What did CCC / ACL do wrong? (7 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

Was chatting to a Brighton supporter at Wembley on Friday and he made the mistake of asking about the situation we are currently in. Went through it with him and threw in my usual 'of course there's blame on both sides'. He asked the question what have ACL done wrong to be taking a share of the blame and when I sit and look at the facts he does seem to have a point.

I must admit when all this about the rent being too high etc first came out I sided with SISU and totally blamed CCC / ACL but as more facts came out I moved to the opposite viewpoint but I've always given some of the blame to CCC / ACL but thinking about it now I'm not entirely sure why. I don't think you can count personality clashes or the balloon incident really. This is business, sure many people on here have to deal with people they don't like and people that don't like them but you have to get on with it.

Let's look at the facts as we know them, things in brackets are my comments rather than something I'm stating as fact. From what I recall things went something like this - I've tried to keep it as brief as possible!

CCFC, under BR, decide to move to a new stadium. Arena2000 project is born.

CCFC sell HR to contribute towards the cost of Arena2000.

Until new stadium is built CCFC pay rent (over £1m I think) for HR.

CCFC run out of money without a brick being laid. Now have no funds to build new ground and don't own old ground.

Council takes over Arena2000 project and complete the build.

CCFC relegated from Premier league.

ACL is formed to run the Arena. 50% goes to CCFC as return on the money they initially put in and 50% goes to the council.

Further financial trouble for CCFC leads to sale of their share in ACL to Higgs (I believe the amount Higgs paid was equal to the amount CCFC had put in). Meant as a short term deal CCFC have the option to buy back the 50% through a set formula.

Rent agreed between CCFC and ACL at £1.2m, an offer of a sliding scale dependent on CCFC success rejected by CCFC in favor of flat rate (not sure if this was all at the same time or the sliding scale offer came later, doesn't really make a huge difference IMHO).

Further financial problems for CCFC lead to takeover by SISU. SISU either carry out, or have the option to carry out, due diligence. No mention is made of rent being too high. SISU do not exercise right to buy back 50% share in ACL.

KD takes over at the helm, at press conference unveiling new board claims he has meeting the next day with the council to discuses buying the Ricoh, council know nothing about the meeting.

Talks with ACL regarding purchasing their 50%. Deal agreed at less than the formula price. Higgs never hear anything from SISU to complete the deal.

CCFC relegated from Championship.

Now under TF's leadership CCFC go on a rent strike (I believe PWKH said there was no request to renegotiate rent prior to the rent strike) and state in the press the rent is too high (I seem to recall the figure of £400K originally coming from TF but I'm not 100% on that).

CCC / ACL restructure debt to reduce their repayments.

ACL offer reduction of rent to £400K, access to ACLs share of matchday revenues, setup of meeting with Compass to discuss their share of revenues and cross invoicing to assist with FFP. ACL believe offer has been accepted.

SISU rejects offer.

ACL win court case over rent arrears, unchallenged by SISU.

TF makes claim that SISU will liquidate CCFC.

ACL apply for admin.

ACL make offer for CCFC to play rent free while in admin.

SISU launch judicial review against council loan to ACL.

SISU make deal to play at Sixfields whilst building a new stadium. ACL continue to prepare Ricoh for new season.

ACL offer reduction of rent to £150K.

ACL reject CVA.

TF claims £150K rent offer was never made to SISU but refuses to state if it would be accepted.

CCFC move to Sixfields.

Judicial review is rejected

SISU appeal Judicial review.

As of today no land for new ground has been purchased and no plans seen but it has been stated ground will not be in Coventry but in the 'Coventry area'. FOI requests show no bordering council have had formal talks with CCFC regarding a new stadium.

Looking at that, unless I've missed something, it's hard to see what ACL or the council have done wrong. You could argue that they could have offered a lower rent earlier but that's more a historic arguement and doesn't prevent the offer of lower rent now being accepted. You could argue ACL should have accepted the CVA however they have a legally duty to act in their own best interets in that regard so the fact that it's cost us 10 points is largely irrelevant. Personally I would like to see them publically make the £150K offer to SISU but I also feel if that was a deal SISU would accept TF would be on CWR every chance he got to make that known.

