Administration History (1 Viewer)

[Skybluenutterman]

Just thinking about the administration process and the history of other clubs which entered admin, lost points and then came out stronger. I guess, although disappointed, I was somewhat relieved and hopeful once we went into admin that we would come out of this mess better off? However, how many other clubs were put into admin and subsequently taken over by the same company???!! None!! You just could not script this. It's incredible the FL have accepted this? Do they really know the full story? Will be an interesting meeting the FL/ACL tomorrow.

 

---

[mark82]

Leeds were. Ken Bates.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Yep we even suck at admin

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Companies being bought out of administration by entities linked to the previous owner(s) is quite a common practice.

 

[speedie87]

The fans who were calling for admin didn't understand that unlike all other clubs that have gone into admin out main creditor was ourselves therefore unfortunately this outcome was almost inevitable.

 

[Snozz_is_god]

Companies being bought out of administration by entities linked to the previous owner(s) is quite a common practice.

very true, but I believe in this case the are only buying back the bits of CCFC Ltd they want (Their own Debt) not the entire entity. With the aim of liquidising CCFC Ltd with a single asset (the Ricoh Lease).

 

[grego_gee]

Just thinking about the administration process and the history of other clubs which entered admin, lost points and then came out stronger. I guess, although disappointed, I was somewhat relieved and hopeful once we went into admin that we would come out of this mess better off? However, how many other clubs were put into admin and subsequently taken over by the same company???!! None!! You just could not script this. It's incredible the FL have accepted this? Do they really know the full story? Will be an interesting meeting the FL/ACL tomorrow.

We won't come out of admin without SISU!
but we do have every prospect of coming out of admin without the millstone of the £1.3m rent!
In my book that definitely counts as coming out of this mess better off!

Many on here seem more concerned about ACL's prospects than they are of the football clubs prospects.

I have no death wish for ACL, it would be very nice if they could co-exist with the football club without any loss to the club,
but I don't think that was ever possible!

The consensus on here seems to be that SISU are evil and can never do anything good.
I agree that they have been responsible for some farcical decisions but if they succeed in freeing us from the £1.3m millstone, I for one will see that as vindication for everything else!

imp:

 

[Snozz_is_god]

But they could of freed us from the £1.3 millstone by negotiation, by all accounts they had a deal for £400k in January, but backed out of it. Which I think was very generous especially as they had refused to pay ACL any rent for the previous year.

 

[covhead1]

But they could of freed us from the £1.3 millstone by negotiation, by all accounts they had a deal for £400k in January, but backed out of it. Which I think was very generous especially as they had refused to pay ACL any rent for the previous year.

sums it up pretty well

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

We won't come out of admin without SISU!
but we do have every prospect of coming out of admin without the millstone of the £1.3m rent!
In my book that definitely counts as coming out of this mess better off!

Many on here seem more concerned about ACL's prospects than they are of the football clubs prospects.

I have no death wish for ACL, it would be very nice if they could co-exist with the football club without any loss to the club,
but I don't think that was ever possible!

The consensus on here seems to be that SISU are evil and can never do anything good.
I agree that they have been responsible for some farcical decisions but if they succeed in freeing us from the £1.3m millstone, I for one will see that as vindication for everything else!

imp:

But they were offered a deal to reduce the £1.3m rent to £400k.

They have rejected that and are instead moving us to a stadium with a maximum capacity of circa 7k and (even in TF's world) likely attendances of 3k to 7k.

So they have saved £400k in rent, but at the cost of:

- Rent to be paid at Northampton (guess £100k to £150k?)
- Massively reduced attendances (average down by between 5k and 8k?)
- Presumably the need to offer cheaper tickets and subsidised travel

Does that really sound a good deal?

 

[psgm1]

We won't come out of admin without SISU! but we do have every prospect of coming out of admin without the millstone of the £1.3m rent! In my book that definitely counts as coming out of this mess better off! Many on here seem more concerned about ACL's prospects than they are of the football clubs prospects. I have no death wish for ACL, it would be very nice if they could co-exist with the football club without any loss to the club, but I don't think that was ever possible! The consensus on here seems to be that SISU are evil and can never do anything good. I agree that they have been responsible for some farcical decisions but if they succeed in freeing us from the £1.3m millstone, I for one will see that as vindication for everything else! imp:

I take it this is a wind up comment. They have freed up cov from a £1.3m "millstone" for a massive mortgage for a new stadium (if you would believe these idiots!) The "millstone" was never anything of the sort if anyone who has been following this scandal could tell you. If it were, then how come the losses year on year dwarf the rent supposedly paid? It is this kind of propaganda and utter misinformation by sisu and its plants on here that infuriates the real fans. Were the rent an issue do you not think this would have been raised a long time before now? The real issue is the FFP rules and how it messed up sisu's figures. Let's assume even for one second that sisu waqnted to pay a fair price for the arena, and they had the money. Why haven't they bought it before? It's all very well attacking ACL, but right from day one sisu had the opportunity to not just buy the stadium, but when they arrived they could also have bought the food concession. They didn't because it would have tied capital into the club, and would have given them a long term commitment to the club. And hedge funds simply do not do long term - ever! Even when they took over they never said they were long term. Their strategy was take it over, turn it around and make a quick profit! The problem. though that greed overtook them and they stopped investing in the club. It was no coincidence that the decent signings stopped arriving once Ranson left! Thorn was sent to appraise, it was Ranson who did the deals! It was Ranson who had the contacts! People seem to forget this inconvenient truth! I cannot believe the WUM still come on here defending sisu! Each time these cretins do they just make themselves look as stupid as Baster. For the record ultimately I couldn't care one way or another about ACL apart from the fact that they currently own a share of the Ricoh! There is a very simple solution to all of this. Instead of trying to distress the ACL, the fans and the entire community of coventry, simply offer a fair price for the stadium! Instead of wasting £40 million+ on a stadium, why don't they offer that for the Ricoh? That way they will automatically acquire the food concessions ACL currently have! But of course they never will, as they very probably do not have the funds to build a stadium, and this is all braqvado to distress ACL!

 

[stupot07]

Just thinking about the administration process and the history of other clubs which entered admin, lost points and then came out stronger. I guess, although disappointed, I was somewhat relieved and hopeful once we went into admin that we would come out of this mess better off? However, how many other clubs were put into admin and subsequently taken over by the same company???!! None!! You just could not script this. It's incredible the FL have accepted this? Do they really know the full story? Will be an interesting meeting the FL/ACL tomorrow.

Plenty of clubs have come out of administration mess either in a similar financial positions or worse...ACLs preferred administrator did Luton, Leeds and Crystal Palace...palace have done ok, Leeds still haven't got a pot to piss in despite 20k+ attendances....and Luton enough said..

 

[NorthernWisdom]

But they were offered a deal to reduce the £1.3m rent to £400k.

They have rejected that and are instead moving us to a stadium with a maximum capacity of circa 7k and (even in TF's world) likely attendances of 3k to 7k.

So they have saved £400k in rent, but at the cost of:

- Rent to be paid at Northampton (guess £100k to £150k?)
- Massively reduced attendances (average down by between 5k and 8k?)
- Presumably the need to offer cheaper tickets and subsidised travel

Does that really sound a good deal?

Their argument would never be that it's a better option short-term to move, though.

Whether you believe they'll deliver the substance behind the argument is another matter, but it's never about abolute figures for 3 years.

 

[grego_gee]

But they could of freed us from the £1.3 millstone by negotiation, by all accounts they had a deal for £400k in January, but backed out of it. Which I think was very generous especially as they had refused to pay ACL any rent for the previous year.

The club have been a paying tenant since 2004, £1.3 m for ten years = £13m total. With no benefit of ownership despite being the prime mover of the joint venture and prime provider of income for the venture.
Last year negotiations ground to a halt so they went on rent strike, never-the-less during the rent strike they paid match expenses (that were normally paid by ACL) to the value of £300k and ACL also took the rent deposit account to the value of £500,000 so in the year of the rent strike ACL received £800k
That is double the £400k that was on the table as an "acceptable" rent.
If it was "Acceptable" why were ACL pushing us into administration for the rest?

The £400k rent was never ratified by either side but even £400k for the full term of the lease would total £20m and we would be better off building our own stadium for that (or a little more)

imp:

 

[Noggin]

Plenty of clubs have come out of administration mess either in a similar financial positions or worse...ACLs preferred administrator did Luton, Leeds and Crystal Palace...palace have done ok, Leeds still haven't got a pot to piss in despite 20k+ attendances....and Luton enough said..

Palace are in the premiership, leeds in the championship, yes luton got relegated but mostly because of the points penalties for dodgy deals with agents. It sounds like you are trying to make "acls preferred administrator" look bad when the truth is all 3 clubs came out better from admin than we are going to. We've got 5+ years of things getting worse and worse to look forward to as it stands, something that almost certainly would not have happened with Brenden Gilfoy (sorry spelling)

 

[Noggin]

The club have been a paying tenant since 2004, £1.3 m for ten years = £13m total. With no benefit of ownership despite being the prime mover of the joint venture and prime provider of income for the venture.
Last year negotiations ground to a halt so they went on rent strike, never-the-less during the rent strike they paid match expenses (that were normally paid by ACL) to the value of £300k and ACL also took the rent deposit account to the value of £500,000 so in the year of the rent strike ACL received £800k
That is double the £400k that was on the table as an "acceptable" rent.
If it was "Acceptable" why were ACL pushing us into administration for the rest?

The £400k rent was never ratified by either side but even £400k for the full term of the lease would total £20m and we would be better off building our own stadium for that (or a little more)

imp:

Most of that's nonsense but it's pointless to argue it again as it's all been said to you dozens and dozens of times before.

But I'll point out the loss over the 5 years away from the Ricoh is going to come to about 20million on it's own as well as likely come with a couple of relegations that will massivly lower revenue for years and years to come.

 

[chiefdave]

The club have been a paying tenant since 2004, £1.3 m for ten years = £13m total. With no benefit of ownership despite being the prime mover of the joint venture and prime provider of income for the venture.

of course there's no benefit of ownership, they pay rent. Anyone who's ever paid rent knows you don't end up with ownership. Of course when people claim £1.3m is too much for a L1 club they ignore a couple of key points. Firstly when the rent was initially set ACL wanted a sliding scale, more upon promotion, less upon relegation, CCFC refused and wanted a flat rate. Secondly we've never paid £1.2m as a league 1 club, and we've had an offer to reduce the rent to 400K. CCFC also have an option to buy a half stake in ACL. It hardly paints a picture of ACL as some sort of evil landlord.

like many people I believe ACL and the council have to take some of the blame but it seems to me they have offered to give a lot of ground and SISU have offered nothing.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Their argument would never be that it's a better option short-term to move, though.

Whether you believe they'll deliver the substance behind the argument is another matter, but it's never about abolute figures for 3 years.

So is your view that the only rational reason for moving to Northampton is to distress ACL and so pick up the Ricoh at a cheap price?

 

[NorthernWisdom]

So is your view that the only rational reason for moving to Northampton is to distress ACL and so pick up the Ricoh at a cheap price?

That's one scenario indeed.

Another scenario is a 3-5 year deal is not on offer, and nobody from ACL has thought it worth talking to one of the potential owners of the football club to thrash out a deal, focussing their efforts instead in buttering up one of the others.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

That's one scenario indeed.

Another scenario is a 3-5 year deal is not on offer, and nobody from ACL has thought it worth talking to one of the potential owners of the football club to thrash out a deal, focussing their efforts instead in buttering up one of the others.

Interesting way to phrase it...

Might another way be - despite the move to Northampton costing City millions in revenue and massively alienating a large section of the club's support, the CEO has not felt it appropriate to try to open dialogue with ACL. Seems a little odd unless, he doesn't want a deal.

Particularly when GH comes up with a proposal that could only be of benefit to the club (as against the current position) and he apparently turns it down flat.

So I don't really follow your scenario.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

I'd agree the CEO might want to actually have a chat, rather than just repeating the mind numbing 'they won't talk to us' statement.

Deciding one party should talk to the other, doesn 't stop me thinking the same in reverse!

As for Hoffman's offer, it's a non offer. It's the cash up front, for which he wants it returned out of revenues so utterly redundant.

In fact phrasing it as an offer to pay the rent for the club, has certain echoes of the board he was on repeating the mantra that we were debt free!

The best I can say for Hoffman's offer is at least he was able to swallow his pride and speak to an organisation where there are clearly personal issues at play. Perhaps the actual protagonists involved might like to look at that example, and learn from it.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I'd agree the CEO might want to actually have a chat, rather than just repeating the mind numbing 'they won't talk to us' statement.

Deciding one party should talk to the other, doesn 't stop me thinking the same in reverse!

As for Hoffman's offer, it's a non offer. It's the cash up front, for which he wants it returned out of revenues so utterly redundant.

In fact phrasing it as an offer to pay the rent for the club, has certain echoes of the board he was on repeating the mantra that we were debt free!

The best I can say for Hoffman's offer is at least he was able to swallow his pride and speak to an organisation where there are clearly personal issues at play. Perhaps the actual protagonists involved might like to look at that example, and learn from it.

Don't understand why you see GH's offer as "utterly redundant".

Could you explain please.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Don't understand why you see GH's offer as "utterly redundant".

Could you explain please.

the people who put up the money with me would take a return to cover financing and other costs

It's hardly a no cost offer, is it.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

It's hardly a no cost offer, is it.

Depends on your definition of "no cost".

As I understand it, gate revenues over a given level (that that could reasonably be expected at Northampton) would be shared 50/50 between Otium and Hoffman.

Otium get to keep their half (which by definition is more than they would have expected to get by going to Northampton), Hoffman takes part of his half to cover the costs of financing the deal (and yes, it's fair to say that this should be independently verified) with the balance going to the club's academy.

So can you explain to me where the cost is to Otium, as against their current position? I can only see upside for them.

 

[Steve.B50]

I'd agree the CEO might want to actually have a chat, rather than just repeating the mind numbing 'they won't talk to us' statement.

Deciding one party should talk to the other, doesn 't stop me thinking the same in reverse!

As for Hoffman's offer, it's a non offer. It's the cash up front, for which he wants it returned out of revenues so utterly redundant.

In fact phrasing it as an offer to pay the rent for the club, has certain echoes of the board he was on repeating the mantra that we were debt free!

The best I can say for Hoffman's offer is at least he was able to swallow his pride and speak to an organisation where there are clearly personal issues at play. Perhaps the actual protagonists involved might like to look at that example, and learn from it.

I agree, all we need is for Mr Fisher to pick up the phone and say lets talk?

 

[Steve.B50]

I'd agree the CEO might want to actually have a chat, rather than just repeating the mind numbing 'they won't talk to us' statement.

Deciding one party should talk to the other, doesn 't stop me thinking the same in reverse!

As for Hoffman's offer, it's a non offer. It's the cash up front, for which he wants it returned out of revenues so utterly redundant.

In fact phrasing it as an offer to pay the rent for the club, has certain echoes of the board he was on repeating the mantra that we were debt free!

The best I can say for Hoffman's offer is at least he was able to swallow his pride and speak to an organisation where there are clearly personal issues at play. Perhaps the actual protagonists involved might like to look at that example, and learn from it.

Depends on your definition of "no cost".

As I understand it, gate revenues over a given level (that that could reasonably be expected at Northampton) would be shared 50/50 between Otium and Hoffman.

Otium get to keep their half (which by definition is more than they would have expected to get by going to Northampton), Hoffman takes part of his half to cover the costs of financing the deal (and yes, it's fair to say that this should be independently verified) with the balance going to the club's academy.

So can you explain to me where the cost is to Otium, as against their current position? I can only see upside for them.

Its a win win for Otium, they make money and keep most fans reasonably happy in the short term.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

The argument never is that staying for the 3-5 years in Coventry would be better for the club. Proving income would be higher for that period staying at the Ricoh doesn't take down SISU's argument in the slightest.

As I said, whether you believe in their ability or intention to go beyond the rhetoric to the substance is another matter, but the whole point is supposed to be short term pain for long term gain.

Where the cost to Otium's current position is that there is no 3-5 year deal on the table from ACL.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Its a win win for Otium, they make money and keep most fans reasonably happy in the short term.

And what do they do for the other 35 years?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

The argument never is that staying for the 3-5 years in Coventry would be better for the club. Proving income would be higher for that period staying at the Ricoh doesn't take down SISU's argument in the slightest.

As I said, whether you believe in their ability or intention to go beyond the rhetoric to the substance is another matter, but the whole point is supposed to be short term pain for long term gain.

Where the cost to Otium's current position is that there is no 3-5 year deal on the table from ACL.

Firstly, am I correct in assuming that you now agree that there is no (let's call it) "net cost" to Otium from Hoffman's offer?

Secondly, I'd have thought that the whole point of Hoffman's offer was to help both parties engineer such a deal - a bit tricky if TF just says "No".

 

[NorthernWisdom]

There is a cost to Hoffman's offer.

Whoever pays it up front want to take costs out of the return as well. That ensures the club pays more than what they already do not want to pay. There's also the cost that the club is no further on in resolving its dispute. Of course Fisher's going to just say 'no' if it doesn't add anything to the game, and it certainly won't help engineer a deal if it doesn't add anything or provide an incentive to look at it.

The only good thing to say is at least he's been the bigger man and approached the club to talk to them. it's a start, ACL's turn now maybe?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

There is a cost to Hoffman's offer.

Whoever pays it up front want to take costs out of the return as well. That ensures the club pays more than what they already do not want to pay. There's also the cost that the club is no further on in resolving its dispute. Of course Fisher's going to just say 'no' if it doesn't add anything to the game, and it certainly won't help engineer a deal if it doesn't add anything or provide an incentive to look at it.

The only good thing to say is at least he's been the bigger man and approached the club to talk to them. it's a start, ACL's turn now maybe?

But they end up with either:

The same net revenue that they'd have got before (i.e. if attendances at the Ricoh don't exceed the anticipated Northampton level) or
More net revenue (i.e. if they do).

So I can't see how any rational analysis would conclude that there is any net cost (other than in a rather silly pedantic way that ignores the overall impact).

 

[Paxman II]

I think psgm1 believes that if you shout long and loud enough repeatedly some of it may stick? Never mind he calls everyone who fails to accept his view are cretins and the like. psgm1 once again you show a lack of understanding of the whole affair I'm afraid and your relentless one sided opinion is annoying.
I won't debate you, as that is pointless on you and besides I don't have the time.
One good thing though, you are good for the board!

 

[stupot07]

Palace are in the premiership, leeds in the championship, yes luton got relegated but mostly because of the points penalties for dodgy deals with agents. It sounds like you are trying to make "acls preferred administrator" look bad when the truth is all 3 clubs came out better from admin than we are going to. We've got 5+ years of things getting worse and worse to look forward to as it stands, something that almost certainly would not have happened with Brenden Gilfoy (sorry spelling)

Leeds were relegated to the league one when they went into admin, they spent 2 season there before they got promoted. A club their size should be on the PL, but they still have no pot to piss in, they don't own their ground and pay extortionate rent. I wasn't having a go at garfoyle but merely suggesting that clubs don't always come out of the administration in a much better state.

I'm not sure what Garfoyle would have done differently.....

 

[Grendel]

Just thinking about the administration process and the history of other clubs which entered admin, lost points and then came out stronger. I guess, although disappointed, I was somewhat relieved and hopeful once we went into admin that we would come out of this mess better off? However, how many other clubs were put into admin and subsequently taken over by the same company???!! None!! You just could not script this. It's incredible the FL have accepted this? Do they really know the full story? Will be an interesting meeting the FL/ACL tomorrow.

I have posted several times on this. Since points deduction was introduced only Southampton and now palace have improved their league standing. Leeds technically not and Leeds with their size were never staying long in league one.