ACL make a bid for CCFC Ltd (10 Viewers)

[Grendel]

Resorting to calling someone you've never met a moron.

Hmmmm what a nice person you are.

I would normally apologise but this is Sky Blue John someone who makes even less sense than you.

 

---

[wingy]

And it doesn't make it £15.6million unless Wingy is doubling the CCFC income?

Which would then give the same percentage as you did previously!

No what I'm saying is the 10 yr deal signed between ACL and Compass in circa March 2008 was valued at £125M. meaning overall anticipated turnover each yr was £12.5M. now £15.6M.
If ACL turned over £7.8M. so did compass so Stu's 28%0f turnover becomes !4% .
The 25% stake of Compass in IEC was another joint venture to raise income for improvements @ a Cost of £4M.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

If ACL bought the club this would be for two reasons;

One - to stop a rival bidder taking over and trying to dictate terms of the lease. This would be to avoid a new company buying and demanding a low rent and control of ACL. They would worry that this new company would have public support (though Sky Blue John clearly doesn't want a low rent -- he wants the council to keep shafting us but he is a fool as we all know) so they could buy and try and sell with a high lease. Will fail as no one will be interested especially as the football club will fail a volunatary CVA and be minus 15 points at kick off

They will try and run the club themselves. They would have no means of loaning the club the type of money needed to fund it to be anywhere near competitive. The wage budget would be tiny and the history of council owned institutions making a commercial success of anything is at best dubious. ACL would have folded years ago without the rent from the club and would have last year but for the council loan arrangement.

It is bizarre that some people seem excited at this prospect given other potential suitors. Actually its not bizarre just typical of some of the people on here.

But its what you wanted just because its the wrong way round!

 

[Grendel]

But its what you wanted just because its the wrong way round!

I want it to benefit the football club not the council.

You want it the other way round then?

 

[wingy]

Grendal I don't see your view prevailing .TBH if SISU run us for 6 more months we could equally be Liquidated.
If ACL get to buy the Club someone elses money is Involved as they can't use public money and in that scenario they can't exert the control you suggest .

 

[Grendel]

Grendal I don't see your view prevailing .TBH if SISU run us for 6 more months we could equally be Liquidated.
If ACL get to buy the Club someone elses money is Involved as they can't use public money and in that scenario they can't exert the control you suggest .

In that case why would anyone give them the money? The other party may as well purchase first hand.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

I want it to benefit the football club not the council.

You want it the other way round then?

Im just saying you wanted the club and acl together told you to be carefull what you wished for

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

If ACL bought the club this would be for two reasons;

One - to stop a rival bidder taking over and trying to dictate terms of the lease. This would be to avoid a new company buying and demanding a low rent and control of ACL. They would worry that this new company would have public support (though Sky Blue John clearly doesn't want a low rent -- he wants the council to keep shafting us but he is a fool as we all know) so they could buy and try and sell with a high lease. Will fail as no one will be interested especially as the football club will fail a volunatary CVA and be minus 15 points at kick off

They will try and run the club themselves. They would have no means of loaning the club the type of money needed to fund it to be anywhere near competitive. The wage budget would be tiny and the history of council owned institutions making a commercial success of anything is at best dubious. ACL would have folded years ago without the rent from the club and would have last year but for the council loan arrangement.

It is bizarre that some people seem excited at this prospect given other potential suitors. Actually its not bizarre just typical of some of the people on here.

Generally someone buys a company because they don't want others to have it instead-this is nothing new. If we are to believe Tim then SISU have changed their mind since January and are now happy to fund losses and a new stadium for the next 3-4 years.

If any other party offers them all their money back at once why would they decline?

 

[wingy]

In that case why would anyone give them the money? The other party may as well purchase first hand.

Now theres a question. Compass/Higgs.

 

[lordsummerisle]

No what I'm saying is the 10 yr deal signed between ACL and Compass in circa March 2008 was valued at £125M. meaning overall anticipated turnover each yr was £12.5M. now £15.6M.
If ACL turned over £7.8M. so did compass so Stu's 28%0f turnover becomes !4% .
The 25% stake of Compass in IEC was another joint venture to raise income for improvements @ a Cost of £4M.

That headline figure of £125million was nothing more than a headline, think that OSB explained it one time.

Can't remember the exact details, but nothing like that figure, just spin really.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I would normally apologise but this is Sky Blue John someone who makes even less sense than you.

I reckon you must have forum Tourettes

 

[stupot07]

No what I'm saying is the 10 yr deal signed between ACL and Compass in circa March 2008 was valued at £125M. meaning overall anticipated turnover each yr was £12.5M. now £15.6M.
If ACL turned over £7.8M. so did compass so Stu's 28%0f turnover becomes !4% .
The 25% stake of Compass in IEC was another joint venture to raise income for improvements @ a Cost of £4M.

Is the ccfc (and casino?) rent a seperate from the compass 50:50 partnership with ACL? ACL was definitely mentioned as a creditor in the admin report but I can't remember compass being mentioned.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I reckon you must have forum Tourettes

There's an awful lot worse than that said on here.


I was accused of being a plagiarist.

Their words, not mine.

 

[Bluegloucester]

Is the ccfc (and casino?) rent a seperate from the compass 50:50 partnership with ACL? ACL was definitely mentioned as a creditor in the admin report but I can't remember compass being mentioned.

Casino has it's own lease. Compass has no direct deal with CCFC

 

[James Smith]

Fucking hell PKWH, is that you?

No no I'm PWKH, Grendel said so.

 

[James Smith]

If ACL bought the club this would be for two reasons;

One - to stop a rival bidder taking over and trying to dictate terms of the lease. This would be to avoid a new company buying and demanding a low rent and control of ACL. They would worry that this new company would have public support (though Sky Blue John clearly doesn't want a low rent -- he wants the council to keep shafting us but he is a fool as we all know) so they could buy and try and sell with a high lease. Will fail as no one will be interested especially as the football club will fail a volunatary CVA and be minus 15 points at kick off

They will try and run the club themselves. They would have no means of loaning the club the type of money needed to fund it to be anywhere near competitive. The wage budget would be tiny and the history of council owned institutions making a commercial success of anything is at best dubious. ACL would have folded years ago without the rent from the club and would have last year but for the council loan arrangement.

It is bizarre that some people seem excited at this prospect given other potential suitors. Actually its not bizarre just typical of some of the people on here.

Far more likely that they're bidding for the information they would get as potential buyers of Ltd. Don't forget that according to Tim no-one is bidding for the club (it's not for sale remember) just Ltd which merely holds the lease. Therefore as CCFC have left the Ricoh "for good", ACL might be bidding just to get the lease back. Maybe they have a tenant for the stadium lined up and no longer need CCFC as one. I think it should be possible to discout this though because they said the doors were still open to the club, unless that's changed recently. Hope Tim hasn't taken his bluff too far.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Far more likely that they're bidding for the information they would get as potential buyers of Ltd. Don't forget that according to Tim no-one is bidding for the club (it's not for sale remember) just Ltd which merely holds the lease. Therefore as CCFC have left the Ricoh "for good", ACL might be bidding just to get the lease back. Maybe they have a tenant for the stadium lined up and no longer need CCFC as one. I think it should be possible to discout this though because they said the doors were still open to the club, unless that's changed recently. Hope Tim hasn't taken his bluff too far.

Don't think ACL would need to 'get the lease back' in such a way, would they? They could prove the club to be n breach and tear the contract up at much lower cost

 

[mattylad]

that lease contract is only good for wiping ur bum now

 

[Ashdown1]

Fuck me! ACL, can't think of anything worse, unless they sell it on immediately to someone else.

Squirm squirm, loving it. Make sure you are first in line for a season ticket Mr Cov City !!! LoL !!

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Feck me ACL City here we come!!

 

[blueflint]

that would be a result imo ground and all income in one place get a good manager be careful who is bought in transfers get rid of dead wood and move on

 

[blueflint]

Don't think ACL would need to 'get the lease back' in such a way, would they? They could prove the club to be n breach and tear the contract up at much lower cost

they have already proved that in court they only need to recoup some of the back rent

 

[Otis]

No Sisu/ACL bias here, but the bottom line is between these two parties that we are faced with;.

1. Sisu owning us, taking us away from the city for at least 3 years on the promise of a new stadium

or

2. ACL owning us and us staying in Coventry at the Ricoh, bringing the ownership together.

 

[blueflint]

ACL would have folded years ago without the rent from the club and would have last year but for the council loan arrangement.


grendal that is utter tripe and you know it a million profit last year proves that.
and if they had known city wouldn't be paying rent they could of arranged more concerts etc and made even more

 

[blueflint]

No Sisu/ACL bias here, but the bottom line is between these two parties that we are faced with;.

1. Sisu owning us, taking us away from the city for at least 3 years on the promise of a new stadium

or

2. ACL owning us and us staying in Coventry at the Ricoh, bringing the ownership together.

otis its a no brainer ACL and one entity wins

 

[theferret]

Considering what we know about the other interested parties, it beggars belief that people seem genuinely excited by the prospect of ACL owning the football club. The only consolation is that they haven't a hope in hell of being selected as preferred bidders.

There is a contradiction here I cannot get my head around. On the one hand people are talking about uniting the club and the stadium, but then the same people go on to say that ACL would sell the club on, so which is it? Of course, by selling the club on to a third party they could dictate the terms of the lease - and they would surely engineer a deal that was in their best interests first and foremost.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

 

[torchomatic]

Squirm squirm, loving it. Make sure you are first in line for a season ticket Mr Cov City !!! LoL !!

What are you on about? why am i squirming? i will be getting a season ticket if we stay at the ricoh regardless of who is in charge, though hopefully not SISU or ACL.

You were having a wriggle yourself yesterday no doubt reading your Pro-SISU posts alongside those of VoR.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

 

[torchomatic]

ACL would have folded years ago without the rent from the club and would have last year but for the council loan arrangement.


grendal that is utter tripe and you know it a million profit last year proves that.
and if they had known city wouldn't be paying rent they could of arranged more concerts etc and made even more

Do you really believe that?

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

 

[duffer]

Must confess that I didn't see that one coming. I wouldn't be much behind ACL running the club in the long term, but it's hard to see how they could do a worse job than SISU (who have somehow managed to load £60m of debts onto a non-trading subsiduary).

I would imagine the strategy is to finally unite the club and the stadium, either in total or in part, and then look to offload to a buyer without all of the smoke and mirrors SISU bullsh*t. If we're already attracting attention despite all of the muddy water that SISU and Fisher have slung around, then consider how much more attractive we'll look as a straightforward deal.

One thing seems likely, whoever 'wins' the bid, this won't be over quickly...

 

[dongonzalos]

Must confess that I didn't see that one coming. I wouldn't be much behind ACL running the club in the long term, but it's hard to see how they could do a worse job than SISU (who have somehow managed to load £60m of debts onto a non-trading subsiduary).

I would imagine the strategy is to finally unite the club and the stadium, either in total or in part, and then look to offload to a buyer without all of the smoke and mirrors SISU bullsh*t. If we're already attracting attention despite all of the muddy water that SISU and Fisher have slung around, then consider how much more attractive we'll look as a straightforward deal.

One thing seems likely, whoever 'wins' the bid, this won't be over quickly...

Exactly ..........

 

[Otis]

Considering what we know about the other interested parties, it beggars belief that people seem genuinely excited by the prospect of ACL owning the football club. The only consolation is that they haven't a hope in hell of being selected as preferred bidders.

There is a contradiction here I cannot get my head around. On the one hand people are talking about uniting the club and the stadium, but then the same people go on to say that ACL would sell the club on, so which is it? Of course, by selling the club on to a third party they could dictate the terms of the lease - and they would surely engineer a deal that was in their best interests first and foremost.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

We shouldn't be excited. Would rather new owners entirely came in.

But if it was a choice between ACL with remaining in Coventry against Sisu and leaving Coventry then it has to be a no brainer doesn't it?

And as others have said, it would only be ACL for them then to sell on to someone else. It wouldn't be ACL for any length of time you would have thought.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

We shouldn't be excited. Would rather new owners entirely came in.

But if it was a choice between ACL with remaining in Coventry against Sisu and leaving Coventry then it has to be a no brainer doesn't it?

And as others have said, it would only be ACL for them then to sell on to someone else. It wouldn't be ACL for any length of time you would have thought.

So what is the point of bidding for it? Would there time not be better uses working alongside a deal for Haskell/Byng to run the club and own the arena?

 

[theferret]

And as others have said, it would only be ACL for them then to sell on to someone else. It wouldn't be ACL for any length of time you would have thought.

So why are you and others using the 'one entity' argument, when it is clear to everyone that this isn't their intention and that they would simply sell the club on?

Here's an idea, let's bypass that process completely and just sell directly to PH4 or one of the other consortiums? ACL are acting in their own self-interest here, because otherwise they would keep out of it and throw their weight behind one of the other bids. Under no circumstances should we be supporting the idea of ACL having control of the club and thus the ability to dictate the terms of a sale to a third party.

 

[torchomatic]

Precisely this for me. PWKH is losing control of the Gravy Train and this is an attempt to get it back on track; dictating terms for rent to whoever the new owners are going to be. I don't like it. Sell direct to PH4 or whoever else can afford it.

Under no circumstances should we be supporting the idea of ACL having control of the club and thus the ability to dictate the terms of a sale to a third party.

 

[chiefdave]

There is a contradiction here I cannot get my head around. On the one hand people are talking about uniting the club and the stadium, but then the same people go on to say that ACL would sell the club on, so which is it? Of course, by selling the club on to a third party they could dictate the terms of the lease - and they would surely engineer a deal that was in their best interests first and foremost.

When I mentioned sell the club on I meant including the stadium. So ACL pick up CCFC, move the stadium ownership (if not the freehold at least the lease) to CCFC and sell it all off as one package. Higgs get their money back, the loan gets paid off, and depending on the buyer, the council gets the regeneration they are looking for.