ACL must not give in (3 Viewers)

[theprince]

Spat between councillor Mutton and councillor Foster over confidentiallty agreement on plans to allow sisu some sort of ownership or deal of the Ricoh. I hope Foster stays firm on this, no matter what sisu must not be allowed any slice of that arena. It is the football clubs only bargaining tool to attract other parties and if sisu get their grubby hands on it no matter how little getting rid of these parasites will be that much more difficult IMO.

There seems to be a weakening of Councillor Muttons resolve on this and all negotiations must be transparent and fully reported and no secrets hidden away. Had enough of that with Richardson and co.

 

---

[SBS]

I also agree with Kevin Foster (probably the first and last time I'll be on the tories side, but still!). We've had enough secrecy, shady dealings and spin to make another 5 series of The Thick of It. CCFC fans, as well as the Coventry taxpayer NEED to know what exactly they're planning. The last thing we need is another "who made how much out of the HR sale?" "were we half an hour from admin?" "how much did Brian Richardson screw us over?". I have a horrible feeling that if it is kept quiet, we'll be sat here in the future wondering what exactly happened in this meeting.

 

[SBS]

In fact, I think this is such an important discussion for both the football club and city itself, I have gone to the trouble of creating an e-petition. I will post the link as soon as it has been verified.

 

[Godiva]

Sisu will never get to own the stadium directly - the club will.
When sisu eventually sell up the club will still own the stadium - or whatever part is accuired.

If this club owns the stadium (or at least a part of it) and is generating a positive cash flow, then it's much more likely potential new owners comes knocking at the door.
So if you want sisu out you should support every move to acquire the stadium.

 

[SBS]

Sisu will never get to own the stadium directly - the club will.
When sisu eventually sell up the club will still own the stadium - or whatever part is accuired.

If this club owns the stadium (or at least a part of it) and is generating a positive cash flow, then it's much more likely potential new owners comes knocking at the door.
So if you want sisu out you should support every move to acquire the stadium.

All I'm saying is that any sale shouldn't be kept behind closed doors. To be honest, I don't know whether the sale would help or hinder us in the long term. I obviously understand that the club owning the ground is important, but I don't understand how you know the club will own it and not SISU if it is sold (sorry if I've missed something really obvious!). Posts on this forum sway from "we need to own the stadium" to "SISU should never get their hands on it" and I don't really know what to believe anymore. As a Coventry tax payer and a CCFC supporter, I feel I have a right to know what is being discussed and for that reason, I fully support Kevin Foster in his decision not to sign it.

 

[Stevec189]

Well said Godiva. Everyone wants increased revenue which enable us to sign more or better players. Every CCFC fan should endorse the club owning the ground. However there is no need for the behind closed doors policy of Clr Mutton! PUSB

 

[Godiva]

All I'm saying is that any sale shouldn't be kept behind closed doors. To be honest, I don't know whether the sale would help or hinder us in the long term. I obviously understand that the club owning the ground is important, but I don't understand how you know the club will own it and not SISU if it is sold (sorry if I've missed something really obvious!). Posts on this forum sway from "we need to own the stadium" to "SISU should never get their hands on it" and I don't really know what to believe anymore. As a Coventry tax payer and a CCFC supporter, I feel I have a right to know what is being discussed and for that reason, I fully support Kevin Foster in his decision not to sign it.

There's a very simple explanation for the need of keeping the negotiations behind closed doors - if they don't all sorts of people will argue against this or that tiny detail. Anyone who thinks he's someone will use the situation to polish their own ego.
Remember the 'take-over' talks last summer? How the likes of Keys, Hoffman, Dulieu and their supporters on each side did everything they could to explain how the others were greedy, corrupt, stupid and what have you. In that atmosphere simple details suddenly becomes extraordinary complicated and nothing is achieved in the end.

 

[kingharvest]

The club MUST get access to revenue streams to survive.

I also think that the club is a much more attractive option to investers/buyers if the club own at least half the ground or at the very least, has access to matchday revenue streams.

To be honest, whoever negotiated the deal with ACL which meant we didn't have access to those revenue streams yet still paid £1.2m a year should never be allowed near the club again. Horrific decision to make.

 

[valiant15]

Money made from revenue streams will not go into the team.

 

[stupot07]

Money made from revenue streams will not go into the team.

Probably not but if that revenue was used reduced losses then it would be a good thing.

 

[Godiva]

Money made from revenue streams will not go into the team.

Any money used on the team are coming from revenue streams.

 

[Evans020]

Change the title of the thread to" I do not want ccfc to move forward"

 

[Jack Griffin]

I also agree with Kevin Foster (probably the first and last time I'll be on the tories side, but still!). We've had enough secrecy, shady dealings and spin to make another 5 series of The Thick of It. CCFC fans, as well as the Coventry taxpayer NEED to know what exactly they're planning. The last thing we need is another "who made how much out of the HR sale?" "were we half an hour from admin?" "how much did Brian Richardson screw us over?". I have a horrible feeling that if it is kept quiet, we'll be sat here in the future wondering what exactly happened in this meeting.

The story of CCFC could be successfully dramatised on TV, just the off field machinations.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Sisu will never get to own the stadium directly - the club will.
When sisu eventually sell up the club will still own the stadium - or whatever part is accuired.

If this club owns the stadium (or at least a part of it) and is generating a positive cash flow, then it's much more likely potential new owners comes knocking at the door.
So if you want sisu out you should support every move to acquire the stadium.

Sisu own, finance and control this football club. To suggest Sisu would invest in the stadium purchase but 'the club' would own it 'independently' is frankly naive. Sisu would have a controlling interest and would seek a return on any investment going forward.

Given Sisu's total incompetence I wouldnt let them anywhere near something the people of Coventry have paid millions for [at the expense of other services].

 

[Jack Griffin]

They don't own CCFC Gary.. they manage it on behalf of a small group of seriously rich and terminally shy people who invested in it. The owners are investors in the various SISU hedge funds.

 

[sky blue john]

If they pay the going rate for the stadium or what the higgs trust need to move forward i haven't a problem. But if they are trying Sisu's normal tactics something for nothing, then i have a big problem with them trying to short change a charitable organisation !!!!

 

[Godiva]

Sisu own, finance and control this football club. To suggest Sisu would invest in the stadium purchase but 'the club' would own it 'independently' is frankly naive. Sisu would have a controlling interest and would seek a return on any investment going forward.

Is seeking a return on investments a bad thing?

All loans to sisu are converted to equity.
This means sisu's only road to get any return on their investments is either through dividends (requires the club to run at a profit) or by selling the shares to a new owner (who will also be looking for a return of his investment).

ACL won't allow sisu to acquire the stadium independently - the only new owner they will accept is the club.

But the council may accept sisu as an independent investor to acquire and develop the surrounding lands.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

They don't own CCFC Gary.. they manage it on behalf of a small group of seriously rich and terminally shy people who invested in it. The owners are investors in the various SISU hedge funds.

They have ownership, and legal responsibility for their investments- just like the banks do; unless you think bank investments are owned by shy Mrs. Timkins with £25 in the Coop? [mind you after various government bail outs that is nearer the truth!]

In the end the Council have to make sure such an important City asset is handed over to a competent company with a long term commitment to delivering what the city needs in terms of sport/entertainment. Sisu aint that.

 

[ashbyjan]

Godiva - if SISU had proved to be a trustworthy organization who did business in an above board way and ran the football club in this vein then the purchase of the stadium etc would make perfect sense but their track record of reneging on legal contracts is well known so the council is fully justified in being wary of doing business with these people. Saying the stadium will be owned by the club and not SISU is the height of naivety - anything owned by the club will be quickly covered by the debenture to ARVO (surprise surprise a SISU company). If the Council is to get into bed with SISU on this venture then they must trust them and believe they are the best partner to develop the area and obviously at present they have understandable doubts.

 

[kingharvest]

Money made from revenue streams will not go into the team.

Speculation based on no facts. Where do you think the investment has come from so far?

 

[valiant15]

What investment?

 

[Godiva]

Godiva - if SISU had proved to be a trustworthy organization who did business in an above board way and ran the football club in this vein then the purchase of the stadium etc would make perfect sense but their track record of reneging on legal contracts is well known so the council is fully justified in being wary of doing business with these people. Saying the stadium will be owned by the club and not SISU is the height of naivety - anything owned by the club will be quickly covered by the debenture to ARVO (surprise surprise a SISU company). If the Council is to get into bed with SISU on this venture then they must trust them and believe they are the best partner to develop the area and obviously at present they have understandable doubts.

I don't know the details or the circumstances in the affairs that lead to the 'track record' you say they have. But apparently you know enough to be certain you judge them on their merrits and not by their reputation.

But even if they are as devious as you propose, when it comes to acquire the stadium and surrounding land, you can be sure that all involved parties will have more than a handful of lawyers, accountants and advisors to make sure everything is done legally and within each partys responsibility to those they represent.
If I was advisor to ACL I would suggest a clause that the stadium cannot be covered by a debenture to anyone like ARVO. I would also suggest, that in the event the club goes into administration or liquidation, the stadium returns to ACL at a price close to asset value.

 

[covcity4life]

if we get the stadium finances improve

sisu are the only ones doing anything for this club wether you like them or not,i hope the club gets it asap.

 

[ashbyjan]

Godiva whilst any deal of this sort would obviously need a plethora of legal eagles no matter who it was between, SISU's track record (not paying the rent because they dont want to, stuff any legal undertaking) tearing up players contracts on the eve of the season because they feel like it (whilst rewarding failure is ridiculous it was SISU who gave those wasters the contracts in the first place) and you only have to do the lightest of google trawls to see SISU's track record of litigation etc it would be a very brave Council that would hand over this potential jewel in the Citys crown to these people. Clauses and contracts are only as strong as your legal pockets and why should the Council risk citizens tax money in future litigation battles with a company they patently don't trust from the outset.

 

[Godiva]

Godiva whilst any deal of this sort would obviously need a plethora of legal eagles no matter who it was between, SISU's track record

not paying the rent because they dont want to

I don't know all the details, but I do know they tried to get ACL to negotiate a reduced rent. Nothing happened until they stopped topping up the escrow fund.
It looks like the rent will be reduced, so if you put on another set of spectacles you might see that the club desperately need to balance the books, and a reduced rent was absolutely necessary. So maybe sisu didn't pay because they didn't want to, but because they couldn't. There's a difference.

tearing up players contracts on the eve of the season because they feel like it

Same goes for players contracts. I don't know if any contract has been teared up ... do you?
But I read that the board want renegotiation and get rid of senseless bonus'es.

and you only have to do the lightest of google trawls to see SISU's track record of litigation etc

I read the stories that was in the finance/board section last year. But I can't say I am informed enough about the circumstances and details to say that sisu's track record of letigation is any different than from other players in the money market.

it would be a very brave Council that would hand over this potential jewel in the Citys crown to these people. Clauses and contracts are only as strong as your legal pockets and why should the Council risk citizens tax money in future litigation battles with a company they patently don't trust from the outset.

That is a very sound argument if you think sisu are the evil incarnated.
Or if you think the club can survive on its own with no owners, no financial backing, no assets and no revenue.
Or if you believe any new investor taking over from sisu will be any less focused on getting a return of his investment.

 

[SBS]

There's a very simple explanation for the need of keeping the negotiations behind closed doors - if they don't all sorts of people will argue against this or that tiny detail. Anyone who thinks he's someone will use the situation to polish their own ego.
Remember the 'take-over' talks last summer? How the likes of Keys, Hoffman, Dulieu and their supporters on each side did everything they could to explain how the others were greedy, corrupt, stupid and what have you. In that atmosphere simple details suddenly becomes extraordinary complicated and nothing is achieved in the end.

Fair point, I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this!

“We recognise it would be inappropriate to make publicly available some information shared with councillors. But we’re not prepared to sign up to sweeping statements on broad areas for five years. It’s a gagging order.”

It's this quote from Kevin Foster that still makes me believe it shouldn't be kept quiet. I just have a horrible feeling that if the sale in completed, 5 years down the line we'll be saying "I can't believe someone agreed to that", "Why weren't we told about this at the time?" etc.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The reality being that SISU's structure for owning and supporting our club being so labyrinthine and ultimate ownership so shadowy that any individual or despot could be behind it.

It's bad enough they control our club. They should never have any hold over the prize asset of the taxpayers of this once great city

 

[Godiva]

I just have a horrible feeling that if the sale in completed, 5 years down the line we'll be saying "I can't believe someone agreed to that", "Why weren't we told about this at the time?" etc.

5 years or 5 days ... what difference would it make to you or me?

Anyway, I don't know why it's five years ... is it actually a correct number or a number given by a very 'enthusiastic' politician trying to emphazise his arguement?

 

[kingharvest]

Yeah to be fair Jan - SISU never tore anyones contract up. They began a renegotiation (like they have with the stadium) of players contracts. They had no power to tear players contracts up or change them without agreement. What they did do, which is smart, is sign 9 new players and say to those who were stalling on new deals "last season we had no choice but to play you, now we have options you can either sign or sit on the bench and never get your appearance fee".

Nowt wrong with that, its ruthless behaviour and there are times when its needed.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I dont have a problem with the club owning it so long as ...........

1) SISU or any other owner do not secure loans against it other than for stadium improvements
2) that the club doesnt run at a loss

neither are likely to happen in the hands of any private owner

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

We know nothing of the context though KH. SISU signed Cody last year, for example. His contract is their contract. It might comprise a very low 'basic' and a larger bonus element. He would have taken a view on that contract compared to that he was on at Norwich. Maybe taken a cut in so doing, but with a belief that the totality if the package was worth the move.

Now, a year later into his contract, he's perhaps told to accept different terms or warm the bench. Is that fair? He made a decision to move based on an offer given.

And doesn't such hand-tie free selection by the manager?

 

[SBS]

5 years or 5 days ... what difference would it make to you or me?

Anyway, I don't know why it's five years ... is it actually a correct number or a number given by a very 'enthusiastic' politician trying to emphazise his arguement?

It doesn't make a difference, but I was just using what was is the article! I think it's just to give those involved in the negotiations time to run if it all goes tits up.

 

[stupot07]

I dont have a problem with the club owning it so long as ...........

1) SISU or any other owner do not secure loans against it
2) that the club doesnt run at a loss

neither are likely to happen in the hands of any private owner

Can you get a loan on a lease hold?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Can you get a loan on a lease hold?

Can't see why not? If the party loaning sees security of value in the lease and it's terms

 

[SBS]

We know nothing of the context though KH. SISU signed Cody last year, for example. His contract is their contract. It might comprise a very low 'basic' and a larger bonus element. He would have taken a view on that contract compared to that he was on at Norwich. Maybe taken a cut in so doing, but with a belief that the totality if the package was worth the move.

Now, a year later into his contract, he's told to accept different terms or warm the bench. Is that fair? He made a decision to move based on an offer given.

And doesn't such hand-tie free selection by the manager?

This whole bonus business seems to have created a massive rift in the club. The problem with this though is that you can see that both the club and players have strong arguments. I think its widely accepted the reason we went down last year was because the board didn't support Andy Thorn in the transfer market. Obviously some will disagree, but that seems to be the general consensus. As a player you would feel pissed off, relegation wasn't entirely you're fault, you're now getting paid less and the fans are turning on you. It must be a pretty dark dressing room at the moment.

Don't get me wrong, the money some footballers get paid is obscene. To some of these lads, its just a job though. You tell anyone with a job that their boss fucked up, their going to get a wage cut and now have customers screaming abuse at you then you're not going to be best pleased. However, the club is a business and a drop in income is going to be felt somewhere. I think the real shame is that people behind the scenes at the club are being made redundant, whereas as some players appear to be throwing toys out the pram over this situation.