in a timely way when there is trust and confidence in CCFC once more. Buying 50% is perhaps not necessary or possible from the off.
administration Looks likely to me, SISU will fight it but given they cant get the extra income streams how do they prove that CCFC is viable. It isnt about some general letter saying SISU will back it, is there a viable business without gaining the additional income streams? Can SISU get those income streams? Does that leave no other choice but administration?
ACL rental loss Heard a couple of football finance guys saying didnt understand why ACL did it they will lose £1.4m. Will they ? They have drawn down the Escrow and been paid £300k in match expenses..... £1.4m loss i do not think so. In administration the existing contract remains so administrator will have to pay it or come to some arrangement. Dont be confused by the club being sued for £1.4m .... its just how the law works you sue for the full amount under the contract the sttlement can and is often different. Oh and ACL got judgement on the debt last August and again in December which went unchallenged. Also factor in do ACL have a valid claim on the 3rd party debts...... so the rent loss doesnt appear to be £1.4m overall.
financial know how some go on about the expertise SISU have in business, and that ACL Council & charity are amateurs. Well even amateurs can buy expertise in. SISU are experts in hedge funds they buy other expertise in, they now have knowledge of a football club...... ACL Have expertise in Council and charity tax& law, they buy in Legal, tax, finance and accountany advice, they have knowledge of stadium/event management and knowledge by many years of association of aspects of football club management. There has in my opinion already been some clever thinking done by ACL, where as it would appear that SISU were focussed on only one path to what is needed
site development the way it seems set up then it seems flexible. ACL could sell those rights to a new club owner or they could bring in a separate developer as a partner that could do it knowing that CCFC can benefit from it because they have the income streams. That in itself opens up the investor pool that can look at this
I do not see where SISU have to go with this but i am sure there is a plan
ACL can make the whole thing attractive to investors if they choose to be reasonable in their demands and expectations.
Bottom line is there are options, there is some flexibility, there is reason to have some positive thoughts....... i think there will be people interested, but thats the big question isnt it
like i said just some thoughts
There are a number of problems faced by all the parties involved .......
SISU as owners Well the continuance of SISU as owners must be seriously in doubt. They need to hold on to the club to have any chance of a return on investment. They will need to prove that in the immediate future that CCFC is a viable business. That is going to be hard when they have repeatedly said CCFC is only viable if it has all the income streams ...... ACL are simply not going to let them have those income streams because they do not trust SISU at all. The only solution that SISU have is to successfully prove the lease/licence are illegal ........... that I think is a long shot for all sorts of reasons, but it would perhaps distress ACL to breaking point if they had to repay substantial funds. But time is not on their side because the longer it takes the more they need to fund, equally ACL will press for early conclusion of the admin process and it comes back to SISU cant make CCFC viable. There is no time to build a new ground and come May June July there is no real income for the club but the expenses remain
new owners 64 million dollar question are there any interested ? Possibly now that effectively the club could be on the market, at a low price
Income streams I think people have been missing a trick. The income streams from all sources other than rent and stadium sponsorship now rest in IEC Limited. That company formed April 2012 is owned 77% by ACL and 23% by Compass who paid £4m for their 23%. That would possibly value the company at £17.4m on a very simplistic basis. What it does offer is the possibility of CCFC new owners purchasing the rights to alll (not just matchday income) that IEC has. That would include the turnover in CCFC group accounts with implications for FFP, but it also gives CCFC the profits. All without owning the ground or even 50% of ACL. Would that make CCFC more attractive to a new owner? would that leave ACL/Council?charity in control of the site ? Probably yes to both. The club can drive the income streams and benefit 365 days a year
sale of income steams
Say ACl sell the interest in IEC for £14m. They repay the loan perhaps ? Leaves the balance sheet of ACL group at something like worth £17m, takes away all the leverage that TF etc keep saying is such a threat and makes ACL apparently worthless. It leaves ACL as a landlord with no great costs but reasonably substantial income.
Leases There has been talk of giving CCFC a 99 or 125 year lease. That would make sense, gives the club an asset and so long as there are suitable safeguards to protect club and city why not? However i wonder if we are talking 1 or 2 leases. The council could negotiate a new 99year lease with ACL now. That gives that company worth and an asset. It allows ACL to give CCFC a similar 99 year lease. The reason i suggest 2 leases is that it creates worth while maintaining control for ACL/council for a period until they are sure of any new owners CCFC may acquire.
Charity Well I think we all realise that the charity wants out to do other things. Ideally by getting at least what it has cost. Would the above provide ACL with greater worth and therefore the charity benefits at full value rather than a loss of investment? I do not think they would seek to "rip" the deal off. But the deal can be done in a timely way when there is trust and confidence in CCFC once more. Buying 50% is perhaps not necessary or possible from the off.
administration Looks likely to me, SISU will fight it but given they cant get the extra income streams how do they prove that CCFC is viable. It isnt about some general letter saying SISU will back it, is there a viable business without gaining the additional income streams? Can SISU get those income streams? Does that leave no other choice but administration?
ACL rental loss Heard a couple of football finance guys saying didnt understand why ACL did it they will lose £1.4m. Will they ? They have drawn down the Escrow and been paid £300k in match expenses..... £1.4m loss i do not think so. In administration the existing contract remains so administrator will have to pay it or come to some arrangement. Dont be confused by the club being sued for £1.4m .... its just how the law works you sue for the full amount under the contract the sttlement can and is often different. Oh and ACL got judgement on the debt last August and again in December which went unchallenged. Also factor in do ACL have a valid claim on the 3rd party debts...... so the rent loss doesnt appear to be £1.4m overall.
financial know how some go on about the expertise SISU have in business, and that ACL Council & charity are amateurs. Well even amateurs can buy expertise in. SISU are experts in hedge funds they buy other expertise in, they now have knowledge of a football club...... ACL Have expertise in Council and charity tax& law, they buy in Legal, tax, finance and accountany advice, they have knowledge of stadium/event management and knowledge by many years of association of aspects of football club management. There has in my opinion already been some clever thinking done by ACL, where as it would appear that SISU were focussed on only one path to what is needed
site development the way it seems set up then it seems flexible. ACL could sell those rights to a new club owner or they could bring in a separate developer as a partner that could do it knowing that CCFC can benefit from it because they have the income streams. That in itself opens up the investor pool that can look at this
I do not see where SISU have to go with this but i am sure there is a plan
ACL can make the whole thing attractive to investors if they choose to be reasonable in their demands and expectations.
Bottom line is there are options, there is some flexibility, there is reason to have some positive thoughts....... i think there will be people interested, but thats the big question isnt it
like i said just some thoughts
Last edited:
