questions for friday and monday forums (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter quinn1971
- Start date
My thoughts posted from the forum thread quinn:
I listened to it on the radio tonight, and I thought there were a couple of major errors by Fisher (and the other guy whose name escapes me) that weren't really followed up by anyone.
Firstly, when he was asking the academy kid who paid his wages last month, this is completely irrelevant to the point that was being made. The lad said that his payslip (as presumably was his P60) was from CCFC Ltd and not from Holdings. This means that his wages (and tax/Ni) are submitted to HMRC through Ltd. The question of who paid his wages matters not one iota, if Holdings paid his wages the cash would be trasnferred via an inter-company account on the balance sheet, but the wage cost itself is in Ltd. I could have paid his wages myself but the cost is still in Ltd (as we already know from the last submitted accounts).
Secondly, when the accountant was talking about where the GS is and the company name and reg no. he said that the name can change but the number can't (which is correct). The FL annual return submitted in June last year shows tha the GS is in company no. 03056875, which is Ltd. the reg no. of Holdings is 00094305.
Thirdly, when he said the accounts were a "mess" I didn't hear anyone ask him about the turnover of Ltd being £10.2m in 2011? As with the PAYE, any turnover included in the accounts must be submitted on the VAT returns for that company. I assume these were reconciled when the 2011 accounts were prepared (as is common practice) and agreed. So if this turnover was for Holdings, have all the VAT returns been submitted incorrectly?
I will be at Mondays forum and am hoping to get the chance to address these points to Mr Fisher.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on here already, but 5 mins before the forum went on air, Stuart Linnell told everyone over the mic that he'd signed the Keep City in Coventry petition and told Fisher we had better start the season at the Ricoh or else, which was met with a lot of applause and cheering. This was told to me by someone who was there tonight.
I listened to it on the radio tonight, and I thought there were a couple of major errors by Fisher (and the other guy whose name escapes me) that weren't really followed up by anyone.
Firstly, when he was asking the academy kid who paid his wages last month, this is completely irrelevant to the point that was being made. The lad said that his payslip (as presumably was his P60) was from CCFC Ltd and not from Holdings. This means that his wages (and tax/Ni) are submitted to HMRC through Ltd. The question of who paid his wages matters not one iota, if Holdings paid his wages the cash would be trasnferred via an inter-company account on the balance sheet, but the wage cost itself is in Ltd. I could have paid his wages myself but the cost is still in Ltd (as we already know from the last submitted accounts).
Secondly, when the accountant was talking about where the GS is and the company name and reg no. he said that the name can change but the number can't (which is correct). The FL annual return submitted in June last year shows tha the GS is in company no. 03056875, which is Ltd. the reg no. of Holdings is 00094305.
Thirdly, when he said the accounts were a "mess" I didn't hear anyone ask him about the turnover of Ltd being £10.2m in 2011? As with the PAYE, any turnover included in the accounts must be submitted on the VAT returns for that company. I assume these were reconciled when the 2011 accounts were prepared (as is common practice) and agreed. So if this turnover was for Holdings, have all the VAT returns been submitted incorrectly?
I will be at Mondays forum and am hoping to get the chance to address these points to Mr Fisher.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on here already, but 5 mins before the forum went on air, Stuart Linnell told everyone over the mic that he'd signed the Keep City in Coventry petition and told Fisher we had better start the season at the Ricoh or else, which was met with a lot of applause and cheering. This was told to me by someone who was there tonight.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
I have asked this a couple of times but all you get is negativity from certain posters who then have nothing to say I would ask why do SISU actually want to keep CCFC when nobody else wants them here what are their objectives giving us a better club is a non starter they have done nothing in the 5 years they have been here
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Good reply shame you are not at the meeting tomorrow which is live on air I know someone who is going will see if they can get them answered mind you with SISU reading these treads they will probably have the answers ready
I've got my own questions but if there a more important ones that need answering id rather ask one of them.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
You should ask your own questions as they are all relevant as fans we all want the same thing CCFC in our own backyard with owners who care
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Think that people need a little perspective:
I think people underestimate the depth of the damage done to the club by previous regimes honest and professional running of the club. I am sure that due to the relative haste that the deal was done by SISU full due diligence may well have been foregone and over the past couple of years new horrors have reared their ugly heads (no not McGinnity). The task they have faced has been immense and they probably underestimated the mess the club was in and the amount of work needed to turn it around. Obviously the recession hasn't helped with the health of SISU themselves and the ability of the apathetic Coventry public to pay for a poor standard of football. They are definitely heading in the right direction, although not at the speed many would like, but as far as I remember the only promise Ranson has ever made was that they would leave the club in a better state than they found it. Not difficult since it was basically bankrupt and trading insolvently.
