Tom Fisher Q & A email (2 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

I have to agree harping on about what happened pre SISU. Is a bit of a waste of time.

The time is now to deal with our current situation.

SISU have to be held accountable for the decisions they have made since they have come in.

I think most people just want them to make decisions now that don't cause relegation like last season.

And create an imagine of a club financially stable so we can attract and keep the best at this level.

Also build relationships with our key partners that have to make key decisions in our aim towards owning our own Stadium.

Have to main boss show she has enough consideration for the fans to address them at least once in person.

 

---

[PWKH]

Let's tackle another myth. The rest of the money required to build the Ricoh did not come from 'council funds', why do people persist with this nonsense? It was a bank loan, pure and simple which until recently was serviced wholly by ACL from operating revenues. NOT A PENNY of council money has ever gone into the Ricoh.

You are wrong, pure and simple. The stadium build was done by the Council using a variety of funds that it could access, its own from land sales, Advantage West Midlands funds etc. ACL's loan was taken out to purchase the leasehold. OSB58 has, in the past, spelled this out very clearly.

 

[PWKH]

I can easily criticise the Charity as they have made a packet from the club so says Torchomatic

This untrue. The Charity has received no money whatsoever from CCFC. The Charity receives no money from ACL.

 

[torchomatic]

OK, maybe I should have said WILL rather than HAVE.

I can easily criticise the Charity as they have made a packet from the club so says Torchomatic

This untrue. The Charity has received no money whatsoever from CCFC. The Charity receives no money from ACL.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Big thanks to PWKH for clearing up some irritating misconceptions.

 

[PWKH]

OK, maybe I should have said WILL rather than HAVE.

When will that be?

 

[Godiva]

When will that be?

The Charity paid the Club for those shares. The Charity must hope to make a return, either through an increase in value or through an income, from those shares.

(10 characters)

 

[torchomatic]

Well, they certainly don't intend to hold onto their shares forever, do they? Not doing them or the Club any good at the moment.

When will that be?

 

[torchomatic]

Or when "hell freezes over" maybe?

When will that be?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I can easily criticise the Charity as they have made a packet from the club so says Torchomatic

This untrue. The Charity has received no money whatsoever from CCFC. The Charity receives no money from ACL.

So what does the charity get from the RICOH? Also, when people say, we're shafting a charity, they are wrong because the charity gets nothing?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So what does the charity get from the RICOH? Also, when people say, we're shafting a charity, they are wrong because the charity gets nothing?

ACL cannot pay a dividend to its shareholders until the loan (now controlled by CCC) is paid in full.

 

[torchomatic]

Ha! Yes, never thought of that. Another irritating misconception dismissed.

So what does the charity get from the RICOH? Also, when people say, we're shafting a charity, they are wrong because the charity gets nothing?

 

[Godiva]

When Higgs became part of the ACL with a hope of making a return they became investors and we should see them as such.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Ha! Yes, never thought of that. Another irritating misconception dismissed.

Sarcasm not your forté, el Torcho.

 

[Jack Griffin]

So what does the charity get from the RICOH? Also, when people say, we're shafting a charity, they are wrong because the charity gets nothing?

Nonsense, the charity has a large part of its capital tied up in the Arena, earning no income and restricting its charitable activities.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Nonsense, the charity has most of its capital tied up in the Arena, earning no income and stymying its charitable activities.

Not what PWKH said, why I asked him the question, I want it cleared up, which he hasn't yet so I can only assume the answer is nothing and yes.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I looked up some more info, the Higgs probably had a larger fund than I'd though.

I think it has about 25% of its capital in the arena, so I modified my original post from the one you quoted.
The capital tied up in the Arena is still an issue.

 

[Warwickhunt]

No analysis, because we have all commented on it all previously.......... but ......

Some of it is quite right. For example the rent offered isnt £150K, such things are misleading

Dont want to discuss in the media ...... but there you go..... again..... :facepalm:

mediation is just discussions with a referee....... havent they been discussing then? Now arbitration that would be different....

FL rules regarding salaries etc do have certain exclusions and even as things stand mean we have one of the top 3 or 4 budgets in the division. (and we are still not in the playoffs)

The rent is an entirely different issue to the F&B's so can be settled in terms of value, my understanding is that a new lease is not on the table

The rates rebate may or may not be achieved......... we may not physically use the stadium everyday but FL rules require the club to have first call on it at all times and there by leaves the problem if that is the basis of appeal. Also rates will come down if rent comes down (rateable value calculations are based on rental value). Oh btw ACL have a third party debtor order over the refund

If Compass own the catering rights ........... why are SISU talking to ACL about them ? And if Compass own those rights how is it possible to include them in the "rental" discussions? Oh it is easy to pick out one special event year at HR what was it the year before?

