ACL isn't letting this drop (3 Viewers)

theferret · Jun 15, 2013

SkyBlueSwiss said:
Answer me this then;

What would our club, broke and homeless, have done if the council and Higgs had not stepped in, formed ACL and built the Ricoh? Would you have preferred that scenario?

I believe I answered that point earlier. Plans were already in place to buy back HR in that eventuality.

GR didn't want administration as he stood to lose too much, hence why years later when the club was in an even worse situation financially he was still trying to cling on and avoid that outcome.

Higgs can hold their heads up high in this situation, I have nothing but praise for them because it has never been about self-interest for them and they have always taken a reasonable and pragmatic position.

oakey · Jun 15, 2013

theferret said:
Indeed I think Higgs was instrumental in that. Actually, I feel a lot more gratitude and loyalty to them then I do the council.

Ultimately, the council spent almost nothing and came out of it with total ownership of the freehold of a £130 million facility and a 50% stake in the management company. They have done very well out of it, surely that is undeniable? I guess others will disagree though.

If CCC have done well out of it then that money has gone towards services in the city or keeping council tax down. No individual or group has made money, unless you are alleging council house corruption? So, it might not have benefited the club but the club is to blame for not financing it themselves, then selling and refusing to buy back revenue streams.
I don't get this entitlement that some think the club has just because it plays in the stadium.

Jack Griffin · Jun 15, 2013

theferret said:
Indeed I think Higgs was instrumental in that. Actually, I feel a lot more gratitude and loyalty to them then I do the council.

Ultimately, the council spent almost nothing and came out of it with total ownership of the freehold of a £130 million facility and a 50% stake in the management company. They have done very well out of it, surely that is undeniable? I guess others will disagree though.

Actually Tim confirmed on Mondays forum that they paid at least £23M (£10M grant & £13M to buy land).

Then they sunk the profit of selling the land to Tesco another £46M in to the project (they sold the land on to Tesco for £59M).

So I would argue that the council put in £69M.

theferret · Jun 15, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
Yes I agree it was a good deal, and had the club been properly run then we would have been the beneficiaries.

My whole point was you can apportion blame on the rent agreement if you want, but the council taking control of the construction of the ground had no detrimental effect on Ccfc.

I accept your last point, but the problem is people use that fact to defend and justify the stance that the council/ACL took during the rent dispute.

SkyBlueSwiss · Jun 15, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Actually Tim confirmed on Mondays forum that they paid at least £23M (£10M grant & £13M to buy land).

Then they sunk the profit of selling the land to Tesco another £46M in to the project (they sold the land on to Tesco for £59M).

So I would argue that the council put in £69M.

You are wasting your time mate, you will never convince them that the council and ACL are not evil incarnate!

bigfatronssba · Jun 15, 2013

theferret said:
I accept your last point, but the problem is people use that fact to defend and justify the stance that the council/ACL took during the rent dispute.

That comes from the common belief that the council and acl are the same thing. We need to view them as the separate organisations that they are.

theferret · Jun 15, 2013

oakey said:
If CCC have done well out of it then that money has gone towards services in the city or keeping council tax down. No individual or group has made money, unless you are alleging council house corruption? So, it might not have benefited the club but the club is to blame for not financing it themselves, then selling and refusing to buy back revenue streams.
I don't get this entitlement that some think the club has just because it plays in the stadium.

That isn't what is being said, by 'doing well out it', this refers to the fact that have an asset they own which is worth a lot of money. We all know that no dividends have yet been paid.

The entitlement comes from the fact that the stadium would not exist at all without the club and was essentially built for them, and personally I see the club as a massive community asset that we should all support because the wider economic benefits a successful club can bring to the local economy are huge, just look at the recent comments from Swansea council about investment in the city that has come off the back of promotion to the PL.

Some people just see football clubs as businesses though and see it all in very black and white commercial terms. I find that quite sad personally.

theferret · Jun 15, 2013

SkyBlueSwiss said:
You are wasting your time mate, you will never convince them that the council and ACL are not evil incarnate!

If he going to come out with that sort of stuff then he is wasting his breath. The council didn't even own the land that was sold to Tesco. The purchase and sale was all wrapped up in the same deal effectively and the profits were used to help fiance the building of the stadium, so effectively the net contribution was 0. And how can you suggest the use of a grant constitutes the council putting in money - that grant was issued specifically for land decontamination after the football club had made proposals to redevelop the land.

There is a document floating around that lists all funding sources, and it pretty clearly states that the use of public funds amounted to around £2 million.

torchomatic · Jun 15, 2013

Of course it was detrimental to CCFC. Hence (with help from SISU) our current position.

bigfatronssba said:
Of course I don't, what is wrong with the council doing that anyway? It wasn't detrimental to Ccfc, and it saved the project.

shropshirecov · Jun 15, 2013

As things stand there's no future for ACL as a profit making stadium management company in Coventry and I think they know it. They got an amazing deal when the stadium was first built, the club got a shit deal. Why the club signed to it in the first place and sisu then agreed to carry it on god only knows.

The only way forward for our football club is 1. get rid of sisu and 2. get all the revenues generated from the Ricoh (or other stadium!), until we own the stadium or at least get access to all it's revenues we'll be pissing in the wind.

Who sold the catering rights to Compass, was it CCFC or ACL?

bigfatronssba · Jun 15, 2013

torchomatic said:
Of course it was detrimental to CCFC. Hence (with help from SISU) our current position.

How exactly? Remember its a completely different argument from the rent.

mattylad · Jun 15, 2013

SkyBlueSwiss said:
Good grief, when will this stop?
It was SISU, using the voice of Fisher, who stated publically, loudly and in the national press that CCFC had no choice but to go into liquidation. This is indisputable fact. It does not matter whether this was meant as a bluff or if he meant it as an absolute truth. Fisher said this loudly and repeatedly.

As directors of a limited company registered in the United Kingdom and subject to the laws in said jurisdiction, the directors of ACL HAD NO OPTION UNDER THE LAW BUT TO FILE FOR ADMINISTRATION.
Any other action would have been deemed as negligent under the laws of the land.

SISU/Fisher precipitated this by publicly declaring that they had no choice but to liquidate the company. ACL reacted as they had to under the law, and it was SISU ITSELF that pre-empted ACL and put us into liquidation, so will you please stop with this total bullshit that it was ACL that caused the administration.

wrong it was ACL/PWKH who first mentioned liquidation not that he will now admit to it.

theferret · Jun 15, 2013

shropshirecov said:
As things stand there's no future for ACL as a profit making stadium management company in Coventry and I think they know it. They got an amazing deal when the stadium was first built, the club got a shit deal. Why the club signed to it in the first place and sisu then agreed to carry it on god only knows.

The only way forward for our football club is 1. get rid of sisu and 2. get all the revenues generated from the Ricoh (or other stadium!), until we own the stadium or at least get access to all it's revenues we'll be pissing in the wind.

Who sold the catering rights to Compass, was it CCFC or ACL?

ACL. They effectively sold the future profits from revenues generated by one if its tenants to a third party. Why the club allowed that to happen I've no idea.

It isn't unusual for catering rights to be sold in this way, but clearly this should have involved the club as it was its customers that were going to generate the bulk of the income generated.

It's a bit like a landlord of a shop unit saying to their tenant that they have promised some of the money that shop tenant makes from their own customers to somebody else.

We should never have agreed to it.

stupot07 · Jun 15, 2013

RPHunt said:
And one way to do that would be for ACL to inform the Football League that under no circumstances will the club be allowed to play at the Ricoh under SISU (after administration). That will force SISU to actually provide detailed plans and proof of funding for their new stadium, something I am sure they would rather avoid.

Can't see ACL taking that stance, they will then be the bad guys by effectively kicking ccfc out of Coventry. Fisher can then say legitimately the club has no alternative than to ground share

Jack Griffin · Jun 15, 2013

theferret said:
A good chunk of it came from Tesco, a deal that was brokered by the football club via BR.

There were other funding sources too, like naming rights. Ricoh were paying to have their name stuck to the wall of a football stadium, unless you think they would have parted with millions to name a two times a year concert venue?

Scandal? Who said anything about scandal? I am simply saying it was a very good deal for them (and it was), and that all this sympathy for them is misplaced.

Bullshit, Fisher confirmed that the council bought the land & paid £13M for it, they then sold it to Tesco for £59M and sank the entire profit from that land sale into the build.

So the council put the bulk of the money to build the stadium in, they could have built something else, but they did what is best for Coventry. Meanwhile SISU are doing what is best for SISU & screwing Coventry.

theferret · Jun 15, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Bullshit, Fisher confirmed that the council bought the land & paid £13M for it, they then sold it to Tesco for £59M and sank the entire profit from that land sale into the build.

So the council put the bulk of the money to build the stadium in, they could have built something else, but they did what is best for Coventry. Meanwhile SISU are doing what is best for SISU & screwing Coventry.

Absolute rubbish. The funding sources for the stadium are clearly defined.

Even if we take your extremely simplistic take on how that deal panned out, you admit that the profits from the deal were used, and therefore the net contribution from the council (public funds) was 0.

It is widely acknowledged that the football club under BR brokered that deal, and it was a deal done long before the council got involved in the building of the scaled down proposal we now have (we had all that national stadium bid nonsense that went on for a couple of years). The land deal was done when the stadium proposal was still the clubs and the clubs alone, the council simply provided leverage to allow the purchase and subsequent sale (carried out by the club) and it was always accepted that this money would be used to help build the stadium (which at that point was to be 100% owned by the club).

That land sat undeveloped, contaminated and was the home to gypsies for years until the club came along with a proposal to do something with it.

torchomatic · Jun 15, 2013

theferret said:
Absolute rubbish. The funding sources for the stadium are clearly defined.

Even if we take your extremely simplistic take on how that deal panned out, you admit that the profits from the deal were used, and therefore the net contribution from the council (public funds) was 0.

It is widely acknowledged that the football club under BR brokered that deal, and it was a deal done long before the council got involved in the building of the scaled down proposal we now have (we had all that national stadium bid nonsense that went on for a couple of years). The land deal was done when the stadium proposal was still the clubs and the clubs alone, the council simply provided leverage to allow the purchase and subsequent sale (carried out by the club) and it was always accepted that this money would be used to help build the stadium (which at that point was to be 100% owned by the club).

That land sat undeveloped, contaminated and was the home to gypsies for years until the club came along with a proposal to do something with it.

Absolutely. Richardson bragged many times that he set uo the teco deal. Lord found a document that seemed to suggest CCC put in 10M. Maybe he could post the link again.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

theferret · Jun 15, 2013

torchomatic said:
Absolutely. Richardson bragged many times that he set uo the teco deal. Lord found a document that seemed to suggest CCC put in 10M. Maybe he could post the link again.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

It beggars belief that people persist with this rubbish. That deal was done long before the council had any involvement in the stadium itself. The club did all the leg work - secured a price to buy the land and had a buyer lined up, and all the council did was leverage it and their involvement helped with the decontamination grant.

The benefit to the council at that time was the fact this gateway location was going to be developed at no cost to them, so they helped facilitate the deal, but the deal was brokered by the football club and done when the club had 100% ownership of the stadium project.

All these years on and people try to rewrite history and spin the living daylights out of the facts to arrive at the conclusion that the council somehow gifted tens of millions they made from a land deal to the club. I think I'm done with all of this to be honest.

crowsnest · Jun 15, 2013

theferret said:
It beggars belief that people persist with this rubbish. That deal was done long before the council had any involvement in the stadium itself. The club did all the leg work - secured a price to buy the land and had a buyer lined up, and all the council did was leverage it and their involvement helped with the decontamination grant.

The benefit to the council at that time was the fact this gateway location was going to be developed at no cost to them, so they helped facilitate the deal, but the deal was brokered by the football club and done when the club had 100% ownership of the stadium project.

All these years on and people try to rewrite history and spin the living daylights out of the facts to arrive at the conclusion that the council somehow gifted tens of millions they made from a land deal to the club. I think I'm done with all of this to be honest.

Its also a myth that the council stopped us being homeless as we could rent Highfield Road until another stadium was available.

bigfatronssba · Jun 15, 2013

<p>

crowsnest said:
Its also a myth that the council stopped us being homeless as we could rent Highfield Road until another stadium was available.

But we would have gone into administration had the higgs charity not took on the clubs share. That was something that took council approval.

Delboycov · Jun 15, 2013

mattylad said:
wrong it was ACL/PWKH who first mentioned liquidation not that he will now admit to it.

I don't think that's true at all...got any sources for this? Don't think there's any doubt that TF stated before admin was filed that if they didn't have their demands met then they would liquidate sharpish. Certainly never read anything prior to this from PKWH/ACL but happy to be corrected with proof...Unless you're talking about their general worries about SISU's intentions and if so that's not quite the same thing in the same way as TF saying ACL were about to go into admin.

shropshirecov · Jun 15, 2013

I genuinely think that some posters on here would rather the football club went bust than ACL

WillieStanley · Jun 15, 2013

Delboycov said:
I don't think that's true at all...got any sources for this? Don't think there's any doubt that TF stated before admin was filed that if they didn't have their demands met then they would liquidate sharpish. Certainly never read anything prior to this from PKWH/ACL but happy to be corrected with proof...Unless you're talking about their general worries about SISU's intentions and if so that's not quite the same thing in the same way as TF saying ACL were about to go into admin.

I think Fisher initially said something along the lines of "If we don't sort this our we could be looking at liquidation" which I think at the time was blindingly obvious.

ACL saw the word and jumped on it as some sort of crusade to save the club they helped destroy.

Regardless, we are where we are now because we have been failed as a fan base and community. Failed by Bryan Richardson, by SISU, Paul Fletcher, The Higgs, the Council, by countless variations of boards, by useless managers, by underachieving players, by the Football League, ACL, Appleton, The Sky Blue Crew, and those in charge of the railway system by The Ricoh. Amongst others.

We've paid our money, sang our songs, worn the badge and colours with pride. We've been disillusioned, unjustifiably optimistic and thrown our passions at this institution and for what?

A silly game played by rich people who could never understand the identity a football club gives its community. The game is not on the pitch and hasn't been since around 1995, its in overdrafts and Escrows, loans and repayments. Good money after bad and whilst Leon Clarke and Carl Baker lie on a beach in foriegn lands, and whilst the remaining squad have the time of their lives "working" away in Holland, we are left here wondering if things will ever be the same again. Worrying how we will tell our children that Sky Blue Sam is getting auctioned off to pay a bill he owes himself. I am sincerely heartbroken by this whole bloody and sinister mess. Hopefully there's light at the end of this deep, dark and eerie tunnel, but I'm currently struggling to see it.

I never thought I would say anything like this about my Sky Blues. My unbeatable, unrelegatable and triumphant Coventry City Football Club.

Grendel · Jun 15, 2013

shropshirecov said:
I genuinely think that some posters on here would rather the football club went bust than ACL

That is for sure absolutely no doubt about it.

shropshirecov · Jun 15, 2013

WillieStanley said:
I think Fisher initially said something along the lines of "If we don't sort this our we could be looking at liquidation" which I think at the time was blindingly obvious.

ACL saw the word and jumped on it as some sort of crusade to save the club they helped destroy.

Regardless, we are where we are now because we have been failed as a fan base and community. Failed by Bryan Richardson, by SISU, Paul Fletcher, The Higgs, the Council, by countless variations of boards, by useless managers, by underachieving players, by the Football League, ACL, Appleton, The Sky Blue Crew, and those in charge of the railway system by The Ricoh. Amongst others.

We've paid our money, sang our songs, worn the badge and colours with pride. We've been disillusioned, unjustifiably optimistic and thrown our passions at this institution and for what?

A silly game played by rich people who could never understand the identity a football club gives its community. The game is not on the pitch and hasn't been since around 1995, its in overdrafts and Escrows, loans and repayments. Good money after bad and whilst Leon Clarke and Carl Baker lie on a beach in foriegn lands, and whilst the remaining squad have the time of their lives "working" away in Holland, we are left here wondering if things will ever be the same again. Worrying how we will tell our children that Sky Blue Sam is getting auctioned off to pay a bill he owes himself. I am sincerely heartbroken by this whole bloody and sinister mess. Hopefully there's light at the end of this deep, dark and eerie tunnel, but I'm currently struggling to see it.

I never thought I would say anything like this about my Sky Blues. My unbeatable, unrelegatable and triumphant Coventry City Football Club.

Apart from I'd say since 1992, and I don't begrudge baker and Clarke a holiday....that sir, is an excellent post

blueflint · Jun 15, 2013

Sutty said:
Whatever they do I doubt it will work. SISU have out-maneuvered them at every turn, I see no reason to believe any future step will go any differently.

Whichever way you look at it, ACL's attempt to force the club into administration was an absolute disaster.

ACL only failed because SISU went into admin voluntarily thus were able to pick there own administrator not that they were clever just forced into desperate measures

WillieStanley · Jun 15, 2013

shropshirecov said:
Apart from I'd say since 1992, and I don't begrudge baker and Clarke a holiday....that sir, is an excellent post

No neither do I, I simply mentioned it because their facebook and instagram accounts are doing my head in. Actually - just Leon Clarkes "Doing what we do best" with a glass in his hand.

blueflint · Jun 15, 2013

Grendel said:
That is for sure absolutely no doubt about it.

hell grendal you still cant see it can you nobody wants the club bust we just don't want SISU.what more can we say

Grendel · Jun 15, 2013

blueflint said:
ACL only failed because SISU went into admin voluntarily thus were able to pick there own administrator not that they were clever just forced into desperate measures

So what you are saying is that ACL were totally stupid that they did not foresee that very obvious tactic?

Are you also suggesting Appleton acted without impartiality and recognition if uk administration legislation?

blueflint · Jun 15, 2013

Grendel said:
So what you are saying is that ACL were totally stupid that they did not foresee that very obvious tactic?

Are you also suggesting Appleton acted without impartiality and recognition if uk administration legislation?

can't say anything about appleton and dont want to however we have been bought by a bunch of people who only just avoided getting kicked off the companies register who already had large debts with zilch in the bank and a credit rating below bankruptcy where are they taking us where are they funding us read the balance sheets for these companies.and ACL did what they had to and had the law on there side to do it

Grendel · Jun 15, 2013

blueflint said:
can't say anything about appleton and dont want to however we have been bought by a bunch of people who only just avoided getting kicked off the companies register who already had large debts with zilch in the bank and a credit rating below bankruptcy where are they taking us where are they funding us read the balance sheets for these companies.and ACL did what they had to and had the law on there side to do it

So please explain -- what did you mean when they said they won only as they picked their own administrator?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 15, 2013

mattylad said:
wrong it was ACL/PWKH who first mentioned liquidation not that he will now admit to it.

No. You're wrong. Fisher in the Guardian:

"ACL have been robust in their external statements that they are not in negotiations with us anymore and that negotiations have stopped," Fisher said. "We are at a tipping point and insolvent liquidation cannot be reasonably avoided.

"They need to re-enter negotiations pronto or we file. We'll have no option because there would not be reasonable probability of avoiding insolvency liquidation. We entered the twilight zone on the 22 February [when ACL said negotiations were off] and the twilight zone will become the dead of night very soon unless negotiations are re-entered. We have to show our lawyers that negotiations are ongoing."

Grendel · Jun 15, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No. You're wrong. Fisher in the Guardian:

"ACL have been robust in their external statements that they are not in negotiations with us anymore and that negotiations have stopped," Fisher said. "We are at a tipping point and insolvent liquidation cannot be reasonably avoided.

"They need to re-enter negotiations pronto or we file. We'll have no option because there would not be reasonable probability of avoiding insolvency liquidation. We entered the twilight zone on the 22 February [when ACL said negotiations were off] and the twilight zone will become the dead of night very soon unless negotiations are re-entered. We have to show our lawyers that negotiations are ongoing."

Odd that is the one statement from "uncle tim", "timmy" "nice but dim Tim" that everyone says he is being honest about.

Delboycov · Jun 15, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No. You're wrong. Fisher in the Guardian:

"ACL have been robust in their external statements that they are not in negotiations with us anymore and that negotiations have stopped," Fisher said. "We are at a tipping point and insolvent liquidation cannot be reasonably avoided.

"They need to re-enter negotiations pronto or we file. We'll have no option because there would not be reasonable probability of avoiding insolvency liquidation. We entered the twilight zone on the 22 February [when ACL said negotiations were off] and the twilight zone will become the dead of night very soon unless negotiations are re-entered. We have to show our lawyers that negotiations are ongoing."

That's how I remembered it MMM....it was a direct threat to pull the plug and whether he meant it or not ACL had no choice but to act. As TF says himself, he doesn't bluster...when he says he's going to do something he means it ;-)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 15, 2013

Grendel said:
Odd that is the one statement from "uncle tim", "timmy" "nice but dim Tim" that everyone says he is being honest about.

It's not whether we see it as truth ir not, it's the position such talk puts ACL's dirctors in. A company director can't second guess how disingenuous he's being at any one of his moments

ACL isn't letting this drop (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency