Arena Construction Completion Report (11 Viewers)

Forums New posts
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Wonder what happened to the money for the railway station? Considering the Council had to apply again from the DfT to get this funded. It was marked in the report as an underspend.

Who did the council pay £24m to to purchase the land? Where did that money go?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
From details in CCFCH accounts

The option to buy the land lapsed sometime before 31/05/02. So CCFC never had any land to sell in part or its entirety to Tesco or anyone else

There had been costs incurred in the initial development some £18.4m against which there were debts and loans outstanding which reduced that to a net asset of £4.8m

The £4.8m was to be the investment from CCFC in the joint venture with CCC which did not commence until after 31/05/02. That investment was through football investors ltd

The club increased that £4.8m asset by £2m (i assume additional costs on the project) during the year to 31/05/03 leaving an asset of £6.8m.

The club couldnt afford to pay its way and sold the £6.8m asset to the Charity for £6.5m

The charity paid for it by £2m in cash the waiver of 2.5m 5% debebenture loans (2003) and the settlement of £2m loans directors of CCFC made to CCFC

Those folks are the facts as disclosed by the club and its auditors in accounts filed at Companies House

Got to ask how the club spends £20m on a project to build on land it doesnt own - and they do it by almost equally massive loans and debt !!!??

So when CCFC "invested" in the joint venture they transferred to the assets but also the associated creditors....... and then received pretty much the full value from the charity for something that hardly existed
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
PS - the Council's equity investment most likely wasn't made out of the goodness of their hearts. It's a condition of the EU grant they got from the ERDF. Public authorities must 'match' any EU investment. The likelihood that the AWM funding was also of a European nature, hence that being matched as well.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
From details in CCFCH accounts

The option to buy the land lapsed sometime before 31/05/02. So CCFC never had any land to sell in part or its entirety to Tesco or anyone else

There had been costs incurred in the initial development some £18.4m against which there were debts and loans outstanding which reduced that to a net asset of £4.8m

The £4.8m was to be the investment from CCFC in the joint venture with CCC which did not commence until after 31/05/02. That investment was through football investors ltd

The club increased that £4.8m asset by £2m (i assume additional costs on the project) during the year to 31/05/03 leaving an asset of £6.8m.

The club couldnt afford to pay its way and sold the £6.8m asset to the Charity for £6.5m

The charity paid for it by £2m in cash the waiver of 2.5m 5% debebenture loans (2003) and the settlement of £2m loans directors of CCFC made to CCFC

Those folks are the facts as disclosed by the club and its auditors in accounts filed at Companies House

Got to ask how the club spends £20m on a project to build on land it doesnt own - and they do it by almost equally massive loans and debt !!!??

So when CCFC "invested" in the joint venture they transferred to the assets but also the associated creditors....... and then received pretty much the full value from the charity for something that hardly existed
Click to expand...

Just a personal view....
 
Last edited:
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
From details in CCFCH accounts

The option to buy the land lapsed sometime before 31/05/02. So CCFC never had any land to sell in part or its entirety to Tesco or anyone else

There had been costs incurred in the initial development some £18.4m against which there were debts and loans outstanding which reduced that to a net asset of £4.8m

The £4.8m was to be the investment from CCFC in the joint venture with CCC which did not commence until after 31/05/02. That investment was through football investors ltd

The club increased that £4.8m asset by £2m (i assume additional costs on the project) during the year to 31/05/03 leaving an asset of £6.8m.
...

Got to ask how the club spends £20m on a project to build on land it doesnt own - and they do it by almost equally massive loans and debt !!!??
Click to expand...

Got it, many thanks OSB.

So that's the £20m everyone's on about. It's not shown in that report because by the time the development started, CCFC had no financial interest in the land. Is it just me, or is it staggering mismanagement to spend £20m on land you don't own?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
says more than that I believe fernando but to reply

the charity wasnt at the Club and it lent £2.5m to the club to keep it going at a rate that was 1.5% above base rate at the time........ hardly profiteering

then purchased the net investment at nearly full value not distressed value

then there is an option for the club to get it back at apparently pretty reasonable value

but guess we all see it differently

*edit*

we can all edit things fernando

to be clear this bit is the personal view

"Got to ask how the club spends £20m on a project to build on land it doesnt own - and they do it by almost equally massive loans and debt !!!?? "

the rest is published facts from accounts prepared by the club
 
Last edited:
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Got it, many thanks OSB.

So that's the £20m everyone's on about. It's not shown in that report because by the time the development started, CCFC had no financial interest in the land. Is it just me, or is it staggering mismanagement to spend £20m on land you don't own?
Click to expand...
Yet more Hysteria from the SISU lobby.:facepalm::pimp:

EDIT;Not a response to this post
 
Last edited:
Moff

Moff

Well-Known Member
We never owned the land, and yet Richardson still paid himself a bonus of just under 500k for negotiating the sale of part of it to Tesco.

Just to repeat he did this when we didnt even own the land, and it came form Club funds which we couldnt afford to pay.

How he got away with this is scandalous.....still the others have a lot to answer for in allowing him to do it
 
Diehard Si

Diehard Si

New Member
This report just highlights how stupid the old regime was, not going through with this deal themselves. It was absolutely criminal that they needed bailing out the Council and Higgs charity. It shows that for £30million ( £10m up front and £21m taken out as a loan) you could have built a stadium worth £118m. The CCC have shewdly built a stadium that the club was unable to do. As gutting as it is you can't hate them for that. The hate has to be reserved for the morons who didn't do this within the club. That single moment killed this club, that was the mortal wound.. we've been bleeding out ever since.

Some people look at the facts in such a blinkered view, with complete dis-regard for the commercial/business sense of it. That's fine, not everyone works in finance or runs companies etc. But what you don't have here is anything to wave around in the air and shout at ACL for. Sorry to disappoint the SISU fanboys here, but this isn't anything to go on. Afterall its the Councils own report!!
 
Moff

Moff

Well-Known Member
Diehard Si said:
This report just highlights how stupid the old regime was, not going through with this deal themselves. It was absolutely criminal that they needed bailing out the Council and Higgs charity. It shows that for £30million ( £10m up front and £21m taken out as a loan) you could have built a stadium worth £118m. The CCC have shewdly built a stadium that the club was unable to do. As gutting as it is you can't hate them for that. The hate has to be reserved for the morons who didn't do this within the club. That single moment killed this club, that was the mortal wound.. we've been bleeding out ever since.

Some people look at the facts in such a blinkered view, with complete dis-regard for the commercial/business sense of it. That's fine, not everyone works in finance or runs companies etc. But what you don't have here is anything to wave around in the air and shout at ACL for. Sorry to disappoint the SISU fanboys here, but this isn't anything to go on. Afterall its the Councils own report!!
Click to expand...

Decent post...until the stupid SISU fanboy comment at the end.

I am yet to read anyone on here who supports SISU, and yet some who question the motives of ACL are tarred with this pathetic comment. :facepalm:
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Diehard Si said:
Some people look at the facts in such a blinkered view, with complete dis-regard for the commercial/business sense of it. That's fine, not everyone works in finance or runs companies etc. But what you don't have here is anything to wave around in the air and shout at ACL for. Sorry to disappoint the ACL fanboys here, but this isn't anything to go on. Afterall its the Councils own report!!
Click to expand...

No problems with anybody gaining a business advantage at the expense of somebody who is on the ropes, but is that not just what many think that Sisu were trying to do with the rent strike?

Ah, but that was the totally abhorrent actions of a predatory hedge-fund trying to pick up the Arena on the cheap from a distressed ACL and taking money from the starving mouths of innocent Coventry children.

Hypocrisy very big round here.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
No problems with anybody gaining a business advantage at the expense of somebody who is on the ropes, but is that not just what many think that Sisu were trying to do with the rent strike?

Ah, but that was the totally abhorrent actions of a predatory hedge-fund trying to pick up the Arena on the cheap from a distressed ACL and taking money from the starving mouths of innocent Coventry children.

Hypocrisy very big round here.
Click to expand...

Putting your OTT rhetoric aside at the end of the day the club's actions were in violation of contracts signed in 2005 and the escrow which came from a 3rd party was used as security in the meantime. They didn't have to resort to these measures to get the new terms offered and I don't think you've acknowledged that the following is on the table but for some bizarre reason hasn't been accepted:

1. Rent reduced from £1.3m pa to £400k pa-a figure accepted by TF as reasonable and a concession by ACL that previous rent was too high for the club in its self inflicted state.

2. Access to ACL's share of F+B profits, worth around £80k on current gates (would be more if they were higher but again self inflicted to be at the current level).

3. Cross invoicing of the total F+B revenue on matchdays, worth at least £600k pa on current gates (see above for 'would be more but...') to go straight towards FFP calculations.

Not really the actions of an organisation trying to drive another into the ground is it.
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Putting your OTT rhetoric aside at the end of the day the club's actions were in violation of contracts signed in 2005 and the escrow which came from a 3rd party was used as security in the meantime. They didn't have to resort to these measures to get the new terms offered and I don't think you've acknowledged that the following is on the table but for some bizarre reason hasn't been accepted:

1. Rent reduced from £1.3m pa to £400k pa-a figure accepted by TF as reasonable and a concession by ACL that previous rent was too high for the club in its self inflicted state.

2. Access to ACL's share of F+B profits, worth around £80k on current gates (would be more if they were higher but again self inflicted to be at the current level).

3. Cross invoicing of the total F+B revenue on matchdays, worth at least £600k pa on current gates (see above for 'would be more but...') to go straight towards FFP calculations.

Not really the actions of an organisation trying to drive another into the ground is it.
Click to expand...

Was merely returning the rhetoric, using the exact same language as has been used against Sisu throughout the saga.

Was also drawing the analogy from the start of ACL, not what is happening now.

You could say though that taking a company to court to try and force administration on them could be the actions of an organisation trying to drive another out of the ground though.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
Was merely returning the rhetoric, using the exact same language as has been used against Sisu throughout the saga.

Was also drawing the analogy from the start of ACL, not what is happening now.

You could say though that taking a company to court to try and force administration on them could be the actions of an organisation trying to drive another out of the ground though.
Click to expand...

No comment on the offer on the table being rejected by Fisher I see. The club has withheld nearly £1.5m since April-indeed the escrow money that was used wasn't even put there by the club in the first place. All he has to do is accept what's on the table or the administration will be, like so much under SISU, self inflicted.
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
No comment on the offer on the table being rejected by Fisher I see. The club has withheld nearly £1.5m since April-indeed the escrow money that was used wasn't even put there by the club in the first place. All he has to do is accept what's on the table or the administration will be, like so much under SISU, self inflicted.
Click to expand...

Was the escrow money that ACL took for the rent Monopoly money then?

Seems that it doesn't count as money at all?

This thread has nothing to do with whatever offers are on the table, but how the Council got a £113million asset for £10million due to a company being distressed, then immediately took in £21million in an up-front lease payment from ACL(the loan for which has now been paid off by the council, and ACL now paying the council rather than Yorkshire Bank).

All very convoluted, and as I said, worthy of any dodgy hedge-fund, though as some say, when it's done by the council, "That's business".
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
lordsummerisle said:
Was the escrow money that ACL took for the rent Monopoly money then?

Seems that it doesn't count as money at all?

This thread has nothing to do with whatever offers are on the table, but how the Council got a £113million asset for £10million due to a company being distressed, then immediately took in £21million in an up-front lease payment from ACL(the loan for which has now been paid off by the council, and ACL now paying the council rather than Yorkshire Bank).

All very convoluted, and as I said, worthy of any dodgy hedge-fund, though as some say, when it's done by the council, "That's business".
Click to expand...

Your maths is interesting, you make a £10M contribution plus a liability for a £14M mortgage (seems that it doesn't count as money at all) add up to £10M, I make it £24M.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
Was the escrow money that ACL took for the rent Monopoly money then?

Seems that it doesn't count as money at all?

This thread has nothing to do with whatever offers are on the table, but how the Council got a £113million asset for £10million due to a company being distressed, then immediately took in £21million in an up-front lease payment from ACL(the loan for which has now been paid off by the council, and ACL now paying the council rather than Yorkshire Bank).

All very convoluted, and as I said, worthy of any dodgy hedge-fund, though as some say, when it's done by the council, "That's business".
Click to expand...

No-it was put there through an FA grant which was not given to the club as they couldn't be trusted with it.
 
Diehard Si

Diehard Si

New Member
lordsummerisle said:
You could say though that taking a company to court to try and force administration on them could be the actions of an organisation trying to drive another out of the ground though.
Click to expand...

Or you could say that publicly threatening liquidation......

While I'm not on anyone's side other than the club's. ACL have actually acted to try and prevent liquidation and therefore I feel more obliged to them as a fan, than the owners saying threatening to wipe or club out of existence. But any way this is repeating old ground that can be found on about 50 other threads.

ACL are clearly trying to drive out SISU. There is no way they can deny that. If SISU had been able to drive out ACL and gain the stadium then that could have worked too. It would have made people nervous, but it would be better than liquidation. Whether we would see any investment in the team I would be dubious, but it would be more viable commercially.

The things that don't work are SISU & ACL together. One has to go and ACL are safe now. Doesn't leave us with much choice I admit. We may get rid of both with a rich new owner. But let's not get carried away.
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Jack Griffin said:
Your maths is interesting, you make a £10M contribution plus a liability for a £14M mortgage (seems that it doesn't count as money at all) add up to £10M, I make it £24M.
Click to expand...

That £14million pound mortgage is what's left of the £21million paid to the council, and is now being paid back to the council.

Your maths seems to be slipping.
 
DazzleTommyDazzle

DazzleTommyDazzle

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
No problems with anybody gaining a business advantage at the expense of somebody who is on the ropes, but is that not just what many think that Sisu were trying to do with the rent strike?

Ah, but that was the totally abhorrent actions of a predatory hedge-fund trying to pick up the Arena on the cheap from a distressed ACL and taking money from the starving mouths of innocent Coventry children.

Hypocrisy very big round here.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself, but my issue with SISU/TF's handling of the issue was that it was so inept. Talk about over-playing your hand....
 
mattylad

mattylad

Member
the problem was not the money invested (however badly) it was that no bank would touch us to lend the rest! it does annoy me when people say the council stepped in to save CCFC because it was far more a case that they knew not building a stadium was going to be fairly dreadful for the local economy so had little choice and it was mainly on that basis it was approved (nobody "saved" CCFC just the Arena project)
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
lordsummerisle said:
That £14million pound mortgage is what's left of the £21million paid to the council, and is now being paid back to the council.

Your maths seems to be slipping.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the £21M loan from Yorkshire Bank, that's been paid off now, ACL paid off £7M and the rest is the £14M the Council put in to take over from Yorkshire Bank. Some percentage of the CCFC rent paid counts toward that, as we all know the bulk of ACL turnover is not directly related to Football maybe the club paid down £1.5M of the £7M, the rest from ACL's other commercial ventures.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
mattylad said:
the problem was not the money invested (however badly) it was that no bank would touch us to lend the rest! it does annoy me when people say the council stepped in to save CCFC because it was far more a case that they knew not building a stadium was going to be fairly dreadful for the local economy so had little choice and it was mainly on that basis it was approved (nobody "saved" CCFC just the Arena project)
Click to expand...

Yeah, true enough it would have made a mockery of the local development plans.
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Jack Griffin said:
Do you mean the £21M loan from Yorkshire Bank, that's been paid off now, ACL paid off £7M and the rest is the £14M the Council put in to take over from Yorkshire Bank. Some percentage of the CCFC rent paid counts toward that, as we all know the bulk of ACL turnover is not directly related to Football maybe the club paid down £1.5M of the £7M, the rest from ACL's other commercial ventures.
Click to expand...

The £21million loan that was taken from Yorkshire Bank was used to pay the council the 50 year lease fee.

The £14million pound is now owed back to the council, so they were already £11million up on their initial £10million investment before they really got started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Top