SCG minutes... (31 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfctommy
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Most implicit SISU statement so far ref ACL really....
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
How on earth does Labovich know what's in ACLs future accounts?
In any case remind me which company has had trouble getting their accounts signed off and has had statements in the accounts about not being able to guarantee they are a going concern?
smouch1975
Well-Known Member
Astute
Well-Known Member
And Two more minutes for someone to defend the undefendable by having a go at a post that makes sense.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
But is nevertheless fairly irrelevant to the context of what ML was saying.
If there are concerns over whether ACL are a going concern, what happens to the £14m debt?
Astute
Well-Known Member
I have a question for Lobotomy. If they go through the motions of a JR when CCC obtain a low rate loan on behalf of ACL which meant that they could offer a vastly reduced rent to SISUE what would they do if they used taxpayers money to pay off a charity. ....the same charity that they are suing for a six figure sum?
mark82
Super Moderator
I wasn't defending anyone.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Who has concerns? Lobotomy even said in his own opinion. No proof at all. Just trying to divide the fans as usual.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Or the money owed to Higgs.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
"ACL is functionally bust (ML opinion) as it can only survive with an injection of more cash"
Considering the whole place is set up around a football team that illegally withheld rent for a year and then pulled out all together I'm not surprised.
At what point did SISU realise that by pulling out they could reduce the value of the asset? Be the only possible customers to purchase it and then sell at it's real market value and get there money back from 5 years of poor management?
I suggest from day 1.
Considering the whole place is set up around a football team that illegally withheld rent for a year and then pulled out all together I'm not surprised.
At what point did SISU realise that by pulling out they could reduce the value of the asset? Be the only possible customers to purchase it and then sell at it's real market value and get there money back from 5 years of poor management?
I suggest from day 1.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;a1dvg-1G3w4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1dvg-1G3w4[/video]
Astute
Well-Known Member
Astute. Please stop your wordplay. Please.
When SISUE stop suing everyone I will call them SISU again. When Lobotomy starts talking as though his brain works properly I will remember his name
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Why? I and others find it hilarious. I see that Lobotomy is having a right go at Mucus in the notes and he's right, it was confusing. We're not selling but would listen to offers, etc.
Astute. Please stop your wordplay. Please.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
So when Sisu bring up the same old bull$hit we should just sit back and take it?
You can believe it but I feel better for passing comment.
Stick together and the Sisu era will be die by a thousand little cuts.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Personally I would be far more concerned about the football club being a going concern, something SISU has struggled to be signed off as in recent years. To be frank if we're not playing at the Ricoh and have no plans to return what does it really matter what state ACL are in from a CCFC perspective. That said I fail to see how Labovich would know this.
If, as he keeps claiming, AEG are waiting in the wings to take over management of the stadium then should ACL get into financial difficulty it would be logical to assume they would make a bid. If they are interested in the Ricoh they don't need to be involved in anyway with SISU as SISU have absolutely nothing to do with the Ricoh. Any bid for a lease from AEG would more than likely at the very least see CCC cover the loan amount.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I did write a huge post replying to all Labovich's points but I decided against posting it as for most points you can say the same thing. If Labovich genuinely doesn’t understand all the points he states he is confused by then he really isn't fit to be in the role and should be looking to immediately resign his position.
The whole thing reads like a huge wind up. Does anyone really think if SISU had some blockbuster evidence against the council that would change the majority view it wouldn't have somehow made its way into the public domain by now?
The whole thing reads like a huge wind up. Does anyone really think if SISU had some blockbuster evidence against the council that would change the majority view it wouldn't have somehow made its way into the public domain by now?
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
But it seems that the only people who have concerns are the very people that are trying to distress ACL. I have never seen a poker game go on for so long in my life, even the Devilfish would have shown his hand by now. If they have moved on, give us precise numbers on the new stadium, if they haven't then make an offer of any kind at all. Stop fucking about worrying about ACL and maybe start thinking about bringing us home, because I have concerns about the amount of debt loaded onto us from playing in Northampton for 5 fucking years, why doesn't he address that rather than talk about ifs, buts and sodding maybe's to do with ACL.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It's comical really, we've moved on but we're going to spend most of the meeting talking about the Ricoh, Council and ACL!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just so we get a couple of things correct
The ACL 2012 accounts were unqualified and the auditor made no statement about going concern or indeed any negotiations.
The directors made mention of going concern and negotiations in the accounts and the auditor did not feel it was a matter significant enough to refer to it in the audit report.
