Here comes the crunch! (4 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

tbf if they have done anything illegal it would be nice to know (as indeed it would with any other previous board members who might, hypothetically, have done something).

I just don't understand why refusal of the CVA is the only way to get to that.

I would imagine it's a matter of how you get the process started. ACL, or anyone else for that matter, don't have access to the books or internal workings of SISU so while they may be certain something that shouldn't have happened, such has asset stripping, has taken place, compiling enough evidence for a criminal case to be launched would be very difficult. Reject the CVA and move into the liquidation process and a deeper investigation is, I believe, automatic. If things start turning up then I would imagine you're into the realms of forensic accountants and in depth investigations.

How long this would last and what it would mean for CCFC is open to argument. Surely the FL wouldn't allow SISU to continue owning the Golden Share if any such circumstances arose. I would imagine we'd end up in limbo, in admin in all but name, while the investigation was carried out but I have no idea how long these things take. Personally I would take a 12 months like Pompey had and another relegation. Frankly they look in a much better positon than us at the moment even if they are a division lower.

 

---

[TheRoyalScam]

i think she means the 14 million pounds the council used of tax payers money to prop up their own business. ACL will have to sign the agreement if they want to retrieve some of that money. without the club the stadium is going to run at a bigger loss, a loss it has proven it can not stand up to. The mortgage can not be kept up by taxes, meaning eventually the coucil will lose its grip on the ricoh. maybe the 3 year plan is actually how long the sisu accountants have given ACL to go bust! just a thought

Oh dear - wrong on so many issues again, of which the phrase '14 million pounds the council used of tax payers money' has been pointed out to you previously iirc.

 

[Grendel]

Talking of £14m you've never answered the question about council loans (both Swansea and ours) that I asked you in this thread #143 ? Just like Swansea all parties agreed to the loans (SMC and council for Swansea) ACL and council.

Strangely you never answered the question I once posed as to which council gave the best deal - Swansea or Coventry - to their football club.

I assume the answer to this question is that the arrangement is very different. The loan to ACL, by the council as their primary shareholder, could be anti-competitive and used to prevent the major tenant gaining a commercial interest. Swansea's management company includes the football club I believe, doesn't it?

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Strangely you never answered the question I once posed as to which council gave the best deal - Swansea or Coventry - to their football club.

I assume the answer to this question is that the arrangement is very different. The loan to ACL, by the council as their primary shareholder, could be anti-competitive and used to prevent the major tenant gaining a commercial interest. Swansea's management company includes the football club I believe, doesn't it?

Why do you naively persist in believing giving Sisu a stake in the Ricoh would be a good thing, considering their abysmal track record in mismanaging my football club?

 

[Grendel]

Why do you naively persist in believing giving Sisu a stake in the Ricoh would be a good thing, considering their abysmal track record in mismanaging my football club?

Please point out where I have said that. As for naive, please. You are so stupid you think ACL and the council are on our side.

 

[chiefdave]

i think she means the 14 million pounds the council used of tax payers money to prop up their own business. ACL will have to sign the agreement if they want to retrieve some of that money. without the club the stadium is going to run at a bigger loss, a loss it has proven it can not stand up to. The mortgage can not be kept up by taxes, meaning eventually the coucil will lose its grip on the ricoh. maybe the 3 year plan is actually how long the sisu accountants have given ACL to go bust! just a thought

where has it been shown that without the club ACL will run at a loss. You can't just deduct the clubs rent from headline figures and draw that as a conclusion that's far too simplistic. How do you know ACL haven't lost custom due to the stadium bowl being unavailable or organisations not wanting to run conferences or other events in parallel with a football match. Remember ACL have had their accounts signed off as a going concern whilst the rent strike has been ongoing which would indicate the loss of CCFC is not the cliff edge some people would have you believe. the restructuring of the mortgage means ACL now have to meet a much lower level of repayment, even on the previous higher level of repayments they were making regular overpayments.

for all we know ACL's lawyers have prepared a case that in the event that Ltd is liquidated will see them take SISU to court and argue that Ltd and Holdings are inextricably linked and the lease is still valid?

I'm afraid Ms Sinclaire is making herself look very foolish by assuming she has a better grasp on the operation of ACL than ACL themselves! Remember that ACL have to meet legal obligations which will surely determine their response to the CVA rather than the opinion of an MEP who, as far as I'm aware, has no involvement with Coventry Council to start off with. To be publicly stating that turning down the CVA will result in £300K of cuts to services in Coventry is scaremongering plain and simple. She hasn't provided any evidence to back up this stance when question just claiming that ACLs statement is nonsense!

 

[skybluebal]

where has it been shown that without the club ACL will run at a loss. You can't just deduct the clubs rent from headline figures and draw that as a conclusion that's far too simplistic. How do you know ACL haven't lost custom due to the stadium bowl being unavailable or organisations not wanting to run conferences or other events in parallel with a football match. Remember ACL have had their accounts signed off as a going concern whilst the rent strike has been ongoing which would indicate the loss of CCFC is not the cliff edge some people would have you believe. the restructuring of the mortgage means ACL now have to meet a much lower level of repayment, even on the previous higher level of repayments they were making regular overpayments.

for all we know ACL's lawyers have prepared a case that in the event that Ltd is liquidated will see them take SISU to court and argue that Ltd and Holdings are inextricably linked and the lease is still valid?

I'm afraid Ms Sinclaire is making herself look very foolish by assuming she has a better grasp on the operation of ACL than ACL themselves! Remember that ACL have to meet legal obligations which will surely determine their response to the CVA rather than the opinion of an MEP who, as far as I'm aware, has no involvement with Coventry Council to start off with. To be publicly stating that turning down the CVA will result in £300K of cuts to services in Coventry is scaremongering plain and simple. She hasn't provided any evidence to back up this stance when question just claiming that ACLs statement is nonsense!

Fully agree, I tweeted back similar comments (lot shorter of course) to Nikki. She should not spoil the good work she has done so far by getting involved in these comments.

 

[oldskyblue58]

i think she means the 14 million pounds the council used of tax payers money to prop up their own business. ACL will have to sign the agreement if they want to retrieve some of that money. without the club the stadium is going to run at a bigger loss, a loss it has proven it can not stand up to. The mortgage can not be kept up by taxes, meaning eventually the coucil will lose its grip on the ricoh. maybe the 3 year plan is actually how long the sisu accountants have given ACL to go bust! just a thought

Then I suggest you read the article again instead of twisting what was to suit what I assume is a personal agenda. Nowhere in the article does she refer to the Council loan indeed she is very specific as to what she is talking about.

Here is something to think about. ACL were paying out £1.6m in repayments to yorkshire bank. Now i could be wrong but the Council Loan is 14.4m at 2.5% over 25 years which equates to cash requirement of approx 780K pa. saves £800k in cash flow. An arrangement that the CCC makes a profit on btw

Ah but you say they are missing £1.3m in rent. Well no they are missing £1.3m in rent, service charges and recharges. Recharges and service charges like pitch heating being the interesting elements. When people refer to it as "rent" that is actually inaccurate. Say they can save £300k because if not used then the costs drop

Leaves them short still - well yes until you take out the salary savings - you know little things like not replacing the CEO and other staff what shall we call that ? say another £300k

No the stadium couldnt stand up to losing CCFC as a tenant and keeping the Yorkshire bank loan - but things dont stay still do they, it is also what got SISU so vexed - things were not supposed to change for the plan to work.

We know they have lost the CCFC income. We know they have saved on the loan in terms of cashflow. We know that people forget that the lease / licence includes a recharge of costs, costs at least in part that if not used wont be incurred. We know that ACL have restructured their staff levels particularly costly high up executives.

Doesnt look like any need for taxes to prop the stadium up or any significant move to loss or even a negative cash flow. Would suggest SISU need new accountants

Is it all plain sailing - absolutely not. The stadium and club should have a long term mutually beneficial relationship. But before you go spinning out things that were not actually reported I think you need to look at things properly.

Just to be clear I want CCFC at the stadium with a good deal that secures the clubs future. I dont however agree they should get it at under value because some hard nosed swedish american woman messed up and is now trying to bully her way to a solution that will in reality only benefit one party - SISU

 

[Astute]

So some silly tart makes a comment that she hasn't got a clue about can make such a silly debate like this

 

[James Smith]

Strangely you never answered the question I once posed as to which council gave the best deal - Swansea or Coventry - to their football club.

I assume the answer to this question is that the arrangement is very different. The loan to ACL, by the council as their primary shareholder, could be anti-competitive and used to prevent the major tenant gaining a commercial interest.

**But SISU have had the right to buy half of ACL since they "bought" the club, they just haven't done so. As far as I know there isn't a divine right for a tenant to buy the landlord, but SISU through CCFC have had first refusal on a half share which was theirs for the asking.

Swansea's management company includes the football club I believe, doesn't it?

Actually if I remember correctly you asked me that question about Doncaster not Swansea and who had the best deal under FFP and I answered it here.

That is a non answer. FPP rules are capped as a percentage of revenues James so regardless of your personal view on football expenditure which is likely to offer greater revenue -- the arrangement proposed by our council or the arrangement given by Doncaster's council.

To make you happy I guess Doncaster would, although as I say if you've got no money to spend it's a bit academic having the potential to spend it

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...il-done-enough?p=435053&viewfull=1#post435053

*Doncaster didn't annoy their council by witholding rent etc. to the point that the council refused to sell them their share of the stadium though did they. The Swans and the Ospreys may well be getting a better deal under FFP but then The Liberty Stadium Stadium Management company has both clubs and the council with equal representation on the board. Our owners had the chance to get into the same position as Swansea and f*#ked it up by walking away from the charity share and starting a rent boycott. Also as I pointed out in another thread the Liberty Stadium is hardly the poster child for financially sound football stadia.

The stadium finances have come under scrutiny and a PWC report for the Welsh Audit Office in 2011 (which I can't find online)*stated that the way it is financed is unsustainable.*

"financial position of SSMC remains precarious and the current revenue sharing arrangements are considered unsustainable". ****************It also reveals that Swansea Council made a further loan to the SSMC in 2005, for £2.6 million, which it later wrote off, even though auditors "were not aware of any reason why such a loan could not have been sought from a commercial lender".

Read more:*http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...ory-12754243-detail/story.html#ixzz2Z8Neq5qQ*
Follow us:*@thisisswales on Twitter*|*thisissouthwales on Facebook

Oh and where are the thousands that we're going to spend on the team under FFP going to come from? At the moment we have*very*little money coming in, don't think we've sold many season tickets have we. There's been no official firm decision on where we're going to be playing yet, or for that matter who now owns the club (i.e. golden share), administrator, Otium or Holdings and a transfer embargo to boot which was in place before administration.

Given the high numbers who look likely to go to Sixfields based on Season Ticket sales, under the last reported offer made by ACL we'd be far better off in Coventry than at Sixfields wouldn't we?

 

[Jack Griffin]

I think the crunch will be come the first game at Sixfields.

 

[KersleyDigs]

In my humble opinion, SISU have ACL by the balls. They will build a new ground, and will gain 100% of the revenue to help with FFP. ACL have everything to lose. I hate SISU with a passion, but in terms of playing with the big boys in business of this nature, ACL have had their pants well and trurly pulled down and I think their arse will be spanked as this all unfolds....

 

[torchomatic]

Is "potentially" good enough?

Potentially getting rid of Sisu not a good enough benefit for you?

 

[RegTheDonk]

So some silly tart makes a comment that she hasn't got a clue about can make such a silly debate like this

I'm genuinely not being funny, but IS it a tart?

 

[pugwash]

In my humble opinion, SISU have ACL by the balls. They will build a new ground, and will gain 100% of the revenue to help with FFP. ACL have everything to lose. I hate SISU with a passion, but in terms of playing with the big boys in business of this nature, ACL have had their pants well and trurly pulled down and I think their arse will be spanked as this all unfolds....

I personally think it's the other way around. I'm not saying ACL is in an especially strong position, but they have options whereas Sisu have pretty much been forced / forced themselves into a corner of :

1) hoping fans will go to Northampton (they won't in enough numbers)
2) hoping they can get a suitable piece of land near or in Coventry with planning permission (I can't see it happening)
3) hoping that ACL agree the CVA or that the FL grant them the GS regardless (and I think it's almost guaranteed that the FL get sued by someone over this).

Still, we both hate Sisu!

 

[Nsgdm1]

why is cva so important

It does seem odd that the signing of the CVA is so imortant toi Sisu as all it does is cost them money ?
I f it is not signed then they do not have to pay the £590000 and it looks like they still get the golden share and to play in Northampton ,ok they may get a points deduction but do you think that if there was not something more important to the signing they would rather have the cash than the points?
also with a points deduction if they start to gain points back it creates more interest in the underdog catching up rather than starting on a level playing field and enduring mid table mediocrity.
on the other hand it is pointless to wish that ACL will not sign to enable an investigation in to SISU because the supporters of CCFC want it as their only concern is for ACL and their directors and shareholders, as it should be ,this legal wrangle that is currently going on is purely about buisiness and not sentiment.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Please point out where I have said that. As for naive, please. You are so stupid you think ACL and the council are on our side.

I'm not going to trawl through all your posts - however I'm specifically going to paraphrase a Grenduffyism that remains in my memory: as long as I'm in my seat at 3.00 on a Saturday to watch CCFC I don't give a toss about ACL or their staff - why should I?

You've made some strange assumptions about me (tax avoidance being a particularly bizarre and unsubstantiated one, along with some fictional university of morals) of which the latest is: 'You are so stupid you think ACL and the council are on our side'.

It would be so easy to reply with 'You are so stupid you think SISU are on our side'. However instead of stooping to the level of your petty insults I'd like to give you the chance to explain your reasoning why they're not on our side.

In any other business CCFC would have been kicked out of the stadium once the escrow account had been emptied - how is this not being 'on our side'? I remember the description that dealing with Sisu is 'like trying to nail jelly to a wall' - as far as I can surmise ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil have bent over backwards, yet remain exasperated trying to deal with such a slippery customer.

 

[SkyBlueUkeman]

Yes, I'm sure SISU would be quaking in their boots at the prospect of not being able to run another football club!

Do you purposefully catch the wrong end of the stick, or are you really that stupid?