Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
As you say THEY set up numerous companies who lent money. So it's all under the same SISU umbrella. It's legal and accounting semantics but ultimately that money can be traced back to our owners.
No it’s not. They set up numerous companies and those companies lent the same money so the transfer to preference shares of debt is a paper excercise . The Sisu investment is below £20 million - it’s not even an argument
As you say THEY set up numerous companies who lent money. So it's all under the same SISU umbrella. It's legal and accounting semantics but ultimately that money can be traced back to our owners.
correct.As you say THEY set up numerous companies who lent money. So it's all under the same SISU umbrella. It's legal and accounting semantics but ultimately that money can be traced back to our owners.
correct.
no, he's right, and its not a hard concept to grasp tbf. The rest of it is just down to your growing obsession with me, and thats ok, it was bound to happen- all the wrong 'uns end up not being able to help themselves following me around the place, you're no different, just another statistic.No he’s just as stupid as you but at least you’ve found one friend
no, he's right, and its not a hard concept to grasp tbf. The rest of it is just down to your growing obsession with me, and thats ok, it was bound to happen- all the wrong 'uns end up not being able to help themselves following me around the place, you're no different, just another statistic.
Mr Dreamer is in fact correct.
As you say THEY set up numerous companies who lent money. So it's all under the same SISU umbrella. It's legal and accounting semantics but ultimately that money can be traced back to our owners.
lol, ok mate, have a good one :emoji_grin:No you are full of shit and he is as dumb as fuck. I’ve still yet to hear how money can be transferred to the Cayman Islands
Christ. No it’s debt that’s multiplied from the same original loan. If you actually believe Sisu have spent more than £16m you are an idiot and need to go an accounting course
I did say earlier it has to take into account the accrued interest which isn't investment. All I'm saying is the amount of 'investment' is how much they put in since they bought the club and administration plus the amount they've been putting in to cover cash losses since that has not been repaid. It's nowhere near the figure SISU themselves state because they add in the interest to make themselves look better.
lol, ok mate, have a good one :emoji_grin:
The link I posted is from somebody going through the accounts of all the companies isn't it?
The link I posted is from somebody going through the accounts of all the companies isn't it?
Sky Blue Trust - Fact or Fiction, Myth or Truth (Part 1) - 11th February 2019Can you repost it? Did a search and the post with the link didn't stand out
Can you repost it? Did a search and the post with the link didn't stand out
The only loan was made through the ARVO account other than the loans made now through the master fund to keep the club cash neutral every year
“SISU have invested £70m even £100m since they have been here” – INCORRECT
The initial point was how much have the owners invested since they took over. There are of course many ways that you can choose to measure that. For me it is actual hard cash put in either as equity (to all intents and purposes nothing) or provided as loans that have either not been paid back or turned into equity.
- An analysis of the statutory accounts cash flow statements discloses the amounts of loans physically received from SISU entities since 2008. It totals £33.15m up until 31 May 2017. (last published accounts).
- However, the amount that is outstanding by the current club (ie OEG/CCFC) is £14.57m as at 31/05/2017 including interest accrued £5.63m. That sum is owed to ARVO & SISU Master Fund. The balance of the real debt £24.21m excluding interest relates to SBS&L pre-administration, is unsecured and is not a liability of OEG/CCFC.
- Many of the losses have been retained from previous ownerships or created by clever accounting between group companies. All perfectly legal. But it is not hard cash spent.
We've seen £10m in the last 7 years just propping up the cashflow. Pre-admin they were covering a lot more due to higher wages/rent etc and did spend a fair bit initially on players, which although it was recouped when those players were sold it went on running costs.
Your figure of £18m would be closer to the actual figure than the £75m nonsense being put about, but it would be more. According to the above it's £24.21m and that sounds about right to me.
The £24m relates to non Sisu funded debt. You haven’t a clue have you?
people are getting confused between what is 'repayable' and the amount that has been pumped in. If I lend you £10 and £5 is wiped off because you've gone into administration, then you only owe £5, but it doesn't change the fact that I have given £10.£33.15m (as of 2017) is the figure they've put in isn't it (if you can really consider a loan investment)?
£33.15m (as of 2017) is the figure they've put in isn't it (if you can really consider a loan investment)?
people are getting confused between what is 'repayable' and the amount that has been pumped in. If I lend you £10 and £5 is wiped off because you've gone into administration, then you only owe £5, but it doesn't change the fact that I have given £10.
In your mind perhaps. I bid you a pleasant evening and maybe see you in BristolNope it’s I’ve given you £10 and you hand the next bloke £10 and he gives another bloke the £10 and then I say I’ve lost £30
wtf are you on about m8?
They are facts but I’m not sure they prove what you think they do. He’s picked McCallum so far, yes. Was that partly to facilitate this move? We will never know, but you can’t categorically say he’s picked him because he’s the absolute best player every week.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories but it is interesting how McCallum has played constantly whilst there were lots of simultaneous stories in the press / social media about Liverpool and PSG(!) etc looking at him.
Most saleable (and expendable given the superb replacement we already have) asset at the club. Gets played every week (when we desperately need money from player sales) whilst appearing in the press on a regular basis as interesting other clubs. And then gets sold (tbc)...
This whole thing has been ridiculous. McAllum is our best left back, he had to play, he did play, there was no issue with attitude and we won away.So what’s the theory now ?
‘I’m not one for conspiracy theories but’ ...
...maybe McCallum’s MR’s lovechild m8
We also need as much cash as possible from a cup run to hold off needing to sell the next one as earlyAll that said...it might make sense to rest McCallum for the replay v Blues. We need our best players for the #1 aim, which is promotion.
We also need as much cash as possible from a cup run to hold off needing to sell the next one as early
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?