James Smith
Well-Known Member
You might think that, though I couldn't say blackmail.
Is stating that sisu will only talk to acl if they sign the Cva not blackmail?
as I said in my first post,
it will cost ACL over 700k that they can't afford to lose if they don't sign the CVA?
So its not a condition that will be refused its just a matter of when it is accepted!
imp:
as I said in my first post,
it will cost ACL over 700k that they can't afford to lose if they don't sign the CVA?
So its not a condition that will be refused its just a matter of when it is accepted!
imp:
If SISU won't pay £30M to buy the Ricoh (based on £24M for council 1/2 and £6M for ACL 1/2) then how does paying £30M to build an inferior stadium with all attendant risks make any sense?
I say call their bluff, let SISU find the money to do that, buy the land, submit planning & engage architects & engineers to produce a design.
of course it was, council are 100% good guys.
hehe
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc?showall=16: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?
ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher. Since SISU bought the club there have been one or two light touch discussions with SISU but nothing that amounted to a serious proposition.
CCFC: Not sure of historic negotiations
as I said in my first post,
If they don't sign the CVA, it will cost ACL 700k that they can't afford to lose!
So its not a condition that will be refused its just a matter of when it is accepted!
imp:
as I said in my first post,
it will cost ACL over 700k that they can't afford to lose if they don't sign the CVA?
So its not a condition that will be refused its just a matter of when it is accepted!
imp:
If SISU won't pay £30M to buy the Ricoh (based on £24M for council 1/2 and £6M for ACL 1/2) then how does paying £30M to build an inferior stadium with all attendant risks make any sense?
I say call their bluff, let SISU find the money to do that, buy the land, submit planning & engage architects & engineers to produce a design.
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc?showall=1
Not saying the council are 100% squeaky clean in all this but it's not "normal business practice" to use a slight Fisherism, for a tenant to boycott the rent they agreed to without at least attempting to negotiate a reduction first.
Is stating that sisu will only talk to acl if they sign the Cva not blackmail?
Buying ACL would not buy the Ricoh - ACL only have the remainder of a 50 year lease on it.
SISU now see the benefit of owning their own stadium freehold for a similar outlay.
I think they will only be interested in paying £30-50m for the freehold of the Ricoh.
If that is up for negotiation they might be interested.
otherwise they will only negotiate a 3-5year deal to stay until the newbuild is ready.
imp:
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc?showall=1
Not saying the council are 100% squeaky clean in all this but it's not "normal business practice" to use a slight Fisherism, for a tenant to boycott the rent they agreed to without at least attempting to negotiate a reduction first. The managing agents on my flat that I rent out will kick the tenants out if they don't pay two months rent, the tenants have to put up a 1 & ½ months of rent with the agent so that if they do default I'm only down ½ a months rent.
Buying ACL would not buy the Ricoh - ACL only have the remainder of a 50 year lease on it.
SISU now see the benefit of owning their own stadium freehold for a similar outlay.
I think they will only be interested in paying £30-50m for the freehold of the Ricoh.
If that is up for negotiation they might be interested.
otherwise they will only negotiate a 3-5year deal to stay until the newbuild is ready.
imp:
Does anyone believe if the CVA was signed, which would mean the end of the lease, SISU would actually turn up to the meeting or engage in any meaningful negotiation?
No, sisu are taking a financial hit.
I do not agree it is 'to spite ACL' - it's an investment in future profit from adding a stadium to the club.
Can you explain who in your opinion are the Council ?thats just it,i dont care about business,i care about ccfc
as soon as people admit council are the opposite we will have no issue
SISU had already agreed heads of terms for the purchase of the charitys share for 6 million, they backed out of the deal and still owe the charity 29000 in legal bills, the charity are currently going to court to get this money back. I just cant see even with the purchase of ACL how the figure is much more than 30 million to buy the stadium outright?
I think they want to make sure the lease is dead and burried and not playing any part in potential future talks.
Surely ACL expected that.
i said he might want to look into it
i am happy being rude
dont be so slow in future.
Nope, can't see it.
Yes it is but not by me!
I just made an observation on an open forum saying it was an acceptance with one condition.
It was another observer that went onto the radio and said it was a refusal!
imp:
ACL asked FL if they would broker talks on Monday at their meeting. ACL placed no conditions on the talks
JS was contacted Tuesday, needed time to think
JS replied mid day Wednesday said no not unless ACL signed the CVA first
Offer remains on table but will be reviewed after ACL see what happens at the CVA meeting 22/07
In ACL's opinion the ability to hold talks and the CVA are not linked. Whatever happens with CVA the assets of the club are presently in CCFC H and they are operating the Club. If CCFC Ltd liquidated the club would still be there
ACL want CCFC at the Ricoh
Question - why is the signing of the CVA so important ?
To exit administration, avoid a 15 point penalty, allow accounts to be submitted and embargo lifted?
Surely at this stage the FL have absolutely no choice but to say to SISU.
Sorry you told us ACL won't talk hence we ok'ed the ground move.
You either talk or we now veto it on the grounds that circumstances have changed.
To exit administration, avoid a 15 point penalty, allow accounts to be submitted and embargo lifted?
I understand that Stupot but I meant in the context of accepting or rejecting a meeting at this time. Surely to get a solution to stay at the Ricoh both sides have to compromise at some point
thats just it,i dont care about business,i care about ccfc
as soon as people admit council are the opposite we will have no issue
business means more to council than ccfc do, so just wish they would stop acting like they are trying to keep ccfc in cov for any other reason than money
I understand that Stupot but I meant in the context of accepting or rejecting a meeting at this time. Surely to get a solution to stay at the Ricoh both sides have to compromise at some point
I'll try hard to be objective and even handed, but that's easier said than done, given the behaviour of some of the participants in this sad debacle.
I think it's clear to everyone, including ACL, that SISU's main short-term objective is to get the CVA signed, so that (i) the lease can be annulled and (ii) they can exit administration. Presumably the next stage would be to file their overdue accounts, (assuming the auditors have signed them off), so that the FL lift the transfer embargo.
I believe it's also clear that it's not in ACL's interests to sign the CVA, because (i) that would mean they would get a fraction of money owed to them including the value of the remaining lease (ii) the investigations into the actions of SISU prior to administration would not continue (iii) they would lose any negotiating leverage which they currently have. (iv) ACL must be very concerned about how Compass and Ricoh will react, once the lease is dead and buried,
So the result, as per bloody usual, is a stalemate and no talks, with or without FL involvement. SISU continue single-mindedly with their plans to play at Sixfields, in order to financially distress ACL and buy the arena on the cheap. Meanwhile our club goes down the pan and I get sadder and angrier!!!
I understand that Stupot but I meant in the context of accepting or rejecting a meeting at this time. Surely to get a solution to stay at the Ricoh both sides have to compromise at some point
It's a difficult one OSB, PWKH has already been on radio this week saying they will very likely reject the CVA as they want ccfc and sisu investigating, ccfc staying at the Ricoh doesn't guarantee they will sign the CVA, and likewise signing the cva doesnt guarantee that ccfc will return. If I was sisu I think I would be asking for the CVA to be signed first. ACL might counter that will requesting the judicial review be withdrawn....but technically that is not against ACL.
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?