Search results

Interesting report on the off shore finance affecting our leagues. https://www.taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Final-Offshore-Game-Report.pdf close to one third of the clubs in the four divisions involved, and size of club doesn't seem important

Interesting article on offshore sports ownership. Both Bolton &CCFC mentioned but no great detail on CCFC https://www.taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Final-Offshore-Game-Report.pdf

safe to say the assets are all neatly tied up with Mr Anderson and a British Virgin Islands company called Moonshift Investments Limited with charges registered in September 2018

damn good article and well said

buying half of the Ricoh doesn't necessarily get you more funds

i am inclined to agree G

not in any HoT's unless there is a clause agreed within them that the terms will be. Which is why the whole thing about relying on "we agreed HoT's" is a nonsense - they were not binding on either side

also wasps have given the "ricoh" as security to the bond 100%. If SISU are not going to be part of that security that means that wasps must find something to replace the 49% they are selling to make sure the bond is fully covered. Alternatively the proceeds of sale would need to be sufficient...

The trouble with this rumour is that no one has been clear as to what "buying 49% of the Ricoh" actually means. Is it incomes shared 49% if so which incomes? Is it 49% of the net profit from the match day incomes ? Is it buying 49% of IEC Experience Limited which is the catering and events...

think the heads of terms were in place before the EFL meeting was postponed so the two might not coincide. But heads of terms are only an agreed intention and usually not binding on either party. By the 29th i suspect the EFL will want to see signed contracts. To be honest though i am not sure...

I agree with you i don't know how that works in reality either. I think it is just another internet rumour with no real substance. Why would SISU want 49% it gives them no control not even sure it gives them any right to income but it would cost a significant sum. It is unlikely that SISU would...

You mean the Luton Town that had a bigger turnover, smaller losses, back to back automatic promotions, are building their own ground not just talking about ideas, have spent £26m on it so far, with a plan to have part of the development sold to make them debt free (sounds familiar), have...

No one, because CCFC are not in it (sorry but it had to be said). However i think Charlton have a very good chance of getting promotion. Currently top of current form table based on last 6 games Sunderland 14th, Portsmouth 4th Doncaster 9th and Perterborough 6th. They are hitting form at the...

I know the club said there was a short time frame on the ground share, but i cant help wondering if that is just a negotiating ploy to put pressure on wasps. When the club moved to Northampton that didn't happen until mid July, and Otium didn't even own the club until late June so could not...

fair enough but i am not sure we can assume there has been no interest other than the Hoffman Consortium. My own take on it is that Seppala simply hasn't wanted to sell whilst her court challenges progressed. Plus other interested parties might prefer to make their approach privately not in the...

If stadium ownership is the key to a sustainable football club, why do most clubs outside of the Premier League make losses? very few make a profit old article but illustrates the Championship Football finance: Championship club-by-club Surely the keys are better decision making? and a level...

all businesses do not run on debt, all football clubs do seem to Instead of loans the EFL could insist that, say from the start of next season, all future investment is done by gift or the issue of shares. Of course it would need the clubs to agree to it at a general meeting, so unlikely to...

the details of the Directors & Owners Test (Fit & Proper) can be found here EFL Official Website - Appendix 3 - Owners' and Directors' Test What it doesnt seem to do is to test whether the person has the ability to own and run a football club in good times or in bad. Or whether they understand...

not really had everyone done the same what do you think the outcome would have been..... the SISU interest gave CCC and other parties an out. For a business that prides itself on playing hard ball then it just looks like another weak position to take .... the first of many. It was their choice...

In terms of running the business SISU have put the finances of day to day operation in to better order. But the club is not self sustaining, the chosen model is to rely on player sales to fund it , but even so it still requires working capital from the shareholders to keep going. It is also...