Who were the auditors for CCFC group & subsiduary accounts filed since SISU took over BTW?
was told that landlords are obliged to mitigate their claim and therefore it wouldnt be the full 42 years. No info as to what it would be
"post 31" is just proposing what I think is the SISU plan. Of course if they maintain that the accounts are prepared on the wrong basis then the 75% creditor rule is all over the shop because the debt owed by ccfc ltd to ccfc h and SBSL would need to be recalculated. (could be all over shop in %age terms anyway depending on value of ACL claim)
Then we are maybe in to the realms of who makes the best outright offer to buy..............
was told that landlords are obliged to mitigate their claim and therefore it wouldnt be the full 42 years. No info as to what it would be
"post 31" is just proposing what I think is the SISU plan. Of course if they maintain that the accounts are prepared on the wrong basis then the 75% creditor rule is all over the shop because the debt owed by ccfc ltd to ccfc h and SBSL would need to be recalculated. (could be all over shop in %age terms anyway depending on value of ACL claim)
Then we are maybe in to the realms of who makes the best outright offer to buy..............
Good!, lets leave it at that then!
I'm not sure that your postulations are conducive to the good health of CCFC!
why not leave the boys to play?
imp:
Something that worries me in all this is that the administrator seems to have listed ACL's claim against CCFC Ltd as £636,000. (I've abstracted a bit of the Administrator's report, the final appendix, attached).
That makes it a bit tricky when it comes to creditor voting, if votes are cast on this basis. ACL will always be outvoted by SISU and its clones if this is how the CVA to leave admin is decided. Have to say that I'm no expert though!
Something that worries me in all this is that the administrator seems to have listed ACL's claim against CCFC Ltd as £636,000. (I've abstracted a bit of the Administrator's report, the final appendix, attached).
That makes it a bit tricky when it comes to creditor voting, if votes are cast on this basis. ACL will always be outvoted by SISU and its clones if this is how the CVA to leave admin is decided. Have to say that I'm no expert though!
Strange that! Why on earth would that worry you?
imp:
This is most probably based on the statement of affairs which is prepared by...you guessed it...the accountancy genius' that are the directors (former) of ccfc !
The real value of the claim will have to be determined. I can assure you that unless whoever buys the club returns to the Ricoh and pay the same rent as per the previous lease, it will run into millions.
There are more questions than answers and the Administrator should investigate the current and past directors, I am sure Mr Appleton will do this, however there are wider directors duty issues that will require a much deeper investigation from regulatory bodies which will potentially pull in the owner/sSo CCFC Ltd is a non trading property subsidiary, always has been TF says. CCFC H pays all the bills and has always run the football side. CCFC Ltd per TF doesnt have a bank account all bank accounts have always been in CCFC H. Or so the story goes.
and yet CCFC H has funded CCFC Ltd to the tune of £45m and SBS&L has funded CCFC Ltd by £14.5m. Figures that surely must be based on what is in the accounts, accounts the director says contains errors and were prepared on the wrong basis, an argument the administrator has to investigate and admits might be the case. So how can you say the accounts are wrong but make a claim based on those accounts if you know they are wrong?
CCFC ltd has never had a bank account, or if it has it has never been used because all that is there is a non trading property subsidiary that owns a lease and the rights under the golden share. Doesnt that and the previous paragraph imply that all other payments, liabilities/assets etc are actually for CCFC H and any payments classed previously as on behalf of CCFC Ltd were actually payments for CCFC H and should not therefore be included in the inter company debt of £45m? If the bank account is not used how did CCFC H and SBS&L pay nearly £60m into ccfc Ltd and to what purpose?
So using TF's argument that CCFC H always has run the club. That leaves CCFC Ltd as legally responsible for the rent and licence payments, the rates probably and some building insurance possibly plus an audit fee. There is very little else to account for. But you would not leave those costs locked in to CCFC Ltd, because the losses would be non trading for tax purposes, so you would recharge them (maybe excluding the audit fee) to CCFC H. That would pretty much leave CCFC Ltd at a break even situation every year. Not requiring any funding from either CCFC H, SBS&L or ARVO.
We moved to The Ricoh 2005. The accounts to 31/05/05 for CCFC Ltd showed an inter company debt due to CCFC H of 9m. It is unclear if TF is arguing that CCFC Ltd since 1995 or since the new stadium move that CCFC ltd was a non trading property subsidiary but lets assume it is since the move in 2005. If the only costs are the ones related directly to the lease and licence (as detailed above) and if for commercial & tax reasons those costs are recharged to CCFC H in full (ie any payment of rent by CCFC H is settling a debt it owes CCFC Ltd not a loan) then how could that 9m inter company debt in 2005 have changed ?
This of course ignores the effect of any adjustment that may be necessary because liabilities were discounted in 2007/08. It also ignores any adjustment for the years 1995 to 2005 if the basis was wrong there then the starting position is nil and there could be no debt owed to CCFC H by CCFC Ltd
You cant have it both ways in my opinion. Either the accounts are right and CCFC Ltd owe CCFC H and SBS&L nearly 60m............... or the accounts basis is wrong and CCFC Ltd owes CCFC H 9m at most (and nothing to SBS&L). That of course would affect any creditor claims for the administration. It also has implications as to where the football trade is.
So which is it?
There are more questions than answers and the Administrator should investigate the current and past directors, I am sure Mr Appleton will do this, however there are wider directors duty issues that will require a much deeper investigation from regulatory bodies which will potentially pull in the owner/s
No, he can then look into directors and shadow directors actions leading up to administration.Is that appletons job though ? Isn't he here just to oversee the administration. Once he puts forward a preferred bidder and if the football league agree isn't that appletons job done. He'll collect his money and go.
No, he can then look into directors and shadow directors actions leading up to administration.
So its up to him how far he wants to dig then.i didn't know that thanks. I bet there's a few nervous people hoping he doesn't look too hard.
Doesn't need to look too hard. Fisher has either signed of false accounts or lied about them over the last few weeks. In trouble either way.....
Its taken two months for an experienced administrator to sort through Sisu's web of intrigue And still the situation is not clear as to whether the dealings of the football club are above board or not, perhaps a check over by the accountants of the serious fraud squad, could throw some light on the Murky dealings of our owners {"the ones who saved us"}.It's starting to look that way.hope the truth finally comes out everybody involved should be ashamed whats gone on.nobody has done whats best for the club.as much as I want sisu gone acl and the council should be looked at very closely too.
Good!, lets leave it at that then!
I'm not sure that your postulations are conducive to the good health of CCFC!
why not leave the boys to play?
imp:
What a very strange thing to say.
Why would someone analysing the finances of SISU in our current predicament. Ever be considered not conducive?
Indeed an odd thing to say......it is not like the boys playing is conducive to a succesful ccfc. Lge 1 (third division) shit team, dwindling crowds, no ground. 'Boys playing' is great.......
Well I am not sure who exactly it is not conducive to?
Boys.....sisu et al playing with ccfc have over seen probably the greatest decline of an english first class team. We were in the top flight for over 30 years. We potentially have a 32000 seat stadium which should be sold out every home game. We should be playing teams like man utd and arsenal, not teams like gillingham and oldham. The mis management is quite frankly astounding.
Agreed, but lets not forget that the foundations for such a decline were laid by BR/MM etc.
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?