I wonder if/when we'll see a statement on the official
ACL and the City Council announcement (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter PWKH
- Start date
I wonder if/when we'll see a statement on the official
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
The council deal to buy off Yorkshire Bank Debt was effectively a negotiation that allowed the Yorkshire bank ( or whoever the Council borrowed the £14m from) to swap a risky debt for a much safer one. Presumably the conucil are paying this money back at a lower rate than they charge ACL for it & therefore make a bit of profit or at least break even in the long term.
I am much heartened by this move, some people on here can't see beyond the fortunes of the club, but much more is at stake, this is about standing up to the unreasonable, unfair, and ultimately unlawful, business tactics being used by SISU of withholding the rent to try and force ACL out of business so they can buy the Arena at next to nothing and sell it on to who knows who to make a killing out of their exploitation. They are a hedge fund, they don't care for the City or the club, its only the money.
Screw Joy Seppla and her kind! :claping hands:
PS Davo, I think the level of the ACL repayments and ACL income without the club means that ACL is solvent in the long term.
PPS SISU will not move the club to another venue, that will just cost them more, they might actually have to pay rent then!
I am much heartened by this move, some people on here can't see beyond the fortunes of the club, but much more is at stake, this is about standing up to the unreasonable, unfair, and ultimately unlawful, business tactics being used by SISU of withholding the rent to try and force ACL out of business so they can buy the Arena at next to nothing and sell it on to who knows who to make a killing out of their exploitation. They are a hedge fund, they don't care for the City or the club, its only the money.
Screw Joy Seppla and her kind! :claping hands:
PS Davo, I think the level of the ACL repayments and ACL income without the club means that ACL is solvent in the long term.
PPS SISU will not move the club to another venue, that will just cost them more, they might actually have to pay rent then!
Last edited by a moderator:
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Honestly? No. Now, however, we find out what SISU's true objectives are.
Bear in mind that in the financial year 2010-11, reported losses were £6.7m; so even with the rent free they'd have lost a fortune. Those who think the 'exorbitant' rent is the biggest crisis the club faces evidently haven't taken the time to take in the bigger picture
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Exactly its like a very stringent game of Chess and something tells me in all this that SISU must have considered that this outcome was a possibility.. I would think the next move would be back around the negotiating table to see if any smaller rent can be achieved..
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
This is true.. Although like I said in another post I can't see past SISU not planning for it, they have been slithering and underhanded so far and nothing would surprise me at this point..
SkyBlueScottie
Well-Known Member
I dont think anybody solely blames the rent. Its rather like ACL continually stating that players wages are the biggest single contributor to our issue, well no sh!t Sherlock, however they refused to pay out for a better standard of player and we all ended up losing out.....
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
So, it's because they've paid out for a 'better standard of player' that they've gone from a position of being 'debt free' and in the Championship when they took over, to having liabilities in excess of £40m now and in the lowest league position for two generations?
" And please stop trying to blame all the Club’s financial problems on the stadium rent, while drawing misleading and inaccurate comparisons between the rent paid by CCFC and that paid by other Football League One clubs, none of whom enjoy the benefits of a facility comparable to the Ricoh Arena."
Well we have changing rooms, pitch,toilets and seats just like any other league 1 club I don't get yourpoint? The team can't even train on the pitch. The only real difference is more seats which we can't fill anyway.
We don't get any other revenue from anypart of the Ricoh unlike other league 1 clubs do.
The initial rent agreed should never have been accepted in the first place because it is clearly ripping off the club and IS partly responsible for our current plight despite what you say.
Even with this new development if CCFC were to leave the whole place will become a white elephant and the council will be left with egg on their face. Seems odd the council can find money to lend ACL. Having been in Cov a few weeks ago the roads are still full of pot holes and the City feels really run down.Maybe this money would have been better spent sorting that out.
I don't like SISU but common sense says the rent must be lowered considerably if our club is going to haveany chance of being successful again
Well we have changing rooms, pitch,toilets and seats just like any other league 1 club I don't get yourpoint? The team can't even train on the pitch. The only real difference is more seats which we can't fill anyway.
We don't get any other revenue from anypart of the Ricoh unlike other league 1 clubs do.
The initial rent agreed should never have been accepted in the first place because it is clearly ripping off the club and IS partly responsible for our current plight despite what you say.
Even with this new development if CCFC were to leave the whole place will become a white elephant and the council will be left with egg on their face. Seems odd the council can find money to lend ACL. Having been in Cov a few weeks ago the roads are still full of pot holes and the City feels really run down.Maybe this money would have been better spent sorting that out.
I don't like SISU but common sense says the rent must be lowered considerably if our club is going to haveany chance of being successful again
Last edited:
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to argue with much of the above - although I could - but all today has done is to stabilise ACL so they can continue to negotiate with SISU. What's the problem with that?
Joy Division
Well-Known Member
Who actually agreed this initial rent in the first place, I don't mean CCFC, who who in particular at CCFC signed off this deal?
Apologies if may sound a stupid question.
Apologies if may sound a stupid question.
Official Away Travel
New Member
GOOD NEWS!!!!!!!!!!
This stops any hostile take over from SISU.
Looks like Joys plan isn't going very well, they well sell up soon!
New Owners for a New Start
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
McGinnity, wasn't it? ACL even offered him a 'geared' tenancy agreement - paying more in the Premiership and less in The Championship and in turn League One; and he refused. Thereafter, ACL took responsibility for this decision as a function of their Due Diligence process
Wrong, actually the club pays a price to ACL for corporate catering and car parking and then sells it on for a profit.
Hopefully ACL will hold their better offer and let SISU spread the payments of the £1.1 m over ten years.
FFS If Orange Ken hadn't resigned the likes of Bell and we hadn't been wasting money on R'OD, Malaga, Hussey etc the rent could have been settled months ago.
Hopefully ACL will hold their better offer and let SISU spread the payments of the £1.1 m over ten years.
FFS If Orange Ken hadn't resigned the likes of Bell and we hadn't been wasting money on R'OD, Malaga, Hussey etc the rent could have been settled months ago.
WillieStanley
New Member
OOOOOOOHHH GREAT!! Do you know any?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
You can't blame one individual, it is down to the board as it was when we moved SISU, i.e. Geoffery Robinson, Mike McGinnity, Hoffman (I think) and the late Alan Higgs (son of Derek Higgs who set up the Higgs charity), possibly a few others.
By this time Bryan Richardson had been superseded as chairman by McGinnity, but IMHO his handling of the move and Robinsons lack of scrutiny of his actions had already placed the club in no position to negotiage a better deal.
Last edited by a moderator:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
ACL view poiint
Clever move by ACL and its stakeholders. Did anyone really believe that they would be sitting around waiting for SISU and Joy to call the tune. It takes away any threat of SISU distressing ACL by taking over the Yorkshire bank loan, creating a default and calling it in, thereby getting their hands on the long lease. The reason the council do not want that isnt just because of SISU's actions over the last 5 years but also they could end up losing control of the North Coventry redevelopment - simply couldnt allow that. ACL end up paying less annually for its loan and the Council actually earn better from their investments ie a net contribution to their coffers. ACL paid yorkshire bank £1.66m a year on the loan (incl. £1m in interest) - say they borrowed £14.5m over 40 years at 5% (all guess work) then the repayments are £845K per year (incl 725K interest). ACL are better off in terms of reduced interest but save £820k in cashflow. The council receive £725K interest in year 1 which I would guess is a net gain of at least £300K
We as fans see this as all about the club and its ground........... firstly it isnt CCFC's ground and secondly the Council and even the Charity have far wider responsibilities. If SISU now come to the table to settle this then it will tell us something...... but with this loan to ACL in place then do not expect ACL to lower the deal past their last offer, imo the last offer will stand.
Just a point it is up to ACL alone if they back date anything but I see no legal reason why they should. The debt is not £1m now it is more like £1.4m and rising because SISU wont deal and have chosen not to pay - it did not have to be that way. A consequence of all this is that over the next couple of years ACL will seek to be "football club" proof - develop sources of income, better utilise the site, manage the business differently to do that. ACL, the Council, Charity simply do not trust SISU and that is going to hinder CCFC
CCFC viewpoint
I suspect have been caught flat footed by this however SISU will have put some contingency plans in to place. What they will be I am not sure as the players, league share and lease are all vested in CCFC Ltd and cannot be transferred. I think they have misread the resolve of the council and its ability to source funds. This was not a private engineering company that they can pressure to submission. They are effectively left with three immediate options- agree a rent trade on and see where that takes them OR sell it on for the best deal they can OR let it go bump. I do think their plan was to obtain the site - no cant prove it- but what they do next will perhaps give us a clue. The prospect of CCFC actually owning the stadium or part of it either freehold or shares in ACL is right now further away than ever....... the council now control the situation, and they to a man do not seem to trust SISU's actions or motives, and why should they. This all leaves CCFC still on the brink but not actually lacking of an intention of support by Council and Charity.
The club should be able to prove better cost control systems but not necessarily actions across the board, it can point to better results on the pitch and improving footfall at their games, it should be able to point to reduced losses because of the cup runs etc. The club can put a good argument that £1.2m was too much rent - but in reality i think that has been accepted - what wont happen is that there will be a new lease, the amount of rent might be less but the terms will remain. The club will if they choose to accept obtain a lower rent (400K), they will have to pay at least a significant part of the debt now accumulated (over 10 years) and they will have access to nearly all match day profits. I think that is the best they will get.
my view
If nothing else todays news means that this matter has to be settled one way or another - the period of limbo is coming to an end.
Clever move by ACL and its stakeholders. Did anyone really believe that they would be sitting around waiting for SISU and Joy to call the tune. It takes away any threat of SISU distressing ACL by taking over the Yorkshire bank loan, creating a default and calling it in, thereby getting their hands on the long lease. The reason the council do not want that isnt just because of SISU's actions over the last 5 years but also they could end up losing control of the North Coventry redevelopment - simply couldnt allow that. ACL end up paying less annually for its loan and the Council actually earn better from their investments ie a net contribution to their coffers. ACL paid yorkshire bank £1.66m a year on the loan (incl. £1m in interest) - say they borrowed £14.5m over 40 years at 5% (all guess work) then the repayments are £845K per year (incl 725K interest). ACL are better off in terms of reduced interest but save £820k in cashflow. The council receive £725K interest in year 1 which I would guess is a net gain of at least £300K
We as fans see this as all about the club and its ground........... firstly it isnt CCFC's ground and secondly the Council and even the Charity have far wider responsibilities. If SISU now come to the table to settle this then it will tell us something...... but with this loan to ACL in place then do not expect ACL to lower the deal past their last offer, imo the last offer will stand.
Just a point it is up to ACL alone if they back date anything but I see no legal reason why they should. The debt is not £1m now it is more like £1.4m and rising because SISU wont deal and have chosen not to pay - it did not have to be that way. A consequence of all this is that over the next couple of years ACL will seek to be "football club" proof - develop sources of income, better utilise the site, manage the business differently to do that. ACL, the Council, Charity simply do not trust SISU and that is going to hinder CCFC
CCFC viewpoint
I suspect have been caught flat footed by this however SISU will have put some contingency plans in to place. What they will be I am not sure as the players, league share and lease are all vested in CCFC Ltd and cannot be transferred. I think they have misread the resolve of the council and its ability to source funds. This was not a private engineering company that they can pressure to submission. They are effectively left with three immediate options- agree a rent trade on and see where that takes them OR sell it on for the best deal they can OR let it go bump. I do think their plan was to obtain the site - no cant prove it- but what they do next will perhaps give us a clue. The prospect of CCFC actually owning the stadium or part of it either freehold or shares in ACL is right now further away than ever....... the council now control the situation, and they to a man do not seem to trust SISU's actions or motives, and why should they. This all leaves CCFC still on the brink but not actually lacking of an intention of support by Council and Charity.
The club should be able to prove better cost control systems but not necessarily actions across the board, it can point to better results on the pitch and improving footfall at their games, it should be able to point to reduced losses because of the cup runs etc. The club can put a good argument that £1.2m was too much rent - but in reality i think that has been accepted - what wont happen is that there will be a new lease, the amount of rent might be less but the terms will remain. The club will if they choose to accept obtain a lower rent (400K), they will have to pay at least a significant part of the debt now accumulated (over 10 years) and they will have access to nearly all match day profits. I think that is the best they will get.
my view
If nothing else todays news means that this matter has to be settled one way or another - the period of limbo is coming to an end.
Last edited:
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
There is interest in football clubs at the right price, for instance at Brum http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19886283
Sisu knew there was some market when they bought us- as a hedge fund they must have had a view of prospective buyers; unless they were absolutely incompetent :0/
There problem is they screwed up and will have to sell at a loss, at a market rate.
Cornwallskyblue
Member
I am totally fed up of this! No One and I mean no one cares about our club. Council want to line their pockets and the money will not go back to the people of the city just more fingers in more pies. SISU are just interested in business not the club. I don't expect freebees but come on why can't we all work together. ACL have had their eyes open to rent around this league and are being very stuborn as well. Just had enough!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Good news. What a joke. This could well be the end of the club. Still making ACl a glorified council quangos I am sure will please you.
Amazing really how people bleating about rent deferal threatening council tax payers (it didn't) are now pleased the council in times of austerity is funding a £14 million pound loan and relyiing on a financially unstable company to find the payments.
The club will probably be the first ever to be wound up by its local council.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Can you think of any football club that's refused to pay no rent whatsoever for a year, on a facility they're still using, week-in, week-out?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Hull city I believe.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Are you sure? I know they've refused to pay for improvements without holding the freehold. In December, for example, Assem Allam stated "There is no future for me and the KC Stadium unless it is freehold. If you rent a house, then you don't pay to put an extension on it," he said.
That statement would insinuate they do pay rent, wouldn't it?
Evans1883
New Member
The only outcome of this all in my eyes is that sisu will have to leave as ACL seem to be in control now and the club will become open for a new takeover bid from ? .either way I'm really unsure about this .basically it feels now that weare resigned to a future of no money within ccfc
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Ipswich
Posh seemed to be (or were I don't know their situation) pissed as well, they paid £1 a year at one point.
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/politics-news/posh-chief-to-refuse-to-pay-stadium-rent-1-3688832
Evans1883
New Member
Doncaster rovers had a similar situation to us did they not
SkyBlueCharlie
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
They refused to pay years ago.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Besides, what's the problem, Grendel? The council get interest on their loan which would be greater than they'd get if it were invested. All councils have 'savings' - look at all of those who lost fortunes in the Icelandic banking collapse. They don't get council tax in one week and spend it the next.
So, the council gets a return on a value that's earning little at the moment. ACL get security they wouldn't have left to the ravishes of a commercial bank; and SISU get a stable party with whom to negotiate.
Why the melodrama?
So, the council gets a return on a value that's earning little at the moment. ACL get security they wouldn't have left to the ravishes of a commercial bank; and SISU get a stable party with whom to negotiate.
Why the melodrama?
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
As ever - very sensible analysis.
I agree with you on SISU's 3 options.
Letting the club "go bump" will not be attractive to them for the obvious reasons. Will the recent upturn in fortunes persuade them that they might be able to (at least) stem their losses while having a possible revenue upside from promotion/Wembley etc? If not, will they be prepared to look at a sensible deal for selling the club (i.e. for not very much) if there are any prospective purchasers out there who are prepared to deal with them?
An interesting (and nervous) time ahead!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
As I understand it the initial concept was for hull to pay £300,000 a year in rent. I believe they have only paid something like £60,000 since occupation - about £6,000 a year. I'm not sure I have it from a season ticket holder but I am sure they pay a silly rent and always have done.
Doncaster I believe also did not pay rent until the council effectively wound up the stadium management company and handed it to the club.
Stokes ground was partly owned by a regeneration company. After some wrangling they bought the whole stadium for £6 million.
You will struggle to find an arrangement that disadvantages the club as much as this.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Oh well. That would insinuate though that ACL's latest offer of rent is lower than Posh get charged for that shed
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They will continue to not pay the rent.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
What makes you say that?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
That's Brum, not CCFC, as far as I'm aware, BCFC own their stadium (correct me if I'm wrong), and are in the championship. What mug would buy Cov (to cover SISU's losses), whilst we have a 1.28m rent agreement whilst we're in L1 and own nothing?