James, I've summarised the Donaster situation before on a post (4th one down on this page):
It is an interesting example to pick because I suspect the Keepmoat might be costing Doncaster Rovers far more than ACL's last offer to Sisu on the rent.
Hull City were supposed to pay £500,000 a year and have on average paid £53,000 a year. They even seem to charge the council for using office space.
http://www.yorkcityknights.co.uk/7979-allam-family-invite-hull-team-to-play-at-possible-new-stadium©York City Knights website said:“We need a bigger stadium to generate bigger crowds at Hull City and ultimately bring down ticket prices,”
©York City Knights website said:“This could be done at the KC Stadium, but I am not going to chase Hull City Council over the matter.
“I don’t think I should be expected to spend another £25 million to expand, without ownership. There is no business sense in that, and also, I cannot obtain a mortgage or borrow from the bank on leasehold property.
“All football clubs have the freehold of the stadiums they play in, as the simple fact is that without the football club, the stadium is not viable.
©Daily Mail Newspaper said:. ‘A lot of people believe Mr Allam is trying to get one over on the council and wants to get the stadium for nothing and then having got it he’ll want to mortgage it to the hilt, which could heap massive pressure on the club.
‘The feeling across the council is that it will never happen under those terms.’
Annoying when people don't agree with you, isn't it?
Fair response.
Yes you're correct I was responding to someone else who mentioned the Doncaster stadium.
Well yes actually I do now have the full picture which you can read above in my earlier post. Can you please provide evidence to back your claims regarding Doncaster Rovers and the Keepmoat stadium.
ACL pushed Sisu into sending the club into Admin and in turn resulting in the points deduction which effectively ends our season - If ACL had waited until the end of the season we might have made the play-offs and promotion which would have resulted in more money and a better chance of the club being able to meet ACLs demands over the preceeding seasons.
"We couldnt take the risk that Sisu wouldnt liquidate the club - thats why we did it" what a load of bollocks - why would Sisu liquidate the club completely?
This season is all but over for the fans and what we now probably ALL are doing is adding the 10 points back on to see where we would have finished! Whats the betting that we defy the odds and finish in the "virtual" top six?
Just our luck...............
You're a fine one to talk.................... Quick bully him into submission!
Well I think that may have dispelled a hell of a lot of myths used as fact.
Well done that man
Extracting the first page on a google site and typing verbatim is not exactly extracting facts.
I think a lot of national media would be surprised how many of our own fans are on the side of ACL rather than the Club they support.
Extracting the first page on a google site and typing verbatim is not exactly extracting facts.
The Doncaster non payment is in an article in a football magazine somewhere which I suppose I will have to find when I am back from holiday.
The Ipswich £30,000 actually was from another poster which again I will try and find. The article dug up was again the first in a google search. Interestingly even if that us correct its £1 million less than we were paying over the same period so I'm not quite sure the myth is exposed.
As for Hull it doesn't prove anything does it?
In all examples the rent is substantially less and access to revenues significantly better. In all examples the club was perceived to have won.
Forest apparently is another one. A five live presenter (mark chapman?) said when discussing Coventry that even a club like forest pay minuscule rent so how can the council justify what they are doing to Coventry? He fails to realise out fans want the council to do it to Coventry.
I think a lot of national media would be surprised how many of our own fans are on the side of ACL rather than the Club they support.
just a couple of questions ..........
when were insolvency advisors appointed by SISU to advise CCFC?
when do you think all the players etc were transferred to CCFCH leaving CCFCL a "non trading property subsidiary"?
Did SISU need to isolate the lease to break it?
Did TF make any serious comments in national press regarding "insolvent administration" prior to any action for administration by ACL?
Did ACL take any of those actions above?
Who actually filed for insolvency and does it look like a strategy put in place by them given the answers to the above?
ACL are no angels but somehow it looks to me that SISU have driven this process to a large extent. It would also seem they got the most crucial fact wrong ..... where the golden share lay. It is ownership of the golden share that dictates any League penalty and SISU clearly believe it can be transferred as they please or that their due diligence shows it as owned by CCFCH which is the club they tell us owns it now. Strangely though they signed off accounts June 2012 that indicate in their own Directors report that CCFCLtd is the football club.
Gotta provide the evidence from somewhere otherwise you are just spouting stuff as fact and hoping no one can be arsed to research it and check.
The first time the rent issue was raised was in the last set of accounts as part of the going concerns. If it was such a key issue why wasn't it dealt with in the 1st 4 years of SISU management when we were losing 5-6 million a year? As OSB has said previously it isn't the key issue and SISU have been preparing for this for a while now. Also hopefully the issue of management & administrative fees will be addressed by the administrators report. These seem amount to considerably more than any amount of rent due.
Okay so we move on to Ipswich and their rent dispute, they were paying just £15k before the dispute kicked off. This was re-assessed (by an independent assessor) to circa £111,500 and backdated to 2004 which is I believe what the club objected to and then refused to pay the backdated rent. There isn't any suggestion that I can find that they refused to pay the council the increased rent (which went up 743% by the way), just the backdated rent amounting to some £650,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-15266223
SISU have been trying to negotiate a fair rent since they have been here.
Lets just say
£1.2m is ok for the prem
£0.8m is ok for championship
£0.4m is ok for L1
SISU have been here since 2007
5 seasons in the championship paying £1.2m when £0.8 was ok, £0.4m overpaid per season
1 season in L1 paying £0.8m when £0.4m was ok another £0.4m overpaid
so for 6 years they have overpaid by 0.4m, that's 2.4m overpaid
Yes I think it was time to pull the plug!
ACL can still negotiate a rent they just don't have a gun to point any more!
imp:
The circumstances are similar yet different Ipswich were underpaying, we have been overpaying by nearly 4 times what they were underpaying.
Yes it is similar because the rent was incorrect, perhaps we should have an independent assessor and it should be backdated! Where did ACL suggest that?
btw Your research seems very good but your strategy in attacking Grendal seems to be wasting it in the extreme!
imp:
And Ipswich play at the Ricoh do they? Payments are still being made for the completion of Portman Road are they? If you bother to take a look at the last offer ACL made which SISU rejected, our yearly rent would have been £485k which is a drop of about 63% (rounding up). This was the lowest they could offer based on the payments needed on the mortgage. They also allowed the rent arrears (or back rent) to be paid over ten years, so they did offer similar terms to the ones Ipswich got.Well his facts are;
Ipswich pay £1.05 million a year less than we have been paying. Should the same logic regarding back pay apply to us do you think
To whom do Doncaster Rovers pay £300,000? You obviously didn't read what I wroteDoncaster pay £300,000 a year and have 100% access to all revenue streams - this was my original point anyway.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...e-stadium-deal?p=413032&viewfull=1#post413032James Smith said:So Doncaster Rovers offered to run the stadium and take over the increased lease (now 99 years) for £100k per year.
I do not agree with what you wrote which is and I quoteHull he seems to concur with me but their council it seems are a bit dim
I can't find any evidence for the £500,000 a year claim but there is evidence that the council were due a percentage of the profits from the SMC which as it never made anything significant were almost nothing. You are almost correct about one thing in that statement the council did pay the SMC rent for offices which they should have stopped doing by now and vacated the offices.Hull City were supposed to pay £500,000 a year and have on average paid £53,000 a year. They even seem to charge the council for using office space.
Yeah bit busy today to do that, who knows maybe I'll find time.Forest and Brighton we await the analysis.
That's your opinion only not a fact, None of those teams that you mentioned play at the Ricoh and their circumstances are often different to ours.So he his facts support my case that this council is greedy and disgusting.
Don't get me wrong I support the club 100% just not SISU and especially not their attitude to negotiations/inaccurate public statements etc.The one overriding difference of course is supporter attitude. The supporters in general backed the club 100%.
I think its safe to say that not one single fan supports ACL or supports SISU - the fact is we all support CCFC - not CCFC holdings or CCFC limited but OUR team, CCFC - the Sky Blues. What differs is who different people think has the best interests of their club at heart. I would suggest its neither of the main protagonists - their first priority is themselves and if that results in good or bad for OUR team is of little interest to either of them. What they have succeeded in is creating a complete mess of OUR club, people are confused and concerned about what is going on, what will eventually emerge from the mess, they've created divisions among fans - between them they should be ashamed of what they have achieved but I doubt either of them actually give a rats arse what the fans feel.
No I don't believe that they do have hotels casinos etc. at many other grounds however I also don't know what the financial situation at these clubs is. Yes clubs are big sink holes of money and most big money owners only pour money into a club because they support the club and want to see it succeed. The problem is that I don't see a local lad/lass made good with enough money to be able to keep us in the money. Even if one turned up (and I still have my fingers crossed) then the FFP rules would mean that if we had extra revenue streams he or she could put more money in. So would having extra revenues that would in effect subsidise the costs of keeping the club be a good thing in my opinion, yes. Is it a risk, yes but then so is football everywhere.I don't think you grasped my original point. I was saying that Doncaster or for that matter any of the top 6 in league 1 don't have a string of hotels funding the club. The reason is the Ricoh already have exhibition, concerts, casino etc etc and the profits wouldn't pay for a decent players toe. Another hotel wouldn't suddenly make us financial giants even if we shared some of the cash.
If running clubs based on profits from such developments was so successful then there would be a few more about. Clubs do well from investment ( throwing money down a big hole) and it requires more money than a bit of land development can provide.
At this moment in time sustainable football = no success. In our current state a lot of people will take this but constant failure (as we have seen) will result in no crowd and a lot of moaning.
Extracting the first page on a google site and typing verbatim is not exactly extracting facts.
The Doncaster non payment is in an article in a football magazine somewhere which I suppose I will have to find when I am back from holiday.
The Ipswich £30,000 actually was from another poster which again I will try and find. The article dug up was again the first in a google search. Interestingly even if that us correct its £1 million less than we were paying over the same period so I'm not quite sure the myth is exposed.
As for Hull it doesn't prove anything does it?
In all examples the rent is substantially less and access to revenues significantly better. In all examples the club was perceived to have won.
Forest apparently is another one. A five live presenter (mark chapman?) said when discussing Coventry that even a club like forest pay minuscule rent so how can the council justify what they are doing to Coventry? He fails to realise out fans want the council to do it to Coventry.
And this is you on holiday? Jesus man, take a break from spouting your bullcrap...it's Mrs Duffy I feel sorry for (I assume she didn't change her name when you did).
One question that I have is why did SISU want to buy Coventry in the first place? What was in it for them? It's unlikely that we would have been making money even if we had gone up to the Premiership. So why did they want the club?
Hedge funds can generate massive returns in relatively short periods of time, and they can also go into financial crises just as quickly. What kind of investments can produce such diverse returns? One answer is distressed debt. The term can be loosely defined as the debt of companies that have filed for bankruptcy or have a significant chance of filing for bankruptcy in the near future.
You might wonder why a hedge fund - or any investor, for that matter - would want to invest in bonds with such a high likelihood of defaulting. The answer is simple: the more risk you take on, the more reward you can potentially make. Distressed debt sells at a very low percentage of par value. If the once-distressed company emerges from bankruptcy as a viable firm, that once-distressed debt will be selling for a considerably higher price. These potentially large returns attract investors, particularly investors such as hedge funds. In this article we'll look at the connection between hedge funds and distressed debt, what ordinary investors can do to get involved and if the risks are really worth the rewards.
just a couple of questions ..........
when were insolvency advisors appointed by SISU to advise CCFC?
when do you think all the players etc were transferred to CCFCH leaving CCFCL a "non trading property subsidiary"?
Did SISU need to isolate the lease to break it?
Did TF make any serious comments in national press regarding "insolvent administration" prior to any action for administration by ACL?
Did ACL take any of those actions above?
Who actually filed for insolvency and does it look like a strategy put in place by them given the answers to the above?
ACL are no angels but somehow it looks to me that SISU have driven this process to a large extent. It would also seem they got the most crucial fact wrong ..... where the golden share lay. It is ownership of the golden share that dictates any League penalty and SISU clearly believe it can be transferred as they please or that their due diligence shows it as owned by CCFCH which is the club they tell us owns it now. Strangely though they signed off accounts June 2012 that indicate in their own Directors report that CCFCLtd is the football club.
How on Gods green earth did they think they were make our debt or indeed the club worth more to the market with their strategy? More recently not paying the rent must have made us seem very attractive to potential buyers.Because SISU normally buy into distressed debt at the going rate (very low) & make it worth more to the market before selling on.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/bonds/08/distressed-debt-hedge-fund.asp
This is what they are doing now, is it not!
Well they've certainly distressed the debt and the fans.When Sisu first got involved they thought we would be back in the Premier League within a season or 2 - if so this would have meant that their investment sic would have been a masterstroke!
However we didnt and their investment wasnt!
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?