SISU Capital Ltd accounts 2013 (1 Viewer)

oldskyblue58 · Aug 15, 2013

Not going to provide much in the way of commentary but the SISU Capital Group Accounts to 31/03/13 have been filed. So this is all from Company House and public record

First off the company has issued share capital of 876,025 split Seppala 177,019 ord shares Coleman 59,006 ord shares and Wynacre Ltd 615,000 redemable shares

There is no audit qualification

Turnover is down to 1,711,765 from 2,136,816 in 2012 and 3,075,572 in 2011

Costs for the group are 1,615,614 down from 2,156,107 in 2012 and 3,196,785 in 2011

Profit is 96,367 up from loss in 2012 (18665) and loss (282415) in 2011

after minority interests ie amounts owed to other investors in the shares of the group, the losses were (10937) in 2013 (162287) in 2012 and (434080) in 2011

The group balance sheet has reduced in value to 858,901 in 2013 from 1,121,965 in 2012

There are no major assets although there are 2m in assets linked to the employee benefit Trust and a corresponding liability

Debtors (amounts owed to the group) are 437,725 up from 370,758 in 2012

Cash balances are down to 409,326 from 533,612 in 2012

there are no major creditors

It is a bit ambiguous but I think the assets under management for this group of companies is 162m up from 94m in 2012. (is this the source of the funds to finance CCFC ? I have no idea)

Wage costs are down from 1,007,154 in 2012 to 754,982 in 2013. the number of employees has reduced from 20 to 16

Seppala and Coleman took a salary of 12k each from SISU Capital Ltd. However from SISU Capital Ltd Partnership and SISU Capital Partnership II they took 359,432 up from 139,000 in 2012

there is no corporation tax to pay

group members are SISU Capital Ltd, SISU Capital Partners LLP, SISU Capital Ltd Partnership II, SISIU Capital Carry Ltd (dormant), Scarba Limited (which is linked in to Sconset Limited)

Not a particularly good financial year but I suspect the wealth is elsewhere. The overall trend over the last few years is downward but the business can be cyclical

fernandopartridge · Aug 15, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Not going to provide much in the way of commentary but the SISU Capital Accounts to 31/03/13 have been filed. So this is all from Company House and public record

First off the company has issued share capital of 876,025 split Seppala 177,019 ord shares Coleman 59,006 ord shares and Wynacre Ltd 615,000 redemable shares

There is no audit qualification

Turnover is down to 1,711,765 from 2,136,816 in 2012 and 3,075,572 in 2011

Costs for the group are 1,615,614 down from 2,156,107 in 2012 and 3,196,785 in 2011

Profit is 96,367 up from loss in 2012 (18665) and loss (282415) in 2011

after minority interests ie amounts owed to other investors in the shares of the group, the losses were (10937) in 2013 (162287) in 2012 and (434080) in 2011

The group balance sheet has reduced in value to 858,901 in 2013 from 1,121,965 in 2012

There are no major assets although there are 2m in assets linked to the employee benefit Trust and a corresponding liability

Debtors (amounts owed to the group) are 437,725 up from 370,758 in 2012

Cash balances are down to 409,326 from 533,612 in 2012

there are no major creditors

It is a bit ambiguous but I think the assets under management for this group of companies is 162m up from 94m in 2012. (is this the source of the funds to finance CCFC ? I have no idea)

Wage costs are down from 1,007,154 in 2012 to 754,982 in 2013. the number of employees has reduced from 20 to 16

Seppala and Coleman took a salary of 12k each from SISU Capital Ltd. However from SISU Capital Ltd Partnership and SISU Capital Partnership II they took 359,432 up from 139,000 in 2012

there is no corporation tax to pay

group members are SISU Capital Ltd, SISU Capital Partners LLP, SISU Capital Ltd Partnership II, SISIU Capital Carry Ltd (dormant), Scarba Limited (which is linked in to Sconset Limited)

Not a particularly good financial year but I suspect the wealth is elsewhere. The overall trend over the last few years is downward but the business can be cyclical

Cheers - what is the actual purpose of SISU Capital Ltd - it doesn't perform any real function as a company as far as I see?

Manchester_sky_blue · Aug 15, 2013

"There is no corporation tax to pay"

Ashdown1 · Aug 15, 2013

Not much of an outfit are they really but your last line sums it up !! When you have such a tiered system of holding companies etc I suspect no one can ever get to the bottom of whether they are virtually broke or steaming rich.

oldskyblue58 · Aug 15, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
Cheers - what is the actual purpose of SISU Capital Ltd - it doesn't perform any real function as a company as far as I see?

The activity is the provision of fund management services ............... basically they oversee the funds that are invested through the hedge funds and subsidiaries. Its an umbrella type set up

CJ_covblaze · Aug 15, 2013

Quite surprised Joy and Detmot didn't earn £9,439 tbh

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 15, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Not a particularly good financial year but I suspect the wealth is elsewhere. The overall trend over the last few years is downward but the business can be cyclical

This is the bit that interests me (in a general nosy sense). Would it be fair to say that, to an extent, the accounts here are pretty redundant (in either a 'positive' or 'negative' POV), apart from a starting point to understand better a business structure... or is there any worth to them beyond that?

Ripbuster · Aug 15, 2013

Say we are now running "Plan b" which maybe a cunning plan thought up by a Canadian in 2011 and advised on by a friend from Vancouver in 2012 as he had experience in Relocating clubs,this all based on "Pride Park" extendability,they may even have friends there?
After cutting the squad and high earners to a minimal sustainable team
Could SISU have planned for this and eventually build a tinpot stadium on a "two bob" budget of their own money?
Lenny still has shares and he's feisty and certainly no fool,he could be even pulling some of the strings..

Just another conspiracy theory to consider..

oldskyblue58 · Aug 15, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
This is the bit that interests me (in a general nosy sense). Would it be fair to say that, to an extent, the accounts here are pretty redundant (in either a 'positive' or 'negative' POV), apart from a starting point to understand better a business structure... or is there any worth to them beyond that?

Think thats a reasonably fair assessment NW....... the important interesting stuff will be well out of sight

SIR ERNIE · Aug 15, 2013

hahahaha.

This shower of sharks do make me laugh.

Just found Joe Elliot's quote, made when SISU 'saved us':
Retiring chairman Joe Elliott admitted he was delighted to welcome hedge fund Sisu Capital and Ranson to the club.
"This is a very exciting day in the long, proud history of Coventry City Football Club and I am positive that will be reflected in the attendance for Saturday's game against Southampton," said Elliott.
"I am sure that Ray Ranson and Sisu Capital will help drive Coventry City forward into a brand new era for the club.

And almost six years later and that same 'SISU Capital Ltd' have shifted ownership of our club from one secret newco to another, the accounts of which are effectively secret ,none having been filed.

And then when the controlling company finally get round to filing accounts they show a company about the size of your local corner Spar.

What a bloody joke.

So much for Greg Clarke's first statement when he was made FL Chief Executive in March 2010:

"The highest priority is to ensure clubs are transparent and financially viable. That will include clubs stating who owns them."

TRANSPARENT MY ARSE.

wal3590 · Aug 15, 2013

Only just found out Greg Clarke is a former Incester chairman!

sw88 · Aug 15, 2013

wal3590 said:
Only just found out Greg Clarke is a former Incester chairman!

And a big Leicester fan

SkyBlueSwiss · Aug 15, 2013

We need to see the delayed CCFC Holding and Ltd accounts asap. If Ltd remains in admin and not liquidated (which I suspect it will for as long as possible as if they try to put it into liquidation certain matters will be exposed to outside scrutiny), then surely Ltd must also file accounts, even if only on a liquidation basis, if they pass a financial year end still in liquidation.

Tonylinc · Aug 15, 2013

wal3590 said:
Only just found out Greg Clarke is a former Incester chairman!

Me too. Just imagine if you were Chairman and Villa were in trouble; would you actively help them out?

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 15, 2013

Tonylinc said:
Me too. Just imagine if you were Chairman and Villa were in trouble; would you actively help them out?

Yes.

Sky Blue Harry H · Aug 15, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Yes.

Yes - help them out (of the league):claping hands:

njdlawyer · Aug 16, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Not going to provide much in the way of commentary but the SISU Capital Group Accounts to 31/03/13 have been filed. So this is all from Company House and public record

First off the company has issued share capital of 876,025 split Seppala 177,019 ord shares Coleman 59,006 ord shares and Wynacre Ltd 615,000 redemable shares

There is no audit qualification

Turnover is down to 1,711,765 from 2,136,816 in 2012 and 3,075,572 in 2011

Costs for the group are 1,615,614 down from 2,156,107 in 2012 and 3,196,785 in 2011

Profit is 96,367 up from loss in 2012 (18665) and loss (282415) in 2011

after minority interests ie amounts owed to other investors in the shares of the group, the losses were (10937) in 2013 (162287) in 2012 and (434080) in 2011

The group balance sheet has reduced in value to 858,901 in 2013 from 1,121,965 in 2012

There are no major assets although there are 2m in assets linked to the employee benefit Trust and a corresponding liability

Debtors (amounts owed to the group) are 437,725 up from 370,758 in 2012

Cash balances are down to 409,326 from 533,612 in 2012

there are no major creditors

It is a bit ambiguous but I think the assets under management for this group of companies is 162m up from 94m in 2012. (is this the source of the funds to finance CCFC ? I have no idea)

Wage costs are down from 1,007,154 in 2012 to 754,982 in 2013. the number of employees has reduced from 20 to 16

Seppala and Coleman took a salary of 12k each from SISU Capital Ltd. However from SISU Capital Ltd Partnership and SISU Capital Partnership II they took 359,432 up from 139,000 in 2012

there is no corporation tax to pay

group members are SISU Capital Ltd, SISU Capital Partners LLP, SISU Capital Ltd Partnership II, SISIU Capital Carry Ltd (dormant), Scarba Limited (which is linked in to Sconset Limited)

Not a particularly good financial year but I suspect the wealth is elsewhere. The overall trend over the last few years is downward but the business can be cyclical

According to Greg Clarke "SISU Capital have the assets to run this football club as long as they want to...they are not short of money..."

So if we take that comment at face value he and the FL are satisfied that a company that has just made a £96000 profit (after 2 years of losses and before any adjustment for minority interests which takes them into loss again) with a diminishing balance sheet and with cash balances of £400000 has more than enough money to sustain multi-million pound losses for 3-5 years at the same time as providing £10million+ of capital expenditure on a new stadium. Just how can he / they come to and justify that conclusion? It's patent nonsense

Now I have no doubt that those in the SISU camp will say that it's all about ARVO and other Cayman Island organisations (the wealth or otherwise of whom cannot be verified) but that is not what Clarke said - he referred specifically to SISU Capital

The anti-ACL faction will no doubt start going on about whether or not they are profitable - as if that makes any difference to this issue

theferret · Aug 16, 2013

njdlawyer said:
According to Greg Clarke "SISU Capital have the assets to run this football club as long as they want to...they are not short of money..."

So if we take that comment at face value he and the FL are satisfied that a company that has just made a £96000 profit (after 2 years of losses and before any adjustment for minority interests which takes them into loss again) with a diminishing balance sheet and with cash balances of £400000 has more than enough money to sustain multi-million pound losses for 3-5 years at the same time as providing £10million+ of capital expenditure on a new stadium. Just how can he / they come to and justify that conclusion? It's patent nonsense

Now I have no doubt that those in the SISU camp will say that it's all about ARVO and other Cayman Island organisations (the wealth or otherwise of whom cannot be verified) but that is not what Clarke said - he referred specifically to SISU Capital

The anti-ACL faction will no doubt start going on about whether or not they are profitable - as if that makes any difference to this issue

You give Clarke way too much credit - as if he understands SISU and their tangled corporate web. This has been done to death, but seriously, anyone who starts dissecting the accounts of SISU Capital attempting to make any meaningful conclusions about their ability to fund the club is wasting their time. You do understand what SISU Captial is?

RPHunt · Aug 16, 2013

njdlawyer said:
According to Greg Clarke "SISU Capital have the assets to run this football club as long as they want to...they are not short of money..."

So if we take that comment at face value he and the FL are satisfied that a company that has just made a £96000 profit (after 2 years of losses and before any adjustment for minority interests which takes them into loss again) with a diminishing balance sheet and with cash balances of £400000 has more than enough money to sustain multi-million pound losses for 3-5 years at the same time as providing £10million+ of capital expenditure on a new stadium. Just how can he / they come to and justify that conclusion? It's patent nonsense

Now I have no doubt that those in the SISU camp will say that it's all about ARVO and other Cayman Island organisations (the wealth or otherwise of whom cannot be verified) but that is not what Clarke said - he referred specifically to SISU Capital

The anti-ACL faction will no doubt start going on about whether or not they are profitable - as if that makes any difference to this issue

I agree.

I did some searching a few months ago and it is a long time since SISU or any of their related companies reported a transaction to the major stock exchanges. As I have said a few times, a complex company structure is a useful way of hiding a complete lack of substance.

longjohnskyblue · Aug 16, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
Cheers - what is the actual purpose of SISU Capital Ltd - it doesn't perform any real function as a company as far as I see?

Could it be the reason that there is no corporation tax to pay, because coventry city has been used as a sink hole for all their bad debts? If so it makes absolute commercial sense for them to hold on to coventry city for as long as possible. For all those sisu apologist claiming to be fans of the club, after todays disgraceful "revelations" by the League they should hang their heads in shame.

Also it is obvious that cov aren't going back to the ricoh, so I see absolutely no reason why support should be given to P4 for a bid for the ricoh. If he was going to buy the club then fine, but it seems more apparent he is no better than sisu and just wanted the arena and the land for development. and if cov aren't going to return the council may as well change it to an out and out exhibition centre and start making it earn it's keep for the people of coventry!

CCFC as we knew it is dead. I'm sure eventually there will be a ground in rugby or in some other god forsaken place, but it will be otium FC, and will have less interest to me than even Fester or Vile! Of course it's possible sense may return and cov will return to it's home, but as it stands that is impossible.

njdlawyer · Aug 16, 2013

theferret said:
You give Clarke way too much credit - as if he understands SISU and their tangled corporate web. This has been done to death, but seriously, anyone who starts dissecting the accounts of SISU Capital attempting to make any meaningful conclusions about their ability to fund the club is wasting their time. You do understand what SISU Captial is?

Yes, thank you very much, I do understand what SISU Capital is - and if I want to be equally patronising I also know how to spell it!

We all understand that because of their complex corporate structure it would take the skills of the most expert forensic accountant to find out where the money is - if there is any at all but the point that I am making and the question I am posing is precisely what evidence has Clarke seen because if its these accounts then his comments are a nonsense. If he has seen these accounts but is relying on assurances from SISU / Otium then his statement is, at best, disingenuous and if he has seen evidence of vast piles of cash then where is it?

Not too long ago the ECB and the ICC were completely duped by Allen Stanford - a man running a company / companies through a complex offshore operation. He managed to convince senior figures at the very top of a sport's organising body that he was fantastically wealthy when he was no more than a man of straw and a crook. Now I am not saying that SISU / ARVO / Otium are the same but it seems to me (and its something that CET at last seem to be pursuing) that pressure needs to be kept on FL by asking proper and reasonable questions about this as it is the only way to call them to account

theferret · Aug 16, 2013

njdlawyer said:
Yes, thank you very much, I do understand what SISU Capital is - and if I want to be equally patronising I also know how to spell it!

We all understand that because of their complex corporate structure it would take the skills of the most expert forensic accountant to find out where the money is - if there is any at all but the point that I am making and the question I am posing is precisely what evidence has Clarke seen because if its these accounts then his comments are a nonsense. If he has seen these accounts but is relying on assurances from SISU / Otium then his statement is, at best, disingenuous and if he has seen evidence of vast piles of cash then where is it?

Not too long ago the ECB and the ICC were completely duped by Allen Stanford - a man running a company / companies through a complex offshore operation. He managed to convince senior figures at the very top of a sport's organising body that he was fantastically wealthy when he was no more than a man of straw and a crook. Now I am not saying that SISU / ARVO / Otium are the same but it seems to me (and its something that CET at last seem to be pursuing) that pressure needs to be kept on FL by asking proper and reasonable questions about this as it is the only way to call them to account

You seem to completely ignore the fact that SISU have been subsidising the club for years. You can question the ability of SISU to continue to fund the club, and like you say, establishing the extent of their resources and where that money lies is no easy task and I don't imagine it is a bottomless pit of money. That said, when people question if they can continue to sustain losses, you need look no further than the previous few years where there has been a steady flow of money from SISU to the football club. They have been funding losses, they are still here, and seemingly are committed to funding losses for many more years to come. All a bluff?

Who knows. People can declare that NOPM will work, others will say it will make no difference, and when Clarke says it, we all call him an idiot. The truth is though, nobody knows, and we're all guessing.

oldskyblue58 · Aug 16, 2013

Think we are missing the point here

SISU act as agents for their investors. The value of the investors money is not going to show up in the SISU Capital Ltd accounts. They may have just shown the Football League the amount they have available to invest from their investors and the authority they have to invest.

The question I suppose then has to be asked what kind of investor chooses to invest in the black hole that is CCFC.

As I indicated above SISU assets under management seem to have increased from 92m to 162m by 31/03/13

what the FL can not know is if that investment money will be there tomorrow

Sky Blues · Aug 16, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Think we are missing the point here

SISU act as agents for their investors. The value of the investors money is not going to show up in the SISU Capital Ltd accounts. They may have just shown the Football League the amount they have available to invest from their investors and the authority they have to invest.

The question I suppose then has to be asked what kind of investor chooses to invest in the black hole that is CCFC.

As I indicated above SISU assets under management seem to have increased from 92m to 162m by 31/03/13

what the FL can not know is if that investment money will be there tomorrow

If Sisu/Otium have the money to keep Coventry City going for years and years, am I right in thinking that will satisfy the auditors that Coventry City is a going concern and Otium will be able to submit their accounts any day now?... :thinking about:

oldskyblue58 · Aug 16, 2013

Sky Blues said:
If Sisu/Otium have the money to keep Coventry City going for years and years, am I right in thinking that will satisfy the auditors that Coventry City is a going concern and Otium will be able to submit their accounts any day now?... :thinking about:

reasonable assumption, assuming that SISU prove it to the auditors satisfaction

njdlawyer · Aug 16, 2013

theferret said:
You seem to completely ignore the fact that SISU have been subsidising the club for years. You can question the ability of SISU to continue to fund the club, and like you say, establishing the extent of their resources and where that money lies is no easy task and I don't imagine it is a bottomless pit of money. That said, when people question if they can continue to sustain losses, you need look no further than the previous few years where there has been a steady flow of money from SISU to the football club. They have been funding losses, they are still here, and seemingly are committed to funding losses for many more years to come. All a bluff?

Who knows. People can declare that NOPM will work, others will say it will make no difference, and when Clarke says it, we all call him an idiot. The truth is though, nobody knows, and we're all guessing.

Have SISU subsidised the club? Where is the evidence of that? We are in a state of administration / liquidation with debts of £70million (apparently). Debt has been converted to equity which is not really a subsidy. We have made increasing losses year by year. There has been no obvious injection of capital from the owners and no player purchases that could be attributed to them. It is difficult to see where the "steady flow of money" from SISU actually evidences itself

RPHunt · Aug 16, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Think we are missing the point here

SISU act as agents for their investors. The value of the investors money is not going to show up in the SISU Capital Ltd accounts. They may have just shown the Football League the amount they have available to invest from their investors and the authority they have to invest.

The question I suppose then has to be asked what kind of investor chooses to invest in the black hole that is CCFC.

As I indicated above SISU assets under management seem to have increased from 92m to 162m by 31/03/13

what the FL can not know is if that investment money will be there tomorrow

I am not sure about those figures for assets under management. Hedge fund income comes from taking a percentage of fund value plus a percentage of any increase in the fund value. Based on SISU's income for the year, this would indicate that they are charging less than 2% which I find difficult to believe when most small hedge funds (and SISU is a very small one) charge up to 5% of fund value.

Also, the apparent increase in assets under management, £70m, is strangely similar to the debt of CCFC. More smoke and mirrors?

oldskyblue58 · Aug 16, 2013

RPHunt said:
I am not sure about those figures for assets under management. Hedge fund income comes from taking a percentage of fund value plus a percentage of any increase in the fund value. Based on SISU's income for the year, this would indicate that they are charging less than 2% which I find difficult to believe when most small hedge funds (and SISU is a very small one) charge up to 5% of fund value.

Also, the apparent increase in assets under management, £70m, is strangely similar to the debt of CCFC. More smoke and mirrors?

Can only tell you what is in the accounts RPH. The income is down partly to rebates to clients per the directors report and if the extra investment funds came in say March 2013 perhaps the full years fee isnt due. Also the Asset under management is a valuation not necessarily the amount originally invested

The 70m in ccfc I would have thought would have a nil value certainly at present.

certainly not clear what is going on

theferret · Aug 16, 2013

njdlawyer said:
Have SISU subsidised the club? Where is the evidence of that? We are in a state of administration / liquidation with debts of £70million (apparently). Debt has been converted to equity which is not really a subsidy. We have made increasing losses year by year. There has been no obvious injection of capital from the owners and no player purchases that could be attributed to them. It is difficult to see where the "steady flow of money" from SISU actually evidences itself

Oh dear. I really can't be bothered to dignify that with an answer.

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 16, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
certainly not clear what is going on

Would you expect different?

RPHunt · Aug 16, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
The 70m in ccfc I would have thought would have a nil value certainly at present.

certainly not clear what is going on

Isn't that £70m going to show up somewhere as an asset, however worthless it is?

And by picking out the bits they want, SISU could make it appear that they do have the asset backing to fund losses in Northampton and finance a new stadium.

oldskyblue58 · Aug 16, 2013

RPHunt said:
Isn't that £70m going to show up somewhere as an asset, however worthless it is?

And by picking out the bits they want, SISU could make it appear that they do have the asset backing to fund losses in Northampton and finance a new stadium.

Yes it will but it is not an asset of SISU's ..... they hold their clients money in trust they have no beneficial rights to it in terms of ownership so the figure will not appear on the SISU Capital balance sheet. yes they could have been selective in the info they disclosed - we just dont know

Cheshire Sky Blue · Aug 22, 2013

theferret said:
Oh dear. I really can't be bothered to dignify that with an answer.

Because we don't have one perhaps?

georgehudson · Aug 22, 2013

so, for the fans, what does this mean ?
under uk legislation are sisu allowed to continue their financial manoeuvres ?

SISU Capital Ltd accounts 2013 (1 Viewer)

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chief Commentator!

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

longjohnskyblue

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Active Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency