Acl to comment on Ricoh arena position (25 Viewers)

Spionkop · Jul 10, 2014

What the ACL guy spelt out to the Telegraph about Sisu deliberately obscuring the situation for us fans, the media, by their very obvious tactics, is being played out on this forum today. Right now.
They have a bond to pay with the FL and they have £590,000 to pay to ACL. They've paid neither.
I am damn pleased ACL have broken their long silence and clarified it.
Personally I think we should all work to bypass Sisu. No negotiations. Work at getting the GS handed to a group of competent City fans to kick off the season at the Ricoh.
Sisu are beyond hope. How anyone in their right mind could think of working with them is beyond belief.
Even Tim Fisher thinks Joy Seppala is bonkers.
Yep, there are hurdles - but this is very serious - and it calls for radical moves.
The GS is the key.

Snozz_is_god · Jul 10, 2014

Grendel said:
That the league view the £300,000 as mutually exclusive to the £590,000.

Are you Greg Clarke? no you are not....... then what you say is shit as usual.

Kingokings204 · Jul 10, 2014

Grendel said:
That the league view the £300,000 as mutually exclusive to the £590,000.

No I said as fans we have to assume the two payments are different as we have been told no different and until we are we have to go with it's 590k.

Only takes a small statement from the FL to confirm the amount which is so easy. I suggest the fact they haven't Grendel means talks are happening behind the scenes surely to sort this out and then it can be made public.

martcov · Jul 10, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
I don't think they are 'legally' obliged to pay. As OSB58 has pointed out previously ACL has no contract with Otium/SISU. The amount due is a condition of playing in the League, the FL could change it's ruling on this if it wanted to I'd have thought. Or Otium could decide not to pay and see whether the FL can be bothered to get involved.

At what point is the league supposed to exercise "good governance"? If they make public a deal to ease a conflict where they were partly to blame ( the CVA was rejected apparently because of ACL's dissatisfaction with the administration which had seen the sloppiness concerning players registrations at the FL ) then they should stick to their word. They were facing a lot of criticism at the time and if they now "move the goalposts" they are really neglecting their duty of "good governance" and could come in for serious critiscism from the government and the FA as well as the media and the fans.

On the other hand they have SISU and an army of lawyers who will expect them to act in their member's interest.

skybluetony176 · Jul 10, 2014

Godiva said:
Very funny.
But you evaded my main point - the discount.

Don't worry. I've emailed the FL for clarification on whether MM and GR will be taking ownership of the lions share of the golden share seeing as sisu are saying that they have already paid the lions share of the bill for the golden share. I'm sure i wont get the standard "we cant comment on a dispute between a club and its former landlord", yeah right

just a thought. as MM and GR are the only people who have paid anything for the golden share (according to sisu) does that mean that currently they already are the only people who own a say on the Golden share including in which City it resides? Sisu's grip is slipping.

Rusty Trombone · Jul 10, 2014

martcov said:
At what point is the league supposed to exercise "good governance"? If they make public a deal to ease a conflict where they were partly to blame ( the CVA was rejected apparently because of ACL's dissatisfaction with the administration which had seen the sloppiness concerning players registrations at the FL ) then they should stick to their word. They were facing a lot of criticism at the time and if they now "move the goalposts" they are really neglecting their duty of "good governance" and could come in for serious critiscism from the government and the FA as well as the media and the fans.

On the other hand they have SISU and an army of lawyers who will expect them to act in their member's interest.

Agree that the FL should get involved, but I'd be very surprised if they decide to take on SISU. I think they'd prefer taking some criticism, it would be a lot cheaper.

Ian1779 · Jul 10, 2014

martcov said:
At what point is the league supposed to exercise "good governance"? If they make public a deal to ease a conflict where they were partly to blame ( the CVA was rejected apparently because of ACL's dissatisfaction with the administration which had seen the sloppiness concerning players registrations at the FL ) then they should stick to their word. They were facing a lot of criticism at the time and if they now "move the goalposts" they are really neglecting their duty of "good governance" and could come in for serious critiscism from the government and the FA as well as the media and the fans.

On the other hand they have SISU and an army of lawyers who will expect them to act in their member's interest.

The registration of the players was of no concern to ACL... All they should have been worried about was where their owed money was. Just a poor excuse to unnecessarily reject the CVA, further proving they couldn't give a fuck about the club.

Unless of course they were concerned about the admin process because they wanted to get hold of the club and the extreme rent was a measure to 'distress' the club.....?

Spionkop · Jul 10, 2014

Perhaps on Saturday there could be a little more focus on the FL?
After all, the statement from ACL today is reinforcing what Ann Lucas said the other day, the FL can change all this madness.
Sisu are a hopeless case. Not worth negotiating with. The League can take away the Golden Share. It will alter the scene immediately.

Jack Griffin · Jul 10, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Have you ever commented on a football thread?

Yes, when I watched my team at home. I don't remember you ever saying anything about football?

Spionkop · Jul 10, 2014

Ian1779, did you really write that last comment? Surely not. It just doesn't make any sense.
ACL were obviously very concerned about the Admin process that would ensue under Appleton & Sisu. What happened with Appleton confirmed their fears.
ACL distressing the club? Heard it all now. Beggars belief.

Kingokings204 · Jul 10, 2014

Spionkop said:
Ian1779, did you really write that last comment? Surely not. It just doesn't make any sense.
ACL were obviously very concerned about the Admin process that would ensue under Appleton & Sisu. What happened with Appleton confirmed their fears.
ACL distressing the club? Heard it all now. Beggars belief.

I think we are the only bad luck fans when a company has ever gone into admin that the same company came out with the club that put it into admin.

I thought the whole point of the admin process was to find new sustainable owners or am I living in a crazy world? Sorry it's just one thing that's always puzzled me.

Sisu have completely run the club like shite for the last 7 years and run up all sorts of debts etc and then forced themselves into admin and they still come out with ccfc I mean WHAT!!!!!!

martcov · Jul 10, 2014

Ian1779 said:
The registration of the players was of no concern to ACL... All they should have been worried about was where their owed money was. Just a poor excuse to unnecessarily reject the CVA, further proving they couldn't give a fuck about the club.

Unless of course they were concerned about the admin process because they wanted to get hold of the club and the extreme rent was a measure to 'distress' the club.....?

Leave it out please. They were worried about the whereabouts of their money. The golden share and the player's registrations were the assets covering their unpaid invoices. The "lose the golden share, find the golden share" trick was to break the lease and get out of paying monies owed by SISU - CCFC Ltd.. The swapping of player's registrations was a major point which til this day has never been explained, and never will be, as both holdings and fc are in Liquidation, or have been liquidated, and therefore are not obliged to file the relevant balance sheets.

The league admitted that they had made mistakes regarding the registrations.

Are you seriously suggesting that ACL wanted to get hold of the club on the cheap, whereas the judge came to the evidence based and opposite conclusion, that SISU wanted to distress ACL to get hold of ACL/ the Ricoh on the cheap?

The so called "extreme rent", or rather the "paltry" 10% of revenue at the time of the rent strike, was agreed years ago whilst CCFC were still in the championship and all was well ( as far we know ) between ACL and CCFC, and by different directors on both sides to the time of administration.

That really is pushing it.

Jack Griffin · Jul 10, 2014

Godiva said:
But the escrow was a security for rent if not paid by the club under the lease.
Now the club and lease is gone - who owns the money in the escrow?
ACL?

Wasn't it tied to the long term rent contract which no longer exists, therefore it is defunct & by now empty.

Ian1779 · Jul 10, 2014

Spionkop said:
Ian1779, did you really write that last comment? Surely not. It just doesn't make any sense.
ACL were obviously very concerned about the Admin process that would ensue under Appleton & Sisu. What happened with Appleton confirmed their fears.
ACL distressing the club? Heard it all now. Beggars belief.

My second comment was a little tounge in cheek... But now I think about it weren't ACL rumoured to be one of the bidders in the admin process?

It's all making sense now.... Obviously not liking the outcome of something makes it automatically illegal in your world.

Ian1779 · Jul 10, 2014

martcov said:
Leave it out please. They were worried about the whereabouts of their money. The golden share and the player's registrations were the assets covering their unpaid invoices. The "lose the golden share, find the golden share" trick was to break the lease and get out of paying monies owed by SISU - CCFC Ltd.. The swapping of player's registrations was a major point which til this day has never been explained, and never will be, as both holdings and fc are in Liquidation, or have been liquidated, and therefore are not obliged to file the relevant balance sheets.

The league admitted that they had made mistakes regarding the registrations.

Are you seriously suggesting that ACL wanted to get hold of the club on the cheap, whereas the judge came to the evidence based and opposite conclusion, that SISU wanted to distress ACL to get hold of ACL/ the Ricoh on the cheap?

The so called "extreme rent", or rather the "paltry" 10% of revenue at the time of the rent strike, was agreed years ago whilst CCFC were still in the championship and all was well ( as far we know ) between ACL and CCFC, and by different directors on both sides to the time of administration.

That really is pushing it.

Is it really that crazy? They didn't want to deal with SISU and wanted new owners. What better way but to install yourself and then either run it or most likely sell on to someone you do like.

There's nothing paltry about a rental agreement where the club have to sell 22k tickets a game to break even. How many games in 7 years did we manage that??

But don't worry... Your precious ACL are whiter than white....

Rusty Trombone · Jul 10, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Is it really that crazy? They didn't want to deal with SISU and wanted new owners. What better way but to install yourself and then either run it or most likely sell on to someone you do like.

There's nothing paltry about a rental agreement where the club have to sell 22k tickets a game to break even. How many games in 7 years did we manage that??

But don't worry... Your precious ACL are whiter than white....

You don't seriously think they had to sell 22k tickets to pay the rent?

Grendel · Jul 10, 2014

martcov said:
Leave it out please. They were worried about the whereabouts of their money. The golden share and the player's registrations were the assets covering their unpaid invoices. The "lose the golden share, find the golden share" trick was to break the lease and get out of paying monies owed by SISU - CCFC Ltd.. The swapping of player's registrations was a major point which til this day has never been explained, and never will be, as both holdings and fc are in Liquidation, or have been liquidated, and therefore are not obliged to file the relevant balance sheets.

The league admitted that they had made mistakes regarding the registrations.

Are you seriously suggesting that ACL wanted to get hold of the club on the cheap, whereas the judge came to the evidence based and opposite conclusion, that SISU wanted to distress ACL to get hold of ACL/ the Ricoh on the cheap?

The so called "extreme rent", or rather the "paltry" 10% of revenue at the time of the rent strike, was agreed years ago whilst CCFC were still in the championship and all was well ( as far we know ) between ACL and CCFC, and by different directors on both sides to the time of administration.

That really is pushing it.

The club tried to negotiate a reduction 3 weeks after moving in. All was never well.

The rent was 30% of ticket revenue.

To call that "so called" exposes you as a non fan.

ccfc92 · Jul 10, 2014

torchomatic said:
I still want to know if they are going to get £890K. That can;t be right, can it?

Sorry, what?

Grendel · Jul 10, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
You don't seriously think they had to sell 22k tickets to pay the rent?

The break even figure was 22,500 at full price with a below average wage budget. Oddly I didnt see many demand the sale of mcsheffrey and signing Kyle so we could pay the rent.

£1 in every £3 spent in tickets and 100% of f and b went to ACL.

Ian1779 · Jul 10, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
You don't seriously think they had to sell 22k tickets to pay the rent?

Not quite what I said... For the club to maintain wage spend for Championship, rent and outgoings it had to sell 22k tickets a match to break even. No other revenue streams remember... Someone else had them.

How many games in 7 seasons do you think we hit that target? Bet it's less than 40 Out of a minimum of 322 games.

martcov · Jul 10, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Is it really that crazy? They didn't want to deal with SISU and wanted new owners. What better way but to install yourself and then either run it or most likely sell on to someone you do like.

There's nothing paltry about a rental agreement where the club have to sell 22k tickets a game to break even. How many games in 7 years did we manage that??

But don't worry... Your precious ACL are whiter than white....

Yes it is really that crazy, because the so-called "extreme" rent was agreed long ago and so was not a plan to deliberately distress CCFC in 2012. The expression "paltry" was to counteract "extreme" as neither are true. The rent wasn't "extreme" or "paltry" at 10% of revenue, but became extreme as the revenue fell.

ACL did at some stage think about getting involved ith CCFC, but Higgs said it was too risky for a charity. I can unterstand ACL no longer wanting to deal with SISU and wanting new owners who could pay rent and had a business plan to sustain CCFC. Any landlord wants a tenant who pays the rent on time.

The administration was not caused by ACL wanting to install itself, but by SISU unlawfully stopping the rent payments. Pay the rent and ACL would have nothing to say anyway.

ACL is not precious to me, but the facts here are as they are and have been proven to be in a court of law - on more than one occasion.

Rusty Trombone · Jul 10, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Not quite what I said... For the club to maintain wage spend for Championship, rent and outgoings it had to sell 22k tickets a match to break even. No other revenue streams remember... Someone else had them.

How many games in 7 seasons do you think we hit that target? Bet it's less than 40 Out of a minimum of 322 games.

When the club is spending more on wages than it's entire income then I would suggest that is the main cause of our problems.

If the club hadn't sold it's share (pre SISU) then of course half the rent would have come back to the club, and so would half of all the Arena income. Selling the share was a disaster.

dongonzalos · Jul 10, 2014

ccfc92 said:
Sorry, what?

He is saying the 'reported' 300k for costs paid by the guarantors plus the 590k for unpaid rent agreed by the FL and SISU 'reported' by CET and ML
Equals 890k

ccfc92 · Jul 10, 2014

dongonzalos said:
He is saying the 'reported' 300k for costs paid by the guarantors plus the 590k for unpaid rent agreed by the FL and SISU 'reported' by CET and ML
Equals 890k

Oh right, tbh the FL need to clarify what's going on, as no one seems to know. Imagine not knowing where £590,000 is :facepalm:

Grendel · Jul 10, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Points can be deducted at any time.. even at the end of the season, didn't Middlesbrough get an in season deduction (under Robson) for not fulfilling a fixture 15-20yrs ago?

I wouldn't be surprised if SISU managed to insert some weasel words into a clause in their agreement with the FL & are currently exploiting the loophole.
This crap about 2 modalities that ML came up with is the thing I reckons.

Odd though Jack as the points deduction you refer to actually kept Coventry in the Premier League that season.

It seems Anne hasn't been briefing you properly. Back to CCFC school tomorrow Council Boy.

Jack Griffin said:
Yes, when I watched my team at home. I don't remember you ever saying anything about football?

Jack Griffin · Jul 10, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Not quite what I said... For the club to maintain wage spend for Championship, rent and outgoings it had to sell 22k tickets a match to break even. No other revenue streams remember... Someone else had them.

How many games in 7 seasons do you think we hit that target? Bet it's less than 40 Out of a minimum of 322 games.

I don't know why you keep dredging the old situation up, things have moved on, this history is no longer relevant & assists your foolish stance not one jot.

Grendel · Jul 10, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Points can be deducted at any time.. even at the end of the season, didn't Middlesbrough get an in season deduction (under Robson) for not fulfilling a fixture 15-20yrs ago?

I wouldn't be surprised if SISU managed to insert some weasel words into a clause in their agreement with the FL & are currently exploiting the loophole.
This crap about 2 modalities that ML came up with is the thing I reckons.

Jack Griffin said:
I don't know why you keep dredging the old situation up, things have moved on, this history is no longer relevant & assists your foolish stance not one jot.

Says the Council whore who didn't even know the points reduction kept us in the League that season

LOL

Ian1779 · Jul 10, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
When the club is spending more on wages than it's entire income then I would suggest that is the main cause of our problems.

If the club hadn't sold it's share (pre SISU) then of course half the rent would have come back to the club, and so would half of all the Arena income. Selling the share was a disaster.

Of course it was. The problem was historic and SISU should have addressed it when they first came in. Clearly due diligence was not done...was this down to impending admin, as they weren't the expected people to take over originally. We don't know.

Just because something was agreed badly a long time ago, doesn't make it in the best interest of the club.
ACL pretending they give two fucks about the club is galling to say the least.

Ian1779 · Jul 10, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
I don't know why you keep dredging the old situation up, things have moved on, this history is no longer relevant & assists your foolish stance not one jot.

It's only not relevant to you because you know that it's not a stick you can beat SISU with.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 11, 2014

Grendel said:
Says the Council whore who didn't even know the points reduction kept us in the League that season

LOL

Says the Sisu pimp.

LOL

Grendel · Jul 11, 2014

Ian1779 said:
It's only not relevant to you because you know that it's not a stick you can beat SISU with.

He has exposed himself tonight as someone who is not a fan -- do not pander to Council Jack.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 11, 2014

Grendel said:
He has exposed himself tonight as someone who is not a fan -- do not pander to Council Jack.

So you decide who is and who isn't a fan now do you?

martcov · Jul 11, 2014

Grendel said:
The club tried to negotiate a reduction 3 weeks after moving in. All was never well.

The rent was 30% of ticket revenue.

To call that "so called" exposes you as a non fan.

The "extreme" rent was accepted by CCFC before and after the take over by SISU. It wasn't called "extreme" until recently.

The judge said it was 10% of revenue - relatively speaking not "extreme".

The revenue fell and the rent became "extreme", but the rental agreement from 2005 wasn't a cunning plan suddenly to distress an unknown future owner in 2012 as Ian was suggesting.

The club did not seriously try to negotiate a rent reduction at the start. "Seriously" negotiating is e.g. threatening to and/or moving to another ground - as we have seen. That did not happen.

So now I am a non-fan. I was a scab when I said I went to Sixfields, a shit fan when I said I lived abroad and now I am a non-fan because I didn't agree with Ian's emotive use of the word "extreme" and showed that by saying "so called" ( in other words it was subjective, as the judge, for example, thought that 10% of revenue at the time, was not extreme).

dongonzalos · Jul 11, 2014

ccfc92 said:
Oh right, tbh the FL need to clarify what's going on, as no one seems to know. Imagine not knowing where £590,000 is :facepalm:

I think the general gist is ACL received £300k for costs of the football club reneging on their legal obligations. This should have been more but they accepted a deal.

Separate to that SISU are to pay ACL 590K for not paying the rent they were legally obliged to.

ML has apparently been quoted as accepting this figure.

ACL want any negotiations to follow this matter getting sorted.

SISU want the FL to clarify if they owe the rent £590 k

Or the rent minus the costs payed by guarantors.

Fair stance by ACL but the FL should say one way or the other.

SISU should still ring ACL start the negotiations stop playing games.

Include the 590k in the negotiations.

A successful start at the Ricoh would clear that or a near to that fee in no time. In comparison to the loses at Northampton

ccfc92 · Jul 11, 2014

dongonzalos said:
I think the general gist is ACL received £300k for costs of the football club reneging on their legal obligations. This should have been more but they accepted a deal.

Separate to that SISU are to pay ACL 590K for not paying the rent they were legally obliged to.

ML has apparently been quoted as accepting this figure.

ACL want any negotiations to follow this matter getting sorted.

SISU want the FL to clarify if they owe the rent £590 k

Or the rent minus the costs payed by guarantors.

Fair stance by ACL but the FL should say one way or the other.

SISU should still ring ACL start the negotiations stop playing games.

Include the 590k in the negotiations.

A successful start at the Ricoh would clear that or a near to that fee in no time. In comparison to the loses at Northampton

Sounds nice and simple c'mon, let's get the Ricoh rocking.... oh wait

Acl to comment on Ricoh arena position (25 Viewers)

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New 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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known 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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency