Let's hope so or our demise will certainly be speeding up.
Yet to me it seems to be doing the opposite. Sounds like this money if it is correct could replace the withdrawn money from the anchor tenant fir a few years whilst they try and find other business.
Meanwhile SISU will need to come good on the 25 million for a new stadium.
Thank you
How would I or you as joe blogs fans find such a thing searching on the Internet.
I tried and I was specifically looking for it and could not find it despite using all sorts of open research.
What led you to think that there was such a deal in place and to search it out and find it if you don't mind me asking?
It's very interesting. Do you think like I do if your interpretation of it is correct and ACL do drip release the money they will be viable for a long time.
Meaning SISU are going to have to do one of four things:-
Actually build this stadium
Agree a long term rent deal
Sell CCFC
Buy ACL for an agreeable price for all parties
As for what it means, I guess it could mean exactly what you say. I also read that the distribution was £1m pa - but have no way of proving it. If that was the case then that would run out in 2016 approx? What it could possibly mean in the short term is that last years accounts showed a profit of about 450K. If you remove that £1m that becomes a £550K loss? So without that money where is the business. But again it depends on how it is being done.
I think the question really is: why do you care if ACL are viable in the future?
The transition period we're in now is by definition an exception to normal business practice. As others have said we can drive ourselves mad in the meantime or we can wait a few years to see how it pans out after all this is sorted, but right now I'm not sure what can be gained to be honest.
The same applies to Sisu's accounts, CCFC's accounts and anything else. We're mushroom here, all we can do is make sure people know our feelings IMO. A little education is a dangerous thing and let's face it none of us are experts in this stuff and will probably end up deferring to whatever OSB58 says.
Ultimately the best scenario is that CCFC return to the Ricoh. I don't believe either business has much of a long term future without the other. We know that SISU accounts are fucked. But no one is pretending otherwise.
But what does that prove? Equally if we add on £1.2m a year in rent they should have been paid it would have been a £1.65m profit (well not exactly as you have to deal with the escrow account etc but you can see the point), doesn't really show anything one way or the other.
If it is the case that it is being paid until 2016 then we're not going to find out what impact it has had until those accounts get published in 2017. And of course if ACL have been running at a profit for several years they could well have cash in the bank by then so any loss when these payments run out may not be an immediate issue. By 2017 we will of course be playing at our new ground in the Coventry area, if we're not and are still playing at Northampton what fanbase will be left?
We all know the best thing is for the club to come back to the Ricoh but if you had to pick a side that could survive without it happening I would suggest ACL would be the more likley candidate. They are not solely reliant on the club and only really need to break even given that they are owned by CCC and Higgs.
ACL were bailed out by the Council for £14m. Do sustainable businesses need to be bailed out? To be honest I'm fed up of this brinkmanship from both sides. They need each other. SO just get round the table and sort it out.
But if they don't break even? More council money for yet another bailout?
Just to go back to the OP for a second. What happened with that challenge of Holdings liquidation? I believe PWKH said it was nothing to do with them at the time (could be wrong), it all seems to have gone quiet about that, shouldn't it be done by now?
Back to what we're talking about, http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/arena-coventry fancy paying £5 for the 2010 accounts to see if it's in there?
They haven't just chucked money at ACL, they have provisioned a loan. When the loan is repaid the council will make a small profit.
Who knows what will happen in the future, who knows if we'll even have a club by then. It seems to me the date by which ACL is going to collapse has become like Warren Jeffs predictions for the end of the world, every time it doesn't happen the date moves!
I don't know about this. I think this question highlights the problem with the CET. They did a story that SISU still hadn't paid the £590K owed. But what they don't do is put the all the facts in the story. It's not been paid as the liquidation process hasn't finished. When it is it will then be paid.
In reading up about this whole saga over the last 12 months, I had read about this exit fee being paid. But it's difficult to state anything on forums or on Twitter without being slammed as a SISU employee or some other rubbish, unless you have some pretty concrete facts. It was only the other day I was reading something about the GCBTR campaign and I got a link off Twitter back to this forum. I then saw PWKH posting on that thread, so decided to ask him the questions to see if I could get any clarity on this.
In the end I actually found it this morning. I google searched 'Isle of Capri leaves Ricoh' and stumbled on the gamingfloor forum mentioned by shmmeee. From there I googled Isle of Capri SEC as I couldn't get a link open from the forum and there it was.
As for what it means, I guess it could mean exactly what you say. I also read that the distribution was £1m pa - but have no way of proving it. If that was the case then that would run out in 2016 approx? What it could possibly mean in the short term is that last years accounts showed a profit of about 450K. If you remove that £1m that becomes a £550K loss? So without that money where is the business. But again it depends on how it is being done.
Well rejection of the CVA brought liquidation. I would have thought that in most liquidations the final payments are not done until process is completed, so that all creditors are dealt with at the same time. I don't know about the FL condition... how would they apply that condition to a process outside of their jurisdiction?
Some days this forum is just so much fun.
Where's John?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
But it's not a payment as part of the CVA as the CVA was rejected. I thought it was a condition of issuing the golden share the FL placed on Otium to make the payment which would mean the liquidation process had nothing to do with the payment being made.
The FL can put any condition they like on issuing the golden share, SISU could have taken legal action but they would have done the same as when Leeds tried to take legal action and state they won't issue the share to anyone taking legal action.
I'm here its definately interesting.
It obviously raises more questions than answers.
I would like to see Ian digging into finances from all parties don't you agree ?
I don't know about this. I think this question highlights the problem with the CET. They did a story that SISU still hadn't paid the £590K owed. But what they don't do is put the all the facts in the story. It's not been paid as the liquidation process hasn't finished. When it is it will then be paid. Now the only logical explanation for it not being completed is that someone has challenged the process. So why can't they a) find out why the liquidation process is incomplete b) tell the full story or not tell it at all.
It was the same with the recent court case. Big headlines of 'SISU take charity to court'. Once you get through the tabloid bollocks you find it was Higgs that launched the legal action initially. All it does is drive the two sides further apart and hamper any prospect of solution.
Which was vetoed by the council if i'm not mistaken? It would appear that Higgs/SISU negotiations aren't too bad... but they hit a brick wall as soon as council become involved?
Have a word John with your buddies.... bring us home.
Which was vetoed by the council if i'm not mistaken? It would appear that Higgs/SISU negotiations aren't too bad... but they hit a brick wall as soon as council become involved?
Have a word John with your buddies.... bring us home.
Your good at asking questions but seem to be lacking in the answering department !!!
I will ask again here we go.
Do you think the Higgs would have sold their 50% share in Acl for 2million which was all Sisu offered. Obviously taking into consideration that the Higgs paid 4 million ???????????
Your good at asking questions but seem to be lacking in the answering department !!!
I will ask again here we go.
Do you think the Higgs would have sold their 50% share in Acl for 2million which was all Sisu offered. Obviously taking into consideration that the Higgs paid 4 million ???????????
I do not know the answer to that. What was their share worth? Was it valued by anyone? Assuming that Higgs would have recieved some profits from the complex as a whole from its creation until now may have impacted on the price of the share.
I personally think that SISU should have paid the full amount back to Higgs
Lets say your assumptions are correct and Acl are picking up an extra 1million a year pure profit for the casino. Does that not make a 2million offer derisory ?
Lets say your assumptions are correct and Acl are picking up an extra 1million a year pure profit for the casino. Does that not make a 2million offer derisory ?
Isn't the point he is making that they have already had all the money but showing it year by year in the accounts?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?