Who 'they'?
Sisu? Their income is not dependent on ticket sales. They don't own the club, they manage it for the investors (ARVO).
The club is dependent on ticket sales - a decline in income is reflected on the pitch.
My post should have said that I am not an accountant, now edited, sorry. To be honest, most of the financial stuff is beyond me. There seems to be differing perceptions of whether they are losing money or not. There biggest income must be season tickets.Match day revenue can't be great. As of yet, no major player sale and none really on the horizon to rival that of Callum Wilson. No cup run this year with Arsenal like attendance. Next years season ticket sales figures at best in the balance depending on the TM factor, but very dodgy if he goes. I can't see how they are not losing or a likely to be losing money. If, as Godiva says income and outgoings are balanced then I suppose you can see why there is no rush for them to go.
No, that's not my point. Valuation is not exact science and there's no law demanding the write down of loans that are fully serviced and not defaulted.
The point I try to make is that the whole idea of sisu losing money is not true. In fact they make money. The club is close to cash flow neutral - if not already. So the need for more investments/loans are limited if there at all.
The interesting paradox is that those most vocal in demanding sisu out also were the most vocal in wanting the club back to the Ricoh. Coming back provided a better financial standing for the club and keeps sisu here for a longer time.
Then surely we can press more for people to stay away? Forgetting that wanting the club back and then ask people to stay away is ... 'strange', the only thing that will accomplish for certain is less money and support for the team. The club will struggle to be competitive and promotion is unlikely in that situation. But - sisu will still make money from the investors! NOPM, Sisu-Out - whatever campaign you can create - none of that will deprive sisu their income, but the club will continue to struggle.
Who 'they'?
Sisu? Their income is not dependent on ticket sales. They don't own the club, they manage it for the investors (ARVO).
The club is dependent on ticket sales - a decline in income is reflected on the pitch.
Are you making a distinction between Sisu as a whole making money and the club still making a loss? If this is true then surely they would still want to get rid of a part of their business (ccfc) that is losing money?
Based on what you say their income is minimal and hardly worth working for ? I certainly don't buy into the more people spend, the more will be spent on playing staff either ?! It's possible but not definite. I'm not part of any NOPM or any other protest or supporter organisation by the way either, I'm just personally very suspicious of a financial entity who have been in charge of the most disastrous period in the clubs last 60 years and still keep spouting nonsense about court cases and fairy tale new stadiums !
Here you go - there is legislation for trusts and funds to maintain true and fair accounts in the Cayman Islands. As for questioning if it is honest to keep assets on the balance sheet above fair value I'm lost for words.
Regulated Entities
As discussed above, Cayman Islands entities, in general, have no statutory financial reporting requirements. However, there are reporting requirements for regulated companies of the Cayman Islands. These companies are regulated due to the nature of the business they undertake and such regulation is stipulated in laws specific to the type of business. These entities include Mutual Funds, Insurance Companies, Banks, Trust Companies, Mutual Fund Administrators and Company Management firms. The laws specific to these entities stipulate that entities undertaking these types of business (formally defined in the law) from the Cayman Islands must possess a licence. Under the laws, as a condition of maintaining their licence, the directors must file audited financial statements for the company's year-end with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (the "Authority or CIMA"). The Laws grant the Authority the power to regulate and supervise these entities as a designate of the Governor.
http://www.chrisjohnsonltd.com/html/cayman-islands/requirements.htm
The last time shares were exchanged it was for zero (or 0.0001 pence). Since then, the club has made further losses. The only fair value on any model looking at the balance sheet is zero. I'm not arguing with you any more, you're just talking tosh.
From the accounts:
During the current period, additional funding of £3.279.293 in the form of loans and £3.295.000 in th form of shares has been received from minority shareholders.
During the year 500.000 ordinary non-voting shares were issued which were subsequently converted to 'A' preference shares.
Do the math yourself.
we call it "maths" here - or we did when I was at school... Are you American?
Look on the positives.. we had a shit manager now we got a decent one... one step at a time dear boys.............and girls
I am not sure you're proving anything there.
So what is 'fair value' of the club? Is it nil? £1m? £8m?
One way of valuation is to multiply the number of shares with the latest share issue price and then add the all-time financial results. There are 64.2m shares at £1 in the club. I have no idea what the latest selling price was - so let's say £1 (I think it's much higher) - that's £64.2m plus the all-time result (in Otium) of minus £11.4m and you have a valuation of £52.8m. Is that fair? I don't believe it is, but those are the numbers in Otium's accounts. I have no idea if that is the valuation sisu's fee is based on - for their investors I hope not.
Note that in Otium's accounts they have issued shares of £60m+ to SBS&L for the guarantees owed by ccfc holding when Otium bought the assets. This is internal paper notes of no real value, and I believe it is all legal. Again I don't think it's a fair representation, but it's a way of protecting the investors 'assets' till such a time when they sell the club.
Edit: ... and while protecting the investors they are protecting their own fee!
The TINA argument doesnt hold much water for me, especially as the same people were crowing about how no one would want the Ricoh and we should "break the supply monopoly".
Face it: if all else fails we go bust and are reborn fan owned. Still not the end of the world, certainly better than limping along as a tax dodge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?