A few questions for PWKH (4 Viewers)

ccfcway · Apr 16, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
As for the £590k story, the reason why it hasn't been paid is clearly in there. As is the fact someone has objected to the process. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-insist-pay-590000-6786677

"It was thought hold-ups may have occurred over a rumoured dispute about Mr Appleton’s fees"

:slap:

SimonGilbert · Apr 16, 2014

covcity4life said:
dont be so rude you pussyole

I can't argue with that to be fair.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DaleM · Apr 16, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
Firstly, that definitely wasn't the headline. Secondly, the fact the charity was taking Sisu to court was in the third sentence. Sorry if people couldn't make it that far. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-court-battle-6519080

As for the £590k story, the reason why it hasn't been paid is clearly in there. As is the fact someone has objected to the process. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-insist-pay-590000-6786677

Important to check these things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

covcity4life said:
dont be so rude you pussyole

SimonGilbert said:
I can't argue with that to be fair.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if people can't read past the third sentence I think you can be as rude as you like .

Ian1779 · Apr 16, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
Firstly, that definitely wasn't the headline. Secondly, the fact the charity was taking Sisu to court was in the third sentence. Sorry if people couldn't make it that far. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-court-battle-6519080

As for the £590k story, the reason why it hasn't been paid is clearly in there. As is the fact someone has objected to the process. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-insist-pay-590000-6786677

Important to check these things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 · Apr 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
subtle - but seems very deliberate.

It possibly does. To some. Although it seems not to most.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lewys33 · Apr 16, 2014

I love the like button on this site. I would bet my left testicle on who is going to like certain comments.

lewys33 · Apr 16, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
It possibly does. To some. Although it seems not to most.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are a shit journalist though Simon. Its been made clear on here now.

skybluetony176 · Apr 16, 2014

Is it me or is this thread starting to sound like one of Nikki Sinclairs twitter rants?

chiefdave · Apr 16, 2014

We've got some people on here who struggle to grasp facts but even baring that in mind I don't think anyone was under the impression that SISU had sued Higgs and Higgs had counter-sued SISU.

SimonGilbert · Apr 16, 2014

lewys33 said:
You are a shit journalist though Simon. Its been made clear on here now.

Lol. Thanks Lewys. I've been called worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ian1779 · Apr 16, 2014

chiefdave said:
We've got some people on here who struggle to grasp facts but even baring that in mind I don't think anyone was under the impression that SISU had sued Higgs and Higgs had counter-sued SISU.

There are plenty of people... just have a look at Twitter.

covcity4life · Apr 16, 2014

Sisu are suing a charity!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ian1779 · Apr 16, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
It possibly does. To some. Although it seems not to most.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Come on you're no mug. You know exactly what you are doing. That's the PR finesse.

chiefdave · Apr 16, 2014

covcity4life said:
Sisu are suing a charity!!!!!!!!!!!!

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 · Apr 16, 2014

chiefdave said:
They were in the sense that counter sue was only one of the options open to them

The other apparently was to give Higgs a £2 million charitable donation.

Nick · Apr 16, 2014

lewys33 said:
You are a shit journalist though Simon. Its been made clear on here now.

I like his hair though!

MusicDating · Apr 16, 2014

Nick said:
I like his hair though!

Nice moderating.

fernandopartridge · Apr 16, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
It possibly does. To some. Although it seems not to most.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It seems that most don't bother questioning it as it fits their paradigm.

oldskyblue58 · Apr 16, 2014

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)

Grendel · Apr 16, 2014

oldskyblue58; said:
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)

No one knows. Given the lack of demand for use age they could be offering it free or at a hugely subvented rate. Do you know?

olderskyblue · Apr 16, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
It seems that most don't bother questioning it as it fits their paradigm.

You read the articles FP? Does anything in there need questioning? I think they explain each situation clearly.

MichaelCCFC · Apr 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Come on you're no mug. You know exactly what you are doing. That's the PR finesse.

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 · Apr 16, 2014

MusicDating said:
Nice moderating.

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 · Apr 16, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
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

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 · Apr 16, 2014

Grendel said:
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.

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 · Apr 16, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
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.

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.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 16, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
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'

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 · Apr 16, 2014

Grendel said:
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.

Can you still join GMK?

Grendel · Apr 16, 2014

James Smith said:
Can you still join GMK?

Yes Peter you can

duffer · Apr 16, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
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.

Deleted member 5849 · Apr 16, 2014

duffer said:
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 · Apr 16, 2014

Grendel said:
As I say PWKH is on safe ground here. He would not identify himself on a normal forum

Thats the 1st time i have ever heard GMK be described as a normal forum

James Smith · Apr 16, 2014

Grendel said:
Yes Peter you can

My names not Peter but thanks for the info.

shmmeee · Apr 16, 2014

Man we need some real news around here.

Nick · Apr 16, 2014

shmmeee said:
Man we need some real news around here.

OFF TOPIC

This is NEWS - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kim-kardashian-mike-amess-petrified-3420682

Back on Topic Now..

A few questions for PWKH (4 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

New Member

Well-Known Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency