What did CCC / ACL do wrong? (11 Viewers)

[stupot07]

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?

But PWKH said they would have signed it if they were allowed to include the 2 clauses - presumably drop the JR and agree 10-year rent deal. They would have happily signed if they had been able to include them.

 

---

[CCFC PimpRail]

You've missed the bit where after a couple of years of ownership with dwindling attendencies and a performance that will make relegation from the championship ultimately inevitable, SISU start blaming the previous owners if CCFC for creating an unworkable rent agreement with ACL and bring up a list of complaints that had they known about, would have changed their minds about investing in the club.

Their complaint against ACL is backed up with clear evidence of their bookkeeping, accounts are filed on time, and player registrations are with one company.

 

[Astute]

But PWKH said they would have signed it if they were allowed to include the 2 clauses - presumably drop the JR and agree 10-year rent deal. They would have happily signed if they had been able to include them.

And would you have been happy if they had agreed to this........as in not take us to Northampton and stop the stupid judicial review that the judge had a go at them for the way they have done business at our club.

So you think it is good that they keep piling up debts at our club that won't get them anywhere? You think it is bad for ACL trying to keep us in Coventry?

 

[bigfatronssba]

And would you have been happy if they had agreed to this........as in not take us to Northampton and stop the stupid judicial review that the judge had a go at them for the way they have done business at our club.

So you think it is good that they keep piling up debts at our club that won't get them anywhere? You think it is bad for ACL trying to keep us in Coventry?

Thanks for answering that for me (its a better reply than I would have come up with!).

 

[stupot07]

And would you have been happy if they had agreed to this........as in not take us to Northampton and stop the stupid judicial review that the judge had a go at them for the way they have done business at our club.

So you think it is good that they keep piling up debts at our club that won't get them anywhere? You think it is bad for ACL trying to keep us in Coventry?

the rent didn't have to be part of the CVA, ACL made it part of the CVA and wouldn't agree the CVA without it. They then say that they rejected for the fans because the accounts need investigating. If they felt that strongly about the accounts then they should have just rejected it, trying to use the CVA to include the rent and JR has nothing to do with the good of the fans.

 

[cochese]

As a long time lurcher (from the other side) on here thought I'd reply to this one, and I'm sure will be labelled as a SISU lover but...

I don't think ACL have strictly done anything wrong at all. But at the same time I don't believe they've ever had the clubs best interests at heart. ACL did everything they could to maximise their profits from hosting the football club at their stadium. The high rent, selling off the catering, car park charges that at most football clubs would be chastised for, selling corporate packages back to the club for a profit. All of these things were great for ACL, but simply not good for the club. And when a company is run like that, it means that the club are missing out on vital finances to fund themselves and to build a competitive squad. When there are no income streams for the club, playing at the Ricoh becomes very undesirable. And if you're ACL offering this to the club, then the club is bound to look elsewhere to play their games. So what ACL did wrong, from the clubs point of view, was to make playing at the Ricoh an extremely undesirable option. Even of you then offer better terms, why would the club want to continue a relationship with their landlords who have profited so greatly from their tenancy? You could say because of the fans, but I just think it says more about how SISU view their relationship with ACL. Doesn't make it right, and it's the fans who suffer, but it doesn't surprise me that SISU have taken the stance they have.

 

[Astute]

the rent didn't have to be part of the CVA, ACL made it part of the CVA and wouldn't agree the CVA without it. They then say that they rejected for the fans because the accounts need investigating. If they felt that strongly about the accounts then they should have just rejected it, trying to use the CVA to include the rent and JR has nothing to do with the good of the fans.

Here you go again. You have a guess on what happens and state it as a fact. Then make it sound bad on ACL and give a good excuse for SISU.

I ask the same question again. If it was about keeping us in Coventry and saving our club from getting more into debt would you have been happy if it would have happened? If it was about a reduced rent and a minimum 10 year contract......which is the minimum allowed by the FL.........there would have then been a chance of talks about SISU getting the Ricoh at a later date.

 

[Tonylinc]

As a long time lurcher (from the other side) on here thought I'd reply to this one, and I'm sure will be labelled as a SISU lover but...

I don't think ACL have strictly done anything wrong at all. But at the same time I don't believe they've ever had the clubs best interests at heart. ACL did everything they could to maximise their profits from hosting the football club at their stadium. The high rent, selling off the catering, car park charges that at most football clubs would be chastised for, selling corporate packages back to the club for a profit. All of these things were great for ACL, but simply not good for the club. And when a company is run like that, it means that the club are missing out on vital finances to fund themselves and to build a competitive squad. When there are no income streams for the club, playing at the Ricoh becomes very undesirable. And if you're ACL offering this to the club, then the club is bound to look elsewhere to play their games. So what ACL did wrong, from the clubs point of view, was to make playing at the Ricoh an extremely undesirable option. Even of you then offer better terms, why would the club want to continue a relationship with their landlords who have profited so greatly from their tenancy? You could say because of the fans, but I just think it says more about how SISU view their relationship with ACL. Doesn't make it right, and it's the fans who suffer, but it doesn't surprise me that SISU have taken the stance they have.

I hear what you say and all good points BUT at the end of the day it was for Shitsu to raise these issues on the day of purchase. THEY DID NOT. We have to assume therefore that the rent was not an issue then. It has become an issue only because of their mis-management of our club. ACL have since accepted that the rent was too high and made offer after offer but all have been rejected. I really don't think that any blame can be attached to them.

 

[stupot07]

Here you go again. You have a guess on what happens and state it as a fact. Then make it sound bad on ACL and give a good excuse for SISU.

I ask the same question again. If it was about keeping us in Coventry and saving our club from getting more into debt would you have been happy if it would have happened? If it was about a reduced rent and a minimum 10 year contract......which is the minimum allowed by the FL.........there would have then been a chance of talks about SISU getting the Ricoh at a later date.

There are no excuses for sisu. However you seem to be making plenty for ACL. You accuse me of guessing and stating as fact - pot, kettle, black.

Oh, and of course I want them in cov, I was a st holder and haven't been to any games this season.

 

[stupot07]

I hear what you say and all good points BUT at the end of the day it was for Shitsu to raise these issues on the day of purchase. THEY DID NOT. We have to assume therefore that the rent was not an issue then. It has become an issue only because of their mis-management of our club. ACL have since accepted that the rent was too high and made offer after offer but all have been rejected. I really don't think that any blame can be attached to them.

So basically, raise it on day of purchase or put up and shut up? Didn't you hear Adams? Rent and lack of additional income was a big issue pre-sisu.

 

[cochese]

I'd blame the god awful "dream team" board that were first in charge of our club for not raising the issue sooner definitely. Something that ranson and those that followed have to take huge responsibility for. But SISU have admitted that mistakes were made in the early years and are trying to make amends. But when they are met by resistance from ACL, then their business sense tells them to find an alternative. Tim Fisher isn't exactly the most popular person on this board, but he's doing what SISU probably want him to do, to find a way to get the club in control of every penny that is spent watching Coventry city. And I just can't see that happening at the Ricoh.

 

[Astute]

There are no excuses for sisu. However you seem to be making plenty for ACL. You accuse me of guessing and stating as fact - pot, kettle, black.

Oh, and of course I want them in cov, I was a st holder and haven't been to any games this season.

But I said IF........and how much better it would have been IF. You stated as a fact.....this is a fact. I was also saying how much better it would have been for us fans.....IF. I also said IF......would have been better for them to sort out things for SISU getting the ground as they would have been talking. But yet again you only read the version you want to.

 

[Tonylinc]

So basically, raise it on day of purchase or put up and shut up? Didn't you hear Adams? Rent and lack of additional income was a big issue pre-sisu.

Even more of a reason to raise and discuss it prior to purchase!

 

[Grendel]

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?

I wouldn't - ACL would though if the "two clauses" were agreed. At least that's one tired old argument we can put to rest now.

 

[Grendel]

I hear what you say and all good points BUT at the end of the day it was for Shitsu to raise these issues on the day of purchase. THEY DID NOT. We have to assume therefore that the rent was not an issue then. It has become an issue only because of their mis-management of our club. ACL have since accepted that the rent was too high and made offer after offer but all have been rejected. I really don't think that any blame can be attached to them.

Sorry don't get that argument at all as to how that helps the football club. It's just a pointless argument.

As to blame well plenty blame the club when it sells players to balance the books.

ACL never have accepted the rent was too high they were forced to address the issue by non payment.

 

[skybluetony176]

I wouldn't - ACL would though if the "two clauses" were agreed. At least that's one tired old argument we can put to rest now.

i thought you said the "two clauses" didn't exist. so i they "didn't" how can you say ACL would have "signed". Do you have a source? where is your link?

 

[stupot07]

i thought you said the "two clauses" didn't exist. so i they "didn't" how can you say ACL would have "signed". Do you have a source? where is your link?

PWKH tonight on ACL help thread

"ACL proposed two changes to the CVA and proposed two conditions precedent which would have to be agreed by the Otium Entertainment Group. These conditions precedent could not be a part of the CVA but without them ACL could not approve the CVA."

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/36796-ACL-amp-Council-need-your-advice/page6

 

[Astute]

PWKH tonight on ACL help thread

"ACL proposed two changes to the CVA and proposed two conditions precedent which would have to be agreed by the Otium Entertainment Group. These conditions precedent could not be a part of the CVA but without them ACL could not approve the CVA."

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/36796-ACL-amp-Council-need-your-advice/page6

But can't say what they are so we are left to guess.

 

[Ashdown1]

As a long time lurcher (from the other side) on here thought I'd reply to this one, and I'm sure will be labelled as a SISU lover but...

I don't think ACL have strictly done anything wrong at all. But at the same time I don't believe they've ever had the clubs best interests at heart. ACL did everything they could to maximise their profits from hosting the football club at their stadium. The high rent, selling off the catering, car park charges that at most football clubs would be chastised for, selling corporate packages back to the club for a profit. All of these things were great for ACL, but simply not good for the club. And when a company is run like that, it means that the club are missing out on vital finances to fund themselves and to build a competitive squad. When there are no income streams for the club, playing at the Ricoh becomes very undesirable. And if you're ACL offering this to the club, then the club is bound to look elsewhere to play their games. So what ACL did wrong, from the clubs point of view, was to make playing at the Ricoh an extremely undesirable option. Even of you then offer better terms, why would the club want to continue a relationship with their landlords who have profited so greatly from their tenancy? You could say because of the fans, but I just think it says more about how SISU view their relationship with ACL. Doesn't make it right, and it's the fans who suffer, but it doesn't surprise me that SISU have taken the stance they have.

Well thanks to a number of reasons the club didn't have a pot to piss in did they and therefore almost any deal on a fab new ground was a good deal !

 

[italiahorse]

Sorry don't get that argument at all as to how that helps the football club. It's just a pointless argument.

As to blame well plenty blame the club when it sells players to balance the books.

ACL never have accepted the rent was too high they were forced to address the issue by non payment.

The rent was set at a time when the management thought the PL was imminent and to be fair it was a fair rent for those assumptions.
However for what ever reasons promotion did not happen.
ACL left it as agreed and I'm not sure if some previous management had refused a proposal that the rent would be dictated by what league we were in.
Perhaps an increase for PL but a decrease for L! L2. Perhaps the "positive" management at the time thought no increase for PL would be better than a decrease for L1 L2.
Whatever happened SISU must have been just as positive and took on the previous agreement.
Obviously when the SISU plan went tits up the agreement was a problem.
Rather than accept it they withdrew payments, which is wrong, ACL could have helped but the risk of variations was the current managements problem.
ACL would know the rent was too high for L1 but also when the rent was agreed they knew it was too low for PL.
CCFC management had taken a gamble on PL and it had not paid off.

In summation ACL were wrong to allow CCFC management to not accept the variable rent agreement. Both CCFC management teams thought they were on a winner with the rent agreed and PL imminent. CCFC took a gamble and it went wrong and in reality they could never afford to pay the rent in D1

 

[stupot07]

But can't say what they are so we are left to guess.

Pretty sure Les Reid tweeted it.

 

[Grendel]

Well thanks to a number of reasons the club didn't have a pot to piss in did they and therefore almost any deal on a fab new ground was a good deal !

Shane we didn't have Swansea as our council isn't it?

 

[bigfatronssba]

So basically, raise it on day of purchase or put up and shut up? Didn't you hear Adams? Rent and lack of additional income was a big issue pre-sisu.

Isn't that what due diligence is for?

 

[sky blue john]

Sorry don't get that argument at all as to how that helps the football club. It's just a pointless argument.

As to blame well plenty blame the club when it sells players to balance the books.

ACL never have accepted the rent was too high they were forced to address the issue by non payment.

So Acl didn't offer a 400k deal only for Sisu to turn it down citing that
the f&b was the issue ?

 

[stupot07]

Isn't that what due diligence is for?

Things change.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Well regardless of ownership, or who is pulling the strings at the Council, Coventry City Football Club is entirely to blame for its own downfall.

Mid 1990's - A Premier League team, own ground not in any immediate need of renovation, not a massive fanbase but solid, not in any serious debt.

2013 - A third tier team in the relegation zone, bunking up with a club miles from home, crowds reduced to that of a Conference team, in serious financial trouble.

Even if you do blame ACL for the current problems, CCFC as a business are the ones that gave ACL that power over them.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Things change.

But anything that changed post 2007 is down to Sisu and they need to accept the consequences of that.

Its Sisu in charge of CCFC, not ACL.

 

[Hobo]

I have read all your posts with interest. Nobody has convinced me ACL are the culprits in all this.

ACL have tried to negotiate.

SISU keep contradicting themselves. They just haven't got any transparency or rapport with the fans.

I wouldn't do business with them, that is the ultimate measure for me.

 

[DaleM]

As a long time lurcher (from the other side) on here thought I'd reply to this one, and I'm sure will be labelled as a SISU lover but...

I don't think ACL have strictly done anything wrong at all. But at the same time I don't believe they've ever had the clubs best interests at heart. ACL did everything they could to maximise their profits from hosting the football club at their stadium. The high rent, selling off the catering, car park charges that at most football clubs would be chastised for, selling corporate packages back to the club for a profit. All of these things were great for ACL, but simply not good for the club. And when a company is run like that, it means that the club are missing out on vital finances to fund themselves and to build a competitive squad. When there are no income streams for the club, playing at the Ricoh becomes very undesirable. And if you're ACL offering this to the club, then the club is bound to look elsewhere to play their games. So what ACL did wrong, from the clubs point of view, was to make playing at the Ricoh an extremely undesirable option. Even of you then offer better terms, why would the club want to continue a relationship with their landlords who have profited so greatly from their tenancy? You could say because of the fans, but I just think it says more about how SISU view their relationship with ACL. Doesn't make it right, and it's the fans who suffer, but it doesn't surprise me that SISU have taken the stance they have.

So your a dog then.

 

[skybluefred]

the rent didn't have to be part of the CVA, ACL made it part of the CVA and wouldn't agree the CVA without it. They then say that they rejected for the fans because the accounts need investigating. If they felt that strongly about the accounts then they should have just rejected it, trying to use the CVA to include the rent and JR has nothing to do with the good of the fans.

So including the rent in the CVA meaning CCFC would be playing at the RICOH (which is in Coventry) in case you had forgotten,would not have been in both the Clubs and fans best interests.

 

[lordsummerisle]

ACL have tried to negotiate.

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.

 

[italiahorse]

So your a dog then.

The logic is correct but if you invest in the infrastructure like bar facilities, under stand area etc you deserve the payback. You can't make no contribution to the facilities and expect the returns. However if you are the main customer you could argue that you are in a position that helps you make a profit. ACL need to realise this and proportion out the profits at an agreed rate. Similar to the main arena. It's not normally a problem if the club owns the facilities but SISU need to offer the right price. My gut reaction is they have not, but who knows.?

Edit : Wrong post quoted but the points the same

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The proposals ACL required simply did not comply with the law. They were offered the chance to submit modifications which did comply with the law, yet for reasons best known to themselves, they chose not to do so.

 

[covcity4life]

Glad you agree its all suspect. Waking up to council lies.

Well done you!

 

[covcity4life]

the rent didn't have to be part of the CVA, ACL made it part of the CVA and wouldn't agree the CVA without it. They then say that they rejected for the fans because the accounts need investigating. If they felt that strongly about the accounts then they should have just rejected it, trying to use the CVA to include the rent and JR has nothing to do with the good of the fans.

Booooya!

Clever pot