Sixfield attendees 2014/2015 Season (18 Viewers)

[stupot07]

This is a catering and operating contract not a fixed financial contract. If there are no customers there is no income. It is a projection based upon best case scenario. Unfortunately for all parties it has not come to pass that it is a best case scenario. Therefore 125 million is a red herring.
There will be fixed charges attached that both parties are liable to pay. Another point is that Compass no longer run the hotel, that is De Vere, which could be a sub contractor or on a management contract as Compass is not a Hotel operator as such but a caterer and De Vere is a Hotel operator.
Anyhow all this was superceded by the joint venture between ACL and Compass. Not story here.....

It is indicative at what is at stake in the absence of IEC's accounts.


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

 

---

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Would need to buyout Compass who paid £4m for a 10 year deal worth £125m, how much do you think that will cost?


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

ACL is the holding company holds the site lease, and 77% of IEC Experience Limited - which operates the functions and the like at the Ricoh, including catering. Compass own 23% - this being what they paid £4m in 2012. THis being the 'superceded by the joint venture between ACL and Compass' riyadhskyblue mentions above

 

[Astute]

I cannot understand that though for the life of me, Tim Fisher said in the summer at the forums, that the financing for a new Stadium would come from Equity converted from the current debt, but why not use that to buy out ACL? Purchase the Higgs Share for the original sale price and CCC's Share for roughly the same price? They wouldn't need the Freehold to the Arena with this all revenues that they would require would easily be accessible, I can't understand why it won't be done, the only thing I can think of is that to some point there pinning their hopes on the JR, but they could be back in the Ricoh tomorrow if they pulled thier finger out.

Spot on Rob. Maybe they don't want to be seen as weakening their stance. Who knows.

 

[stupot07]

ACL is the holding company holds the site lease, and 77% of IEC Experience Limited - which operates the functions and the like at the Ricoh, including catering. Compass own 23% - this being what they paid £4m in 2012

But we have no idea what management costs etc compass slap on to deliver this for EIC. For example making a mere 11-12% on F&B's. Compass will be making a tidy profit out of this.


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

 

[lordsummerisle]

No, sorry - you are right. In all the excitement; and trying to run through a contract this morning, I mixed my figures. Notwithstanding that faux pas, the balance of what I typed stands good.

Do you see how much more credible you can look when you freely admit a mistake, as opposed to charging on or changing tack

I'm still upset about Tony Benn to be honest, so going to leave it for a bit.

Saw him giving a speech in hyde Park at the end of a CND march and rally back in 1980 when i was 12, hugely influenced me at the time.

Not too many of his ilk left sadly.

 

[lordsummerisle]

ACL is the holding company holds the site lease, and 77% of IEC Experience Limited - which operates the functions and the like at the Ricoh, including catering. Compass own 23% - this being what they paid £4m in 2012. THis being the 'superceded by the joint venture between ACL and Compass' riyadhskyblue mentions above

One more before I leave it!

Of course that £4million would have helped the figures somewhat, but only get that once.

 

[Jack Griffin]

That £40million is the value that ACL put on the contract between themselves and the club at the time of administration.

They have never paid "£40million as a right to trade", they paid £25million for the 50 year lease.

You are getting the two confused.

£21m.

You are getting confused about what this money was, or trying to imply it is extra money given to the council.

Actually the £21M was the money borrowed by CCC to finish the Ricoh project, this debt was transferred to ACL as a lease and later the original loan taken out by ACL with Yorkshire Bank was transferred to a loan arranged by CCC through (I think) the Public Works Loan Board.

Anyway, what it boils down to is that there is still £14M left to pay on building the Ricoh and it is being paid back from profits generated by ACL to CCC who then have to use this money to pay back the PWLB.

 

[dongonzalos]

So not £20m over 100 years then?

Yeah, I think Higgs charity is mainly aimed at helping disadvantaged young people in Coventry and Warwickshire, although I don't know what that looks like in practice.


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

You agree a fee north of 20 million. ( put twenty in as your first offer so it shows you are finally not playing games) but like with all direct debit payments you pay a bit extra to be allowed to pay for it over 100 years. Your intention is to create a long term financially secure club in the championship to sell for around 20 million.

Your outlay bar the running of the club is very little

You get the combination of an added crowd due to the return to Coventry and an attendance boost if you genuinely do have a successful campaign

You sell the lot if you get promotion and get back half of your original outlay.

If they lose the JR. It could be the best option for them

I thought they were a bit more focused and regeneration, protecting the heritage of the city and creating opportunities for the people. But if it more focused on the kids then fair play to them.

 

[dongonzalos]

One more before I leave it!

Of course that £4million would have helped the figures somewhat, but only get that once.

Obtuse git

 

[shmmeee]

Some think that are definitely distressing ACL, whilst also saying that ACL are doing not being distressed.

That is the very definition of inconsistent, rather like the arguments on player transfers that "they are being sold for peanuts" whilst at the same time "trousering the profits on player sales".

Sorry, I don't agree. You know I've never been one to shout "asset stripping", so I agree on that point.

But to state that:

1) Sisu have left the Ricoh for the express purpose of distressing ACL

and

2) The attempt to distress ACL doesn't appear to be working (with all the available evidence we have)

Isn't inconsistent. It's like saying "Pressley put Webster in to shore up the back, but we're still leaking goals".

 

[lordsummerisle]

You are getting confused about what this money was, or trying to imply it is extra money given to the council.

Actually the £21M was the money borrowed by CCC to finish the Ricoh project, this debt was transferred to ACL as a lease and later the original loan taken out by ACL with Yorkshire Bank was transferred to a loan arranged by CCC through (I think) the Public Works Loan Board.

Anyway, what it boils down to is that there is still £14M left to pay on building the Ricoh and it is being paid back from profits generated by ACL to CCC who then have to use this money to pay back the PWLB.

Not at all confused, the £21million(not £25million, my mistake) is for the ACL lease as stated(Though of course that money went back to the council immediately).

The £40million is the figure that ACL valued the agreement between themselves and the club.

 

[stupot07]

You agree a fee north of 20 million. ( put twenty in as your first offer so it shows you are finally not playing games) but like with all direct debit payments you pay a bit extra to be allowed to pay for it over 100 years. Your intention is to create a long term financially secure club in the championship to sell for around 20 million.

Your outlay bar the running of the club is very little

You get the combination of an added crowd due to the return to Coventry and an attendance boost if you genuinely do have a successful campaign

You sell the lot if you get promotion and get back half of your original outlay.

If they lose the JR. It could be the best option for them

I thought they were a bit more focused and regeneration, protecting the heritage of the city and creating opportunities for the people. But if it more focused on the kids then fair play to them.

I honestly don't think that either CCC or Higgs would find this acceptable.


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

 

[shmmeee]

But we have no idea what management costs etc compass slap on to deliver this for EIC. For example making a mere 11-12% on F&B's. Compass will be making a tidy profit out of this.


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

As a rule of thumb when your argument starts with "we have no idea", it's probably not a strong argument.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

You agree a fee north of 20 million. ( put twenty in as your first offer so it shows you are finally not playing games) but like with all direct debit payments you pay a bit extra to be allowed to pay for it over 100 years. Your intention is to create a long term financially secure club in the championship to sell for around 20 million.

Your outlay bar the running of the club is very little

You get the combination of an added crowd due to the return to Coventry and an attendance boost if you genuinely do have a successful campaign

You sell the lot if you get promotion and get back half of your original outlay.

If they lose the JR. It could be the best option for them

I thought they were a bit more focused and regeneration, protecting the heritage of the city and creating opportunities for the people. But if it more focused on the kids then fair play to them.

Irrespective of the JR it is still the best option for them, but Sisu aren't willing to, they're a hedgefund of which their business ethics stand on acquiring assets on the cheap to make a profit, as we are all aware.

 

[stupot07]

As a rule of thumb when your argument starts with "we have no idea", it's probably not a strong argument.

The same can be applied 99.9% of the posts on here then..


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

 

[shmmeee]

Not at all confused, the £21million(not £25million, my mistake) is for the ACL lease as stated(Though of course that money went back to the council immediately).

The £40million is the figure that ACL valued the agreement between themselves and the club.

To clarify: is that £40m the value of the 40 years left on the lease with a rent of £1.2m/year that they put forward for compensation when Ltd broke the lease?

Or another £40m?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Sorry, I don't agree. You know I've never been one to shout "asset stripping", so I agree on that point.

But to state that:

1) Sisu have left the Ricoh for the express purpose of distressing ACL

and

2) The attempt to distress ACL doesn't appear to be working (with all the available evidence we have)

Isn't inconsistent. It's like saying "Pressley put Webster in to shore up the back, but we're still leaking goals".

I just don't think that there is any evidence as yet that ACL aren't being distressed,nor that they are either of course.

That will be in the next couple of years.

Unfortunately, Sisu for a Hedge Fund seem more willing to play a long game than I'd have given them credence for when they first came in.

 

[lordsummerisle]

To clarify: is that £40m the value of the 40 years left on the lease with a rent of £1.2m/year that they put forward for compensation when Ltd broke the lease?

Or another £40m?

The first one.

 

[dongonzalos]

Irrespective of the JR it is still the best option for them, but Sisu aren't willing to, they're a hedgefund of which their business ethics stand on acquiring assets on the cheap to make a profit, as we are all aware.

They win the JR they may ask the judge to award them their 35-45 million investment back.
If awarded that amount or anywhere near.
Then they could put the club into admin to be sold.

However if the judge felt SISU were in anyway a causational factor of their own predicament. He could still judge in their favour but refuse to award any compensation.

 

[Noggin]

Sorry, I don't agree. You know I've never been one to shout "asset stripping", so I agree on that point.

But to state that:

1) Sisu have left the Ricoh for the express purpose of distressing ACL

and

2) The attempt to distress ACL doesn't appear to be working (with all the available evidence we have)

Isn't inconsistent. It's like saying "Pressley put Webster in to shore up the back, but we're still leaking goals".

Exactly Shmeee

It's not even inconsistent to say sisu attempted to and and succeeded in distressing ACL yet ACL are not distressed.

It's a pointless argument though that I've had with them before and yet they continue with it, it's simply arguing over the use of language rather than facts.

 

[stupot07]

They win the JR they may ask the judge to award them their 35-45 million investment back.
If awarded that amount or anywhere near.
Then they could put the club into admin to be sold.

However if the judge felt SISU were in anyway a causational factor of their own predicament. He could still judge in their favour but refuse to award any compensation.

Pure conjecture.


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

 

[NortonSkyBlue]

But we have no idea what management costs etc compass slap on to deliver this for EIC. For example making a mere 11-12% on F&B's. Compass will be making a tidy profit out of this.
actually i do have an idea and you are so far off the mark with your 11-12% supposition. the management fee will be non applicable in a joint venture as it is a risk and reward scenario.Compass are a partner, albeit junior partner so they share the risk. This has turned in a distressed contract-no profit to be had, losses sustained both both parties in proportion with their holding.

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

 

[lordsummerisle]

Actually i do have an idea and you are so far off the mark with your 11-12% supposition. the management fee will be non applicable in a joint venture as it is a risk and reward scenario.Compass are a partner, albeit junior partner so they share the risk. This has turned in a distressed contract-no profit to be had, losses sustained both both parties in proportion with their holding.

Do you have something to do with Compass?

 

[dongonzalos]

Pure conjecture.


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

Isn't all of this?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I'm still upset about Tony Benn to be honest, so going to leave it for a bit.

Saw him giving a speech in hyde Park at the end of a CND march and rally back in 1980 when i was 12, hugely influenced me at the time.

Not too many of his ilk left sadly.

There are practically none. Watched Ed Balls at Worcester Bosch yesterday, followed by Douglas Alexander flap about on QT; and lamented how devoid of ideas and passion the 'new' Labour party is.

