Michael Byng returns (2 Viewers)

[skybluebeduff]

Why does anyone give a shit what this clown says? Is it or will it affect us and CCFC? No! Fuck him, let him chat shit, that's all his mouth delivers.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

You're forgetting one thing though OSB. It's not real debt

:laugh: yes well that was the case ......... but then they took the manufactured & "historic" debt that didn't relate to Otium at all, transferred it in to the new company and turned it in to preference shares ......... so converting something that was nothing more than accounting trickery in my opinion to financial debt instruments that cannot simply be written off. All perfectly legal.

Did they need/have to burden Otium with it, no....... but they chose to transfer that debt there and to formalise it as the issued share capital of the business accruing dividends of millions that the company cannot pay unless it has some massive windfall. So why do it?

 

[wingy]

:laugh: yes well that was the case ......... but then they took the manufactured & "historic" debt that didn't relate to Otium at all, transferred it in to the new company and turned it in to preference shares ......... so converting something that was nothing more than accounting trickery in my opinion to financial debt instruments that cannot simply be written off. All perfectly legal.

Did they need/have to burden Otium with it, no....... but they chose to transfer that debt there and to formalise it as the issued share capital of the business accruing dividends of millions that the company cannot pay unless it has some massive windfall. So why do it?

Were not ready to transfer It over to another part of the portfolio at that point.
Do loans get tax relief?

 

[skybluetony176]

:laugh: yes well that was the case ......... but then they took the manufactured & "historic" debt that didn't relate to Otium at all, transferred it in to the new company and turned it in to preference shares ......... so converting something that was nothing more than accounting trickery in my opinion to financial debt instruments that cannot simply be written off. All perfectly legal.

Did they need/have to burden Otium with it, no....... but they chose to transfer that debt there and to formalise it as the issued share capital of the business accruing dividends of millions that the company cannot pay unless it has some massive windfall. So why do it?

I wonder what Chris Anderson will think of all that. Be interesting to here his take on it given football finance is supposed to be his specialty.

 

[oldfiver]

Don't separate the assets from the liabilities

If someone took over CCFC as it stands then they might pay £1 for the ordinary share capital (ownership)because the overall company has no value to it at all.

In fact the balance sheet value in the accounts of Otium is minus £70m+. Included in that figure there are preference shares issued too that give rights to ARVO and SBS&L (but are not ownership shares) - effectively £64m of debt

In buying the ordinary shares then the purchaser takes over the assets of the company but more importantly the liabilities & preference shares. They don't actually pay up font for the debt but take on going responsibility for servicing the debt. The creditors providing the loans etc might agree to discount those liabilities in the deal but I don't see any way that it would make the balance sheet positive.

Otium is basically worthless, and loaded with liability that makes outside interest very difficult

Can you compare and contrast to the WASPS Balance Sheet?

 

[Calista]

:laugh: yes well that was the case ......... but then they took the manufactured & "historic" debt that didn't relate to Otium at all, transferred it in to the new company and turned it in to preference shares ......... so converting something that was nothing more than accounting trickery in my opinion to financial debt instruments that cannot simply be written off. All perfectly legal.

Did they need/have to burden Otium with it, no....... but they chose to transfer that debt there and to formalise it as the issued share capital of the business accruing dividends of millions that the company cannot pay unless it has some massive windfall. So why do it?

I don’t understand any of that

But aren’t they still hoping for the “massive windfall” via. the courts? It seems to me that the straightforward and legitimate ways to acquire assets have all been spurned over the years, in favour of the obsessive pursuit of the windfall.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Can you compare and contrast to the WASPS Balance Sheet?

Why who gives a shit

 

[skybluetony176]

Can you compare and contrast to the WASPS Balance Sheet?

Think he's already done that in a different thread when Wasps accounts were published. Looked better than ours that's for sure.

 

[Moff]

Can you compare and contrast to the WASPS Balance Sheet?

Why who gives a shit

Oldfiverclearly does, so why dont you wind your neck in you miserable git.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Can you compare and contrast to the WASPS Balance Sheet?

Yes I can

But I suggest you do your own work on it if you have a point to make that makes such a comparison relevant to Byng or his backers potentially taking over CCFC. After all you have all the information.

