Grendel
Well-Known Member
Is PWKH an insolvency expert then?
NEWSCoventry City: ACL call for administration to be re-run (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sub
- Start date
Is PWKH an insolvency expert then?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Still doesn't help though.
Why can't acl offer to sell Alan Higgs share for the agreed amount and offer a reasonable deal for the CCc share?
I really am changing my opinion of how much CCc could do to bring about ccfc a return to Coventry, even with sisu as owners
Why can't acl offer to sell Alan Higgs share for the agreed amount and offer a reasonable deal for the CCc share?
I really am changing my opinion of how much CCc could do to bring about ccfc a return to Coventry, even with sisu as owners
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong there is clearly no interest on sisu's part in supporting a successful football team and I have no idea why they are involved but, CCc could make it far harder for sisu to get any fans or credible support
Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
But it wasn't hidden in the first place, SISU in a rare burst of honesty have been saying that the players are registered in holidings since the beginning and it was on that basis that they claimed beneficial ownership of the Golden Share. All the league have done is confirm something that we all knew to be the case anyway.
Is that the same honesty they showed when they signed off the accounts for the last 5 years with all the players registered in CCFC? Accounts which the creditors relied upon!
Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
Oh agreed, the whole thing is a house of cards and im in no way absolving SISU off their dodgy dealings. My only point is that this "revelation" about the registration of the players is not exactly news.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Do you even read what you type any more? You used to be quite a good troll.
Higgs did agree to sell the shares, Sisu got greedy any decided to make a play for the Ricoh freehold instead.
CCCs shares have never been up for sale, the Ricoh was always a joint venture.
You don't seem to get that Sisu don't want to buy in. They don't want to pay a reasonable price. They will only deal on their terms. The only way anyone other than Seppala can fix this is by handing assets to Sisu for nothing.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It has yet to be confirmed whether the council would (have) veto(ed) such a deal or not however.
And this is the best argument for, whoever ownes the club, them building their own ground. Clubs split from stadiums simply don't work as entities. Forget SISU, assume they've gone... the option *must* be there for the club to own all of its own stadium (or stadium management company on a long lease) at a price fairly agreed.
Otherwise what's the point, it's always building on sand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Astute
Well-Known Member
But Timmy said that the new stadium would be built and mainly paid for by other investors. The ground would not be owned by CCFC.
Who would be stupid enough to go into business with SISU and build them a stadium? They are not the most trustworthy and there will always be a better stadium in the area. This is why I don't think one will ever be built.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
You missed the "forget SISU, assume they've gone" bit I assume?
As an aside, nowt wrong with investors building a stadium, it's what Arsenal have done with Ashburton Grove after all, and are now paying the loan off.
As ever, it's the terms that are important.
As an aside, nowt wrong with investors building a stadium, it's what Arsenal have done with Ashburton Grove after all, and are now paying the loan off.
As ever, it's the terms that are important.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Most on here see the club paying back £62m over 50 years in rent as being an acceptable return on the Council's £10m investment.
Forget PFI, the club have signed a PFI, it's a Public Finance Initiative.
Sisued
New Member
Landlord makes profit shocker
Yes, it is shocking. Especially when the landlord is effectively the city council, and the tenant the most important community asset this fucking city has.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Think we have to move away from 'fair' rent etc (how can we know that?!? Bring on an arbitrator please!) and more onto how two companies will naturally at times have opposing needs and aims.
best way to stop them butting heads is to unite them.
best way to stop them butting heads is to unite them.
Sisued
New Member
No its not so stop bleating on about it.
The two parties agreed to the rent.
SISU could and should have renegotiated the rent.
They have really made no effort to change the rent agreement they have backed out of negotiations to purchase when a price had been agreed.
If this dispute about the Ricoh is really about the high rent and the F/B benefiots then why would you move the club to Northampton to resolve it? Lose more money, more fans and be a lot worse off.
The arguements that the council should hand over the ACL business for nothing or evengive away a community asset are a joke. CCC did not force CCFC out CCFC burnt the bridges and then tried a strong arm tactic.
The rent issue is a non entity and CCFC havent paid any for the last year anyway
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
.....the other half of the landlord is a not for profit charity
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Are you seriously suggesting that they haven't sought to renegotiate the rent? The club tried to renegotiate in 2006 as well.
There is limited evidence that ACL has ever been open to any negotiation on the rent, making conditional offers through the media isn't proper negotiation.
Who is 'bleating on'? It was my first comment on the matter.
Nobody is suggesting they get it for nothing either. That would be absurd. And they did not back out of the deal to purchase a stake, that is the opposite of what happened. Stop making stuff up in an attempt to prop up your flimsy argument.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I think I do understand that so we know exactly what sisu think. CCc have the power and remit to show just how outrageous sisu are not playing in Coventry and so far they have not gone as far as they could. It is nonsense too suggest seppalla saying they want the freehold free is a sensible statement of their position as it is to say muttons comments about the CCc will sell to sisu over his dead body.
There is a deal that can be done I am convinced of it and I think we would be wise to impress this to our councillors. The alternative is no club to follow
Sisued
New Member
They backed out of the deal. It was agreed with higgs and they walked away.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Sky Blues
Active Member
Say, for the sake of argument, you take out a £21m loan at 5.5% interest over 50 years: A loan calculator tells me you will pay back £61.7m - or £1.23m a year.
I don't know what the terms were on the old Yorkshire Bank Loan taken out to complete the stadium and I'm not sure which year the loan was taken out, but if it was 2005 then banks loaned money to each other at 4.77% on average that year - so it does not take a great leap to imagine a rate of 5.5% for a non-bank customer.
The basic point is: It is too simplistic to multiply the rent CCFC used to pay by 50, deduct the council's £10m equity investment and suggest it has made a £52m profit.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
He tends to only do simplistic
Again, stop making stuff up.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I'll take that as a compliment from such an original thinker like you.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
In fairness to ACL they pay a lease to the council of around that amount (as well as repaying the loan). Essentially the club are paying ACL's lease costs while ACL repay their loan.
The council meanwhile recoup the money from CCFC indirectly and pass the liability for the loan on to ACL, nice work if you can get it.
SavageCovCity
New Member
All of this well end up in high courts, there's no other solution.
Which bit is he making up?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure ACL paid the 50 year lease (£20m) upfront, that is what the original loan was for.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
While you're here, can you confirm that this "negotiation" (for want of a better word) is the first time the club have seriously attempted to reduce te rent (you mentioned a few half hearted efforts)?
Also that the deal offered (£150k) was made and rejected outside the CVA?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Management fees, interest on loans, plus obviously funding a £5-7m loss for 6 years.
The real debt to Sisu from SBS&L is about £29m I believe.
Sky Blues
Active Member
If I recall correctly, the accounts covering the years up to and including part of 2011 have been published by the owners but not since then - hence the transfer embargo. (I have a headache and can't recall right now if the administrator published some accounts for CCFC Ltd).
There has been some analysis done of the published accounts by people like OSB and Godiva on the finance/board section of this website and by forum contributor SkyBlueSquirrel on his blog: http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...try-city-and-sisu-capital-60-million-in-debt/
I don't know if that helps. The published accounts should be available via Companies House for a small fee I believe if you wish to examine them yourself.