latest statement from Mr Appleton (6 Viewers)

[hill83]

You're right. We need to become a family/community club again. Shouldn't be difficult with no competition.

Or. Win ten games in a row and have a successful season.
Everyone will be back up there again.

 

---

[torchomatic]

Mmm...it seems to me that CCFC were an animal being poked by a stick by ACL. Now SISU are biting back. Yes, SISU should pay the rent. Yes, SISU agreed to the rent. But, ACL were laughing all the way to the bank for six years raking in £8M. That was never sustainable.

Coventry City as a club is critically close, in my view, to permanently losing all respect and support in its own city. Our once-loved club has been trashed by successive useless owners and many fans I speak to just don't care any more. They're finding better things to do with their time. Sisu seems to be impossible to deal with and ACL is painted into a corner. Talk about bald men fighting over a comb.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Personally if I wanted to get paid I'd chase the people who'd always paid me, and have said they're happy to keep paying.

Unless I wanted to play games and risk the future of the academy of course.

 

[I'mARealWizard]

Mmm...it seems to me that CCFC were an animal being poked by a stick by ACL. Now SISU are biting back. Yes, SISU should pay the rent. Yes, SISU agreed to the rent. But, ACL were laughing all the way to the bank for six years raking in £8M. That was never sustainable.

Yes, you're right.

Over-charging for the use of an old, past its best days tin-pot shed.

That's the kind of rent you'd agree on for a state-of-the-art new build arena and top class facilities... :facepalm:

 

[cloughie]

Personally if I wanted to get paid I'd chase the people who'd always paid me, and have said they're happy to keep paying.

Unless I wanted to play games and risk the future of the academy of course.

If you had been paid by holdings previously but the contract is in Ltd who are now in admin I myself would be reluctant to expect to continue the run the risk of not being paid in the future when for

1/ They owe me money for using the facility already

and 2/ Who is to say thet won't in the future turn around and say sorry we aint paying the contract is with Ltd get your money from the administrator , bearing in mind their track record of paying bills.

I think I would only go ahead with money up front thankyou

 

[torchomatic]

Which is great if you have the income and the fanbase. Not much point renting a penthouse - because, well it's a penthouse! - if you work on the tills at Tescos.

Really, West Ham won't pay much more for the Olympic Stadium.

That's the kind of rent you'd agree on for a state-of-the-art new build arena and top class facilities... :facepalm:

 

[Grendel]

Yes, you're right.

Over-charging for the use of an old, past its best days tin-pot shed.

That's the kind of rent you'd agree on for a state-of-the-art new build arena and top class facilities... :facepalm:

With "fans" like you we deserve all we get.

Your attitude is a disgrace.

 

[I'mARealWizard]

Which is great if you have the income and the fanbase. Not much point renting a penthouse - because, well it's a penthouse! - if you work on the tills at Tescos.

Really, West Ham won't pay much more for the Olympic Stadium.

You're somehow implying that ACL are at fault because CCFC don't have a larger fanbase or aren't in the Premier League?

Your logic is brilliant mate!

 

[I'mARealWizard]

Suppose you get a mortgage for a house but your mum pays it every month because she's nice like that.

You then lose your job.

Your mum goes into the bank to pay your mortgage the next month and the bank will day w either thank you very much, or refuse to take payment and demand you pay it yourself because you have now lost your job.

Which option do you reckon the bank will choose?

You do realise that CCFC Ltd and CCFC Holdings form part of the same umbrella company?

Therefore your analogy is ill-fitting of the situation.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You do realise that CCFC Ltd and CCFC Holdings form part of the same umbrella company?

Therefore your analogy is ill-fitting of the situation.

My Mum is part of the same umbrella family.

Not only that, but people with bank accounts start gathering outside my house to call me a c unit.

 

[I'mARealWizard]

My Mum is part of the same umbrella family.

Not only that, but people with bank accounts start gathering outside my house to call me a c unit.

Are random members of your family legally responsible for non-fulfillment of contracts? I don't think that's statute... :thinking about:

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Which is great if you have the income and the fanbase. Not much point renting a penthouse - because, well it's a penthouse! - if you work on the tills at Tescos.

Really, West Ham won't pay much more for the Olympic Stadium.

"West Ham will pay an ongoing rent, understood to be around £2.5m and linked to RPI, and share the proceeds of naming rights and catering income with the special purpose vehicle set up by the LLDC and Newham Council."

You were saying Torchy?

 

[James Smith]

CCFC ltd = GS = administrator control

CCFC ltd = GS = academy

Yet Administrator says academy is nothing to do with him?

Higgs should accept payment from holdings.

Why comment re holdings if this is of no relevance to him?

Why if FA say academy has to be with golden share. Golden share is with Ltd. Why would the administrator not want the two to be entwined. Why would this be a problem for the administrator?

Surely he would want as much assets as he can get to clear debts.

Would he not be wanting to prove with the FA that the academy is an asset he has?

Or is it bad news that potentially both the academy and the football club are eventually up for a bidding war between two rich Americans.

It isn't a massive surprise that everybody else seems to think that the Golden Share is in Ltd and he still wants to make investigations to satisfy himself of this. He is probably just covering his own backside and has every right to do so.
However the Academy side is puzzling me. So long as there are propper contacts drawn up to cover the use of the facilities at the Higgs Centre for Holdings then there shouldn't be a problem. However given that he hasn't determined where the Golden Share is and the academy is inextricably linked with that, how can he be saying talk to Holdings.
Also why would he want to distance Ltd from the Academy which would as you say be an asset to the Club, should he eventually conclude that the Golden Share is with Ltd?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Yes, you're right.

Over-charging for the use of an old, past its best days tin-pot shed.

That's the kind of rent you'd agree on for a state-of-the-art new build arena and top class facilities... :facepalm:

I'd expect to be paid £50,000 per 9000 fans that come through the doors myself, and not ask for any rent at all as make it on food,car-parking, etc.

Well I would if I was the LTA and wanted to play a minor Davis Cup game there.

 

[lordsummerisle]

"West Ham will pay an ongoing rent, understood to be around £2.5m and linked to RPI, and share the proceeds of naming rights and catering income with the special purpose vehicle set up by the LLDC and Newham Council."

You were saying Torchy?

Did you not read the last bit?

 

[James Smith]

Mmm...it seems to me that CCFC were an animal being poked by a stick by ACL. Now SISU are biting back. Yes, SISU should pay the rent. Yes, SISU agreed to the rent. But, ACL were laughing all the way to the bank for six years raking in £8M. That was never sustainable.

And CCFC/SISU bothered to ask for negotiations for a rent reduction before boycotting paying the rent?

If my tenant just stopped paying the rent one day (unless there were very good reasons) I'd sling them out sharpish and look for someone else. If they came to me looking for a reduction I'd consider it so long any figure agreed upon meant I was still able to cover the payments I have to make.

 

[I'mARealWizard]

I'd expect to be paid £50,000 per 9000 fans that come through the doors myself, and not ask for any rent at all as make it on food,car-parking, etc.

Well I would if I was the LTA and wanted to play a minor Davis Cup game there.

Unfortunately, in the real world, you pay for the rent of a property based on its amenities.

Not how successful you are at selling tickets to the event you are staging

 

[Grendel]

Unfortunately, in the real world, you pay for the rent of a property based on its amenities.

Not how successful you are at selling tickets to the event you are staging

No you don't pay on its amenities at all. Doncaster pay £10,000 a year currently on rent and get all revenues. With that knowledge please now justify.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Unfortunately, in the real world, you pay for the rent of a property based on its amenities.

Not how successful you are at selling tickets to the event you are staging

9000 tickets over three days wouldn't be considered a success for us.


Well, it might be next season..

 

[James Smith]

9000 tickets over three days wouldn't be considered a success for us.


Well, it might be next season..

Wasn't the Davis Cup stuff in the Jaguar Exhibition Halls which would limit the numbers of tickets they could sell anyway, given occupancy limits?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Are random members of your family legally responsible for non-fulfillment of contracts? I don't think that's statute... :thinking about:

So I tell the bank look, I can't afford to pay it so the choice is you take the money being offered personally, or I move out.

Again, do you think the bank would refuse my Mum's money? Or would they perhaps not care as long as they get paid? They didn't care up to that point after all, they got a cheque each month off a Wisdom, they never bothered to check the first name was Betty Wisdom, they just saw Wisdom.

But now I've lost my job, Betty Wisdom's money is no good to them, despite the fact now more than ever, Betty is more capable of paying than me?

 

[I'mARealWizard]

No you don't pay on its amenities at all. Doncaster pay £10,000 a year currently on rent and get all revenues. With that knowledge please now justify.

We don't pay for its amenities hey... :thinking about:

So if we don't pay for the facilities, the capacity, the specialist equipment/rooms, the eventual electronic scoreboard, those lovely turnstiles and not forgetting the innovative cashless food and drink sales, then how was the figure for rent decided upon?

Please enlighten me :wave:

 

[I'mARealWizard]

So I tell the bank look, I can't afford to pay it so the choice is you take the money being offered personally, or I move out.

Again, do you think the bank would refuse my Mum's money? Or would they perhaps not care as long as they get paid? They didn't care up to that point after all, they got a cheque each month off a Wisdom, they never bothered to check the first name was Betty Wisdom, they just saw Wisdom.

But now I've lost my job, Betty Wisdom's money is no good to them, despite the fact now more than ever, Betty is more capable of paying than me?

Give me the details of any bank that are happy for this to be an on-going arrangement to take the place of a pre-existing contract between two parties.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Give me the details of any bank that are happy for this to be an on-going arrangement to take the place of a pre-existing contract between two parties.

You're telling me the bank would refuse to take the money?

Seriously?

I suppose people demanding electricity bills also demand the person whose name the bill is in pays it, and refuse to accept the cash off anybody else?

It's not taking the place of a pre-existing contract at all, someone is offering to pay and they have a choice of either accepting the payment being offered, or not!

I'm to conclude you would refuse payment of debts then, and willingly put your own company out of money.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Give me the details of any bank that are happy for this to be an on-going arrangement to take the place of a pre-existing contract between two parties.

You're telling me the bank would refuse to take the money?

Seriously?

I suppose people demanding electricity bills also demand the person whose name the bill is in pays it, and refuse to accept the cash off anybody else?

It's not taking the place of a pre-existing contract at all, someone is offering to pay and they have a choice of either accepting the payment being offered, or not!

I'm to conclude you would refuse payment of debts then, and willingly put your own company out of money.

 

[I'mARealWizard]

You're telling me the bank would refuse to take the money?

Seriously?

I suppose people demanding electricity bills also demand the person whose name the bill is in pays it, and refuse to accept the cash off anybody else?

It's not taking the place of a pre-existing contract at all, someone is offering to pay and they have a choice of either accepting the payment being offered, or not!

I'm to conclude you would refuse payment of debts then, and willingly put your own company out of money.

The clue was with the use of the words 'on-going arrangement'

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The clue was with the use of the words 'on-going arrangement'

Well nobody denies the on going arrangement has been that Holdings have paid the bills.

Higgs don't deny that!

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Give me the details of any bank that are happy for this to be an on-going arrangement to take the place of a pre-existing contract between two parties.

Yellow pages?

 

[RPHunt]

No you don't pay on its amenities at all. Doncaster pay £10,000 a year currently on rent and get all revenues. With that knowledge please now justify.

Do get it right.

Doncaster pay £100k a year and all expenses. Previously, they were paying no rent but £281k a year to cover running expenses and it was costing the council more than this to run it. So, the true figure is around £400k a year - for a 15,000 seat stadium.

Edit - I should have mentioned that the council had expert external advice that Rovers should have been paying £450k-600k a year (including expenses) but they realised that was in excess of what Rovers would be willing to pay.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

The clue was with the use of the words 'on-going arrangement'

Yup...Yellow pages!

 

[James Smith]

You're telling me the bank would refuse to take the money?

Seriously?

I suppose people demanding electricity bills also demand the person whose name the bill is in pays it, and refuse to accept the cash off anybody else?

It's not taking the place of a pre-existing contract at all, someone is offering to pay and they have a choice of either accepting the payment being offered, or not!

I'm to conclude you would refuse payment of debts then, and willingly put your own company out of money.

I thought the issue wasn't about who was paying it was that the company who had contracted to use the facilities was now in admin. Therfore a new contract had to be drawn up with Holdings to reflect this change of user. I think (and I'm not a lawyer) that this would affect the centre legally for insurance purposes and the such like if they didn't. It's slightly different to utility bills etc.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

I thought the issue wasn't about who was paying it was that the company who had contracted to use the facilities was now in admin. Therfore a new contract had to be drawn up with Holdings to reflect this change of user. I think (and I'm not a lawyer) that this would affect the centre legally for insurance purposes and the such like if they didn't. It's slightly different to utility bills etc.

