Search results

I guess if Higgs win then it proves sisu are scum - if sisu win then it only proves that sisu have the best lawyers.

Have you missed one of the many post's explaining how the management fees are a tool to distribute cost across the group and not money paid to sisu for managing the club? Sisu is getting paid by the funds/investors not by the club.

I think the FFP embargo means that a new signing can only be on 75% wage of the player he replaces. So if Leon Clarke is on £8k per week a new player can be on £6k per week.

Fisher has said a few times they would bring in another stadium management company. They would probably take over the staff and run the business going forward. The difference being that the lease and contracts would be owned by SBS&L while the staff would be employed by this other stadium...

You can't just make a bid ... you need to know what you are buying. That's why the process requires a valuation ... a due diligence. It's quite complex and not ... as I see another poster suggest ... something the Trust can afford. It will include a swarm of lawyers and auditors and they don't...

The only way sisu can ever sell the club is in a package club/stadium.

You're right. Nobody has thought about that. It hasn't been debated at all. Not the last hour I think.

I think he was a free agent. Wasn't he on a 15K per game contract?

Actually Fisher hinted that the 'mess' continued under Ranson and Dulieu.

Sigh ... I have tried to explain the nature of management cost in multiple ways. If you don't get it by now I am simply not gifted enough. The 'mess' Fisher talked about was more related to different and shifting accounting policies since 1995.

I have no idea - you would have to look into SBS&L's books to see what is in there. But administration, office rent, electricity ... all kind of stuff paid by SBS&L but shared with holdings and limited.

No not true. Again its overhead cost distributed to companies within the group. Like adminisraton cost (e.g. book keeping) paid by SBS&L but doing work also for holdings and limited. Their share of the cost is what is labelled management fee.

OSB is talking about interest on loans - not management fees.

It's quite normal for groups to distribute cost. It's not really complicated. It is even normal in a single company to distribute overheads on department level.

Say SBS&L is billed for cost that really should be shared with Holdings and Limited - then once a year as the books are being closed the cost is distributed as a 'management fee'. It only takes one posting instead of maybe hundreds.

Usually hedge funds are paid by their investors - they don't take money from the companies they run. The management fees often quoted on this site relates to the cost distribution between SBS&L, ccfc holdings and ccfc ltd. It was cost neutral as well as cash flow neutral for the group.

The management fee is a financial instrumet to adjust/distribute cost through the group. It is not money being paid to sisu or the management of the club.

You mean 'the owners'?

That is surely a question for OSB, but I think you are right about the cost being as low as can be. Sadly the income has come down just as much. Income from the FA cup and especially the upcoming Arsenal match will help, but the fact we are still under FFP embargo says we are some way off break...

I don't know if the terms would be the same. We are paying a relatively high interest rate on the initial ARVO loan as the club was severely distressed then. Maybe stadium loans would be cheaper if ARVO believed the case was less risky?