Nick
Administrator
Even if it's a permanent move to say Northampton? As an example.
Even if it's a permanent move to say Northampton? As an example.It will also be the same club if it moves out of Coventry again.
Of course it would, Why wouldn't it be? It was Coventry last time it moved out?
I happen to think a genuine NOMP. Would bring us to SISU's final plan in months not years as it will be.
Be that try and kill the club or release it, I think it will be the same. The prolonging is purely because of JR2 IMO.
A genuine NOMP won't happen though.
Someone posted Port Vale as a ground share on the CT website. On what information I don't know.Even if it's a permanent move to say Northampton? As an example.
Someone posted Port Vale as a ground share on the CT website. On what information I don't know.
Go and read it yourself.As full time permanent?
Go and read it yourself.
If Sisu are looking for move again Nuneaton will be the target. They are not concerned about the status of the playing side, they just need to keep the club afloat to pursue the goal they are chasing.
They have told us this, whatever level, whatever status they will cut their clothes accordingly. It's ok saying fans staying away are just hurting the club Sisu have been doing that for years with or without our help.
The target is the Butts. IMO
What does irk me is the local press headlines saying the SBS&L group made a profit. They simply did not. You cannot ignore the interest liability. It is either due or it isn't. If it is due then it forms part of the reportable results ie we made a loss. It is irrelevant that it is due to shareholders or that it hasn't been paid out yet. The only way it can be excluded is if the entities making the loans waive or write off the interest due.
If you are going to adopt a principle of ignoring entries perhaps we should be concentrating on results before player sales?(I don't advocate that btw - you have to look at the whole picture) The newspaper headlines are misleading surely?
Also all creditors including the shareholder loans are classed as being due within 1 year of the balance sheet date ie 31/05/2017 how does that square with the going concern considerations which go to 28/02/2018. If the owners have no intention of calling the loans in then surely they become classified as due more than 1 year from the balance sheet date? Otherwise there is a contradiction between the classification and the going concern assurances isn't there?
Scarey to think what the profit and more importantly the cash flow implications were of not selling Maddison in the January 2016 window.
I didn't get how it was pushed as a profit and what that would achieve?
has Jon Sharpe not categorically stated he doesn't want to deal with sisu?The target is the Butts. IMO
Someone earlier asked OSB to put it in a nutshell...allow me - we have been shit, we are currently really shit & moving forward...we are going to be shittier & more shit upon
...onwards & upwards PUSB
Brilliant OSB & thankyou.
One point not mentioned is that if you are an investor in he Hedge Fund 10% interest is pretty damn good given current interest rates.(I presume allowing for admin costs it would still be high).
So even when club doing shit the investors still getting a payout and SISU still fulfilling that obligation.
No pressure from investors to sell if they still getting a reasonable return. Like most have said on here SISU don't give a fook about the club as long as they able to give their investors a decent interest rate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's only if they actually get paid the interest though isn't it? Otherwise it's just a number on a bit of paper to an investor rather than money in their wallet.
To be fair anyone lending money to CCFC surely would see it as high risk and therefore give the loan at a high interest rate.
Hypothetically then, if you lent CCFC 10 million. If you charge 2 million a year interest. After 5 years you get your money back, yet the 10 million debt still stands. You also you put a charge on land of value so if the business goes bust you also get your 10 million on top.
I would guess she has replaced Onye (was that his name?) as the SISU representative who reports back to Joy.I wonder what Deering does for any money she gets.
According to Companies House she lives in South Africa, must spend a fortune on phone costs. Or stamps. Maybe Joy doesn't trust Tim to pass on any relevant info.I would guess she has replaced Onye (was that his name?) as the SISU representative who reports back to Joy.
Surely you only get your money back if the interest can actually be paid?
If they paid it it wouldn't be added to the debt.isnt it paid once it is added to CCFC's debt?
So if our debt goes up because of paying interest. Then haven't they received that interest?
But does it accrue as a return in the figures presented to the investors?If they paid it it wouldn't be added to the debt.
If they paid it it wouldn't be added to the debt.
I'd have thought anyone directly loaning the club money know they are very unlikely to get much of their money back.But does it accrue as a return in the figures presented to the investors?
I believe the accounts showed £25k interest was actually paid out on one loan, and around £50k on another loan. The rest of the interest that hasn't actually been paid gets added to the amounts owed.If I pay interest on my mortgage and it comes out of my overdraft it is added to my debt.
(I take it we are just not paying it at all then)
If I pay interest on my mortgage and it comes out of my overdraft it is added to my debt.
(I take it we are just not paying it at all then)
Does your overdraft increase in line with the amount of your mortgage interest payment?
If not at some point you must be paying the interest
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?