The only comments I would make are that both sets show negative reserves which I assume is what you are driving at (24m vs 74m). One set shows a group with structured debt, significant assets, potential to grow income sources significantly, finance available to do that, money to invest in the squad, with a more obvious plan for driving the deficit down and the drive to do that. The other might have the drive(?) but doesnt seem to have the rest of it, the biggest asset it has is probably the manager whose reputation in the game is growing again (aside from owning the training ground?). You choose which.

What any comparison should show is the increase in risk of combining the two. Combining the debt in to one group and the need for further finance particularly if CCFC get promoted massively increases the risk and in my mind kills any prospect of it happening

Just my opinions of course

 

[oldfiver]

Yes I can

But I suggest you do your own work on it if you have a point to make that makes such a comparison relevant to Byng or his backers potentially taking over CCFC. After all you have all the information.

The only comments I would make are that both sets show negative reserves which I assume is what you are driving at (24m vs 74m). One set shows a group with structured debt, significant assets, potential to grow income sources significantly, finance available to do that, money to invest in the squad, with a more obvious plan for driving the deficit down and the drive to do that. The other might have the drive(?) but doesnt seem to have the rest of it, the biggest asset it has is probably the manager whose reputation in the game is growing again (aside from owning the training ground?). You choose which.

What any comparison should show is the increase in risk of combining the two. Combining the debt in to one group and the need for further finance particularly if CCFC get promoted in my mind kills any prospect of it happening

Just my opinions of course

I simply asked the question!

In the past you have dissected in detail the Otium/CCFC accounts so I wondered if you had done the same for WASPS and the could compare

Your opinions are valued many on the Forum so always worth a read and your site description is
oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director

so who best to ask?

 

[skybluetony176]

I simply asked the question!

In the past you have dissected in detail the Otium/CCFC accounts so I wondered if you had done the same for WASPS and the could compare

Your opinions are valued many on the Forum so always worth a read and your site description is
oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director

so who best to ask?

Just to be clear. Yes mine says CCFC Manager and yes my name is Tony but I'm not that Tony. So don't be asking me who's starting, who's sitting on the bench and what formation we're playing.

 

[oldfiver]

Just to be clear. Yes mine says CCFC Manager and yes my name is Tony but I'm not that Tony. So don't be asking me who's starting, who's sitting on the bench and what formation we're playing.

But you have not ( so far as I know ) ever published that sort of information?

 

[zuni]

can I ask a stupid question....that was an old tweet from the man in fantasy land...he hasn't put anything new up has he?

 

[skybluetony176]

But you have not ( so far as I know ) ever published that sort of information?

Actually it was a double bluff. I actually publish it in every match day program.

Yours TM, AKA SBT176

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Don't separate the assets from the liabilities

If someone took over CCFC as it stands then they might pay £1 for the ordinary share capital (ownership)because the overall company has no value to it at all.

In fact the balance sheet value in the accounts of Otium is minus £70m+. Included in that figure there are preference shares issued too that give rights to ARVO and SBS&L (but are not ownership shares) - effectively £64m of debt

In buying the ordinary shares then the purchaser takes over the assets of the company but more importantly the liabilities & preference shares. They don't actually pay up font for the debt but take on going responsibility for servicing the debt. The creditors providing the loans etc might agree to discount those liabilities in the deal but I don't see any way that it would make the balance sheet positive.

Otium is basically worthless, and loaded with liability that makes outside interest very difficult

Yeah, but other than that OSB, what are the negatives??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skyblueinBaku]

Yeah, but other than that OSB, what are the negatives??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

Yeah, but other than that OSB, what are the negatives??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Basically what is being said is Business is a dirty game played out by a bunch of people with little morals. If you buy the club you have to service a debt that is only a paper debt that has been invented and ringfenced by another company that would be attached to the company you are buying. No wonder the country is shot to bits, I paid more tax last year than Google and Starbucks put together. How can it be legal to buy something and have to service a debt that is owned by and made by another company that's probably not based in the UK. Surely all these kind of goings on with companys has to change and be made to register in the UK so that they come under the governance of the FCA. If you do your business here then what should you have to hide. I know the economists amongst us will argue that big business employ big numbers but its got to sorted out.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

It was tongue in cheek guys...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skyblueinBaku]

I could see that, SBW, hence my post.