FA and the escrow account? (11 Viewers)

[martcov]

Spot on.

No. The alternative would have been no profit whatsoever going to CCC. Obviously a better deal than YB or SISU getting the CCC bit or liquidation.

 

---

[Grendel]

No. The alternative would have been no profit whatsoever going to CCC. Obviously a better deal than YB or SISU getting the CCC bit or liquidation.

How do you know there is any profit?

 

[skybluetony176]

It's what was claimed in court yesterday, of course not mentioning that half the "profit" is from the CCC owned bit, and not taking into consideration whatever interest fees they are paying themselves for the loan they took out to give the loan to ACL.

Belongs in the "Spin" thread with the other stuff.

I'm struggling to see what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying that the Coventry tax payer is benefitting twice from the ricoh, half the profit from acl and on top of that all the interest from the loan. That sounds like 2 positives that CCC are generating on behalf of the tax payers but you seem to be making out that it's a CCC negative that's been spun into a CCC positive in the context presumably of the JR. Or am I missing something? If so what?

 

[martcov]

How do you know there is any profit?

Claimed in Court and in the council meetings. They borrowed at one rate and lent at a higher rate. Usually means profit. If the council have lied we can take action. Another JR?

 

[Grendel]

Claimed in Court and in the council meetings. They borrowed at one rate and lent at a higher rate. Usually means profit. If the council have lied we can take action. Another JR?

So the profit could be £1 over 40 years couldn't it? Lets face it posters on here were creaming themselves that Coventry was getting £19 million over 40 years as extra revenue for the good old taxpayer.

They are not are they? Could be £1 and its not a lie is it? Oh and if ACL folds in 10 years what then?

What also about repair and maintenance over 40 years?

Not so good is it?

 

[martcov]

So the profit could be £1 over 40 years couldn't it? Lets face it posters on here were creaming themselves that Coventry was getting £19 million over 40 years as extra revenue for the good old taxpayer.

They are not are they? Could be £1 and its not a lie is it? Oh and if ACL folds in 10 years what then?

What also about repair and maintenance over 40 years?

Not so good is it?

The profit on the loan going to CCC is an extra they wouldn't have had if YB had charged the interest. It is not much on a yearly basis and the loan was not made as by a bank - to make a profit, but as a parent company aiding a 50 per cent subsidiary being deliberately distressed by other parties conspiring to destroy it. Nothing to do with other matters such as depreciation which has to be accounted for with or without the famous loan.

 

[Grendel]

The profit on the loan going to CCC is an extra they wouldn't have had if YB had charged the interest. It is not much on a yearly basis and the loan was not made as by a bank - to make a profit, but as a parent company aiding a 50 per cent subsidiary being deliberately distressed by other parties conspiring to destroy it. Nothing to do with other matters such as depreciation which has to be accounted for with or without the famous loan.

How much profit is it?

 

[bigfatronssba]

So the profit could be £1 over 40 years couldn't it? Lets face it posters on here were creaming themselves that Coventry was getting £19 million over 40 years as extra revenue for the good old taxpayer.

They are not are they? Could be £1 and its not a lie is it? Oh and if ACL folds in 10 years what then?

What also about repair and maintenance over 40 years?

Not so good is it?

For someone who only cares about CCFC you certainly post an awful lot about a stadium management company.

Also, issues regarding the Coventry taxpayer, I don't really see what that has to do with you. You've stated you do not live within the city boundary, therefore you have no right to influence Coventry decisions. Allow us that it affects to make that decision please.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I'm struggling to see what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying that the Coventry tax payer is benefitting twice from the ricoh, half the profit from acl and on top of that all the interest from the loan. That sounds like 2 positives that CCC are generating on behalf of the tax payers but you seem to be making out that it's a CCC negative that's been spun into a CCC positive in the context presumably of the JR. Or am I missing something? If so what?

I think that you maybe struggling.

