So you want to buy CCFC...... (1 Viewer)

Captain Dart · Apr 21, 2017

oldskyblue58 said:
Also all of a sudden it is being quoted that they only paid £1 for the company ...... it is not the consideration day 1 shown in the 2008 accounts?

To be fair it is a much smaller lie than SISU's claim they've invested £70M (or £100M as in Reid's latest nonsensical piece which I quote from below)

The club has claimed Sisu and associated companies including Arvo Master Fund have invested at least £70million in the club, including in inter-company loans and some debts now transferred into shares. There have been some reports that the figure is now above £100million.

oldskyblue58 · Apr 21, 2017

Just to be clear the OP gives the main frameworks. Within that there are options for negotiation, eg loan write downs, pay offs in the pound, what happens to Ryton, performance payments, what assets or liabilities actually taken on etc

My feeling is that any deal would be done in tried and tested (failed ?) ways. Which is a worry because ultimately it leads us back to the same place. More creative thinking is required perhaps. I would hope that fans are given an opportunity to buy into any deal done by whoever does it even if it is a small percentage - but that percentage has to be voting shares not lip service class B non voting shares

oldskyblue58 · Apr 21, 2017

Captain Dart said:
To be fair it is a much smaller lie than SISU's claim they've invested £70M (or £100M as in Reid's latest nonsensical piece which I quote from below)

But that's the bit that really annoys me however big or small the lie or misdirection. It is either deliberate or lazy, the facts are out there and have been for some time. The effect of such misdirection is to create confusion, bitterness, conflict and division....... which allows the likes of TF & SISU the ability to carry on unchallenged

The Penguin · Apr 21, 2017

The "SISU have invested ELEVENTY BAJILLION DOLLARYDOOS" argument has long fascinated me. Do they not realise that they are essentially saying that their acumen is so great, they have pumped all this money into a football team....and the result is that they are two divisions lower than they were when they started?

Not to mention on the verge of homelessness.

Warwickhunt · Apr 21, 2017

Nick said:
I don't argue that, my thought is that they are asking that to try and call Hoffman's bluff. The same as the proof of funds stuff to see if it is a serious bid or not.

Going forward, do we want people to be hidden again and should that be ok "because SISU were too"?

Maltese people are so shy Nick :happy:

skybluetony176 · Apr 21, 2017

oldskyblue58 said:
They have put in around 32m cash (SISU 18m ARVO 13M) as far as I can see but some of that might be selling services in and calling it a loan. The original loan was really taking responsibility for the net creditors, introducing that in to SBS&L and letting the group pay for it - end of the day only trading was CCFC Ltd & CCFC H Ltd, - all created a loan by clever accounting. Of that "purchse price" loan then I think £6m related to settling some on performance (ie promotion to Premiership) 271k related to costs of acquisition. Actual cash put in day 1 = 832563 less 271501 = 561062. These loans and "investment" have a big chunk of clever accounting about them not actual cash. The actual cash sums should be evident from the cash flow statements each year. It certainly is not 70m or even 101m

View attachment 7220

So the notion that seems to be doing the rounds that they bought the club for a pound and promptly paid off £8M of debt in hard cash is a nonsense and if I understood your post correctly (which in fairness I probably haven't) all the initial purchase cost them in real terms was £561K plus add ons?

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 21, 2017

oldskyblue58 said:
I would hope that fans are given an opportunity to buy into any deal done by whoever does it even if it is a small percentage - but that percentage has to be voting shares not lip service class B non voting shares

Even though it ultimately meant no influence whatsoever, the 'old' system under Richardson, McGinnity, Robinson was alright - it allowed people to turn up to the AGMs, voice their praise (or, more usually, displeasure!) and at least allowed some awareness of what was going on.

Think in the modern world we have to accept it needs moneyed owners, ideally, but just *some* ability to be involved/ be aware of what's going on can only be a good thing.

Nick · Apr 21, 2017

Deleted member 5849 said:
Even though it ultimately meant no influence whatsoever, the 'old' system under Richardson, McGinnity, Robinson was alright - it allowed people to turn up to the AGMs, voice their praise (or, more usually, displeasure!) and at least allowed some awareness of what was going on.

Think in the modern world we have to accept it needs moneyed owners, ideally, but just *some* ability to be involved/ be aware of what's going on can only be a good thing.

A bit before my time, but did it allow anybody with a share?

The Penguin · Apr 21, 2017

Nick said:
A bit before my time, but did it allow anybody with a share?

From memory, yes, it did.

I only say that because as a former shareholder, I seem to remember trying to line my uncle up to go to a meeting on my behalf.

Though I may be misremembering.

Nick · Apr 21, 2017

The Penguin said:
From memory, yes, it did.

I only say that because as a former shareholder, I seem to remember trying to line my uncle up to go to a meeting on my behalf.

Though I may be misremembering.

That would be much better. Even if it just gave people a feeling of being involved rather than shut out.

They could do different levels of "investment" also for fundraising.

£xxx amount gets you that privilege, £xx gets you a special seat at the ground, etc etc.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 21, 2017

The Penguin said:
From memory, yes, it did.

I only say that because as a former shareholder, I seem to remember trying to line my uncle up to go to a meeting on my behalf.

Though I may be misremembering.

Yeah, of course they all passed everything as they controlled the majority, but it at least allowed a modicum of insight!

In an ideal world, you'd limit any buyer to having 20% maximum of shares, so nobody could do anything without consensus. Arsenal used to have a structure close to this, and it kept a semblance of 'club' vs 'business'.

Feb57 · Apr 21, 2017

Just to be clear on what Sisu paid for the club, there were 55,788 ordinary shares held in CCFC (Holdings), Sisu made a cash offer of £0.0001 for every share held. Therefore the club was valued at £5.5788. They also offered the soon to be ex shareholders a single, framed, category B non voting share.
Out of interest the largest shareholdings at the time were held by Craigavon Limited with 31,871 (Geoffery Robinson) and Sir Derek Higgs 8,021, Numbers held by other members of the board at the time the offer came in were Michael Mcginity 100, Brenda Price 100, Michael Jepson 100, Joe Elliott 10.
In the letter from the then Chairman the debt carried on the balance sheet was quoted as in excess of 38 Million pounds. They (Sisu) said they would invest up to 22 Million pounds to create a strong football and business franchise.

RegTheDonk · Apr 21, 2017

RegTheDonk said:
Its high stakes poker, literally. Hoffs put in a bet on the flop. Fisher's raised. We're waiting for Hoff .... or has he already folded.

Re-raise. Interesting. Fisher has to call surely, just to see his cards.

sky blue john · Apr 27, 2017

Osb,
Could the club be bought still allowing Sisu to still persue JR2?
My thoughts are that this could scupper a sale due to all the companies under CCFC are listed as plaintiffs.

chiefdave · Apr 27, 2017

sky blue john said:
Could the club be bought still allowing Sisu to still persue JR2?

Anyone can bring, or attempt to bring a JR, you don't have to be directly involved. The bigger issue is should the JR rule against CCC there is likely to be another case regarding compensation due, if SISU no longer own the club would they be entitled to the compensation?

skybluetony176 · Apr 27, 2017

chiefdave said:
Anyone can bring, or attempt to bring a JR, you don't have to be directly involved. The bigger issue is should the JR rule against CCC there is likely to be another case regarding compensation due, if SISU no longer own the club would they be entitled to the compensation?

If they sold the club and the JR proves that the club was devalued by issues around the JR would they then be entitled to more compensation than they would if they still owned the club? I would think they would be entitled as they were the owners at the time, my understanding from the first JR is that it dealt with a specific set of events during a specific time frame. If they were the owners during those specific events and time frame why wouldn't they be entitled to claim compensation? As I said, if it proved that the club was devalued because of it and they've sold it at a loss it might actually enhance their compensation case.

oldskyblue58 · Apr 27, 2017

sky blue john said:
Osb,
Could the club be bought still allowing Sisu to still persue JR2?
My thoughts are that this could scupper a sale due to all the companies under CCFC are listed as plaintiffs.

The Hoffman deal isn't buying Otium though only the assets. So that company still exists and would still be part of the action being taken. If successful in JR2 then they could claim compensation certainly up to the date the assets were sold. Of course that then raises the question would the assets particularly the rights under the golden share have been worth more had the Wasps sale not taken place and therefore SISU forced to sell "the club" for under value etc ................

chiefdave · Apr 27, 2017

skybluetony176 said:
would they then be entitled to more compensation than they would if they still owned the club?

Sure they could argue a case for that. If they were to win then it wouldn't be a huge stretch to suggest we wouldn't have been relegated, certainly not twice, and the club wouldn't have been devalued if those actions hadn't taken place.

Would be near impossible to prove 100% one way or the other so I suppose the judge would have decide what was likely.

duffer · Apr 27, 2017

chiefdave said:
Anyone can bring, or attempt to bring a JR, you don't have to be directly involved. The bigger issue is should the JR rule against CCC there is likely to be another case regarding compensation due, if SISU no longer own the club would they be entitled to the compensation?

Ah, technically speaking CD I think you do need to be involved to bring a JR. Below from http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/data/resources/6/PLP_Short_Guide_3_1305.pdf

Who can bring a judicial review?
You have to have an interest in the decision you are
challenging to bring a judicial review, or what is called
“standing”. That means you have to have sufficient
connection to the subject matter of the claim. If the
remedies the court can offer (see section 8) might
make a practical difference to you, then the test is likely
to be met.

In this case, if there was the possiblity of damages then I guess that SISU would retain 'standing' even if they no longer owned CCFC. However that's just an assumption on my part; I'm not a lawyer although I'm pretty sure SISU are well on the road to converting me to a new career in either the law or accountancy. I remember when they used to play football here.

Jackoskyblue · Apr 27, 2017

oldskyblue58 said:
The Hoffman deal isn't buying Otium though only the assets. So that company still exists and would still be part of the action being taken. If successful in JR2 then they could claim compensation certainly up to the date the assets were sold. Of course that then raises the question would the assets particularly the rights under the golden share have been worth more had the Wasps sale not taken place and therefore SISU forced to sell "the club" for under value etc ................

so essentially, it's like Hoffman going into a shop and buying all of that shops stock, he's not trying to buy the actual shop just it's goods. That's what his bid is about?

If so isn't his offer way below value, with Stevenson, willis, harries alone must be £3mil

skybluetony176 · Apr 27, 2017

chiefdave said:
Sure they could argue a case for that. If they were to win then it wouldn't be a huge stretch to suggest we wouldn't have been relegated, certainly not twice, and the club wouldn't have been devalued if those actions hadn't taken place.

Would be near impossible to prove 100% one way or the other so I suppose the judge would have decide what was likely.

We've only been relegated once since the events covered in JR 2 so relegated twice might be a stretch too far. I cant help but think that their apparent eagerness to hold onto the club is an indicator of how successful they're expecting JR2 to be, or not as the case might be. If they were confident of a win why not just sell the club now and use the consolidated losses as part of any compensation claim. Surely if they consolidated their losses they would actually then have a very real figure to pursue as compensation? Unless of course they don't fancy their chances of winning JR2.

Ranjit Bhurpa · Apr 27, 2017

Nick said:
A bit before my time, but did it allow anybody with a share?

My Dad held 1 ordinary shares and attended the AGM on many occasions. He always made a point under AOB of quizzing Richardson about the state of the gents toilets in the Main Stand at HR. Nothing more than that but at least he was allowed the opportunity to ask the question.

The Bobster · Apr 27, 2017

Probably one for OSB.Look at it from the opposite side. Sisu being a Hedge Fund manage investments from speculators.Would it be fair to say these investors have made very little return on their investments and if Sisu sell , the crystallised debts become reality. The investors lose their investment or get x pence in the pound . If the genuine debt is £26 - £40 M that is a frightening write off for any pension company or wealthy individuals . With Sisu track record who in their right mind would give them any funds to invest.

So you want to buy CCFC...... (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known 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

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency