shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Whoops Grendels accidentally trolled for the wrong side!
You just proved his point there G. He wasn't talking about the Ricoh.
Grounds for the Judicial Review (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
Whoops Grendels accidentally trolled for the wrong side!
You just proved his point there G. He wasn't talking about the Ricoh.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Results of a Judicial Review is not just the loan is cancelled and ACL have to finance elsewhere or go bust. It could be no case to answer, it could be re run the decision process which could give the same answer or a different one, it could be the loan is forbidden and has to be repaid, etc etc ..... all yet to be decided
In respect of EU law and value. Wouldnt SISU have to prove that the debt to Yorkshire bank was not legally constituted at a value of £14.4m plus ACL not a going concern to be able to say YB were not entitled to full repayment from CCC in acquiring the loan? The Council were not paying over the top for the loan they were paying what was due, we dont know what the actual settlement figure would have been. The settlement figure could well have included significant penalties for early repayment. The discounted amount of £6.4m was only an indication of settlement it doesnt mean YB would have to accept that figure from someone buying the debt because thats the bottomline they would expect to get if ACL went in to administration in December 2012 anyway.
The main reason that in December 2012 ACL was having to consider going concern was that its main tenant was not paying under the lease. This affected the cashflow of ACL it affected the bank valuation because that rental income was excluded from the calculations etc. But surely that also points to an argument that ACL was being deliberately distressed by its tenant which artificially depressed value - to whose advantage? By March 2013 independent auditors for ACL signed the company off as a going concern for 12 months+ from that date - quite a turn around without the club?
No doubt many of the facts will surface at the JR. But so far we have had something like 1500 pages of statements, outline case, evidence etc from one side and as I understand it 40 pages of reasons not to grant a Judicial Review from the other. The story of the loan, its settlement, the Councils decisions, SISU's involvement etc is no where near clear yet
Nothing is as simple or as transparent as it seems in all this ............... situation normal then
In respect of EU law and value. Wouldnt SISU have to prove that the debt to Yorkshire bank was not legally constituted at a value of £14.4m plus ACL not a going concern to be able to say YB were not entitled to full repayment from CCC in acquiring the loan? The Council were not paying over the top for the loan they were paying what was due, we dont know what the actual settlement figure would have been. The settlement figure could well have included significant penalties for early repayment. The discounted amount of £6.4m was only an indication of settlement it doesnt mean YB would have to accept that figure from someone buying the debt because thats the bottomline they would expect to get if ACL went in to administration in December 2012 anyway.
The main reason that in December 2012 ACL was having to consider going concern was that its main tenant was not paying under the lease. This affected the cashflow of ACL it affected the bank valuation because that rental income was excluded from the calculations etc. But surely that also points to an argument that ACL was being deliberately distressed by its tenant which artificially depressed value - to whose advantage? By March 2013 independent auditors for ACL signed the company off as a going concern for 12 months+ from that date - quite a turn around without the club?
No doubt many of the facts will surface at the JR. But so far we have had something like 1500 pages of statements, outline case, evidence etc from one side and as I understand it 40 pages of reasons not to grant a Judicial Review from the other. The story of the loan, its settlement, the Councils decisions, SISU's involvement etc is no where near clear yet
Nothing is as simple or as transparent as it seems in all this ............... situation normal then
Last edited:
Why? If ACL, or a future purchaser of ACL, repay the lohn, the taxpayer makes a small profit.
If it is given away on the cheap, the taxpayer has lost a potential source of revenue, or sale at a better price for ever.
The big mistake was CCC getting involved in the first place by saving the stadium project. That was a rash decision and they could not have foreseen the present situation.
SISU's decision to buy CCFC was also a rash decision and they obviously made a severe miscalculation.
At the moment it is all about whether the council in some form pays for SISU's mistake, as well as their own, or SISU have to admit to their investors that the game is over and the millions have gone. Neither side wants to lose out.
The least important consideration in this mess is our beloved CCFC, but obviously the long term future of CCFC should interest the council more at some point, wheras SISU will not hang around if they get at least some of their losses back.
tisza
Well-Known Member
Let's not forget the 1st judge said there was no case.
The 2nd judge said there might be a case.
The 2nd judge might be wrong and the 1st judge could have been right.
No matter how it goes the loser will probably appeal.
Any subsequent court action for damages etc. could take ages again.
Don't see how it could put the club back into a SISU-owned arena any time soon.
Also surely if the Council had to pay damages and wanted to finance it through a sale of the Ricoh they would have to put it on the open market so anyone could buy it ? Must be obligation to the taxpayer to get maximium value for the arena. Again another time-consuming process.
The 2nd judge said there might be a case.
The 2nd judge might be wrong and the 1st judge could have been right.
No matter how it goes the loser will probably appeal.
Any subsequent court action for damages etc. could take ages again.
Don't see how it could put the club back into a SISU-owned arena any time soon.
Also surely if the Council had to pay damages and wanted to finance it through a sale of the Ricoh they would have to put it on the open market so anyone could buy it ? Must be obligation to the taxpayer to get maximium value for the arena. Again another time-consuming process.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Was it the council who did the valuation or was it done for them and would they have seen the YB ones?Godiva said:
I don't know. As OSB says - not all the facts are known. There's no transparency.
Well If this helps ,fisher was on CWR saying what trouble ACL were In ,then a week later he was expessing how terrible It was that the bank had sent the auditors in . whether that means It was their valuation I'll leave to you
tisza
Well-Known Member
Which is really at the heart of all this. How can people take a hard line pro or anti SISU/ACL without knowing the definitive truth of who did what and when? Both sides are at fault for this.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's not for sale !!
Indeed it's now in profit without the club.
If the club come back it's a win win for all, except of course the 'business' that is Sisu.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
As I understand it ....... and i am not sure so happy to be corrected....... the valuation of £6.4m was carried out by CBRE for Yorkshire bank in order to value the security of the YB loan.
The £6.4m was the worst case scenario (ie if ACL ceased to trade) and excluded any valuation of the CCFC tenancy (because they had stopped paying but it could be argued they were a bad risk any way like many football clubs based on their financial statements).
ACL, as is common practice, would have been liable to pay the banks costs for doing the valuation and could have chosen to accept or not the valuation document. Did they accept it? CCC I would guess did not commission the report or have any legal access to it other than reports made to it by the council officers who act as directors of ACL. Consequently I suspect, as has been highlighted here and on other social media sites, the references to the valuation of £6.4m by the CCC are a little unclear and lacking detail
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
If that was said ....... how did the bank have the authority to send the auditors in (thats a general question wingy not directed at you as such
)? Given that the accounts were due to be filed 28/02/13 for year ended 31/05/12 for ACL then I suspect the ACL auditors were already in. The auditors used by ACL are called Dains, the 2 reports being discussed December 2012 were prepared by Deloittes and Price Waterhouse I believe. The bank may have sent investigating accountants in certainly, a cost to be paid by ACL (and not cheap), but they were not the auditors. That said I have recollection that it was CBRE that did the valuations and Deloittes & PWC that investigated the business plans.... but like I said I could be wrong
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
If I have a mortgage of £14M and I reschedule my loan I still owe £14M.
If I can't reschedule my loan, I have to move out and if there is only one buyer willing to pay, say £6.5M, my bank may consider that offer as it is better than nothing.
Is the value of the loan £14M or £6.5M, because in my book it's the former. In reality that's how the business that is called Sisu makes it's money.
CCFC ACL HIGGS CCC all loose out as collateral damage.
If Sisu gain the Ricoh or build a new ground CCFC will not own it so we as a club are back where we have been already. Namely renting.
If that was said ....... how did the bank have the authority to send the auditors in (thats a general question wingy not directed at you as such
It was a year ago OSB so the actual word Auditors /Accountants could be crossed although the Inference was the same ,by the way who released the Figure of £6.4M. where did that come from?
It shouldn't be forgotten that at the moment there is no certainty that a judicial review will actually take place. It is up to SISU to put a proper case together and present this to the court who have agreed to listen to it.
This, however will not be cheap. SISU may decide, as they are hemorrhaging money on renting a stadium that nobody attends, paying for club merchandise that nobody buys and paying fees to advise on a stadium they are never going to build, that paying the costs of a court case they are never going to win is a step too far.
This, however will not be cheap. SISU may decide, as they are hemorrhaging money on renting a stadium that nobody attends, paying for club merchandise that nobody buys and paying fees to advise on a stadium they are never going to build, that paying the costs of a court case they are never going to win is a step too far.
Isn't the JR run and paid by sisu themselves? Whereas the club is only managed by sisu and funded by outside investors.
So the clubs finances will have no impact on sisu's decision to take this all the way to Luxembourg if necessary.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
To me if I default on my Mortgage/a loan the bank will come after me for the outstanding amount, not the value of the property. As a mortgage is secured on the property I'd lose my house first as the bank would sell that and I'd still have to make up the difference if the sale price was less than I needed. If I have to move and the value has fallen same thing applies, can't see the bank manager saying "never mind about the shortfall we'll chalk it up to experience - better luck on the next one"
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Make your mind up. I thought litigation was SISU's forte i.e. something that they do a lot of and could almost be considered as core business. As such, the funding for the legal costs will come from their own coffers.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The JR case has been brought by ARVO, SBS&L and CCFC H. It may be that SISU or ARVO pay the costs but I suspect only as loans to SBS&L. Otherwise where do they get the tax relief available for defending the good name of CCFC?
