Some answers to some of the many questions (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

PWKH

New Member
I know that it must be difficult to disentangle everything that is being said and written. There are a lot of people with a lot of opinions and if there is one thing that is healthy it is debate and argument. What is lacking a lot of the time are facts.

I cannot for all the old, but obvious reasons, of commercial confidentiality and so on go into everything and thus I know that this posting will anger those people who want more information than I can give.

But I will list some things that could go into the discussions as facts.

CCFC holds the player registrations and the Football League share. All its other assets have had a charge put on them by ARVO. ARVO is owned by Sisu. They cannot do anything with the player registrations. If CCFC goes into liquidation the League take the player registrations and the League share and the Club ceases to be in the League. All the other assets would be taken from one Sisu company and transferred into another Sisu company.

The rental agreement between ACL and CCFC was entered into freely by both parties. The Chairman of the football club and another of the CCFC Directors were both Directors of ACL. They signed on both sides of the agreement. Before Sisu bought the Club from Robinson and his other shareholders under pressure from the Co-Op Bank, they had full view of all CCFC’s contracts and obligations. They took them on when they took over the Club. They did not try to re-negotiate anything.

Before issuing the Statutory Demand the Board of ACL made one last attempt to get Fisher and Sisu to talk about paying rent. An offer was made by ACL and we are informed was accepted by two of CCFC’s three directors but it was still rejected by CCFC.

Match day revenues: CCFC have all the revenues except the revenue from the kiosks on the concourse. The £10,000 Fisher talks about includes paying Compass for the food and drink that the Club sell to the Corporates. The boardroom £600 bar bill comes out of the £10,000.
Put things in perspective, it costs £800 per day to heat the pitch. That heating is on 7 days a week at the moment, £5,600. That has to come out of the £10,000. Fisher claims that he is being overcharged, an easy thing to say but actually untrue.

CCFC could move to another place. It would have to meet the League standards and comply with all the safety regulations: that would mean a ground share and that means with a similarly sized club. This is well nigh impossible because both clubs, under both codes’ rules would have to have priority over the other in fixtures. That is just the first hurdle. The second is that CCFC have a contract with ACL. If that is not honoured and the rent paid, whether they are there or not, CCFC would end up in liquidation and be thrown out of the League and have the player registrations taken away. Fisher knows this. I just ask why he set up such a storm of discussion and fear? I have my own answer to this question.
 

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
Many thanks for the update and we all appreciate your honesty and respect there is only so much you can say due to commercial confidentiality.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Thanks PWKH I know it cant be easy to be restricted in what you can say when you may well want to say more.

I have a question. Is the lease with CCFC Limited or CCFC Holdings limited. or are they joined together under the lease ?

thanks
 
D

Deleted member 4232

Guest
Scary situation. AFC Coventry here we come...
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Can you please explain why ACL say they have heard nothing from Sisu since June but that they are now saying Sisu turned down an offer on the rent last weekend!
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Can you please explain why ACL say they have heard nothing from Sisu since June but that they are now saying Sisu turned down an offer on the rent last weekend!

its the Charity that has heard nothing Otis, no contact since June regarding share purchase.
 

procdoc

Well-Known Member
What we all agree on that it is a complete and utter mess and an absolute disgrace. The state this club has fallen into is nothing short of scandalous. We have a set of crooks that tell us one thing, another set of crooks that tell us another. Hedge funds and councils know nothing about football and on the evidence so far don't know much about business either.
This is not a pop at the OP by the way, the charity seem like the only ones capable of communicating with the supporters
 

PWKH

New Member
Just to clarify. It is the discussions between ACL and Sisu over the rent arrears which continued up until recent days.

This is an entirely separate discussion from those relating to the purchase of the Charity's stake holding in ACL. It is in relation to those discussions that Sisu have not talked to us for months.

PWKH
 

Blue Maniac

Member
CCFC could move to another place. It would have to meet the League standards and comply with all the safety regulations: that would mean a ground share and that means with a similarly sized club. This is well nigh impossible because both clubs, under both codes’ rules would have to have priority over the other in fixtures.
I think it's admirable that someone is trying to communicate with the fans. I have a question about the above quoted paragraph though. What does the last sentence actually mean?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Always good to get some facts, with all the numbers that get thrown around in the press it can be hard to see the wood from the trees sometimes.

they had full view of all CCFC’s contracts and obligations. They took them on when they took over the Club. They did not try to re-negotiate anything.

To me this is a non issue. A lot has changed in the world of CCFC and the world generally since then. My view is the important thing is what is done moving forward not people waving bits of paper saying you agreed to this pay up (appreciate that's not what you're doing here PWKH but you get my drift).

CCFC could move to another place ... CCFC have a contract with ACL. If that is not honoured and the rent paid, whether they are there or not, CCFC would end up in liquidation and be thrown out of the League and have the player registrations taken away.

To play devils advocate here lets suppose that SISU pull the plug but somehow, be it via SISU or via the FL, it is agreed that another owner or the trust can pick up the player registrations and golden share and that owner decides the Ricoh isn't viable and moves the club to the Butts (just as an example and ignoring the logistics of timeframes of getting temporary stands in etc). This seems to imply that ACL would still chase CCFC for the rent and potentially put the club into liquidation. This could prove a massive hurdle should SISU decide to throw in the towel. I hope when you're saying this you are referring to SISU and would look very favourable on anyone who was coming in trying to clear up their mess.

The one thing I think would be hugely beneficial would be for ACL to come out with some justification of why the rent is so high, how that figure was arrived at and why we should pay so much more than we're told pretty much every other team is paying. At present they're in danger of leaving people with the impression that they are at least partly the bad guy and they need a bit of a PR offensive to turn that around.
 

Bluegloucester

New Member
That also confused me.

If we shared a ground with another FL team we would fall foul of FL rules. Teams have to have priority over matches played at their home ground. Clearly if 2 teams play at the same ground they both cannot have priority.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
That also confused me.

FL rules state that to be a member you should have priority over dates, which basically means if the FL says you're playing at home on 1st December you have to be able to play. You couldn't have Leicester (for example if we were playing there) saying no you can't have the ground on that date. I would imagine any share with a FL club would be a temp situation whilst someone like the Butts was upgraded to meet the FL regs and my opinion is the FL would be prepared to be co-operative with that. The FL would not want to be seen to be forcing a club out of business if there is an alternative.

Does raise a question about the Ricoh, did we not have to work some of our fixtures around Olympic requirements or have I imagined that. If so then strictly speaking we don't meet that requirement anyway.
 

Blue Maniac

Member
If we shared a ground with another FL team we would fall foul of FL rules. Teams have to have priority over matches played at their home ground. Clearly if 2 teams play at the same ground they both cannot have priority.
There's plenty of precedent for temporary ground sharing: Wimbledon and Palace, Gillingham and Brighton, Fulham and QPR. All it takes is for the two clubs to play at home on alternate weeks.
 

Blue Maniac

Member
You couldn't have Leicester (for example if we were playing there) saying no you can't have the ground on that date.
The biggest problem you'd have sharing with us is the egg chasers round the corner. We're not allowed to have home games at the same time (same day is apparently fine, just as long as there's a gap), so the fixture chaps would have to do some thinking.
 

MusicDating

Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
There's plenty of precedent for temporary ground sharing: Wimbledon and Palace, Gillingham and Brighton, Fulham and QPR. All it takes is for the two clubs to play at home on alternate weeks.

There is, but not partway through a season.

I'd guess if any SISU/ACL resolution is found, it would only be to get us to the end of the season.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
There is, but not partway through a season.

can't recall anyone being kicked out of their ground halfway through a season before and in that situation surely the FL would be doing all they could to enable the club to fulfil it's fixtures one way or another. Given our away form maybe we could play all our home games away from home!!!
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
PWKH.

With all due respect I am still in shock that you entered talks with these ruthless mercenaries regarding the shares.

Alan Highs are a charity looking out for what us best for the people of Coventry.

How would helping these scumbags, help the people of coventry.

Hope there is one hard message of this sinking in.

Do not do any business with SISU!
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
PWKH.

With all due respect I am still in shock that you entered talks with these ruthless mercenaries regarding the shares.

Alan Highs are a charity looking out for what us best for the people of Coventry.

How would helping these scumbags, help the people of coventry.

Hope there is one hard message of this sinking in.

Do not do any business with SISU!

No good idea. Lets then all hold a party when the club disappears for ever. Can't wait. Least we won't have to argue about JPT anymore.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
The biggest problem you'd have sharing with us is the egg chasers round the corner. We're not allowed to have home games at the same time (same day is apparently fine, just as long as there's a gap), so the fixture chaps would have to do some thinking.

Switch our games to a Sunday then-seems to be the better short term option (can't believe this is actually being discussed).
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Switch our games to Sunday and don't tell the opposition. We may win a few more home games then.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Switch our games to a Sunday then-seems to be the better short term option (can't believe this is actually being discussed).

it's crazy that we've even talking about things like this as a possibility and I don't think SISU will let it come to that. They'll either get what they want from ACL or they will liquidate. To be honest so long as it means the club survives I don't care where we have to play in the short term or if we have to play at 9am on a Monday. Any short term inconvenience pales compared to ensuring we have a club in the long term.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
it's crazy that we've even talking about things like this as a possibility and I don't think SISU will let it come to that. They'll either get what they want from ACL or they will liquidate. To be honest so long as it means the club survives I don't care where we have to play in the short term or if we have to play at 9am on a Monday. Any short term inconvenience pales compared to ensuring we have a club in the long term.

If they liquidate we have no assets and no ground. We cease to exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top