CET: Sky Blues take Coventry City Council to high court over bailout (3 Viewers)

[James Smith]

School starts at half 10?

Maybe a teacher, which could explain the late start?

 

---

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Maybe a teacher, which could explain the late start?

Taylor's 17.

 

[James Smith]

ok so two things here..

1) your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " is it ?? you still havent answered that

2) all of the above is irreverent to your original quote.. which is what i was replying to. and is the above even correct? .. the council payer wouldn't have lost out if ACL went bust.. because ACL was making a loss anyway- thats why it had ot be bailed out - and if it was making a loss then the council wouldn't have been getting any profit to pass onto the tax payer would they

but anyway back to your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " will they .. are they charging more interest to ACL, than they could have been getting by leaving that 14 million in a high interest account ?

We're they making more of a loss because CCFC weren't paying their agreed rent?

 

[Godiva]

The CCFC half interest in the arena was sold to the Higgs Trust Charity for £4m-£6m when CCFC themselves were "in distress", They expected to be able to buy it back later for £4m-£6m.

The club would not have been distressed had the CCC shared the profit from the selling of the land to Tesco. ACL would never have been formed - the club would have owned 50% of the stadium and benefitted from every income stream matchday, concerts, casino, conferrences etc.

It lead to the collapse of the previous regime - it is leading to the collapse of the present regime and if new club owners don't get the ACL merged into the club, then it will lead to the collapse of the next regime too.

 

[James Smith]

Taylor's 17.

6th form college?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

ok so two things here..

1) your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " is it ?? you still havent answered that

2) all of the above is irreverent to your original quote.. which is what i was replying to. and is the above even correct? .. the tax payer wouldn't have lost out if ACL went bust.. because ACL was making a loss anyway- thats why it had ot be bailed out - and if it was making a loss then the council wouldn't have been getting any profit to pass onto the tax payer would they

but anyway back to your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " will they .. are they charging more interest to ACL, than they could have been getting by leaving that 14 million in a high interest account ?

Honestly, the situation is so murky it's hard to tell what money's been going where. I saw it as the council trying to safeguard a Coventry interest by keeping it in the hands of...well, Coventrians.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

6th form college?

When I was at 6th form I still had to be in for half 8 to register-though we are now digressing.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

And central government get their money from? The taxpayer! They do not have any money either it's ours...all of it! We just blindly trust the government to spend it sensibly (whatever that means)

I'm not disputing that?

 

[Phil Babbs Ballbag]

This £14m wasn't taken from public services' budgets. The cuts to those were mandated by central government and they were to be gutted regardless. (ATAB)

If the council has made this loan with a view to making a small profit then I don't see how it's any different from the way they manage their employees' pension funds. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Makes me laugh to see arguments in favour of SISU..ie- PWKH tying SISU out balloons to Fisher's car....CCC "Bailing out" ACL. etc,etc.
In my eyes, SISU, "Moving things from one company to another" to disguise who, what, where and when owns CCFC.
Putting CCFC ltd, into Admin, and saying CCFC Holdings, are now in charge!
I'm not a financial expert on monetary subjects but........Isn't this action as close to being "Phoenixing" as could possibly be?...If so, this move is totally illegal. Allegedly.
Love to hear from the "Expert" OSB58 on this one.:thinking about:And Yes!!! I'm talking about SISU not CCC/ACL

Sadly the law seems to allow this (another disgusting and immoral practice) seemingly underhand practice to happen.

 

[grego_gee]

6th form college?

I wonder what the average age is on here?

imp:

 

[SkyblueBazza]

I'm not disputing that?

Just pointing it out, not taking issue

 

[skyblue2k]

Could the council be seen as lending ACL a portion of the £21 million acl paid for rent in advance, back with a better interest rate? But surely they should of bought out the Higgs trust at the same time?

 

[duffer]

Simply not true. They did not 'buy the land' and they didn't 'fund the build' either. The council's contribution (from its own coffers) was minimal, but they did help bridge the funding shortfall by securing a loan from the bank which was paid by ACL (up until recently at least). They did help facilitate the building of the arena, but to say they 'funded' it is nonsense.

Who did pay for it? Who owns the land now?

The club put in two million out of £115 milion. The council put in £10m to start with and had to guarantee around £30m at the start point, as I recall. They're currently on the hook for around £24m. The Council may not have funded the entire build, but they enabled it and without them it wouldn't have happened. To believe anything else is to ignore the facts, bluntly.

 

[Phil Babbs Ballbag]

I wonder what the average age is on here?

imp:

Mental age or physical?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

I wonder what the average age is on here?

imp:

It is not a constant. Varies from thread to thread. Also often varies within a thread...the longer the thread the lower the average age seems to get - although the posters are the same ;-)

 

[luwalla]

Honestly, the situation is so murky it's hard to tell what money's been going where. I saw it as the council trying to safeguard a Coventry interest by keeping it in the hands of...well, Coventrians.

i agree it is so murky.. but with the council & SISU involved in it.. should we be suprised...

quite honestly i can see the the discussions now

Council financial adviser - " ACL are about to go bust because we are not making amy money.. which means SISU will most likey be able to get their hands on the stadium "

Council Leader - " hmm we cant have that, i know lets buy out the mortgage .. quick go grab that 14 million we have lying around doing nothing..and we'll show them.. hahaha we win SISU"

Council financial adviser - " yes but its not really making any money & its a lot of money"

Council Leader - " yes but we'll be beat SISU.. come on lets do it"

two months later

Council financial adviser - " ive just realised we are only charging ACL 1.5% interest on that loan.. and we were actually getting 2% interest on that 14 million in the bank account we had it it "

Council Leader - " shit, better keep that one under wraps.. just cut some spending somewhere else.. and remember, we beat SISU! "

have i got too much time on my hands today.. i guess! do i think the people involved at the council could be this petty ( when we hear about the tying of balloons to cars ) yes certainly.. do i trust the council to spend public money wisely.. not really

 

[skyblue2k]

Who did pay for it? Who owns the land now?

The club put in two million out of £115 milion. The council put in £10m to start with and had to guarantee around £30m at the start point, as I recall. They're currently on the hook for around £24m. The Council may not have funded the entire build, but they enabled it and without them it wouldn't have happened. To believe anything else is to ignore the facts, bluntly.

Where did you get the bit from with regards to council guaranteeing £30 million and still being on the hook for £24 million as that is not what I read on the council report on the build. Grateful if you could point me in the direction of this info

When Higgs trust bought out acl they wrote off ccfc loan of £2 million and paid £4.5 million. That is the Higgs trust £6.5 million paid

 

[Jim]

jim again.. you are either not reading the statement.. or just making stuff up to suit your argument .. what part of the following statement are you not grasping..

"council officers told the Telegraph the £14million had initially come from the council's “cash balances“ * money set aside for unspecified council spending."

so they DID use council tax payers money.. they did not do what you keep saying.. and they have not yet offset that debt anywhere else..

it came out of tax payers money.. and it is still that way now!

I think you'll find that the cash was refunded by the council taking out an equivalent loan themselves. If you read the statement you just quoted it says 'initially'. You need to know the whole story and not just pull out individual quotes.

The cash only initially came from council cash balances due to a need of urgency to secure ACL.

The effect is as I stated. The cash flow was slightly different but has had no effect on council spending budget other than an increase in income.

 

[Tank Top]

Am I wrong in thinking that the Ricoh Arena complex is worth a lot more than what the council have invested in it, this makes it a good investment in the long term
for the rate payers of Coventry, therefore protecting that asset from the predators who tried to force a childrens Charity into banckruptcy surely must be the correct
action to take.
It is now clear to the vast majority of observers, that SISU Finance are showing a spiteful vindictive attitude, but that's who they are, and thats what they do.
It is likely, that sisu finance are "done"at this football club, but out of spite intend to do as much damage to the football club as possible leaving a scorched earth situation behind, and to make it more difficult for any potential buyers, they are still the owners, but will attempt to scuttle the ship as they go.

 

[luwalla]

I think you'll find that the cash was refunded by the council taking out an equivalent loan themselves. If you read the statement you just quoted it says 'initially'. You need to know the whole story and not just pull out individual quotes.

The cash only initially came from council cash balances due to a need of urgency to secure ACL.

The effect is as I stated. The cash flow was slightly different but has had no effect on council spending budget other than an increase in income.

i see where it says they intend to do that.. i see no mention that it has happened.. so please pull me the quote where it states that the loan has now been refunded then .. as you say it has

 

[James Smith]

Remember, this is European Commission Competition policy.

State Aid is where a public sector organisation provided financial support of any kind to any organisation engaged in economic activity. The reason CCFC Holdings can challenge is because anyone can challenge as it distorts the market.

Lets say you ran a company manufacturing garage roof's, your company is worth about £500k and you have a competitor who looks pretty much the same. The council 'buy out' a loan that your competitor has for £2m and was going to default on, gives them reduced rates, and in turn makes them viable again.

You'd be pissed off wouldn't you? The council would have just distorted the market not only by busting state aid rules (Exceptions do apply but aren't worth going into here), but also by paying above market rate.

Anyone can challenge, and clearly CCFC Holding have an interest in challenging this rule.

As i said in another thread, i'm sure i read that the council gave state aid rules as a reason why they couldn't give the club any of the money from the tesco land sale back in the day. Wasn't it in that Paul Fletcher interview? So this is slightly ironic.

Okay lets say that the reason that the first garage roof business was going bust (and I'm not suggesting ACL was) because the second garage roof business hadn't been paying their rent on the premises that the first owned and leased to them. Isn't that a bit more like what's happening here?

 

[duffer]

Where did you get the bit from with regards to council guaranteeing £30 million and still being on the hook for £24 million as that is not what I read on the council report on the build. Grateful if you could point me in the direction of this info

Politely mate, you'll need to do your own research on this cos I've a bit to do today - but go back to the original council meeting where they voted whether or not to get involved on the Ricoh build. That's where I remember the £30 million from, happy to be corrected if you can find different.

The £24m is easy, look at the council report. £10m in there direct from CCC, and now the £14m loan they've taken on from Yorkshire Bank.

Regardless of precise numbers the point remains, and it is surely beyond doubt; if the Council and Higgs don't step in, the Ricoh doesn't get built.

I wonder how much money the Council could make by simply giving up on the stadium completely and selling for redevelopment as housing/retail. There's more than one possible end game to all of this, perhaps. I'm not advocating that, by the way...

 

[luwalla]

I think you'll find that the cash was refunded by the council taking out an equivalent loan themselves. If you read the statement you just quoted it says 'initially'. You need to know the whole story and not just pull out individual quotes.

The cash only initially came from council cash balances due to a need of urgency to secure ACL.

The effect is as I stated. The cash flow was slightly different but has had no effect on council spending budget other than an increase in income.

just had another read of it, and i certainly cant see where it says that the loan has been refunded jim.. maybe you are referring to this quote below

"The plan was to replenish those funds with £14million of council borrowing at an unspecified later date, under a government-approved scheme called Prudential Borrowing"

what part of that quote says the money has been refunded then ?

i see a vague mention that they "plan to".. at some "unspecified date".. which hasnt yet occurred..

so that would mean the money has still been funded by council - ie. tax payers - money

i dont think the issue is with me pulling individual quotes from that story... its as i said previously.. either you never read it correctly, or didnt understand it

 

[James Smith]

Exactly this. The football club - whichever entity it sits within - should be pleased that their landlord has an enhanced level of stability; which is what the council involvement provided.

To be so upset as to file for action at great costs, would indicate that they are actually unhappy at this greater level of stability. Which would be nonsensical unless one acknowledges that is was always SISU's intention to distress ACL into a position whereby they could secure the Ricoh on the cheap.

As such, by default, SISU's true intentions in this whole saga are revealed at last. All the arguing about rentals, F&B's, car parking rights et al have been a waste of time. As they're nothing to do with the real intent here. Shameless

Nail, Head etc.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

One things for sure, regardless of how you see this situation (and both sides are accountable for this mess, both sides)....

It's an absolute shambles and will continue to drag this club through uncertainty for a long time to come. It's hardly the best way to encourage the kids, the fans of tomorrow to go and watch our beloved Sky Blues on Saturday afternoon when the fan base is divided, when we're not sure when we're going to play, whilst we're unsure of what our owner looks like and whilst both sides of the situation are behaving like f**king ridiculous idiots.

I gave up playing football at a decent level about 2 years ago and have taken up cycling. Watching this sorry saga from afar is denting my enthusiasm for the beautiful game even further. I just want an end to this and be able to share good news on Cov City FC with my mates and be proud.

Dejected,

WM

 

[James Smith]

It has been ACL's and CCC's policy to edge SISU out, now, they don't, shouldn't, have that power.

Shown when PWKH and another ACL person ties a 'SISU Out' balloon on Fisher's car, it was unprofessional, it compromised their impartiality, but most of all, how can they negotiate with people they treat with contempt? ACL have held back a deal just as much, if not more, than SISU.

What an interesting post and I have to agree, how can SISU negotiate with people they treat with contempt.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

One things for sure, regardless of how you see this situation (and both sides are accountable for this mess, both sides)....

It's an absolute shambles and will continue to drag this club through uncertainty for a long time to come. It's hardly the best way to encourage the kids, the fans of tomorrow to go and watch our beloved Sky Blues on Saturday afternoon when the fan base is divided, when we're not sure when we're going to play, whilst we're unsure of what our owner looks like and whilst both sides of the situation are behaving like f**king ridiculous idiots.

I gave up playing football at a decent level about 2 years ago and have taken up cycling. Watching this sorry saga from afar is denting my enthusiasm for the beautiful game even further. I just want an end to this and be able to share good news on Cov City FC with my mates and be proud.

Dejected,

WM

Right there with you WM

 

[skyblue2k]

Politely mate, you'll need to do your own research on this cos I've a bit to do today - but go back to the original council meeting where they voted whether or not to get involved on the Ricoh build. That's where I remember the £30 million from, happy to be corrected if you can find different.

The £24m is easy, look at the council report. £10m in there direct from CCC, and now the £14m loan they've taken on from Yorkshire Bank.

Regardless of precise numbers the point remains, and it is surely beyond doubt; if the Council and Higgs don't step in, the Ricoh doesn't get built.

I wonder how much money the Council could make by simply giving up on the stadium completely and selling for redevelopment as housing/retail. There's more than one possible end game to all of this, perhaps. I'm not advocating that, by the way...

I am using my figures from the last report after the stadium was built, so will stick with them. What yours should include is the £21.8 million acl paid the council in rent and rent in advance for the remaining 49 years + of the lease. Still comes to the same answer that without council and charity the Ricoh would not exist.

 

[davebart]

you jumped into a debate we were having about WHERE the loan funding came from.. was it public council money or was it sourced by the council from an external loan..

we are not debating who owns the stadium.. or the reasons fro any loan!

sorry didn't know it was a private debate where only twats can contibute.

It doesn't actually matter where they got the money from. They haven't given ACL the money - they have lent it to them and are getting loan interest on it and it will be paid back.

 

[cloughie]

i agree it is so murky.. but with the council & SISU involved in it.. should we be suprised...

quite honestly i can see the the discussions now

Council financial adviser - " ACL are about to go bust because we are not making amy money.. which means SISU will most likey be able to get their hands on the stadium "

Council Leader - " hmm we cant have that, i know lets buy out the mortgage .. quick go grab that 14 million we have lying around doing nothing..and we'll show them.. hahaha we win SISU"

Council financial adviser - " yes but its not really making any money & its a lot of money"

Council Leader - " yes but we'll be beat SISU.. come on lets do it"

two months later

Council financial adviser - " ive just realised we are only charging ACL 1.5% interest on that loan.. and we were actually getting 2% interest on that 14 million in the bank account we had it it "

Council Leader - " shit, better keep that one under wraps.. just cut some spending somewhere else.. and remember, we beat SISU! "

have i got too much time on my hands today.. i guess! do i think the people involved at the council could be this petty ( when we hear about the tying of balloons to cars ) yes certainly.. do i trust the council to spend public money wisely.. not really

I know this is fantasy but the bit about just cut spending some where else is rubbish.

The council is given a budget from central government for services and what ever cuts are applied are caused by central goverment cuts the local council. The local council just decide from where the cuts are going to be and cannot go into reserves etc to cover day to day services.

The loan has not come from the budget given by central goverment

 

[James Smith]

Hmmm.

Rent reduction of £900k.

Outstanding arrears reduced from £1.3m to £600k.

Escrow reduced to £200k.

ACL's share of F+B.

ACL to cross invoice total F+B revenue.

CCFC to regain 50% car parking revenue.

Yeah, sure looks like they were trying to force the club out Taylor. The rent boycott commenced at the same time as the ARVO charge-April 2012, when Thorn had secured relegation. Quite bluntly the intention was always to distress ACL and take control of it on the sly or, if that failed, use the charge to stop them getting anything.

SISU have never had any intention whatsoever of co-operating.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times the facts are put out there about that, it just seems wilfully ignored.

 

[duffer]

Where did you get the bit from with regards to council guaranteeing £30 million and still being on the hook for £24 million as that is not what I read on the council report on the build. Grateful if you could point me in the direction of this info

OK, here you go:

From here, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/3160822.stm - £21m to guarantee the loan. Plus £10m dropped into the project directly, shown in the report that you mention. So at some point in time, £21m to £31m of Council money tied to the Arena development.

There's more on the CET - but digging it out of there after ten years have passed is a bit harder.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It doesn't seem to matter how many times the facts are put out there about that, it just seems wilfully ignored.

If you read the answers the club gave to the Trust a short while ago, they say that the negotiating team (headed by TF) was only able to accept an offer which would get the club to at least a break even position. That is, so that the owners wouldn't have to put any more money in to the business.

I don't think ACL could have physically handed over enough money to make this possible.

 

[James Smith]

Clearly ACL are money slaves to, else they would've compromised on smaller aspects like F&B, arrears. Works both ways.

Didn't they agree to cross invoice if that is the term all the F&B income not just the 80% that Compass don't get so that CCFC had more money under FFP?