DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
I know that we do.
Sisu were sold a pup. The clock was ticking. I bet they rue the day.
Sisu were sold a pup. The clock was ticking. I bet they rue the day.
How was the clock ticking?
Did Geoffrey Robinson force them to appoint Coleman and spend millions on shit at gunpoint?
As stated the debt was low and Sisu showed no intention of renegotiating the rent, or in fact managing the club in any fashion until relegation woke them up. Joy herself admits that. If I buy a house and leave it to rot for 6 years should I get the council to pay to fix it up again?
They took a gamble, made some fair coin through interest and "management fees" and it didn't pay off. Typical City finance: Capitalism for the poor, Socialism for the Rich. Profit is the reward for risk, not a guaranteed right.
some do seem to miss the point that Sisu take Miss-management fees yet that it is their investors who are loosing money not sisu
Given you are PWKH's favourite poodle I'm sure you do find it astonishing. For the record, you have missed the point. This discussion centres around the rent deal prior to sisu and its contribution to wrecking the club under its former guise and also its deterrent to other owners than sisu.
Duffer believed the arrangement could be any fee and restriction on revenue and it wouldn't impact potential buyers. Given his clear lack of Interest in the club and mid peculiar obsession with all things ACL this isn't a surprise.
Many seem to believe that management fee's are money going into sisu pockets.
If next week we were back at the Ricoh and the consequences were;
ACL liquidation - all employees gone
Losses for the charity
Council in turmoil
Would you say yes as the club always comes first?
Hopefully one day you will understand what is going on.
We can't prove that they have or haven't taken money out as they haven't published the accounts since 2011. It is now 2014. So what would you say they have to hide? And before you say that the crap going on with CCFC LTD and more stopped them from publishing the accounts can you please explain what happened to the 2012 accounts as they were well overdue.
SISU accounts and investors accounts are different. SISU have been taking 2.6m approx mismanagement charges. This would be paid by the investors. This would be paid to SISU. 1.2m interest would be paid to the investors. OOOOPS no money left so added to the debt. But investors left hanging on with the promise of the Ricoh.......and that is if they know what is going on.
Or we can go with what you 'know'. SISU not taking out investors money to pay for their mismanagement fees. So this would mean that after 6 and half years at about 2.6m a year the fund would owe SISU about 17m. Wouldn't this make SISU a part owner and of more than 10% so they would have to inform the FL?
Yes, I hope one day I will understand what is going on - and that one day you will also understand what is going on.
The management fee you keep referring to is a cost distribution tool between companies in a group - charged by ccfc holding to ccfc limited.
You ask what happened to the 2012 accounts? Well, I think they released accounts for SBS&L and OTIUM a few months ago? Didn't OSB do an autopsy back then?
Forget accounts for holding and limited - those companies are being liquidated.
Your last paragraph confuses me. Yes, sisu are being paid by their investors, but we don't know how much. As that money is not channelled through SBS&L or OTIUM it will not have any impact on sisu ownership at all. There are no indication anywhere that sisu own a single share in SBS&L or in OTIUM.
So what about the accounts for 2012 that were late for CCFC Ltd? Yes they don't have to declare them now. Don't make it right though. Yet we should just forget about them.
So if the charges that SISU put against our club is just a tool how has our club run up debts of 70m as declared by Appleton? Are you saying that they are not real debts?
Yes I hope that the truth comes out so we can all see what has happened to our club. Near on debt free....as agreed by OSB.....to 70m in debt in 6 years needs explaining. That is unless you are saying that Appleton got it wrong.
So where do you think that the 70m debt came from that Appleton declared? 70m in 6 years. We were losing 0.5m a month at one stage.
That debt was in ccfc limited - it was not the result of the combined group. A major portion of the debt was left-over from when sisu took the club over ... paper money used to build an almost impenetrable wall of debt to protect against hostile takeover - and that worked nicely for sisu last summer!
There couldn't be a hostile take over of the club though within a normal trading environment, could there? Can you explain to me how this might happen? SISU demanded all the shares back in 2008, lest you'd forgotten.
Strikes me it could have been designed top protect the club in administration, placing SISU group as primary creditor; and as you say, it worked last summer, didn't it?
It did. But I have pointed to this for some years. I first said it in one of the FAQ's I posted with OSB some 2½ year ago.
They can be judged on what they do now with the caveat that the Richardson era has completely hamstrung them. Completely. They're like a boxer with an arm tied behind their back.
I see. So, you're saying that for some time, you think that SISU have been building liability to offer protection in administration? Why would they do that?
As stated, a hostile takeover would be impossible, given the share demand. Surely they didn't have an eye on administration for some time, did they? :thinking about:
The problem for me is that I can't see Sisu and our club as the same thing. Yes legally they're the owners but I see them as a separate entity and thanks to their actions since acquiring our club they've made us far worse off than we were before they came in. Don't forget that the previous owners were made up of ordinary fans, not just the previous board. The rent was obviously too high I don't think there is anyone on here who denies this. However Sisu didn't complain or attempt serious negotiations about it until after we were relegated. If they did due dilligence before asking for the shares, why didn't they identify the rent as a priority to be tackled? If they did identify it why did they do nothing about it for so long? These people are supposedly business geniuses so why didn't they make sure that the business foundations were secure before anything else?
Why didn't they identify the purchase of the Higgs share as a priority and if they did why didn't they do anything about it? The Higgs have two seats on the board of ACL the board is made up of 5 members so that's 40% representation we could have had. Then as I understand it if we could have convinced the neutral board member to vote for us we could have put forward a motion to give the club revenue from matchdays. The council were in my opinion more likely to have agreed to a sale of their ACL shares if they could see they had someone they could trust to sell them to. I don't believe that the rent boycott did anything to help generate trust and just antagonised the situation further.
They've struck gold in Elvis who is working wonders in very difficult conditions/circumstances, and comedy gold in Tim Fisher. The fact still remains that we're playing home matches in Northampton and have had our lowest ever attendances under Sisu custodianship of our club.
Should the previous board have sold HR? Probably not but then Sisu should have known what they were buying into and if they did acquire a 'pup' then blame the people who did the due dilligence and advised them to come anywhere near our club. They weren't forced to acquire the club and I seem to remember St. Joe of Coventry urging supporters to give up their shares to Sisu.
of course the other question is what rate of interest is being paid on ARVO loans ? Actually physically paid out in interest in 2012 SBS&L accounts was £980,737 (was that all to ARVO ?) it looks like it was, with a further £218,893 accrued interest owed to ARVO
Look - if you took over a basket case like this club 6 years ago you would have a plan. You would also know that there would be a risk it wouldn't play out and so you would know you could end up where you started with an unsustainable business heading for administration. It would be very wise to make sure that should it come to that you would be in control.
Does that suggest sisu were planning to liquidate the club from day 1? Not at all - but it does suggest they knew there was a risk it could go wrong and they implemented that risk in their business model.
Had the plan worked they would have harvested a huge (tax-free?) profit, so clearly that would be the preferred end-game.
Probably the most sensible article ever written. James you are wise well beyond your years
SISU were fully aware of what they were buying into.Don't think for one minute that these people deserve any simpathy for their monstrous treatment of this club and it's supporters. F**k 'em all.
No one trusts this or any other hedge fund, sadly they have form as vultures and this one as liars......................it's a tough act for anyone to defend, even you !!
Look - if you took over a basket case like this club 6 years ago you would have a plan. You would also know that there would be a risk it wouldn't play out and so you would know you could end up where you started with an unsustainable business heading for administration. It would be very wise to make sure that should it come to that you would be in control.
Does that suggest sisu were planning to liquidate the club from day 1? Not at all - but it does suggest they knew there was a risk it could go wrong and they implemented that risk in their business model.
Had the plan worked they would have harvested a huge (tax-free?) profit, so clearly that would be the preferred end-game.
How do you know how old James is, out of interest?
Probably the most sensible article ever written. James you are wise well beyond your years
Is there a loan on Ryton ? That property is charged to ARVO to secure their loans and has been for some time so I do not think so. Is the interest cost on season tickets bourne by the company or the individual? in any case the total deferred income was 1.2m and a big chunk of that would be the sponsorship deals they had in place. Is there anything still outstanding to Ranson or was he paid off from the sale of Prozone? I think there was some interest on the advance for the Prozone sale.
We don't know for sure because there is no real detail but the majority of the interest would seem to be on the ARVO loans.
Are you saying my analysis is wrong or flawed?
There couldn't be a hostile take over of the club though within a normal trading environment, could there? Can you explain to me how this might happen? SISU demanded all the shares back in 2008, lest you'd forgotten.
Strikes me it could have been designed to protect the club in administration, placing SISU group as primary creditor; and as you say, it worked last summer, didn't it?
Don't talk to me about strikes
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?