Why did ACL not accept the CVA? (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter SonOfSnoz
- Start date
The Penguin
Well-Known Member
Probably wasn't sent on letterheaded paper or something.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
because they are a business not football fans.
another question that you need to ask is if shitsu/scrotium paid £1.5M for CCFC Ltd and the outstanding rent was £ 1.2M why didn't they just pay the rent saving them a cool £300,000.00 and we would have been 10points better off. it also may have stood them better in the rent negotiations and bought them more sympathy from fans especially if we were still in the ricoh. meaning the bulk would be against acl/ccc forcing them to make a better offer.
there has been so much biting of noses to spite faces it beggars belief from all sides and i'm sure there will be more to come.
another question that you need to ask is if shitsu/scrotium paid £1.5M for CCFC Ltd and the outstanding rent was £ 1.2M why didn't they just pay the rent saving them a cool £300,000.00 and we would have been 10points better off. it also may have stood them better in the rent negotiations and bought them more sympathy from fans especially if we were still in the ricoh. meaning the bulk would be against acl/ccc forcing them to make a better offer.
there has been so much biting of noses to spite faces it beggars belief from all sides and i'm sure there will be more to come.
Because they didn't agree with it? why agree and sign something you have fundamental issues with. It's like signing divorce papers for adultery when you did no such thing, by signing it you're agreeing to it.
Like going to sixfields some say legitimises what has happened.
Like going to sixfields some say legitimises what has happened.
Calling them 'shitsu/scrotium' doesn't add value to any post.
And ACL were NOT owed £1,2m - they were owed £595k.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Read OSB's post on the other thread, most of the £1.5m will come back to them as the major creditor anyway.
The other point worth making is that ACL are a business primarily but went on the PR offensive to say they were basically City fans who wanted the best for the club.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Actually contractually ACL were owed far more but it has been mitigated by the administration process We do not have exact figures but this is I think the general situation
Rent outstanding circa £1.3m
Interest on outstanding rent est £100k
drawn down from Escrow account - £536k (contractually this escow account should have been topped up by the tenant or guarantor)
Match day expenses received est - £230k
but say net debt was £624 if you accept the administrators right to offset the escrow and match day expenses
Then there is the mitigated amount due on the remainder of the lease (40 years at 1.3m per the contract = £52m) The administrator entered a mitigated claim of circa £1.67m
so total debt owed to ACL by the administrators calculation was £2.294m (approx) of which he would have had funds available to pay £595k of it had the CVA been accepted. It wasnt so original debts for all parties stand
There is a difference between what was owed and what could have been payable under the CVA which was rejected
ACL rejected the CVA because they fundamentally disagreed with the basis of the administration and CVA. In their opinion the errors should have been corrected by re registering players with the share in CCFC Ltd which would have led to different bids to reflect the value of the players. To accept would have legitimised the approch Appleton has taken in their opinion
Rent outstanding circa £1.3m
Interest on outstanding rent est £100k
drawn down from Escrow account - £536k (contractually this escow account should have been topped up by the tenant or guarantor)
Match day expenses received est - £230k
but say net debt was £624 if you accept the administrators right to offset the escrow and match day expenses
Then there is the mitigated amount due on the remainder of the lease (40 years at 1.3m per the contract = £52m) The administrator entered a mitigated claim of circa £1.67m
so total debt owed to ACL by the administrators calculation was £2.294m (approx) of which he would have had funds available to pay £595k of it had the CVA been accepted. It wasnt so original debts for all parties stand
There is a difference between what was owed and what could have been payable under the CVA which was rejected
ACL rejected the CVA because they fundamentally disagreed with the basis of the administration and CVA. In their opinion the errors should have been corrected by re registering players with the share in CCFC Ltd which would have led to different bids to reflect the value of the players. To accept would have legitimised the approch Appleton has taken in their opinion
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
as shitsu/scrotium are lower than a snakes belly so it doesn't detract either.
the outstanding rent was £ 1.2M they only owed £595K because acl took the bond so either way shitsu/scrotium would still be £300K better off and like i said would gain sympathy from fans putting acl/ccc in a more difficult place to negotiate. shitsu/scrotium gained nothing financially or otherwise short term from their actions. long term? i guess that depends on what they really want.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It's irrelevant either way. Joe Elliott and Hoffman were on the board for a good while, it doesn't mean that decisions they made were in the best interests of the club.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
well that must have been a PR offensive that flew over my head. i have never considered them CCFC fans the same as i never have about shitsu. both are businesses pure and simple with no real interest in the fans.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
You could argue that a long lease is worth tens of millions.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I think it goes back to Tim :jerkit: saying reduce the rent or we will liquidate the club.
Obviously going into administration, selling the club to the highest bidder and then moving onwards and upwards is quite straight forward.:thinking about:
Normally it is, but apparently when it went into administration the club and all it's assets had gone elsewhere.:facepalm:
Funny how an admin process that basically screwed acl ended up with the club companies being 'united'....could easily have been done at anytime since 2007.
Funny how accounts haven't been filed that would show when the transfer of players happened.
Funny how PA sold assets apart from the lease to play at Ricoh to Otium before CVA....
Funny how he says he hasn't found transfer of contracts during admin, when he should be looking at period before as well.
Sisu, PA and FL all complicit in this.
Funny how accounts haven't been filed that would show when the transfer of players happened.
Funny how PA sold assets apart from the lease to play at Ricoh to Otium before CVA....
Funny how he says he hasn't found transfer of contracts during admin, when he should be looking at period before as well.
Sisu, PA and FL all complicit in this.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Funny how the administrators report will not be made available to the public
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
While that is true, their primary business and the reason they exist is because they run a football stadium, so rejecting does seem a little odd. Still, they have moved on and can look forward to a successful future as the country's premier Car Boot and Wedding Fayre venue.
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Tony bang on.. cause and effect clarified... why do people focus on the effect-- root cause is SISU not Paying the rent.
deanocity3
New Member
It's strange that Sisu said they could not afford to pay the rent,yet they can put their hand in their pockets now and still pay the players and others with very little income.
there making a loss at every home match.
The income from each home game should be enough to pay all employees for a 2 week period,but it is well short,so the money is coming from elsewhere to pay the shortfall.
So how deep are Sisu's pockets? who knows
there making a loss at every home match.
The income from each home game should be enough to pay all employees for a 2 week period,but it is well short,so the money is coming from elsewhere to pay the shortfall.
So how deep are Sisu's pockets? who knows