blueflint
Well-Known Member
I never said it was a good deal don't put words into my mouth bud and I never said it wasn't unlike you so you are expressing
your opinion I was merely pointing this out as you never said it
Can you expand on why it's a good offer with why etc?
"in your opinion" is a bit lazy isn't it, usually when you have no idea how to actually prove it wrong.
I ask again why would a City fan be worried about Sisus debt? I for one couldn't give a fuck about it. I would want a coventry consortium to get the club for as little as possible. But each to their own I suppose. Looking forward to the next piece in the local chip wrapper where poor old Sisu are being shafted by evil local mafia dons.
I never said it was a good deal don't put words into my mouth bud and I never said it wasn't unlike you so you are expressing
your opinion I was merely pointing this out as you never said it
Both they could have nogotiated and changed.The championship squad where wages were exceeding income by half a million a month with the small matter of paying a £1.3 million rent
No I'm asking you no amount would be enough would it? You would still have a go, just ask your mate at the observer about what you should sayRead the answers from last time you asked?
It's all well and good asking a question to try and make out something that isn't being said, but you don't need to do the same again after!
People seem to just focus on the pound?
No I'm asking you no amount would be enough would it? You would still have a go, just ask your mate at the observer about what you should say
But didn't they take it on with quite a bit of debt?
You Included by the sound of it.
I think I'm right in saying this and please correct me if I'm wrong OSB or anyone else but didn't the amount that they paid in hard cash for the debt actually equated to around £500K? I.e. less than the GH bid has offered up front with no debt carried forward? Wouldn't that actually mean that the GH bid is offering to settle the debt at a higher price than SISU ever did? Fair enough the likelihood of SISU ever receiving the premier league add on is low but then they never had to pay one out themselves, also the chances of them receiving the league 2 to league 1 add on has to be high and the league 1 to championship bonus has to have fairly favorable odds too. Fact is we will sell as well in the next 3 years, it's very easy to say just don't sell for the next three years but the reality is that the club regardless of owner would be stupid to not except half of something now than lose a player on a free at the end of their contract and get nothing. When you keep saying "what did SISU get for their £1 the answer (unless some one can correct me) is more than GH will be getting for his £1+M pound and rising with add on's some of which will be unavoidable.
It's OK, giving away income streams going forward is absolutely fine. What could possibly go wrong...The championship squad where wages were exceeding income by half a million a month with the small matter of paying a £1.3 million rent
You tell me? I don't think it is when compared to what SISU got for their pound. It's you who keeps bringing it up as if GH will be getting a better deal than SISU did for their £1. I just don't see it myself. Unless you can explain it.
Don't think its that different. IIRC didn't the SISU takeover have add ons based on promotion to the premier league, some of the debt was wiped off and some of the debt was settled at a much lower value than what it stood at with limited debt carried forward?
They also got a championship squad and Ryton for their pound didn't they? Not to mention a much better starting point for rebuilding the club.
It's probably not wise to compare the GH bid with the deal that originally brought SISU here. You may find it stacks up as equal maybe even better.
I am saying the offer is completely different.
I posted the link as it was discussed in there already.
I can understand why...Not directed at you tony as such, but I don't understand why people cant see the difference.
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise are they? Just some seem to be trying to make out that it isn't even as good as what SISU got for their pound. I don't agree with that from my understanding, rightly or wrongly. You seem to be promoting the idea that it isn't as good a deal as what SISU got for their pound. If I've got that wrong I apologise, if I haven't I'm all ears. Please explain why the GH offer isn't as good as the the deal that led to SISU taking control of the club in the first place?
Its very different both in the accounting and finances.
Buy the company and you take over the liabilities. Buy the assets you don't.
The buy out in 2008 involved quite simple accounting tricks - all totally legal. SISU took responsibility for the debts introduced them into a new company then purchased CCFC H Ltd leaving debts as intercompany the losses in place. The 2008 CCFC H accounts show amounts owed to group companies of £28m - that's a year end 4mths after SISU took over. Had the debt been wiped out there would have been a corresponding decrease in the debts and losses of CCFC H and then those losses could not have been transferred and converted in to preference shares in Otium. They also provided £571k in cash at time of purchase so it wasn't just £1 paid (which as another poster put on here was actually £5.58 in any case). CCFC H was worthless, it was so far in debt that the assets when revalued (and they were revalued) did not come close to creating a positive so was sold for a fiver.
Hoffman is trying to buy the assets & right to trade less football creditors (liabilities to players, manager, other clubs & FA/FL) that is very different. It is not buying the shares in Otium, so not buying Otium at all so not taking on the total assets less total liabilities of that company then discounting loans etc as was the case when CCFC H was bought. There are therefore no contingent liabilities to agree to cover a valuation unless GH wants to offer them.
Not directed at you tony as such, but I don't understand why people cant see the difference. The 2008 deal was buying the company so a deal on the debt had to be done. Hoffman is not buying the company which means he is leaving the debt and ordinary creditors behind (excluding Football creditors) full stop. Valuations now or then of CCFC H Ltd or Otium Entertainment Ltd are irrelevant to the Hoffman bid. He isn't buying any company
Buy the company and the money goes to the shareholders. Buy the assets and the money all goes to ARVO. The value of the company shares is a lot less than the value of just the company assets because of the effect of the total creditors. Also this is not a distressed sale because of impending administration or liquidation in any case which it was in 2008
The deal has in reality nothing at all to do with valuing this asset or that asset or discounting loans or writing them off. It is simply about fixing a price, how it is structured then walking away with all the assets and selected creditors. SISU will still own/control Otium should Hoffman do the deal
Last Otium accounts showed the following assets at historical cost (ie not at market value)
Players & trademark £181k - even our squad is worth far more than that.
Freehold property £341k - good luck buying Ryton for that
Equipment, fixtures etc £86k - probably not revaluation likely
The trademark and right to trade was purchased 2013 as part of the £1.5m distressed value paid to the administrator.
Hoffman would deduct the football creditors - not likely to be a lot as we are told everything being kept up to date
(Even at the values above more than £1 or £5.58) To sell the assets you would have to value them at todays market value.
It is generally accepted amongst the fans that the shares in Otium are worthless, but as I say no one is buying the Otium shares
SISU are not in a mood to sell to him, therefore any offer that could be successful would have to be at a price in excess of the value of the above items. Which means the deal has no basis in the true assets value at all. It is simply what ever it takes to get rid of them.
In all honesty i do not as yet see any real pressure that will make them go. Lot of noise yes but real pressure? SISU can sit and wait because the club is parked has been for a couple of years, they are not investing so their situation gets no worse, costs will be cut (wages in particular decrease next season as well as income) and if necessary they can sell a player to help fund it. They also know that get a bit of success and people will start going to watch again. There will be lower crowds in L2 at least to start but no crowd would still leave them with income. In terms of what they have whether it is classed as 20000 potential or people actually going there isn't a lot of difference in our situation when valuing it - they will not build a stadium simply because it might get them more the reality is it would probably not after you deduct the funding & finance costs they would need to put in upfront
It isn't therefore whether its a good or fair offer from our point of view it is whether it is good enough for SISU to be interested and go. Right now they are saying what they have been offered isn't no where close
I can see the difference. What I'm trying to understand is what was the actual cost SISU to take over in the first place including how much debt was actually settled in that deal, how much had been settled since and how much has been written of, especially during the admin of Ltd and how much remains of the original debt today.
People keep saying they took the debt on, fair enough. But what did it actually cost them in real terms? The answer seems to be the £571K you mention in your post. If that's the case then the reality is SISU will be getting a better settlement on the current debt than they ever paid out to settle the original debt that they took on, meaning that in real terms of hard cash. Paying the debt (or a share off to settle it) and taking it on aren't the same thing if all the debt does is sit on a spread sheet never to be paid of.
Where have I said it's a better / worse deal than SISU would got? I have said it's completely different and can't really be compared to the £1 that Hoffman keeps going on about.
People keep saying "they only paid a £1 themselves" or "it's worthless anyway". What Hoffman is trying to buy isn't worthless, which is why SISU aren't entertaining it.
QFT.No one is interested in SISU's debt - what we want to know is what is the price for them to go and is there any way it could or should be met. Nothing to do with valuation of Otium or even the value of the assets. Nothing to do with what they paid for CCFC H Ltd.
Oh so we are talking about wages now not player worths? Which one is it?The championship squad where wages were exceeding income by half a million a month with the small matter of paying a £1.3 million rent
You haven't, in so many words. But when anyone mentions that SISU got the club for a £1 (OK it was actually £5.58 but whatever) you're quick to ask what did SISU get for their pound. Maybe you were saying it in agreement. Didn't sound like it though.
What SISU bought wasn't worthless either. It had a lot of the same assets including a more valuable squad, yes they took the debt's on but they seem to have done it in such a way that what they actually settled in the end of that debt is a lot less in the pound than what GH is proposing to settle the current debt. The only difference from what I can see is that the GH bid is attempting to shortcut the shedding of debt which inevitably will be to the benefit of the club whereas SISU were happy to let the debt remain on the books to the determent of the the club and the benefit of SISU.
Which is why I also said from the start that GH needs to address the balance of the bid i.e. more up front and less add on's or even less assets i.e. let Ryton go. SISU are going to have to crystalise their debt in any takeover of the club regardless of who buys it. But i think people are being blind sided by the SISU took on the debt line like they settled the debt and it cost them real money. I keep asking but I see no evidence that that ever happened.
Had SISU done the same deal as Hoffman in 2008 it would have cost them £7m just to buy the assets listed in the 2008 accounts.
What SISU did buy was worthless, because the debts and liabilities were much higher than the assets. That's why what Hoffman is trying to buy isn't worthless as he keeps saying. If they tried to do the same offer Hoffman wants then of course it wouldn't have been worthless.
I asked what they got for the £1 to point out it's completely different to what Hoffman is buying.
All that's happening is misinformation, it's no different to the "Sisu have put in £70m" or whatever they claim from their end.
They took on debt and liabilities that sat on the books. What did they actually settle in the end of those debt and liabilities? What did it cost them in real terms? Are those debt's and liabilities still sitting on the books today?
Had SISU done the same deal as Hoffman in 2008 it would have cost them £7m just to buy the assets listed in the 2008 accounts.
And it would be exactly the same if that's what Hoffman was trying to do / bid for... That's where and why it's different.
If Hoffman takes those on to sit on the books, then of course it's worthless.
I have no idea, but it's more likely than then writing them all off and giving him just the good bits for a fraction of their worth.And do you think Arvo/Sisu would just allow those amounts to sit on the books?
Can I just quickly say I've not got a fucking clue what's going on even after OSB's post and won't be pretending to like some people.
you should, it makes you feel all brainy.
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?