Another good article by 200% (1 Viewer)

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
1
Here Comes The Judge: Coventry City & The Judicial Review
Posted on August 6th
It has been another long few days for the supporters of Coventry City Football Club, but this evening, as the club’s team plays its second competitive match of the season at Leyton Orient in the Football League Cup, there are, for the first time, signs that the balance of power in terms of the future of the club might even be starting to tilt back into the balance for the first time. At the end of last week, the CVA that had been proposed by administrator Paul Appleton and the Otium Entertainment Group, one of the myriad of SISU-related companies that have come to be indistinguishable to such an extent that we will, for the purposes of brevity, refer to them all as “SISU”, was rejected by the owners of The Ricoh Arena, ACL, and HMRC.
The overblown statements made by Tim Fisher last week, one of which, “They’ve run us up against a cliff edge of liquidation and they’ve moved to tip us over,” was such that it was almost impossible to read without collapsing into a fit of giggles, then had no effect, and now Coventry City Football Club Limited will be liquidated. This didn’t stop the Football League from approving the transfer of ownership of the “Golden Share” – which transfers the right to play in the League from one entity to another – into Otium’s name, and they also applied a ten point deduction to the club at the same time, which was a lower amount that many had anticipated would be applied.
The following day, to coin a phrase from elsewhere, hostilities briefly ceased and a football match broke out. Almost eleven hundred Coventry supporters made a trip to West Sussex for the team’s opening League One match of the season, and after going two goals down early on, Steven Pressley’s team showed more than a little gumption in drawing back to level terms before a late goal saw Crawley win by three goals to two. It was, however, an afternoon marked by protest from the travelling supporters which culminated in a small pitch invasion by some. Some form of intervention on the part of FA may or may not now follow, somewhat ironically, considering their absolute silence on everything else that has been going on at the club since it stopped paying its rent at the end of March 2012.
This morning there followed a further blow to SISU, when its application for a judicial review against Coventry City Council over the purchasing of the mortgage that had been agreed to ease the financial burden on ACL in January of this year was thrown out by a High Court judge at the first hurdle. The case, brought by Arvo Master Fund, Sky Blue Sports and Leisure Ltd and Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Limited (all SISU-related companies, for the avoidance of doubt), had argued that the council had acted unlawfully in agreeing to this, but the judge, Mr Justice Males, thought otherwise. We reproduce his summing up below as follows:
I am not persuaded that there is an arguable case that the loan by the council constituted an unlawful state aid. It was made on commercial terms, in order to protect the council’s investment in ACL, in circumstances where ACL’s bank was threatening to hold ACL in default.
The alternatives would appear to have been either the insolvency of ACL which (largely because the claimants had caused rent to be withheld as a means of exerting pressure in the commercial negotiations, which had led to an unsatisfied judgment of the High Court in ACL’s favour) was not in a position to pay the loan, or acceptance of the claimants’ proposals which the council did not consider to be in its commercial interests.
It is clear from public statements made by members of the council, in particular councillor Mutton, that at least some members (of the council) have a strong animosity towards the claimants. However, I do not accept that this demonstrates that the council made its decision to offer a loan to ACL for an improper purpose or in bad faith. Its purpose was the legitimate commercial purpose of protecting investment in ACL.
The claim that the decision was ultra vires (unlawful) is dependent on a showing of an improper purpose and therefore has no independent life once it is determined that the council’s purpose was not improper.
Those who had sought the review have a right to appeal, but considering how emphatic – and swift – the verdict has been in this case, whether this would have any merit is obviously open to question, especially when we consider that costs may be liable to rise for those who brought the action in the first place. The club, for its part, couldn’t have been more perfunctory in its response to the verdict with an official statement released early this afternoon which almost bristled with discontentment: “Coventry City Football Club has noted the ruling by Mr Justice Males on the Judicial Review and will consider the decision before taking its next steps.”
But what significance does all of this hold? Well, perhaps most significantly – and presuming that there is no appeal that ends up somehow being successful – it shores up ACL’s financial position, and if, as has been widely suggested over recent weeks to the point that it has come to be regarded as the only rational reason for their behaviour over their last few months or so, the intention of the SISU-related companies has been to financially distress the stadium owners to a point at which they have to surrender The Ricoh Arena for next to nothing, then such a plan is, if not quite dead, then it is very much now on a life-support machine. It is understood that, since the remortgage that secured its future, ACL has been out of the financial woods. Even if it might have had before, it certainly now seems to have no great need to sell the stadium. Should there be any room for negotiations over renting the stadium, then ACL’s position is much stronger for today’s verdict.
The nature of the Judge’s comments could also reasonably be believed to call still further into question the claims made by SISU at the time of the Football League’s acquiescence to their desire to move to Northampton for the new season that they had somehow been “forced” into it. ACL have made repeated offers to the club to continue to rent the stadium at rates which would make considerably more financial sense than moving thirty-five miles away to play in front of a few hundred die-hards. The case that “both sides” of this argument are equally to blame for this state of affairs having come to pass feels more and more like an absurdity with each passing day. The Football League should, as a matter of urgency, review their agreement to Coventry City playing in Northampton this season. There has been little to suggest that they will do, though, further engendering the increasing feeling amongst many supporters that they are, frankly, not fit for purpose in their current condition.
Next Sunday, Coventry City play their first “home” league match of the season at home against Bristol City. An hour before this match kicks off, back in Coventry, a team of club legends is set to play a Midlands All Stars XI in aid of Cancer Research and Acorn’s Children’s Hospice. It is expected that only a few will make that trip to Sixfields, whilst thousands may well turn out for this charity match instead and, whilst the main aim of this day should be to raise money for two excellent causes, it may also prove to be an opportunity for supporters of the club to show, in the clearest terms possible, where the heart and soul of Coventry City Football Club truly lays, in the city of Coventry, far away from Northampton and the clutching grabs of those whose actions put them in the sorry position in which they find themselves today.
Details of ticket availability for Sunday’s charity match at The Ricoh Arena can be found at this thread on the Coventry City supporters forum, Sky Blues Talk.
You can follow Twohundredpercent on Twitter by clicking here.
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
It's a decent summary.

