Question to the SISU out brigade (1 Viewer)

[oldskyblue58]

Sorry but all our debt is not "in House" the 2010 accounts list a further £4.2 million in additional borrowings above the £24m SISU have put in, not to mention a further £8m plus in regular creditors (HMRC, trade creditors, deferred income etc)

 

---

[Dinyull]

Ok then, most of the debt is in house.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Embargo do not relate just to transfer fees. A club can be put under embargo for that plus not paying HMRC, not filing accounts or if the League believe there are financial irregularities. The last threat embargo revolved around the accounts not being filed and that was entirely due to the level of debt in the company and whether it was a going concern

 

[Skybluescotland]

What list?!?!

The list of people who have f88KED OUR CLUB OVER!!. Everyone can see that Sisu have failed and done this too, bar you or so it seems.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Ok then, most of the debt is in house.

no prob Dinyull ...... plus not having a go because i can see where you are coming from just adding to the info

 

[tisza]

just curious how SISU have improved things off the field etc. when monthly losses are double what they were under the previous regime?
Hardly a ringing endorsement for a professional finance business!

 

[Dinyull]

Because the debt is considerbly lower and most of it is owed to themselves.

 

[valiant15]

Looks like we have a sisu mole on here.:wave:

 

[Dinyull]

I fucking wish, just trying to point out they're not to blame for the mess we're in. I hope someone can take us over and fix us, just can't see it happening soon - hope I'm wrong mind!

In fact some on here comenting against SISU were their biggest fans last season on GMK!

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

I think I know who that's aimed at!

I will admit that I was a fan of SISU before they lost interest in my club and moved the goalposts with regards to the 'plan'. I've no shame in admitting that.

There was nothing wrong with the way the club was being run at that point. We were making moves in the transfer market that were widely recognised as astute and slowly building a good team.

I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Dinyull]

I think I know who that's aimed at!

I will admit that I was a fan of SISU before they lost interest in my club and moved the goalposts with regards to the 'plan'. I've no shame in admitting that.

There was nothing wrong with the way the club was being run at that point. We were making moves in the transfer market that were widely recognised as astute and slowly building a good team.

I think we can all agree on that.

Yes it was aimed at you, wasn't having a go.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said there, however many on here seem to blame SISU as putting the club in the position where they can't afford to make moves in the transfer market.

I've always backed SISU and although I'm pissed off with the way things are now I can't blame them. They may have made some strange decisions but they have done nothing to harm the future of the club. The way some folk are going on they have very short memories - they want to buy players we can't afford and buy the option on the stadium we can't afford. Can someone remind me how that ended the last time we did those things???

 

[tisza]

Because the debt is considerbly lower and most of it is owed to themselves.

Does it make it that much better?
The previous regime forego basically the balance of the debt from what is was then to what it is now. And we were left with a debt of around 23 million which SISU took on. Add on another 8 million or so (some of which is SISU's) and the debt's around 30 million - none of which SISU are likely to write off like the previous owners did.
Debt levels aside the operating losses are still considerably more than they were under the previous regime. So paying off the debt aside (which basically they did on day one) how have SISU actually taken the club and the business forward in the last 3 years?
PS I'm not ignoring the fact that the total debt for now maybe be lower - just want some examples of SISU success since day 2 of the takeover.

 

[Skybluescotland]

Yes it was aimed at you, wasn't having a go.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said there, however many on here seem to blame SISU as putting the club in the position where they can't afford to make moves in the transfer market.

I've always backed SISU and although I'm pissed off with the way things are now I can't blame them. They may have made some strange decisions but they have done nothing to harm the future of the club. The way some folk are going on they have very short memories - they want to buy players we can't afford and buy the option on the stadium we can't afford. Can someone remind me how that ended the last time we did those things???

Why can you not blame them???? I backed them cos they told us all they had a plan and the long and short of it is THEY BOTTLED IT!!. No shame in saying that it has been a f;ing disasater ! Why they can not just put their hands up and say sorry we failed and pass it onto the next guy who wants a stab at it. There ant going to be long q's of folk wanted to take over CCFC or many , many other clubs for that matter so take the deal and do the right thing for once Sisu.

Please stop looking for a soft landing for them Dinyull. No wonder people think you are a sisu shareholder!!!:thinking about:

 

[Dinyull]

Tisza
The previous owners created this mess - hence them writing off their debt. I think they actually recieved some money but not all they were owed, but then there are plenty of people who think Robinson, McGinnity actually made more money off Cov than lost...

SISU had to pay the debt to the co-op (bank) as soon as they walked through the door and the debt is about £10m-20m smaller than the previous lot left DESPITE us losing £5m a year. We have terrible income problems (nowt to do with SISU) and wages, operating cost etc etc etc are rising, hence losing more money year on year.

It might not be loads better, but it is better and I really think we'd be in L1 (if not L2) without SISU's initial money.

 

[Dinyull]

Why can you not blame them???? I backed them cos they told us all they had a plan and the long and short of it is THEY BOTTLED IT!!. No shame in saying that it has been a f;ing disasater ! Why they can not just put their hands up and say sorry we failed and pass it onto the next guy who wants a stab at it. There ant going to be long q's of folk wanted to take over CCFC or many , many other clubs for that matter so take the deal and do the right thing for once Sisu.

Please stop looking for a soft landing for them Dinyull. No wonder people think you are a sisu shareholder!!!:thinking about:

Yes, I'm a SISU shareholder who's been posting on GMK for over 5 years......

If your reasonable and look at the facts you'd probably come around. In fact I'd go as to say SISU's biggest mistake was taking us on in the first place but I'm glad they did. The past 3 years (as shit as they were tbf) has to be better than admin and Lwague 1/2 football - if the club had survived of course.

 

[tisza]

Tisza
The previous owners created this mess - hence them writing off their debt. I think they actually recieved some money but not all they were owed, but then there are plenty of people who think Robinson, McGinnity actually made more money off Cov than lost...

SISU had to pay the debt to the co-op (bank) as soon as they walked through the door and the debt is about £10m-20m smaller than the previous lot left DESPITE us losing £5m a year. We have terrible income problems (nowt to do with SISU) and wages, operating cost etc etc etc are rising, hence losing more money year on year.

It might not be loads better, but it is better and I really think we'd be in L1 (if not L2) without SISU's initial money.

Sorry you're wrong. The debt at the time of the takeover was around 33 million of which some 14 million was owed to Higgs, McGinnity and Robinson. Leaving a net debt of around 19 million taken on by SISU.
The 2010 books showed a debt of 36 million - of which 24 million was held by SISU.

 

[Dinyull]

Sorry, not being an arse but what am I wrong about?

The bank called in their debt, Robinson/CCFC Holdings couldn't pay which forced the club close to admin. SISU stepped in, payed off the bank debt and agreed to pay x pence in the £ to Higgs, McGinnity, Robinson etc AND agreed to pay more if/when the club got to the prem.

Also, in 3 years where we were believed to have been losing £5-6m a year (including player sales) the debt has only raised £3m. They have to have been doing something right, no?!?!

Again:
It might not be loads better, but it is better and I really think we'd be in L1 (if not L2) without SISU's initial money.

 

[tisza]

the debt taken on was around 20 million now it's nearly 36 million. So the debt increase does reflect a 5 million a year loss.
The difference in the 2 situations was the willingness of the previous regime to write off the money owed to them. Something SISU are unlikely to do.
The point about the bank debt then is well made but still we seem to owe 12 million to other parties now (more than we owed the bank back then).

 

[Skybluescotland]

Yes, I'm a SISU shareholder who's been posting on GMK for over 5 years......

If your reasonable and look at the facts you'd probably come around. In fact I'd go as to say SISU's biggest mistake was taking us on in the first place but I'm glad they did. The past 3 years (as shit as they were tbf) has to be better than admin and Lwague 1/2 football - if the club had survived of course.

Tell that to Leicester fans, Leeds fans and Norwich fans. ALL have been down into Div 3 and are now riding high above us in both league and cash flow stakes.

 

[oldskyblue58]

in round numbers

Net liabilities at 31/05/07 were £37m and gross liabilities were £43m. By the time deal was done we had incurred a further loss of £7m so add that to both figures. Net liabilities £44m and gross liabilities £50m. The deal wrote down the net liabilities by £35m leaving net liabilities at £9m & Gross liabilities £15m That is the sum that SISU took over

Currently (well at 31/05/10) net liabilities are £18m and gross liabilities of £37m of which £24m owed to SISU

source Company House

 

[Dinyull]

the debt taken on was around 20 million now it's nearly 36 million. So the debt increase does reflect a 5 million a year loss.
The difference in the 2 situations was the willingness of the previous regime to write off the money owed to them. Something SISU are unlikely to do.
The point about the bank debt then is well made but still we seem to owe 12 million to other parties now (more than we owed the bank back then).

This was taken from another thread from Oldskyblue58 from the accounts:

''May 2007 the CCFC Holdings Group had a negative balance sheet of £37.6m (gross liabilities £40m) having made losses in 2007 of £4.3m and 2006 of £3.3m

May 2010 the SB S&L Group had a negative balance sheet of £17.9m (gross liabilities £37.1m) having made losses in 2010 of £5.7m and 2009 of £8.2m. Of the £37.1m there is £24m owed to SISU

in that time we have lost 5000 off the average gate or £2m per year in revenue''

So in 2010 we were £3m better off despite losing £5m a year and attendances falling.

CCFC Holdings had to write off their debt, there was no choice. Admin was looming and they got a better deal from SISU then they would have through admin - it was in their best interest. And CCFC Holdings put the club under strain for holding out on 'their' money for so long putting the club deeper into debt.

Edit. Cheers oldskyblue!!!!

 

[oldskyblue58]

tisza according to JE at the time we were minutes from administration so the likes of GR MM etc had little choice.... they didnt choose to they had no option.

"The point about the bank debt then is well made but still we seem to owe 12 million to other parties now (more than we owed the bank back then). " - at the time of the takeover the other debts equalled £12m on top of the bank and other loans £31m

 

[Skybluescotland]

This was taken from another thread from Oldskyblue58 from the accounts:

''May 2007 the CCFC Holdings Group had a negative balance sheet of £37.6m (gross liabilities £40m) having made losses in 2007 of £4.3m and 2006 of £3.3m

May 2010 the SB S&L Group had a negative balance sheet of £17.9m (gross liabilities £37.1m) having made losses in 2010 of £5.7m and 2009 of £8.2m. Of the £37.1m there is £24m owed to SISU

in that time we have lost 5000 off the average gate or £2m per year in revenue''

So in 2010 we were £3m better off despite losing £5m a year and attendances falling.

CCFC Holdings had to write off their debt, there was no choice. Admin was looming and they got a better deal from SISU then they would have through admin - it was in their best interest. And CCFC Holdings put the club under strain for holding out on 'their' money for so long putting the club deeper into debt.

Edit. Cheers oldskyblue!!!!

All good stuff im sure. But if Sisu had held their nerve and/or kept their promies to back the club over 3 years and NOT 3 months under RR and GH they had a real chance of being in the Prem now.

You can not make an omlet without breaking eggs as they say. Sisu have tried to be to sharp and cut themselfs and us the fans.

 

[brinner]

What would be your position if SISU managed to get some investors? Would you still want them out?


Also (added as an edit), why would you want them out? The only mistake SISU made was running out of money (many did during the recession!) - Ranson made all the decisions on the football side of things.

ive said all along that sisu need to invest in the playing squad and stop selling all our decent players and start running us properly or fuck off.

so yes if they found investment and started signing decent players and offering our current decent players like clingan and cranie new contracts then i wouldnt have a problem.

only thing is they wont and we will end up selling our better players still.

end of thread.

 

[Lloyd]

Completely agree brinner, to me sisu broke their promise to us and have constantly bentthe truth to us, sometimes with outright lies, i would prefer a new board to take over who had genuine passion for our club.

Sisu have had their chance and have done a 180 turn on us from the end of last year. Selling our better players and upcoming quality talent isn't the sign of a progressive football club, it is the sign of a team close to collapse.

Even now sisu have not admitted they were wrong and will try to rectify their mistakes, instead they've tried to blame the only people who were sky blues fans on the board and our old chairman.

How anyone can continue to support sisu after that is beyond me