ccfcway
Well-Known Member
"It was thought hold-ups may have occurred over a rumoured dispute about Mr Appleton’s fees"
:slap:
A few questions for PWKH (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ian1779
- Start date
"It was thought hold-ups may have occurred over a rumoured dispute about Mr Appleton’s fees"
:slap:
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
Well if people can't read past the third sentence I think you can be as rude as you like .
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Context is very clever thing. In your headline you state Coventry City owner in court battle with charity.
Your sub heading then says claim and counter-claim which implies that's the order of action respectively. SISU claim, Higgs counter-claim. You then reversed the name sequence further down the article to sit respectively.
Subtle changes that completely change the context of your headline.
Secondly - the real story was that the liquidation process hadn't finished, why wasn't that your headline? Yet your headline implied owners had deliberately not paid ACL.
It's subtle - but seems very deliberate.
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
It possibly does. To some. Although it seems not to most.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lewys33
Well-Known Member
You are a shit journalist though Simon. Its been made clear on here now.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Is it me or is this thread starting to sound like one of Nikki Sinclairs twitter rants?
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of people... just have a look at Twitter.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
Sisu are suing a charity!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Come on you're no mug. You know exactly what you are doing. That's the PR finesse.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
They were in the sense that counter sue was only one of the options open to them, they had the option merely to defend their side. That's a semantic issue and it doesn't automatically follow that people making a statement like that were totally oblivious to Higgs having taken action against SISU.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
The other apparently was to give Higgs a £2 million charitable donation.
Nick
Administrator
I like his hair though!
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
Nice moderating.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It seems that most don't bother questioning it as it fits their paradigm.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The lease premium and lease inducement fee are detailed in the notes to the accounts of ACL. Copies are available to download from Companies House
Isle of Capri paid an upfront lease premium of circa £6m in 2005/06. This was been allocated to profits over the period of the lease but as the description implies it was paid in full at the start of the lease. It was non returnable and it is quite usual to amortise (or include in profit) such sums on the basis of the length of the lease.
2008 Isle of Capri wanted out of the lease. The remaining lease premium of £4.9m was taken to the profit & loss account in the year to 31/05/09. To get released from the lease Isle of Capri negotiated a lease transfer inducement fee of £6.7m. This sum was paid in full but taken as profit over a period of 7 years (I assume on basis of period left on the lease or till break clause)all perfectly legal, above board and disclosed in the accounts. Had it all gone to profit in 2009 then that year would have shown net profits of £10m for ACL. The effect of that would have been a corporation tax bill plus the trigger of payment to CCC of a super profit levy.
Just to get the accounting right. Yes the £961k each year does contribute to profits. The effect was far greater in the early years than now because of the lower turnovers. There is nothing unusual in the transaction and ACL being a landlord and holding company would be reasonably expected to deal in lease premiums, lease inducement fees and allocating to its best advantage. Whilst you could argue that it distorts profits or turnover, taken over the period of the write downs does it ? (ie start of ACL to 31/05/16 when lease income write off ceases) Because you either take the income as a one off or spread it over the years, the end balance sheet position (ignoring CCC super profits levy and corporation tax) 2016 would be the same.
In fact if they were to write off now in one go what is left of it they could guarantee a profit over £2.7m and a balance sheet of circa £10m in net assets worth
The current key to ACL is not profit in any case it is cash flow. Since 2006 ACL have accumulated reserves (that's all known profits less all foreseeable losses) of £3.8m and a cash surplus over that time of £624k. It has reinvested any profits and cash flow in to its assets and paying down loans but still is on the plus side in all the years to 31/05/13 in total of £624k. The purchase of assets whilst improving the place also increases the depreciation charge and so reduces profit. Each year ACL has a depreciation charge of over £1.3m it deducts from profits, however depreciation is not a sum of money paid over each year it is an accounting estimate of wear and tear. The assets (fixtures, equipment, computers) have been purchased from the cash flow generated
As with SBS&L it pays to look at the whole group because of the various charges etc between individual companies. 2013 was per the accounts produced a year of reorganisation and there are costs and moving of costs to different cost centres that reflect that. Did Compass pay £4m for 23% of IEC Experience Ltd yes - that does not value IEC at £16m it isn't that simple. Has turnover increased yes - from 2006 to 2011 it bumped along at 6 to 7m. Does that turnover include the lease write down each year of £960k yes.
ACL is a very different company to when it negotiated the lease for Isle of Capri.
Question - who is it that actually owes the £590k to ACL ?
Second Question - how much do you think the next four days are worth to ACL compared to one football match over Easter? (and yes I appreciate football in Coventry supporting CCFC is priceless to the fans)
Isle of Capri paid an upfront lease premium of circa £6m in 2005/06. This was been allocated to profits over the period of the lease but as the description implies it was paid in full at the start of the lease. It was non returnable and it is quite usual to amortise (or include in profit) such sums on the basis of the length of the lease.
2008 Isle of Capri wanted out of the lease. The remaining lease premium of £4.9m was taken to the profit & loss account in the year to 31/05/09. To get released from the lease Isle of Capri negotiated a lease transfer inducement fee of £6.7m. This sum was paid in full but taken as profit over a period of 7 years (I assume on basis of period left on the lease or till break clause)all perfectly legal, above board and disclosed in the accounts. Had it all gone to profit in 2009 then that year would have shown net profits of £10m for ACL. The effect of that would have been a corporation tax bill plus the trigger of payment to CCC of a super profit levy.
Just to get the accounting right. Yes the £961k each year does contribute to profits. The effect was far greater in the early years than now because of the lower turnovers. There is nothing unusual in the transaction and ACL being a landlord and holding company would be reasonably expected to deal in lease premiums, lease inducement fees and allocating to its best advantage. Whilst you could argue that it distorts profits or turnover, taken over the period of the write downs does it ? (ie start of ACL to 31/05/16 when lease income write off ceases) Because you either take the income as a one off or spread it over the years, the end balance sheet position (ignoring CCC super profits levy and corporation tax) 2016 would be the same.
In fact if they were to write off now in one go what is left of it they could guarantee a profit over £2.7m and a balance sheet of circa £10m in net assets worth
The current key to ACL is not profit in any case it is cash flow. Since 2006 ACL have accumulated reserves (that's all known profits less all foreseeable losses) of £3.8m and a cash surplus over that time of £624k. It has reinvested any profits and cash flow in to its assets and paying down loans but still is on the plus side in all the years to 31/05/13 in total of £624k. The purchase of assets whilst improving the place also increases the depreciation charge and so reduces profit. Each year ACL has a depreciation charge of over £1.3m it deducts from profits, however depreciation is not a sum of money paid over each year it is an accounting estimate of wear and tear. The assets (fixtures, equipment, computers) have been purchased from the cash flow generated
As with SBS&L it pays to look at the whole group because of the various charges etc between individual companies. 2013 was per the accounts produced a year of reorganisation and there are costs and moving of costs to different cost centres that reflect that. Did Compass pay £4m for 23% of IEC Experience Ltd yes - that does not value IEC at £16m it isn't that simple. Has turnover increased yes - from 2006 to 2011 it bumped along at 6 to 7m. Does that turnover include the lease write down each year of £960k yes.
ACL is a very different company to when it negotiated the lease for Isle of Capri.
Question - who is it that actually owes the £590k to ACL ?
Second Question - how much do you think the next four days are worth to ACL compared to one football match over Easter? (and yes I appreciate football in Coventry supporting CCFC is priceless to the fans)
Last edited:
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
You read the articles FP? Does anything in there need questioning? I think they explain each situation clearly.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Ian, I'm struggling to keep up with different threads so apologies if I'm off the mark but you appear to have a good knowledge of what's going on. I posted what I see as 4 key questions in a thread called fao... Are you able to answer any of them? Also (Nick will tell me off for asking this), but people like PWKH and Simon Gilbert come on here and are open about who they are. If you are criciticising them would it perhaps be polite for you to explain who you are too? Just a thought
Nick
Administrator
If Simon hadn't replied obviously brushing it off and not bothered then it would have been moderated after checking with him. He hasn't reported it and has replied with a comment more than holding his own
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Frankly if you were Labovitz or fisher you would not identify yourself. Linnell was told to F off and called sisu rent boy etc. PWKH will not post on GMK as himself because he will not get the adulation he clearly enjoys - he would get the reception he deserves.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
I remember very few things from school but one that has always stuck in my head is a history teacher who drilled into us that before you even open a book the first thing you ask is 'who is the author' eg a Marxist historian is going to give a very different account to say a supporter of Empire. PWKH identifies himself and we know he has a particular interest so whether you disagree/agree with him at least you know what his angle is. It just seems when someone like Ian comes on here seemingly well informed and anonymously criticising others who aren't anonymous, it's not quite cricket.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
As I say PWKH is on safe ground here. He would not identify himself on a normal forum. My opinion of him is that he is an egotist and has zero interest in the welfare of the club and its fans. He wouldn't even consider it without the knowledge there are stupid gushing sycophants who hang on to his every word.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Hmmm, see my background's (post)structuralist, where it's all about the death of the author and focus on the text, not the writer
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Can you still join GMK?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yes Peter you can
duffer
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, see my background's (post)structuralist, where it's all about the death of the author and focus on the text, not the writer
Ah, you see my background is neo-brutalist, where the focus is on the front cover and the readers' wives, rather than the author.
Edit: Smiley added, just in case.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Ah, you see my background is neo-brutalist, where the focus is on the front cover and the readers' wives, rather than the author.
Edit: Smiley added, just in case.
Yeah, point taken, getting all poncy and pretentious
But really, I don't see why someone's anonimity on the internet has to be a problem. Imagine if you outed yourself and you realised you were calling your boss a twat repeatedly, each day, when you were both supposed to be working... oh but the chairman of your company's actually been the one trying to mediate between the two of you on message boards.
It's a dark road back to the calls of SISU/ACL plant if we try to out people for asking questions. A valid question is a valid question if it's asked by Anne Lucas, Joy Seppala... or Donald Fucking Duck.
If you don't think it's a valid question fine, but trying to call people out doesn't thus make it either valid or invalid. It is what it is, the words on the page.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
Thats the 1st time i have ever heard GMK be described as a normal forum
James Smith
Well-Known Member
My names not Peter but thanks for the info.
Nick
Administrator
OFF TOPIC
This is NEWS - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kim-kardashian-mike-amess-petrified-3420682
Back on Topic Now..