So what facts am I missing? Is there actually anything known to be fact that shows ACL or the council to be at fault?

 

---

[Cambridgeshire_Poolie]

Thank you for this as I was asking my mate to spell out all of this for me on Sunday. From an outsider looking in am I correct in thinking that you got no match day revenue when at the Ricoh? You where paying year on year £1.2m and really getting nothing back. This seems mental to me and whoever signed this deal wants whipping. I know it was based on you staying in the PL and this would have been peanuts but come on, generating no match day revenue and doing a business plan based on always being or bouncing straight back to the PL is something a first year business degree student wouldn't do.

 

[Samo]

I'd have your tin hat handy chief.

 

[Astute]

The main problem was that ACL didn't remortgage earlier so a lower rent offer could have been made. I suppose there didn't seem a need to at the time though. Now the next problem is that ACL don't trust SISU.....and not without reason........and SISU keep saying things that are not fully true but believed by some.

This is why I say that ACL were at fault for part of it, but SISU are mainly at fault although they were not the ones that sold out whilst the stadium was in its planning stage.

 

[mark82]

Thank you for this as I was asking my mate to spell out all of this for me on Sunday. From an outsider looking in am I correct in thinking that you got no match day revenue when at the Ricoh? You where paying year on year £1.2m and really getting nothing back. This seems mental to me and whoever signed this deal wants whipping. I know it was based on you staying in the PL and this would have been peanuts but come on, generating no match day revenue and doing a business plan based on always being or bouncing straight back to the PL is something a first year business degree student wouldn't do.

The club sold the rights to matchday revenues. Crazy.

 

[tim07]

Hmmmm....seems to sum it all up quite nicely..

 

[chiefdave]

From an outsider looking in am I correct in thinking that you got no match day revenue when at the Ricoh?

The revenue (both matchday and from other events) goes to ACL, we did own 50% of that company but sold it to Higgs Trust. The £400K offer from ACL also had access to matchday revenue but not revenue from other events.

Also worth mentioning that ACL have not paid a dividend so neither Higgs nor the council have received any of the profits. At the moment all ACL profits, including matchday revenues, go to overpayments on their loan so that it can be paid off as quickly as possible.

 

[Astute]

Thank you for this as I was asking my mate to spell out all of this for me on Sunday. From an outsider looking in am I correct in thinking that you got no match day revenue when at the Ricoh? You where paying year on year £1.2m and really getting nothing back. This seems mental to me and whoever signed this deal wants whipping. I know it was based on you staying in the PL and this would have been peanuts but come on, generating no match day revenue and doing a business plan based on always being or bouncing straight back to the PL is something a first year business degree student wouldn't do.

If things were done correctly our club would have done OK out of the deal. At one stage we were in the championship and getting crowds of about 23,000. So lets say £20 a ticket on average. £460,000 per home game. 3 home games paid a years rent. This was for a stadium that cost 113m to build. So 1.2m a year is only just over 1% of the total build cost. This would be like renting a new £1,000,000 house for just over £800 a month.

To start with the big mistakes were made from who ran our club at the time. Since then I blame who run our club for big mistakes since.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

Thank you for this as I was asking my mate to spell out all of this for me on Sunday. From an outsider looking in am I correct in thinking that you got no match day revenue when at the Ricoh? You where paying year on year £1.2m and really getting nothing back. This seems mental to me and whoever signed this deal wants whipping. I know it was based on you staying in the PL and this would have been peanuts but come on, generating no match day revenue and doing a business plan based on always being or bouncing straight back to the PL is something a first year business degree student wouldn't do.

They received all the revenue from ticket sales but not Food & Drink nor Car parking. Food & Drink was effectively outsourced to Compass from day 1 where the Club in essence mortgaged the future revenue for a one off payment. Car Parking might be the only area that was open for consideration. However don't get fooled by people giving this as the reason for SISU moving out. Its just a smoke screen to cover for the real intent which was to fabricate a reason to welch on a contract and to create a diversion away from the true strategy which was / is to distress the ACL business so they could pick it up the stadium and other assets for a song. Thankfully ACL & CCC did not fall for it.

