I actually think this paints a 'better' picture than many on here (myself included) thought. I think the 2nd to last paragraph sums everything up:
So, is the club actually £60 million in debt, as suggested by the administrator at the High Court? It is likely that CCFC Ltd are, as it is possible that costs could have been both incurred and put onto that company to increase liabilities from £57.2 million to £60 million some eighteen months later. However, if we look at the results for the group, taking the reports submitted by the parent company and investment vehicle, SBSL Ltd, we can obtain a clearer picture. The accounts for the group through SBSL Ltd show income and expenditure that compares to rivals and a net liability of £33.9 million. If we remove the £6 million deduction for the goodwill impairment, which failed to become due, this would reveal an investment by SISU and its related companies of around £10 million when purchasing the club in 2007, along with only an additional £18 million over a period of six years, at around £3 million a year. SBSL Ltd owe SISU and its related companies £29.6 million according to the accounts. How much of that is real debt, monies loaned to the group of companies, of cash actually flowing into the club? If Ainsworth is correct, a proportion of that debt could relate to management fees that have been charged to the group, but not yet paid. It is worth noting that the liabilities for SBSL Ltd will also have increased in the last eighteen months, but perhaps not significantly above the £33.9 million stated in the last set of reports and certainly not to the region of £60 million. The club is not alone in incurring losses year on year, as those in the premiership and championship all struggle to restrict wages paid in the pursuit of glory. However, part of the devaluation includes monies written off against the goodwill so these are artificially low. Either way, I would suggest the accounts for the club as a whole, as represented by SBSL Ltd show that the losses are far smaller than previously claimed.
The bold part of that gives me a little hope that SISU are actually owed less than the £60m Appleton refered to. The one positive to cling to is that our beloved owners are the ones who are out of pocket. Every cloud and all that. I know that doesn't help us in our situation and it'd be better to have no debt, but we're more likely to get a buyer with less than £60m debt, than we would, if our debts were £60m or £60m +.
The other part of the article I took particular notice to was this:
The unknown investors in SISU’s hedge funds are the majority shareholders that are the ultimate owners of the club. The identity remains unclear, yet were passed by the football league as fit and proper when the club was first purchased.
That is the bit that grates me the most. The FL are totally implicit in this whole mess yet there's no investigations into their part in this. Yes, SISU, Richardson, McGinnity, CCC, ACL all have blame apportioned but the FL seem to be getting off scot free. My own personal view is that the reason we're allowed to have some flexibility with transfers is an admission of guilt and them trying to appease a fan base that is calling for questions to be asked of them.
WM
