OTIUM ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LIMITED - new document (1 Viewer)

Duffer, I agree with all that. I suggest before anyone complains about future player sales (when we're back at the Ricoh, of course!) then they read your post.

duffer said:

Absolutely. In fairness even back at the Ricoh on a deal which saw (say) a low rent and a decent share of the income for the whole site we'll struggle - OSB's excellent analysis elsewhere* suggested that if you completely merged ACL and CCFC the whole thing would still likely run at a loss.

Regardless of owners we are in a place where we can't afford big wages anymore, at least without big crowds (imho). So, do you speculate to accumulate, or do you just settle for that and hope to build slowly and steadily?

*Edit: Assuming that I read it right, I'm sure OSB will correct me if required. (oo-eer missus).

Click to expand...

tisza said:

OSB - do we have to wait until the next set of accounts to see whether the shares were a conversion of loans into equity or fresh investment?

Click to expand...

probably to be certain Tisza. For the shares to count under the FFP then my understanding was always that it has to be new money and investment as shares not conversion of loans. W

However sometime ago I asked that question of the FL who queried why I was asking, said each league has its own rules and I was best asking my club. My take from that is that the FL have a general rule but can use their discretion (as always :facepalm to make the thing work should a club do something different.

What you might find is that the money say from the Clarke sale (750k?) and Arsenal game(600k) is taken in (counts for FFP) then is paid against ARVO loan who then reinvest that sum by buying new shares (counts for FFP again). Effectively doubling up the FFP allowance by using the same money twice. Not sure if that can happen but it makes sense to me.

There were a few caveats to that duffer. It was based on putting the 2012 and 2013 figures for both together so was looking back and then posing the question "without big changes does it work going forward". But it doesn't look to be the solution we are led to believe because of all the debt and interest involved

Of course the club owners would say it wouldn't be the same because AEG are to be appointed and would run it far better. But that is going to cost. AEG will take a big slice and to be honest not care too much about creating wealth for CCFC (it isn't their job to) They will want to work the site hard to benefit themselves, football will only be a minority in that. However the more the site works the more saleable it is to the more traditional investors eg pension funds etc which is where the return on investment is for CCFC owners. Also another reason why the football club and stadium will be in separate companies.

Fair enough. Just seemed to remember that in the old sbsl accounts there was a reference about the possibility of loans being changed into shares in 2014.

This is an obvious (under)statement to make, but there really doesn't seem to be a way out of this mess - apart from some large foreign investment. Thing is, we really aren't a decent investment propostion compared to many (most?) other league clubs.

tisza said:

Fair enough. Just seemed to remember that in the old sbsl accounts there was a reference about the possibility of loans being changed into shares in 2014.

Click to expand...

you are correct there is that option...... does it count towards FFP? ..... it shouldn't but like you say we wont know for certain until we see the next accounts. You wouldn't convert an interest bearing loan to shares that earn nothing unless there was some other benefit I wouldn't have thought. But then I don't operate a hedgefund or private equity fund - they do strange things at times but always with a purpose (not always clear what though)

torchomatic said:

Duffer, I agree with all that. I suggest before anyone complains about future player sales (when we're back at the Ricoh, of course!) then they read your post.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Of course this could be a sneaky ploy so that I get the blame for your proposition (things will probably be crap and we'll have to sell players, even at the Ricoh).

If you really are that Machiavellian Torchy, I think you should apply for a job in local politics.

Not sure it is fiddling the books Jack. The income is declared a creditor repaid from the proceeds and new shares created. Not sure where it breaks any rules, also not saying they have done it. As we all know the FL regulations are full of holes if the owners can take advantage in this case for the benefit of the team then why not, its better than being in embargo.

oldskyblue58 said:

What you might find is that the money say from the Clarke sale (750k?) and Arsenal game(600k) is taken in (counts for FFP) then is paid against ARVO loan who then reinvest that sum by buying new shares (counts for FFP again). Effectively doubling up the FFP allowance by using the same money twice. Not sure if that can happen but it makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

Pretty clever.
But one thing is having the FFP budget - another is having the cash to spend when all other costs are paid.

Godiva said:

But one thing is having the FFP budget - another is having the cash to spend when all other costs are paid.

Click to expand...

Yes very true but what happens if they had already spent it and needed to bring it right before being checked by the FL? Wouldn't they do the same thing to avoid an embargo perhaps?

They set the season up on a particular budget with still paying some high wages until players moved on. No way they had the income at Sixfields to meet the budget

Houchens Head said:

I met Lenny Henry once back in the 70's when he was just starting out. He was a real big-headed smug git back then and hasn't changed one bit! Unfunny as well!
(How did we get on to Lenny Henry anyway? :thinking about

Click to expand...

Some one asked who you'd realistically like on a free, I think I'd prefer Lee to Lenny though or Hendrie to Henry