Lying - Part 2 (2 Viewers)

[stupot07]

Of course ACL will struggle without CCFC BUT no more so than CCFC will struggle without ACL. They need each other and till they both realise that there can be no going forward.

Bang on Tony.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

---

[Jack Griffin]

Of course ACL will struggle without CCFC BUT no more so than CCFC will struggle without ACL. They need each other and till they both realise that there can be no going forward.

Somewhat less of a struggle I'd say, after all what is CCFC turnover these days on ~2000 crowds paying £9 a ticket?

 

[Tonylinc]

Somewhat less of a struggle I'd say, after all what is CCFC turnover these days on ~2000 crowds paying £9 a ticket?

But that situation is born out of spite. The real agenda is to get both parties talking about a return to the Ricoh. Nobody believes that this other stadium will ever be built and so it is down to someone to get all parties in a room(having locked the door) and to bang their bloody heads together till we get a compromise.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

But that situation is born out of spite. The real agenda is to get both parties talking about a return to the Ricoh. Nobody believes that this other stadium will ever be built and so it is down to someone to get all parties in a room(having locked the door) and to bang their bloody heads together till we get a compromise.

ACL's latest offer seemed to be a very decent compromise to me, how much do you think the club should pay?

 

[Grendel]

Somewhat less of a struggle I'd say, after all what is CCFC turnover these days on ~2000 crowds paying £9 a ticket?

What did you get for Christmas? An enormous ACL phalic symbol that you can suck yourself to sleep with every night?

 

[Tonylinc]

ACL's latest offer seemed to be a very decent compromise to me, how much do you think the club should pay?

I think that the latest offer of rent is acceptable BUT I think that Shitzu will also want some of the "match day", income and, although a great hater of them, I can understand their reasoning for doing so.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I think that the latest offer of rent is acceptable BUT I think that Shitzu will also want some of the "match day", income and, although a great hater of them, I can understand their reasoning for doing so.

I think that if SISU came out and said that they would accept the rent subject to coming to an agreement over any extra income, then this would gain them some support. However it seems unlikely that they will do this. I don't think there's much more ACL can do, SISU run the club and cannot be forced to be reasonable.

 

[Astute]

So what question is the JR asking? What is the purpose of it?

To me and many others the JR is asking the question of how much do ACL/CCC/Higg's fancy litigation without giving in to all demands from SISUE for the freehold at a low price.

The purpose could easily be to try and get the Ricoh on the cheap. Most would also agree on this. Whilst it is going on we will stay in Northampton and they will not have to show willing to building the stadium they keep going on about. So yes again it is all about tying everyone up in litigation.

So to cut it all short it is all about litigation and putting pressure on in this way IMHO.

And yes you keep saying IF. But there has been no evidence of it.

 

[stupot07]

To me and many others the JR is asking the question of how much do ACL/CCC/Higg's fancy litigation without giving in to all demands from SISUE for the freehold at a low price.

The purpose could easily be to try and get the Ricoh on the cheap. Most would also agree on this. Whilst it is going on we will stay in Northampton and they will not have to show willing to building the stadium they keep going on about. So yes again it is all about tying everyone up in litigation.

So to cut it all short it is all about litigation and putting pressure on in this way IMHO.

And yes you keep saying IF. But there has been no evidence of it.

A JR isn't really a litigation process in the sense your suggest, it's a review by a Judge on the actions of a public body and in this case is the loan to ACL an appropriate use of public funding.

And it's only about ACL and nothing to do with the freehold. The freehold all been paid for when ACL paid the 50 year lease up front. Even if the JR goes against ACL, the council will own the freehold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Astute]

A JR isn't really a litigation process in the sense your suggest, it's a review by a Judge on the actions of a public body and in this case is the loan to ACL an appropriate use of public funding.

And it's only about ACL and nothing to do with the freehold. The freehold all been paid for when ACL paid the 50 year lease up front. Even if the JR goes against ACL, the council will own the freehold.

So you don't think they are trying to put even more pressure on by litigation then?

So why do you really think they are doing it?

 

[stupot07]

So you don't think they are trying to put even more pressure on by litigation then?

So why do you really think they are doing it?

Part of is putting pressure on, and half of it is because they feel that they have been wronged by the allegations they have made - I have no idea whether those allegations are true or not.

Bottom line is, even if ACL went under and the lease became defunct, the council would still own the freehold and would be able to negotiate a sale with however they liked or even another long lease. The JR doesn't really affect the freehold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Astute]

Or they are making out they feel they have been wronged. If it had gone to plan for them they would have got the Ricoh. It was for the freehold and not lease. I am sure of this.

Happy new year Stu. Happy new year all. Hope we have a better one X

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

So what question is the JR asking? What is the purpose of it?

What's the use of talking about anything we don't have the full facts for if it's all ifs and buts? We may as well close the forum because that's all we do, we have no real insider knowledge, PWKH and ACL tell us what they want us to hear as do TF/SISU, they're all spinning it so all we can do is hypothesise, but obviously we should do that if it's all ifs and buts.


And I was only say that if ACL were struggling (baring in mind they're in conflict with SISU) they're not going to publicly state it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Pwkh comes on here and offers us insights. If fisher has been on here it is incognito

 

[dongonzalos]

The original Lying thread has had 140 replies and nearly 7k views but immediately descended into the usual arguments, rumours, personal opinions etc

So to try again - can we put down some specific, concrete markers which can help determine the honesty or otherwise of acl-sisu claims? Original suggestions were forthcoming acl accounts and establishing a date by which if a site has not been identified it can be said that promises of a new stadium aren't true. But there must be other FACTUAL benchmarks that can be set too

I hope you can
One year for ACL's accounts are too simplistic
You need to see if they can make a profit in year two I feel.

