covcity4life
Well-Known Member
yeah
not bad figure considering age.......
but i only a still image of course! and quickly averted my eyes
Dread to think what this is but presumably she's as scummy as her son?
a vid where she shows a guy how much she likes him.....
i refuse to watch it myself.
yeah
not bad figure considering age.......
but i only a still image of course! and quickly averted my eyes
so you located said video and then closed down your browser in disgust....OK mate.
wayne bridge has already tweeted:The surprise twist is when the video pans up and you see she's with Wayne Bridge's dad.
According to his twitter he hasn't tweeted in 3 days, plus it ain't JT's mum. Fake news!!!wayne bridge has already tweeted:
"thats karma............LOL"
According to his twitter he hasn't tweeted in 3 days, plus it ain't JT's mum. Fake news!!!
Anyway.... back to the thread....... why don't they do a Joy on Joy? When she wanted the bank to take a haircut she was to go with Steve West and say ACL is fucked - we will offer you a fraction of your loan as opposed potentially getting nothing..... in this present case Arvo's investors have the choice of taking a portion of their loan as opposed to waiting until some mug comes along...or doesn't...
They aren't even offering a fraction.
Yes. That's the problem. The preference shareholders have probably lost their money, but Arvo holds charges over the assets. Someone has to convince them that it is better to take a haircut now, than wait until the academy, training ground and maybe the golden share have gone.
How about changing the direction we look at this. Look at what SISU/ARVO might be asking for. This is not going to be a sophisticated model, it is basically guesswork and for that reason don't get hung up on the values I put in. It is more about guessing the reasoning from the SISU side. Remember Hoffman is not looking to purchase Otium t/a CCFC he wants the assets less football creditors not the company.
aside.... football creditors are liabilities to players, managers, other clubs and the football authorities. The EFL can use their discretion to add other items in as happened in forcing the rent payment to ACL. It means a big chunk of creditors stays with Otium in Hoffman's proposals as I understand them
so value from the SISU side of things could be
1)the playing squad. Now we know in January the club turned down interest in Stephenson & Willis, Harries went training with Liverpool so we know there is value there. We know there are other players contracted to us, not many but some, at the end of this season that have a value. We have the FA compensation rules that calculate values for other players. Would it be unreasonable to suggest a total market value of £4m? If GH is buying the assets it will have to be at market value wont it ?
2) Ryton. From the SISU point of view it is the opportunity value of this asset that is important. The opportunity is to sell the site for housing. Could that value be say £6m. Obviously cant be done without new pitches elsewhere so deduct say £1m contribution to that (the balance of new site being paid by grants etc). That gives you £5m?
3) There are fixtures fittings equipment etc that are necessary for the operation to function value say £100k
4) there is the trademark and the right to trade in the EFL. In 2013 these were included in the buy out from administration. It also included a rates refund of £400k so lets take a guess at current value £1m. (In reality isn't this what the professor values at £1.1m when valuing Otium as a company?)
5) From ARVO point of view they are being asked to give up a potential income stream - the interest on the loan. That has a value to them. Well using the same rates as the professor the interest asked to for go over the 5 years 2016/2017 to 2020/21 comes to approx. £3.8m as a discounted cash flow. That ignores what is already owed £4m+
6) they are being asked to retain creditors after losing the trade and therefore pay it - suspect they would wind up the company but even that has costs to it
7) there are income streams (some deferred) and ST monies perhaps cash balances to be transferred over even ignoring player add on's from previous sales
Say the football creditors are £1m
There are other twists and turns you could add in, you can argue about the values, but could SISU be looking at it in a similar way?. They have parked the club in terms of funding it and the club will sell players to raise cashflow and slash costs to survive. That means less pressure to do cheap deals
But from the above their current estimate of value selling the assets less football creditors could be something like £13m+, hence the derisory comments and the outright rejections. If they do not want to sell and it seems they do not then a bid of £1.2m upfront with vague add on's wont tempt them at all, however good the deal might look to some fans.
Just thinking out loud really and trying to look at it from a different angle. Not saying it is right but to get a deal done you have to try to understand where SISU are coming from (difficult at the best of times - (even impossible?).
The problem with their value like this, is that there is no matching asset value to it in terms of a new owner - the playing squad yes, use of Ryton as a training ground not housing yes, the right to play in the EFL yes but then there looks like a big gap in matching values to assets if you look at both sides. So funding becomes very problematic. To successfully match the other side in a bid the worry is unless the money to purchase from SISU is free from debt itself then any deal places big financial burdens on the club and/or investors
just guess work of course
Yes. That's the problem. The preference shareholders have probably lost their money, but Arvo holds charges over the assets. Someone has to convince them that it is better to take a haircut now, than wait until the academy, training ground and maybe the golden share have gone.
Or someone should convince Hoffman to table a bid that has a chance.
The add on's are a way of ensuring the investors don't pay out. The club does. Imagine this, attendances double (don't laugh), only one problem. Them extra fans are not putting money in for players but to pay SISU.
The add on's are a way of ensuring the investors don't pay out. The club does. Imagine this, attendances double (don't laugh), only one problem. Them extra fans are not putting money in for players but to pay SISU.
Does anyone know if the talks are ongoing of if the silence means it's over?
For that to happen wouldn't there need to be add on's such as SISU take a percentage of gate receipts for X amount of time or merchandise sales for X amount of time? Don't thinks that's been offered has it?
I'm not sure 'talks' were ever ongoing, don't think it ever got that far, it appears it wasDoes anyone know if the talks are ongoing of if the silence means it's over?
Why? It's a fairly arbitrary time period. SISU have other jobs or interests that may mean that GH et al have to wait for a meeting. Hopefully they use time productively to think about how any future offer meets the interests of SISU and CCFC. The last offer did neither.Who knows. Silence could actually mean that negotiations have started. Something that hadn't happened before, it was just offer and decline. From his radio interview I didn't get the impression that GH was going to give up. Maybe the offers have been just enough to get SISU talking which would be a start in itself. If there's still nothing in a week or two I think it's probably safe to say that the GH consortium bid is dead in the water.
Silence could be golden, it was said a few days ago that some more potential investors had threw their hats in the ring
Well, if it gets to a stage where a price has been agreed and Hoffmann needs money putting in so as not to have to drain money from the income streams, then I would pay £ 1000,00 for a non voting share - not as an investment, but purely for vanity. I can image a campaign to raise money in this way - by selling non voting shares to fans - could bring some funds in.
But we are not there yet.
The object of the exercise is to get rid of Sisu. If that means we are paying them off for a few years I don't care. At least we can look forward to the future. I just want our club back and for Fisher and co to be receding bad memories. If someone else comes in and pays Sisu off, so long as they have the best interests of the club at heart, fair enough. At the moment the Hoffman bid seems to be the only one we have got. I would be happy for them to have control of the club and for Sisu to get payments for our success over a limited period.The add on's are a way of ensuring the investors don't pay out. The club does. Imagine this, attendances double (don't laugh), only one problem. Them extra fans are not putting money in for players but to pay SISU.
Who knows. Silence could actually mean that negotiations have started. Something that hadn't happened before, it was just offer and decline. From his radio interview I didn't get the impression that GH was going to give up. Maybe the offers have been just enough to get SISU talking which would be a start in itself. If there's still nothing in a week or two I think it's probably safe to say that the GH consortium bid is dead in the water.
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?