Search results

If it is going to happen why wait till Thursday and allow others to scupper the deal (s) ..... surely after the King saga they would just get it done? Will believe it when I see it

chap every player is for sale at the right price..... even Ronaldo! every club is a selling club..... you name me one that doesnt sell players? We are not a top club, at the moment you could argue we are not even a progressing club...... players want to progress and play at top level, we like...

except the accounts indicate he cost over £900k......... why move a player on who had a season in the championship and the general opinion is he is expected to do well this season........... to replace with one player who has never played close to this level and another who isnt fit to play yet...

tisza according to JE at the time we were minutes from administration so the likes of GR MM etc had little choice.... they didnt choose to they had no option. "The point about the bank debt then is well made but still we seem to owe 12 million to other parties now (more than we owed the bank...

in round numbers Net liabilities at 31/05/07 were £37m and gross liabilities were £43m. By the time deal was done we had incurred a further loss of £7m so add that to both figures. Net liabilities £44m and gross liabilities £50m. The deal wrote down the net liabilities by £35m leaving net...

I think had the crowd numbers been maintained then the position would have been better. The fans dont like it but what the Board is doing is actually the right things from a purely business accounting point of view. They cut costs to match income. Break even will involve getting bigger crowds...

no prob Dinyull ...... plus not having a go because i can see where you are coming from just adding to the info

Embargo do not relate just to transfer fees. A club can be put under embargo for that plus not paying HMRC, not filing accounts or if the League believe there are financial irregularities. The last threat embargo revolved around the accounts not being filed and that was entirely due to the level...

Sorry but all our debt is not "in House" the 2010 accounts list a further £4.2 million in additional borrowings above the £24m SISU have put in, not to mention a further £8m plus in regular creditors (HMRC, trade creditors, deferred income etc)

May 2007 the CCFC Holdings Group had a negative balance sheet of £37.6m (gross liabilities £40m) having made losses in 2007 of £4.3m and 2006 of £3.3m May 2010 the SB S&L Group had a negative balance sheet of £17.9m (gross liabilities £37.1m) having made losses in 2010 of £5.7m and 2009 of...

Only tried to explain the thinking of the Board nothing more ......... personally I cant see crowds increasing much either :( and for their strategy to work the income has to. They are gambling on the AT factor if you ask me To be fair though we have spent in previous seasons and crowds have...

Think everyone assumes that if the stadium was owned by the club then it would be better run with more events and bigger profits. That assumes that the current management do not seek to maximise income/profits. Lets be honest CCFC do not have a great record for financial management do they...

Rent is already discounted and it maybe renegotiated but why havent they already because they could do that now? 50% doesnt give CCFC control of ACL anything they want to do can be blocked by the council. The income from events go to ACL - a seperate company, They would not have a right to...

depends on the contract but I believe we retained his registration so the fee we received would have written off as income not as an asset. So I doubt CCFC put any value on him in terms of the accounts and at the clubs financial year end 31st May there would be no value to it which ever way you...

No because the loan fee had a life of January to May 2010 after which that fee was worthless. In the accounts the fee would be written off over the life of the contract (5 months)

fact is the players are valued in the accounts at cost of transfer less the amortisation of that cost over the life of the contract - they are not put in at some other value. For that reason Conor Thomas is actually valued in the clubs accounts at £0 because we never purchased him but we all...

Think about it ......... the Board have obviously set about reducing costs, have discussed before that presently there has probably been £2m knocked off the wage bill (we have not replaced the players that left ) There is clearly more cost cutting going on, next thing is to increase the match...

I think it has more to do with poor journalism than anything. CCFC need the press on their side to get their message across, the CT needs the information source of CCFc to help sell their rag ...... so they need each other. However the repeated factual mistakes, the sensationalist journalism...

SISU do not own us the shares are owned by the private equity funds that SISU manage. The money is owed to the private equity funds not SISU themselves. It was "invested" largely to pay the debts. Every quote you get from the Board is about additional investors, they do not say it is for sale...

sorry jan have to disagree with that ............ the players are valued by the club at the cost of transfer and that cost is written down over the life of the contract. There is no mechanism or purpose to any such revaluation. Taking it further we dont even put a value on the young players...