CET: Sky Blues take Coventry City Council to high court over bailout (1 Viewer)

[RPHunt]

My understanding is that as the company that own the golden share are in administration, the Football League will have a say about fit and proper ownership once that company comes out of administration.

Hopefully, looking over the shoulder of the Football League will be the MPs on the culture, media and sport select committee. In a report, earlier this year they, were particularly disappointed that proposals to shake up the football licensing system had not been implemented.

 

---

[moleyskyblue]

Seems to me this is their last throw of the dice,if this goes tits up for them that's it for sisu. Funny that they want to take them to court then in the next breath they are still hoping they can sort out a deal for the ricoh.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Funny that they want to take them to court then in the next breath they are still hoping they can sort out a deal for the ricoh.

Not really ......... if ACL refuse to negotiate with them they can spin it out that it was ACL that stopped the fans from seeing their team at the Ricoh

 

[grego_gee]

Too much hot air!

Lets say for argument CCFC accept a rent of £150k.... would that still be justification for the vitriol that SISU are subjected to?
Many posters on here seem to claim SISU want the Arena on the cheap and that they are attempting to drive ACL to the wall.....

I would point out that doesn't exactly fit in with what has been said. They have in fact said that they are still looking for a negotiated settlement.

A statement from Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd yesterday confirmed it had submitted an application to the High Court “to determine whether the council acted unlawfully in its use of public funds to financially support ACL and in its actions towards Coventry City Football Club in relation to the dispute with ACL.”
The statement continued: “In the meantime, we are committed to reaching a negotiated solution to the dispute with ACL. If ACL were prepared to meet with us, we would retain hope of reaching an agreement that will allow the club to continue playing at the Ricoh.”

Read more: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2013/04/23/exclusive-sky-blues-take-council-to-high-court-92746-33218950/2/#ixzz2RITjNdwm

imp:

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Can capitalism be moral? Not really.

And socialism or communism is any more moral?
Grow up and get some experience of life you fool.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

If your willing to cut your profits by a massive percentage, it can be, just. Fair Trade is the best example, but how many of the most profitable businesses use fair trade? Nike (all those sports brands) Primark don't for starters.

When, or if, the 3rd world becomes unionised, capitalism's foundations will be shook to he core.

FFS - right little communist aren't we!
How old are you? Do you have any experience of life yet or are you just quoting your lefty schoolbooks?
Keep your political crap for the appropriate forums and leave it out of here where it does not belong.

 

[Noggin]

Lets say for argument CCFC accept a rent of £150k.... would that still be justification for the vitriol that SISU are subjected to?
Many posters on here seem to claim SISU want the Arena on the cheap and that they are attempting to drive ACL to the wall.....

I would point out that doesn't exactly fit in with what has been said. They have in fact said that they are still looking for a negotiated settlement.

A statement from Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd yesterday confirmed it had submitted an application to the High Court “to determine whether the council acted unlawfully in its use of public funds to financially support ACL and in its actions towards Coventry City Football Club in relation to the dispute with ACL.”
The statement continued: “In the meantime, we are committed to reaching a negotiated solution to the dispute with ACL. If ACL were prepared to meet with us, we would retain hope of reaching an agreement that will allow the club to continue playing at the Ricoh.”

Read more: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2013/04/23/exclusive-sky-blues-take-council-to-high-court-92746-33218950/2/#ixzz2RITjNdwm

imp:

It's irrelevant what they have said, the only reason that SISU would be upset with the council taking on the mortgage from the bank is if they wanted the bank to call in the debt and send ACL bust. There is no other explanation for this court case.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

School starts at half 10?

No, I came in early, just to finish some work. I'm only in afternoons on Monday + Tuesday

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Taylor's 17.

*18 last October.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

will we ?? what rate of interest were the council getting on that 14 million where it was originally then ? and what rate of interest are they now charging to ACL ?

they are saying that they will charge less interest to ACL than the bank was for the existing mortgage.. so ACL will be better off for sure, but if the council are charging ACL less interest than the bank was.. then could the tax payer have been getting a better rate of interest on that 14 million if it had just been left in a high intrest bank account ?

i dont know & you dont know .. people seem pretty quick to believe that the council did this for the benefit of the tax payer.. yet all that has been stated, is that this deal has been done to save ACL going into admin.. not to make money for the tax payer

Seems some people just have no idea of finance.
They also do not seem to appreciate that in earlier years 15-18% mortgage interest was standard, and when ACL took out the mortgage from the Yorkshire Bank, mortgage rates were very significantly higher than they are now after the recent financial crash and the Bank of England lowered and kept the interbank lending rate at an all-time historical low of just 0.5%.
Additionally, the mortgage rate is always higher than the bank lending rate (how much depends on many factors).
Are you therefore able to understand that the mortgage rate that ACL was paying the Yorkshire bank was substantially higher than mortgage rates are now after the crash, and that therefore by refinancing the mortgage (whether through the council or any other institution) will result in significantly less interest being paid, and that ACL were therefore 1: No longer distressed by the disgusting tactics employed by SISU, and 2. were so much better off financially as a result that they were able to offer much better terms to SISU - which were refused, and 3. the interest rate differential between what ACL were paying the Yorkshire Bank and the rate the council were able to offer ACL was so great that the council will still be making more interest from ACL than they will be paying for the loan, which is to the benefit of the Coventry taxpayer, and 4. nobody is stealing money from babies, the homeless or any other such sentimental crap as some on here are pontificating to try and drag this down to an emotional matter instead of discussing what actually is happening.

And SkyBlue-Talor, just what are you? A schoolboy, a SISU employee or just plain stupid?

 

[Bluegloucester]

Seems some people just have no idea of finance.
They also do not seem to appreciate that in earlier years 15-18% mortgage interest was standard, and when ACL took out the mortgage from the Yorkshire Bank, mortgage rates were very significantly higher than they are now after the recent financial crash and the Bank of England lowered and kept the interbank lending rate at an all-time historical low of just 0.5%.
Additionally, the mortgage rate is always higher than the bank lending rate (how much depends on many factors).
Are you therefore able to understand that the mortgage rate that ACL was paying the Yorkshire bank was substantially higher than mortgage rates are now after the crash, and that therefore by refinancing the mortgage (whether through the council or any other institution) will result in significantly less interest being paid, and that ACL were therefore 1: No longer distressed by the disgusting tactics employed by SISU, and 2. were so much better off financially as a result that they were able to offer much better terms to SISU - which were refused, and 3. the interest rate differential between what ACL were paying the Yorkshire Bank and the rate the council were able to offer ACL was so great that the council will still be making more interest from ACL than they will be paying for the loan, which is to the benefit of the Coventry taxpayer, and 4. nobody is stealing money from babies, the homeless or any other such sentimental crap as some on here are pontificating to try and drag this down to an emotional matter instead of discussing what actually is happening.

And SkyBlue-Talor, just what are you? A schoolboy, a SISU employee or just plain stupid?

The latter

 

[theferret]

Seems some people just have no idea of finance.
They also do not seem to appreciate that in earlier years 15-18% mortgage interest was standard, and when ACL took out the mortgage from the Yorkshire Bank, mortgage rates were very significantly higher than they are now after the recent financial crash and the Bank of England lowered and kept the interbank lending rate at an all-time historical low of just 0.5%.
Additionally, the mortgage rate is always higher than the bank lending rate (how much depends on many factors).
Are you therefore able to understand that the mortgage rate that ACL was paying the Yorkshire bank was substantially higher than mortgage rates are now after the crash, and that therefore by refinancing the mortgage (whether through the council or any other institution) will result in significantly less interest being paid, and that ACL were therefore 1: No longer distressed by the disgusting tactics employed by SISU, and 2. were so much better off financially as a result that they were able to offer much better terms to SISU - which were refused, and 3. the interest rate differential between what ACL were paying the Yorkshire Bank and the rate the council were able to offer ACL was so great that the council will still be making more interest from ACL than they will be paying for the loan, which is to the benefit of the Coventry taxpayer, and 4. nobody is stealing money from babies, the homeless or any other such sentimental crap as some on here are pontificating to try and drag this down to an emotional matter instead of discussing what actually is happening.

And SkyBlue-Talor, just what are you? A schoolboy, a SISU employee or just plain stupid?

Not seeking to get into an argument on your general point, but mortgage rates in 2005 were about 6% were they not? Just not sure about the relevance of the '15-18%' comment.

BTW, this isn't an excuse to call me a shoolboy, a SISU employee, a communist or just plain stupid

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Some thoughts on this nonsense.....

A favourite Fisherism of mine from late February: “We’re not here to subsidise a failing council-owned business.”

Of course you're not: you've withheld £1.3m in rent in an attempt to distress ACL and buy it on the cheap. However CCCouncil called your bluff by restructuring the Yorkshire Bank mortgage, thereby protecting a multi-million pound asset from falling into the hands of an unscrupulous and avaricious hedge fund predator.

Just what are you here for, Tim?

Councils don't make decisions like this without taking legal advice. To me this appears little more than sour grapes from a floundering SISU - a last throw of the dice attempt to turn opinion against CCCouncil/ACL.

I wouldn't be surprised if this appeal is dismissed as 'frivolous' and doesn't even make it to a full High Court hearing.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Not seeking to get into an argument on your general point, but mortgage rates in 2005 were about 6% were they not? Just not sure about the relevance of the '15-18%' comment.

BTW, this isn't an excuse to call me a shoolboy, a SISU employee, a communist or just plain stupid

Ferret, I was pointing out that in earlier times mortgage rates have been substantially higher than they are now. I do not know what ACL were paying Yorkshire bank - I guess that would depend on several factors that we have no knowledge of, but do you not agree that the rate that ACL is now paying the council is substantially less than what they were paying the Yorkshire bank, and that given the preferential rates at which councils can borrow, they will be earning more interest from ACL than they would have to pay for the 14m, and therefore everyone - including SISU if they had accepted the greatly improved conditions - were winners thanks to the council making this move?

For SISU to now take the council to court beggars belief. Ask yourself why they are doing this. It is not for the benefit of the taxpayers of Coventry. It is not for the benefit of CCFC. It cannot even be for the benefit of SISU themselves financially as even if the council are found to have contravened some article or paragraph of European law, to my knowledge the courts have no powers to reverse the deal and put ACL under stress again (quite apart from the fact that I seriously doubt that the courts could find in SISU's favour - if it even gets to court. What chance that SISU will withdraw yet again at the last minute?).

As I stated in another thread a couple of months ago, I cannot see what SISU's end game is in all of this. Their current action has merely confirmed that under no circumstances whatsoever will ACL, Higgs or Council deal with them, so they have zero chance of getting the stadium.
The football club continues to be a loss-making business that will require them to guarantee many more millions before they are able to file their 2012 account and get us out from under this embargo.

So what is their end game? They cannot get the stadium, and they will just continue to incur millions of losses. So why are they still here? I cannot fathom what they are up to.

 

[oldskyblue58]

http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/downloads/GuideToJRProc.pdf

this might help people understand the process

it could take 6 to 12 months for this to go to a full hearing

 

[theferret]

Ferret, I was pointing out that in earlier times mortgage rates have been substantially higher than they are now. I do not know what ACL were paying Yorkshire bank - I guess that would depend on several factors that we have no knowledge of, but do you not agree that the rate that ACL is now paying the council is substantially less than what they were paying the Yorkshire bank, and that given the preferential rates at which councils can borrow, they will be earning more interest from ACL than they would have to pay for the 14m, and therefore everyone - including SISU if they had accepted the greatly improved conditions - were winners thanks to the council making this move?

For SISU to now take the council to court beggars belief. Ask yourself why they are doing this. It is not for the benefit of the taxpayers of Coventry. It is not for the benefit of CCFC. It cannot even be for the benefit of SISU themselves financially as even if the council are found to have contravened some article or paragraph of European law, to my knowledge the courts have no powers to reverse the deal and put ACL under stress again (quite apart from the fact that I seriously doubt that the courts could find in SISU's favour - if it even gets to court. What chance that SISU will withdraw yet again at the last minute?).

As I stated in another thread a couple of months ago, I cannot see what SISU's end game is in all of this. Their current action has merely confirmed that under no circumstances whatsoever will ACL, Higgs or Council deal with them, so they have zero chance of getting the stadium.
The football club continues to be a loss-making business that will require them to guarantee many more millions before they are able to file their 2012 account and get us out from under this embargo.

So what is their end game? They cannot get the stadium, and they will just continue to incur millions of losses. So why are they still here? I cannot fathom what they are up to.

I understand the point about interest rate differentials and the reasons why the council did what they did (I have been very critical of the council in many respects, but I fully understand their reasoning for settling the Yorkshire Bank mortgage and accept it was a move that benefited everybody), I was just querying that one point which I guess I misread.

This latest move by SISU is petty, pointless and desperate. I have no idea what they expect to achieve with it.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/downloads/GuideToJRProc.pdf

this might help people understand the process

it could take 6 to 12 months for this to go to a full hearing

....

....by which time SISU will hopefully be long gone.

Am I correct in thinking this should have no bearing on the administrator's report to the High Court on May 16th?

It all seems so futile - the last throes of a floundering HedgeFundBeast flapping on the shore of opprobrium.

Or do they have a secret endgame?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Just a thought but if CCC were proven to act outside the powers they have or that European Law indicates that the actions taken were anti competitive then the council would have to get its money back from Yorkshire bank I assume.

At that point Yorkshire bank would require repayment from ACL, if the Council did not have the funds or perhaps the legal ability to re do the loan or if SISU could keep delaying the councils actions then Yorkshire Bank or ACL directors would have to put ACL into administration i am guessing.

As the biggest creditor Yorkshire bank would control that process. Past experience suggests they were willing to do deals with SISU. The directors and stakeholders of ACL would have no say if i understand things right. Is that how SISU get their hands on the stadium?

In the meantime all these court battles, PR expenses etc seriously reduce ACL reserves and will affect the ability to drive that entity forward. Seems to me that ACL is being squeezed from all directions

A judicial review will examine the procedures of the CCC loan decision but it will taint any proposed purchase of ACL shares say by PHIV and drain ACL of the working capital it needs to trade.

just thoughts

 

[James Smith]

If your willing to cut your profits by a massive percentage, it can be, just. Fair Trade is the best example, but how many of the most profitable businesses use fair trade? Nike (all those sports brands) Primark don't for starters.

When, or if, the 3rd world becomes unionised, capitalism's foundations will be shook to he core.

And how much profit did ACL make for their shareholders in previous years?

 

[Flying Fokker]

....

....by which time SISU will hopefully be long gone.

Am I correct in thinking this should have no bearing on the administrator's report to the High Court on May 16th?

It all seems so futile - the last throes of a floundering HedgeFundBeast flapping on the shore of opprobrium.

Or do they have a secret endgame?

Your words read like poetry.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Sell the Arena to PH 4th and Feck SISU. Taking the p**s now......(Admin) Sell CCFC ltd to him as well, and if the GS is in there all well and good too.

 

[oldskyblue58]

....

....by which time SISU will hopefully be long gone.

Am I correct in thinking this should have no bearing on the administrator's report to the High Court on May 16th?

It all seems so futile - the last throes of a floundering HedgeFundBeast flapping on the shore of opprobrium.

Or do they have a secret endgame?

Am not sure it wont RS .......... the leaseholder has been directly affected by any actions done by CCC or ACL...... the administrators report sometime in May could simply say "i need more time" ..... its not unusual

 

[Godiva]

Just a thought but if CCC were proven to act outside the powers they have or that European Law indicates that the actions taken were anti competitive then the council would have to get its money back from Yorkshire bank I assume.

At that point Yorkshire bank would require repayment from ACL, if the Council did not have the funds or perhaps the legal ability to re do the loan or if SISU could keep delaying the councils actions then Yorkshire Bank or ACL directors would have to put ACL into administration i am guessing.

As the biggest creditor Yorkshire bank would control that process. Past experience suggests they were willing to do deals with SISU. The directors and stakeholders of ACL would have no say if i understand things right. Is that how SISU get their hands on the stadium?

In the meantime all these court battles, PR expenses etc seriously reduce ACL reserves and will affect the ability to drive that entity forward. Seems to me that ACL is being squeezed from all directions

A judicial review will examine the procedures of the CCC loan decision but it will taint any proposed purchase of ACL shares say by PHIV and drain ACL of the working capital it needs to trade.

just thoughts

I think the CCC would have to call in the loan and ACL would have to find alternative financing. That would probably put ACL at the brink - or even push them into - administration.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

I'm just hopeful that

A) CCCouncil took detailed legal advice, and

B) CCCouncil voting procedures were carried out to the letter - judging by the general bonhomie between all factions on the day of the vote I'm confident that they did!

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Am not sure it wont RS .......... the leaseholder has been directly affected by any actions done by CCC or ACL...... the administrators report sometime in May could simply say "i need more time" ..... its not unusual

So it could just be a device to stall the whole administration process? Oh dear, this could just drag on and on into next season....where's the light at the end of SISU's tunnel of doom?

 

[oldskyblue58]

I think the CCC would have to call in the loan and ACL would have to find alternative financing. That would probably put ACL at the brink - or even push them into - administration.

my guess is they would have to reverse the actual transaction....... as not lawfully made...... i think CCC paid Yorkshire bank direct

 

[Flying Fokker]

Sell the Arena to PH 4th and Feck SISU. Taking the p**s now......(Admin) Sell CCFC ltd to him as well, and if the GS is in there all well and good too.

That would be good.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Seems some people just have no idea of finance.
They also do not seem to appreciate that in earlier years 15-18% mortgage interest was standard, and when ACL took out the mortgage from the Yorkshire Bank, mortgage rates were very significantly higher than they are now after the recent financial crash and the Bank of England lowered and kept the interbank lending rate at an all-time historical low of just 0.5%.
Additionally, the mortgage rate is always higher than the bank lending rate (how much depends on many factors).
Are you therefore able to understand that the mortgage rate that ACL was paying the Yorkshire bank was substantially higher than mortgage rates are now after the crash, and that therefore by refinancing the mortgage (whether through the council or any other institution) will result in significantly less interest being paid, and that ACL were therefore 1: No longer distressed by the disgusting tactics employed by SISU, and 2. were so much better off financially as a result that they were able to offer much better terms to SISU - which were refused, and 3. the interest rate differential between what ACL were paying the Yorkshire Bank and the rate the council were able to offer ACL was so great that the council will still be making more interest from ACL than they will be paying for the loan, which is to the benefit of the Coventry taxpayer, and 4. nobody is stealing money from babies, the homeless or any other such sentimental crap as some on here are pontificating to try and drag this down to an emotional matter instead of discussing what actually is happening.

And SkyBlue-Talor, just what are you? A schoolboy, a SISU employee or just plain stupid?

If there was an option to "love" a post rather than "like" it...why has it taken all day for someone to post such "common" sense?!?