As they would need time to generate more permanent business once they are happy CCFC are not coming back.

At the moment I think like most people they felt it is a scam.

So I would not say a loss in the first year would be a marker. Although the size if the loss could be interesting in judging if they can turn it around or not.

With regards to a stadium if a site is not bought by the summer, I think it would be very questionable.

Planning permission should be simultaneous. Otherwise you would not buy the land.

Construction started by next Jan for me.

 

[skybluetony176]

I think that the latest offer of rent is acceptable BUT I think that Shitzu will also want some of the "match day", income and, although a great hater of them, I can understand their reasoning for doing so.

agree totally, so what i cant understand is why sisu haven't made a counter offer to this effect, either directly or through the FA.

 

[stupot07]

agree totally, so what i cant understand is why sisu haven't made a counter offer to this effect, either directly or through the FA.

I don't think it's that easy. They would need to see the books to see what they would be buying, plus the F&B's are part of another company IEC (?) of which Kompass paid £4m for c15% share. F&B's is only part of what that company do and what contracts/agreement are in place, that means overheads are so high that they only make 10% profit on F&B's. And didn't david gibney tell sisu they would sell them the rights to F&B's for £20m?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[shmmeee]

We were in the championship so by a few I assume you mean 10 leagues - that's not a few - and sisu have propped ACL up in its Infancy - it would never have survived in 2008.

I think you've just won the most stupid post if the year. Well done,

I think you have. There's no evidence or precedent for that kind of punishment even if you accept the simply mental idea that no one would've bid for us in admin when we had several bidders in L1 with a murky situation about the GS.

Claiming "Sisu saved the club" is as paranoid and baseless as stating they're planning to merge us with Northampton.

 

[shmmeee]

Part of is putting pressure on, and half of it is because they feel that they have been wronged by the allegations they have made - I have no idea whether those allegations are true or not.

Bottom line is, even if ACL went under and the lease became defunct, the council would still own the freehold and would be able to negotiate a sale with however they liked or even another long lease. The JR doesn't really affect the freehold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

It does affect it when part of the freehold bid is CCC writing off the £14m and winding up ACL.

 

[stupot07]

It does affect it when part of the freehold bid is CCC writing off the £14m and winding up ACL.

If ACL got wound up, who would own the entirety of the freehold?

 

[shmmeee]

If ACL got wound up, who would own the entirety of the freehold?

CCC.

Would Sisus offer not look more tempting if you've just been told to write off £14m though? To claim the two aren't linked is simply wrong.

Sisu have asked for ACL to be wound up if they buy the freehold. The total cost to the council of the last bid was £9m (£5m offered - £14m debt written off). If that £14m is confirmed bad debt then the cost comes down as the value of the debt isn't based on it being assumed it'll be paid off.

Also, surely the freehold is worth less without a sitting leaseholder if ACL did end up going tits up?

Edit: Of course I'm still not convinced plan A is the freehold. I suspect that forcing ACL into admin then finding a way to play the system so they have a case for being the best bid out of administration is their ideal outcome.

 

[chiefdave]

Sisu have asked for ACL to be wound up if they buy the freehold. The total cost to the council of the last bid was £9m (£5m offered - £14m debt written off). If that £14m is confirmed bad debt then the cost comes down as the value of the debt isn't based on it being assumed it'll be paid off.

On what basis would it be bad debt? There's been nothing so far to indicate ACL won't meet payments. If the JR goes SISUs way it's doesn't automatically follow that ACL will have to pay back the £14m immediately or on any different terms to what they have now and even if the loan isn't called in if ACL is, as they claim, a viable business they will be able to borrow it from elsewhere, albeit at a higher interest rate. IMHO SISU require too many things to go exactly the way they want them to for what seems to be their plan to come off.

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't think it's that easy. They would need to see the books to see what they would be buying, plus the F&B's are part of another company IEC (?) of which Kompass paid £4m for c15% share. F&B's is only part of what that company do and what contracts/agreement are in place, that means overheads are so high that they only make 10% profit on F&B's. And didn't david gibney tell sisu they would sell them the rights to F&B's for £20m?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

obviously there would be details to sort out but that doesn't happen when the only thing you do is make a statement that no "direct" offer was made.

 

[stupot07]

CCC.

Would Sisus offer not look more tempting if you've just been told to write off £14m though? To claim the two aren't linked is simply wrong.

Sisu have asked for ACL to be wound up if they buy the freehold. The total cost to the council of the last bid was £9m (£5m offered - £14m debt written off). If that £14m is confirmed bad debt then the cost comes down as the value of the debt isn't based on it being assumed it'll be paid off.

Edit: Of course I'm still not convinced plan A is the freehold. I suspect that forcing ACL into admin then finding a way to play the system so they have a case for being the best bid out of administration is their ideal outcome.

They wouldn't necessarily have to write off £14m, ACL could have to take out another loan to pay the council back, it wouldn't necessarily force ACL into admin would it?

I agree the two are linked, but it don't agree that this whole process is aimed at getting the freehold as at the end of the day the council have the reserves to take a £14m hit, and could wait it out until for leasehold and doesn't necessarily mean they will be forced to sell.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

The freehold would be worth more without a leaseholder, as they could get the lease payments all over again. ACL are the leaseholder, the club were a tenant. CCC own the freehold regardless of the existence of ACL.