I'm saying that the £19million "profit" from the interest on the loan is nothing like that, half of that would be coming from the CCC half of ACL(the other half from the Higgs side), £19million of potential profit wiped straight away from ACL.

Also as i said, this £19million "profit2 doesn't take account of whatever negative interest is being paid on the loan that CCC had to take out to make the loan to ACL.

I don't think that that interest rate has been revealed anywhere? Nor whether the £14million pounds would have been able to earn a better rate of interest than that given to ACL.

Basically the huge "profit" figure is pure spin.

 

[skybluetony176]

So the profit could be £1 over 40 years couldn't it? Lets face it posters on here were creaming themselves that Coventry was getting £19 million over 40 years as extra revenue for the good old taxpayer.

They are not are they? Could be £1 and its not a lie is it? Oh and if ACL folds in 10 years what then?

What also about repair and maintenance over 40 years?

Not so good is it?

You could be right, you could also be wrong. We'll have to wait to see what the judge says at the end of the month. Until then nothing is fact.

If ACL folds in 10 years then what? I guess that means as long as sisu are on the scene we're playing at suxfields for 10 more years.

 

[Grendel]

You could be right, you could also be wrong. We'll have to wait to see what the judge says at the end of the month. Until then nothing is fact.

If ACL folds in 10 years then what? I guess that means as long as sisu are on the scene we're playing at suxfields for 10 more years.

The judge won't say anything, my point is the statement the City gets £19 million interest payments is I suggest bollocks -- as it is not accounting for the interest paid on the loan.

 

[martcov]

How much profit is it?

Not the point. CCC is not a bank. They are obliged to make a return on taxpayers money, but the reason for the loan is not primarily to make money. They saved ACL from the hostile attack from the "Queen of debt" ( as Joy was once described ) - that was the aim of the loan.

 

[skybluetony176]

I think that you maybe struggling.

I'm saying that the £19million "profit" from the interest on the loan is nothing like that, half of that would be coming from the CCC half of ACL(the other half from the Higgs side), £19million of potential profit wiped straight away from ACL.

Also as i said, this £19million "profit2 doesn't take account of whatever negative interest is being paid on the loan that CCC had to take out to make the loan to ACL.

I don't think that that interest rate has been revealed anywhere? Nor whether the £14million pounds would have been able to earn a better rate of interest than that given to ACL.

Basically the huge "profit" figure is pure spin.

I think I get what you're saying. Hopefully the judge clarifies this at the end of the month and we can all stop guessing.

With regards to the rates CCC pay on the loan to central government I'm sure I can remember someone posted a link on here to a government web page that explained it. Its a standard formula and no big secret if you know where to look for it IIRC.

Maybe someone else can help with this.

 

[Grendel]

I think I get what you're saying. Hopefully the judge clarifies this at the end of the month and we can all stop guessing.

With regards to the rates CCC pay on the loan to central government I'm sure I can remember someone posted a link on here to a government web page that explained it. Its a standard formula and no big secret if you know where to look for it IIRC.

Maybe someone else can help with this.

Its around 4% I believe

 

[Grendel]

Not the point. CCC is not a bank. They are obliged to make a return on taxpayers money, but the reason for the loan is not primarily to make money. They saved ACL from the hostile attack from the "Queen of debt" ( as Joy was once described ) - that was the aim of the loan.

ou
The point is that the statement that £19 million of interest is generated for the taxpayer is spin. It is isn't it? You can duck and dive all you like but that is the fact. You don't know if there was a hostile attack -- that came from the same source that tried to dupe the taxpayers regarding the £19 million.

 

[skybluetony176]

The judge won't say anything, my point is the statement the City gets £19 million interest payments is I suggest bollocks -- as it is not accounting for the interest paid on the loan.

You've seen the judges report already! Wow, you are well connected.

 

[Grendel]

You've seen the judges report already! Wow, you are well connected.

It is irrelevant in the final analysis -- just accept its spin

 

[skybluetony176]

ou
The point is that the statement that £19 million of interest is generated for the taxpayer is spin. It is isn't it? You can duck and dive all you like but that is the fact. You don't know if there was a hostile attack -- that came from the same source that tried to dupe the taxpayers regarding the £19 million.

You really must have read the judges report to come up with all the facts. I'm impressed.

 

[martcov]

ou
The point is that the statement that £19 million of interest is generated for the taxpayer is spin. It is isn't it? You can duck and dive all you like but that is the fact. You don't know if there was a hostile attack -- that came from the same source that tried to dupe the taxpayers regarding the £19 million.

I am not ducking. I don't know how much, but it won't be a meaningful sum. The declared aim of SISU was to get an interest in the stadium. The rent strike was a way of achieving that. A hostile move which CCC thwarted through the loan.

 

[skybluetony176]

It is irrelevant in the final analysis -- just accept its spin

Everything said in court over the last few days is spin until the judge rules otherwise, which is at the end of the month I believe.

 

[Grendel]

Everything said in court over the last few days is spin until the judge rules otherwise, which is at the end of the month I believe.

So are you saying that ACL are being charged over 9% per annum on the loan? I think not. The £19 million is interest generated by the loan and the statement was deceiving. Nothing to do with the judge but common sense.

 

[Jack Griffin]

ou
The point is that the statement that £19 million of interest is generated for the taxpayer is spin. It is isn't it? You can duck and dive all you like but that is the fact. You don't know if there was a hostile attack -- that came from the same source that tried to dupe the taxpayers regarding the £19 million.

Simon Gilbert @TheSimonGilbert · Jun 11

Coun QC justifies length of £14.4m Council/ACL loan by saying council will earn £19.4m in interest alone over the 40 year term of the lease.

So basically you are calling Simon Gilbert a liar, and lets be clear he has to report impartially when in court or he isn't covered for liable.

I'd be interested to hear Simon's response ..

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I think that you maybe struggling.

I'm saying that the £19million "profit" from the interest on the loan is nothing like that, half of that would be coming from the CCC half of ACL(the other half from the Higgs side), £19million of potential profit wiped straight away from ACL.

Also as i said, this £19million "profit2 doesn't take account of whatever negative interest is being paid on the loan that CCC had to take out to make the loan to ACL.

I don't think that that interest rate has been revealed anywhere? Nor whether the £14million pounds would have been able to earn a better rate of interest than that given to ACL.

Basically the huge "profit" figure is pure spin.

There is no £19m potential profit wiped away from ACL, they always needed a loan, and would have paid interest. It's just that this interest went to the Council not to YB or whoever.

The money wasn't sitting in the Council's bank earning interest, they got a loan, I doubt they are charging a huge mark up on the rate, but I think your point is that the Council (or the Cov public) are losing out whereas a surplus is made on the interest (assuming of course ACL continue to make repayments).

 

[skybluetony176]

So are you saying that ACL are being charged over 9% per annum on the loan? I think not. The £19 million is interest generated by the loan and the statement was deceiving. Nothing to do with the judge but common sense.

I'm not saying what ACL are being charged in interest at all.

Perhaps OSB would be kind enough to put the figures in layman's terms so we can understand the point you're trying to make in a clearer concise way.

I would say that because the judge is ruling on the arguments presented in court it has everything to do with him, otherwise why was he there?

 

[SimonGilbert]

So basically you are calling Simon Gilbert a liar, and lets be clear he has to report impartially when in court or he isn't covered for liable.

I'd be interested to hear Simon's response ..

It was a quote from the Council QC. As I said before, just because it's said in court, doesn't make it fact. I'm also not saying it isn't correct.

But it was definitely said in open court. That is a fact.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[lordsummerisle]

So basically you are calling Simon Gilbert a liar, and lets be clear he has to report impartially when in court or he isn't covered for liable.

I'd be interested to hear Simon's response ..

He was never calling Simon Gilbert a liar, you'd have to be some sort of paranoiac to think that Mormon Jack.

What we doubt, and it's pretty obvious to anybody really, is that the statement from the CCC QC that the CCC is making £19.4million profit from the ACL loan is nothing more than spin and stretches disingenuosity to it's limits.

 

[skybluetony176]

He was never calling Simon Gilbert a liar, you'd have to be some sort of paranoiac to think that Mormon Jack.

What we doubt, and it's pretty obvious to anybody really, is that the statement from the CCC QC that the CCC is making £19.4million profit from the ACL loan is nothing more than spin and stretches disingenuosity to it's limits.

Did the sisu qc counter this when he played extra time at the end? If so do you know what he said?

 

[Jack Griffin]

He was never calling Simon Gilbert a liar, you'd have to be some sort of paranoiac to think that Mormon Jack.

What we doubt, and it's pretty obvious to anybody really, is that the statement from the CCC QC that the CCC is making £19.4million profit from the ACL loan is nothing more than spin and stretches disingenuosity to it's limits.

So the CCC QC lied in court by stating a 'fact' that wasn't true? And anyway, the statement was clearly about 'interest', not 'profit' as you've termed it..

 

[Rusty Trombone]

He was never calling Simon Gilbert a liar, you'd have to be some sort of paranoiac to think that Mormon Jack.

What we doubt, and it's pretty obvious to anybody really, is that the statement from the CCC QC that the CCC is making £19.4million profit from the ACL loan is nothing more than spin and stretches disingenuosity to it's limits.

The Cov Telegraph states 'The council is due to get £19.6m in interest over the 41 years of the loan to ACL'. So it appears that there is no spin suggesting that it is £19m profit. I'm sure the Council QC will accept your apology.

 

[stupot07]

The Cov Telegraph states 'The council is due to get £19.6m in interest over the 41 years of the loan to ACL'. So it appears that there is no spin suggesting that it is £19m profit. I'm sure the Council QC will accept your apology.

To be fair if I read that comment, I'd presume that the council were make £1.69m profit through interest payments on the loan.

I would imagine most layperson would make that presumption too. And actually thinking back to the JR quite a few posters made that assumption at the time.


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

 

[Grendel]

So the CCC QC lied in court by stating a 'fact' that wasn't true? And anyway, the statement was clearly about 'interest', not 'profit' as you've termed it..

The statement is true - what are you on about, it says they earned £19 million in interest. I could say on a house I lease I earn £500 a month of a tenant. The mortgage could be £499 a month. The statement would be true. Sorry to rain on your parade.

 

[Grendel]

The Cov Telegraph states 'The council is due to get £19.6m in interest over the 41 years of the loan to ACL'. So it appears that there is no spin suggesting that it is £19m profit. I'm sure the Council QC will accept your apology.

Jack griffin says it is. Are you saying he is a gullible fool? The statement is designed to create a positive impression so no apology needed.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Jack griffin says it is. Are you saying he is a gullible fool? The statement is designed to create a positive impression so no apology needed.

I'll stay out of any argument you're having with Jack. The statement is certainly being clever with words, something you are usually a fan of. Lord has misstated the QC, something he may wish to recognise, but that is up to him of course.

 

[Grendel]

I'm not saying what ACL are being charged in interest at all.

Perhaps OSB would be kind enough to put the figures in layman's terms so we can understand the point you're trying to make in a clearer concise way.

I would say that because the judge is ruling on the arguments presented in court it has everything to do with him, otherwise why was he there?

The point is easy. Interest charged to council - Interest charged to ACL - what is the difference. Do you need OSB to help you cross the road?

 

[Grendel]

It was a quote from the Council QC. As I said before, just because it's said in court, doesn't make it fact. I'm also not saying it isn't correct.

But it was definitely said in open court. That is a fact.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Why not find out what rate the loan is charged at and loaned out for? Ask Alan if he will let you do some journalism.