club statement (1 Viewer)

[martcov]

Where have you pulled this insurance issue from???

That was because apparently they were insured as players from CCFC Ltd and not CCFC Holdings Ltd.. now CCFC Ltd is in administration they are apparently under contract to Holdings. So they say.....

 

---

[Jamieblue7]

That was because apparently they were insured as players from CCFC Ltd and not CCFC Holdings Ltd.. now CCFC Ltd is in administration they are apparently under contract to Holdings. So they say.....

I don't believe insurance has anything to do with it.

Do you think everyone who uses the centre are insured. The centre provide a facility that presumably they run risk assessments on. It looks to me people are looking behind all of the wrong reasons

 

[martcov]

I don't know what sort of insurance is being referred to, but in my business I am required to have a liability insurance for actions of my staff. If I used another of my companies instead of the one known to a landlord ( in this case ) I would have to show a certificate to show that this company also has a liability insurance. Don't know if that is the case here, but swapping contracts, companies etc., would have side effects such as this. It ( shifting things back and forth ) is all a smoke screen anyway, planned to confuse - in my opinion.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

SISU don't want to fund the club beyond this season-therefore this whole fiasco will be settled by that point.

 

[sky blue john]

I know i wouldn't be giving any fecker credit if they had just stiffed me for 1.2 million.
Lucky to even still have the academy being allowed to still use the Higgs centre. Maybe being a charity they have been over leanient in the past and Sisu have walked all over them !!

 

[edgy]

Edgy
Im not knocking the SBT and I ve not joined as Im not convinced they give true support to the Club, still concerned thats its just anti Sisu and again blinded by everything else.
I appreciate they are trying to do something but I think they need to be more open minded. I can nt get my head arounf people thinking we (ccfc) do nt need to own the ground,
which appears to be the SBT view,

This is my view too. And to clear up, I didn't mean Sky Blue Trust..... I meant Sky Blues Talk.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Originally Posted by slyblue57 Well wheres this not paying rent come from. The Club statement says they ll pay the rent for the Academy for the next three months and will pay for the equipment subject to the estimates being agreed. I know its Sisu but im more and more convinced people here are so blinded by hatred they do nt even read whats printed !!!
Would you just accept a bill for repairs with just one quote, if you would please invite me to quote you, what a happy pay day for me, Yes yes i must be a Sisu supporter blady blah ffs the Higgs trust, the Council ACL just want rid of Sisu and will do say charge anything to do it. Its time for Sisu to go but ffs theres some muppets about who are blinded by bollocks from the one side. I for one want a decent deal for the City thats all pusb.




Would that be the ones who aren't "Blinded by the bollocks" spouted by SISU?

 

[grego_gee]

The £12,000 is what was quoted by the company (Farols') that the Club use to maintain the equipment owned by the Trustees, but used exclusively by the Club for the maintenance of the grass pitches at the Centre. What is needed is a mixture of repair and maintenance. One of the consequences of failing to maintain equipment properly is that it breaks down and then needs repair. That is the situation faced by the Trustees. The equipment is needed for the pitches: the damage and lack of maintenance are CCFC/Sisu's responsibility and just because the names of the companies switch around it should not mean that they don't pay.
The c£2,000 is for the period January to March and they have agreed to pay that.

Thanks Peter,
I appreciate your response, but don't you agree that an overhead of £12,000 on a rental agreement of £2,000 looks a bit top heavy?
If the trustees own the actual plant, are they not depreciating it and offsetting as a capital loss in accounts?
I assume you are trying to catch up with maintenance (presumably for lawn mowers) over an earlier period, not just maintenance due for the new 3 month period?
Wasn't maintenance mentioned in the original rental agreement for the earlier period?

imp:

 

[oldskyblue58]

I think the 2000 is the additional charges due to use of indoor facilities during bad weather grego_gee it isnt the hire charges for 3months

The maintenance of equipment must be included in the agreement between AEH and CCFC Ltd for there to be a charge

 

[PWKH]

The Agreements are with CCFC Ltd. If the Academy is now in CCFC Holdings it should be a simple matter to change the Agreements to reflect that change. The amounts to be paid for the period to 30 June 2013 have been agreed between CSF and CCFC (?) and the Trustees of the AHCT. The amount to be paid for the over-use between January and March has been agreed. The arrangements for the repair and maintenance of the groundskeeping equipment has not been agreed. Gregor Rioch has offered to pay it himself. CCFC H have yet to reply to our solicitors. We have written again today. We have heard from the Administrator, we have read the Statement posted here and elsewhere, we have not heard from CCFC/Sisu. The invoices will follow the Agreements which will follow replies to our letters to CCFC/Sisu. We are waiting.
If I were looking at this from the outside I would be saying many of the things that have been said on this and the other thread. I know Gregor Rioch has only the best interests of the Academy at heart, it is what he has put so much effort into.
This isn't some kind of blackmail it is just trying to do things in a business like and orderly way.

