SISU can make money on Coventry City liquidating..... (5 Viewers)

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2013

elephanttears said:
I feel embarrassed for you mate, trying to gather the "troops" to fight your battles for you. I dont need anyone i can do this all day with you if you want. All you do is like what people say and agree with them you dont have anything worthwhile to say in my opinion. I can be a twat at times i agree myself but at least i say what i think. Your a fraud.

LOL!!! Okay my main reason for commenting on this thread was to have a laugh with you and put what happened yesterday in the heated moment behind, I have my opinion and yeah I liked a few people's comments, but I didn't message them asking for help and "to gather my Troops", I'd rather not do this all day with you again as yesterday it got pretty boring..

Cheer up, have a laugh with people, take a joke, stop insulting people and most of all remember the word isn't coming to an end.

PEACEEEEEE!!!

Sick Boy · Mar 12, 2013

Steve.B50 said:
I agree with FF they are the real crooks and do not care about us as people or supporters, hence why our situation is being discussed in Parliment today as its obvious that SISU are in the wrong.

I am not sure the majority of neutrals would agree with you.

Sick Boy · Mar 12, 2013

Danceswithhorses said:
Another new(ish) poster claiming to be impartial, but showing his true colours with this post...the PR department at SISU HQ must try harder

It is funny that a new poster who disagrees with the anti-sisu rabble are believed to be working for sisu. Do you have to be paranoid and delusional to join your little club?

oldskyblue58 · Mar 12, 2013

administration or liquidation is not a good option really but it appears to be where we are heading

I dont get the distinction that the OP makes between apparently no tax losses in admin and a tax advantage in liquidation.

If the club goes into liquidation then SISU lose an apparent £45m ............. my guess is the funds are based in Cayman isles or something so not sure on the tax treatment..... if it was UK based they would save 23% of the £45m = 10.4m. But they would lose, the golden share, the option on the Ricoh, a lease, the players they could sell because all contracts are broken

if the club goes into admin CVA with new owners coming in and sisu leaving ........ then say they pick up 2m for the name etc and 1p in the £ in the CVA they still have tax losses of £42.5 m at 23% (9.8m) = 12.2m approx. Club can still exist and it still has golden share, the option to purchase etc. SISU might even put in a clause to receive more dependent on success

Admin could be a better option on that basis

in both situations there are capital losses to be crystallised

Even if there is a tax advantage to liquidation by using the losses the saving is a max of £10.4m ........ it still means they lose £35m of their clients money.

Brighton Sky Blue · Mar 12, 2013

Thing is OSB is the club not essentially in administration, with SISU as the administrators?

Danceswithhorses · Mar 12, 2013

Sick Boy said:
It is funny that a new poster who disagrees with the anti-sisu rabble are believed to be working for sisu. Do you have to be paranoid and delusional to join your little club?

Chill out sicko

skyblueman · Mar 12, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
administration or liquidation is not a good option really but it appears to be where we are heading

I dont get the distinction that the OP makes between apparently no tax losses in admin and a tax advantage in liquidation.

If the club goes into liquidation then SISU lose an apparent £45m ............. my guess is the funds are based in Cayman isles or something so not sure on the tax treatment..... if it was UK based they would save 23% of the £45m = 10.4m. But they would lose, the golden share, the option on the Ricoh, a lease, the players they could sell because all contracts are broken

if the club goes into admin CVA with new owners coming in and sisu leaving ........ then say they pick up 2m for the name etc and 1p in the £ in the CVA they still have tax losses of £42.5 m at 23% (9.8m) = 12.2m approx. Club can still exist and it still has golden share, the option to purchase etc. SISU might even put in a clause to receive more dependent on success

Admin could be a better option on that basis

in both situations there are capital losses to be crystallised

Even if there is a tax advantage to liquidation by using the losses the saving is a max of £10.4m ........ it still means they lose £35m of their clients money.

Key for me and perhaps SISU is not the losses to date it's the future funding required to keep it solvent - good money after bad and all that - having said that if this was their intention the why put last months wages in? Doesn't make any sense and that's why I think it's just nonsense

oldskyblue58 · Mar 12, 2013

in a sense yes but the key difference in appointing an administrator is (aside from the fees) is that SISU/TF no longer run it. The administrator has a duty to get the best deal he can for the creditors as a body or to liquidate. At present SISU run it to get the best deal for them (as is their right)

oldskyblue58 · Mar 12, 2013

skyblueman said:
Key for me and perhaps SISU is not the losses to date it's the future funding required to keep it solvent - good money after bad and all that - having said that if this was their intention the why put last months wages in? Doesn't make any sense and that's why I think it's just nonsense

There are some very clever insolvency guys working on this and with the money at stake there are still twists to come ........... SISU must have some plan otherwise as you sawhy continue funding....... what the plan is I have no idea, everything I can think of seems to end up unviable for one reason or another.

Brighton Sky Blue · Mar 12, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
in a sense yes but the key difference in appointing an administrator is (aside from the fees) is that SISU/TF no longer run it. The administrator has a duty to get the best deal he can for the creditors as a body or to liquidate. At present SISU run it to get the best deal for them (as is their right)

But the chief creditors are SISU-so what would be the point in it?

jimmyhillsfanclub · Mar 12, 2013

Querying such trivial amounts (in the grand scheme of things) as last months wage bill etc. is, I believe, rather pointless....

.... I was once made redundant from a satellite office of a US global company......there were rumours about closing our site down for a few months until the place got new carpets & a lick of paint....

...."well, they certainly won't be closing us down now then"...why would they spend money doing the place up?"......

...the following monday, we turned up for work to find the gates locked.

Maybe Elvis is our "new carpet".....just saying.....

Bluegloucester · Mar 12, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
administration or liquidation is not a good option really but it appears to be where we are heading

I dont get the distinction that the OP makes between apparently no tax losses in admin and a tax advantage in liquidation.

If the club goes into liquidation then SISU lose an apparent £45m ............. my guess is the funds are based in Cayman isles or something so not sure on the tax treatment..... if it was UK based they would save 23% of the £45m = 10.4m. .

All funds are Cayman domiciled.

oldskyblue58 · Mar 12, 2013

BSB ............. got to be honest I dont see the point in many of the things they are doing

BG ....... i am just guessing but I would assume loss relief will be a similar process in the Cayman Isles but at different rates

torchomatic · Mar 12, 2013

Maybe he should join the Trust then?

Delboycov said:
That mask of impartiality wasn't worn for long was it?!

coundonskyblue · Mar 12, 2013

I apologise for name calling, it was wrong of me. However I am still angry for being branded as a non fan for having a different opinion.

skyblueman · Mar 12, 2013

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
Querying such trivial amounts (in the grand scheme of things) as last months wage bill etc. is, I believe, rather pointless....

.... I was once made redundant from a satellite office of a US global company......there were rumours about closing our site down for a few months until the place got new carpets & a lick of paint....

...."well, they certainly won't be closing us down now then"...why would they spend money doing the place up?"......

...the following monday, we turned up for work to find the gates locked.

Maybe Elvis is our "new carpet".....just saying.....

Not sure it would have been a trivial amount - what would a month's wage bill amount to? Hundreds of thousands? I think it's precisely having already lost a shed load of cash any more gets even more sickening. If I had the intention to let it go I wouldn't put a penny more in let alone many many thousands to just do it a couple of weeks later - what's the point of that

Mucca Mad Boys · Mar 12, 2013

Danceswithhorses said:
Another new(ish) poster claiming to be impartial, but showing his true colours with this post...the PR department at SISU HQ must try harder

Sit down, and behave yourself! He's stated facts in his post and I agree with him, that was quite impartial, well, more impartial than some claim to be.

I've been a suspect SISU employee, quite astonished, but anyone who states the best best interests of the club seem to be 'SISU employees', hmmm :thinking about: I take it your lot want the club to cease to exist. Enjoy your football club when CCFC are gone!

Mucca Mad Boys · Mar 12, 2013

Delboycov said:
That mask of impartiality wasn't worn for long was it?!

What of that post isn't true? There isn't no spin on it, it's fact

torchomatic · Mar 12, 2013

Join the club!

coundonskyblue said:
However I am still angry for being branded as a non fan for having a different opinion.

oldskyblue58 · Mar 12, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
What of that post isn't true? There isn't no spin on it, it's fact

actually it is his opinion ............ perfectly valid but still only opinion

torchomatic · Mar 12, 2013

Why should he answer those questions? And would you have asked him if he'd "sided" with ACL/CCC? My guess is not.

dongonzalos said:
Skyblue Dubai how long have you been a member in the forum?

How long have you been Coventry City fan?

What prompted you to join the forum?

sky blue john · Mar 12, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
BSB ............. got to be honest I dont see the point in many of the things they are doing

BG ....... i am just guessing but I would assume loss relief will be a similar process in the Cayman Isles but at different rates

Can you just clear up one point though tax rebate against some of the losses will have already been claimed against in previous years ?
So if the case they are unlikely to get 23% tax relief against all 45 million losses because they will have already had the benefit of most of it. It will be the losses in the last two financial years only so say its 10million losses they will get 2.3million ?

Mucca Mad Boys · Mar 12, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
actually it is his opinion ............ perfectly valid but still only opinion

No, he's stated facts:

Signed 20 odd players - yes that's a fact
Is the rent double L1 average? Yes, 400k to 213k - fact
Do we get match day revenue? No - fact
Do CCFC fans' money goes to CCFC - no, that's a fact.

dongonzalos · Mar 12, 2013

torchomatic said:
Why should he answer those questions? And would you have asked him if he'd "sided" with ACL/CCC? My guess is not.

Is there an issue with asking?

He or she seems quite knowledgable so I would like to know some more about him or her?

sky blue john · Mar 12, 2013

dongonzalos said:
Is there an issue with asking?

He or she seems quite knowledgable so I would like to know some more about him or her?

You know and I know its Grendel

Danceswithhorses · Mar 12, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Sit down, and behave yourself! He's stated facts in his post and I agree with him, that was quite impartial, well, more impartial than some claim to be.

I've been a suspect SISU employee, quite astonished, but anyone who states the best best interests of the club seem to be 'SISU employees', hmmm :thinking about: I take it your lot want the club to cease to exist. Enjoy your football club when CCFC are gone!

Your statement that 'my lot want the club to cease to exist' is factually incorrect
I'm not part of any 'lot'
My opinions are my own, just as yours are, and are equally valid.
Just because you do a lot of shouting, doesn't make you right.

torchomatic · Mar 12, 2013

That's true. Not all of the ant-SISU "lot" want the club to fold. They are there, but they are thankfully in a minority.

Danceswithhorses said:
Your statement that 'my lot want the club to cease to exist' is factually incorrect
I'm not part of any 'lot'
My opinions are my own, just as yours are, and are equally valid.

oldskyblue58 · Mar 12, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
No, he's stated facts:

Signed 20 odd players - yes that's a fact -
Is the rent double L1 average? Yes, 400k to 213k - fact ........
Do we get match day revenue? No - fact
Do CCFC fans' money goes to CCFC - no, that's a fact.

We can all get pedantic SBT ............. the OP's original post was very much opinion........... the second post threw in a couple of "facts" that in his mind supported his opinion, there are others facts not included that would contra at least some of it

so my opinion

Throwing 20 players at a team in the hope that it might suceed (it hasnt yet) could be "investment" or it could be saddling the club with debt and liability it can not actually afford for players that are not up to the job. Fact our debt increases because our club cannot finance its major expense which is wages, we dont pay the full rent at the moment so it hasnt increased because of that, and the profit (which roughly equates to the net cash positive)from the car park, F&B is not going to fill the gap

been plenty of arguments on L1 average, an average can be skewded by all sorts of info included or excluded not to mention the quality of what is rented. but that has been discussed plenty times before hasnt it and just about everyone has chosen to ignore inconvenient facts because it didnt suit their argument. The club should pay a fair rent for the facilities it gets certainly but even if we were still at HR that wouldnt be L1 average. It isnt L1 one average rent no but it isnt a L1 average ground either - fact

No we dont get all the match day income - but we have already had the benefit of the profit from them in advance calculated on the basis of bigger crowds and a position in the championship..... to the tune of £6m - fact. Who do you think actually sells the match day hospitality packages that include food and car parking spaces by the way ? Who do you think sells the pitch side advertising ? So to say Do we get match day revenue? No - fact........... is actually not a fact

Do CCFC fans' money goes to CCFC - no, that's a fact. ............... no not a fact........ so who does get most of CCFC's fans money then because the biggest income from fans is the ticket sales in all their different kinds (some of which includes car parking and food)? (see club official website for ticket/package details)

In terms of the fans money that doesnt go to CCFC we are not talking massive net amounts........... it is the F&B on the concourse, and the car park money (btw the way it is a fact that 900 spaces are included in the licence/lease CCFC signed)

CCFC want it - buy it ........... kind of how business works in its lowest format ........... could have been done years ago but somehow it seems to have got "overlooked"

The one thing I do agree with the OP on is that we should all be on the side of the club............ doesnt mean you cant see what is best for the club differently to someone else

Ashdown1 · Mar 12, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
administration or liquidation is not a good option really but it appears to be where we are heading

I dont get the distinction that the OP makes between apparently no tax losses in admin and a tax advantage in liquidation.

If the club goes into liquidation then SISU lose an apparent £45m ............. my guess is the funds are based in Cayman isles or something so not sure on the tax treatment..... if it was UK based they would save 23% of the £45m = 10.4m. But they would lose, the golden share, the option on the Ricoh, a lease, the players they could sell because all contracts are broken

if the club goes into admin CVA with new owners coming in and sisu leaving ........ then say they pick up 2m for the name etc and 1p in the £ in the CVA they still have tax losses of £42.5 m at 23% (9.8m) = 12.2m approx. Club can still exist and it still has golden share, the option to purchase etc. SISU might even put in a clause to receive more dependent on success

Admin could be a better option on that basis

in both situations there are capital losses to be crystallised

Even if there is a tax advantage to liquidation by using the losses the saving is a max of £10.4m ........ it still means they lose £35m of their clients money.

Isn't all this based on the assumption that they are going to make profits elsewhere ?!

oldskyblue58 · Mar 12, 2013

Ashdown1 said:
Isn't all this based on the assumption that they are going to make profits elsewhere ?!

yes ............. i think it would be unrealistic to think that they are not capable of success in other fields............ it would be just a question of switching funds around. CCFC is but a very small part of the JS web of funds, investments and businesses

mark82 · Mar 12, 2013

blueflint said:
not a lot for one sell ten it mounts up sell twenty even more

Ask Portsmouth how that worked out for them.

sky blue john · Mar 12, 2013

sky blue john said:
Can you just clear up one point though tax rebate against some of the losses will have already been claimed against in previous years ?
So if the case they are unlikely to get 23% tax relief against all 45 million losses because they will have already had the benefit of most of it. It will be the losses in the last two financial years only so say its 10million losses they will get 2.3million ?

Osb, just interested to know if im right or wrong because it could mean which route sisu are likely to take. The more facts we have
as they say. Thanks in advance.

oldskyblue58 · Mar 12, 2013

No SBJ the loss hasnt been crystallised yet. We are not talking about the losses CCFC make each year those are revenue losses and can be moved around the companies in the group but unlikely group relief claimed as no group company in profit. It is the difference between what SISU have put in and what they get back - capital losses - that will be offset against other similar calculated profits that SISU will claim. As yet until they withdraw their investment then no one knows what the loss is

rupert_bear · Mar 12, 2013

ffs How many alias's do SISU have on here ?

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2013

rupert_bear said:
ffs How many alias's do SISU have on here ?

I would answer that but Joy is calling and I can't afford to miss another of her calls...

SISU can make money on Coventry City liquidating..... (5 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency