Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Look at the offer being rejected and tell me who's the one taking the piss.
Arena Construction Completion Report (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lordsummerisle
- Start date
Look at the offer being rejected and tell me who's the one taking the piss.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Given what they've made, what other councils have done and what this council will have to do to attract any other part here its the council hands down.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
So it has been taken off the rent arrears then.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
No because we're obliged to keep it full.
grego_gee
New Member
Apparently
" Fisher and club director Mark Labovitch, told the Guardian last week that they did not expect a wealthy backer to come in for the club and that alternative arrangements for playing away from the Ricoh Arena were already in place. They had been in lengthy discussions with the Football League about building a new stadium nearer to Coventry's city centre and in the meantime planned to ground-share with a League club in the west Midlands"
Sounds like Walsall, and a site nearer the centre! Whoa hey!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/football-league-blog/2013/mar/20/coventry-city-high-court-administration?
imp:Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
He is talking completely out of his arse.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Then why bother taking it out of the escrow account at all?
The Escrow account is down £500,000 because it has been taken out to pay the rent arrears, therefore the rent arrears are reduced by £500,000.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Indeed but the greedy bloated ACL wants its cake and eat in and the delusional supporters want them to devour it as well.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Rent arrears may be reduced but we are obliged to keep the escrow at £500k-it's not complicated in the slightest. Fisher has insinuated that this counts as the club paying rent-it patently doesn't.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
If it's been used to reduce the rent arrears, then it has been used to pay the rent.
It wasn't ACL's money to take either, unless the rent was in arrears, the rent was in arrears, so they took it to pay the rent.
The money is the escrow account was the clubs money from some sort of ground improvement loan or something wasn't it? So could only be used towards anything Arena related?
Which it has been.
If the money could not be used in extremis to pay rent, then it shouldn't have been taken, but if the sole reason for it being there was in case rent wasn't paid, then it has now fulfilled it's use.
Clearly the pro SiSU gang trying to use a Blair WMD reasoning to justify the unjustifiable.
The council SOLD land to tesco - This was (to nearest million) 42 +17 million which is 59 million + £10 equity + 21 million loan!
As anyone who has ever purchased a property, its very rare to pay entirely by cash/equity.
The council sold land, obtained a loan, and put in £10 million in effect a 10% deposit!
ACL / Council's figures add up - SiSU's don't!
Once again the sisu trolls wax lyrical how they "saved" the club, when there is absolutely no evidence !
Sisu insist they have ploughed in £40 million, but they also claimed that when they took over the debts were cleared.
Considering SiSU have equitised £60 million of debt that means in the 5 years they have been in control of the club, they have lost £100 million!
ANYONE who supports such blatant liars as Sisu really has to take a long hard look at themselves, because what they have done and what they are doing is indefensible.
I appreciate that you have jibbered on relentlessly as to how great SiSU is, but their figures do not stack up, their defense doesn;t stack up, and ACL/council have been open and honest and provided the figures for revue - when was the last time SiSu was prepared to do that?
The council SOLD land to tesco - This was (to nearest million) 42 +17 million which is 59 million + £10 equity + 21 million loan!
As anyone who has ever purchased a property, its very rare to pay entirely by cash/equity.
The council sold land, obtained a loan, and put in £10 million in effect a 10% deposit!
ACL / Council's figures add up - SiSU's don't!
Once again the sisu trolls wax lyrical how they "saved" the club, when there is absolutely no evidence !
Sisu insist they have ploughed in £40 million, but they also claimed that when they took over the debts were cleared.
Considering SiSU have equitised £60 million of debt that means in the 5 years they have been in control of the club, they have lost £100 million!
ANYONE who supports such blatant liars as Sisu really has to take a long hard look at themselves, because what they have done and what they are doing is indefensible.
I appreciate that you have jibbered on relentlessly as to how great SiSU is, but their figures do not stack up, their defense doesn;t stack up, and ACL/council have been open and honest and provided the figures for revue - when was the last time SiSu was prepared to do that?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Are you still alive? Hasn't the Sky Blues Trust got a Fatwa out on you?
mrtickle
Member
The council are not a business. They are meant to represent the community of which the club is part of. I've said it before the council appear just as bad as sisu in this matter!
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
I am so confused.
Who owned the land on the old gasworks site ?.
I thought it was british gas / transco. It wasn't ccfc but they seemed to have been to speculate with it as if they owned it, negotiating deals with Tesco as well as spending money on the decontamination.
Who owned the land on the old gasworks site ?.
I thought it was british gas / transco. It wasn't ccfc but they seemed to have been to speculate with it as if they owned it, negotiating deals with Tesco as well as spending money on the decontamination.
coundonskyblue
New Member
<p>
Poor business decisions by ccfc are business. Should the evil council have not stepped in to rescue the project?
Ccfc also have a responsibility to the community, yet this is largely ignored.
Poor business decisions by ccfc are business. Should the evil council have not stepped in to rescue the project?
Ccfc also have a responsibility to the community, yet this is largely ignored.
coundonskyblue
New Member
<p>
They owned an option to buy the land. Why they didn't just buy the land is a mystery.
They owned an option to buy the land. Why they didn't just buy the land is a mystery.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
How have the club a responsibility to the community?
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'd suggest the Council did back the club when it bailed out the stadium project when it was about to fail because of CCFC's hideous mismanagement.
However there are about 300,000 people in the city, and the council has a duty to all of them, not just the 10,000 or so hard-core CCFC fans.
Even if these weren't hard times, and there weren't things like SureStart centres being closed and carers being laid off, the Council still has a duty to make sure it recovers its investment of public money.
SISU have quite clearly threatened the viability of the Arena, by the rent strike, their failure to negotiate in good faith, and their subsequent comments regarding liquidating the club. Personally speaking, I can't really blame the council for us being where we are.
However there are about 300,000 people in the city, and the council has a duty to all of them, not just the 10,000 or so hard-core CCFC fans.
Even if these weren't hard times, and there weren't things like SureStart centres being closed and carers being laid off, the Council still has a duty to make sure it recovers its investment of public money.
SISU have quite clearly threatened the viability of the Arena, by the rent strike, their failure to negotiate in good faith, and their subsequent comments regarding liquidating the club. Personally speaking, I can't really blame the council for us being where we are.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
January: CCC bail out ACL to the tune of £14M
April: CCC have to save £65M over the next three years and slash the community services budget by £15M.
April: CCC have to save £65M over the next three years and slash the community services budget by £15M.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I thought that the Arena could operate perfectly well without CCFC? Fail to see how the rent strike could affect the viability of it if that is the case.
Though of course bailing out a commercial entity with a £14million loan(which is more than it's initial investment in the Arena) could be seen as a poor use of resources when as you say, SureStart centres are being closed and carers are being laid off.
The council has already received £11million more than it's initial investment of public money, so the argument that it has a duty to make sure it recovers it investment of public money is surely null and void.
Though of course bailing out a commercial entity with a £14million loan(which is more than it's initial investment in the Arena) could be seen as a poor use of resources when as you say, SureStart centres are being closed and carers are being laid off.
The council has already received £11million more than it's initial investment of public money, so the argument that it has a duty to make sure it recovers it investment of public money is surely null and void.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Your financial math is slightly flawed.
Read here: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/11316-FAQ-2-Money-Talks
Edit: No claims in there, only facts extracted from the accounts.
grego_gee
New Member
Really? How did they justify spending £14m on rescuing ACL then?
Because making sure ccfc stay separated from the stadium is more important than community service?
Diehard Si
New Member
Really? How did they justify spending £14m on rescuing ACL then?
Don't confuse budgetary limits (profit and loss expenditure) with the reallocation of funds ( a balance sheet movement). Just because they have cash, doesn't mean it will be part of the budget to spend it.
That 14m is now a debtor asset rather than a cash asset.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
SBT Translation:
It's ok to close day care centres and care homes as long as ACL are able to keep holding wedding fayres in their "community asset".
It's ok to close day care centres and care homes as long as ACL are able to keep holding wedding fayres in their "community asset".
coundonskyblue
New Member
<p>
I didn't realise it was a gift of £14m for acl.
Here was me with this crazy idea that acl had to make repayments with interest.
I didn't realise it was a gift of £14m for acl.
Here was me with this crazy idea that acl had to make repayments with interest.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Not as crazy as closing down centres that cater for the vulnerable people in Coventry. You're attitude is a little different when you drone on about the poor Higgs Charity, isn't it?
I don't care if they are paying back the money with interest. ACL were paying the money back themselves anyway - they are constantly saying how they can survive without the Football Club - so CCC should have said, OK then. Survive, without the football club.
They then could have used that money on more important things. Things more important than football.
I don't care if they are paying back the money with interest. ACL were paying the money back themselves anyway - they are constantly saying how they can survive without the Football Club - so CCC should have said, OK then. Survive, without the football club.
They then could have used that money on more important things. Things more important than football.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'm baffled, There's a lot of conflated arguments here. First up, the Council haven't recieved a penny from ACL, have they? There hasn't been a dividend on the council's share of ACL.
However, if the council didn't take over the £14m mortgage from Yorkshire then there was the real risk that the bank might have got twitchy because of SISU's refusal to pay the rent. That could've led to SISU picking up the stadium for next to bugger all, and the Council losing all of its investment so far. There's a decent justification for taking over the mortgage, I'd have thought.
The benefit to SISU of the council doing that, was that the payments on the mortgage went down, so the rent could be offered for less.
So as well as getting the stadium built when CCFC couldn't afford it, they've also helped push down the rent, and they haven't yet made any money from ACL. And yet, somehow, the council is anti-CCFC, or profiteering. I can't see that, sorry.
However, if the council didn't take over the £14m mortgage from Yorkshire then there was the real risk that the bank might have got twitchy because of SISU's refusal to pay the rent. That could've led to SISU picking up the stadium for next to bugger all, and the Council losing all of its investment so far. There's a decent justification for taking over the mortgage, I'd have thought.
The benefit to SISU of the council doing that, was that the payments on the mortgage went down, so the rent could be offered for less.
So as well as getting the stadium built when CCFC couldn't afford it, they've also helped push down the rent, and they haven't yet made any money from ACL. And yet, somehow, the council is anti-CCFC, or profiteering. I can't see that, sorry.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
You are either a bit confused or deliberately being obtuse.
The council received £21million for the 50 year lease from ACL, which is what the mortgage was for from Yorkshire Bank.
An £11million pound profit immediately from their £10million investment in the aconstruction of the stadium.
Don't deny that the refusal to pay rent may have affected the viability of ACL, though most of the ones on the side of ACL seem to think that it's perfectly viable without CCFC, so it shouldn't really have needed the council to pay off the Yorkshire Bank on it's behalf and get better terms from the council.
Some council taxpayers, if ACL is as viable as a stand-alone entity as many say, may wonder why £14million was required to be taken from council funds(at the expense of cuts in other services more pertinent to them than Bruce Springsteen) to shore up ACL?
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/club/community/
Evil, evil club...doing things in and around the community and not telling the world about it....
grego_gee
New Member
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Data/Cabinet/200604041400/Agenda/09%20-%20ricoh%20arena%20-%20operation%20of%20the%20ricoh%20arena%20ricoh%20arena%20funding%20hotel%20developments.pdf#search=%22acl%20%22
Interesting,
Did the council already make an initial profit of £11m on the Arena?
They invested £10m, and then received £21m for a 50 year lease off ACL, (which they obtained from a bank mortgage)
CCFC paid £1.3m for 6 years reducing the mortgage to £14m, which CCC then refinanced for them....????
Spot the hedge fund!
imp:
Interesting,
Did the council already make an initial profit of £11m on the Arena?
They invested £10m, and then received £21m for a 50 year lease off ACL, (which they obtained from a bank mortgage)
CCFC paid £1.3m for 6 years reducing the mortgage to £14m, which CCC then refinanced for them....????
Spot the hedge fund!
imp:Keep it factual greggo ,the loan ACL are paying down through the 50 yr lease covers the Construction cost Shortfall ,its a vehicle created to ensure the thing got built ,Local Government we were told at the time can't be seen to support a private entity.
In fact the conservatives on the council opposed the plan to support the rescue of the project.
If only the Club could have secured those funds ,Why was that again?would they have a better chance now?? Just why could'nt we ?Our debts were less and we were a division or two higher with double the fanbase
In fact the conservatives on the council opposed the plan to support the rescue of the project.
If only the Club could have secured those funds ,Why was that again?would they have a better chance now?? Just why could'nt we ?Our debts were less and we were a division or two higher with double the fanbase
grego_gee
New Member
On deeper examination it does look like the £21m went into the project and not into the Councils back pocket. But they still have it mortgaged and the club are effectively paying the mortgage.
Re your question "Why couldnt we get the finance"? It looks like the bigest finacing came from the land sale to Tescos, Perhaps the "Why couldn't we?" relates to the pull the council could exert by promising planning permision in conjuntion with the land sale? Maybe this will come into question in the coming judicial review.
It looks a bit like the opposite of planning blight, I am not sure how this is covered in law.
imp:
Last edited:
Good point Brighton. But how dare you criticise Torchbraindead & Grendimwits beloved sisu. They are perfectly justified in ALL that they are doing and are 100% clean on this. There is NOTHING at all wrong with owners of a club charging itself £2.6m in management fees, having £34 million wiped off debts when they join yet still asking any perspective buyer to pay the FULL money, and they have been utterly open and honest with all their dealings with everyone.
They forked out a fortune to buy this club (£11), so please stop attacking poor old sisu, they are cute little bunnies who were so cruelly considered liars by a judge (although he chose his words very very carefully, and very unfairly considered sharks by the financial world!
Grendel & torch are the keyboard warriors who will save the club in their heads!
