Transfer Embargo from midnight (3 Viewers)

[Joy Division]

Well at least the shirt sponsor issue can now be resolved

 

---

[Sky Blue Kid]

Pot and kettle comes to mind:facepalm:

Only respond to attacks not initiate them Moff. From the first time I made a post I've been attacked by Torchy,Grenduffy, Then Summerisle stuck his oar in, passing comment on my education. I don't talk like I've got a plum stuck up my arse like those 3 do.Try talking in words that EVERYONE can understand. The 3 of them come over(Not only to me) thinking they and their posts are superior to all others....Why don't you join in with posts on subjects, rather than pick holes in posters comments. Come up with something to let others make comments on?:facepalm:

 

[hill83]

Only respond to attacks not initiate them Moff. From the first time I made a post I've been attacked by Torchy,Grenduffy, Then Summerisle stuck his oar in, passing comment on my education. I don't talk like I've got a plum stuck up my arse like those 3 do.Try talking in words that EVERYONE can understand. The 3 of them come over(Not only to me) thinking they and their posts are superior to all others....Why don't you join in with posts on subjects, rather than pick holes in posters comments. Come up with something to let others make comments on?:facepalm:

 

[Grendel]

Why are you attacking him? His statement was true.

Because it isn't true. It is an utter fallacy to assume the ground will survive without a permanent resident. The permanent resident creates marketing awareness and helps its brand identity. ACL know this. It's not altruism that has led them to tolerate non payment. They also need a solution.

The vast majority of dadgads post are anti club and pro council. Not once in one post has he ever argued a viable alternative to the current owners.

 

[Grendel]

Cheers DIEHARD - failure to respond to the truth is typical of those that haven't a leg to stand on.
There's a pattern here.....

There is no pattern. You constantly berate and rubbish the football club sneer at people who try and defend it.

Not once have you ever suggested anything that would improve the situation or any potential alternatives. I can only therefore conclude you either lack intellect for a sensible debate or are only on here for provocation and have no real interest in the subject being discussed.

 

[torchomatic]

If that was true then why were ACL propped up by the Council?

So what are the more profitable revenue streams then? Come on, don't just say something wishy-washy, tell us in black and white what ACL would do to attract something as substantial as a football club in a football stadium. And what would those be?

This isn't even close to being true.

Indeed, without the football, the Ricoh could open its doors to many other and more profitable revenue streams.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I dunno, I thought I remembered Fisher an Waggott kept banging on in the summer how the accounts couldn't be signed off until a deal had been agreed.

From memory, the budgets for the next year had to be set and signed off before the accounts could be submitted or something and they couldn't set the budgets without an agreement on the rent.

Just as I remembered

 

[Grendel]

If that was true then why were ACL propped up by the Council?

So what are the more profitable revenue streams then? Come on, don't just say something wishy-washy, tell us in black and white what ACL would do to attract something as substantial as a football club in a football stadium. And what would those be?

Perhaps they will host the local scout group tiddlywinks competition

 

[torchomatic]

Well, I suppose as long as they get 10-15K a week then they'll be OK. Apologies to ACL.

Perhaps they will host the local scout group tiddlywinks competition

 

[Grendel]

Only respond to attacks not initiate them Moff. From the first time I made a post I've been attacked by Torchy,Grenduffy, Then Summerisle stuck his oar in, passing comment on my education. I don't talk like I've got a plum stuck up my arse like those 3 do.Try talking in words that EVERYONE can understand. The 3 of them come over(Not only to me) thinking they and their posts are superior to all others....Why don't you join in with posts on subjects, rather than pick holes in posters comments. Come up with something to let others make comments on?:facepalm:

That is hilarious - next you'll be convincing us Hitler was a misunderstood pacifist.

 

[ashbyjan]

Well he was a vegetarian - never trust a bean muncher, let alone a bean counter!

 

[Grendel]

I don't talk like I've got a plum stuck up my arse

At least you acknowledge that is where you do talk from

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

If that was true then why were ACL propped up by the Council?

So what are the more profitable revenue streams then? Come on, don't just say something wishy-washy, tell us in black and white what ACL would do to attract something as substantial as a football club in a football stadium. And what would those be?

This isn't a line that works Torchy. Someone will come up with a suggestion, then it'll be pulled apart and ridiculed by folk such as Grendel.

