Ian1779
Well-Known Member
So if you didn't say it - why are you taking me to task about my comments? I think the idea SISU will liquidate the club is nonsense, and if you think similar picking me up on it makes no sense.
Just like Grendel you struggle to read peoples posts properly !
Where did i say i believe liquidation would happen ???????
So if you didn't say it - why are you taking me to task about my comments? I think the idea SISU will liquidate the club is nonsense, and if you think similar picking me up on it makes no sense.
Liquidation is a possibility but at this point I do not think it is what will happen. That doesn't mean it wont
I would have thought that the next step would be to "place" the club with new owners that allowed ARVO debt to remain in place in full. ARVO have a strong (strangle?) hold on Otium because everything is charged to them. The shareholdings say different but the real control of Otium is through ARVO in my opinion.
If they "place" the club with new owners sufficiently distant to SISU then there might be a better chance to come back to the Ricoh. But so long as ARVO there then they control whatever assets there are, the funding, and to some degree the profits/losses.
If SBS&L were to sell its shares and write off the loans then there may well be tax losses without the need for liquidation .
assumes no other tricks up their sleeve too
But to be honest it is anyones guess how SISU get out of the mess they have created
Fisher - ""We just want to be like a normal football club"
:wave:
So you don't believe a single word Fisher says normally - but this one, you're all into it to the letter.
My point is that there was no direct statement - saying 'we will liquidate club' - it was said foolishly in my opinion, in some way to provoke a reaction from the other parties involved.
For everyone to then jump on it like it was gospel is merely scaremongering.
I've fixed the link and I would read the rest of the piece and not just the one quote. He goes on to say that
"They need to re-enter negotiations pronto or we file. We'll have no option because there would not be reasonable probability of avoiding insolvency liquidation."
It goes on but you can read it from the original piece. Tim then said the now infamous"... we do not posture, we do not threaten" etc. quote in the Coventry Telegraph a week later.
Most normal Football Clubs own their Stadiums..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So if you didn't say it - why are you taking me to task about my comments? I think the idea SISU will liquidate the club is nonsense, and if you think similar picking me up on it makes no sense.
How is it a false argument? I agree with you that the argument for a new stadium doesn't really stand up - but I would apply the same logic to the idea that they will consciously liquidate a club. They have virtually no assets. The golden share would not be counted in the calculations, so it is an unlikely event as a new stadium IMO.
I agree with that.
I can't see what benefit liquidating the Club would have if they are now pumping an extra £3M a season in to keep us afloat.
It's not ignoring it is it?
Notice how you conveniently ignore ACL rejecting CVA in first place, now what exactly have they done about their supposed 'concerns at the admin process'
Fuck all.... but that's fine for you.
I am well aware that Acl rejected the CVA and in their position would have probably done the same !!!
Again you fail to look at why and how !!
Sisu by not paying the rent took us into administration. TF also somewhere i do believe apologised for taking us into admin for such a paltry amount !!
It's a false argument because it relates to you commenting on what you think my opinion is of TF. Kind of irrelevant really, because the facts are there and are clear. He threatened liquidation in the press, and threatened to pull the plug in meetings with the other parties. To suggest that they disregard those threats on the basis that Fisher might not be telling be truth doesn't stand up for me.
Liquidation is a possibility - I honestly don't get your logic above. Having no assets and lots of liabilities would seem to me to be likely to make insolvency and liquidation more rather than less likely, to my mind. The golden share and the player registrations are perhaps the only things of value at the club now - probably the only things that ARVO don't have the ability to charge against.
Regardless, you can't say that SISU won't liquidate on the basis that they've got no assets (and on that basis that TF should have been ignored), that really doesn't add up, imho.
So why and how would they benefit from a liquidation? There would be no purpose unless there was a benefit surely?
This is a question to OSB regarding this point you're making
if they liquidated the companies that make up our club would all the debt owed be tax deductable to sisu/arvo?
if the tax deductions are greater than the value of the golden share and players registrations would this then make liquidation to sisu, arvo and their investors the more attractive option?
But surely the 'value' of the golden share is obsolete as once the club goes into admin/liquidation it is in essence revoked and returned to FL? That's certainly how I understood it.
There is not to this day a single justification for ACL rejecting the CVA.
So why and how would they benefit from a liquidation? There would be no purpose unless there was a benefit surely?
In your opinion. I think there probably is actually - but shall we just do one argument at a time, this one's been done to death already.
In your opinion. I think there probably is actually - but shall we just do one argument at a time, this one's been done to death already.
I think that SISU will take the option that maximises the return or minimises the damage. That may include liquidation and moving the tax losses around but it may include a lot of other options instead eg placing a sale, further restructuring, further down sizing, franchising, partnerships, joint ventures. Things like tax advantages etc will come in to it. All we are doing is second guessing what we think is best for them..... they may have different ideas.
If they liquidate then the share goes to the FL to be reallocated and things like trade marks etc become worthless. The calculation they will be doing is what minimises the risk for the investors, in particular ARVO - whilst the club trades there is some worth in trademarks etc. If they can get it to trade at breakeven then there are no issues of funding, that means cutting back on everything and letting it find its own level though. Not sure the fans will like where that might take us
To be honest I find it difficult to see where they are taking it. TF says one thing, ML comes along says something else, JS says it is about her investors, Waggott says this and that and Pressley tries to keep upbeat but must know things are getting tighter, barristers say one story and judges say they don't want to hear it only the facts on the particular issue...... it just goes on and on...... nothing is made clear, yes a picture is being painted but is it camera image or a Picasso abstract. The more people push for answers the more questions are deflected and attention pointed elsewhere
I find my self thinking they have a plan, they know what they are trying to do ...... then something else comes out and I think do they have any idea at all what they are doing. The whole thing lurches from one crisis to the next. Just seems like fire fighting on a very expensive scale..... and the choices for safety are getting fewer and fewer.
Personally I do not think the club will die or be wiped off ...... but I am certainly not sure where it will end up
There is not to this day a single justification for ACL rejecting the CVA.
Most normal Football Clubs own their Stadiums..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of which is no guarantee of success.
Current premier league champions and league 1 champions do not own their own ground, and current championship champions only recently bought their ground.
Brilliant comparing us to 2 clubs owned by billionaires and another who's still getting £15m parachute payments and who's turnover will have been at 4-5 + times all the other clubs in the league.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So your saying its not all about stadium ownership?? (playing devils advocate slightly here)
And to this day rejecting the cva hasn't made a single difference to the fate of the football club.
So why do you care?
Not entirely now, but to use facts lack of access to revenues meant that we were in the bottom 3-4 in terms of turnover in the championship despite average higher attendances than 9 other teams. An the 3 promoted teams wage bills were all circa x3 our entire turnover.
Are you suggesting that ownership/leasehold/a lease agreement with access to all additional revenues makes no difference?
And according to Wikipedia wolves own their stadium, so that's the league one champions and the championship champions (who have recognised the need to), and from a quick scour on the internet man city get revenues including £35m per year naming rights.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The majority of football clubs don't own their own ground. You don't have to own your own ground to get access to revenues. SISU could have done something about this but went all out to get the unencumbered freehold cheap.
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?