Can't quite agree that with each passing day ACL do not look like they are to blame for any of the situation we find ourselves in though? Had they signed off the CVA not only would they have received in the region of 590k back but the football club would not be hampered with -10 points? Also ACL are not the owners of the Ricoh Arena but lease holders. That's a big difference.
 

Delboycov

Active Member
It's a decent summary.

Can't quite agree that with each passing day ACL do not look like they are to blame for any of the situation we find ourselves in though? Had they signed off the CVA not only would they have received in the region of 590k back but the football club would not be hampered with -10 points? Also ACL are not the owners of the Ricoh Arena but lease holders. That's a big difference.

The article doesn't say they are not to blame for any of the situation it states that "The case that “both sides” of this argument are equally to blame for this state of affairs having come to pass feels more and more like an absurdity with each passing day" Personally I don't think many would see anything the matter with that viewpoint...

Why let facts get in the way of an oppportunity of spouting more biased anti ACL/CCC diatribe though hey?
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
That reads to me that it's an absurdity to suggest that ACL carry any blame as each day more is revealed. In other words you can't blame ACL? I simply don't agree with that. Not sure what you are reading and misunderstanding?
 

Delboycov

Active Member
That reads to me that it's an absurdity to suggest that ACL carry any blame as each day more is revealed. In other words you can't blame ACL? I simply don't agree with that. Not sure what you are reading and misunderstanding?

I chose to digest the words "equally to blame" when I read the article...thought you may not have done as you'd completely misquoted what was said in order to make your point. I highlighted the word 'equally' to help you though ;-)
 
Last edited:

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
That reads to me that it's an absurdity to suggest that ACL carry any blame as each day more is revealed. In other words you can't blame ACL? I simply don't agree with that. Not sure what you are reading and misunderstanding?

Well it just shows two things: -
1. that everything is open to individual interpretation
2. How once a distinct (often subjective) opinion is formed, it becomes increasingly difficult to see/hear anything from a non-subjective standpoint.
 

Delboycov

Active Member
Well it just shows two things: -
1. that everything is open to individual interpretation
2. How once a distinct (often subjective) opinion is formed, it becomes increasingly difficult to see/hear anything from a non-subjective standpoint.

3. Someone hasn't read a statement properly and instead of admitting that chooses to continue with the charade that they interpreted said statement in a different way!

There is no doubt in my mind that the article is talking about the 2 sides not being "equally to blame"....or else the word 'equally' wouldn't have been required!
 
Last edited:

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
3. Someone hasn't read a statement properly and instead of admitting that chooses to continue with the charade that they interpreted said statement in a different way!

There is no doubt in my mind that the article is talking about the 2 sides not being "equally to blame"....or else the word 'equally' wouldn't have been required!

And the accusing, finger-pointing, snide tone I suspect exists in "3" shows how entrenched you are in YOUR opinion - & it is likely you will receive the same in kind from Pax' II or someone with similar views...then reasoned & rational thought & argument goes out of the window...the slanging match starts...people like me lose interest - & move on to the next thread.
 
It's a decent summary.

Can't quite agree that with each passing day ACL do not look like they are to blame for any of the situation we find ourselves in though? Had they signed off the CVA not only would they have received in the region of 590k back but the football club would not be hampered with -10 points? Also ACL are not the owners of the Ricoh Arena but lease holders. That's a big difference.

I thought ACL were not the only party to reject the CVA? Despite what SISU claim.
 

Delboycov

Active Member
3. Someone hasn't read a statement properly and instead of admitting that chooses to continue with the charade that they interpreted said statement in a different way!

There is no doubt in my mind that the article is talking about the 2 sides not being "equally to blame"....or else the word 'equally' wouldn't have been required!

And the accusing, finger-pointing, snide tone I suspect exists in "3" shows how entrenched you are in YOUR opinion - & it is likely you will receive the same in kind from Pax' II or someone with similar views...then reasoned & rational thought & argument goes out of th window...the slanging match starts...people like me lose interest - & move on to the next thread.

This is a football forum for debating issues so when someone misquotes an article and then proceeds to argue against something that hasn't been said then I feel it's fair to respond to that. I'd be interested to know if anyone else interpreted that line any differently though and if you think that's unreasonable then I reckon it says a lot more about you than it does about me.
 
Last edited:

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Just a thought about the money lost on the CVA.

What was owed to ACL was in two parts.

A)The debt up to administration, which will have included statutory interest probably 8.5% approx £60k, total 1.4m
B) the compensation for loss of future income - I believe the administrator allowed no more than say 2 years rent for that (would not include match day expenses part).


Consider A) first. The claim is included for the full amount when presented to court but the administrator deducted from it the escrow account £536k and the match day fees paid last season approx £230k. So the amount relating to the old rent debt was approx £634K. Of which the CVA would have returned £164k. In effect ACL passed up the benefit of £164K relating to the rent and interest owed

The second part B) This related to the loss of future rents because the tenant was not going to be there. Per the rent agreement then that would be 40 x £1.3m. However this figure is mitigated by the administration process. The Administrator admits a claim at an amount he feels is fair - usually 2 or 3 years, the estimated time to get a replacement tenant. That amounted to a CVA amount of approx £430k

so A(164k) + B (430k) = 594k

In reality ACL have passed up 164k - hardly going to be devastating to the future of ACL given the cost of legals etc being incurred. Not ideal no but it is what it is

If in the next year or so the bowl of the complex is not used at all for alternatives to CCFC then ACL will have passed up £430k also. However if they put on any other events instead of CCFC matches then that figure comes down, if they let the hotel rooms, lounges etc on what would have been match days for other functions (weddings etc) then that loss comes down. Can they get alternative uses?

Just something to think about
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
Just a thought about the money lost on the CVA.

What was owed to ACL was in two parts.

A)The debt up to administration, which will have included statutory interest probably 8.5% approx £60k, total 1.4m
B) the compensation for loss of future income - I believe the administrator allowed no more than say 2 years rent for that (would not include match day expenses part).


Consider A) first. The claim is included for the full amount when presented to court but the administrator deducted from it the escrow account £536k and the match day fees paid last season approx £230k. So the amount relating to the old rent debt was approx £634K. Of which the CVA would have returned £164k. In effect ACL passed up the benefit of £164K relating to the rent and interest owed

The second part B) This related to the loss of future rents because the tenant was not going to be there. Per the rent agreement then that would be 40 x £1.3m. However this figure is mitigated by the administration process. The Administrator admits a claim at an amount he feels is fair - usually 2 or 3 years, the estimated time to get a replacement tenant. That amounted to a CVA amount of approx £430k

so A(164k) + B (430k) = 594k

In reality ACL have passed up 164k - hardly going to be devastating to the future of ACL given the cost of legals etc being incurred. Not ideal no but it is what it is

If in the next year or so the bowl of the complex is not used at all for alternatives to CCFC then ACL will have passed up £430k also. However if they put on any other events instead of CCFC matches then that figure comes down, if they let the hotel rooms, lounges etc on what would have been match days for other functions (weddings etc) then that loss comes down. Can they get alternative uses?

Just something to think about

I doubt very much De Vere would simply hand over any addtional revenues to ACL. Surely they have a rental/lease contract where payments are fixed. As for other events - I suspect there is little or no chance of staging any major events over the next nine months, but perhaps I will be proved wrong.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
It's a decent summary.

Can't quite agree that with each passing day ACL do not look like they are to blame for any of the situation we find ourselves in though? Had they signed off the CVA not only would they have received in the region of 590k back but the football club would not be hampered with -10 points? Also ACL are not the owners of the Ricoh Arena but lease holders. That's a big difference.

Give it up. It's just pathetic now.
 

Voice_of_Reason

Well-Known Member
I think we should all now put pressure on the Football League to reverse its decision to permit CCFC to groundshare with Northampton as SISU claimed "they had no choice" but the Judge's decision shows that the problem was of SISU's own making by witholding rent lawfully due. Email a copy of the article with your requests for a review to [email protected]
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
Give it up. It's just pathetic now.

Why is it? That you disagree with him is fine, I do too on a lot of things, but he is not wrong to ask these questions. Nobody has managed to adequately explain why rejecting the CVA was a good thing for the club or ACL/CCC. It's done now I suppose, but it still makes no sense to me.
 

hutch1972

Well-Known Member
Maybe wrong but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Certainly not from the information released by SISU. Although I guess that always needs to be taken with a pinch of salt...
I think that the AH centre accepted but that is separate to the main charity !
 
It's a decent summary.

Can't quite agree that with each passing day ACL do not look like they are to blame for any of the situation we find ourselves in though? Had they signed off the CVA not only would they have received in the region of 590k back but the football club would not be hampered with -10 points? Also ACL are not the owners of the Ricoh Arena but lease holders. That's a big difference.

The 10 point deduction and every other challenge faced by CCFC is caused by SISU and even those a little slow on the uptake must be starting to see that now.
 

skybluehugh

New Member
This is a football forum for debating issues so when someone misquotes an article and then proceeds to argue against something that hasn't been said then I feel it's fair to respond to that. I'd be interested to know if anyone else interpreted that line any differently though and if you think that's unreasonable then I reckon it says a lot more about you than it does about me.

How I interpret it is SHITSU have screwed us over much more than ACL. And I agree with how I have interpreted it
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Why is it? That you disagree with him is fine, I do too on a lot of things, but he is not wrong to ask these questions. Nobody has managed to adequately explain why rejecting the CVA was a good thing for the club or ACL/CCC. It's done now I suppose, but it still makes no sense to me.

short term i dont believe rejecting the CVA is a good thing myself, but long term the only thing that i can imagine would be worse would be if SISU got ownership of the Ricoh.

the reason i think this is because as i belive it is now 100% clear (if it wasn't already) is that SISU have no concern for the club and they have only ever seen CCFC as leverage in a property deal. i suspect that if SISU did get there hands on the Ricoh they would invest in the team just enough to get us back to the championship, at which point they would sell to the highest bidder to recoup some of their losses while retaining the stadium and facilities, they would then bleed us for every penny as our landlords putting us in the same situation if not worse than we were in before we left the championship. there will be no grounds on which to build the club we will just float around in the wilderness of the lower league's with the exception of maybe the odd giant killing berformance in the FA cup. a cup that we once proudly won and that aint the furture i want for my club.
 

Delboycov

Active Member
How I interpret it is SHITSU have screwed us over much more than ACL. And I agree with how I have interpreted it

Thanks for the feedback Hugh ;-) Pretty much how I read it although contrary to what Paxman stated it does not conclude that ACL share no blame...just that blame is not shared equally.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top