Judicial Review (2 Viewers)

[skybluefred]

ACL are a separate organisation and totally private so we are told.

You are suggesting they are a council quango. I agree with you. It's unethical if not illegal but ethics are hardly a strength of the council are they?

No.I'am saying that they are tenants of a CCC owned property.They have nigh on 40 years left on their lease,and of
course CCC have an interest in ensuring ACL succeed,they bring in crowds to the venue and that brings in money for
local business. Is that not one of the main objects of a Council ?.

 

---

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

No.I'am saying that they are tenants of a CCC owned property.They have nigh on 40 years left on their lease,and of
course CCC have an interest in ensuring ACL succeed,they bring in crowds to the venue and that brings in money for
local business. Is that not one of the main objects of a Council ?.

No its not its about giving a load of vultures something for free so they can make money out ofit are you stupid

 

[bigfatronssba]

ACL are a separate organisation and totally private so we are told.

You are suggesting they are a council quango. I agree with you. It's unethical if not illegal but ethics are hardly a strength of the council are they?

By suggesting that a private Ltd company is a quango you have just shown you don't really know what your talking about.

 

[No future with SISU]

Would a commercial lender borrow them money in the circumstances? This is the reason why they've had to borrow from the council in the first place isn't it?

The bank of england are giving loans to companys at 3/4 % interest, ACL should go after that, it will be a cheap morgage. All the SISU supporters will shout STATE AID.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

The bank of england are giving loans to companys at 3/4 % interest, ACL should go after that, it will be a cheap morgage. All the SISU supporters will shout STATE AID.

The Bank of England is a private company

 

[bigfatronssba]

The Bank of England is a private company

If you have shares in them then I hate to break this to you, but it was nationalised 67 years ago.

 

[Grendel]

He has made very valid points, knows our history and old players, he is a fan alright. But his hatred of ACL, CCC seems very deep rooted.

Would like hm to expand on that and explain his stance?

The blame game can go on for ever.

The club was condemned due to a number of factors;

- Richardson and his folly of selling the previous stadium
- The fool mcginnity. If he had out the club into administration when no penalties existed we wouldn't have had assett stripping and the nonense arrangement we now have
- sisu are to blame mainly for their idiocy. Ranson did a selling job and they sanctioned his clueless venture and profligacy. Then they appointed Duleiu a man totally unfit for purpose who had previously demonstrated incompetence at Southampton. They have arrived at the scene when the damage is done.

Hedge funds are organisations which thrive on helpless institutions and take advantage. The irony is sisu didn't - they just appointed ranson, had 3 managers on the payroll at one time and a squad that exceeded any incline it could ever make.

No, it was the council who excercised ruthlessness. It struck a "deal" which have the club no hope. A 22,500 break even figure was a road to destruction. An agreement to pay a mortgage to allow an infant management company to be supported. The consequence for the club had been insolvency under a "friendly" regime and bankruptcy and virtual oblivion under another.

Other councils have given far better support to their football clubs.

The interesting thing on here is the justification of such actions. What I cannot fathom is the interest in the council or ACL. Why even debate the point? The fact is we are homeless and we will not be returning as tenants.

Me, well as I have always said my only interest is the club and actually watching again. Lets be clear, I could go to Sixfiekds. It costs noire to me but the while notion is absurd so I abstain.

However, make no mistake - the point scoring and defence of this council is misguided at best and will do nothing to return this club back home.

My stance is clear. I will back the club back regardless of consequence for any institution. Sadly there are many on here who don't share that belief. They'd prefer to stand on a hill 35 miles away, tubthump and defend the council and management company over a stadium that only existed for one reason - for Coventry City Football Club.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

If you have shares in them then I hate to break this to you, but it was nationalised 67 years ago.

You are right thought I'd deleted this when I realized my shares wew worthless

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

The blame game can go on for ever.

The club was condemned due to a number of factors;

- Richardson and his folly of selling the previous stadium
- The fool mcginnity. If he had out the club into administration when no penalties existed we wouldn't have had assett stripping and the nonense arrangement we now have
- sisu are to blame mainly for their idiocy. Ranson did a selling job and they sanctioned his clueless venture and profligacy. Then they appointed Duleiu a man totally unfit for purpose who had previously demonstrated incompetence at Southampton. They have arrived at the scene when the damage is done.

Hedge funds are organisations which thrive on helpless institutions and take advantage. The irony is sisu didn't - they just appointed ranson, had 3 managers on the payroll at one time and a squad that exceeded any incline it could ever make.