The clubs finances seem on a better footing with the long term debt allegedly under control but the operating deficit can only be addressed by increasing the revenue and as the club has pretty much made all the cost cuts possible it is up to the Coventry public to support the club and get behind the team. That does not mean supporting and worshipping Ranson etc but supporting the club many of them claim to support yet do sod all to actually do so - why should SISU stump up millions for new players etc if from a catchment area of approx 450,000 only 15,000 bother to show their support? Maybe they have worked out that the max support the club is likely to get on a regular basis, even if succesful, is around 23,000 and 8000 extra punters would not bring in enough revenue (£2 millionish) to cover the investment needed (£3 millionish) to get that success.
I think people underestimate the depth of the damage done to the club by previous regimes honest and professional running of the club. I am sure that due to the relative haste that the deal was done by SISU full due diligence may well have been foregone and over the past couple of years new horrors have reared their ugly heads (no not McGinnity). The task they have faced has been immense and they probably underestimated the mess the club was in and the amount of work needed to turn it around. Obviously the recession hasn't helped with the health of SISU themselves and the ability of the apathetic Coventry public to pay for a poor standard of football. They are definitely heading in the right direction, although not at the speed many would like, but as far as I remember the only promise Ranson has ever made was that they would leave the club in a better state than they found it. Not difficult since it was basically bankrupt and trading insolvently.
The clubs finances seem on a better footing with the long term debt allegedly under control but the operating deficit can only be addressed by increasing the revenue and as the club has pretty much made all the cost cuts possible it is up to the Coventry public to support the club and get behind the team. That does not mean supporting and worshipping Ranson etc but supporting the club many of them claim to support yet do sod all to actually do so - why should SISU stump up millions for new players etc if from a catchment area of approx 450,000 only 15,000 bother to show their support? Maybe they have worked out that the max support the club is likely to get on a regular basis, even if succesful, is around 23,000 and 8000 extra punters would not bring in enough revenue (£2 millionish) to cover the investment needed (£3 millionish) to get that success.
Cornwallskyblue
Member
i want to know if the Golden share is not with the company in admin then the club are not in admin surely and we can carry on!
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
lord s, what do you define as a catchment area, TF seems to think 30 miles,
i think you'll find that encompasses more than 450,000,
i think you'll find that encompasses more than 450,000,
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
So being in the third tier is better then when they took over players worth then 500,000 combined.Any decent players sold for millions still an estimated 60 million in debt yep definitely the right direction oh and no ground to play in
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
You need to get there and talk to Geoff Foster. He held the control of the mic.....I'm sure he would appreciate an overview of the question. On the other thread I give an explanation for doing that.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
Maybe they have gone too far.. Telling the fans they are leaving the city for 3 years is not good business. They say they know the numbers. The weight of opinion is stacked against them whatever their intentions. Btw. Good points.
Diehard Si
New Member
On last year's fans forum Tim said that SISU had converted 35m debt to equity. Why therefore are we still £70m in debt? If 35m has been converted to equity we should be only 35m in debt, with a larger share capital.
So how is that possible? Did he lie?
If someone has the audio of it then it would be even better to play back to him as it would prove him full of it.
So how is that possible? Did he lie?
If someone has the audio of it then it would be even better to play back to him as it would prove him full of it.
Leamington Pete
Well-Known Member
Will someone please ask what is the plan regarding where we will play next season if still in administration in August if the FL won't sanction a ground share when a club is in admin. The only option would be to play at the Ricoh, so will they talk to ACL?
Last edited:
Otis
Well-Known Member
I think the biggest question here right now after last night, is WHY is the club not for sale?
Think we are all scratching our heads on that one. He seemed adamant. Adamant to not sell a business that has been failing for many many years and at best only has a 10 year plan to try and turn things round.
Just wonder why they suddenly seem to care so much about the club and why it has suddenly become so valuable to them.
Think we are all scratching our heads on that one. He seemed adamant. Adamant to not sell a business that has been failing for many many years and at best only has a 10 year plan to try and turn things round.
Just wonder why they suddenly seem to care so much about the club and why it has suddenly become so valuable to them.
Last edited:
Otis
Well-Known Member
He talked of an interim ground. A short term stop gap.
My guess would be a vacant ground such as Nene Park. I'm sure the FL would allow a stop gap interim solution until a ground share is agreed.
I think the biggest question here right now after last night, is WHY is the club not for sale?
Think we are all scratching our heads on that one. He seemed adamant. Adamant to not sell a business that has been failing for many many years and at best only has a 10 year plan to try and turn things round.
Just wonder why they suddenly seem to care so much about the club and why it has suddenly become so valuable to them.
I suspect the club is for sale at the right price. Decisions like that would not be made by the likes of Fisher, but by Seppala who would not have to consult Fisher.
If either of the two known bidders want to make a cash offer for the club, they will not deal with Fisher. Organ grinder not monkey.
Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
You claim "the accounts are a mess" - your words last night. If that is the case, why were they signed, who signed them and submitted them to Company House as being accurate and correct ?
I think the biggest question here right now after last night, is WHY is the club not for sale?
Think we are all scratching our heads on that one. He seemed adamant. Adamant to not sell a business that has been failing for many many years and at best only has a 10 year plan to try and turn things round.
Just wonder why they suddenly seem to care so much about the club and why it has suddenly become so valuable to them.
You can't ask that though because in response you get "I'll say it again for the 4th time THE CLUB IS NOT FOR SALE" It was asked multiple times last night why they wouldn't sell and every time the same stupid none answer was given.
and how a none trading company can run up a debt of 70 million, and while a sisu company arvo called in this debt when they know they don't have a bank account and that it was the other company they have a charge over that could actually make an attempt at paying them what they are owed.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Nene park is 40 miles away so is to far for the FL has to be within 25 miles and in the midlands also I believe \Peterborough were looking at playing there
Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
If AVRO funded Holdings Ltd, then the debt owed is that of Holdings Ltd, not CCFC Ltd., Tim ! Explain how funds put into Holdings can be attributed to CCFC Ltd as it;s debt.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I was down to go last night but problems at the office meant I could not get there. Heard most of it in the car and at home. To be honest as most questions were fobbed off or skipped over then it was a wasted evening from what i could hear.
Further Questions that could be asked
1) the football League annual return filed June 2008 shows CCFC Ltd (including correct number) as the member of the Football League. This being months after SISU came in. The 2012 return clearly shows CCFC Ltd also. Why are those statutory declarations wrong?
2) The memorandum and articles 1996 for CCFC Ltd clearly states "To acquire from its parent, The Coventry City Foorball Club Limited as a going concern the business of the playing activities of that company and to carry on such business under the name of "COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB" " In fact the original articles were changed so it stated that. Yet it is maintained the trade was never in CCFC Ltd
3) If CCFC Ltd never had any employees why did it have a PAYE scheme at all. HMRC would have closed it if it were inactive
4) What are the terms of the ARVO loan - these will have to be declared in the next accounts and are therefore not commercially confidential
5) has TF directly or indirectly (via a company he owns or a related third party) ever "invested" money in any of the SBS&L group companies and if so has it been repaid.
6) TF claims various agreements were agreed with ACL/Charity/Council/Yorkshire Bank, were these contracts or Heads of Terms/letters of intent and there fore not legally binding
7) If the basis of the accounts was wrong why has he provided onformation on the wrong basis to the administrator thereby delaying the process and putting the club at risk like he says delays will cause
8) If the basis of the accounts is wrong how can the figures relied upon by TF be right. It has to mean that the amount declared as owed to CCFCH is completely wrong.
9) Is the intention to retain the Ryton training ground, assuming it has not been sold
10) How much will it cost to provide new infra structure for the academy at a new site?
11) Have you retained the same auditors who apparently got the report on the accounts since 2008 wrong?
12) How does it take over a year to investigate your own books, an administrator 12 weeks and £160K and you still can not provide the correct figures? If CCFC Ltd is non trading then how can it have a turnover of 9m and losses of 3m as disclosed in the administrators report
13) if you are aware that the accounts are wrong is it acceptable to provide the administrator ( an officer of the court) with information you know to be wrong?
14) if the debt to CCFC H by CCFC Ltd includes historic debt pre SISU why is the full amount of those debts included when SISU settled those debts at a greatly discounted amount. Is this not SISU trying to profit from the club on amounts they have never paid
15) Why do SISU still want to fund CCFC
16) how can you have as yet a financial plan or vision when you dont own another site. Therefore you do not know what could be built there and how much could be raised as "equity" to fund the stadium build. If you do not know that how can you plan facilities, equipment, stadium size etc. You just do not know the numbers so you can not give the fans any assurance it will work at all.
17) Is it at all unusual for a group of companies to have a centralised accounting system ? Accounting principles rely on where the liability lays not who paid it. So is this not the situation at CCFC a single bank account for administrative ease that in itself does not prove the trade was in CCFC Ltd at all.
hope that might help
Further Questions that could be asked
1) the football League annual return filed June 2008 shows CCFC Ltd (including correct number) as the member of the Football League. This being months after SISU came in. The 2012 return clearly shows CCFC Ltd also. Why are those statutory declarations wrong?
2) The memorandum and articles 1996 for CCFC Ltd clearly states "To acquire from its parent, The Coventry City Foorball Club Limited as a going concern the business of the playing activities of that company and to carry on such business under the name of "COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB" " In fact the original articles were changed so it stated that. Yet it is maintained the trade was never in CCFC Ltd
3) If CCFC Ltd never had any employees why did it have a PAYE scheme at all. HMRC would have closed it if it were inactive
4) What are the terms of the ARVO loan - these will have to be declared in the next accounts and are therefore not commercially confidential
5) has TF directly or indirectly (via a company he owns or a related third party) ever "invested" money in any of the SBS&L group companies and if so has it been repaid.
6) TF claims various agreements were agreed with ACL/Charity/Council/Yorkshire Bank, were these contracts or Heads of Terms/letters of intent and there fore not legally binding
7) If the basis of the accounts was wrong why has he provided onformation on the wrong basis to the administrator thereby delaying the process and putting the club at risk like he says delays will cause
8) If the basis of the accounts is wrong how can the figures relied upon by TF be right. It has to mean that the amount declared as owed to CCFCH is completely wrong.
9) Is the intention to retain the Ryton training ground, assuming it has not been sold
10) How much will it cost to provide new infra structure for the academy at a new site?
11) Have you retained the same auditors who apparently got the report on the accounts since 2008 wrong?
12) How does it take over a year to investigate your own books, an administrator 12 weeks and £160K and you still can not provide the correct figures? If CCFC Ltd is non trading then how can it have a turnover of 9m and losses of 3m as disclosed in the administrators report
13) if you are aware that the accounts are wrong is it acceptable to provide the administrator ( an officer of the court) with information you know to be wrong?
14) if the debt to CCFC H by CCFC Ltd includes historic debt pre SISU why is the full amount of those debts included when SISU settled those debts at a greatly discounted amount. Is this not SISU trying to profit from the club on amounts they have never paid
15) Why do SISU still want to fund CCFC
16) how can you have as yet a financial plan or vision when you dont own another site. Therefore you do not know what could be built there and how much could be raised as "equity" to fund the stadium build. If you do not know that how can you plan facilities, equipment, stadium size etc. You just do not know the numbers so you can not give the fans any assurance it will work at all.
17) Is it at all unusual for a group of companies to have a centralised accounting system ? Accounting principles rely on where the liability lays not who paid it. So is this not the situation at CCFC a single bank account for administrative ease that in itself does not prove the trade was in CCFC Ltd at all.
hope that might help
Last edited:
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yes, the FL rules state this, but I am sure they would allow special discompensation as an emergency until the ground share has been agreed. It could be just 2 or 3 games.
The other alternative if we are still in admin is not being able to play any home games at all.
I am sure the league would allow it as a very temporary measure.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Sorry,
Keep forgetting to put quotes round things.
That was from the Chairman of the Trust, whilst don't agree with the majority of it, there are some good points raised.
If this comes about because of a continuation of Admin which I'm assuming is the point here ,It will be the RICOH .
It will be Appletons remit not Fishers.
Jeez and there I was thinking the World had shifted Axis.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
OSB do you want to go tonight? I will gladly give you my place as I know your questions would be a thousand times better than mine
doesn't the club (ltd) still have an active lease with ricoh? so while fisher is completely unwilling to say it if we don't come out of admin, he can't agree a ground share deal and we play at the ricoh?
Otis
Well-Known Member
Another key question I think needs to be raised.
I thought Fisher was quite smarmy and arrogant when he made the quip about bidders buying CCFC Ltd.
'What are they bidding for?' he declared repeatedly, in a smug self-satisfied manner.
Well, I think the question needs to be put to him 'What do you believe they are bidding for? As you are one of the bidders for CCFC Ltd yourselves, you are fully aware of what you are bidding for, so you must have some idea of what the alternative bidders are bidding for. So, what is that?'
He smugly threw that quip in last night fully knowing that none of us fans know what he knows.
I thought Fisher was quite smarmy and arrogant when he made the quip about bidders buying CCFC Ltd.
'What are they bidding for?' he declared repeatedly, in a smug self-satisfied manner.
Well, I think the question needs to be put to him 'What do you believe they are bidding for? As you are one of the bidders for CCFC Ltd yourselves, you are fully aware of what you are bidding for, so you must have some idea of what the alternative bidders are bidding for. So, what is that?'
He smugly threw that quip in last night fully knowing that none of us fans know what he knows.
Leamington Pete
Well-Known Member
But an "interim" ground now as well? Really? Where's this one then Mr Fisher?
More bluff and nonsense.
Oh well we're all for breaking records ............Record number of wins in season(What division was that again)..........Record number of managers...........Record number of consecutive Embargo's.................Record fan dissatisfaction............Ad Finitum.:jerkit::jerkit:
