Are we safe? (8 Viewers)

Kingokings204 said:

You never know but doubtful. Don't see what we have done this time. Plus the FL are shit scared of sisu so that's one advantage to having them as owners.

Click to expand...

There are no advantages to the club because SISU are owners, to date we have only been treated to a series of disadvantages.

RFC said:

I know someone who bought pitch side advertising thinking the money was going to the club but later found out it went directly to ACL.

Click to expand...

Except that's not true is it?

Deleted member 5849 said:

Do you have the originally published one? They published all answers later:

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...rsion-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc?showall=&start=1

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

I'm sure the light's on....but don't think anyone's in?....................http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index....owall=&start=1

I think pitch side was the club, I asked and it was a ccfc guy rather than acl. And what sbk and nw said

Let's see if "Timmy" aka RFC comes back and tries to "Bluster his way out of this one

Sky Blue Kid said:

Let's see if "Timmy" aka RFC comes back and tries to "Bluster his way out of this one

Click to expand...

Have no need to "Bluster" as you put it, read the link but it still doesn't make it clear who got what IMHO.

Still no excuse for allowing LCFC & WBA development squads to play @ Ricoh for a reported £1750 per game and then stooping as low as renting for a pittance for a Streaking competition.

Pathetic!

RFC said:

Have no need to "Bluster" as you put it, read the link but it still doesn't make it clear who got what IMHO.

Still no excuse for allowing LCFC & WBA development squads to play @ Ricoh for a reported £1750 per game and then stooping as low as renting for a pittance for a Streaking competition.

Pathetic!

Click to expand...

So you would rather see the arena empty then?

I don't care what ACL rent the arena out for. The more the better IMO. What is good for the Ricoh is good for the city, and that in turn would be good for the football club (if they hadn't voluntarily moved to Northampton that is).

ACL renting out the arena for those events has absolutely no negative impact on CCFC whatsoever. For that to offend you so much suggests you are just a very bitter person.

Sky Blue Kid said:

I'm sure the light's on....but don't think anyone's in?....................http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index....owall=&start=1

Click to expand...

Being blocked due to an Infection SBK.

RFC said:

Have no need to "Bluster" as you put it, read the link but it still doesn't make it clear who got what IMHO.

Still no excuse for allowing LCFC & WBA development squads to play @ Ricoh for a reported £1750 per game and then stooping as low as renting for a pittance for a Streaking competition.

Pathetic!

Click to expand...

While renting at Sixfields makes so much sense?

RFC said:

Have no need to "Bluster" as you put it, read the link but it still doesn't make it clear who got what IMHO.

Still no excuse for allowing LCFC & WBA development squads to play @ Ricoh for a reported £1750 per game and then stooping as low as renting for a pittance for a Streaking competition.

Pathetic!

Click to expand...

Why are you concerned, the Ricoh is nothing to do with CCFC at the moment.

@ RFC.....So much for your lies about your friend buying advertising space pitchside, thinking it was going to SISU but it went to ACL, lmfao....What about parking RFC...No answer again, yet you "Bluster" about something else. You're a nob mate...Pathetic.

@ Wingy......Have a look at Deleted member 5849's post #24 it will show you what a f**king liar RFC is mate

Sky Blue Kid said:

@ Wingy......Have a look at Deleted member 5849's post #24 it will show you what a f**king liar RFC is mate

Click to expand...

I have had car parking in A B and C. In B and C I paid ACL direct. The only season I didn't was a corporate package in which A was provided free of charge. All car park A non corporate paid ACL direct. Car park C has to be the biggest. The club in the q and a denied ACL's statement.

Has any non corporate buyer paid CCFC for a car park ticket?

@ Grenduffy.........16: Did the club sell the right to car park income? ACL: No they retained 900 spaces for use on match-days, these remain part of the new overall proposed deal. This is approximately 50% of all available car parking at the stadium. CCFC: I don’t know- I haven’t heard this 17: Did the club stop receiving car park income as a consequence of not paying the rent for the stadium? ACL: Yes, the club subsequently purchased 300 seasonal spaces at the start of the season, which they also sell on. CCFC: Yes

What sort of owners make this statement?????????.................CCFC: "I don’t know- I haven’t heard this".....(Then read point 17)

What sort of owners make this statement?????????.................CCFC: "I don’t know- I haven’t heard this".....(Then read point 17)

