We are paying the rent (16 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
According to jan the agreed rent is £400,000 less food revenues so its £300,000 this included all march day costs which are about £10,000 per game.

Given we have had I believe at least 7 home cup games this season we will pay £300,000.

So we are now paying the rent aren't we?
 
Warwickhunt

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
bank been unfrozen then?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
You know we're not. Give it a rest can you? :facepalm:
Click to expand...

But jan fm has stated the rent is effectively £300,000 - both sides agree that we are paying £10,000 a game so you explain to me why we are not.
 
CJparker

CJparker

New Member
Because the agreement has not made, so is still at the higher level...so, no.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
CJparker said:
Because the agreement has not made, so is still at the higher level...so, no.
Click to expand...

But the club are prepared to accept this as a payment aren't they and from the perspective of what ACL now want we are paying the agreed amount are we not?
 
G

giveusagoal

New Member
Grendel said:
According to jan the agreed rent is £400,000 less food revenues so its £300,000 this included all march day costs which are about £10,000 per game.

Given we have had I believe at least 7 home cup games this season we will pay £300,000.

So we are now paying the rent aren't we?
Click to expand...

No we are not.

Rent can only be paid as rent.

Are SISU claiming we are paying the rent?

Couple of questions for you personaly

Do you believe Sisu have CCFC's long term interest at heart?
Do you believe that SISU are doing a good job at running the club? If so what evidence do you have to support this?
Do you believe that SISU have always been open and honest with all their statements to the supporters?
Do you believe that ACL - a not for profit organisation - (the owners of which are governed by legislation and charity commission rules)- would lie and decieve the people of Coventry? And if so what is their motive?
 
Nonleagueherewecome

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
The most misleading thread title ever! Thanks for that, Gruffy :mad:
 
CJparker

CJparker

New Member
i thought that matchday costs of £10k were in addition to the rent, not part of it?

I might be wrong on this though.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
The rent that has been agreed as would be acceptable we are told by both ACL and TF is £400k. It hasnt been written into contract as yet.

The F&B's are not actually part of the lease so do not write down the acceptable rent of £400k at all. If the club made no sales of F&B's in a season then the rent would be £400k. Similarly if it made £200k profit then the rent would still be £400k.

Currently the original lease stands and included in that lease are elements that are incurred on a match to match basis. Ordinarily part of the overall Lease and Licence charge. Rent is set at a figure, with amounts and dates of payment stipulated...... if those precise terms not met then legally any other payments made are not rent. Both ACL and TF refer to them as matchday costs not rent so we surely should accept their description? From what I understand those payments made will be taken into account when settlement of back rent is made.

All the time the rent is either not paid or the settlement not made the debt just gets bigger and quite likely incurrs interest at an amount well above high street bank rate

Councillors, others etc who mix up rent with others sources going the other way are helping no one understand what is there. The net effect of things in total may well be substantially lower but the proposed base L1 rent is £400k
 
Last edited:
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
CJparker said:
i thought that matchday costs of £10k were in addition to the rent, not part of it?

I might be wrong on this though.
Click to expand...

That's my assumption but according to Jan no -- so this is my point.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
giveusagoal said:
No we are not.

Rent can only be paid as rent.

Are SISU claiming we are paying the rent?

Couple of questions for you personaly

Do you believe Sisu have CCFC's long term interest at heart? I believe if you are cast adrift on a lifeboat and even if the lifeboat has holes in it you are best to stay in the boat as it has a better chance of reaching land especially if you cannot swim. They are the only game in town.
Do you believe that SISU are doing a good job at running the club? If so what evidence do you have to support this? No I don't. Then again neither did Joe Elliot and his useless crew (worse - almost nankrupted us) and certainly were no worse than Richardson, McGinnity et al. I think it is difficult to make a case for any positive ownership experiences in 40 years.
Do you believe that SISU have always been open and honest with all their statements to the supporters? No about the same as the above mentioned. Did you believe everything Bryan Richardson said just because he did not have an office in Mayfair?
Do you believe that ACL - a not for profit organisation - (the owners of which are governed by legislation and charity commission rules)- would lie and decieve the people of Coventry? And if so what is their motive? The initial agreement was commercially unworkable for the club, uncompetitive and unjustifiable. The current situation arises out of this consequence as they took deliberate advantage of an institution in severe difficulties. The Treaty of Versailles was not intended to create the rise in Fasciscm and World War Two but this without argument was its consequence
Click to expand...

Answered........
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Either have the balls to deal with OSB58's response - which is significantly more candid than your childish intentions deserve - or cease this folly.

Put up. Shut up. Please
Click to expand...

Says the man who when he cannot answer your questions starts quoting types of sausage at you.
 
CJparker

CJparker

New Member
sky blue john said:
If Sisu were paying match day costs of 10k per game would TF not be shouting it from the roof tops?
Click to expand...

I think TF has stated this in the past, although in way as to imply that CCFC is paying "something" - even though it is in the agreement anyway.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
CJparker said:
I think TF has stated this in the past, although in way as to imply that CCFC is paying "something" - even though it is in the agreement anyway.
Click to expand...

They are paying it as without paying such the ground will not open on matchdays -- however in net terms this is all we have to pay going forward so it seems.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
The rent that has been agreed as would be acceptable we are told by both ACL and TF is £400k. It hasnt been written into contract as yet.

The F&B's are not actually part of the lease so do not write down the acceptable rent of £400k at all. If the club made no sales of F&B's in a season then the rent would be £400k. Similarly if it made £200k profit then the rent would still be £400k.

Currently the original lease stands and included in that lease are elements that are incurred on a match to match basis. Ordinarily part of the overall Lease and Licence charge. Rent is set at a figure, with amounts and dates of payment stipulated...... if those precise terms not met then legally any other payments made are not rent. Both ACL and TF refer to them as matchday costs not rent so we surely should accept their description? From what I understand those payments made will be taken into account when settlement of back rent is made.

All the time the rent is either not paid or the settlement not made the debt just gets bigger and quite likely incurrs interest at an amount well above high street bank rate

Councillors, others etc who mix up rent with others sources going the other way are helping no one understand what is there. The net effect of things in total may well be substantially lower but the proposed base L1 rent is £400k
Click to expand...

So in your opinion what is the argument all about now? In net terms it is clearly not the rent.

The food revenues offered are what, 20 - 25% of the total? Are the club do you think insisting on more and also other streams of revenue?

Do they want this backdating so the debt is wiped virtually?

It seems this is not now a rent dispute but a dispute about far more than that.
 
CJparker

CJparker

New Member
Correct - as I and others have argued many times, SISU's only chance of salvaging their investment is to get the Ricoh onthe cheap and sell it at a big profit - hence they are trying to bankrupt ACL and pick the Ricoh up out of liquidation. The rent dispute is just a pretext to do that.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
But that will never happen as Mutton has said SISU will never get any part of the Ricoh, so like it or you're stuck with them.

CJparker said:
Correct - as I and others have argued many times, SISU's only chance of salvaging their investment is to get the Ricoh onthe cheap and sell it at a big profit - hence they are trying to bankrupt ACL and pick the Ricoh up out of liquidation. The rent dispute is just a pretext to do that.
Click to expand...
 
skyblueman

skyblueman

New Member
FFS Enough already!!! What difference does it make really... there is no deal as yet - it will come and the bloody egos of all those involved will come out and say what great guys they are and how great a deal they've done etc etc until then can we PLEASE stop banging on about every minute detail - truth is we don't know and we won't know for a while so lets just concentrate on the team and the next few games
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
skyblueman said:
FFS Enough already!!! What difference does it make really... there is no deal as yet - it will come and the bloody egos of all those involved will come out and say what great guys they are and how great a deal they've done etc etc until then can we PLEASE stop banging on about every minute detail - truth is we don't know and we won't know for a while so lets just concentrate on the team and the next few games
Click to expand...

90% of threads are discussing such things.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
skyblueman said:
I know pal but we're just going round in bloody circles here - isn't it driving you up the wall?
Click to expand...

To be fair yes it is a sideshow we could do without.
 
CJparker

CJparker

New Member
torchomatic said:
But that will never happen as Mutton has said SISU will never get any part of the Ricoh, so like it or you're stuck with them.
Click to expand...

Well if ACL stick to their guns and effectively force SISU out, then SISU will be gone - if they don't buckle on the rent etc and stare down SISU, then SISU will have a choice of either accepting a big loss now or having to accept a big loss later - they will have to cut their losses and leave.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah, forgot. You WANT the winding up order to be served in the HOPE that the Club will survive. Betting man, are you?

CJparker said:
Well if ACL stick to their guns and effectively force SISU out, then SISU will be gone - if they don't buckle on the rent etc and stare down SISU, then SISU will have a choice of either accepting a big loss now or having to accept a big loss later - they will have to cut their losses and leave.
Click to expand...
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Grendel's Mrs has gone out to do the shopping, the ITV2 re-runs of Jeramy Kyle have finished; so bored, he's decided to bang the same old, tired drum.

That's it really
Click to expand...

Are you spying on me?
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 17 (members: 0, guests: 17)
Top