ACL state they have a viable business without the football club. Think of you want of them, but they've out-maneuvered SISU's posturing and politics in the last few months; and you have to admit they've not amateurs. If they state they have a plan, then it's not for any of the posters on here to summon their own ideas as to what constitutes a revenue that passes Grendel's 'expert' scrutiny.

Most importantly and critically; their auditors obviously believe they have a plan without the club, or the accounts wouldn't be filed. Which makes your request and the nature of much sarcasm of nonotable posters irrelevant

 

[Grendel]

This isn't a line that works Torchy. Someone will come up with a suggestion, then it'll be pulled apart and ridiculed by folk such as Grendel.

ACL state they have a viable business without the football club. Think of you want of them, but they've out-maneuvered SISU's posturing and politics in the last few months; and you have to admit they've not amateurs. If they state they have a plan, then it's not for any of the posters on here to summon their own ideas as to what constitutes a revenue that passes Grendel's 'expert' scrutiny.

Most importantly and critically; their auditors obviously believe they have a plan without the club, or the accounts wouldn't be filed. Which makes your request and the nature of much sarcasm of nonotable posters irrelevant

Do you think without the councils intervention in buying the loan the accounts would have been signed.

Don't dodge either saying you can't speculate as that is your forte.

 

[Sick Boy]

I don't understand how someone could side with, and praise the statement that hell will freeze over before the club get a share in the stadium.

It is essential that the club gain some sort of share/the generated revenue from food & beverage sales, as without this no one would ever be interested in buying the club off sisu. Without this, we are in serious trouble.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Do you think without the councils intervention in buying the loan the accounts would have been signed.

Don't dodge either saying you can't speculate as that is your forte.

Nope. I'll use your favourite line. It's irrelevant.

They have been signed, the place is supported, and will be for the foreseeable future - over a decade. Within that context the auditor is happy that the place is viable. Hence sign-off.

Maybe if your mates at SISU had tried to curry favour instead of being so damn antagonistic, they might get the occasional helping-hand. But they didn't. And they haven't

 

[ashbyjan]

Grendel - in my opinion the accounts may well not have been signed off as any auditor would have been cautious when the anchor tenant was refusing to pay rent and there was no resolution in the offing. The state of play is that the loan has been renegotiated and therefore the payments substantially reduced and the auditor is happy to sign off the accounts. The only conclusion to draw is that as things stand ACL is a viable business whether the football club pays its rent or not. The rent dispute is still going on - ACL's books signed off therefore viable business - maybe not the "bust" enterprise some would have us believe.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I don't understand how someone could side with, and praise the statement that hell will freeze over before the club get a share in the stadium.

It is essential that the club gain some sort of share/the generated revenue from food & beverage sales, as without this no one would ever be interested in buying the club off sisu. Without this, we are in serious trouble.

I'm not going to disagree with that. The problem? How SISU have gone about it. Bullying, high-risk, belligerent and arrogant. Oh, can I add 'illegal'?

And it didn't work

 

[ashbyjan]

I don't understand how someone could side with, and praise the statement that hell will freeze over before the club get a share in the stadium.

It is essential that the club gain some sort of share/the generated revenue from food & beverage sales, as without this no one would ever be interested in buying the club off sisu. Without this, we are in serious trouble.

For the umpteenth time - the deal that was on the table was giving the club ACL's profits from the F&B without the club having to fork out a penny in costs to get those profits. It was also getting the revenue and profits from the car parking. Owning the stadium would not guarantee a single penny in revenue as ACL plough all profits back into the business without either owner taking any money out so CCFC would have been actually better off not owning any part of the stadium but agreeing the rent and getting the revenue stream as part of the deal

 

[Grendel]

Nope. I'll use your favourite line. It's irrelevant.

They have been signed, the place is supported, and will be for the foreseeable future - over a decade. Within that context the auditor is happy that the place is viable. Hence sign-off.

Maybe if your mates at SISU had tried to curry favour instead of being so damn antagonistic, they might get the occasional helping-hand. But they didn't. And they haven't

Ha Ha. Why do you think they needed the buy out for the loan anyway? According to many on here without the club the Ground is a goldmine so why do you think the loan was bought? What are the revised terms? How much better than the old terms? Do you think once the club has gone and the gold rush stats the council should revert back to the original interest rate and payment period? If not why not as that would be allowing ACL to profiteer.

Do you think the football club had £20 million of its debts funded by the council it would have a better chance of getting the accounts signed off?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Ha Ha. Why do you think they needed the buy out for the loan anyway? According to many on here without the club the Ground is a goldmine so why do you think the loan was bought? What are the revised terms? How much better than the old terms? Do you think once the club has gone and the gold rush stats the council should revert back to the original interest rate and payment period? If not why not as that would be allowing ACL to profiteer.

Do you think the football club had £20 million of its debts funded by the council it would have a better chance of getting the accounts signed off?

I'll try and keep this simple. Again. It's irirrelevant

 

[ashbyjan]

Ha Ha. Why do you think they needed the buy out for the loan anyway? According to many on here without the club the Ground is a goldmine so why do you think the loan was bought? What are the revised terms? How much better than the old terms? Do you think once the club has gone and the gold rush stats the council should revert back to the original interest rate and payment period? If not why not as that would be allowing ACL to profiteer.

Do you think the football club had £20 million of its debts funded by the council it would have a better chance of getting the accounts signed off?

They needed to buy the loan out a: to stop any third party buying it from Yorkshire Bank and thereby being able to distress ACL and b: to lower the monthly commitments to free up cash flow whilst the anchor tenant was on rent strike

Just seems perfectly sound business - not sure what the problem with it is?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

They needed to buy the loan out a: to stop any third party buying it from Yorkshire Bank and thereby being able to distress ACL and b: to lower the monthly commitments to free up cash flow whilst the anchor tenant was on rent strike

Just seems perfectly sound business - not sure what the problem with it is?

It's because it's road-blocked a stance that was deemed illegal in court, a distressing of a business with a view to ultimate gain, yet one which Grenduffy childishly danced around and applauded.

If this was an episode of Scooby Doo; Grenduffy's stance is like the bit when the 'baddy' who has his mask removed always says: 'if it wasn't for those meddling kids...'

 

[rupert_bear]

There is no problem but there are people who don't want to see the practicallity of it and the council have NOT given 20million they have loaned the money at a better rate which they can do under government rules and will make money. As ashbyjan said it prevented Yorkshire bank selling to a third party, this was quite clearly explained at the time, perhaps the reasons didn't suit.

 

[katzenjammer]

They needed to buy the loan out a: to stop any third party buying it from Yorkshire Bank and thereby being able to distress ACL and b: to lower the monthly commitments to free up cash flow whilst the anchor tenant was on rent strike

Just seems perfectly sound business - not sure what the problem with it is?

Sound business by ACL, yes, by the Council, not so sure.

By third party, I'm sure this actually means SISU. If they bought the debt they'd effectively own ACL and the Football Club, which is what SISU want in terms of access to the revenue to invest in the football club with FFP. So effectively, I think they've done it to spite SISU.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Sound business by ACL, yes, by the Council, not so sure.

By third party, I'm sure this actually means SISU. If they bought the debt they'd effectively own ACL and the Football Club, which is what SISU want in terms of access to the revenue to invest in the football club with FFP. So effectively, I think they've done it to spite SISU.

Yes and no. SISU were appearing to distress ACL with a view to securing the concern at rock-bottom price. The option was, and I guess remains open to them, to 'effectively own' ACL if they can negotiate a fair market price for doing so. Thereby also securing the additional streams you cite are valuable for FFP. So, why didn't they do so?

The council's actions don't stop them proceeding. Just stops them proceeding wholly on their illegal terms, surely?

 

[ashbyjan]

Council - sound business as they now can protect a multi million pound asset that they own, they receive interest on the loan rather than it going out to a third party.

I very much doubt it was done out of petulance or spite or even political dogma as some have suggested but rather that they didn't want to have the business distressed any further and effectively taken over by a third party for a pittance. This would have been very bad business.

Overall it was a very pragmatic and creative move by the council - out of keeping for a council but one that protected a council asset from hostile takeover

 

[Ashdown1]

It's not idiotic at all, the things that we warned about at the time, how Hedge Funds operate, Joy Seppalla's court case, Ranson and Sisu being told to fuck off by everybody else they tried to get, were lauded as great things.

"Hedge Funds know how to make money, success for us is inevitable", "Joy is a real hard-case, she won't take any crap off any other clubs", "Ranson is a "football" man and "successfull, hardheaded businessman", and the best, which was often said, "how stupid were Southampton to turn down Ranson and Sisu?" Lucky us.


The "few" facts that are known about Sisu, Seppalla et al, are the same "few" facts that we've always known, been no change in the behaviour of hedge-funds or Seppalla since the take-over, many just chose to ignore it, but suddenly feel all betrayed because they didn't do, what seems to have become one of the more popular memes on here, "due dilligence".

From the beginning mistrusted the whole Sisu and Ranson "project", never thought that they had the money required to take us where we needed to go, or the know-how from board-level down to make us a success.

Always felt that i was fair-minded about it though.

The anti-Sisu prevalent on this board in particular now though is anything but considered, ACL= Good, Sisu=Bad, not as simple as that, and the lack of real cogent arguments merely diminishes any cause.

Not from me LS, we go back long enough for you to remember my unease right from the start of this dubious period in our long history !

 

[Grendel]

There is no problem but there are people who don't want to see the practicallity of it and the council have NOT given 20million they have loaned the money at a better rate which they can do under government rules and will make money. As ashbyjan said it prevented Yorkshire bank selling to a third party, this was quite clearly explained at the time, perhaps the reasons didn't suit.

The only 3rd party would ever have been sisu and the only reason there was a risk was because ACL would not meet the payment terms going forward.

To suggest any othe scenario is nonsense.

Why were the payment terms revised. Even the council said any profit from the arrangement would be very small - that's like a politician saying we won't lose our triple a rating.

 

[katzenjammer]

Council - sound business as they now can protect a multi million pound asset that they own, they receive interest on the loan rather than it going out to a third party.

I very much doubt it was done out of petulance or spite or even political dogma as some have suggested but rather that they didn't want to have the business distressed any further and effectively taken over by a third party for a pittance. This would have been very bad business.

Overall it was a very pragmatic and creative move by the council - out of keeping for a council but one that protected a council asset from hostile takeover

True enough. It'd be interesting to know how close SISU were to buying the debt before the council stepped in because it's fair to say that's what prompted the council.

Sadly, it seems there is an irresolvable argument between the Council and SISU and the two businesses in the middle, ACL and CCFC, will suffer as a result. It's probably fair to say the best way for both companies to survive is to become one company as neither can truly function without the benefits of the other.

It seems odd that the council aren't willing to sell (or would they if it wasn't SISU?) as a football club is a huge asset to any city and to let it go to ruin when they could do something about it seems counter productive.

 

[ashbyjan]

I think the council realises the value of the football team to the city - lets be honest (not a phrase used v often in this whole fiasco!) if this was any other business but the football club with holding their rent they would have been wound up months ago and both sides know it and it has hampered negotiations all the way along as both sides have played this off against each other.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Grenduffy says.....That is hilarious - next you'll be convincing us Hitler was a misunderstood pacifist.





And you'll be trying to convince everyone that a "Undisclosed Transfer Fee"....is a "Estimated Fact"

 

[torchomatic]

And you'll be saying that Turner's fee was £750K. When no one knows as it was undisclosed. Maybe you got it off MMM. One of his "plucked from the air" facts, no doubt.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Although I'm not a gambling man, if SISU were to "Do one" and another investor stepped in, I bet ACL and the Council would sell their ownership of the stadium.
One other thing....ACL are NOT anti CCFC......but they most definately are anti SISU.:blue:

 

[Diehard Si]

Because it isn't true. It is an utter fallacy to assume the ground will survive without a permanent resident. The permanent resident creates marketing awareness and helps its brand identity. ACL know this. It's not altruism that has led them to tolerate non payment. They also need a solution.

I'll ignore your comments about him as I don't follow other posters trends enough to know if its true, and don't really care either. But about the stadium...

It's bricks and mortar at the end of the day and secured by the Council now, they would be in no massive hurry to fill it. Extra concerts and live shows can plug a gap, not limited by football season timeframe. It's also not just a stadium for sport. It's a massive conference centre.

I've heard from several people about a London based rugby club interested in taking over, London Irish perhaps? All rumours and other wilder rumours like Monster trucks etc, but is that smoke from a fire? It's not inconceivable that another football club could move in ( MK Dons style ).

I bet it would be a lot easier to sell the Ricoh than it would the club as well, if it really got desperate.