Are they able to do that OSB . I had the Impression that anything they put in this year to cover shortfall has to be Equity ,this would obviously add to shortfall.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
dont see why not wingy. The cost on the P&L account has to be put to one of the three named on the JR case. CCFC H is being wound up so it wont be them. Why would ARVO put anything in other than as a loan? kind of leaves SBS&L funding it and only way they can is by the profits of CCFC (Otium) :laugh: or by loans from ARVO or SISU sources
grego_gee
New Member
The forum is made up of all types of people - some old, some young, some wise, some stupid, some strong, some frail, some dishonest ,some Angels. What should be gluing us all together is one thing in common - love of our club.
The threat of the owners withdrawing support is real, but not what worries me most.
Despite the wide variation of background that makes up the forum - it gels together into a self-fulfilling "consensus". It may be that consensus is formed from the opinions of the "not too bright" but it becomes accepted as the norm.
The statement above typifies that consensus.
The consensus HOPES the MEANS justifies the END, the MEANS being "starve them out" the END being "SISU out".
But my fear is the MEANS that will kill us not SISU at all!
SISU have carried on funding the club - which is all you can ask of any owner.
If SISU do go, WHO WOULD BUY A CLUB THAT THE FANS HAD KILLED?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We've been down the no one will buy us road before yet other people do seem interested as shown when we were in admin. Assuming SISU don't liquidate us out of spite then I thinkthe worst case scenario would see a consortium of local business / wealthy fans grouping together to take over the club. Of course this would most likley mean there was very little cash to inject and the club has to be self sustaining but surely that's possible. If they moved back to the Rioch with SISU gone you have to think there would be decent crowds and if FFP does what it is suppsoed to do we should have more income that most in our division due to a larger fanbase. Get back into the championship at some point and who knows what will happen. A bit of success might see crowds shooting up, more money to spend while being self sustaining.
I'm sure if someone had the time they could look at the figures available and take a guess if we could be self sustaining but I don't think it follows that if SISU go there's no club.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
If it is killed it's worth nothing and we start again in Coventry.
Pete in Portugal
Well-Known Member
Grendel, I really do think it would be helpful you stopped pedalling your opinion as facts. I know we all do it from time to time, but you seem to do it more than most. All it needs is for you to preface your remarks with "I think" or "I believe". I honestly think people would have more respect for your opinions if you were to do this.
It seems to me that most of the funding that SISU have provided recently has gone on administration, legal and stadium consultancy fees - that is not funding a football club, that is funding an aggressive, predatory and self serving hedge fund.
If SISU did go, the club might be bought by someone with an interest in trying to make money from the onfield activities at the football club rather than using it as a tool to distress other businesses.
magic82ball
New Member
NOPM will not kill SISU - Most people appreciate this. For some NOPM is a movement of choice to register their dissatisfaction against the owners, voting with their feet.
You have also reinforced the post you were trying so poorly to deconstruct. Maybe if you turned the question round slightly to read "WHO WOULD OWN A CLUB THAT THE FANS HAD KILLED?" as the same principle applies. Why suggest "no one would want to buy us, were a basket case" but be so dismissive when the posted is trying to argue this point that SISU may no longer wish to continue in this "basket case" scenario?
Out of curiosity Grego, which category of poster do you believe you fall into?
Really? Most of £35m has been spent on administration, legal and stadium consultancy fees?
To be fair SISU seem to be doing a far better job financially trying to distress themselves, whilst having little affect on ACL, who seemingly appear to be doing far better since SISU stormed out of the Ricoh.
If ACL is doing far better without the club and all the customers it brought around every other week, then they should help finance the new stadium to make sure the club doesn't come back to disrupt their improved business case.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Precisely. It would be a deriliction of duty if the council didn't actively encourage a new ground so they can reap the benifits of both projects.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Wow. What's it like in your head with all those logical gymnastics going on?
If you leave your sponging missus, do you buy her a house to make sure she doesn't come back?
CCC should be engaging with the club about a new ground, you're right about that, however it's not CCC who have said the club isn't welcome back in Coventry is it?
What is this obsession with how ACL are getting on? It's done, we've moved on. Onwards to the Garlick Ground!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They said they would purchase the Ricoh off then at an agreed price so if they were offered reduced land costs, rates etc. I'm sure they would reconsider. It's in the councils interests. They can make zillions out of ACL. The NEC will be forced into administration and Sally will probably have to relocate here.