Nick
Administrator
I doubt they would care as long as their money wasn't going down would they?
Who owns Coventry City? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter John_Silletts_Nose
- Start date
I doubt they would care as long as their money wasn't going down would they?
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
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
Nick
Administrator
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.
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
Nah. Just means sometimes I've got too much time on my hands.
Yes, that is why investors rarely place more than 5% in one investment. They certainly do not 'go all-in' in one investment.
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
Usually as soon as you get a mortgage, the bank or other institution will sell that mortgage to someone else and they in turn may sell it. Mortgages are bought and sold all the time. So in fact your bank may well not own your house.
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
You forget that if their investments make a lot of money, they have to pay taxes on the profits. So it's handy to have a loss-making vehicle to offset those profits and thus avoid taxes.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Which is why the FL rules are unfit for purpose. That or the fans don't understand their true purpose
John_Silletts_Nose
Well-Known Member
I believe that the investors are "wealthy families and financial institutions, including pension funds" but who are they?
Moz and others raised the point on CWR tonight as to what is the raison d'etre for SISU to remain in the club, I would ask why are the investors prepared to see their investments lose further value.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Just to add that's true for a private loan but if you buy something on hire purchase or some store charge cards (plus some buy now pay later deals) you only get title to the item when the final payment is made. One of the oldest scams was to sell your hire purchased car to some unsuspecting person. The car is then repossessed leaving the purchaser with no car and no money.
Joy has no limits when we look to the sky.
Astute
Well-Known Member
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?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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
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?
John_Silletts_Nose
Well-Known Member
The Economist have an article on the subject to which you refer, http://www.economist.com/news/inter...sed-stealing-machines-here-instruction-manual
I don't think there is anything illegal taking place, it's just a series of bad decisions and poor planning with too much secrecy which leads to speculation.
I would just like to know who are the investors/owners.
I don't think there is anything illegal taking place, it's just a series of bad decisions and poor planning with too much secrecy which leads to speculation.
I would just like to know who are the investors/owners.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
As long as you don't ride it with you're moobs out.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
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?
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
so as per sepalla that they 'sisu' shepherd other peoples money,
there have been some dodgy shepherds about,
some of whom could be termed 'rustlers'
let's have some explanation as to the exploits of;
Clouting, Brody, Dulieu, Igwe, Fisher, Waggott, to name but a few
there have been some dodgy shepherds about,
some of whom could be termed 'rustlers'
let's have some explanation as to the exploits of;
Clouting, Brody, Dulieu, Igwe, Fisher, Waggott, to name but a few
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Who owns what or controls what is pretty irrelevant in all this really.
The structure (s) of these organisations is deliberately designed to make sure the oiks of this world cannot find out who they are in order to prevent them being pressured (such as the OPs likely intent) or embarrassed publicly in any way.
In other words...you may as well seek something else upon which to spend your time more wisely.
PUSB
The structure (s) of these organisations is deliberately designed to make sure the oiks of this world cannot find out who they are in order to prevent them being pressured (such as the OPs likely intent) or embarrassed publicly in any way.
In other words...you may as well seek something else upon which to spend your time more wisely.
PUSB
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?
albatross
Well-Known Member
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
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
Last edited:
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.
albatross
Well-Known Member
albatross
Well-Known Member
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".
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".
What about Starbucks? They're a franchise, so the shops have different owners.
Ah that - like almost every major company with operations all over the world. They simply make sure they pay their taxes in the least expensive country.
It's different from sisu/ccfc as ccfc does not trade with other sisu companies in low-tax countries so they can't 'shift' profit/tax from England to say Luxembourg or Caymans.
albatross
Well-Known Member
Yes but each of those shops will pay Starbucks for the right to operate. So its not the individual shops but the company selling that franchise that is Tax efficient.
From the BBC web site in 2013
Companies have long had complicated tax structures, but a recent spate of stories has highlighted a number of tax-avoiding firms that are not seen to be playing their part.
Starbucks, for example, had sales of £400m in the UK last year, but paid no corporation tax. It transferred some money to a Dutch sister company in royalty payments, bought coffee beans from Switzerland and paid high interest rates to borrow from other parts of the business.
Amazon, which had sales in the UK of £3.35bn in 2011, only reported a "tax expense" of £1.8m.
And Google's UK unit paid just £6m to the Treasury in 2011 on UK turnover of £395m.
I am just struggling to see why a hedge fund is investing so much time an effort into CCFC
From the BBC web site in 2013
Companies have long had complicated tax structures, but a recent spate of stories has highlighted a number of tax-avoiding firms that are not seen to be playing their part.
Starbucks, for example, had sales of £400m in the UK last year, but paid no corporation tax. It transferred some money to a Dutch sister company in royalty payments, bought coffee beans from Switzerland and paid high interest rates to borrow from other parts of the business.
Amazon, which had sales in the UK of £3.35bn in 2011, only reported a "tax expense" of £1.8m.
And Google's UK unit paid just £6m to the Treasury in 2011 on UK turnover of £395m.
I am just struggling to see why a hedge fund is investing so much time an effort into CCFC
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Well actually if criminal acts have been committed then there is a good chance that things will be investigated, because the things that you say in how upper-class people make their money is criminal and I'm sure there are authorities that would be interested. So surely as YOU said that's how them people may make their money then all the people on here who want wrongs to be righted should be up in arms about it, especially as it involves CCFC?
It wasn't me who brought the council into the discussion, it was you post 41 wasn't it?
I've never said that CCC shouldn't be investigated, in fact I it seems the sensible thing to do if we get to the bottom of it. I just don't want public money wasted on it if the outcome is that everything was done above board. Also, along with the JR, if this comes out in favour of the council, I'd love to see what you come back with then against the people you seem to hate (for some reason). But it seems interesting that you don't ever question Sisu or demand that they be investigated for the things that they may have done, especially their investors.