The whole reason there is an escrow account is that CCFC is a poor credit risk, and it has been proven necessary hasnt it. The court not ACL has given judgement that the Escrow is legal and needs topping up ........... *edit The escrow account was established in 2005 (was there before SISU got here and was part of what they bought but given no value to their deal 2007), it is an amount put on deposit which under the terms of the lease neither side can touch unless certain events take place..... so if you want to be pedantic about it then it has not actually been paid out this year by CCFC or SISU at all

new stadium ........ been discussed before and on our current wage structure it is not a better financial option when you factor in finance costs, depreciation costs, time lines and the fact that unless the current lease is broken then it is still valid .....

so have the bank accounts been frozen or not TF?........... it is not actually what a third part debtor order does and is an inconvenience nothing more given the funding SISU have available

Thats it I really can not be bothered to comment further...... In the last week TF has been on the radio what 4 times, been quoted in press god knows how much, now this ............but he doesnt want to do negotiations in the press.............. sorry but this is actually just more spin

Both sides need a solid commitment to actually do a deal and not to keep thinking of new stuff to get in its way......... just looks like more delaying to me

I believe that ACL have emptied the Escrow account this financial year when CCFC did not pay their rent after 4 Months. The money in the account is CCFC's

 

[grego_gee]

I can easily criticise the Charity as they have made a packet from the club so says Torchomatic

This untrue. The Charity has received no money whatsoever from CCFC. The Charity receives no money from ACL.

Thanks PK,
So where does the money go?
Who gets the profits from concerts and the Olympics?
and where does the £1.2m a year in rent go?
Does it stay with ACL or go back to the council?

imp:

 

[Godiva]

Thanks PK,
So where does the money go?
Who gets the profits from concerts and the Olympics?
and where does the £1.2m a year in rent go?
Does it stay with ACL or go back to the council?

imp:

I think OSB did an analysis that showed all profits are invested in the facilities as well as paying back the mortgage.
Neither shareholder (council/Higgs) have taken any dividend so far.

 

[dongonzalos]

I can easily criticise the Charity as they have made a packet from the club so says Torchomatic

This untrue. The Charity has received no money whatsoever from CCFC. The Charity receives no money from ACL.

Maybe this can finally put any mis information in an attempt to mud sling from certain quarters and I don't just mean you Torch.
When people say fat cats, council and ACL are greedy Higgs as a charity ha, they are coining it in etc etc .....

This is usually thrown in when it is clear SISU are unethical in their business dealings.

Now maybe people will have to put forward a less lazy debate for why they are not.

 

[torchomatic]

I think we can also put to bed the "poor charity" line then too. As the Club aren't taking anything from them.

However, don't forget that this is coming from one side and is going to be spun accordingly. Just like Fisher does.

Maybe this can finally put any mis information in an attempt to mud sling from certain quarters and I don't just mean you Torch.
When people say fat cats, council and ACL are greedy Higgs as a charity ha, they are coining it in etc etc .....

This is usually thrown in when it is clear SISU are unethical in their business dealings.

Now maybe people will have to put forward a less lazy debate for why they are not.

 

[Grendel]

Maybe this can finally put any mis information in an attempt to mud sling from certain quarters and I don't just mean you Torch.
When people say fat cats, council and ACL are greedy Higgs as a charity ha, they are coining it in etc etc .....

This is usually thrown in when it is clear SISU are unethical in their business dealings.

Now maybe people will have to put forward a less lazy debate for why they are not.

There is no lazy argument other than that which says sisu are fleecing a charity - we know this is a lazy and ill informed argument.

An equally lazy argument is that the deal was agreed at the time so stick with it. Given the one sided nature of the arrangement and that the one side benifitting is not the football club this is an extraordinary stance anyway.

We also know in other instances where councils have owned sports grounds the football club has, on the face of it, a better deal from the outset than us and also in the final conclusion. We should be probing and seeing why our situation is seemingly so unique.

 

[grego_gee]

I think OSB did an analysis that showed all profits are invested in the facilities as well as paying back the mortgage.
Neither shareholder (council/Higgs) have taken any dividend so far.

Thanks God,
I was hoping for PK's confirmation.

imp:

 

[sky blue john]

I think we can also put to bed the "poor charity" line then too. As the Club aren't taking anything from them.

Can we?
i take it then if sisu had brought down ACL it wouldn't have effected the charitys investment !!!

 

[dongonzalos]

Originally Posted by Grendel:
Depends on what you mean. ACL have had their snouts in the Sky Blue trough for 7 years. Time for some fairness from them.


Dongonzalos
How much money have they pocketed from this trough?

Edit Reply

 

[Grendel]

Originally Posted by Grendel:
Depends on what you mean. ACL have had their snouts in the Sky Blue trough for 7 years. Time for some fairness from them.


Dongonzalos
How much money have they pocketed from this trough?

Edit Reply

Plenty. All revenues from everything associated with the football club from parking to ground sponsors has not gone to the football club.

It has at Doncaster, hull, stoke etc.

This club has been denied rightful income from the council so my analogy is correct especially as ACL is now a council run quango.

 

[coundonskyblue]

Plenty. All revenues from everything associated with the football club from parking to ground sponsors has not gone to the football club.

It has at Doncaster, hull, stoke etc.

This club has been denied rightful income from the council so my analogy is correct especially as ACL is now a council run quango.

The club would no longer exist if it wasn't for the council.

 

[PWKH]

Grendel: the right that the Club has to the income comes with the shares it sold. Why doesn't it just buy them back? Or is that too simple?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Having read the last 13 pages of this thread I would say that TF's email Q&A has been highly successful :thinking about:.................

It has raised new issues that were not mentioned before in the last 11 months, muddied further others, made unsubstantiated claims mixed with the odd moment of clarity, created more questions than answers, confused issues and fans alike ........

and above all, far from uniting the fans on CCFC's side (read as SISU if you like) ........ has seemingly made the divisions greater (judging by reaction here)......... is that really the way forward????

Successful negotiations happen when both sides enter with a spirit of compromise and leave feeling they gained....... it is not about beating the other side....... it is not about continually making reasons why not or delaying over and over again .............. so what has been offered by both sides, what has been compromised on each side? are the concessions reasonable real and matching?

If it is just about the rent and access to match day income ......... do not spin media releases, sit down negotiate, be prepared to pay for the rights or earn a share, do not expect something for nothing as right, be prepared to go forward as a partnership that benefits club and stadium, be prepared to offer something, stop making excuses why it doesnt happen - make it happen, set a time scale and stick to it ........... it wont be the perfect deal for CCFC or ACL, it will be a compromise that suits both.................. but ffs sort it out

This Q&A email helps sort very little but then again was it supposed to ?:thinking about:

 

[Grendel]

Grendel: the right that the Club has to the income comes with the shares it sold. Why doesn't it just buy them back? Or is that too simple?

Can it buy them back at the original cost of the mortgage and will that give them absolute 100% control of the whole of ACL's activities?

 

[Grendel]

Grendel: the right that the Club has to the income comes with the shares it sold. Why doesn't it just buy them back? Or is that too simple?

As you are online what is your view on the original deal? Do you think the arrangements were fair to the football club? Is there any compatible example where the football club has had to pay such a high percentage of the mortgage value without receiving any of the benefits?

 

[MichaelCCFC]

This club has been denied rightful income [emphasis added] from the council so my analogy is correct especially as ACL is now a council run quango.[/QUOTE]

Really interesting use of words ie 'rightful income'. In the oft quoted Times article about sisu, there is a reference to JS believing her investors were entitled to a better deal. John Beech was on cwr saying some of sisu's actions are inexplicable but I wonder if you see sisu as being motivated by a sense of entitlement to income they see as rightfully theirs (irrespective of contractual arrangements, other stakeholders etc), it might give some insight.

 

[Grendel]

This club has been denied rightful income [emphasis added] from the council so my analogy is correct especially as ACL is now a council run quango.

Really interesting use of words ie 'rightful income'. In the oft quoted Times article about sisu, there is a reference to JS believing her investors were entitled to a better deal. John Beech was on cwr saying some of sisu's actions are inexplicable but I wonder if you see sisu as being motivated by a sense of entitlement to income they see as rightfully theirs (irrespective of contractual arrangements, other stakeholders etc), it might give some insight.[/QUOTE]

Ha ha so some spurious attempt to suggest I am a sisu employee.

When I first joined this forum I had 2 main issues - thorn and the ridiculous arrangement we have in leasing the ground. Extortionate rent and no revenue is absurd and prohibitive.

I met Paul Fletcher a couple of times and although he had real issues in management capability his views on the councils handling of this whole situation and its attitude to the club was spot on. It's even worse now as they see themselves as playing God regarding owner suitability.

So no I have nothing to do with the current owners but I am we'll aware the rental arrangement is absurd and unfair.

Michael if you leased a shop from the council would you expect revenue from some if the customers to go back to the council?

 

[dongonzalos]

Really interesting use of words ie 'rightful income'. In the oft quoted Times article about sisu, there is a reference to JS believing her investors were entitled to a better deal. John Beech was on cwr saying some of sisu's actions are inexplicable but I wonder if you see sisu as being motivated by a sense of entitlement to income they see as rightfully theirs (irrespective of contractual arrangements, other stakeholders etc), it might give some insight.

Ha ha so some spurious attempt to suggest I am a sisu employee.

When I first joined this forum I had 2 main issues - thorn and the ridiculous arrangement we have in leasing the ground. Extortionate rent and no revenue is absurd and prohibitive.

I met Paul Fletcher a couple of times and although he had real issues in management capability his views on the councils handling of this whole situation and its attitude to the club was spot on. It's even worse now as they see themselves as playing God regarding owner suitability.

So no I have nothing to do with the current owners but I am we'll aware the rental arrangement is absurd and unfair.

Michael if you leased a shop from the council would you expect revenue from some if the customers to go back to the council?[/QUOTE]

That last paragraph is an analogy you usually rip apart. I.e

Yes you would if that is a contact you agreed to. If you didn't what do you think the council would do.