 

[torchomatic]

So he was right then; no invoice has been received? Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

So he was right then; no invoice has been received? Thanks for clearing that up.

What do you mean?? He's cleared up the questions raised by rioch in a transparent and honest reply. You certainly won't get that from fisher, waggott or seppala

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So he was right then; no invoice has been received? Thanks for clearing that up.

A drop in the ocean compared to what SISU have been engaged in ever since the bald buffoon secured relegation 12 months ago.

 

[James Smith]

This is simple

The clubs finances are unknown.
Some part of the club owes Higgs some money and the administrator is trying to sort.
While it is being sorted CCFC needs to continue and have offered to pay the ongoing costs until its sorted.
Higgs say no and the charity loses rent.
The facilities remain unused.

Higgs (and ACL) would sooner finish the club off than just keep the status quo.

You missed: Where has the £500,000 grant gone?

 

[rupert_bear]

The Agreements are with CCFC Ltd. If the Academy is now in CCFC Holdings it should be a simple matter to change the Agreements to reflect that change. The amounts to be paid for the period to 30 June 2013 have been agreed between CSF and CCFC (?) and the Trustees of the AHCT. The amount to be paid for the over-use between January and March has been agreed. The arrangements for the repair and maintenance of the groundskeeping equipment has not been agreed. Gregor Rioch has offered to pay it himself. CCFC H have yet to reply to our solicitors. We have written again today. We have heard from the Administrator, we have read the Statement posted here and elsewhere, we have not heard from CCFC/Sisu. The invoices will follow the Agreements which will follow replies to our letters to CCFC/Sisu. We are waiting.
If I were looking at this from the outside I would be saying many of the things that have been said on this and the other thread. I know Gregor Rioch has only the best interests of the Academy at heart, it is what he has put so much effort into.
This isn't some kind of blackmail it is just trying to do things in a business like and orderly way.

Simple and to the point as usual, will those knocking PWKH, hiding behind your keyboards recognise the honest and precise detail above and get off his case. We are lucky IMO to have someone at the heart of these issues prepared to come on here and explain things as fully as he possibly can.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Simple and to the point as usual, will those knocking PWKH, hiding behind your keyboards recognise the honest and precise detail above and get off his case. We are lucky IMO to have someone at the heart of these issues prepared to come on here and explain things as fully as he possibly can.

That's your opinion and your entittled to yours other's may have differing views you can't change that..

No one doesn't appreciate that a man in the know can take time out to come on to the forum and give us his views, but doesn't mean those views will be agreed with by all..

 

[davebart]

people don't appear to be able to distinguish between views and facts. I blame the government.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

PWKH...Do yourself a favour mate, don't bother to let us know any more, it's not that I and loads of others on here don't want to know, just that there are a handful on here seem to know a lot more than you do.

 

[PWKH]

PWKH...Do yourself a favour mate, don't bother to let us know any more, it's not that I and loads of others on here don't want to know, just that there are a handful on here seem to know a lot more than you do.

Maybe if I went to Nando's on Saturday afternoon instead of Crawley I could meet up with them?

Joke, yes?

 

[duffer]

So he was right then; no invoice has been received? Thanks for clearing that up.

I think PWKH's post explains that. The invoice can only follow an agreement with CCFC Holdings. Higgs centre has written to SISU asking to sort those agreements out, via a solicitor, twice, and are yet to have a reply.

Seems clear enough to me.

 

[Danceswithhorses]

I think PWKH's post explains that. The invoice can only follow an agreement with CCFC Holdings. Higgs centre has written to SISU asking to sort those agreements out, via a solicitor, twice, and are yet to have a reply.

Seems clear enough to me.

Absolutely Crystal

 

[cloughie]

I think PWKH's post explains that. The invoice can only follow an agreement with CCFC Holdings. Higgs centre has written to SISU asking to sort those agreements out, via a solicitor, twice, and are yet to have a reply.

Seems clear enough to me.

clear enough yes,

yet some have a different 'view' ?......... or are they calling him a liar?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

So we all have to have the same view on each topic now do we? Fantastic because that really strings for debate :facepalm::facepalm::claping hands::claping hands:

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Maybe if I went to Nando's on Saturday afternoon instead of Crawley I could meet up with them?

Joke, yes?

