Nick
Administrator
I doubt they would care as long as their money wasn't going down would they?
which ever way it is presented,
i doubt whether those who have put money forward are fully aware of the way in which their investment is, or has been used,
if indeed they were made aware,
i think they would withdraw their funds
I doubt they would care as long as their money wasn't going down would they?
You certainly go the extra mile CJIt was stated she was the club owner. Not one of a few. If this is the case why isn't she listed as so on the club website?
Correct. French Lebanese. He's called Antoine. Did a lot of digging, long phone calls to the British Virgin Islands and a visit or two to their embassy in London (about 5 mins walk from SISU's current HQ and even closer to their old one) but I couldn't find out any more than that aside from a few documents that didn't really lead anywhere.
Depends if the rest of it is elsewhere and increasing. If you invested a tenner into a investment scheme. The pot was distributed equally between three entities. One made £40, one made £20 but one lost the £3.33 it was given would you care?
You certainly go the extra mile CJ
Admirable effort
I guess it depends if I know the details on how it was managed or if I gave it to somebody to manage.
I'd be about £46 up off my original tenner, if that is how it was put to me by the investment company I'd be happy.
If I'd have put a tenner in and I now had 0 or £5 then I'd be asking questions.
That's a bit like saying the bank with whom I have my mortgage don't own my house. Banks shepherd money. SISU own the club.
which ever way it is presented,
i doubt whether those who have put money forward are fully aware of the way in which their investment is, or has been used,
if indeed they were made aware,
i think they would withdraw their funds
Yes, that is why investors rarely place more than 5% in one investment. They certainly do not 'go all-in' in one investment.
Correct. French Lebanese. He's called Antoine. Did a lot of digging, long phone calls to the British Virgin Islands and a visit or two to their embassy in London (about 5 mins walk from SISU's current HQ and even closer to their old one) but I couldn't find out any more than that aside from a few documents that didn't really lead anywhere.
I agree that it would be good to know for reasons of transparency but I don't think it will make any difference.
And the notion that whoever owns the money owns the club is not strictly true. You lend me £500, I buy a TV with the money, I still owe you £500 but you don't own the TV, I do.
It's all very complicated. Sisu, Scornset, Arvo ... SBS&L, ccfc holdings, ccfc limited, otium ... ACL, FIL, North Coventry Holdings, Higgs Charity, Compass, IEC ...
Is it any wonder we get lost in the who-is-who?
And out of all of these would you like to make a list of those with secretive owners?
You say 'secretive' as if they hide their identity deliberately. I wonder if you think they are drug barons or women traffickers?
Anyway - those anonymous shareholders are really not important as they don't call the shots. They have placed a tiny part of their fortunes in the hands of a speculative hedge fund, but they have no control. Sisu have the control and we all know Joy and that she is ultimately the one calling the shots. She is not truly anonymous and she is not the owner though.
It's more interesting to list those who do 'secretive' dealings. Non-disclosed agreements. Secret commercially sensitive contracts ...
That will be all of them.
BTW - I forgot CCC on the list. Freudian slip?
To be fair there has been a lot of media coverage recently linking hedge funds to money laundering for crime cartels (not that they're deliberately seeking out cartels to launder their money more a case of don't ask questions and you'll get told no lies) and also the football business as a means to launder money for crime cartels. We are a football club owned by invisible owners who hide behind a hedge fund.
So does that prove that our shareholders use sisu to launder money?
How many fortunes have been made on high moral and impeccable ethical standards? Even the upper-class's old money may have been made by extortion, exploiting, violent means.
Do you know that most pension funds place a part of their money in hedge funds?
I'm not saying it proves anything. Merely pointing out that there are 2 industries that are being linked to money laundering and CCFC happens to be both of them. I'm not suggesting that is the case is with CCFC just pointing out some facts regarding football and hedge funds.
And by doing so you are trying to plant a seed of suspicion.
It's not even necessary to make this sort of indirect character assassination - you can simply point to facts of how they manage the club. It's not like you'll be out of ammunition any time soon, is it?
No I'm not. I'm just stating some facts that are in the public domain. The only person suggesting that they are linked is you.
I don't actually think CCFC is being used to launder money but I do find it interesting that it's apparently happening in both industries. If I was going to judge anyone it would be those responsible for football governance as surely it's their job to make sure that football isn't being infiltrated in this way either directly from criminal ownership or inadvertently through companies that faceless owners hide behind.
Well, I definitely got the impression you tried to make them look guilty by association.
When it comes to FA - they use the same guideline as the stock market. You cannot stay anonymous if you are a major shareholder.
BTW, I own shares I 12 different companies and is a major shareholder in one of those. I am registered publically by name in the company where I hold more than 10% of the shares, but not in any of the others. As a shareholder I am by definition owning a part of those companies, so that makes me a faceless owner hiding behind the rules & regulation of the stock market.
Well you were wrong. In fact I thought it was you who was suggesting it was you who mentioned it in the first place. I was just pointing out what's been reported in the media.
So it's not just on here you're anonymous? I'm assuming Godiva isn't your real name
You want to see my white horse?
So does that prove that our shareholders use sisu to launder money?
How many fortunes have been made on high moral and impeccable ethical standards? Even the upper-class's old money may have been made by extortion, exploiting, violent means.
Do you know that most pension funds place a part of their money in hedge funds?
In the same way you say Tony is planting seeds, with what you said above, does that mean that you're ok if our 'real' owners have made their fortunes by extortion, exploiting and violent means. Yet you are spitting feathers about the council?
Just some rambling thoughts after reading this thread.
Are we all being distracted by CCFC in all of this. We are totally focused on possibly one corner of SISU's business dealings. What are their other dealings and do they need to have a loss making company in order to offset tax from other investments?
What better vehicle than a football team to lose money, to SISU it may not matter at all what league we play in so long as we lose money. It will be interesting to see what the next set of accounts reveal. Are our losses growing or decreasing?
It would appear that SISU have done pretty much everything to make the club run at a loss, taking charges against good will in the books which while not really a cash transaction appear on the debit side of the balance sheet and even moving to Northampton to ensure more losses.
Is the Ricoh sales and rent debacle a side show to ensure that they are maximising their earnings else where? So are we being encouraged to look at CCFC something we love when the real reason for our current plight is else where?
Just the ownership structure of the club is convoluted, could we ever unravel what is really going on
I think there is a tiny flaw in your post when you say sisu need a loss making company to offset tax. Even if tax from losses can offset tax from profits, it's overall better to have no loss making companies at all.
Like Starbucks?
from the BBC Site after they had paid no corportion tax despite 400M is sales
The Public Accounts Committee of MPs said last year it "found it difficult to believe" Starbucks "was trading with apparent losses for nearly every year of its operation in the UK".
I haven't even remotely implied that it's ok if any of our shareholders have made their fortunes in immoral or unethical ways. Just that we don't know and there is no way we will ever find out.
Why bring the council into this discussion? I don't see the relevance. Unless you're implying that because we cannot investigate our 'faceless' owners it's only fair we don't investigate the council and their servants who operated ACL?
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?