Search results

My point is simple: The accounts published shows the results of having Ranson, Hoffman and Elliott running the show. All they have done since the takeover is there in the reports: The increasing losses, the increasing liabillities, the decreasing assets ... everything they have done is reflected...

You cannot run a company on turnover - you need profit to be sustainable. Prozone was sold for something like £7m - a lot of money, when the owners pockets are empty and there are still more bills to pay. PS - there's absolutely no optimism in my posts these days.

You should read this thread http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/17826-SBS-amp-L-accounts-2011 What happens between CCFC H and CCFC ltd is not important (like the write-off), it's much more important how the group perform as a whole. And again please remember the accounts are the reflection...

Look into OSB's posts in the finance section. The administration costs are 'tainted' by a one-time write-off. The club still does not pay interests on loans to the sisu funds - but as the external debts starts to raise, then interests paid goes up. It has nothing to do with manipulation.

I don't care about Prozone ... this is a football club, not a software developer company. Anyway, the club received 5 years profit for Prozone, not a bad deal. But I am very happy Ranson (and Hoffman and Elliot) is gone ... he (they) was (were) directly responsible for the mess reflected in...

You miss the fact that the accounts shows the status per May 2011. More than a year ago. Everything that has happened since are not reflected in the freshly printed accounts. But maybe now more fans will understand why Ranson, Hoffman and Elliott had to go?

I think not. Out of the £15m, £9m is a one time 'non-cash' write-off. The accounts shows finances more than a year old and is the status when sisu took control of the board and got rid of Ranson, Hoffman, Elliott who had run the club since the take-over. Since then, a year with intensive cost...

And again - the accounts are the status at the end of May last year. They are reflecting the situation at the point where Ranson, Elliott and Hoffman was kicked off the board (sorry, of course they left by their own choice when they were not able to get sisu to inject more funds to spend on...

Didn't OSB say the £9m was due to a write down? So not real money.

The commercial income is up £1.4m - that may account for some of the 14 additional staff.

No, not pretty at all, but we all expected this. Just so nobody are confused: The accounts are more than a year old - pretty much the status known to sisu as they forced RR out and took control themself. The reallity in the newly published accounts should be paired with the cost savings last...

What baffles me is that AT is still talking about him as if there is a realistic chance of getting him. One obstacle is obviously the fee, but competition from championship clubs is a mountain too high. So why does he go on about him? I could maybe understand AT if the club could match any...

Yes, NOW everybody knows ... but it was not the case a year ago when the fans first called sisu for liars and demanded to know the truth. Telling the truth a year ago would have been suicide.

The thing is, that anybody reading this forum have known the truth about the financial situation all along. Not from club or owner statements, but from our own financial detective aka OSB. Saying that the club should have been open and straight about the situation is easy, but if they had...

OSB, I am not sure the negotiation will proceed in a way where sisu is making an offer per say. I think it's more the other way around, where sisu is presented with a price tag and different 'solutions'. The negotiation is probably (I am speculating here) more focused on how much more than the...

Nobody is bank rolling sisu - they are a fund management firm and they have not invested their own money in the club - at least not to my knowledge. It's easy to think 'hey, if they can find millions to buy a part of the stadium, why couldn't they find 2 pence to invest in the team and save us...

It may be possible, but is it likely? You started your argument by stating sisu would take out 75% of tranfer income to repay their investors. You ask OSB if they could do this without disclosing it in the accounts, and OSB reply that by law any payment to investors has to be disclosed. There...

A number? If I put myself in your mind, I would probably come up with the number 666.

Really? That is quite a statement that suggests you know more about the clubs financial affairs than even OSB does. When did the club start to pay anything back to the investors?

I am NOT an accountant by trade, so I am most probably wrong ... yet, the sharp decline in income from 2002/3 to 2003/4 may be the loss of PL umbrella payments. I also think the decline was before sisu took over.