Did Benn really need 'help' like this? By God, he'd have demanded to have been heard:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-urged-ask-questions-Tory-Lord-Heseltine.html

Or would he have stood for crap like this?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/38...uestion-Time-audience-to-attack-UKIP-panelist

Love him, or loath him - as Bob Crow - he had an opinion and articulated it frankly, honestly and respectfully (okay, delete the 'respect' but for Crow). The political world's a significantly worse place for Benn's passing; that's certainly the case

 

[Noggin]

I just don't think that there is any evidence as yet that ACL aren't being distressed,nor that they are either of course.

That will be in the next couple of years.

Unfortunately, Sisu for a Hedge Fund seem more willing to play a long game than I'd have given them credence for when they first came in.

yes we will need to wait a few years really to see how much damage has been done to them and if they can realistically survive/thrive with the football club.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Isn't all of this?

I'm not sure.

 

[stupot07]

So why do they only make 11-12% on F&Bs when other clubs make ~40%, and restaurants, pubs, etc aim to make 60-65%?


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

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

One more before I leave it!

Of course that £4million would have helped the figures somewhat, but only get that once.

Well feck me; thanks for bringing that one to my attention, I'd missed it

 

[fernandopartridge]

You are getting confused about what this money was, or trying to imply it is extra money given to the council.

Actually the £21M was the money borrowed by CCC to finish the Ricoh project, this debt was transferred to ACL as a lease and later the original loan taken out by ACL with Yorkshire Bank was transferred to a loan arranged by CCC through (I think) the Public Works Loan Board.

Anyway, what it boils down to is that there is still £14M left to pay on building the Ricoh and it is being paid back from profits generated by ACL to CCC who then have to use this money to pay back the PWLB.

It was not arranged through the Public Work Loans Board, I said this the other week. The council borrowed the money to buy out the mortgage from the financial markets, it's known as 'prudential borrowing'.

They'd get a much better rate from the PWLB but the scenario here wouldn't qualify for a loan as there are no works being undertaken, it's a re-financing exercise.

 

[fernandopartridge]

They win the JR they may ask the judge to award them their 35-45 million investment back.
If awarded that amount or anywhere near.
Then they could put the club into admin to be sold.

However if the judge felt SISU were in anyway a causational factor of their own predicament. He could still judge in their favour but refuse to award any compensation.

No they won't, their investment has absolutely nothing to do with the JR. SISU are not entitled to any direct recompense.

 

[Astute]

They win the JR they may ask the judge to award them their 35-45 million investment back.
If awarded that amount or anywhere near.
Then they could put the club into admin to be sold.

However if the judge felt SISU were in anyway a causational factor of their own predicament. He could still judge in their favour but refuse to award any compensation.

They can't get awarded even a penny in damages by the judge even if they win the JR. It is just a case to look at whether a law has been broken or not.

Any awards would have to be made by starting even more litigation. Maybe they are hoping to win the JR and then put a massive claim in hoping that CCC would back down and give them what they want.

 

[stupot07]

Isn't all of this?

Of course it is...I do find it strange that you're (not you personally) are allowed to use conjecture asserted as (near) fact when you're questioning Sisu, but not when you're questioning ACL....


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

 

[fernandopartridge]

Exactly Shmeee

It's not even inconsistent to say sisu attempted to and and succeeded in distressing ACL yet ACL are not distressed.

It's a pointless argument though that I've had with them before and yet they continue with it, it's simply arguing over the use of language rather than facts.

The last accounts published are from the period before SISU left the Ricoh, therefore you have no idea whether ACL are distressed or not. Neither do SISU although what they were made party to in the initial negotiations to distress the Yorkshire Bank loan we don't know.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So why do they only make 11-12% on F&Bs when other clubs make ~40%, and restaurants, pubs, etc aim to make 60-65%?

Is the 11-12% figure accurate? It's probably net, not gross. Did it come out of the 2009 contract arrangement - and therefore would have been subject to significant overhead (cost of contract, operating costs, etc)?

My guess is that it was a net value - with the gross value much closer to the figures you mention - but not working, hence being replaced by the agreement in 2012.

Ooh. Look at that. A business who has a contract at the Ricoh that's not working, then paying a negotiated sum to replace it with a shareholding. Hmmm.... wonder if that could ever catch on?