I was actually "Having a go" at some posters who can't take the word of "IMO" an honourable man(Yourself)
It is refreshing to hear truth being spoken(Written) on this forum, and to you PWKH, thank you for your input.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So we all have to have the same view on each topic now do we? Fantastic because that really strings for debate :facepalm::facepalm::claping hands::claping hands:

It's not that. Example as above. An invoice can't be raised without agreement. That agreement hasn't been signed - the delay coming from the SISU side. So the invoice can't follow.

Torchy seems to feel some vindication and evidence some smugness in the confirmation that an invoice hasn't been raised; whilst ignoring the fact that the mechanism that gives rise to the invoice having any legal credibility hasn't been returned and therefore no culpibility can reside anywhere other than at SISU's door.

An opinion needs to have a basis in reality. An opinion is an interpretation of facts. When it's a case of ignoring facts - it doesn't constitute a true opinion.

It's simply words typed out to serve Machiavellian intent. There's a big difference

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I was actually "Having a go" at some posters who can't take the word of "IMO" an honourable man(Yourself)
It is refreshing to hear truth being spoken(Written) on this forum, and to you PWKH, thank you for your input.

Speaking about yourself again SBK?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Speaking about yourself again SBK?

I was talking about some self opinionated pricks...Feel free to add yourself to that list if you wish!

 

[RoboCCFC90]

It's not that. Example as above. An invoice can't be raised without agreement. That agreement hasn't been signed - the delay coming from the SISU side. So the invoice can't follow.

Torchy seems to feel some vindication and evidence some smugness in the confirmation that an invoice hasn't been raised; whilst ignoring the fact that the mechanism that gives rise to the invoice having any legal credibility hasn't been returned and therefore no culpibility can reside anywhere other than at SISU's door.

An opinion needs to have a basis in reality. An opinion is an interpretation of facts. When it's a case of ignoring facts - it doesn't constitute a true opinion.

It's simply words typed out to serve Machiavellian intent. There's a big difference

It is that. As you can elude to with 5 previous posters before you all eluding to previous posters who are not allowed a differing opinion without mockery..

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I was talking about some self opinionated pricks...Feel free to add yourself to that list if you wish!

As much as it hurts me to see you sat in that column all alone, I am not a prick, so I'll pass this time, but Thanks

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It is that. As you can elude to with 5 previous posters before you all eluding to previous posters who are not allowed a differing opinion without mockery..

As I state, some 'comments' ignore facts so profoundly as to struggle to be classified as 'opinion' as such is an interpretation of facts. Ignoring data laid clearly before an individual seems more bigoted than anything else. Indeed one thinks to the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: 'The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract' :thinking about:

 

[Grendel]

I was actually "Having a go" at some posters who can't take the word of "IMO" an honourable man(Yourself)
It is refreshing to hear truth being spoken(Written) on this forum, and to you PWKH, thank you for your input.

I bet you have to wear night vision goggles. Your so far up this guys arse you must struggle to see.

 

[Grendel]

It's not that. Example as above. An invoice can't be raised without agreement. That agreement hasn't been signed - the delay coming from the SISU side. So the invoice can't follow.

Yes and I am sure if the boot was on the other foot this reason would be perfectly accepted wouldn't it?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

As much as it hurts me to see you sat in that column all alone, I am not a prick, so I'll pass this time, but Thanks

It's no problem honestly, I've put you joint top with Torchy, Grenduffy, and Summerisle:wave:

 

[torchomatic]

Yes, it does and I wasn't having a go at PWKH - as you can see, I "liked" his post. I was having a go at R_B who on another thread dismissed the "no invoice has been received" notion as nonsense. This clearly wasn't the case. He even dismissed Gregor Rioch and said he should keep his nose out as what does he know. He then has the cheek to attack others as being keyboard warriors.

I think PWKH's post explains that. The invoice can only follow an agreement with CCFC Holdings. Higgs centre has written to SISU asking to sort those agreements out, via a solicitor, twice, and are yet to have a reply.

Seems clear enough to me.

 

[torchomatic]

Yes, I was being smug and I shouldn't have been. However, as I explained to Duffer it was in regards to R_B and his "invoice, what invoice" comment.

It's not that. Example as above. An invoice can't be raised without agreement. That agreement hasn't been signed - the delay coming from the SISU side. So the invoice can't follow.

Torchy seems to feel some vindication and evidence some smugness in the confirmation that an invoice hasn't been raised; whilst ignoring the fact that the mechanism that gives rise to the invoice having any legal credibility hasn't been returned and therefore no culpibility can reside anywhere other than at SISU's door.

An opinion needs to have a basis in reality. An opinion is an interpretation of facts. When it's a case of ignoring facts - it doesn't constitute a true opinion.

It's simply words typed out to serve Machiavellian intent. There's a big difference