 

[Astute]

The naming rights and also match day revenues went towards the build costs. Our club sold their rights to this

 

[SkyBlueSid]

There have been many mistakes over the years, some of them through incompetence, some duplicitous, and some (allegedly) downright dishonest.

But this one:
CCFC run out of money without a brick being laid. Now have no funds to build new ground and don't own old ground.
Has always been the root cause of the farcical and disastrous situation the club is in now.

It was interesting to hear Micky Adams comment on this yesterday. He was critical of many aspects, but made the point that HR was not as bad as the club liked to make us all think. Arena2000 was Richardson's vanity project, and will probably be a millstone for as long as the club remains in existence.

 

[Ashdown1]

That OP is probably the best I've seen on here or anywhere else on this whole matter. In short it seems the club has been taken to this point by two main protagonists Brian Richardson and Tim Fisher { Acting for the other SISU head honchos}. The chronology here I think is about correct though in terms of the last 2 years debacle and when you look closely at the reality this bullshit scenario we have now is due to a complete breakdown of relations between ACL/SISU and a sudden change of strategy by SISU which involves obtaining the Arena at a knockdown price.
Some could say after several failed campaigns, failed managers, unsustainable wage bills and other costs the hedge fund decided to look for someone else to blame for their failure and have been doing so ever since.
I think it's fair to say that SISU have backed their football managers to a degree with funds but apart from Robins and now possibly Pressley { although, its early days yet} they all failed dismally and there were some issues with timing in said release of funds with embargos etc not helpful.

 

[duffer]

Was chatting to a Brighton supporter at Wembley on Friday and he made the mistake of asking about the situation we are currently in. Went through it with him and threw in my usual 'of course there's blame on both sides'. He asked the question what have ACL done wrong to be taking a share of the blame and when I sit and look at the facts he does seem to have a point.

...

So what facts am I missing? Is there actually anything known to be fact that shows ACL or the council to be at fault?

Great question. In truth I'm struggling to see much that they did wrong - and I don't mean that as a wind-up, I just can't see what they could've done differently.

I suppose they could've held off on administration - but Fisher did threaten liquidation and it seemed fairly obvious that the club/SISU didn't really want to negotiate honestly regarding rent.

They could've signed the CVA, but I think that would've closed the door to any chance of further action that might either find that our directors/shadow director isn't a fit & proper owner, or that the administration itself has been mishandled.

I'd like a public offer made by ACL too, so that we know just what's going on.

£150k on a ten-year lease seems like a very fair deal to me - it wouldn't stop SISU building a new stadium if that really is their plan. If we knew for sure that that had been offered, and SISU hadn't accepted (as many suspect), then we could draw our own conclusions. As could the FL/FA.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The main problem was that ACL didn't remortgage earlier so a lower rent offer could have been made. I suppose there didn't seem a need to at the time though. Now the next problem is that ACL don't trust SISU.....and not without reason........and SISU keep saying things that are not fully true but believed by some.

This is why I say that ACL were at fault for part of it, but SISU are mainly at fault although they were not the ones that sold out whilst the stadium was in its planning stage.

The only thing I would add is CCc in the form of the leader say that sisu wouldn't ever get their hands on the stadium! Really unhelpful if he did say it. Having spoken to him I am certain that he would have said something like it.

Astute hit nail on head at most 15% at fault for not offering reduced rent earlier or getting out of running stadium.

I am more coming to sharing the rest of the blame between Richardson and the current owners.

 

[italiahorse]

ACL - Please can you advise us what the offer was around the CVA rejection time ?
Can you advise what the reference too the £4 is from the MEP?
Can you advise if you cannot answer these questions due to some process like the Judicial Review?
We can then make our own conclusions.
If you can't answer these question you will continue to attract negative feedback.

SB Trust can you have a question and answer session again urgently ?

 

[thaiskyblue]

Was chatting to a Brighton supporter at Wembley on Friday and he made the mistake of asking about the situation we are currently in. Went through it with him and threw in my usual 'of course there's blame on both sides'. He asked the question what have ACL done wrong to be taking a share of the blame and when I sit and look at the facts he does seem to have a point.

I must admit when all this about the rent being too high etc first came out I sided with SISU and totally blamed CCC / ACL but as more facts came out I moved to the opposite viewpoint but I've always given some of the blame to CCC / ACL but thinking about it now I'm not entirely sure why. I don't think you can count personality clashes or the balloon incident really. This is business, sure many people on here have to deal with people they don't like and people that don't like them but you have to get on with it.

Let's look at the facts as we know them, things in brackets are my comments rather than something I'm stating as fact. From what I recall things went something like this - I've tried to keep it as brief as possible!

CCFC, under BR, decide to move to a new stadium. Arena2000 project is born.

CCFC sell HR to contribute towards the cost of Arena2000.

Until new stadium is built CCFC pay rent (over £1m I think) for HR.

CCFC run out of money without a brick being laid. Now have no funds to build new ground and don't own old ground.

Council takes over Arena2000 project and complete the build.

CCFC relegated from Premier league.

ACL is formed to run the Arena. 50% goes to CCFC as return on the money they initially put in and 50% goes to the council.

Further financial trouble for CCFC leads to sale of their share in ACL to Higgs (I believe the amount Higgs paid was equal to the amount CCFC had put in). Meant as a short term deal CCFC have the option to buy back the 50% through a set formula.

Rent agreed between CCFC and ACL at £1.2m, an offer of a sliding scale dependent on CCFC success rejected by CCFC in favor of flat rate (not sure if this was all at the same time or the sliding scale offer came later, doesn't really make a huge difference IMHO).

Further financial problems for CCFC lead to takeover by SISU. SISU either carry out, or have the option to carry out, due diligence. No mention is made of rent being too high. SISU do not exercise right to buy back 50% share in ACL.

KD takes over at the helm, at press conference unveiling new board claims he has meeting the next day with the council to discuses buying the Ricoh, council know nothing about the meeting.

Talks with ACL regarding purchasing their 50%. Deal agreed at less than the formula price. Higgs never hear anything from SISU to complete the deal.

CCFC relegated from Championship.

Now under TF's leadership CCFC go on a rent strike (I believe PWKH said there was no request to renegotiate rent prior to the rent strike) and state in the press the rent is too high (I seem to recall the figure of £400K originally coming from TF but I'm not 100% on that).

CCC / ACL restructure debt to reduce their repayments.

ACL offer reduction of rent to £400K, access to ACLs share of matchday revenues, setup of meeting with Compass to discuss their share of revenues and cross invoicing to assist with FFP. ACL believe offer has been accepted.

SISU rejects offer.

ACL win court case over rent arrears, unchallenged by SISU.

TF makes claim that SISU will liquidate CCFC.

ACL apply for admin.

ACL make offer for CCFC to play rent free while in admin.

SISU launch judicial review against council loan to ACL.

SISU make deal to play at Sixfields whilst building a new stadium. ACL continue to prepare Ricoh for new season.

ACL offer reduction of rent to £150K.

ACL reject CVA.

TF claims £150K rent offer was never made to SISU but refuses to state if it would be accepted.

CCFC move to Sixfields.

Judicial review is rejected

SISU appeal Judicial review.

As of today no land for new ground has been purchased and no plans seen but it has been stated ground will not be in Coventry but in the 'Coventry area'. FOI requests show no bordering council have had formal talks with CCFC regarding a new stadium.

Looking at that, unless I've missed something, it's hard to see what ACL or the council have done wrong. You could argue that they could have offered a lower rent earlier but that's more a historic arguement and doesn't prevent the offer of lower rent now being accepted. You could argue ACL should have accepted the CVA however they have a legally duty to act in their own best interets in that regard so the fact that it's cost us 10 points is largely irrelevant. Personally I would like to see them publically make the £150K offer to SISU but I also feel if that was a deal SISU would accept TF would be on CWR every chance he got to make that known.

So what facts am I missing? Is there actually anything known to be fact that shows ACL or the council to be at fault?

welcome to the real world, glad to have you.

 

[Cityfan1]

Was chatting to a Brighton supporter at Wembley on Friday and he made the mistake of asking about the situation we are currently in. Went through it with him and threw in my usual 'of course there's blame on both sides'. He asked the question what have ACL done wrong to be taking a share of the blame and when I sit and look at the facts he does seem to have a point.

I must admit when all this about the rent being too high etc first came out I sided with SISU and totally blamed CCC / ACL but as more facts came out I moved to the opposite viewpoint but I've always given some of the blame to CCC / ACL but thinking about it now I'm not entirely sure why. I don't think you can count personality clashes or the balloon incident really. This is business, sure many people on here have to deal with people they don't like and people that don't like them but you have to get on with it.

Let's look at the facts as we know them, things in brackets are my comments rather than something I'm stating as fact. From what I recall things went something like this - I've tried to keep it as brief as possible!

CCFC, under BR, decide to move to a new stadium. Arena2000 project is born. correct

CCFC sell HR to contribute towards the cost of Arena2000.

Until new stadium is built CCFC pay rent (over £1m I think) for HR. correct CCFC agree a deal to sell HR with the previso that the new Arena goes forward, but due to the delay in decontaminating the site plus the original building firm pulling out, a new agreement was reached that Wimpy would purchase HR and then rent it back until the stadium was complete

CCFC run out of money without a brick being laid. Now have no funds to build new ground and don't own old ground. CCFC had agreed the purchase of the land and had commensed the decontamination of the site at a cost way in excess of original estimate, they had also already made agreements with tesco for selling off a percentage of the land for there developement, but due to the delays with finding a new building firm, and also the additional costs the club had approached CCC to support the developement.

Council takes over Arena2000 project and complete the build. This is where (to my mind) the Council screwed the Club, they supplied through Council funds the additional revenue to continue the build program, and then finalised the deal with Tesco for the purchase of land for £42.5m with an addition £17m for the decontamination and other sundries, non of this mony was made available to the Club, the coucils reasons for this was due to european law they could not release this money to a private company as it was guaranteed through public money (Iteresting that this was not the case when supplying ACL with there bail out) instead they agreed that the running of the Arena would be a joint 50/50 arangement

CCFC relegated from Premier league. Correct

ACL is formed to run the Arena. 50% goes to CCFC as return on the money they initially put in and 50% goes to the council.

Further financial trouble for CCFC leads to sale of their share in ACL to Higgs (I believe the amount Higgs paid was equal to the amount CCFC had put in). Meant as a short term deal CCFC have the option to buy back the 50% through a set formula. Due to the delays and the additional expenses plus the payment of rent for HR, plus the reduced income that came with relegation the Club did find the selve's in financial difficulty, and as such undersold there 50% by quite a margin. My understanding of the figures were that at that time estimated value of CCFC's half was approx £10.5m, CCFC sold there share to Higgs for around £6.5m, but because of a previous loan of £2m that was outstanding to Higgs, CCFC actually received around £4.5m.

Rent agreed between CCFC and ACL at £1.2m, an offer of a sliding scale dependent on CCFC success rejected by CCFC in favor of flat rate (not sure if this was all at the same time or the sliding scale offer came later, doesn't really make a huge difference IMHO). Rental agreement was agreed with CCFC in an unenviable position, no money and no ground, do you think they may of taken advantage of the fact CCFC had no choice?

Further financial problems for CCFC lead to takeover by SISU. SISU either carry out, or have the option to carry out, due diligence. No mention is made of rent being too high. SISU do not exercise right to buy back 50% share in ACL. Yes SISU made a mistake not focusing on this straight away but the Rent issue had been raised by previous board with no redress, even when the Club were about to go into adminisration, so much for CCC's and ACL's arguement that they always had the Club at heart!

KD takes over at the helm, at press conference unveiling new board claims he has meeting the next day with the council to discuses buying the Ricoh, council know nothing about the meeting.So says the Council?

Talks with ACL regarding purchasing their 50%. Deal agreed at less than the formula price. Higgs never hear anything from SISU to complete the deal. You may be right, but

CCFC relegated from Championship.

Now under TF's leadership CCFC go on a rent strike (I believe PWKH said there was no request to renegotiate rent prior to the rent strike) and state in the press the rent is too high (I seem to recall the figure of £400K originally coming from TF but I'm not 100% on that). This according to SISU is where the Judicial Review come's in, as they claim this was an agreed tactic to distress ACL to force the Yorkshire Bank to sell there mortgage at a reduced rate!

CCC / ACL restructure debt to reduce their repayments. Part of Judicial Review.

ACL offer reduction of rent to £400K, access to ACLs share of matchday revenues, setup of meeting with Compass to discuss their share of revenues and cross invoicing to assist with FFP. ACL believe offer has been accepted.

SISU rejects offer.

ACL win court case over rent arrears, unchallenged by SISU.

TF makes claim that SISU will liquidate CCFC.

ACL apply for admin.

ACL make offer for CCFC to play rent free while in admin.

SISU launch judicial review against council loan to ACL.

SISU make deal to play at Sixfields whilst building a new stadium. ACL continue to prepare Ricoh for new season.

ACL offer reduction of rent to £150K.

ACL reject CVA.

TF claims £150K rent offer was never made to SISU but refuses to state if it would be accepted.

CCFC move to Sixfields.

Judicial review is rejected

SISU appeal Judicial review.

As of today no land for new ground has been purchased and no plans seen but it has been stated ground will not be in Coventry but in the 'Coventry area'. FOI requests show no bordering council have had formal talks with CCFC regarding a new stadium.

Looking at that, unless I've missed something, it's hard to see what ACL or the council have done wrong. You could argue that they could have offered a lower rent earlier but that's more a historic arguement and doesn't prevent the offer of lower rent now being accepted. You could argue ACL should have accepted the CVA however they have a legally duty to act in their own best interets in that regard so the fact that it's cost us 10 points is largely irrelevant. Personally I would like to see them publically make the £150K offer to SISU but I also feel if that was a deal SISU would accept TF would be on CWR every chance he got to make that known.

So what facts am I missing? Is there actually anything known to be fact that shows ACL or the council to be at fault?

 

[skybluetony176]

whatever ACL may or may have not done it was shitsu who kept raising the bar making a bad situation worse.

 

[sky blue zam]

cityfan1, orange ken admitted no appointment was made.

with regardd to the jr, didnt sisu try and agree to pay off the loan/mortgage but got trumped by ccc. in my opinion the jr is sour grapes, but just my view

 

[Astute]

cityfan1, orange ken admitted no appointment was made.

with regardd to the jr, didnt sisu try and agree to pay off the loan/mortgage but got trumped by ccc. in my opinion the jr is sour grapes, but just my view

Spot on, but some would like to say otherwise.

The problem that we have is ACL have kept quiet the vast majority of the time like what you would expect.....whilst Timothy has made comments frequently where he has stretched the truth frequently. This is why most don't trust him in the slightest. The only time we have seen him to be truthful is when it is bad news for our club.

 

[Cityfan1]

Zam you may well be right, but i can only go on what has been said (ok Fisher said it?) but this was part of the reason he gave prior to the council bailing out ACL

 

[Monners]

Good OP - we need to focus on the bigger picture. Amopen offr of £150k pa for 10 years sounds a pretty decent suggestion. Surely the FL would have to respond and involve themselves (I know - unlikely, but a face saver for them maybe)

 

[italiahorse]

Good OP - we need to focus on the bigger picture. Amopen offr of £150k pa for 10 years sounds a pretty decent suggestion. Surely the FL would have to respond and involve themselves (I know - unlikely, but a face saver for them maybe)

If the offer is as straight forward as that, then in conjunction with fans not able to attend Sixfields, they should say that Sixfields is not an option and they must move back to the Ricoh.
However, it is by no way clear if the offer was as simple as that and nobody is able to clarify 100%.

Can't see if it was that good why Sisu would not take it up and also build the stadium during that 10 year period. In that time they could have bought the land and started the other profit making streams around the area of the stadium. The stadium comes on line and the 10 year plan is complete although not in the original order.
Yes, we all know what the reason might be !!

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

ACL - Please can you advise us what the offer was around the CVA rejection time ?
Can you advise what the reference too the £4 is from the MEP?
Can you advise if you cannot answer these questions due to some process like the Judicial Review?
We can then make our own conclusions.
If you can't answer these question you will continue to attract negative feedback.

SB Trust can you have a question and answer session again urgently ?

ACL offered £120,000 for Div 1, £100,000 for Div 2 and £400,000 for a return to the Championship if my memory serves me right.

 

[skybluefred]

Thank you for this as I was asking my mate to spell out all of this for me on Sunday. From an outsider looking in am I correct in thinking that you got no match day revenue when at the Ricoh? You where paying year on year £1.2m and really getting nothing back. This seems mental to me and whoever signed this deal wants whipping. I know it was based on you staying in the PL and this would have been peanuts but come on, generating no match day revenue and doing a business plan based on always being or bouncing straight back to the PL is something a first year business degree student wouldn't do.

The Club did own at least a share of match day revenues but chose to sell it. The biggest mystery is what happened to
the reported £60million that was received from Tesco for the ground the super store is built on.

 

[covcity4life]

Charged extortionate rent , forced us unto admin and then rejected CVA. Last 2 for our own good apparently but none of their supporters can say why

Yeah hard to see why they could be blamed......

 

[shy_tall_knight]

Where I see CCC having a problem is if it can be proved they agreed with SISU to deliberately distress ACL's loan with YB to get it cheap then it may embarrass local politicians who should not be colluding with hedge funds to perform legitimate yet unethical transactions.

Can't believe CCC would have become involved in this.

 

[italiahorse]

Charged extortionate rent , forced us unto admin and then rejected CVA. Last 2 for our own good apparently but none of their supporters can say why

Yeah hard to see why they could be blamed......

Should not get drawn but.... Charged agreed rent, forced us into admin on threat of liquidation (TF Quote)(Suspect they thought players were in Ltd). Rejected CVA for reasons unknown as yet (Suspect thyey expected further negotiations on it)

 

[italiahorse]

ACL offered £120,000 for Div 1, £100,000 for Div 2 and £400,000 for a return to the Championship if my memory serves me right.

Debate on here and the MEP suggest other conditions where attached.
No body can answer with any degree of certainty.

 

[lordsummerisle]

This shows that Sisu never been willing to negotiate, a tactic just to distress ACL.

30: Are SISU willing to be bound by an agreement brokered by independent mediators or arbitrator?

SISU: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both ACL and CCC. It was a reasonable and generous offer. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in ACL’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of ACL have been duly notified.

ACL: Yes. Any Arbitrator(s) would need to look at matters such as the lawfulness of the original licence, the financial viability of SISU, monies paid to ACL for utilities/other services

 

[stupot07]

This shows that Sisu never been willing to negotiate, a tactic just to distress ACL.

Think you have the quotes the wrong way around.

30: Are ACL willing to be bound by an agreement brokered by independent mediators or arbitrator?

ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified.

CCFC: Yes. Any Arbitrator(s) would need to look at matters such as the lawfulness of the original licence, the financial viability of ACL, monies paid to ACL for utilities/other services and the fact there appears to be no contract for these and the monies paid by CCFC to ACL during the period of the dispute.

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...7-full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc?start=2

 

[lordsummerisle]

Think you have the quotes the wrong way around.

30: Are ACL willing to be bound by an agreement brokered by independent mediators or arbitrator?

ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified.

CCFC: Yes. Any Arbitrator(s) would need to look at matters such as the lawfulness of the original licence, the financial viability of ACL, monies paid to ACL for utilities/other services and the fact there appears to be no contract for these and the monies paid by CCFC to ACL during the period of the dispute.

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...7-full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc?start=2

Well that's buggered up my plan of getting loads of outraged comments about it hasn't it??

 

[stupot07]

Well that's buggered up my plan of getting loads of outraged comments about it hasn't it??

Shit, sorry

 

[torchomatic]

The club sold its own ground. Even more crazy.

The club sold the rights to matchday revenues. Crazy.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Charged extortionate rent , forced us unto admin and then rejected CVA. Last 2 for our own good apparently but none of their supporters can say why

Yeah hard to see why they could be blamed......

Acl were right to reject the cva as it has since come to light that all information wasn't available to Paul Appleton when he was putting it together.

Would you sign something you knew wasn't right?