No, it was the council who excercised ruthlessness. It struck a "deal" which have the club no hope. A 22,500 break even figure was a road to destruction. An agreement to pay a mortgage to allow an infant management company to be supported. The consequence for the club had been insolvency under a "friendly" regime and bankruptcy and virtual oblivion under another.

Other councils have given far better support to their football clubs.

The interesting thing on here is the justification of such actions. What I cannot fathom is the interest in the council or ACL. Why even debate the point? The fact is we are homeless and we will not be returning as tenants.

Me, well as I have always said my only interest is the club and actually watching again. Lets be clear, I could go to Sixfiekds. It costs noire to me but the while notion is absurd so I abstain.

However, make no mistake - the point scoring and defence of this council is misguided at best and will do nothing to return this club back home.

My stance is clear. I will back the club back regardless of consequence for any institution. Sadly there are many on here who don't share that belief. They'd prefer to stand on a hill 35 miles away, tubthump and defend the council and management company over a stadium that only existed for one reason - for Coventry City Football Club.

The only reason for the 22500 break even figure was? And dont say the rent
Why do 20 to 100 people on a hill annoy you so much?

 

[The Gentleman]

Would a commercial lender borrow them money in the circumstances? This is the reason why they've had to borrow from the council in the first place isn't it?

I know it is only what they say but that was then, recently have they not said they are financially in a good place and have good prospects of getting better. I would think that a commercial lender would love that scenario, wouldn't you ?

 

[Tonylinc]

The blame game can go on for ever.

The club was condemned due to a number of factors;

- Richardson and his folly of selling the previous stadium
- The fool mcginnity. If he had out the club into administration when no penalties existed we wouldn't have had assett stripping and the nonense arrangement we now have
- sisu are to blame mainly for their idiocy. Ranson did a selling job and they sanctioned his clueless venture and profligacy. Then they appointed Duleiu a man totally unfit for purpose who had previously demonstrated incompetence at Southampton. They have arrived at the scene when the damage is done.

Hedge funds are organisations which thrive on helpless institutions and take advantage. The irony is sisu didn't - they just appointed ranson, had 3 managers on the payroll at one time and a squad that exceeded any incline it could ever make.

No, it was the council who excercised ruthlessness. It struck a "deal" which have the club no hope. A 22,500 break even figure was a road to destruction. An agreement to pay a mortgage to allow an infant management company to be supported. The consequence for the club had been insolvency under a "friendly" regime and bankruptcy and virtual oblivion under another.

Other councils have given far better support to their football clubs.

The interesting thing on here is the justification of such actions. What I cannot fathom is the interest in the council or ACL. Why even debate the point? The fact is we are homeless and we will not be returning as tenants.

Me, well as I have always said my only interest is the club and actually watching again. Lets be clear, I could go to Sixfiekds. It costs noire to me but the while notion is absurd so I abstain.

However, make no mistake - the point scoring and defence of this council is misguided at best and will do nothing to return this club back home.

My stance is clear. I will back the club back regardless of consequence for any institution. Sadly there are many on here who don't share that belief. They'd prefer to stand on a hill 35 miles away, tubthump and defend the council and management company over a stadium that only existed for one reason - for Coventry City Football Club.

I hear all that you say there BUT how can you defend them? They were given the opportunity to buy half of the leasehold interest but declined. They were then offered a vastly reduced rent but also declined. They really don't have a clue do they????

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

I hear all that you say there BUT how can you defend them? They were given the opportunity to buy half of the leasehold interest but declined. They were then offered a vastly reduced rent but also declined. They really don't have a clue do they????

 

[chiefdave]

The only reason for the 22500 break even figure was?

As was pointed out on here earlier in the week the first match after SISU took over was in the championship with nearly 20K there. If they'd maintained those attendances the £1.2m a year rent would equate to around £2.60 a ticket.

Even now with crowds of 10K the £150K offer would equate to about 65p a ticket.

Those are hardly unaffordable figures nor do they give any indication that the rent was ever the major problem when the club were spending far in excess of their income.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

 

[Grendel]

As was pointed out on here earlier in the week the first match after SISU took over was in the championship with nearly 20K there. If they'd maintained those attendances the £1.2m a year rent would equate to around £2.60 a ticket.

Even now with crowds of 10K the £150K offer would equate to about 65p a ticket.

Those are hardly unaffordable figures nor do they give any indication that the rent was ever the major problem when the club were spending far in excess of their income.

Utter nonsense. The average ticket price was £9.50 - you were happy 25% was spent on propping up ACL -- says it all

 

[Grendel]

It is if work for ACL

 

[chiefdave]

Utter nonsense. The average ticket price was £9.50 - you were happy 25% was spent on propping up ACL -- says it all

Where did it say I was happy with it? I said it wasn't the cause of the problems as SISU make it out to be. Look how much they claim we have lost every year and that clearly shows the issue does not lie with the rent. You also completely ignore the fact that ACL are not saying the rent should be £1.2m now, their last offer was £150K, how much lower do you think it should go? Do you really think repayments / rent to a SISU related company in a new stadium will be less than £150K?

 

[chiefdave]

Utter nonsense. The average ticket price was £9.50 - you were happy 25% was spent on propping up ACL -- says it all

BTW is that ticket price based on any actual evidence or just a figure you've plucked out of the air?

 

[No future with SISU]

This is just typical.

The reason I say that this cannot be the perspective of any true football fan is that no true football fan would have any interest but one at the moment - the return to the City.

Why would any fan who has that overriding interest make any defence of ACL or the council.

Someone made some comment on here that if we were Leeds or Millwall then their would be such anger at the club they wouldn't dare move us. This may be, however, such "passion" would also mean not a council house window would be left intact and one if the board members would not be welcomed on a forum such as this.

The initial arrangement was an abomination. The equivalent of offering a dying man a bottle of Evian for his life savings. The attempt at justification shows acceptance of the unacceptable.

Real fans want the club back whatever - not to try and defend the original protagonists in this debacle.

What has a dying man been offered a bottle of expensive water got to do with ccfc comeing back to coventry

 

[Grendel]

Where did it say I was happy with it? I said it wasn't the cause of the problems as SISU make it out to be. Look how much they claim we have lost every year and that clearly shows the issue does not lie with the rent. You also completely ignore the fact that ACL are not saying the rent should be £1.2m now, their last offer was £150K, how much lower do you think it should go? Do you really think repayments / rent to a SISU related company in a new stadium will be less than £150K?

The offer of £150K was never made to the present owners in a situation where it could be accepted.

The ownership of the whole management company would enable the club to be competitive. Without it the ground is worthless.

 

[The lost fan]

The offer of £150K was never made to the present owners in a situation where it could be accepted.

The ownership of the whole management company would enable the club to be competitive. Without it the ground is worthless.

Why dont we just give the whole cities income ? maybe they will be happy then.. smell the coffee ................they dont care about CCFC ...only there bank balance !!!!!!!!

 

[No future with SISU]

The offer of £150K was never made to the present owners in a situation where it could be accepted.

The ownership of the whole management company would enable the club to be competitive. Without it the ground is worthless.

ACL make a profit of 1m a year, SISU have stated they have put in 60m in 5 years into CCFC, how will owning ACL make CCFC competitive

 

[Grendel]

ACL make a profit of 1m a year, SISU have stated they have put in 60m in 5 years into CCFC, how will owning ACL make CCFC competitive

Profits mean nothing in this game -- revenue is the King

 

[chiefdave]

The offer of £150K was never made to the present owners in a situation where it could be accepted.

Not sure what you mean by a situation where it could be accepted, but are you therefore inferring that an offer of £150K should be accepted by SISU? Surely all that takes is someone on the SISU side to go yes we'll take that offer, doesn't seem impossible to me. if you think that offer was never made then you should listen to the podcast referenced in Les Reids recent articles. They report following their meeting with the chaps who are on the board of ACL that they made it very clearly that the offer was made to SISU.

 

[Grendel]

BTW is that ticket price based on any actual evidence or just a figure you've plucked out of the air?

It's based on the fact the highest ever ticket revenue was around £5.2 million - I can't remember if that is VAT inclusive but it's an accepted fact, well Astute seems to believe otherwise.

 

[chiefdave]

Profits mean nothing in this game -- revenue is the King

How much revenue are SISU getting at Sixfields?

 

[No future with SISU]

The blame game can go on for ever.

The club was condemned due to a number of factors;

- Richardson and his folly of selling the previous stadium
- The fool mcginnity. If he had out the club into administration when no penalties existed we wouldn't have had assett stripping and the nonense arrangement we now have
- sisu are to blame mainly for their idiocy. Ranson did a selling job and they sanctioned his clueless venture and profligacy. Then they appointed Duleiu a man totally unfit for purpose who had previously demonstrated incompetence at Southampton. They have arrived at the scene when the damage is done.

Hedge funds are organisations which thrive on helpless institutions and take advantage. The irony is sisu didn't - they just appointed ranson, had 3 managers on the payroll at one time and a squad that exceeded any incline it could ever make.

No, it was the council who excercised ruthlessness. It struck a "deal" which have the club no hope. A 22,500 break even figure was a road to destruction. An agreement to pay a mortgage to allow an infant management company to be supported. The consequence for the club had been insolvency under a "friendly" regime and bankruptcy and virtual oblivion under another.

Other councils have given far better support to their football clubs.

The interesting thing on here is the justification of such actions. What I cannot fathom is the interest in the council or ACL. Why even debate the point? The fact is we are homeless and we will not be returning as tenants.

Me, well as I have always said my only interest is the club and actually watching again. Lets be clear, I could go to Sixfiekds. It costs noire to me but the while notion is absurd so I abstain.

However, make no mistake - the point scoring and defence of this council is misguided at best and will do nothing to return this club back home.

My stance is clear. I will back the club back regardless of consequence for any institution. Sadly there are many on here who don't share that belief. They'd prefer to stand on a hill 35 miles away, tubthump and defend the council and management company over a stadium that only existed for one reason - for Coventry City Football Club.

You are using old figures, this was in the days of our high wages, the reason we went into debt, not the rent. SISU=5 years=£60mDEBT rent =£6m to ACL, what clever people keep telling us it is the bad ACL and council who got us into this mess.

 

[Grendel]

Not sure what you mean by a situation where it could be accepted, but are you therefore inferring that an offer of £150K should be accepted by SISU? Surely all that takes is someone on the SISU side to go yes we'll take that offer, doesn't seem impossible to me. if you think that offer was never made then you should listen to the podcast referenced in Les Reids recent articles. They report following their meeting with the chaps who are on the board of ACL that they made it very clearly that the offer was made to SISU.

It was made in the meeting where it was deemed not legal to Labowitch. Also it was I believe a 10 year lease, wasn't it dependant on the league and stepped if the crowds were higher? What was the detail?

 

[Grendel]

You are using old figures, this was in the days of our high wages, the reason we went into debt, not the rent. SISU=5 years=£60mDEBT rent =£6m to ACL, what clever people keep telling us it is the bad ACL and council who got us into this mess.

They are the figures at the time.

Anyone will tell you 25% of revenue on rent leads to bankruptcy -- which it did twice.

 

[Grendel]

How much revenue are SISU getting at Sixfields?

Irelevant - the club strategically needs to own the leasehold as a minimum or it has no future

 

[chiefdave]

It was made in the meeting where it was deemed not legal to Labowitch. Also it was I believe a 10 year lease, wasn't it dependant on the league and stepped if the crowds were higher? What was the detail?

You need to listen to the podcast as they state that the council were very clear that the 150K offer had been made available to SISU. I will ask you again do you think that is an offer SISU should accept?

 

[Grendel]

You need to listen to the podcast as they state that the council were very clear that the 150K offer had been made available to SISU. I will ask you again do you think that is an offer SISU should accept?

Again the offer was made in an administration meeting and could not be accepted -- this is widely acknowledged.

Is it £150k if the club are in The Championship and attracting 30,000 crowds?

If yes and they get full access to all match day revenues and also a share of non matchday revenue through part share ownership of the management company it is a good deal

 

[chiefdave]

Anyone will tell you 25% of revenue on rent leads to bankruptcy -- which it did twice.

Ticket income is not the only money that comes into the club. Although you do have to wonder if this is as basic a business fact as you state why did it take SISU 5 years to work it out and why, once they did work it out, didn't they try and negotiate on the rent rather than just stopping paying it.

Irelevant - the club strategically needs to own the leasehold as a minimum or it has no future

If they need to own the lease why have they never made an offer to buy it?

 

[Grendel]

Ticket income is not the only money that comes into the club. Although you do have to wonder if this is as basic a business fact as you state why did it take SISU 5 years to work it out and why, once they did work it out, didn't they try and negotiate on the rent rather than just stopping paying it.



If they need to own the lease why have they never made an offer to buy it?

Again you are trying to justify the stance of a body that is of no interest to you or benefit -- why?

As for other income streams -- somewhat restricted in Planet Coventry

No doubt someone will pipe up "buy the rights back" -- again irrelevant if your focus is 100% in support of the club.

We've paid enough thanks.

 

[chiefdave]

Again you are trying to justify the stance of a body that is of no interest to you or benefit -- why?

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm highlighting SISUs complete and utter incompetence using the facts you supply. If you state that having 25% of ticket revenue spent on rent is a clear road to bankrupcy it then follows that if SISU haven't noticed this for 5 years they are highly incompetent. That has nothing to do with the council, ACL or anyone else it is purely a comment on SISUs ability.

Same with the ownership of the leasehold you state the club needs to own the leasehold or it has no future yet at no point have SISU made an offer to buy the leasehold. Again this show the incompetence of SISU, nothing to do with the council or ACL.