skybluereeve
Well-Known Member
Guys anyone got any update? I no you guys get slated when you sometimes post,but I for one like the little bits of info you pass on.
snozzer, brinner, dark knight (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter skybluereeve
- Start date
skybluereeve
Well-Known Member
Regis I cling to these little bits of info. If we go down fine,but go down without sisu in charge
Ive got some news...not particularly good though. I know someone who has met one of the key members of sisu on a number of occassions and knows the company. The person told me SISU are likely to be extremely stubborn (no surprise), are struggling financially themselves (have other investments with financial issues) and he would be extremely surprised (shocked !!!!) if they have ever had the cash to put in the £30m they are claiming.
He also said why would they bail out for less than they want/expect when they are still earning from the club ie management fees.
I suppose the one glimmer of hope is that if SISU themselves are struggling financially they may have no choice but to sell in the very near future (unfortunately it also means a player sale(s) will be on the horizon if the club isnt sold soon)
Nothing too exciting or new, pretty much confirmed everything we all thought or knew already, but thought Id share the info.
He also said why would they bail out for less than they want/expect when they are still earning from the club ie management fees.
I suppose the one glimmer of hope is that if SISU themselves are struggling financially they may have no choice but to sell in the very near future (unfortunately it also means a player sale(s) will be on the horizon if the club isnt sold soon)
Nothing too exciting or new, pretty much confirmed everything we all thought or knew already, but thought Id share the info.
skybluereeve
Well-Known Member
Cheers steve fuckers aint they
Another 'friend of someone who knows somebody who knows ...'
One thing is true though - sisu never invested £30m themself (and they never claimed they did). The money is loan from from funds managed by sisu.
As sisu are a hedge fund management company they usually earn their money on performace basis. If the entities owned by the funds goes up in value they receive a percentage of the increased value (calculated yearly). If the value goes down they receive nothing. If a fund is dissolved because the entity the fund invested in is sold, then the hedge fund managers usually get a success fee of 30% of the overall profit.
So - as sisu themself have no money invested in our club they can not be forced to sell even if they find themself in financial trouble. So there is no glimmer of hope in that fact.
Even if sisu goes out of business alltogether the funds will still exist and probably be managed by another hedge fund management company.
skybluereeve
Well-Known Member
But what's the point? No stadium and they will never make anything? So why stay?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Are not Salaries are being paid to KD & OI. Possibly to other directors.
Are not the SISU loans being paid off? I may well be being naive here, but I think this could explain the discrepancy between the overheads that can be seen & understood and the monthly losses stated by SISU.
If they leave and somebody buy out the loans at a discounted price, then sisu will lose the abillity to make money from administration fees from the funds. As long as they stay and as long as the loans are not defaulted (defaulting will be difficult as there are no interests and no periodic installments) then sisu gets their money.
Should they be able to turn around the club and start making a profit, then new investors can be attracted for the purpose of buying the stadium. Should that happen then the club will stand in much better condition and sisu can sell up and make a profit from the sale.
KD is NOT sisu - he is drafted in by sisu to run the club after Ranson was shown the door. I will expect KD to be paid comparable to any other in similar position.
OI is sisu alright. Up til the latest accounts he - and the other directors (except RR) - did not receive payments. It may have changed, but we won't know till the next set of accounts are published.
Ccfc1979
Well-Known Member
Is it maybe that KD, OI, LB and the numerous other board members we have had in and out are the investors. They go on the board, get paid a salary until they make a profit on what they put in, then are removed. Maybe this £30m is what they collectively put in and they have a weird, ruthless notion they'll get that back too to boost the coffers further. Even though it was spent on running the club day to day like petrol and car tax which you never get back when you sell. All this is alleged, of course.
Ok, this really is quite complicated and I understand why we all get confused. But please allow me to correct you on a few points.
1) You mention KD, OI and LB and refer to other previous borad members and call them investors. That is not entirely true. Only Brody is a shareholder on our current board and Ranson was on the previous board. The other are directors appointed by sisu.
2) Only Ranson on the previous board was paid a salary, and that was in his capacity of CEO. Now that KD is acting CEO I assume he is getting paid too, but we won't know untill the next set of accounts are made public.
3) Most money are put in by a fund (or a few funds). This is probably the most confusing point as many seem to get this wrong. The money in the funds are placed by unknown investors - mostly private millionaires, but could also be other investment funds like pension funds. The money does not come from sisu.
Anyway, the money from the sisu managed funds were injected to our club as loans - not equity. The loans are given without any interest charge and with no payback installment plan (that we know of). As they are loans - they must be eventually paid back though, but as long as the club is a going concern, then the loans do not decline in value (as shares would when the club is running with negative profit).
So yes(!), the 30m must be paid back.
I hope that was understandable, but as I said in the beginning, this really is complicated.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
only thing i would comment Godiva is that they(KD, LB,OI etc) could all be investors in the SISU funds. We simply dont know. Usually it is the shares that give control of a company but loans of £30m to CCFC certainly give substantial influence if not some element of control. That is why the likes of KD keep confusingly referring to the £30m as investment when in laymans terms it is a loan.
Finances do not have to be so confusing - they choose it to be for their own reasons.
Finances do not have to be so confusing - they choose it to be for their own reasons.
Yes, but I am sure you are all for confusing accounts given your profession
.Anyway, there is logic behind most and confusion is simply us missing out on the logic.
I think they arranged the capitalization as loans for a number of reasons - most prominent as the value of loans does not fluctuate with the market value of the club as would shares. Think this probably has a big influence on sisu's management/performance fee.
Another reason could be that the shares this way can be owned other people than the funds. This makes a future takeover pretty flexible.
A third reason could be coupled to the acquiring of the stadium as this may not be directly influenced by who owns the shares (as the loans are not equity or share related).
Finally - as the shares were bought for £1 there lie a potential huge profit in selling the shares when the club is running at a profit.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Agree with all that Godiva and would add
The first reason that anyone puts money into a football club as a loan is because it is far easier to get their money out or get a return (interest) than by shares.
SISU funds would be classed as football debt I believe and until the HMRC overturn these rules gives the likes of SISU added comfort for their loans
Btw HMRC are at court this week trying to overturn the FA and Football League rules regarding "football debts"
The first reason that anyone puts money into a football club as a loan is because it is far easier to get their money out or get a return (interest) than by shares.
SISU funds would be classed as football debt I believe and until the HMRC overturn these rules gives the likes of SISU added comfort for their loans
Btw HMRC are at court this week trying to overturn the FA and Football League rules regarding "football debts"
We'll_live_and_die
Super Moderator
Which may link into a possible exit of SISU this week?
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
Godiva / OSB - I agree with your analysis of the situation but the one aspect that puzzles me is the actual investors in these funds. They have put up the £30m and via the funds loaned it to the club, the club pays no interest on this loan therefore the funds receive no revenue on this "investment". The funds are administered by SISU who receive a fee from the investors for managing the funds, therefore as the funds receive no income from their "investment" and have to pay a fee they are actually losing money on the investment, hardly good business practice. I can therefore only assume that the SBS&L shares are in the funds amongst a raft of other shares that are making money and the losses on the SBS&L "investment" are masked by gains elsewhere. Does that make any sense?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Yes jan that is the conclusion I have come to also. Otherwise the risk is all in one very porous basket !
Bennets Afro
Well-Known Member
Do sisu's investors know what they have invested in???
I have an isa the bank invests on my behalf and I ain't got a clue who's share my money has bought. I see this as similar maybe?
I have an isa the bank invests on my behalf and I ain't got a clue who's share my money has bought. I see this as similar maybe?
I understand what you say, and it makes sense if the SBS&L loans are part of many other investments. Yet, we do not know and I would not bet on it.
Hedge funds are known as 'happy to share profit' but 'avoiding to share losses'. It may not be fair, but on the other hand they have to make a profit for the investors to get a slice of the cake.
Yes they do. That would be normal practice.
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
So Godiva you are saying their investors have loaned £30m and are happy to not only not make any money on that loan but are happy to be charged for not making any money? I may not be a financial wizard but that makes no sense to me. I know in the greater scheme of things £30m is not a massive amount to a pension fund etc but surely they would want to make a return. Maybe that is why SISU don't want us to know who the investors are so we cannot approach them and point out the truth about their investment if SISU are burying the bad news in amongst lots of other better performing funds. Maybe the investors don't even know they have invested in SBS&L.
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
Crowy - you commented "do we need to worry about SISU anymore?" so I was just asking if they had fecked off in which case we don't but if they are still here then they are the root cause of our current ills and therefore we do have to worry about them and their intentions for OUR club.
Sorry Jan, still trying to work it out. Doesn't seem to add up at the moment. Will keep digging.
BackRoomRummermill
Well-Known Member
We seem to have more club insiders than tesco clubcard holders. It is ridiculous
This is the internet I suppose........
This is the internet I suppose........
According to OSB the funds own shares (bought at £1). Had they injected the £30m as equity and thereby obtained new shares, those would be subject to decrease in value as the club continuously have been accumulating losses. A takeover today would mean they would stand to lose a great part of their money.
But the plan was never to keep compiling losses, was it? The plan was 1) Break-even (and that includes cost cuts and player trading) 2) Buy the stadium and 3) get promoted.
As Ranson never even came close to achieving object no 1, yet did spend all of the money available we are nowhere closer to no 2 and 3.
Yet, the investors money holds the same value today as four years ago and they are can still consider the investment as one for the future. The share value is still £1 and the loans have not been defaulted. When the club (hopefully next year) reach object no 1, then the shares will go up in value and new investors might be easier to attract making object no 2 possible.
BTW - we don't know how big the management fee is - but most likely it amounts to 1-2% pa.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Its not according to me Godiva its according to Company House ..... cant take credit for that
Its not according to me Godiva its according to Company House ..... cant take credit for that
Don't be so modest - it doesn't suit you
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
But how do SISU / Investors think they are going to make any money from the stadium? If they are struggling to find the £10m to buy the Higgs Charity share of ACL we can discount their ability to buy the freehold as that would be around the £100m mark. So how would they make money from a company that doesn't make money - ACL is paying back a £20m loan and reinvesting in their business and have yet to pay a penny in dividends. So this is a very long term plan that as usual would involve cutting back expenditure and costs to raise profits and would be stopped by the council who would not want their building run down. So if the penny drops with SISU that the council will not sell or co-operate then where does that leave their plan?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Thing is Sub the Ricoh does so many other things now and is expanding their events that any loss from CCFC is being made up from other events. They have a plan forward that is well financed and workable, they have realistic targets know how to get there and are well managed. They will have planned for the possibility of CCFC related income falling. They will also have shared the risk with business partners and suppliers. Sound business practice unlike CCFC
For the council or the Charity to be interested in a deal jan then any potential investor (SISU or otherwise) will need to be able to invest in the Ricoh not just the shares. That means there wont be funds to draw out, indeed it is more likely that funds will be required for development of the site. I doubt there will be any distribution to shareholders before the loans they have are paid off. I am sure this has been made very clear to any interested parties. I cannot see how SISU/CCFC are in a position to even start a bid
For the council or the Charity to be interested in a deal jan then any potential investor (SISU or otherwise) will need to be able to invest in the Ricoh not just the shares. That means there wont be funds to draw out, indeed it is more likely that funds will be required for development of the site. I doubt there will be any distribution to shareholders before the loans they have are paid off. I am sure this has been made very clear to any interested parties. I cannot see how SISU/CCFC are in a position to even start a bid