Search results

I'm all ears (genuinely, they're the size of dinnerplates - still can't hear the missus when the football's on though). Anyway, joking aside, what's the context where SISU wind us up instead of selling?

The root of one of our oldest disagreements NW - I can't see any way in which it's more rational to wind a business up for nothing, than sell it for something.

I like that idea Chief - there is something not quite right about the loan system. I'm also not keen on the idea of loaning players to teams within your own division (who then can't play against you), that seems a bit odd to me. It may just be me, in fairness. ;)

Again accepted - though I still think that at some point most investors will review their positions, at that point the CCFC fund might be one they'd ask to be removed from. New investors are similarly unlikely to want to get involved, I'd venture. Ultimately SISU themselves will also surely...

No there isn't, agreed. But if you're managing a fund that loses your investors' money, particularly if you lose that money by writing off their investment to your benefit, as Godiva is suggesting, then the odds are that your investors will dry up, I'd say. Even if you're not being that...

Absolutely - though of course the higher the risk, the higher the expected return. It's hard to see how they can get to a point to make any return from where they are now. And even if there's not much they can do about getting their money back now, I'd guess investors will be picking up on...

Fair shout, but it's hard to imagine attracting many more investors if you treated them like this. In truth I think the money put in via SISU (via ARVO, or otherwise) is all investors' funds. Entirely accept that it might be from different groups of investors, although I'm not completely...

See what you're saying - but SISU themselves only use investors money, don't they? In essence then, this would mean burning one set of investors to the tune of £30m, so that the new investors get a clean slate. I'm not sure this entirely adds up, because I think the new investors might be wary...

With regard with the debt that SISU owe to themselves, there's an old saying... If you owe someone a thousand pounds, and have nothing, and they call it in - you're f*cked. If you owe someone a million pounds, and have nothing, and they call it in - they're f*cked. ;)

ARVO has to increase its stake in the club in terms of equity if the investment is to be used for FFP, I believe. Given that ARVO is clearly tied to SISU, I can't see what SISU have to gain from passing on a loss-making business to themselves. They're still taking losses, and writing off a...

I'm prepared for it. The whole point of NOPM is to put financial pressure on the owners. If the accounts covering the last financial year are this grim, imagine how bad the next set will look. At some point, they will tire of it - and either see sense and move back, or sell up, or perhaps both.

The alternative scenario, in which SISU lose the JR/don't get the Ricoh on their terms, doesn't necessarily mean disaster imho. They could still return under the deal currently offered, they could try to negotiate something different and return, or if neither of those options are palatable...

Thanks OSB. On this basis I'm going to propose that we get two independent valuations of the worth of SBS&L. That should get shot of the 'myths' around the value of it. SISU should then sell the club for the average of the two valuations. I hope they've got change for a fiver. ;)

For what it's worth, I don't think Fisher saying that the stadium will take less than a year to build necessarily implies that it will be a temporary structure. I think it's possible that you could build a 'standard' out-of-the-box permanent stadium pretty quickly these days - how that sits...

What Brian said, really. I trust SP will be printing this out and attaching it to the dressing room door. :D

Ah, got it - thanks gents. At a billion for Champions League football, it must be the most expensive loss leader ever! Surely this can't be sustainable?

I'm with you almost 100% on everything you've posted above, except that I think that a club has to pay its way and shouldn't expect any help from the taxpayer. I'm not just talking about us here, btw - any business that can afford to pay its staff six or seven-figure salaries shouldn't be...

Why mate? Why won't it happen? Why should we pretend that there isn't a deal on the table that makes good sense for the club.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but there's no need to tie moving back into the Ricoh into any conditions that I can see. The simple fact is that by moving back, the club makes more money. At the point they're back they can start negotiating about anything they want. If that doesn't pan out...

Actually, what I was doing is shooting down the tired old argument that all this is the Council's/ACL's fault because they spoke to Preston Haskell (after all of the things I've listed). What you're doing is expanding the argument to where we go round in circles about the earlier stuff -...