Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
I guess the one silver lining is that we're not £60m or £70m in debt but £39m.
Woo hoo! Weeman is getting smashed tonight!!!
Woo hoo! Weeman is getting smashed tonight!!!
What Is evident Is that despite statements from Fisher about cashflow this season
The previous two seasons have seen us generate losses on the scale of when we were In the Championship yet wages over the period were less than 30%of those levels
The average gate dropped 33% for year 1 and dropped much further again at Sixfields. I don't believe the wage bill and other admin costs have any way near followed the drop in income. I said yesterday that I can't see us breaking even this season even with the Ricoh return. Gates are too low, we're carrying too many players or carrying too many of the same type of player.
The real situation is that the ARVO picture has been recovered with extra costs/fees/interest (not yet taken out in cash) whilst all the other creditors got shafted. Was always going to be the case.
I still don see their exit strategy though unless we get things right on the pitch and someone else wants to take on the debt or we get taken on by another foreign company who can make the most of the losses to offset tax liabilities.
It has to be in the interests of SISU overall to load all these ' staff and admin costs' against the club. I would imagine that it has to be for tax avoidance purposes on profits elsewhere in the group ?! Otherwise if this was a sole operation, it would require 'real' funding and be a basket case of a company that would have gone under again by now.
But how many look at the details?To be fair OSB, you've never steered us wrong IMO and the writeoff of tens of millions of debt did seem a little too good to be true.
I wish someone with Fisher's ear would tell him that this sort of stuff is counter productive. Just be 100% open and honest with us otherwise it ends up biting you on the bum.
We can all accept we're £40m in debt or losing £xm a year or whatever, it's all most of us have ever known. But this kind of thing never goes down well with fans, no matter how good you think it'll sound at the time, the details usually come out pretty quick these days.
If he has said we are debt free then that is simply wrong.
What fees?
What creditors got shafted?
... what real situation?
The management fees being charged as per the accounts
The creditors had to take a reduced amount from the administration per pound of debt they were owed
real situation is that the former major creditor has now built up the same value of debt that they had previously even though they had a reduced pence in the pound reduction as part of the administration whilst others could not do that
so far we have still owed by SBS&l 39m ........ converted in to shares in otium 60.9m ....... CCFC H transferring debt to Otium 60.9m....... and the administration of CCFC ltd writing off 70m in irrecoverable amounts........ just how much real debt can one club generate?
This is all perfectly legal use of the legal and accounts systems ............ no wrong doing as far as I can see but the one original amount of investment has become, by use of the group structure, several different debts to be utilised
Its quite clever really even if somehow it doesn't seem to me morally right
What management fees? How much is that? Are you suggesting sisu take out money to themselves?
The major creditors are the shareholders. ACL didn't take a hit on money owed to them - but the lease was broken and rent is now >£1m lower per year.
A clever bloke like you will know why SISU persist with all this supposedly endless funding of a hopeless Midlands football club. Why don't you give your version as to why they won't bail out and what advantages there are to them in continuation and why do they load all these charges against the club ? Please don't say they still think they are going to storm through the leagues to the Premiership with kids and short term loanees !
So, if I was in sisu's shoes?
Well, I would be very pleased it wasn't my own money, but money from rich investors, who have placed a tiny percentage of their wealth into a risk taking hedge fund. A lottery ticket. I believe the original funds each had more than 10 investors, and if the numbers in the accounts are to be trusted (???) then each investor has bought their lottery ticket at around £500.000. I don't think losing half a million will ruin any sleep.
But so far the original investors money isn't totally lost - as SBS&L still exist and the 'loans' is still sitting in the balance sheet at full value.
Then there's ARVO. The clubs bank. They are in a different position as they need to keep funding the club with either loans or equity. If the club runs out of money then even the smallest outside creditor would be able to serve a wind up petition. The extreme consequence would be that ARVO lost their entire investment (+£9m). But again - if ARVO is a lottery ticket for more than 10 rich people, then none of them would hurt seriously.
But of course nobody want's to keep pouring money into a failed enterprise. So the management has been told to devise a strategy that will end (or minimize) the endless stream of postcards: 'All is fine, send more money'. That strategy seem to be three phased: 1: Cut wages and staff to match the income, 2: increase revenue and 3: Increase value of club.
The recent accounts suggest the club could potentially become independent of ARVO's hand outs. That require we stay up and next year get some increased revenue from player sales and/or a cup fixture away against a 'big name' and/or increased gate receipts.
So, if I was in sisu's shoes I would bite my time.
I don't think they are going anywhere soon.
That pretty much concurs with that I've said in the past, though I thought they might off load after 3 or 4 years of better than break even, just servicing the ARVO interest. If they stay like that taking £1 or £2M pa out then the club stays in D3 unless it gets lucky (or gets a bad manager).
I also think they have an alternative strategy which involves finding an investor willing to fund a stadium development inside a bigger site, but to do that they need a site which is local and fits in with an outside investors strategy (a housing site or high-tech science park are probably the only games in town). I don't think they have either a suitable site or the investment lined up, though I would expect they've talked to a few potential investors and investigated a few sites.
Neither of the above futures is guaranteed, the plug could be pulled at any time.
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?