That too may be a valid point...but I think the Banks would take the money, first - explain their reasoning second...especially as the precedent has been set by accepting the payment up to now.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I thought the issue wasn't about who was paying it was that the company who had contracted to use the facilities was now in admin.

I have read it that the company contracted to use it is in administration.

The company who's been paying the bills isn't.

The administrator says damned if I'm starting to pay a bill this company has never paid before, why should I load more debt I'm now responsible for onto the company?

The company who's been paying the bills puts their hand up and says 'we'll still pay'.

The owner of the facilities says 'well we considered CCFC to be CCFC, be it Ltd. or holdings. As CCFC Ltd. is in administration we'll only talk to the administrator'.

The administrator says 'fine, I can't pay it, but I know someone who can'.

The facilities owners say 'nope, not talking to them'

The administrator, so as not to load more debt upon the company he is responsible for, thus moves the company out.

Which is exactly the action he, as administrator should be taking, surely?

you want the company in administration to be liable for more debt it can't pay?

Therefore it's not incompetent, it's not corrupt, he's not a c unit... he's just doing his job within his remit.

So he, as the messenger, is being shot down for having no ability to pay the bill.

It would be interesting if the academy would refuse payment from anybody else who offered it, wouldn't it...?

 

[James Smith]

I have read it that the company contracted to use it is in administration.

The company who's been paying the bills isn't.

The administrator says damned if I'm starting to pay a bill this company has never paid before, why should I load more debt I'm now responsible for onto the company?

The company who's been paying the bills puts their hand up and says 'we'll still pay'.

The owner of the facilities says 'well we considered CCFC to be CCFC, be it Ltd. or holdings. As CCFC Ltd. is in administration we'll only talk to the administrator'.

The administrator says 'fine, I can't pay it, but I know someone who can'.

The facilities owners say 'nope, not talking to them'

The administrator, so as not to load more debt upon the company he is responsible for, thus moves the company out.

Which is exactly the action he, as administrator should be taking, surely?

you want the company in administration to be liable for more debt it can't pay?

Therefore it's not incompetent, it's not corrupt, he's not a c unit... he's just doing his job within his remit.

So he, as the messenger, is being shot down for having no ability to pay the bill.

It would be interesting if the academy would refuse payment from anybody else who offered it, wouldn't it...?

What I read with interest was this bit:

But Knatchbull-Hugessen responded: “The agreements were with Ltd and specified that all staff and insurances and everything else were in Ltd and the assumption of anyone dealing with the football club was that Holdings and Ltd were integrated and therefore if payments came from one side or the other it was as though it came from Coventry City Football Club.

“Now we are told they are two totally different entities, in which case they were in breach of the agreements all along.

"If he is now telling the Trust that they have been in breach all along it’s up to them to rectify that breach and come back as CCFC Ltd or there have to be completely new agreements which we have been trying to avoid.”

This appears to say that they were treating LTD and Holdings as being under the same 'umbrella' (using the term someone did earlier) and the two were basically linked. Therefore they were happy to accept payment from an entity known as CCFC (Ltd or Holdings) because they were linked. Now the Trust has been told that Ltd is a distict entity from Holdings and as such the contract that is with Ltd is just that with Ltd. Also the one entity treated as CCFC should not have been treated as such given this new information about the divisions between the companies.

Why can't Holdings just get a new contract drawn up for the Academy to play at the Centre, could it be because the Golden Share and therefore the Academy isn't with Holdings?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

He also uses the word assumption.

As I said, they are more than welcome to ask the question.

The administrator is also more than within his rights to say the company he is responsible for has never paid the bill, and has no way of paying the bill. That is the company he was appointed as administrator for.

He has said someone else can pay the bills, you have taken the money before off them. by law at present they are different companies.

They have the choice of either taking the money or not, don't they? The consequence of not taking the money is city move out of the academy.

The academy choosing not to take the money does not make the administrator a c unit or corrupt however.

Again i repeat, do you think they would refuse payment had Gregor Rioch paid the bill himself personally? How about if Maggie Thatcher's estate had left a provision in her will to make a standing order to pay the bill for CCFC's academy? Would they refuse payment then?