A slithey toad doth gire and gimbal (2 Viewers)

SkyBlueSwiss · Apr 19, 2013

grego_gee said:
I have to thank you for your response PK at least you tell us something, even if it doesn't quite add up
Yes you are right that I am not familiar with the "Suite of agreements" between AHCT and the CCFC (academy) but I am surprised that it needs a "suite of agreements" just to rent a sports facility, I would have expected that just one rental agreement would do!
I'm sorry that we have to cling on to the little snippets of information that you give us, it is generally all we get!
But lets face it, you only give the facts you want to.
Haven't you taken full advantage of the fact that some maintenance was due on some equipment just to be awkward and keep the Academy out of the Center?
Isn't it a fact that it was really maintenance that has been needed over a long period of time and is probably due to use by others as well as the Academy?
Isn't it a fact that this could have been easily been sorted out with CCFCH?
but isn't it a fact that you refused to speak to them?
I appreciate you telling us its £100,000 of equipment not just a couple of mowers.
For the avoidance of doubt can you please state exactly what the equipment is?
and what the normal provision for maintenance is?
I wasn't really labouring under any conceptions at all with regard to AEHC and AHCT but since you mention it, what difference would it make if they were connected?
and anyway are they not connected by virtue of you being involved with them both?

tia
imp:

You have just been informed that there is no rent charged for use of the facilities, and your first comment is that you don't understand why it can't all be done with one rental agreement. Did you even read the reply to you properly?
You are further informed that there is £100k of equipment, and you basically call the guy a liar by saying that you need to see a list of that equipment adding up to £100k before you are prepared to accept the statement. And by the way you show your level of ignorance about groundkeeping if you do not understand the amount of equipment needed to maintain several football pitches in good condition. Did you think it took just a mower and a pitchfork? At my golf club, they have an entire machine park to maintain the grasses of the course, and the grass at the golf club gets nowhere near the hammering that a football pitch gets during a season. Now think of how much the servicing of your car costs each year and apply that to the amount of machinery involved and make your own calculations.
Jesus - why don't you get off the fence and take sides for a change.
Good grief!

James Smith · Apr 19, 2013

SkyBlueSwiss said:
You have just been informed that there is no rent charged for use of the facilities, and your first comment is that you don't understand why it can't all be done with one rental agreement. Did you even read the reply to you properly?
You are further informed that there is £100k of equipment, and you basically call the guy a liar by saying that you need to see a list of that equipment adding up to £100k before you are prepared to accept the statement. And by the way you show your level of ignorance about groundkeeping if you do not understand the amount of equipment needed to maintain several football pitches in good condition. Did you think it took just a mower and a pitchfork? At my golf club, they have an entire machine park to maintain the grasses of the course, and the grass at the golf club gets nowhere near the hammering that a football pitch gets during a season. Now think of how much the servicing of your car costs each year and apply that to the amount of machinery involved and make your own calculations.
Jesus - why don't you get off the fence and take sides for a change.
Good grief!

I also remember going round the exhibition they had before the AH Centre opened and it had a really funky fake grass solution. This had tiny little rubber balls in the "grass" and you could do sliding tackles without getting grass burns. This I think needed a machine to clean and redistribute the little balls, which I can't imagine is cheap to buy. No idea if the academy used those pitches though.

Porkchophill · Apr 19, 2013

May of missed something but what is wrong withe lodge could there be no way of accommodating the academy there ?
Or has the for sale sign gone up yet ?

James Smith · Apr 19, 2013

Porkchophill said:
May of missed something but what is wrong withe lodge could there be no way of accommodating the academy there ?
Or has the for sale sign gone up yet ?

It has to meet certain standards to qualify for the £500,000 grant that no one knows the location of at the moment. I think that's why the centre was built to meet those standards.

dongonzalos · Apr 19, 2013

Haskell wants us to have a level one facility so we attract and retain the best youth

Fingers crossed!

grego_gee · Apr 19, 2013

SkyBlueSwiss said:
You have just been informed that there is no rent charged for use of the facilities, and your first comment is that you don't understand why it can't all be done with one rental agreement. Did you even read the reply to you properly?
You are further informed that there is £100k of equipment, and you basically call the guy a liar by saying that you need to see a list of that equipment adding up to £100k before you are prepared to accept the statement. And by the way you show your level of ignorance about groundkeeping if you do not understand the amount of equipment needed to maintain several football pitches in good condition. Did you think it took just a mower and a pitchfork? At my golf club, they have an entire machine park to maintain the grasses of the course, and the grass at the golf club gets nowhere near the hammering that a football pitch gets during a season. Now think of how much the servicing of your car costs each year and apply that to the amount of machinery involved and make your own calculations.
Jesus - why don't you get off the fence and take sides for a change.
Good grief!

Hi Good Grief,

If you read my reply to PK carefully you will see I have not called anybody a liar! and it was not intended to be insulting!
and the Academy do pay rent your mis-reading emphasizes my point that PK uses the Facts quite selectively.

Thanks for your observations but I am only interested in hearing PK's response.

imp:

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 19, 2013

grego_gee said:
I have to thank you for your response PK at least you tell us something, even if it doesn't quite add up
Yes you are right that I am not familiar with the "Suite of agreements" between AHCT and the CCFC (academy) but I am surprised that it needs a "suite of agreements" just to rent a sports facility, I would have expected that just one rental agreement would do!

Ha ha - you're priceless. Yet another insinuation that CCC/ACL/Higgs (or anyone who's standing in SISU's way) is complicating matters or being duplicitous if there's more than one rental agreement. Let's think this though....

Let's start basic shall we? The football club? We believe the Golden Share in 'the club' sits with CCFC Limited, but players are registered with CCFC Holdings, who are owned by Otium Entertainment Group, which is subsidiary of Sky Blue Sports and Leisure; not to be confused with Sconset Capital LP, a Cayman Islands-based limited partnership created by SISU Capital Limited to invest funds into the club, or Arvo Master Fund Ltd, SISU’s Cayman Islands-based hedge fund - which set up a new debenture, which and acquired the club’s existing and any future assets as security against its lending in March of 2012; controlled by shadowy Joy Sepalla, who after 5 years ‘controllong’ the club; fans couldn’t even recognise in the unlikely event of actually seeing her at a game.

Did I get that right? I don't even know any more. It's probably changed since last time I familiarised myself with it in any case.

We now have a forensic accountant trying to ascertain where even basic fare - such as where the golden share sits; such is the complex labrynth of 'the club's' structure and accounts; you criticise none of this, yet jump on this chap's case in the event that there might be more than one agreement for the use of the Higgs?

Not saying you've got a skewed agenda or anything.....

Porkchophill · Apr 19, 2013

James Smith said:
It has to meet certain standards to qualify for the £500,000 grant that no one knows the location of at the moment. I think that's why the centre was built to meet those standards.

Ah makes sense ...
From a business point of view and I might be way off again would it of made sense to upgrade the facilities at the lodge which would obviously involve an initial outlay but then reap the benefits of a state o the art training centre that we owned , therefore in the longrun no rent to pay and it's another selling point , like I say sorry if I'm being a bit blind here but isn't it like owning a house but living in a rented 1

psgm1 · Apr 19, 2013

PWKH said:
The £12,000 quotation is one that CCFC obtained from Farol Ltd for the maintenance and repair of the equipment owned by but used and maintained by CCFC. 50% of the equipment is u/s at present. The work should have been done by CCFC and hasn't been. The Trustees are quite happy to have a dialogue with CCFC if it will result in getting the Academy back into the Centre with everybody meeting their obligations. The maintenance of machinery is not included in any of the charges made for CCFC's use of the Centre rental or otherwise.
This has nothing to do with ACL.

Cannot argue with that - asked a specific question given a specific answer!

If only sisu would do the same, maybe just maybe they wouldn't have been allowed to run up such debts for use of facilities!

Interesting AJSCCFC having a go - would have thought SBT having a pop at PWKH having a pop is just a little bit hypocritical!

rupert_bear · Apr 19, 2013

People such as grego_gee desperately want to be proved right, how strange, when if they are the future of our football club is on the line. He asked questions got an immediate answer but still stayed on the same path. The thought cretins like this have the vote is worrying.

torchomatic · Apr 19, 2013

Ah, there goes R_P again. Anyone who strays from the path of least resistance is a "cretin".

ajsccfc · Apr 19, 2013

psgm1 said:
Interesting AJSCCFC having a go

What, the quite obvious balloon gag?

If that's 'having a go', where do you place slanderous accusations against a radio presenter followed by pussying out when threatened with legal action?

James Smith · Apr 19, 2013

ajsccfc said:
What, the quite obvious balloon gag?

If that's 'having a go', where do you place slanderous accusations against a radio presenter followed by pussying out when threatened with legal action?

They weren't slanderous they were libellous - just saying.

ajsccfc · Apr 19, 2013

I always get those two muddled up.

Wait, does PSGM1 think I'm something to do with the Sky Blue Trust?

Covstu · Apr 19, 2013

dongonzalos said:
Haskell wants us to have a level one facility so we attract and retain the best youth

Fingers crossed!

with the new rules, whoever doesnt have a grade 1 youth facility is knackered anyway. Grade 1 clubs can cherry pick the best talent for pennies at an early stage ratehr than pay £10M in two years time and there is nothing that a grade 2-3 can do about it, so wrong!! This will be the end of lower league football as teams rely on money for good prospect youngsters.

torchomatic · Apr 19, 2013

Only 29 turned up at the film night, you know.

ajsccfc said:
I always get those two muddled up.

Wait, does PSGM1 think I'm something to do with the Sky Blue Trust?

rupert_bear · Apr 19, 2013

torchomatic said:
Ah, there goes R_P again. Anyone who strays from the path of least resistance is a "cretin".

That bloke PKWH came straight back at him and blue his pathetic thread out of the water for all to see yet still wouldn't totally accept it, a cretin imo, which is a bit nicer than calling him the wanker i would like to do.

ajsccfc · Apr 19, 2013

You should really keep your nose out though yeah? Rioch-style.

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 19, 2013

ajsccfc said:
You should really keep your nose out though yeah? Rioch-style.

He can't manage it though mate.

torchomatic · Apr 19, 2013

Yeah, he did come back and good on him. GG thanked him and said he wasn't convinced and asked more questions. What's wrong with that? Why does that make him a "cretin" and a "wanker"?

There seem to be many people like Hoff, JE and PWKH who are "the untouchables". It's not a case of abuse, it's a case of they cannot be questioned or doubted. It's pathetic.

rupert_bear said:
That bloke PKWH came straight back at him and blue his pathetic thread out of the water for all to see yet still wouldn't totally accept it, a cretin imo, which is a bit nicer than calling him the wanker i would like to do.

Nonleagueherewecome · Apr 19, 2013

rupert_bear said:
People such as grego_gee desperately want to be proved right, how strange, when if they are the future of our football club is on the line. He asked questions got an immediate answer but still stayed on the same path. The thought cretins like this have the vote is worrying.

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work." Kent Brockman, 1995.

ajsccfc · Apr 19, 2013

rupert_bear said:
which is a bit nicer than calling him the wanker i would like to do.

Good thing you avoided calling him a wanker and didn't just do it anyway with all the subtlety of an elephant wearing ice skates.

dongonzalos · Apr 19, 2013

Covstu said:
with the new rules, whoever doesnt have a grade 1 youth facility is knackered anyway. Grade 1 clubs can cherry pick the best talent for pennies at an early stage ratehr than pay £10M in two years time and there is nothing that a grade 2-3 can do about it, so wrong!! This will be the end of lower league football as teams rely on money for good prospect youngsters.

More reason why we need it then

grego_gee · Apr 20, 2013

I was trying to elucidate some "facts" from PK. I am not interested in interventions and insults from anyone else. Call me what you will it has no relevance on the topic whatsoever. It only creates background noise which gets in the way of PK giving us the facts and allows him to shrink away without answering.
I am also NOT trying to "blow him out of the water" because I do value the insight that he gives even if it is not to be taken at face value, and not balanced by an opposing point of view.
His responses so far fall short of confirming that CCFC has any responsibility to maintain the equipment. He has chosen his words very carefully to create that impression but he will not confirm it. He almost suggests that CCFC do not pay rent but I believe that initial reports of this particular fiasco state that a rent of £2000 for additional use had been agreed but a bill of £12000 for maintenance of equipment was preventing agreement.
As PK has pointed out I am not familiar with the suite of Agreements between AHCT and CCFC so I do have to apply guesswork and assumption. I do not have to apologise for that, its the very reason why I was trying to get answers out of PK.
This is a very small sideshow to the main event , but perhaps is worth exploring because it may indicate where problems lie. Since he has apparently decided to withdraw for now, I try below to draw facts from his careful use of words. I hope he will correct me where I am (inevitably) wrong.

1. CCFC pay rent for the facility as a whole but no rent specifically for use of the pitches is defined.
2. Alan Higgs Centre Trust own the equipment for maintenance of the pitches.
3. This equipment cost initially £100,000 and half of it is currently not working.
4. CCFC use this equipment themselves to carry out maintenance of the pitches.
5. CCFC are not the only group using the pitches or the equipment.
6. Responsibility for Maintenance of the equipment is not clearly defined in the "suite of agreements" for use of the facility.
7. Alan Higgs Centre Trust asked CCFC to get a quote for maintenance on the equipment.
8. The single quote (not competitive from Farol Ltd.) came back at £12,000
9. Competitive quotes might bring in a lower price but no one now accepts responsibility for dealing with the situation.
10. The damage to the machinery is normal ware and tear, not malicious damage.
11. The wear and tear has built up over a long period
12. The wear and tear may be due to others using the equipment as well as CCFC.
13. PK wants the work done now because CCFC might cease using the facility in future.
14. The absence of the half of the equipment not working is not preventing the pitches being used.
15. The only thing preventing the academy using facility is the demand to have the equipment restored.
16. Although various bodies are "independent" from each other PK himself is one personality that binds several,
17. PK is responsible for representing various bodies involved with CCFC and is a principal decision maker for many of them.
18. Although the bodies are independent PK has created this issue as a pressure point to add to the bigger issue of rent for the Ricoh.

for PK (tia)

imp:

PWKH · Apr 20, 2013

I somehow feel that answering you is a waste of time as you have already said that you don't believe me, but that is your problem not mine.
As you guessed correctly you are wrong in 1,5,6,9,10,12,14,15.

I comment on
8: we have suggested a second quotation.
10: malicious damage is not evident, misuse is as is damage caused by failure to carry out maintenance.
13: if CCFC Holdings wish to use the pitches the machinery needs to be repaired, if they don't the debt will be with the Administrator.

16 and 17: As Clerk to the Higgs Charity I am not a decision maker, as a Director of ACL and a Trustee of AHCT I share responsibility for decision making with other Directors or Trustees.
18: No, and we are still trying to get to a discussion with the owner over the Academy to see if common sense will prevail.

Further than this I will not go. You are not a party to the Agreements and although they may end up gathering dust they are the property of CCFC Ltd (iA) and the AHCT.

You and others feel that you have a "right" to what is done in the name of CCFC or (in shorthand) done to it because you feel it is "your" club. I believe wholeheartedly that the Club belongs to the supporters, without them there is nothing. Unfortunately the Club is also a commercial company with its owners directing it in the way they see fit. You and I as supporters have no say in the running of what we feel is "our" Club, no more than we do over the running of Tesco or Stagecoach. I don't shop at Tesco, I am a Co-op member. That is a choice I can make. If Tesco change their way of doing business I might become a customer again. As a supporter of a football club, neither you nor I will chop and change as we like or don't like the way the Club is run. We may decide not to go to games, to stop being a customer but what we feel for the Club is not what we feel for something like Tesco, we remain a supporter. I have only supported the Club since 1989, my wife all her life, her first game was home v Shrewsbury in 1957, we will still be supporters when this lot of suits have moved on and another lot of suits have taken over the company. What I do as a Trustee of the Centre is to try to protect the Centre. That is my duty. I am not dealing with the Club I support I am dealing with a commercial company that is trying to get the best deal for itself: why wouldn't it?

PWKH · Apr 20, 2013

I somehow feel that answering you is a waste of time as you have already said that you don't believe me, but that is your problem not mine.
As you guessed correctly you are wrong in 1,5,6,9,10,12,14,15.

I comment on
8: we have suggested a second quotation.
10: malicious damage is not evident, misuse is as is damage caused by failure to carry out maintenance.
13: if CCFC Holdings wish to use the pitches the machinery needs to be repaired, if they don't the debt will be with the Administrator.

16 and 17: As Clerk to the Higgs Charity I am not a decision maker, as a Director of ACL and a Trustee of AHCT I share responsibility for decision making with other Directors or Trustees.
18: No, and we are still trying to get to a discussion with the owner over the Academy to see if common sense will prevail.

Further than this I will not go. You are not a party to the Agreements and although they may end up gathering dust they are the property of CCFC Ltd (iA) and the AHCT.

You and others feel that you have a "right" to what is done in the name of CCFC or (in shorthand) done to it because you feel it is "your" club. I believe wholeheartedly that the Club belongs to the supporters, without them there is nothing. Unfortunately the Club is also a commercial company with its owners directing it in the way they see fit. You and I as supporters have no say in the running of what we feel is "our" Club, no more than we do over the running of Tesco or Stagecoach. I don't shop at Tesco, I am a Co-op member. That is a choice I can make. If Tesco change their way of doing business I might become a customer again. As a supporter of a football club, neither you nor I will chop and change as we like or don't like the way the Club is run. We may decide not to go to games, to stop being a customer but what we feel for the Club is not what we feel for something like Tesco, we remain a supporter. I have only supported the Club since 1989, my wife all her life, her first game was home v Shrewsbury in 1957, we will still be supporters when this lot of suits have moved on and another lot of suits have taken over the company. What I do as a Trustee of the Centre is to try to protect the Centre. That is my duty. I am not dealing with the Club I support I am dealing with a commercial company that is trying to get the best deal for itself: why wouldn't it?

grego_gee · Apr 20, 2013

Thank you again PK, but I assure you I did not say that anything you have said was not true.
I was perhaps trying to read into what you had not said.
I will not press you further as I can see that you wish to remain guarded over these issues and I can see I am not going to get a definitive answer.
Thank you for your comments its a little clearer now.
For what it is worth I do not feel I have "right" to KNOW anything (and I don't feel that I need to tell you that you were wrong in assuming that!).
That doesn't stop me from asking!
Its entirely up to you how much you answer, as you have shown.
I have a feeling we might hear more from the other side after the last game at the Ricoh.

imp:

A slithey toad doth gire and gimbal (2 Viewers)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency