Sky Blue Sports & Leisure 2013 accounts (2 Viewers)

In this long running saga one constant has been the lack of transparency as to SISU's gameplan (ok, assuming they have one) and how they intend to gain the return on their investment that they seek.
They seem to view delays in publishing accounts as part of their strategy and structure their companies to take full advantage in order to retain control.
It is clear that CCFC only continues to trade because SISU choose not to collapse it by calling in their loans: they are only constrained by a non binding assurance that they won't. Through the publishing on the accounts they have now introduced a suggestion that a 3rd party, ARVO, now has a large say in whether CCFC continues to trade with an apparent time constraint. If you believe that ARVO is independent of SISU, and who can say otherwise considering the lack of transparency of their ownership, SISU can now say that whether CCFC continues to exist is no longer in their full control.
Are SISU setting things up to put pressure on the FL to ensure an extension to their stay in Northampton or perhaps a further distancing of the club from the city whose name they bear?
As it stands the FL have no idea who effectively has control of the club, and have no guarantee that CCFC will complete next season's fixtures. They could also legitimately question whether SISU has actually done enough to discharge their undertaking to return to the Coventry area. Would the penalty attached to this undertaking be payable if ARVO call in the liquidator rather than SISU?
The only course of action I can see that the FL can take to avoid disruption to fixtures, which seems to be their prime concern, is to allow CCFC to fulfill this season's fixtures and then withdraw the golden share citing the unsatisfactory progress on the new ground, and the financial uncertainty coupled with the lack of transparency on ownership.
Given the flexibility of their rules it is difficult to see how SISU could win any legal challenge.
The FL could then invite the club to reapply for the golden share, albeit in a lower league, but apply more stringent conditions.
Have the FL got the balls to do this? No.

Incidentally, I do not believe that SISU will liquidate the club in the short term: you can extract more money from a trading company especially if you run it without worrying about it's ability to continue to exist.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

They wanted to make lots of money from a football club and he persuaded them he could do it. They believed it and the rest is history.

Click to expand...

Worked for him anyway.

oldskyblue58 said:

Interest that is being paid

The accounts for 2013 show interest accrued on the £28m investment fund loans of £456,667 with a comparative showing £256,667 for 2012. The accounts for 2012 state "no interest is currently accruing under this loan agreement" (accounts signed off 28th October 2013). So what changed? is it back dated after 28/10/13? The interest has not been paid out in cash in the year so is accrued has it been paid out since? or is it more debt that accrues even more interest? We were not told that interest was not paid on these loans?

There is a note (note 16) that details a loan to Otium of 1.75m (balance same at start and end of year) That has accrued interest in the year of £200k. Does that make the rate of interest charged 11.43%

On the other ARVO loans then a further £5,378,000 has been put in during the year through Otium (3.178m) & (I assume) CCFC H (2.2m) leaving a total of £11,653,000 outstanding at 31/05/13. On this the interest accrued for the year to 31/05/13 is £1,109,524. This makes the interest rate at least 9.5% depending on when the new money was paid in

Not arguing against loans having to pay interest just making clear where the costs are. Technically (if playing with words) never actually taken out in the year as no cash paid out but it is a charge against profit and has added to the groups liabilities - with no obvious method of how it will actually be paid.

Click to expand...

So to borrow another 30 million to build a new stadium

Also have ARVO put in 5 million a year while it happens

We must be talking about paying off 3 million a year in interest alone.

SISU really should try and get a loan off the council, have their never heard of comparison web sites !

dongonzalos said:

So to borrow another 30 million to build a new stadium

Also have ARVO put in 5 million a year while it happens

We must be talking about paying off 3 million a year in interest alone.

Click to expand...

if your assumption is correct does that mean the club need to sell at least £1.5Millions worth of pies a season to be in the same financial position as they were at the Ricoh on the original rent deal?

if thats the case we're screwed. i like a pie as much as the next person but i dont think i will be able to eat my quota during a match

SkyblueBazza said:

Soton had a pretty successful Pompey for competition during the time looked at - & the population of Birmingham & Coventry is probably significantly greater than the whole of Hampshire & IOW...which have relatively poor transport links too.


PUSB

Click to expand...

How many clubs in a thirty five mile radius of Southampton and Portsmouth?
Answer Bournemouth?

Coventry? Northampton Leicester, Birmingham, Aston Villa, Walsall, Wolverhampton West Brom.

You mention travel links, I live in Coventry in just over the hour and I can get to Stoke, PortVale, Notts Forest, Notts County and Derby. In around an hour and a half I can get to Everton Liverpool, Man City and Man United.

In the 80's Coventry suffered massively with unemployment. Population went from 335 to around 300 thou. After the war Coventry boomed...so a lot of the population didn't have their tradition and roots in Coventry. With that it's win some loose some...once you look at demographics it gets very complex.