Acl to comment on Ricoh arena position (19 Viewers)

shmmeee said:

I don't think anyone disagrees Robo. Problem is the club thought they were about to get "instant success" and would only ever pay the Prem amount so concocted this deal. I'd hope Joy is sensible enough to accept the sliding scale this time, but it's looking like she's stupid and evil and would rather bankrupt our club chasing a pipe dream.

Click to expand...

I disagree.. The Club was not the only party involved in this deal, ACL are also partly to blame and even when McGinnity and Robinson knew this deal wasn't right (admittedly after it was to late!) they couldn't re-negotiate the rent and decided to sell off our part of ACL!

I am not sure what Sisu's game plan is, is it in the best interests of the Club, themselves or both? I still stand by that the Club needs to buy into a part or all of ACL, that way the Club can finally profit from the Ricoh at long last!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoboCCFC90 said:

I disagree.. The Club was not the only party involved in this deal, ACL are also partly to blame and even when McGinnity and Robinson knew this deal wasn't right (admittedly after it was to late!) they couldn't re-negotiate the rent and decided to sell off our part of ACL!

I am not sure what Sisu's game plan is, is it in the best interests of the Club, themselves or both? I still stand by that the Club needs to buy into a part or all of ACL, that way the Club can finally profit from the Ricoh at long last!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

There's no evidence they sold ACL after a rent renegotiation. The closest you have is Robinson saying he tried but failed at a board meeting and that meeting doesn't discuss selling the share.

Also that wouldn't make sense as the rent was set after the share was sold. Not sure where your info is from but it's not right.

Agree about owning a share. Should never have sold our share. We should pay the formula and go back to that deal.

You have to admire the resilience of some of the posters on this forum. One might have thought that the judge's reasons for the JR decision would have settled one or two matters given that his analysis was so definitive. But, no, after a brief pause the same points on rent are being made and the debate is no further forward.
The use of historic wages and historic rent rates contributes nothing to the examination of the current situation.
It is also fairly pointless. SISU /OEG have no intention of reaching a rental agreement with ACL, they are still on their original plan as stated by the judge.

shmmeee said:

There's no evidence they sold ACL after a rent renegotiation. The closest you have is Robinson saying he tried but failed at a board meeting and that meeting doesn't discuss selling the share.

Also that wouldn't make sense as the rent was set after the share was sold. Not sure where your info is from but it's not right.

Agree about owning a share. Should never have sold our share. We should pay the formula and go back to that deal.

Click to expand...

If memory serves me right it was all in the transcript of the Paul Fletcher book that was posted on the forum six months ago.

Edit: Anyhow despite what was said or not, the fact is it's all in the past and going over it again is not going to change anything. I am looking forward to tomorrow seeing all the Sky Blue faithful and marching for the cause, we just have to hope that the idiots involved in this mess see sense and bring us home.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Snozz_is_god said:

And when did SISU take over....... says it all

Click to expand...

December 2007. So who's fault was the c50% fro from the 2005/06 to 2006/07?

And what happened to attendances in sisu's first full season with renewed optimism and investment in the squad?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

RoboCCFC90 said:

If memory serves me right it was all in the transcript of the Paul Fletcher book that was posted on the forum six months ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. Though I'm not sure Paul Fletcher is entirely neutral in this either. I'm just going from CCFC Board meeting minutes.

stupot07 said:

December 2007. So who's fault was the c50% fro from the 2005/06 to 2006/07?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Click to expand...

The Football League?

You realise you're discussing meaningless stats right?

Number of big crowds has nothing to do with average increase or general fan feeling, it's just a measure of how many "big" games there were that season.

Without looking Id say its down to less local derbies.

Grendel said:

Season one we were significantly behind break even. High crowds through subvented pricing doesn't generate enough revenue.

Also all new stadiums attract high crowds in season one. Ian's data shows a shark decline thereafter as the novelty factor wears off.

Click to expand...

That's my point I am gobsmaked that it was such a high attendance at that point with the tripe that has been served up and suffered by the long standing fans.

Attendances in the whole have risen since those days. Put a successful team on the pitch (albeit league one) at the Ricoh and you will get a shock.

shmmeee said:

The Football League?

You realise you're discussing meaningless stats right?

Number of big crowds has nothing to do with average increase or general fan feeling, it's just a measure of how many "big" games there were that season.

Without looking Id say its down to less local derbies.

Click to expand...

No stats are meaningless.....ask the government

Edit: just checked we had brum, wba, wolves, leicester and derby in our league that season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

shmmeee said:

The data doesn't show a sharp decline. It shows the standard decay the club has had every season there's been no success since the war.

It's also a really random stat to use instead of average attendance. And a very limited data set during which we were going through our worst period.

Full gates are and have always been more about the opposition, which Ian doesn't control for and thus makes his entire data set useless.

Click to expand...

Rather than the general drop-off that you would expect to see anyway after the novelty of a new stadium wore off, it tells you that out of the 7 seasons of home games (161 min) - which was the clubs only real way to generate it's revenue, it only managed to exceed the 'break even' figure 34 times.

That is a shocking statistic.

And this doesn't even consider what the 'break-even' price for tickets was. I think it would be fair to say given our lack of success on the pitch that the ticket prices could well have been under this.

Even if you take into account the fluctuations for the away attendances it's plain to see that the break even attendance was unobtainable. Last season at HR the average attendance was 16,046

A business destined to fail from the start.

dongonzalos said:

That's my point I am gobsmaked that it was such a high attendance at that point with the tripe that has been served up and suffered by the long standing fans.

Attendances in the whole have risen since those days. Put a successful team on the pitch (albeit league one) at the Ricoh and you will get a shock.

Click to expand...

We had a massive game vs Yeovil which would have taken us to within 1 point of play offs, this whilst we were one of the form teams on the league....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

stupot07 said:

December 2007. So who's fault was the c50% fro from the 2005/06 to 2006/07?

And what happened to attendances in sisu's first full season with renewed optimism and investment in the squad?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Click to expand...

And back to the point.....are SISU going to pay the 590K they owe and drop all litigation as requested by ACL in order to open negotiations ( where all the points about high rent, sustainability etc. can be discussed and maybe a solution found ), or are we going into another round of the blame game, litigation and will we receive the usual points deduction to be blamed on ACL and the council by certain posters?

Ian1779 said:

Rather than the general drop-off that you would expect to see anyway after the novelty of a new stadium wore off, it tells you that out of the 7 seasons of home games (161 min) - which was the clubs only real way to generate it's revenue, it only managed to exceed the 'break even' figure 34 times.

That is a shocking statistic.

And this doesn't even consider what the 'break-even' price for tickets was. I think it would be fair to say given our lack of success on the pitch that the ticket prices could well have been under this.

Even if you take into account the fluctuations for the away attendances it's plain to see that the break even attendance was unobtainable. Last season at HR the average attendance was 16,046

A business destined to fail from the start.

Click to expand...

You're not wrong. The club was financially fucked back then due to a host of reasons including lack of access to revenues and massive wage bill.

But the figure you keep quoting was at our highest wage bill. It's not relevant today. I was only relevant when we were pissing money up the wall trying to get promoted.

To give you a better idea.

In L1 average ticket cost was £9.50, I think its fair to use a tenner average cost in the Championship if not more.

£1.3m rent. 23 games. That's £56,521.74 a game you need to make. At £10 a ticket that's 5,653 tickets you'd need to sell to cover rent. The rest is your wage bill.

stupot07 said:

We had a massive game vs Yeovil which would have taken us to within 1 point of play offs, this whilst we were one of the form teams on the league....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Click to expand...

Last seasons type of football right from the off, coupled with a feel good factor return to the rich oh and no minus points start.

20+ in my book.

shmmeee said:

You're not wrong. The club was financially fucked back then due to a host of reasons including lack of access to revenues and massive wage bill.

But the figure you keep quoting was at our highest wage bill. It's not relevant today. I was only relevant when we were pissing money up the wall trying to get promoted.

Click to expand...

I dread to think how much money was wasted on paying off managers after 9 months and then employing a new one on a 3 year contract... and repeat.

It may not be relevant as much today, but there will be an attendance figure that we would have to meet at the Ricoh or new stadium to hit that 'break-even' figure. If the revenues are included that figure goes down.

Only way forward is to buy out ACL.. it becomes more and more obvious every day.

Kingokings204 said:

I assume this is the amount is the escrow account that ACL referred to today.

To suggest ACL are only owned 90k is and has made me laugh a lot.

Why can't people comprehend ACL are Owed 590k from sisu and sisu only. It's not fucking rocket science guys Jesus.

So what you're suggesting is If I gave the remaining 90k myself then sisu owe nothing lol fucking ridiculous.

Genuinely find this funny.

Click to expand...

Let's hope SISU don't find how much the Casino and Hotel have been paying in rental this last year,or no doubt they will seek to have this reduced from their previously admitted debt. God forbid it works out at more than £90000 or SISU will no doubt be claiming that ACL indeed owe them the balance.:thinking about:
It is truly amazing how quickly how selective amnesia takes hold, it is though the judgement passed down hy a High Court judge, didn't really happen. The judge could hardly have been clearer or more damning in his assessment,about who was almost totally to blame. It seems to be ,give it a couple of weeks,then ignore/forget his clear judgement, and carry on as before.

Houdi said:

Let's hope SISU don't find how much the Casino and Hotel have been paying in rental this last year,or no doubt they will seek to have this reduced from their previously admitted debt. God forbid it works out at more than £90000 or SISU will no doubt be claiming that ACL indeed owe them the balance.:thinking about:
It is truly amazing how quickly how selective amnesia takes hold, it is though the judgement passed down hy a High Court judge, didn't really happen. The judge could hardly have been clearer or more damning in his assessment,about who was almost totally to blame. It seems to be ,give it a couple of weeks,then ignore/forget his clear judgement, and carry on as before.

Click to expand...

The judgement had absolutely nothing to do with the 590K payment did it?

Anyone can clearly see that JR was a spectacular fail for SISU. The council were lawfully correct in their actions. I don't actually see anyone disputing this (apart from TF)

This is about the 'agreement' after the CVA rejection. There is a great of claims and zero evidence. All we need is some facts from the people that created the agreement.

Did SISU put money into the ESCROW?
How much was put in the ESCROW by SISU?
Have ACL already had 300K from guarantors?
When does the money get released to ACL?
If there is a dispute - what is the nature of it?


Everyone is second guessing.. we have tiny snippets from different areas but nothing conclusive.

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.....?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry Ian, but that's just plain wrong. The reason for rejecting the CVA was given, ACL thought it would legitimise a process that they saw as deeply flawed. The 'V' in CVA stands for 'Voluntary' - if a business can't satisfy its creditors for whatever reason they are under no obligation to accept the CVA. This was a business where almost all of the assets had been transferred, leaving only liabilities, seemingly with the express purpose of abandoning a lawful contract, the lease. The damage done to the club here lies with the people who chose not to pay their bills, and run their business in that way.

As for the 'using extreme rent to distress the club', again that's not borne out by the facts. Even Fisher and SISU accepted that the rent was driven by the mortgage. Claiming that the rent was being used as a way to get hold of the club is ridiculous, even SISU don't say that.

And this 23k break-even figure. That's an arithmetical nonsense.

If you want to work out how many people you need in the stadium to pay the rent it's easy enough. Divide the rent by the number of fixtures, then divide that by the average cost of a ticket. At 23 fixtures and £20/ticket you actually need less than 3,000 to cover the rent (even at £1.2m). Counting in the other running costs to claim a higher break-even makes no sense. You could just as well say our fixed costs (rent etc.) are £x, therefore to break-even our other costs (salaries etc) need to be £y. In fact, I think the latter way is how most businesses run.

To run the rent break-even argument as presented by you to it's logical conclusion, if we signed Ronaldo, Messi and Rooney at £300k/week you could imply a break-even rent where ACL would have to pay the club £10m a year or some such nonsense.

Regardless, this has been done to death - and I don't see how it helps to progress anything rehashing it. Either we're moving forward on a deal at the Ricoh, or we're not. Given ACL's very (and unnecessarily, imho) firm statement, SISU's seeming determination to stick with court action, and the FL's complete failure, it looks like at least another season at Northampton, and probably a few more too until one side or the other goes pop.

What a shambles.

Just out of interest for all those people who say the £300,000 has nothing to do with the unpaid rent or the £590,000 then what has it to do with.

If sisu still laid the rent would ACL be entitled to the money?

Ian1779 said:

I dread to think how much money was wasted on paying off managers after 9 months and then employing a new one on a 3 year contract... and repeat.

It may not be relevant as much today, but there will be an attendance figure that we would have to meet at the Ricoh or new stadium to hit that 'break-even' figure. If the revenues are included that figure goes down.

Only way forward is to buy out ACL.. it becomes more and more obvious every day.

Click to expand...

You're not wrong about revenues but its nothing to so with break even. We'd break even this season with no revenue and an 8k gate at the Ricoh. In fact is you factor in ending NOPM we'd make a profit. That's based on the £400k rent deal offered.

Ironically we should be sat here praising Tim and Joy for getting a handle on costs and renegotiating the rent and our first break even season in living memory.

Instead were talking about the death of a club and losing £1m this year playing in Northampton.

Madness.

duffer said:

I'm sorry Ian, but that's just plain wrong. The reason for rejecting the CVA was given, ACL thought it would legitimise a process that they saw as deeply flawed.

Click to expand...

Garbage.

They would have signed the CVA if sisu had agreed to drop the JR and also sign the proposed rent deal.

Stop peddling this myth.

shmmeee said:

You're not wrong about revenues but its nothing to so with break even. We'd break even this season with no revenue and an 8k gate at the Ricoh. In fact is you factor in ending NOPM we'd make a profit. That's based on the £400k rent deal offered.

Ironically we should be sat here praising Tim and Joy for getting a handle on costs and renegotiating the rent and our first break even season in living memory.

Instead were talking about the death of a club and losing £1m this year playing in Northampton.

Madness.

Click to expand...

I agree - a sustainable model should be based on the fact that tickets sales and matchday revenues should cover all outgoings. Things like player sales or windfalls from games like Arsenal should be a bonus that goes directly into improving the squad further.

This is what we have to aim for long term.

Grendel said:

Garbage.

They would have signed the CVA if sisu had agreed to drop the JR and also sign the proposed rent deal.

Stop peddling this myth.

Click to expand...

Imagine if that had happened no JR that it transpires was more damaging to SISU than helpful.
A cheap rent agreed, we would have saved a hell of a lot of money last season.Possibly a better chance of the play offs.

Everyone happy at the Ricoh.

That was a very very bad call, lets hope it is not a mistake that gets repeated and someone agrees a deal on short term rent and sorting that outstanding debt.

duffer said:

I'm sorry Ian, but that's just plain wrong. The reason for rejecting the CVA was given, ACL thought it would legitimise a process that they saw as deeply flawed. The 'V' in CVA stands for 'Voluntary' - if a business can't satisfy its creditors for whatever reason they are under no obligation to accept the CVA. This was a business where almost all of the assets had been transferred, leaving only liabilities, seemingly with the express purpose of abandoning a lawful contract, the lease. The damage done to the club here lies with the people who chose not to pay their bills, and run their business in that way.

Click to expand...

If the process was 'flawed' they are suggesting that something untoward happened. If this was the case it should have been reported accordingly and investigated by the appropriate authorities.

Except they didn't do this... because the reality is they didn't like the outcome, rather than it being flawed.

martcov said:

And back to the point.....are SISU going to pay the 590K they owe and drop all litigation as requested by ACL in order to open negotiations ( where all the points about high rent, sustainability etc. can be discussed and maybe a solution found ), or are we going into another round of the blame game, litigation and will we receive the usual points deduction to be blamed on ACL and the council by certain posters?

Click to expand...

They should pay the £590k they owe, but they have the legal right to appeal the JR if they see fit so I don't see how they will/can agree to drop the litigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Grendel said:

Garbage.

They would have signed the CVA if sisu had agreed to drop the JR and also sign the proposed rent deal.

Stop peddling this myth.

Click to expand...

Do you have the data, the minutes from ACL(assuming 'they'= ACL) or similar that add credibility to your statement about intent......?

stupot07 said:

They should pay the £590k they owe, but they have the right to appeal the JR if they see fit so I don't see how they will/can agree to drop the litigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Click to expand...

I guess its common sense. If you were SISU and had a chance to agree a deal that would save you millions. You just need to pay your debt and drop your appeal on the JR.

The debt I am sure you could negotiate a compromise.

The appeal after the annihilation in the review itself. Firstly I would want that out of the media eye as soon as possible. Secondly I was estimate my chances of winning the appeal as about only 10%.

With that in mind too right I would be prepared to ditch the Appeal in order to do a deal.

ohitsaidwalker king power said:

Do you have the data, the minutes from ACL(assuming 'they'= ACL) or similar that add credibility to your statement about intent......?

Click to expand...

No we have PWKH on here at the time saying they would have signed it if two conditions had been agreed. The rent offer was made so that was clearly one and its inconceivable they would have not wanted the JR dropping.

Unless of course you and Duffer are saying PWKH is not being honest? Rather you than me.

Isn't the simple truth that no-one on here really knows and this is all conjecture ?

My contribution for what its worth is

1. SISU effectively have an invoice for £590k that they are trying to find any way possible to squirm out of paying.
2. What anyone else has paid or not paid on any other agreement/ contractual clause is utterly irrelevant.
3. The continued squabbling over this is further damaging relations between the parties (which were already pretty much damaged beyond repair)
4. This will end up back in court
5. The Football League may also add sanctions
6. None of this shit provides any positive outcome for the team's chances next season or the fans

Grendel said:

No we have PWKH on here at the time saying they would have signed it if two conditions had been agreed. The rent offer was made so that was clearly one and its inconceivable they would have not wanted the JR dropping.

Unless of course you and Duffer are saying PWKH is not being honest? Rather you than me.

Click to expand...

So no then, you don't- please stop peddling these myths...

Ian1779 said:

If the process was 'flawed' they are suggesting that something untoward happened. If this was the case it should have been reported accordingly and investigated by the appropriate authorities.

Except they didn't do this... because the reality is they didn't like the outcome, rather than it being flawed.

Click to expand...

How do you know it wasn't reported to the appropriate authorities? It's clear the Football League were aware of something odd, hence the bizarre agreement to pay ACL £590k.

And you've just made exactly the point yourself, ACL didn't like the outcome, and the CVA is a voluntary process. If the business who owe the money can't satisfy it's creditors with the arrangement, then the creditor is not obliged to accept it.

If you're bitter about the ten points, take it up with SISU, who neither paid their debts nor were prepared to come to an acceptable arrangement with their creditors for a voluntary agreement.

And with that, I'm done. This is an utterly pointless argument that's been beaten to death. I get that you're angry about the ten points - where's it getting us? What I see here, as with Grendel, is someone who has a huge axe to grind against ACL, and is reluctant to deal with any of the awkward facts that point towards SISU being the major part of the problem.

Who will take the blame if we get hit by another penalty because SISU don't want to pay the £590k that the FL is insisting on, will that be down to ACL too?

And for Grendel, whom I specifically try to ignore but is sometimes (sadly) quoted - don't try to put words in my mouth.

If you're trying to call someone a liar, then be a man and do it yourself, rather than trying to posit it through another mealy-mouthed post.

It seems though that he's in agreement with my point, albeit he's too thick to spot it.

Clearly ACL weren't happy with the proposed CVA, and SISU weren't willing to come to an arrangement to make them so - be that another rent deal (per PWKH) or something else. Inevitably then, it wasn't signed. Why this should be the creditor's fault is beyond me, but then for him everything has to be ACL/CCC's fault to fit his skewed view of the universe.

And that really is it. Why we need to keep going back to this is beyond me, there must be better things to do.

L

duffer said:

And for Grendel, whom I specifically try to ignore but is sometimes (sadly) quoted - don't try to put words in my mouth.

If you're trying to call someone a liar, then be a man and do it yourself, rather than trying to posit it through another mealy-mouthed post.

It seems though that he's in agreement with my point, albeit he's too thick to spot it.

Clearly ACL weren't happy with the proposed CVA, and SISU weren't willing to come to an arrangement to make them so - be that another rent deal (per PWKH) or something else. Inevitably then, it wasn't signed. Why this should be the creditor's fault is beyond me, but then for him everything has to be ACL/CCC's fault to fit his skewed view of the universe.

And that really is it. Why we need to keep going back to this is beyond me, there must be better things to do.

Click to expand...

Excuse me. I quoted you and you were incorrect unless you disagree with PWKH. It hasn't nothing to do with objecting to the process. They wanted a deal on their terms, no more and no less. There was no sword of truth or a moral crusade they just wanted their way.

I consider you to be one of the most anti-CCFC posters on here so I'm glad you ignore me. I just normally glaze over when you post your pro council bilge but on this occasion I decided to correct your error. It seems you do t like to be corrected.

Shame - I will start to do so more often.

ohitsaidwalker king power said:

So no then, you don't- please stop peddling these myths...

Click to expand...

I will post a link when I am on a computer.

Boring............