James Smith
Well-Known Member
You might think that, though I couldn't say blackmail.
Acl back on cwr again (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter moleyskyblue
- Start date
You might think that, though I couldn't say blackmail.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
If SISU won't pay £30M to buy the Ricoh (based on £24M for council 1/2 and £6M for ACL 1/2) then how does paying £30M to build an inferior stadium with all attendant risks make any sense?
I say call their bluff, let SISU find the money to do that, buy the land, submit planning & engage architects & engineers to produce a design.
I say call their bluff, let SISU find the money to do that, buy the land, submit planning & engage architects & engineers to produce a design.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
as I said in my first post,
it will cost ACL over 700k that they can't afford to lose if they don't sign the CVA?
So its not a condition that will be refused its just a matter of when it is accepted!
imp:
'One nil, to the hedge fund boys one nil!
To the hedge fund boys one nil'
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
as I said in my first post,
it will cost ACL over 700k that they can't afford to lose if they don't sign the CVA?
So its not a condition that will be refused its just a matter of when it is accepted!
That will rather depend on the legal advice that ACL have been given.
With all the "accounts in a mess", with all the movements of assets, this is far from a standard clear cut exercise.
We will see.
As an aside, if all that you wrote above were true and it is a given that the CVA will be accepted - why would Joy bother making it a pre-condition?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
James Smith
Well-Known Member
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc?showall=1
Not saying the council are 100% squeaky clean in all this but it's not "normal business practice" to use a slight Fisherism, for a tenant to boycott the rent they agreed to without at least attempting to negotiate a reduction first. The managing agents on my flat that I rent out will kick the tenants out if they don't pay two months rent, the tenants have to put up a 1 & ½ months of rent with the agent so that if they do default I'm only down ½ a months rent.
Last edited:
duffer
Well-Known Member
as I said in my first post,
If they don't sign the CVA, it will cost ACL 700k that they can't afford to lose!
So its not a condition that will be refused its just a matter of when it is accepted!
There's a multi-million pound lease and the future of the club and possibly the club's owners riding on this. I wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions, personally.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
as I said in my first post,
it will cost ACL over 700k that they can't afford to lose if they don't sign the CVA?
So its not a condition that will be refused its just a matter of when it is accepted!
Not to bright are you grego !!!!
Why would someone except 1/2million if it means losing a 40million contract ?
grego_gee
New Member
Buying ACL would not buy the Ricoh - ACL only have the remainder of a 50 year lease on it.
SISU now see the benefit of owning their own stadium freehold for a similar outlay.
I think they will only be interested in paying £30-50m for the freehold of the Ricoh.
If that is up for negotiation they might be interested.
otherwise they will only negotiate a 3-5year deal to stay until the newbuild is ready.
imp:Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Let's not forget that Fisher claimed that plans for a new ground were being drawn up at least a month before the final rent negotiations with ACL. Either he's telling a barefaced lie or they never had any intention of co-operating.
WiganSkyBlue
Member
Well I think it is. And if the FL had any backbone they could come back with their own blackmail............er sorry, offer of "No talks, no GS".
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Buying ACL would not buy the Ricoh - ACL only have the remainder of a 50 year lease on it.
SISU now see the benefit of owning their own stadium freehold for a similar outlay.
I think they will only be interested in paying £30-50m for the freehold of the Ricoh.
If that is up for negotiation they might be interested.
otherwise they will only negotiate a 3-5year deal to stay until the newbuild is ready.
No one is likely to be offered the freehold, but maybe a 100 year leasehold.
I still don't believe they'll build a new stadium.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
thats just it,i dont care about business,i care about ccfc
as soon as people admit council are the opposite we will have no issue
business means more to council than ccfc do, so just wish they would stop acting like they are trying to keep ccfc in cov for any other reason than money
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
So if Joy wants the CVA signed off before any meeting I can only see 2 reasons:
1) she doesn't really want the meeting and is using this as a way out
2) they're getting worried that there is going to be an investigation
I don't see how, after these developments, the FL can still say there is no option to play at the Ricoh or that Otium should be allowed the Golden Share.
Does anyone believe if the CVA was signed, which would mean the end of the lease, SISU would actually turn up to the meeting or engage in any meaningful negotiation?
1) she doesn't really want the meeting and is using this as a way out
2) they're getting worried that there is going to be an investigation
I don't see how, after these developments, the FL can still say there is no option to play at the Ricoh or that Otium should be allowed the Golden Share.
Does anyone believe if the CVA was signed, which would mean the end of the lease, SISU would actually turn up to the meeting or engage in any meaningful negotiation?
Senior Vick from Alicante
Well-Known Member
Buying ACL would not buy the Ricoh - ACL only have the remainder of a 50 year lease on it.
SISU now see the benefit of owning their own stadium freehold for a similar outlay.
I think they will only be interested in paying £30-50m for the freehold of the Ricoh.
If that is up for negotiation they might be interested.
otherwise they will only negotiate a 3-5year deal to stay until the newbuild is ready.
SISU had already agreed heads of terms for the purchase of the charitys share for 6 million, they backed out of the deal and still owe the charity 29000 in legal bills, the charity are currently going to court to get this money back. I just cant see even with the purchase of ACL how the figure is much more than 30 million to buy the stadium outright?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Nope, can't see it.
But the club won't own the stadium. TF has never come out and said the club will own the stadium, just the revenues from within it! There lies a massive difference. SISU will own the grounds and charge a rent for it! So CCFC still in same situation as now!
jesus-wept
New Member
Can you explain who in your opinion are the Council ?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Guess who's SISU:
[video=youtube;i3Y8rfED6eo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Y8rfED6eo[/video]
[video=youtube;i3Y8rfED6eo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Y8rfED6eo[/video]
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
If they'd have bought the 1/2 share in 2007 then trimmed costs to the bone and taken a relegation they'd have been sitting pretty by now with no cash flow issues & ready to sell at a profit.
But who put Ranson in charge & took a punt at promotion? Yes the woman in charge did. Mistake after mistake compounded by mistakes..
Pete in Portugal
Well-Known Member
I'll try hard to be objective and even handed, but that's easier said than done, given the behaviour of some of the participants in this sad debacle.
I think it's clear to everyone, including ACL, that SISU's main short-term objective is to get the CVA signed, so that (i) the lease can be annulled and (ii) they can exit administration. Presumably the next stage would be to file their overdue accounts, (assuming the auditors have signed them off), so that the FL lift the transfer embargo.
I believe it's also clear that it's not in ACL's interests to sign the CVA, because (i) that would mean they would get a fraction of money owed to them including the value of the remaining lease (ii) the investigations into the actions of SISU prior to administration would not continue (iii) they would lose any negotiating leverage which they currently have. (iv) ACL must be very concerned about how Compass and Ricoh will react, once the lease is dead and buried,
So the result, as per bloody usual, is a stalemate and no talks, with or without FL involvement. SISU continue single-mindedly with their plans to play at Sixfields, in order to financially distress ACL and buy the arena on the cheap. Meanwhile our club goes down the pan and I get sadder and sadder & angrier and angrier!!!
Last edited:
As long as you are also happy being wrong its going to be bliss for you
Pete in Portugal
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not!
Yes it is but not by me!
I just made an observation on an open forum saying it was an acceptance with one condition.
It was another observer that went onto the radio and said it was a refusal!
No it wasn't an acceptance with a condition, it was a refusal to consider it until a condition was met. Once the condition is met Sorrow can "consider it" and decide no.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
It's just plain mental
On the one hand SISU are telling the FL , that they have to do a massive thing of moving a club 35 miles away. They say they have to do this as ACL refuse to speak them.
The FL say they have to reluctantly agree and do it with a saddened heart.
Then ACL say we will talk, can we do it through you FL?
FL say great and contact SISU with the great news.
SISU say give us time to think about it. ( alarm bells should start to ring for FL)
Think about what just come and negotiate see if you can get a better deal than you have at Northampton whilst building your stadium.
What do you have to lose it is not compulsory by coming that you have to sign a deal.
You should be chuffed you told us ACL won't speak to you so you are having to do something you don't want to do?
Next SISU say let's negotiate about meeting to negotiate.
Surely at this stage the FL have absolutely no choice but to say to SISU.
Sorry you told us ACL won't talk hence we ok'ed the ground move.
You either talk or we now veto it on the grounds that circumstances have changed.
On the one hand SISU are telling the FL , that they have to do a massive thing of moving a club 35 miles away. They say they have to do this as ACL refuse to speak them.
The FL say they have to reluctantly agree and do it with a saddened heart.
Then ACL say we will talk, can we do it through you FL?
FL say great and contact SISU with the great news.
SISU say give us time to think about it. ( alarm bells should start to ring for FL)
Think about what just come and negotiate see if you can get a better deal than you have at Northampton whilst building your stadium.
What do you have to lose it is not compulsory by coming that you have to sign a deal.
You should be chuffed you told us ACL won't speak to you so you are having to do something you don't want to do?
Next SISU say let's negotiate about meeting to negotiate.
Surely at this stage the FL have absolutely no choice but to say to SISU.
Sorry you told us ACL won't talk hence we ok'ed the ground move.
You either talk or we now veto it on the grounds that circumstances have changed.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
To exit administration, avoid a 15 point penalty, allow accounts to be submitted and embargo lifted?
Otis
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Exactly right. It seems the only evidence they had in the first place that they couldn't play at the Ricoh was SISU saying they couldn't. Now it must be very clear to them that the option to play there still exists but SISU aren't interested. Just tell them they're not allowing the groundshare and if SISU don't agree to it they won't get the golden share.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I understand that Stupot but I meant in the context of accepting or rejecting a meeting at this time. Surely to get a solution to stay at the Ricoh both sides have to compromise at some point
stupot07
Well-Known Member
It's a difficult one OSB, PWKH has already been on radio this week saying they will very likely reject the CVA as they want ccfc and sisu investigating, ccfc staying at the Ricoh doesn't guarantee they will sign the CVA, and likewise signing the cva doesnt guarantee that ccfc will return. If I was sisu I think I would be asking for the CVA to be signed first. ACL might counter that will requesting the judicial review be withdrawn....but technically that is not against ACL.
Last edited:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
But what benefits the council from keeping our club at the Ricoh? They might get an approval rating uplift in the polls and some related benefits that come from having the club there. However on the money front ACL haven't yet paid a dividend to their shareholders. And if the Ricoh can survive (and I'm not saying it can) without CCFC then whilst there is obviously a financial benefit to ACL from having us there the council don't get anything yet. They might be able to sell the stadium lease for more at the end of the day, so maybe that's it.
The lease plays a significant role and hold a value as long as the CVA is undecided. So to say ACL wanted a negotiation 'no strings attached' is false. The 'attached string' is the lease. Sisu want the current lease broken as that will remove its value from talks about a potential future at the RA - and ACL want the lease 'alive' as a bargaining chip in such talks.
If ACL really - I mean really(!) - want to negotiate 'no strings attached', then the talks can begin when they have decided on the CVA. Signed or refused.
Senior Vick from Alicante
Well-Known Member
All points are correct Pete. As a matter of principle now ACL must reject the CVA. We all love the club and have its best interest at heart, but we must all join ACL and make a stand so that other clubs in what ever league don't have to go through this again. It should be against the law, and may well be, what the owners of the club have done. They should be made an example of and this should lead to government legislation to stop it ever happening in the future. The league and the FA have been left to administer the game in this country for far to long with out proper legislation, our plight over the last 20 years is partly down to this lack of governance, they sit in London getting fat on salary's paid for by the league members and give us poor guidance, a crap national team and infrastructure. For the good of the game nationally the likes of SISU must not be let in in the first place. Joe Elliot is a man linked in the fabric of our club and I have no issues with him what so ever but does a man that ran a small car spares shop have enough business acumen to deal with the likes of SISU who swim with bigger fish on a daily basis. The plain truth is he probably doesn't, if he did back then he would have probably said get lost and we would have gone into administration. The very people who run football clubs nowadays are at the top of their game and need to be to stop sharks like SISU doing what they are. This industry is not the same as it was 20 years ago, the likes of Joe would admit that they don't have the skill sets to deal with these types of corporations but the FA has just tottle'd on and buried their head in the sand instead of advising people like him what they should be doing.
Pete in Portugal
Well-Known Member
Quite! It appears that 'compromise' is word not recognised by JS. Both sides seem to have very entrenched positions at present, possibly for the reasons stated in my earlier post in this thread. The risk is that, if this continues much longer, CCFC Ltd may not be the only entity to end up being liquidated or at least going into administration. I can't see how Otium can survive for long, without a normal Sky Blue fan-base. And I can't see how ACL will survive without the football club, particularly if Compass takes legal action against them, and/or Ricoh withdraw their sponsorship. If there is no compromise on both sides then is this is just going to depend on which organisation can hold out for the longest? Meanwhile our club will continue it's inexorable decline.
Senior Vick from Alicante
Well-Known Member
CVA rejected means Appleton will have the golden share and control of the club through it. Club is still in administration and the offer to play at the Ricoh for free would stand and Appleton would probably accept this until agreement could be reached.