Nick
Administrator
He said it on another thread.
I'm not sure what your point is about the copy and paste, OSB pointed out they had been paid a decent chunk.
Where has he said they were "Money laundering?"
How much are directors Joy Seppala and Dermot Coleman taking out of the business?
The directors received payments totalling £431,505 - up from £59,565 in the previous year.
A total of £366,399 was categorised as “allocation of profits”. The directors took no profits out of the firm in the previous year.
Mr Carvell said: “The two directors were paid £431,505. The highest paid director got £301,089.
“That’s not necessarily cash - it could be benefits, like cars, the business has signed off for those directors.
“They’ve made a huge amount of profit and they’ve taken it.”
What frustrates me immensely is that there is enough to go on to attack SISU and their ownership of CCFC without making huge assumptions that actually are tenuous at best, but others take as fact. Now there may be some benefit to SISU somewhere in this but the accounts do not show any direct link, and indirect links are conjecture.
-The £1.3m interest charge was in Otium accounts to 31/05/15. SISU accounts just released are for year to 31/03/16. Yes they overlap, by two months but are largely different periods
- It is absolutely clear in both the Otium and SBS&L accounts 2015 & 2014 that there was no physical movement of funds to pay interest in year to 2015 or 2014. (see the cash flow statement and notes regarding loans and interest)
- Interest shown in 2015 otium accounts is due to ARVO not SISU Capital Ltd. ARVO results are not consolidated in to the SISU Capital accounts so the interest charges due to ARVO would not show as SISU Capital Turnover in any case. That means that the SISU turnover 2016 could not be the same interest charge in Otium accounts 2015.
- Yes ARVO is related to SISU Capital but is not a SISU Capital Subsidiary. SISU do source income from it via SCPLLP some years, SCPLLP manage ARVO investment funds. CCFC do not appear to be the only ARVO investment and have not physically paid ARVO any interest in 2015 or 2014
- SISU Capital Ltd accounts list the source of income in 2016 as SISU Capital Partners LLP (SCPLLP) and SISU Capital international limited (SCIL). In theory the funds A-E/ARVO could have contributed something to the SCPLLP income relating to CCFC but so would the sale of Abacus Alpha in January 2016 (see my post 73 above). The evidence available suggests that CCFC is not the only investment held by funds A-E or ARVO managed by SCPLLP. In 2015 the source of income for SISU Capital Ltd was SCIL alone and as far we know that entity has no interest in CCFC/Otium/SBS&L at all
- Is a lender not entitled to charge interest on an unsecured loan? Even then it is hardly a benefit if it cant be or isn't drawn
- the employee benefit Trust. This is a strange one because you would expect this to be entirely separate to the SISU Capital Group accounts. Yes there could be a charge but why is it shown as a SISU Capital Asset, the whole purpose is to take it away from the company. I can only assume it is there because as well as contributing SISU control the investment. But I always understood that contributions had to be seen to be paid, the SISU Capital Accounts could seem to imply non payment because as well as the investment there is a liability equal to the investment. Perhaps it is just to include the asset and the book entry is dr asset cr liability.
- total costs of SISU Capital Ltd are £1092908. Wages costs £455171, Other costs disclosed in note 3 are £135326 = total £590497 that leaves amount left to cover remaining expenses £502411 (stuff like rates, insurance, professional memberships, computer maintenance, travel, and employee benefit trust contribution). The apparent contribution to the Employee Benefit Scheme to also include in costs is £613684. Something does not seem to add up.
- wages costs did not drop because they took a wage reduction it would seem there are 4 less employees in 2016 compared to 2015
All the above is taken from published audited accounts.
Whether we like it or not SISU are contractually entitled to earn from the investments they manage for their investors and have been entitled to well before investing via those same funds in CCFC. How much is charged to CCFC is the question and is it fair and reasonable - perfectly valid to question that. No evidence is shown of any such charges in any of the related financial statements. So claims by some taken as fact that it goes on are conjecture, guesswork and assumption nothing more
We wont be able to compare Otium/SBS&L to SISU Capital better until we have the OTIUM/SBS&L accounts to 31/05/16 due out in February
The bit that frustrates about stuff like this is that Juggy is well known and people take in what he says and a lot believe it. When in actual fact it is jumping to conclusions that might look right but there is not a lot of evidence to support when you actually look in to it (see above)
Stick to the facts we know, question certainly, but don't dress up assumption as fact. Doing so only brings misdirection, confusion. weakens the challenge to SISU and makes their life easier
Don't agree with that, I want SISU out, whichever way works, after which the club might be revitalised, at the moment it is stagnating, how can that be acceptable?It can also do more harm than good
Don't agree with that, I want SISU out, whichever way works, after which the club might be revitalised, as it is at the moment it is stagnating.
Don't know lolThat's the temporary rolling credit thing isn't it when they put 750k in?
Don't know lol
Good point, i'll ask him.OSB will confirm it either way
Ask that guy for a list of the string of businesses taking money from the clubHow can money go "via" Otium if Otium is the limited company behind the club?
That's 1.8 million a year, surely that would be shown in the accounts. Great income if you can get it
no physical cash repayments shown on the 2015 or 2014 cash flow statements
some of the ARVO debt & interest was converted to preference shares £471k
ARVO are owed 7,736,820 in capital total and rolled up interest of 2,762,076 as of 31/05/2015
interest on part (1.7m capital amount ) appears to run at 11% and the rest at around 18% (my calculation). Has been rolled up and carried forward as still owing, not physically paid
money would not go to debtors because debtors is money owed to CCFC
Do charges get included for some costs by increasing loans possibly, except loans decreased in 2015
All details from the accounts freely available from companies house to read and quote properly
Do we know there are a string of businesses who are taking money from CCFC indirectly for SISU - no its a guess
Is ARVO linked to SISU yes
no further comment
Frankly guys I am beginning to lose the will to live correcting the gobbled gook coming from some of these self appointed financial commentators.
Honest questions or points raised by CCFC fans are one thing and I am always happy to help, but some "commentators" who set themselves up as knowing clearly have not got a clue and keep regurgitating the crap information confusing the situation. That does not help get rid of SISU at all, it just gives them ways to muddy waters and hide behind. It obscures the way to put pressure on SISU.
The real issues right now are not the SISU accounts its
-The academy
- Where the player proceeds are used within the club
- where we are playing September 2018
- the sale of Ryton
Sorry but its my busiest time of year due to the tax deadline and I am not at my most patient
Not a comment on anyone here who raises or references these things for clarification etc btw, I take that at face value and as I say happy to help
OSB has on the CT site been accused of being "that accountant sisu employ to spread lies on SBT"
It's the first time he's ever cropped up on one of my posts on the CCFC Forum on facebook to be honest, but he has since apologised for thinking I am a SISU apologist.Is that the same juggy who thought they were ccfc accounts and doesn't know the difference between interest accruid and paid?
The same one who tweeted that Mowbray told him something, then said he over heard it when somebody asked him about it.
It's bad to think people give him air time and column space.
I only visit the CT site occasionally, but I have never seen this accusation. However, it doesn't surprise me. There are several on there that should only be allowed access to a computer under adult supervision.OSB has on the CT site been accused of being "that accountant sisu employ to spread lies on SBT"
It's the first time he's ever cropped up on one of my posts on the CCFC Forum on facebook to be honest, but he has since apologised for thinking I am a SISU apologist.
Many are confused out there though Nick, including myself. I was quite adamant that SISU were fiddling yet cannot prove any of it. I still believe something fishy is going on, I struggle to see how they still want CCFC.
But since reviewing what OSB has said in many of his threads, I belive him more than myself, he knows what he's on about, I don't, hopefully others will start learning from him and see that many of us were wrong.
That still don't deflect what SISU have done to this club though.
I only visit the CT site occasionally, but I have never seen this accusation. However, it doesn't surprise me. There are several on there that should only be allowed access to a computer under adult supervision.
Why are they confused though? Because if you say different you are a sisu lover even if you are pointing out facts.
The other thing is refusing to listen if corrected on things, I'm wrong sometimes and more than happy to be open to learn, you just have too but others won't.
The thing is, when people speculate and make things up it does deflect from the actual things.
People will listen to juggy and believe him, people think when they buy a ticket it goes straight to sisu etc. That doesn't harm sisu, it's likely to harm ccfc more.
They will sit all day and let people speculate and exaggerate things.
Really? I've never seen him in the office.
Why are they confused though? Because if you say different you are a sisu lover even if you are pointing out facts.
The other thing is refusing to listen if corrected on things, I'm wrong sometimes and more than happy to be open to learn, you just have too but others won't.
The thing is, when people speculate and make things up it does deflect from the actual things.
People will listen to juggy and believe him, people think when they buy a ticket it goes straight to sisu etc. That doesn't harm sisu, it's likely to harm ccfc more.
They will sit all day and let people speculate and exaggerate things.
I want SISU gone, Was wary of them from the get go in 2008 and my concerns have only grown since.
I just don't do assumptions as facts.
I understand the figures, accounts and audits because that's my profession and I hold qualifications with both senior accountancy bodies including being a Statutory Auditor. I know how things work. I have actively independently been involved in things and challenged all the main players directly face to face. I try to explain the facts in lay mans language. I hope I do not do this in an arrogant, egotistical way but in a straight forward realistic way. I try to avoid the name calling and blowing my own trumpet (except now). My allegiance is to CCFC, I might not share everyone's opinions but I try to understand. I give my honest opinion, state the facts and try to give as balanced narrative as possible (apparently over time I have worked for CCFC, ACL, SISU, Council, etc. so seems to be working - I never have worked or even wanted to for any of them). I can be wrong and am big enough to admit it. I am keen to learn and try to keep an open mind
Thing about facts is they can paint the right picture and yes some facts might paint SISU in a more positive hue but there are plenty I have put forward that do not - and it doesn't change the fact I want SISU gone, but not at any price, liquidation or disappearance of the club is a hard limit it must not happen.
When someone belittles my professional knowledge because as someone unqualified they know better assumptions, the first reaction is to be angry (I am sure of my knowledge and proud of the qualifications I have) but seconds later to find it pathetic and highly amusing. It invalidates their opinion in my mind and I move on. Not worth getting upset over key board warriors life is too short with better things to do.
I will stick to the facts that can be proven be it CCFC, SISU, CCC, ACL, Wasps etc plus my own skills and understanding thanks
Are people getting paid in a manner that means they don't get taxed?
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?