italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Yes, offers above £40M. LOL
Perhaps they would take that? Nobody has tested it. After the Dale Evans saga, I'm sceptical about Hoffman and his consortium's offers for the club. SISU's statements in respect of Dale Evans seem to suggest that they are open to offers.
Nothing like it.
Another Deflection from the Sisu apologist.
Don't think you are in that much of a position to call others apologists and go on about deflection. :emoji_laughing:
If you don't like the actual details then you would say that, wouldn't you ?
Why not just say the only comments allowed on this board are to slag off Wasps and not upset Sisu ?
We could both retire from posting then and you could just cream in the advertising revenues.
So I have a house for sale worth £200K but I have struggled to pay bills and run or credit card debts on household luxuries I can't afford.
I have run up debts of £130K.
The buyer needs to then pay me £330K before I sell it?
Nice thought, but we all know that any player worth money will be sold, as soon as they get a half decent offer. And Mark Robins will leave, as soon as he gets what he considers a better offer.I will make a very bold statement
If SISU keep hold of this management team and the nucleus of the current squad we will be back in the championship in 3 years.
Then they will sell up.
No if the buyer is taking on the 130K debt he pays you £70k (200 less 130) you walk away with that. If buying just the assets you walk away with £200k and the £130 debts
But no one in their right mind would take on the shares of Otium because it means you are taking on all its assets and all its liabilities as disclosed in the accounts. That is assets 2.3m and liabilities of £16.9m. Which is why the net asset value of Otium is £0
But SISU are not, if they were selling at all, asking for a net asset value. They are asking for a settlement. Way above asset value or worth
No way have SISU put £75m cash in to the club, up until 31/05/16 it is around £33m at the most
Hoffman consortium was after the assets of the football club it wasn't taking on the borrowing debt at all
Chesterfield 2016 accounts provide some interesting detail including a breakdown of turnover and a breakdown of administrative expenses
CFC 2001 LTD - Filing history (free information from Companies House)
Chairman's statement is interesting, very informal, sounds more like a post on here than something to be recorded in accounts. That said, it does make it feel a bit less detached.
Where will we be playing?
No if the buyer is taking on the 130K debt he pays you £70k (200 less 130) you walk away with that. If buying just the assets you walk away with £200k and the £130 debts
But no one in their right mind would take on the shares of Otium because it means you are taking on all its assets and all its liabilities as disclosed in the accounts. That is assets 2.3m and liabilities of £16.9m. Which is why the net asset value of Otium is £0
But SISU are not, if they were selling at all, asking for a net asset value. They are asking for a settlement. Way above asset value or worth
No way have SISU put £75m cash in to the club, up until 31/05/16 it is around £33m at the most
Hoffman consortium was after the assets of the football club it wasn't taking on the borrowing debt at all
Chesterfield 2016 accounts provide some interesting detail including a breakdown of turnover and a breakdown of administrative expenses
CFC 2001 LTD - Filing history (free information from Companies House)
Thats what I'm saying.
Why take on the debts of the owners when you buy the asset?
With the house example you wouldn't obviously, but surely that's what Sisu are doing by asking for more than the asset value.
It's not as if they owe other people and have responsibilities to pay them. They owe it to themselves and the mess up was entirely within their control.
Maybe because you actually go out of your way to apologise for Wasps and deflect from them and post essays deflecting from them that you clearly haven't written yourself?
It's nothing to do with actual details is it, it's the fact you were being ironic which is yes, a fact and yet again you can't see it.
You can try and play the "comments aren't allowed to upset SISU" line all you want, I will say the same as the other times you have said which was "Why not create a thread about them?" which you never do?
So there you are, deflecting from what was said onto trying to make out people can't upset SISU on here to get away from what Grendel said, rather than just reply to him and prove him wrong.
Hence, "you aren't in much of a position to call others and go on about deflection".
Which is what Grendel said about Wasps / ACL, isn't it?
very chatty style, obviously irked by some things.
Pages 28 & 29 are interesting. On the basis that football club incomes and costs tend to be similar in terms of type its interesting to extrapolate them to CCFC (Otium). There is a lot of discussion about the direct costs and administration costs that Otium disclose (1.1m and 1.8m in last accounts). Judging by these Chesterfield accounts then the figures which are not too dissimilar at 500k and 2.2m the room for SISU to be taking large sums of money from the club would seem to be next to none. Staff costs were also similar at 4.1m compared to our 4.3m Even turnover before player sales is comparable CCFC/Otium 5.4m and Chesterfield 5.5m
Yet they make profits and we make 2m losses
If explaining what has happened is apologising for them, then guilty as charged.
The threads come and go and get lost in history.
Make a sticky 'SISU OUT' if we all want Sisu out as is continually suggested. It would stop continued regurgitation.
Although you would need to agree to do that for it to happen. (Effectively also wanting Sisu out yourself.
In reality I suggest you are scared to upset the SISU applecart regardless if you support them or not for legal reasons.
No because obviously ACL is worth more than they paid even including the debt that they took on.
In CCFC case they aren't.
As a non-accountant I found the Chesterfield accounts to be easier to understand, with income and expenditure more clearly labelled. It appears that Chesterfield include incoming transfer fees as turnover, CCFC do not. Why is that?
CCFC accounts include interest of £2.4m, Chesterfield £244k
No, it's exactly the same.
Buying the actual assets and then the debt, whether they take it all on,try and get it cut down to 50p for the £ or something or try to get it all written off is what has to be agreed / decided.
Your now starting to talk like Sisu.
ACL were not in administration so it was a straight deal.
Sisu tried to force it into administration so they could get it cheap.
For the loan read it as the initial kitting out of the stadium (£21M).
Sometimes there is a deal to be done rather than take our club to oblivion to achieve it.
50p in the pound infers that, surely ?Who said it was in Administration? I didn't say anything about administration so what are you on about now?
50p in the pound infers that, surely ?
I meant trying to do a deal on the debt. If SISU reckon there's 30 million debt somebody could offer them 15m for it to see if they would accept that. As opposed to buying it all, or attempting them to write it off.
It's their debt, run up and owed to themselves, so why would anybody do that ?
If it was owed to the tax man or a supplier then the club would have a commitment to pay it.
I guess this is the problem where Sisu want something back and the buyer can't see anything for it so won't buy us.
Just need to wait until Sisu finish court action and finally pi55 off before this nightmare ends.
It's the same with anything if people have put money in, they will want to try and get as much back as they can so it's to then see what they would take to go.
It's like mortgaging something up to pay yourself some money back you have put in, why not just write it off?
I think I agree.
They still see a chance of getting something back through the courts and thats the problem buyers have to offer against.
Once that has gone we will see how compassionate they are to CCFC when we will see their full wrath.
The problem Hoffman had is that it looked as if he wanted to take all of the things that were worth anything and completely ignore any of the debts.
Any money given to Sisu to satisfy their losses means the buyers now have debt in the club and no assets to show for it.
Which means less money to spend on players if they are going to run the business properly.
Can't understand people on here having a go at potential buyers who don't want to buy off the debt as all it will do is continue our financial problem.
The problem Hoffman had is that it looked as if he wanted to take all of the things that were worth anything and completely ignore any of the debts.
I don't see that as a problem, it is common sense. Why take on a mess someone else created?
Why would there be debt if they had paid SISU off?
That would happen with Hoffman, who wanted to give SISU payments every so often.
It's clearly going to be rejected straight off isn't it?
Isn't any debt classed as a "mess somebody else created"?
The payments would more than likely be made from the club.
However, wherever the payments came from, it would indirectly be at the expense of investing in the club and players.
You aren't making sense.
If SISU were paid off and whatever was agreed to get rid of their debt it would be gone.
Yes, Hoffman offered to pay them a % of future income.
What sort of point are you trying to make? Surely the debt that Wasps are paying off will detract from players, from somebody else's mess?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?