Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

[martcov]

But the tax payers at the time thought that ACL was washing it's face and CCFC was just a % of it's income so they would have probably agreed that it is fine without CCFC so tell Wasps to piss off.

As a tax payer, if ACL had gone bust how would it have affected me?

Some probably thought that CCC were presenting ACL in a favourable light to be able up the value with the intent of selling up and getting out of the mess.

 

---

[Grendel]

Did we have a sporting club that would have accepted the Wasps deal? As far as I recall, TF said that he would never have accepted the deal as it involved taking over a company with over 14m debt. Strange that SISU are now talking about a JR saying that the deal was advantageous to Wasps.

Time will tell if ACL are profitable with only a 100.000 GBP rent from CCFC for the next couple of years.

That's not answering the point. The council had no requirement to sell.

As for Fisher saying that what would you expect him to say and how would you know unless the deal was actually offered to them?

 

[Nick]

Some probably thought that CCC were presenting ACL in a favourable light to be able up the value with the intent of selling up and getting out of the mess.

So buyers would go on Ann Lucas' word in a radio interview and then offer more? Rather than checking the books?

In most cases, some would say she was lying to tax payers.

 

[dongonzalos]

But the tax payers at the time thought that ACL was washing it's face and CCFC was just a % of it's income so they would have probably agreed that it is fine without CCFC so tell Wasps to piss off.

As a tax payer, if ACL had gone bust how would it have affected me?

By about 2.77 million, not you individually of course.
Also you may have been annoyed with the council that a local charity lost the chance to get 2.77 million as well.
By the sounds of it you would have been OK with that because it suited you as a Cov fan but I think overall more tax payers would have been angrier than happy

 

[Nick]

By about 2.77 million, not you individually of course.
Also you may have been annoyed with the council that a local charity lost the chance to get 2.77 million as well.
By the sounds of it you would have been OK with that because it suited you as a Cov fan but I think overall more tax payers would have been angrier than happy

How much did the council buy the ACL shares for? How much did they lose by selling them for 2.77 million?

 

[dongonzalos]

Ok let's entertain this for a minute,

Spell it out to me - what obligations do the council actually have to the City?

(You know know them and why selling to Wasps fits in there, so no point)


Unfortunately the council and Higgs have pretty much taken all your ammo away have they not? Let's look at the arguments you've used throughout;

Higgs need to get their money back - well ummm

(Wish they got every penny, but 2.77 is better than 0)

The charity commission would be involved if they didn't get their money back - well haven't heard from them
(I have used this arguement throughout????)

The Ricoh is a community asset that should remain as an asset to the community and never be sold to a hedge fund - ooh thing we'd better move swiftly on

(I have used this arguement throughout????)

The council taking the loan on was fantastic as it makes a profit for the taxpayer. Oh they got rid of it.

(Yes, it was and yes they have)

The Ricoh is a gold mine worth £60 million - snigger snigger. Now I expect you and Martcov to proudly point to the value of the ground according to the prospectus - this of course isn't a valuation but a projection which had no validity at all. Of course if it is then again it's an example of selling an asset too cheaply.

(Not sure what you are on about to be honest)

The council proclaimed that ACL was a solid business and that the club was less than 20% of revenue.

(The judges believe that if the council didn't take in the loan ACL was going under, they are independent I believe them)

This shows that in fact the 20% we have them was the only thing that made it profitable. So it's a bit rich to then expect the football club to pay an over the top price as they are the only entity that actually made it work.

(Bit rich to try and get ACL for hardly anything by making an arrangement the judges said would push it into administration, ultimately led to someone else buying it)

That's why many of us are less than happy. The council could have continued to fund - they could have bought out the charity.

(Would have loved them to buy the charity out so they got their money. Your reaction to such a suggestion however would be less than favourable to say the least, pretty sure you don't think councils and charities should be involved in football clubs.)

This is a relatively small amount of money. It wouldn't have been illegal and it wouldn't have been an issue to the tax payer who has very little awareness or interest. There are scores of examples of councils actively using tax payer money to bail out their sporting clubs as they are seen as the community asset. Not a lump of concrete.
(Contradiction on your past posting)

It's a pity our council wasn't one of them. (wow)

It's a pity people like you don't start to hold them to account.

(SISU don't try and devalue ACL, don't move the club to Northsmpton and they would own ACL now IMO)

 

[Grendel]

And what w

By about 2.77 million, not you individually of course.
Also you may have been annoyed with the council that a local charity lost the chance to get 2.77 million as well.
By the sounds of it you would have been OK with that because it suited you as a Cov fan but I think overall more tax payers would have been angrier than happy

And what would those angry taxpayers do?

 

[SkyBlueZack]

The council had no intention of selling the Ricoh until the dispute started. To believe anything else is stupid. CCFC were propping the place up. Paid over 10million in rent. The arena had attracted Olympics, Heineken Cup semi-finals, U21 internationals. Add in Coldplay, Take That, Red Hot Chilli Peppers and more. It was certainly able to hold it's own with the right management and guidance. Davis Cup Tennis? The council subsidised it. Is that wrong? Or is the it's within a councils remit claims going to be shouted. I would suggest it's within a councils remit to look after the future of the football club who have been here since 1883. Who the stadium was built for. The taxpayer argument. Well I don't think many would have been bothered. As mentioned if the stadium kept ticking along with music and events etc. Taxpayers would have still been able to use the facility. Also how many taxpayers would have been at the cup final parade and longed for another day like that with a City united in joy?

Regarding the administration if the saga had continued. If ACL had gone into admin, it would have been open to a bidding process with YB the only creditor if I'm right? Happy to be corrected. Where was the harm in that? How many taxpayers would have been upset about a bank losing a few quid? The club could have then made an offer in an open and fair market. If it was not good enough, it was there for all to see. The council had been paid back using the YB loan so stood to lose no money. The councils actual investment totalled 10 million. A successful regeneration project which you could class the Ricoh and the shopping park as, would have cost that. So what was the issue with admin? Other than the Higgs not receving any money?

 

[martcov]

That's not answering the point. The council had no requirement to sell.

As for Fisher saying that what would you expect him to say and how would you know unless the deal was actually offered to them?

There was a stadium. It cost too much. CCFC paid too much rent - but SISU took the rent on. CCFC got relegated and stopped paying the rent. A stadium with a tenant in default. Then a stadium with no tenant. Then a stadium with one low rent tenant. Now a stadium with two professional sports clubs and no CCC debt. Which would you say is the best case scenario from a council/ tax payer stand point?

 

[Grendel]

There was a stadium. It cost too much. CCFC paid too much rent - but SISU took the rent on. CCFC got relegated and stopped paying the rent. A stadium with a tenant in default. Then a stadium with no tenant. Then a stadium with one low rent tenant. Now a stadium with two professional sports clubs and no CCC debt. Which would you say is the best case scenario from a council/ tax payer stand point?

I see no difference at all to the tax payer either way and even if there is I see no other council actively trawling the country to attract other towns' teams - do you?

Anyway I think you owe les Reid an apology don't you?

 

[dongonzalos]

So with the potential at the Butts?Are people still thinking the Ricoh was the way to go?

 

[chiefdave]

Regardless of timelines, formulas, Joy and SISU, some people are still overlooking the fact that CCC bemoaned (and quite rightly) the fact that CCFC moved to Northampton for a period when we should've been at home in Coventry.
YET, then entered into a confidentiality agreement with LONDON Wasps.

Spot on, no matter what the legal position it was 100% wrong to move Wasps to Coventry.

So I take it you disagree with the judges and think they should have allowed ACL to go out of business?

Personally I don't really see what the problem was with letting ACL go into administration. Prior to the loan being made what was CCC's exposure here? Not a lot, they only put £10m into the build and still had the freehold. You would expect the lease to have a clause that in the event of administration it becomes void so YB wouldn't become owners by default.

So you'd end up with CCC being able to sell a new lease, with at least 2 interested parties (Wasps and CCFC) and without a large outstanding loan to repay.

I thought the council voted unanimously- which means there must have been a hell of a lot of personal agendas...

One question I would like answered is on what basis the vote took place. Lucas claimed that she wasn't lying to the public as this was the information she was supplied by the council's representative (Reeves and West) at ACL. If that's the case then surely any vote has taken place based on factually incorrect information?

 

[Nick]

One question I would like answered is on what basis the vote took place. Lucas claimed that she wasn't lying to the public as this was the information she was supplied by the council's representative (Reeves and West) at ACL. If that's the case then surely any vote has taken place based on factually incorrect information?

It could well seem like that, weren't councillors saying at the time they weren't told certain things?@

 

[martcov]

I see no difference at all to the tax payer either way and even if there is I see no other council actively trawling the country to attract other towns' teams - do you?

Anyway I think you owe les Reid an apology don't you?

If The Butts becomes our new home as claimed. It seems that as a result of such speculation, the council have tried to block any such move. Proves the point of not announcing everything through the press before deals are in writing...

 

[Nick]

If The Butts becomes our new home as claimed. It seems that as a result of such speculation, the council have tried to block any such move. Proves the point of not announcing everything through the press before deals are in writing...

So it is Les Reid's fault for revealing it and not the council for trying to block it? :jawdrop:

 

[Grendel]

If The Butts becomes our new home as claimed. It seems that as a result of such speculation, the council have tried to block any such move. Proves the point of not announcing everything through the press before deals are in writing...

Comedy genius at its best

 

[dongonzalos]

Spot on, no matter what the legal position it was 100% wrong to move Wasps to Coventry.



Personally I don't really see what the problem was with letting ACL go into administration. Prior to the loan being made what was CCC's exposure here? Not a lot, they only put £10m into the build and still had the freehold. You would expect the lease to have a clause that in the event of administration it becomes void so YB wouldn't become owners by default.

So you'd end up with CCC being able to sell a new lease, with at least 2 interested parties (Wasps and CCFC) and without a large outstanding loan to repay.



One question I would like answered is on what basis the vote took place. Lucas claimed that she wasn't lying to the public as this was the information she was supplied by the council's representative (Reeves and West) at ACL. If that's the case then surely any vote has taken place based on factually incorrect information?

Abd the charity don't get 2.77 million

 

[chiefdave]

Abd the charity don't get 2.77 million

If that's what CCC were worried about they could have purchased the charities share themselves or reimbursed them from the proceeds of the new lease sale following ACL's administration.

 

[skybluetony176]

If that's what CCC were worried about they could have purchased the charities share themselves or reimbursed them from the proceeds of the new lease sale following ACL's administration.

Legally would that even be possible? Wouldn't that be classed as illegal state aid?

 

[martcov]

Comedy genius at its best

Apparently not. RobS said at the time that TF was fuming that Les had reported it. No doubt TF agrees that it is not always clever to report confidentual talks in the newspapers. The council block was based " upon reports " last year. TF was not happy, neither were the council.

 

[Nick]

Apparently not. RobS said at the time that TF was fuming that Les had reported it. No doubt TF agrees that it is not always clever to report confidentual talks in the newspapers. The council block was based " upon reports " last year. TF was not happy, neither were the council.

So the block thing was down to Les Reid and not the council?

Surely it is good reporting, rather than agreeing to cover it up and staying quiet until it is a done deal?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Legally would that even be possible? Wouldn't that be classed as illegal state aid?

Purchasing shares in a company is not state aid, provided it's at a market rate.

As for the reimbursement for the lease sale, not sure about that.

 

[martcov]

Legally would that even be possible? Wouldn't that be classed as illegal state aid?

It looks like an attempt to defraud the Bank by allowing their security to go under and then carrying on as if nothing had happened. No idea if that is illegal or not, but I am sure the bank and it's shareholders would not be happy writing off a few million.

 

[martcov]

So the block thing was down to Les Reid and not the council?

Surely it is good reporting, rather than agreeing to cover it up and staying quiet until it is a done deal?

It is honest reporting, but it allowed the council to get in quick and discreet before the latest announcement. Not sure that helps progress. The Butts is a long way from being our new home. By the way, have you Said how and when I mocked the Rugby chap? I cannot recall that....

 

[Nick]

It is honest reporting, but it allowed the council to get in quick and discreet before the latest announcement. Not sure that helps progress. The Butts is a long way from being our new home. By the way, have you Said how and when I mocked the Rugby chap? I cannot recall that....

I'm not on about the rugby chap, I'm on about les reid.

Do you not think the council would have done it anyway?

 

[chiefdave]

As for the reimbursement for the lease sale, not sure about that.

They would have to split it over 2 years as the limit is in the region of £1.5m but they could make a section 137 donation to the charity.

 

[martcov]

I'm not on about the rugby chap, I'm on about les reid.

Do you not think the council would have done it anyway?

It would be difficult to do it today - after it has just been announced by the Rugby chap. It was easier to slip it in under the radar in January. I can understand the motives though - the JR1 was still not decided and the JR 2 is still to come. A bit of ammunition for CCC to have in this futile war.

 

[martcov]

I'm not on about the rugby chap, I'm on about les reid.

Do you not think the council would have done it anyway?

As far as LR is concerned...... he is fighting his war...and it seems his information was at least in part correct, which is why RobS came to his defence and pointed out that TF was angry. Therefore Les was not just towing the party line...The Rugby chap was doing the denying - now we know why. It seems there are a whole bunch of agendas being followed.

 

[Grendel]

As far as LR is concerned...... he is fighting his war...and it seems his information was at least in part correct, which is why RobS came to his defence and pointed out that TF was angry. Therefore Les was not just towing the party line...The Rugby chap was doing the denying - now we know why. It seems there are a whole bunch of agendas being followed.

Well you certainly seem to have an agenda.

 

[oldskyblue58]

If that's what CCC were worried about they could have purchased the charities share themselves or reimbursed them from the proceeds of the new lease sale following ACL's administration.

The lease would still have been owned by ACL and if the administrator sold it then the proceeds would be applied to repaying creditors

If a liquidator broke the lease (other than the landlord the only one that can in insolvency) then any subsequent lease would be an entirely new one with no responsibility for the Freeholder to share with anyone or right of the Charity to claim anything

The council could have purchased the Charity shares certainly but I suspect they would have been offered less than they were offered by Wasps

 

[chiefdave]

The lease would still have been owned by ACL and if the administrator sold it then the proceeds would be applied to repaying creditors

If the council issued the original lease to ACL without a clause that any insolvency event reverts ownership back to the council some very serious questions need to be asked about their incompetence.

 

[martcov]

Comedy genius at its best

Apparently not. RobS said at the time that TF was fuming that Les had reported it. No doubt TF agrees that it is not always clever to report confidentual talks in the newspapers. The council block was based " upon reports " last year. TF was not happy, neither were the council.

 

[Nick]

Apparently not. RobS said at the time that TF was fuming that Les had reported it. No doubt TF agrees that it is not always clever to report confidentual talks in the newspapers. The council block was based " upon reports " last year. TF was not happy, neither were the council.

You said that already? Are you trying to get a point across or something or is your overdrive on sudden posting confusing you?

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Why has there never been serious questions why a 50 year lease was originally granted? Which effectively hamstrung both ACL and the football club.

 

[martcov]

You said that already? Are you trying to get a point across or something or is your overdrive on sudden posting confusing you?

No. I have no idea how that happened. I didn't post it a second time.