Yes there were negotiations, and an acrimonious relationship between club and ACL, the auditor would have had to considered a situation where there was no income from CCFC in any case yet still signed off. I suspect that any auditor would have to consider annually the prospect of a major tenant going bust and no income for ACL because of the awful state of the CCFC finances.
Yes the auditor has to give an opinion but not a guarantee as to going concern if there are issues arising (- none in 2012 likely to be comments because of what went on for the 2013 accounts )
It is likely the ACL accounts will be filed February and as such the auditor will have considered a period to at least February 2015.
As with SBS&L it will be the group accounts that give the picture
Yes the JR case and the possibility of the loan being called in will be considered by the auditor who most likely will have taken their own legal advice on it.
It is likely that the underlying business of the ACL group is sound but that the legals etc because of the dispute will have had a detrimental effect on the 2013 figures and will impact on 2014 figures also. The auditor will have to decide is this something that will continue for years or is there an end to it and does ACL have the cash flow to get to that.
The impact is not really about profit it is about the cash flow implications of the dispute.
The auditors comments on the SBS&L group of accounts for 2012 were focussed on going concern
The ACL 2012 accounts were unqualified and the auditor made no statement about going concern or indeed any negotiations.
The directors made mention of going concern and negotiations in the accounts and the auditor did not feel it was a matter significant enough to refer to it in the audit report.
Yes there were negotiations, and an acrimonious relationship between club and ACL, the auditor would have had to considered a situation where there was no income from CCFC in any case yet still signed off. I suspect that any auditor would have to consider annually the prospect of a major tenant going bust and no income for ACL because of the awful state of the CCFC finances.
Yes the auditor has to give an opinion but not a guarantee as to going concern if there are issues arising (- none in 2012 likely to be comments because of what went on for the 2013 accounts )
It is likely the ACL accounts will be filed February and as such the auditor will have considered a period to at least February 2015.
As with SBS&L it will be the group accounts that give the picture
Yes the JR case and the possibility of the loan being called in will be considered by the auditor who most likely will have taken their own legal advice on it.
It is likely that the underlying business of the ACL group is sound but that the legals etc because of the dispute will have had a detrimental effect on the 2013 figures and will impact on 2014 figures also. The auditor will have to decide is this something that will continue for years or is there an end to it and does ACL have the cash flow to get to that.
The impact is not really about profit it is about the cash flow implications of the dispute.
The auditors comments on the SBS&L group of accounts for 2012 were focussed on going concern
Last edited:
It was only confusing because the media did a poor job of reporting it and Labovich tried to prey on that. He says he is confused but I don't believe that for a second. In fact I'll go further, he is lying, if he doesn't understand he shouldn't be a director. He clearly does understand and is just muddying the waters and trying to spin in their favour.
For Labovich and for anyone else who pretends to be/or is hard of thinking, I'll sum it up.....
The council don't want to sell but they will listen to offers for the freehold, they are however unwilling and unable to sell the freehold without any leases in place.
That's it, not complicated, not confusing, Labovich is as bad as fisher and even easier to see through.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
IS that because he was asked questions about Lucas, ACL, Ricoh, Council, etc? NO doubt if he'd refused to discuss you'd be feverishly putting together another conspiracy.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Not really, he could have just stated at the start that there was not point talking about those parties as CCFC / SISU have now moved on and are concentrating on the new stadium. Or maybe he didn't really want to have to answer questions about the new stadium, who knows? Either way these meeting seems a pointless exercise that has just given Labovich a platform to spout rubbish, largely unchallenged.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And totally without truth and merit, I presume? The JR certainly will be interesting.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
No but a simple we've moved on from that now, lets talk about the new stadium would suffice.
She could have done a slightly better job of explaining it, but she takes very little blame.
She was very clear she doesn't want to sell but is willing to listen to offers for the freehold. That should have been it, it only became confusing because sisu starting talking about buying the unfettered freehold which isn't something the council have the ability to sell.
So saying she said she is willing to offers but now says she won't sell is a silly statement. The council do not want sell but are willing to sell the freehold which is the only thing they have the power to sell.
The suggestion that the council should negotiate with all the leaseholders, pay out all the leases and talk about selling the unfettered freehold is ludicrous in the extreme.
It's clear you are unwilling to look at this fairly.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, based on his track record (he has been proved to be untruthfull in his statements in the past) and SISU's record as a whole I would say largely without truth and merit. My feeling is if he had any evidence to back up these claims we would have seen it by now. If there was some sort of 'smoking gun' that would change everyones opinion and but ACL / Higgs / Council under pressure I don't think they'd be hiding it. He seems to make outlandish claims knowing there is very little chance of any legal action being taken against him by the council for his statements.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
He'd be accused of not being open.