 

[luwalla]

Seems some people just have no idea of finance.
They also do not seem to appreciate that in earlier years 15-18% mortgage interest was standard, and when ACL took out the mortgage from the Yorkshire Bank, mortgage rates were very significantly higher than they are now after the recent financial crash and the Bank of England lowered and kept the interbank lending rate at an all-time historical low of just 0.5%.
Additionally, the mortgage rate is always higher than the bank lending rate (how much depends on many factors).
Are you therefore able to understand that the mortgage rate that ACL was paying the Yorkshire bank was substantially higher than mortgage rates are now after the crash, and that therefore by refinancing the mortgage (whether through the council or any other institution) will result in significantly less interest being paid, and that ACL were therefore 1: No longer distressed by the disgusting tactics employed by SISU, and 2. were so much better off financially as a result that they were able to offer much better terms to SISU - which were refused, and 3. the interest rate differential between what ACL were paying the Yorkshire Bank and the rate the council were able to offer ACL was so great that the council will still be making more interest from ACL than they will be paying for the loan, which is to the benefit of the Coventry taxpayer, and 4. nobody is stealing money from babies, the homeless or any other such sentimental crap as some on here are pontificating to try and drag this down to an emotional matter instead of discussing what actually is happening.

And SkyBlue-Talor, just what are you? A schoolboy, a SISU employee or just plain stupid?

where as you seem to have a firm grip on finances do you ?..

quoting interest rates that have no relation at all to either when the loan was taken out.. or the current market ( 15-18% !? you are talking about the late 80s!! ) ..

quoting mortgage lending rates based on consumer rates .. when actually commercial lending rates and interbank lending rates are a totally different beast, and so again has no bearing ..

and does it even matter what the intrest rate was when the mortgage was taken out with the yorkshire bank.. were they on a fixed rate for life on the loan were they ? ... or maybe they are on a tracker Libor + rate

truth is you dont know do you, neither do i.. that's why i was questioning it.. and that's why my questioning still stands. dont try and pretend that you know that this council bail out is going to be making the tax payers money by adding on % to the rate they charge ACL.. as i said, it could be less than they would get on their money in a high interest account..

and you accuse me of not having no idea of finances..

 

[RPHunt]

I think it might be difficult to enforce reversal of the transaction - Yorkshire Bank have certainly done nothing wrong and any reversal would risk punishing them.

 

[luwalla]

and for the record i do want new owners in.. and i dont particularly want SISU to remain here

but all this acceptance that everything the council / ACL do is fine and above board , and everything SISU do is wrong & the cause of all evil, is just stupidity.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

If it wasn't above board, I find it hard to believe that it would have gone through. It had unanimous party support too, remember. At some stage, somebody involved would have said "hang on, you can't do that!" And if SISU objected so much (I never knew they cared about Taxpayers money so much), why on earth didn't they raise their concerns at the time? Why wait until now?

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

and for the record i do want new owners in.. and i dont particularly want SISU to remain here

but all this acceptance that everything the council / ACL do is fine and above board , and everything SISU do is wrong & the cause of all evil, is just stupidity.

You'd have to be pretty stupid to not see that this is all about trying to distress ACL, which is what the rent strike was all about!

 

[RPHunt]

and that's why my questioning still stands. dont try and pretend that you know that this council bail out is going to be making the tax payers money by adding on % to the rate they charge ACL.. as i said, it could be less than they would get on their money in a high interest account..

and you accuse me of not having no idea of finances..

Skyblueswiss might have been thinking about this quote by Cllr Mutton on April 15:

"There is no net cost to the council – this is a commercial arrangement that will provide a modest surplus to plough back into services and jobs."

A modest surplus - possibly more could be earned in a high interest account (>2% at the moment) but central government does not provide these loans for councils to put on deposit.

 

[luwalla]

Skyblueswiss might have been thinking about this quote by Cllr Mutton on April 15:

"There is no net cost to the council – this is a commercial arrangement that will provide a modest surplus to plough back into services and jobs."

A modest surplus - possibly more could be earned in a high interest account (>2% at the moment) but central government does not provide these loans for councils to put on deposit.

so one quote says
"There is no net cost to the council"

the next quote says
"council officers told the Telegraph the £14million had initially come from the council's “cash balances“"

hmm see the clash of quotes... and neither says the money came from central government, in fact one specifically says it has come from the councils cash - which surely is a cost to the council then

like i say, its certainly not as black n white as some would like to believe.. thats all