Mark Labovitch re administration (13 Viewers)

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Take the football club away and that deal becomes worthless. Yes, things evolve, and 'Ricoh Arena' is used now as a blanket term for the entire complex, but it is not enough to justify Ricoh staying in under the current terms, because a huge amount of exposure would be lost. What I have been told, and I work a lot with people from Ricoh, is that they would bail out. Just what I have been told.

Again, it doesn't become worthless. In so claiming, you are avoiding reason.

Ricoh as a business may not be interested - I'll even happily accept your anecdote in that regard; but to state that because one photocopier-maker isn't interested it's 'worthless' really doesn't stack up

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

just for info.................... for 10 point deduction to take effect this season should we go in to administration it needs to be done before 28/03/13 (fourth Thursday in March)

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I commend them standing there ground with the rent, of course I am not happy wth the situation that we may even go out of business..

We all don't mind the end-game. But at what point does their stance become so unreasonable to to actually reduce the prospect of settlement? Some time ago. And now? What now? You're happy with headlines like those in The Guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/11/coventry-city-administration-ricoh-arena

Can I highlight a line? 'They need to re-enter negotiations pronto or we file'.

Is that a threat? The very existence of our historical club? The word 'commend' shouldn't even be in your head!

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

MMM If I am not mistaken those accounts were for last year when CCFC were still paying the rent.. I may be wrong this, but I am looking forward to seeing there accounts for this year. Also if ACL were on such a healthy financial position why did CCC borrow them £14,000,000 to pay off Yorkshire Bank? I am sure most sponsorships would probably leave if CCFC were to stop playing there Football Matches there, yes okay there would be events being held by ACL using the Arena, but CCFC is the biggest advertisment for the Arena not to mention brings all the sponsors in..

Robo
The auditors only just signed off on those ACL accounts. As part of standard audit procedure, auditors must take into account "subsequent events" right up to the moment that they sign off on the audit report, so it is guaranteed that the auditors are fully aware of the non-payment of rent and the threat by SISU to leave the Ricoh and renege on the rental contract despite the high courts decision, so by signing off on the prior year audit report, the auditors are confirming beyond doubt that in their opinion ACL is a going concern even without CCFC as sitting tenants and the rent that CCFC should be paying to ACL in accordance with the contract, the law and the high court judgement.

The pro-SISU lobby can now bring up any stupidity they want to "prove" that ACL cannot survive without CCFC, they can accuse me of not being a real fan, they can use their usual tactics of attack and asking non-sequeter questions to try and divert people from facts or truth, all of which will not alter in the slightest degree the fact that the professional auditing company, by signing off the accounts, and in full knowledge of the SISU/rent situation, consider that ACL is indeed a going concern.

 

[theferret]

Again, it doesn't become worthless. In so claiming, you are avoiding reason.

Ricoh as a business may not be interested - I'll even happily accept your anecdote in that regard; but to state that because one photocopier-maker isn't interested it's 'worthless' really doesn't stack up

What? I'm talking about the deal with Ricoh being worthless in the sense that it was all done on the back of there being a football club in place. Take the football club away and you take away the reason for there being a deal in the first instance.

What you have left if a stadium used twice a year for concerts and an exhibition hall sponsored by another company entirely.

Of course ACL would change focus, try to attract more events etc. but they would never come close to being able to compete with the LG/NEC and the NIA - not within a million miles.

They may be able to attract a new sponsor, of course they might, in fact I think it is likely, but it would not be nearly as lucrative because the kind of exposure a company would get from naming a football stadium of that stature would be very hard to replicate.

Fact remains, in the short term it would only add to ACL's woes seriously effecting their viability. It would take something pretty radical to happen and a major expansion of facilities to prevent the Arena becoming an underused white elephant pretty quickly.

 

[grego_gee]

just for info.................... for 10 point deduction to take effect this season should we go in to administration it needs to be done before 28/03/13 (fourth Thursday in March)

I think the playoffs effectively went out of the window against Colchester.
anybody want to bet against administration before 28th ??


imp:

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Like it or not, the £14m agreement with the council took the wind out of Fisher's sails in a way he couldn't possibly have expected. To supplement this with the debt order, coming into play at the end of the season gave him nowhere to go. He either negotiates - openly, honestly and with intent - or he's left with no alternative other than to show his true colours. That's 'running rings' my friend. Surely you want him at the table, negotiating what's best for our club? Or are you happy with all these whimsical notions about new stadia just outside of Rugby somewhere? What sort of distraction is this, when negotiations are there to be had, and rentals accruing day-by-day?

Let me answer you a simple question. We signed, what, 9 players in the summer? Fisher now admits that we will enter transfer embargo next season due to FFP rules without movement. Not now, that's into next season too.

How did ththisappen? He gambled on us either getting promoted, or pulling rerevenuetreams from ACL we currently have no lawful right to in order to make sure we didn't enter automatic transfer embargo. How is that to run a business? How confident can you be in this business an ththoseteering it?

I never said that I am happy with the way the club is being run at present, but I am a strong believer in standing your ground if you feel you have a case to fight for, which I agree SISU do, because the rent that CCFC have been paying in the past is like I said before throwing money into a bottomless pit and it's not all the fault of ACL, but it's between them and the morons who signed the damn rental contract to begin with.

I always want what is best for the club, what I would want in an ideal world is for SISU to say to ACL "We will buy back the revenue access that was sold to you previously and accept the rental offer of £400,000 that is on the table" or "We have £30,000,000 which we have publicly declared we are willing to invest in building a new Stadia for us to play our home fixtures in, instead of this we want to own half the Ricoh or more and are willing to invest as much money to make CCFC financially sound and viable"

I have said before that Andy Thorn should never have been appointed as manager of the Football Club and unfortunately that decision has cost us, there is to much deadwood here that needs shipping out and we have a good core of young players and expiernced one's to take us forward, (Jordan Clarke, Cyrus Christie, Jordan Willis, John Fleck, Conor Thomas, Callum Willson, Leon Lobjoit, Franck Moussa mixed with expierenced players like Joe Murphy, Leon Clarke, Carl Baker and Richard Wood, but Andy Thorn was allowed to sign so much rubbish it was incredible!! (Cody McDonald, Chris Hussey, Callum Ball, Kevin Malaga).

Now that doesn't excuse the fact that we are very worse off financially then what should be had we had the right manager in charge or even an knowledgeable manager in charge, but I won't disagree its some gambles they are making that is making this club go down the toilet, no one would have been happy at the time if we had appointed someone experienced, but SISU probably appointed Andy Thorn, because he was the fans choice.

Now back to the rent issue, this should have been sorted out from day one and the game these two groups of idiots (ACL/SISU) are playing are dangerous and are not condoned by any fan including myself and it needs to stop.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Fact remains, in the short term it would only add to ACL's woes seriously effecting their viability. It would take something pretty radical to happen and a major expansion of facilities to prevent the Arena becoming an underused white elephant pretty quickly.

Again, and I hate to come back to a point addressed by myself and others on here repeatedly; the auditors would tend to disagree with you

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Jan, seriously RICOH have every intention of pulling out.

Almost all the exposure they get is via the football club. Target market has nothing to do with it; it is simply about name/brand awareness, and for that it is the exposure they get via the football club that is the most important aspect of the deal. 'Positive' coverage is also irrelevant, it is simply about getting the name out there. Ricoh's maket share of the UK copier market has grown substantially in the last 10 years and the naming rights deal has had a good deal to do with that.

Stop and think for one minute of all the exposure it gets in newspaper articles, match reports, on TV news bulletins, in football related publications such as matchday programmes, on internet sites and message boards (not just ours but amongst fans of all clubs that have visited us), on Sky Sports, on radio stations such as TalkSport and Five Live, on all those local stations that cover their teams when they play at 'The Ricoh', in general conversations amongst football supporters and so on and so on. Just think about how many times the words "The Ricoh Arena" are spoken on television and radio throughout the course of a year in reference to our football club or in relation to other clubs who have played a fixture there. Then think about all the times it is mentioned on TV and radio in relation to conferences, business meeting and exhibitions?

Are you Grenduffy in disguise?
You state this as though this is absolute fact. How do you know this? Can you prove this? Is this a FACT or is this wishful thinking on your part.
Please advise us all how you are privy to such information that you can state it as absolute fact on this forum.

 

[grego_gee]

Well we seem to have established that ACL have a sustainable business without CCFC.
And the council have put their backing with ACL to secure that business.
CCFC have demonstrated that the Arena is not an ideal home for them, so building another home more suitable for them looks to be the preferred option.
Since football is very much an asset for the community I am sure the council will look favorably on any request from CCFC to help them build an stadium to suit their needs. In the same way that they assisted ACL (an independant business) to build a stadium suitable for theirs......


QED
imp:

 

[RoboCCFC90]

We all don't mind the end-game. But at what point does their stance become so unreasonable to to actually reduce the prospect of settlement? Some time ago. And now? What now? You're happy with headlines like those in The Guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/11/coventry-city-administration-ricoh-arena

Can I highlight a line? 'They need to re-enter negotiations pronto or we file'.

Is that a threat? The very exexistence of our historical club? The word 'commend' shouldn't even be in your head!

You are twisting my words MMM to make it sound like I commed all the rubbish that the SISU is putting the fans through, I commed the way they have stood there ground because this rental agreement needed to be sorted, but when ACL had offered £400,000 that would have been good enough for me to start with and over time earning trust or even straight away SISU could have bought the revenue streams that were enitially sold for £6,000,000, I am no mug this should have been done straight away and don't condone the way SISU have acted in slyness and if there intentions were to make ACL go into Admin to own the Ricoh on the cheap then that is moraley wrong, but as I said SISU we're right to put there foot down, but this should have been all sorted from day one and not left until now.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Now back to the rent issue, this should have been sorted out from day one and the game these two groups of idiots (ACL/SISU) are playing are dangerous and are not condoned by any fan including myself and it needs to stop.

And now you can ponder the Guardian quote and tell me how this is meant to bring about reasoned debate?

Think about it; we've had an option at Rushden & Diamonds, Hinckley Town, a claimed agreement reneged upon, a greenfield-site in the Warwickshire countryside, the notion of mediation (but not binding arbitration) and now what look like threats?

Negotiating with this bloke must be like trying to put smoke in your pocket. It's no wonder we've got to this point.

How should it have been handled? Binding arbitration ahead of stopping paying rent? That would be a grand place to start with good intent from, huh?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Robo
The auditors only just signed off on those ACL accounts. As part of standard audit procedure, auditors must take into "subsequent events" right up to the moment that they sign off on the audit report, so it is guaranteed that the auditors are fully aware of the non-payment of rent and the threat by SISU to leave the Ricoh and renege on the rental contract despite the high courts decision, so by signing off on the prior year audit report, the auditors are confirming beyond doubt that in their opinion ACL is a going concern even without CCFC as sitting tenants and the rent that CCFC should be paying to ACL in accordance with the contract, the law and the high court judgement.

The pro-SISU lobby can now bring up any stupidity they want to "prove" that ACL cannot survive without CCFC, they can accuse me of not being a real fan, they can use their usual tactics of attack and asking non-sequeter questions to trty and divert people from facts or truth, all of which will not alter in the slightest degree the fact that the professional auditing company, by signing off the accounts, and in full knowledge of the SISU/rent situation, consider that ACL is indeed a going concern.

I won't accuse you of not being fan and I have not said that I don't think it's possible but I hardly see ACL making any viable revenue that will improve there company if Coventry City Football club leave the Ricoh Arena, I am not saying it's impossible, but realisticly people can get things wrong and I am sure that this would impact ACL more than they let on..

 

[Ashdown1]

Its Hinckley United actually thanks MMM !!

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Its Hinckley United actually thanks MMM !!

I'm still distancing myself from this lower-level fare Ashdown; hence the faux pas of ignorance

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Did you miss this MMM..

"I always want what is best for the club, what I would want in an ideal world is for SISU to say to ACL "We will buy back the revenue access that was sold to you previously and accept the rental offer of £400,000 that is on the table" or "We have £30,000,000 which we have publicly declared we are willing to invest in building a new Stadia for us to play our home fixtures in, instead of this we want to own half the Ricoh or more and are willing to invest as much money to make CCFC financially sound and viable""

I have always said this situation should have been sorted from day one, before even that, when CCFC were moving into the Ricoh they must have signed the Agreement before they moved into the ground, so why didn't the thick moron who signed the contract say "£1.2 Mil a year that's a bit steep" and question it? Then we might not be in this situation, but I know we don't live on if's and but's and unfortunately this is the situation we find ourselves in I believe both sides need to sit down with a mediator who knows Football financing and help both sides to agree on a contract. Something like the above where SISU accept the rent offer and give them the £6,000,000 back for revenue streams would be helpful and I don't dodge that..

 

[theferret]

Are you Grenduffy in disguise?
You state this as though this is absolute fact. How do you know this? Can you prove this? Is this a FACT or is this wishful thinking on your part.
Please advise us all how you are privy to such information that you can state it as absolute fact on this forum.

Fact in capital latters, or a more cautious lowercase fact? Mmmm. What exactly is it you want?

I will not give names, why would I? All I know is that Ricoh UK discussed the matter at board level and that the consensus was that the agreement would be either have to be renegotiated or torn up in the event that the football club left.

Wishful thinking? Hardly. Why do you think I want ACL to fail? On the contrary, if the club are evicted I would want it to succeed, because that would make the likelihood of planning consent for a new venue for the football club a good deal more likely that it might otherwise be if it turns out the Arena cannot survive without the football club after all.

 

[LarryGrayson]

Robo
The auditors only just signed off on those ACL accounts. As part of standard audit procedure, auditors must take into account "subsequent events" right up to the moment that they sign off on the audit report, so it is guaranteed that the auditors are fully aware of the non-payment of rent and the threat by SISU to leave the Ricoh and renege on the rental contract despite the high courts decision, so by signing off on the prior year audit report, the auditors are confirming beyond doubt that in their opinion ACL is a going concern even without CCFC as sitting tenants and the rent that CCFC should be paying to ACL in accordance with the contract, the law and the high court judgement.

The pro-SISU lobby can now bring up any stupidity they want to "prove" that ACL cannot survive without CCFC, they can accuse me of not being a real fan, they can use their usual tactics of attack and asking non-sequeter questions to try and divert people from facts or truth, all of which will not alter in the slightest degree the fact that the professional auditing company, by signing off the accounts, and in full knowledge of the SISU/rent situation, consider that ACL is indeed a going concern.

an the club still dont file there own accounts lol

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Did you miss this MMM..

"I always want what is best for the club, what I would want in an ideal world is for SISU to say to ACL "We will buy back the revenue access that was sold to you previously and accept the rental offer of £400,000 that is on the table" or "We have £30,000,000 which we have publicly declared we are willing to invest in building a new Stadia for us to play our home fixtures in, instead of this we want to own half the Ricoh or more and are willing to invest as much money to make CCFC financially sound and viable""

I have always said this situation should have been sorted from day one, before even that, when CCFC were moving into the Ricoh they must have signed the Agreement before they moved into the ground, so why didn't the thick moron who signed the contract say "£1.2 Mil a year that's a bit steep" and question it? Then we might not be in this situation, but I know we don't live on if's and but's and unfortunately this is the situation we find ourselves in I believe both sides need to sit down with a mediator who knows Football financing and help both sides to agree on a contract. Something like the above where SISU accept the rent offer and give them the £6,000,000 back for revenue streams would be helpful and I don't dodge that..

I miss much my friend. It's a disagreeable by-product of the relentless aging process

My crux, I guess, is this. Move the rent issue aside a moment. How can we have any faith in those running our club when they've accrued such massive debts from a 'debt free' start 5 years ago? How did they think a squad, shorn of so much quality and a manager with 4 months experience could hack a full championship season? Why - when glaring down the barrel of relegation would you sell your leading scorer, and replace him with less reinforcements than your relegation peers? Why deal with dissent by instructingg orange-jacketed buffoonss to meter out such violence? Why sign so many players this summer, that they automatically place us foul of FFP rules both this season and next? And why offer the sort of text read in The Guardian this week? It sickens me.

I simply despair....

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Fact in capital latters, or a more cautious lowercase fact? Mmmm. What exactly is it you want?

I will not give names, why would I? All I know is that Ricoh UK discussed the matter at board level and that the consensus was that the agreement would be either have to be renegotiated or torn up in the event that the football club left.

Wishful thinking? Hardly. Why do you think I want ACL to fail? On the contrary, if the club are evicted I would want it to succeed, because that would make the likelihood of planning consent for a new venue for the football club a good deal more likely that it might otherwise be if it turns out the Arena cannot survive without the football club after all.

I thought I was being very clear, but let me ask it again in simple language:
Are you claiming that you have definate and absolute proof that Ricoh will indeed not renew the contract if CCFC are not playing at the arena? I am not asking you to quote names and addresses, I am asking you to confirm that you have absolute proof that what you are claiming is a fact and represents the truth beyond any shadow of a doubt.

 

[theferret]

Robo
The auditors only just signed off on those ACL accounts. As part of standard audit procedure, auditors must take into account "subsequent events" right up to the moment that they sign off on the audit report, so it is guaranteed that the auditors are fully aware of the non-payment of rent and the threat by SISU to leave the Ricoh and renege on the rental contract despite the high courts decision, so by signing off on the prior year audit report, the auditors are confirming beyond doubt that in their opinion ACL is a going concern even without CCFC as sitting tenants and the rent that CCFC should be paying to ACL in accordance with the contract, the law and the high court judgement.

The pro-SISU lobby can now bring up any stupidity they want to "prove" that ACL cannot survive without CCFC, they can accuse me of not being a real fan, they can use their usual tactics of attack and asking non-sequeter questions to try and divert people from facts or truth, all of which will not alter in the slightest degree the fact that the professional auditing company, by signing off the accounts, and in full knowledge of the SISU/rent situation, consider that ACL is indeed a going concern.

Beyond doubt? Nothing is beyond doubt in business, to suggest otherwise is a nonsense. There are countless examples of companies that were given the green light following an external audit only to bite the dust in the months that followed. There are no 'facts' or 'guarantees', and any audit requires a certain amount of guesswork.

Perhaps the position of ACL is indeed stronger than some give it credit for, but nothing I have heard or read convinces me that it could survive losing up to 1/3 of its turnover without sailing into very choppy waters indeed.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Beyond doubt? Nothing is beyond doubt in business, to suggest otherwise is a nonsense. There are countless examples of companies that were given the green light following an external audit only to bite the dust in the months that followed. There are no 'facts' or 'guarantees', and any audit requires a certain amount of guesswork.

Perhaps the position of ACL is indeed stronger than some give it credit for, but nothing I have heard or read convinces me that it could survive losing up to 1/3 of its turnover without sailing into very choppy waters indeed.

Nice try at mis-quoting me Mr. Ferret, but if you wish to quote me, please quote it in the correct context.
I am quite clearly stating that it is beyond doubt that in the auditors opinion ACL is a going concern. If the auditors had any doubts that ACL would not be a going concern under the current circumstances, then they could not have signed off on the accounts.

 

[Bluegloucester]

Beyond doubt? Nothing is beyond doubt in business, to suggest otherwise is a nonsense. There are countless examples of companies that were given the green light following an external audit only to bite the dust in the months that followed. There are no 'facts' or 'guarantees', and any audit requires a certain amount of guesswork.

Perhaps the position of ACL is indeed stronger than some give it credit for, but nothing I have heard or read convinces me that it could survive losing up to 1/3 of its turnover without sailing into very choppy waters indeed.

I think the % quoted by ACL is more like 1/6 of turnover.

 

[theferret]

I thought I was being very clear, but let me ask it again in simple language:
Are you claiming that you have definate and absolute proof that Ricoh will indeed not renew the contract if CCFC are not playing at the arena? I am not asking you to quote names and addresses, I am asking you to confirm that you have absolute proof that what you are claiming is a fact and represents the truth beyond any shadow of a doubt.

No, I have said quite clearly that it was something I was told. Absolute proof? What, like a secret leaked document? This isn't fucking Narnia you clown.

I enjoy debating with MMM, he tends not to get hysterical and could understand that what I was saying was anecdotal (you understand what that means?). I was simply told by a senior figure within that company of what the view of Ricoh UK is to the possible departure of CCFC and how it effects their position.

Do I have it recorded? Well sadly, I left my dictaphone at home that day :facepalm:

 

[sky blue john]

A question for OSB probably which company has all the 45million of Sisu debt CCFC or CCFCH ?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I miss much my friend. It's a disagreeable by-product of the relentless aging process

My crux, I guess, is this. Move the rent issue aside a moment. How can we have any faith in those running our club when they've accrued such massive debts from a 'debt free' start 5 years ago? How did they think a squad, shorn of so much quality and a manager with 4 months experience could hack a full championship season? Why - when glaring down the barrel of relegation would you sell your leading scorer, and replace him with less reinforcements than your relegation peers? Why deal with dissent by instructingg orange-jacketed buffoonss to meter out such violence? Why sign so many players this summer, that they automatically place us foul of FFP rules both this season and next? And why offer the sort of text read in The Guardian this week? It sickens me.

I simply despair....

We all get like that my friend but here is to you being able to admit it :claping hands::claping hands:

I'll answer you questions MMM,

1) I bet 95% of posters on this forum don't actually trust SISU including myself, but I am grateful for the money they have pumped in, this includes bringing in new players and managers. Simply because the people they (SISU) did have in charge up until now were idiots and I would love to have a room with some of them privately (Onye Igwe, Orange Ken)

2) I think they went with the overwhelming fans favourite which was Thorn, unfortunately this was the wrong decision, SISU should have appointed someone with more experience, but after Boothroyd and Coleman they probably thought that trying route once again was useless and at point where the fans were really not on side they probably did what we hoped for.

3) Selling Juke was a mistake, but I think he also wanted out to improve his career prospects.

4) SISU aren't Football finance experts, they are shrued business men/women who deal with matters a certain way, except these tatics don't really work when running a Football club.

5) Again like I said in a past post we should never have given Thorn a chance last season let alone keep him on to sign more deadwood.

6) That's a multi million dollar qustion I just don't have an answer too, simply because you would have to know SISU's end game which I don't even think SISU know.

It's not good time's but chin up at least we didn't lose at home last night

 

[LarryGrayson]

This isn't fucking Narnia you clown.

I enjoy debating with MMM, he tends not to get hysterical

lol

lol

lol.

 

[Bluegloucester]

A question for OSB probably which company has all the 45million of Sisu debt CCFC or CCFCH ?

SBS&L
It's the holding company

 

[theferret]

I think the % quoted by ACL is more like 1/6 of turnover.

The rent alone accounted for 1/6 of turnover, which in the year to May 2012 was £7,782,519.

That doesn't include other direct income (match fees, car parking etc.), and also the indirect income it gets from having CCFC there.

Put it this way, my company uses the Ricoh to hold training and business meetings. It won't be in future (whether the club stay or not). I use the casino before and after every home game, so that would stop. You wonder if the club going would have much impact of the casino operator and if they would attempt to renegotiate their tenancy when it came up for renewal? I'm willing to bet that the 25 days where CCFC play at home are amongst their most lucrative. Another unknown really.

The true value to ACL of the stadium being home to CCFC is very hard to put a figure on.

 

[oldskyblue58]

A question for OSB probably which company has all the 45million of Sisu debt CCFC or CCFCH ?

neither techincally if the set up remains as per the 2011 accounts. SISU lent the money to SBS&L who then lent that money to CCFCH who then lent it to CCFC. Caveat to that is it may have changed since we dont know

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

A question for OSB probably which company has all the 45million of Sisu debt CCFC or CCFCH ?

Neither really-CCFCH is held by another company which funds it through SISU. CCFC's debt is to CCFCH which is to its own holder.

 

[LarryGrayson]

neither techincally if the set up remains as per the 2011 accounts. SISU lent the money to SBS&L who then lent that money to CCFCH who then lent it to CCFC. Caveat to that is it may have changed since we dont know

if only they singed off there accounts lol

 

[Bluegloucester]

Neither really-CCFCH is held by another company which funds it through SISU. CCFC's debt is to CCFCH which is to its own holder.

I think the debt goes no lower than CCFCH

 

[oldskyblue58]

it goes to CCFC but in the accounts of CCFCH they make a provision against it, I assume on the basis it is not recoverable so it doesnt show as an amount due to ccfch. A corresponding provision is not made in the CCFC accounts however and a debt to group companies is still there

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

No, I have said quite clearly that it was something I was told. Absolute proof? What, like a secret leaked document? This isn't fucking Narnia you clown.

I enjoy debating with MMM, he tends not to get hysterical and could understand that what I was saying was anecdotal (you understand what that means?). I was simply told by a senior figure within that company of what the view of Ricoh UK is to the possible departure of CCFC and how it effects their position.

Do I have it recorded? Well sadly, I left my dictaphone at home that day :facepalm:

Thank you. That is all that I was asking in my "hysterical" manner.