oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
So CCFC Ltd is a non trading property subsidiary, always has been TF says. CCFC H pays all the bills and has always run the football side. CCFC Ltd per TF doesnt have a bank account all bank accounts have always been in CCFC H. Or so the story goes.
and yet CCFC H has funded CCFC Ltd to the tune of £45m and SBS&L has funded CCFC Ltd by £14.5m. Figures that surely must be based on what is in the accounts, accounts the director says contains errors and were prepared on the wrong basis, an argument the administrator has to investigate and admits might be the case. So how can you say the accounts are wrong but make a claim based on those accounts if you know they are wrong?
CCFC ltd has never had a bank account, or if it has it has never been used because all that is there is a non trading property subsidiary that owns a lease and the rights under the golden share. Doesnt that and the previous paragraph imply that all other payments, liabilities/assets etc are actually for CCFC H and any payments classed previously as on behalf of CCFC Ltd were actually payments for CCFC H and should not therefore be included in the inter company debt of £45m? If the bank account is not used how did CCFC H and SBS&L pay nearly £60m into ccfc Ltd and to what purpose?
So using TF's argument that CCFC H always has run the club. That leaves CCFC Ltd as legally responsible for the rent and licence payments, the rates probably and some building insurance possibly plus an audit fee. There is very little else to account for. But you would not leave those costs locked in to CCFC Ltd, because the losses would be non trading for tax purposes, so you would recharge them (maybe excluding the audit fee) to CCFC H. That would pretty much leave CCFC Ltd at a break even situation every year. Not requiring any funding from either CCFC H, SBS&L or ARVO.
We moved to The Ricoh 2005. The accounts to 31/05/05 for CCFC Ltd showed an inter company debt due to CCFC H of 9m. It is unclear if TF is arguing that CCFC Ltd since 1995 or since the new stadium move that CCFC ltd was a non trading property subsidiary but lets assume it is since the move in 2005. If the only costs are the ones related directly to the lease and licence (as detailed above) and if for commercial & tax reasons those costs are recharged to CCFC H in full (ie any payment of rent by CCFC H is settling a debt it owes CCFC Ltd not a loan) then how could that 9m inter company debt in 2005 have changed ?
This of course ignores the effect of any adjustment that may be necessary because liabilities were discounted in 2007/08. It also ignores any adjustment for the years 1995 to 2005 if the basis was wrong there then the starting position is nil and there could be no debt owed to CCFC H by CCFC Ltd
You cant have it both ways in my opinion. Either the accounts are right and CCFC Ltd owe CCFC H and SBS&L nearly 60m............... or the accounts basis is wrong and CCFC Ltd owes CCFC H 9m at most (and nothing to SBS&L). That of course would affect any creditor claims for the administration. It also has implications as to where the football trade is.
So which is it?
and yet CCFC H has funded CCFC Ltd to the tune of £45m and SBS&L has funded CCFC Ltd by £14.5m. Figures that surely must be based on what is in the accounts, accounts the director says contains errors and were prepared on the wrong basis, an argument the administrator has to investigate and admits might be the case. So how can you say the accounts are wrong but make a claim based on those accounts if you know they are wrong?
CCFC ltd has never had a bank account, or if it has it has never been used because all that is there is a non trading property subsidiary that owns a lease and the rights under the golden share. Doesnt that and the previous paragraph imply that all other payments, liabilities/assets etc are actually for CCFC H and any payments classed previously as on behalf of CCFC Ltd were actually payments for CCFC H and should not therefore be included in the inter company debt of £45m? If the bank account is not used how did CCFC H and SBS&L pay nearly £60m into ccfc Ltd and to what purpose?
So using TF's argument that CCFC H always has run the club. That leaves CCFC Ltd as legally responsible for the rent and licence payments, the rates probably and some building insurance possibly plus an audit fee. There is very little else to account for. But you would not leave those costs locked in to CCFC Ltd, because the losses would be non trading for tax purposes, so you would recharge them (maybe excluding the audit fee) to CCFC H. That would pretty much leave CCFC Ltd at a break even situation every year. Not requiring any funding from either CCFC H, SBS&L or ARVO.
We moved to The Ricoh 2005. The accounts to 31/05/05 for CCFC Ltd showed an inter company debt due to CCFC H of 9m. It is unclear if TF is arguing that CCFC Ltd since 1995 or since the new stadium move that CCFC ltd was a non trading property subsidiary but lets assume it is since the move in 2005. If the only costs are the ones related directly to the lease and licence (as detailed above) and if for commercial & tax reasons those costs are recharged to CCFC H in full (ie any payment of rent by CCFC H is settling a debt it owes CCFC Ltd not a loan) then how could that 9m inter company debt in 2005 have changed ?
This of course ignores the effect of any adjustment that may be necessary because liabilities were discounted in 2007/08. It also ignores any adjustment for the years 1995 to 2005 if the basis was wrong there then the starting position is nil and there could be no debt owed to CCFC H by CCFC Ltd
You cant have it both ways in my opinion. Either the accounts are right and CCFC Ltd owe CCFC H and SBS&L nearly 60m............... or the accounts basis is wrong and CCFC Ltd owes CCFC H 9m at most (and nothing to SBS&L). That of course would affect any creditor claims for the administration. It also has implications as to where the football trade is.
So which is it?
Last edited:
imp:
