And brings the taxman to the door!..........
imp:
Keeping the debt on the books keeps the taxman away from the door!..........
imp:
They are running a £10m business. How much tax did they pay last year?
imp:
The true figure if i understand OSB posts is just under £23 million in debt, as they have conceded they will not get the other stuff back. Its just the money SISU have put in that they should expect back and its the 23 million we are in debt with SISU.
The Rev
The true figure if i understand OSB posts is just under £23 million in debt, as they have conceded they will not get the other stuff back. Its just the money SISU have put in that they should expect back and its the 23 million we are in debt with SISU.
The Rev
Have the talks stalled or is it that there is no new information? All the report says is that Council not talking to anyone ..... it doesnt confirm whether or not progress has been made between charity and SISU because the Charity are not saying. There is no point the Council talking further to SISU about stadium until things sorted out with the Higgs Charity. Nothing story
Plus the deal on the shares has nothing at all to do with the latest accounts - all the parties involved already had most of the info in the accounts and at least some idea of the 2012 figures & budget. the discussions were not dependant on the 2011 accounts and the report is misleading to link them
as for the losses and debt that got me thinking. The debt is as a consequence of funding the losses (I think we can use that as a starting point at least) If so has the club made £54m in losses since SISU took over in January 2008 - no. From memory the losses to 31/05/11 were something like
jan 2008 to may 2008 £3m
2009 £7.6m
2010 £3.1m
2011 £7.1m
Total £20.8m which should be the total losses of CCFC that SISU have funded via SBS&L then via CCFC H up until 31/05/11. Why then is the debt £54m ? Well thats because they have left the inter group balance at its full value which includes funding CCFC received via CCFC H prior to when SISU came in.
Yet in the accounts of CCFCH they have made a provision of 100% against what that company is owed by CCFC. Leaving the following
CCFC owes CCFCH £54m value in the accounts
CCFC owed by CCFC £54m
less provision £54m
value in accounts £nil
Why not write down permanently the amounts of £54m in both companies. I can see why they wouldn't write down to nil because if just CCFC were sold then SISU would have no claim for the actual funding they provided. BUT why not write down to £20.8m which was the actual funding SISU provided, (they have already said that CCFCH do not expect to get the money back)...... but it would make the CCFC figures look better........... £33m better There would be no effect on CCFCH it has already been written down to nil in those accounts.
It does not change the group accounts of SBS&L at all doing this
SISU have at 31/05/11 put into the whole group £29.7m .............. they have not provided £54m and shouldnt expect to recoup that. They are never ever going to get the "£54m". The amount that SISU investors are due is £29.7m not the £54m
It makes the whole thing £33m more attractive to investors if just looking at CCFC, gets rid of hysterical headlines, actually creates a year that CCFC will turn an accounting surplus ...........
just a thought or two. bit technical i know but surely part of this is in the perception of how the club is seen by fans , investors, media etc so why leave something in the accounts that will never be paid when you control both sides of the transactions
What happened to random also saying we were debt free
to collect what ? ............. wouldnt create any tax
Offset against monies made by other companies owned by SISU? I don't know....
Question: SISU have loaned £30m to SBS+L. The total losses funded by SISU to the club were £21m-where does the additional £9m go?
Offset against monies made by other companies owned by SISU? I don't know....
Ok, suggest it to SISU!
I don't think they need any advice on doing the books!
That's one thing they CAN handle!
They are running it most efficiently for tax - given they don't want to sell.....
the only time they would want it to look better in the accounts is when they did want to sell!
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?