www.skybluestalk.co.uk › ... › Coventry City General Chat

@ Grenduffy.......I would believe what this man(OSB58) has to say against anything you have to say........ Default ACL - lets have some facts Thought it might be an idea to have some facts about ACL instead of self interested spin ala Mr Fisher -Owners of the long lease to operate the Ricoh Arena (approx 42 years left on lease) -Owned by Coventry City Council and the Higgs Charity (50:50) with interlocking shareholders agreements ensuring each stakeholder has to approve the actions of the other. Each stakeholder has directors on the Board of ACL - The council and Charity are bound by the rules and regulations of Local Government and Charity Commission respectively so their actions and the actions of their ACL directors are subject to far more scrutiny & liability than ordinary directors. Should imply a higher standard of what they can communicate but perhaps restrict how much they can say and how often - sub lease the site to various tenants including CCFC, The Casino, De Vere Hotels - The catering etc, and site management done through a joint venture between ACL & Compass known as IEC. ACL get a share of the net profits from the joint venture - Over 80% of the income of the site is derived from conference, events and exhilbitions - The match day income streams. All ticket income goes to CCFC. Match day packages and food (yorkshire bank suite etc) are sold to CCFC who then sell on at a profit. Car parking sold on to CCFC then resold by them at a profit. Kiosk income (and costs) belong to joint venture. Sponsorship income for ground/name belongs to ACL (it is their property after all CCFC sold those rights) Ricoh deal rolls on until 2025. Advertising split between CCFC and ACL. - ACL paid a premium to acquire the long lease, and chose not to pay an annual rent by doing so. £21m - Lease premium was financed by loan from Yorkshire Bank. 31/05/11 that loan stood at £16.2m (and has reduced since to an estimate of 15.6m). ACL pay interest at 1.265% abover LIBOR (0.5% approx) - pretty decent rate when you consider a lot of business mortgages currently. Results - Turnover 2011 £6.6m 2010 £6.6m 2009 £6.8m - Net Profit 2011 £470k 2010 £547k 2009 £3.223m (due to one off income from lease transfer) - Fixed assets (long lease, improvements, equipment etc) at 31/05/11 £25m - Debtors £1.7m and cash at bank £1.2m 31/05/11 - Total creditors 2011 26.3m 2010 £27.7m 2009 £32.7m - Total creditors includes Bank loans 2011 £16.2m 2010 £16.8m 2009 £20.6m and income to be spread over a number of future years 2011 £ 7.5m 2010 £8.5m 2009 £7.7m - net worth on balance sheet 2011 £1.5m 2010 £1.0m 2009 £ 0.49m Auditors Reports - no mention of any concern regarding going concern, the reports were "clean" Neither the Council nor Charity have taken a penny out of ACL and there is no intention to do so until the loans are cleared. All profits reinvested into the company There is a mechanism to give the council an extra return on super profits above £3.75m (amount from memory ) on a sliding scale. It has never been taken as profits never high enough. ACL, Council, Charity have all stated in the past they want to support a viable football club at the Ricoh. All three are open to new stakeholders so long as they can prove the newstake holders are viable, able to invest in the development of the site, there is a long term future to the club. The charity gave CCFC Ltd (not any other company or entity) the option to buy its shares. There is a formula etc but that is not public. That option is still valid and its termination depends on certain events in the agreement. There have been no discussions between charity and ccfc/sisu on the subject recently. 50% of the shares does not mean 50% of the turnover or profits. It entitles the owner to 50% of the dividends voted (no reserves to pay one so presently illegal and stakeholder policy is to pay off loans before any dividend paid). It would also entitle a shareholder to 50% of surplus assets on a winding up. Currently CCFC owe ACL £1m in unpaid rent. The lease agreement terms stipulate that £500k has to be kept in an Escrow account as a deposit against default. CCFC are in default - this does not mean that the Escrow funds can be left depleted as rental payment but does mean ACL can draw on it to soften their cashflow blow caused by non payment. To be clear the lease requires rent to be paid £1.2m pa and the maintenance of £500k in the Escrow account. Currently CCFC pay £10k approx per match. This is not rent or any contribution to rent. This is for the sell on of rights to car park income, the provision of food and staff for the corporate seats, power etc. These costs would be paid at any other club irrespective of whether rented or not. ACL have repeatedly offered to have meaningful discussions with SISU over the rent. This i hope will clarify some of the commentary regarding ACL from certain quarters. I would guess that as a good customer that ACL have been in contact with the bank on a regular basis. I would, from my own experience, expect the bank to have already looked some time ago at the value of CCFC's tenancy and concluded that CCFC is all but insolvent. If so then the bank has already factored in that information into its valuations and is still there. In the current and recent financial climate (say last 5 years) there is no real value to giving a tenancy to any football club - let alone the basketcase that is CCFC. Presented by oldskyblue58

All I'm saying is I paid ACL for my car park ticket. Who paid CCFC - anyone?

Nobody is as rich as you, most of us paid the gypsys who took over the Rowleys Green or just parked it somewhere for free

Grendel said:

All I'm saying is I paid ACL for my car park ticket. Who paid CCFC - anyone?

Click to expand...

Do you mean parking season tickets or just matchday ones? I used to buy a season ticket one (it was for the car park at the back of the away stand, cant remember if that was B or C) and I used to get it at the same time as my season ticket in the CCFC ticket. I've no idea of where my money went eventually, but it definitely went in the CCFC till at that point.

How did a thread about the likelihood of a points deduction turn into a debate about car parking revenue.

I know going off topic is a SBT speciality but this one definitely takes first prize.

skybluetony176 said:

How did a thread about the likelihood of a points deduction turn into a debate about car parking revenue.

I know going off topic is a SBT speciality but this one definitely takes first prize.

Click to expand...

Drugs. Drugs everywhere...

Nick said:

I would like to think we are, after all the FL have been complied with and it is them causing the delay isn't it?

Click to expand...

I don't agree that the football league are causing the delay, it's the act of questioning the football leagues decision by sisu before paying that is causing the delay because its forcing a second decision by the Football league (admittedly one they should have made much sooner as this will be their second meeting since the payment deadline passed), but assuming the escrow account is controlled by the football league and that it currently contains 590k then I agree with you that there is unlikely to be a points deduction.

Funny that I now someone who wanted to advertise at Coventry games and the money would have gone to NTFC not CCFC.

RFC said:

I know someone who bought pitch side advertising thinking the money was going to the club but later found out it went directly to ACL.

Click to expand...

I parked at the ground once it cost a tener and paid in ticket office to ccfc staff , where it went then don't know

I pay about 1/3 of my earnings to the British Taxman & he gives most of it away to anyone that takes his fancy...usually not me or mine!

PUSB

A concern should be the FL wanting to show they are tough on suspect owners. Part of the golden share condition was paying ACL £590,000 but in true SISU style they have avoided this with the usual smokescreen and when the FL meet they might make an example of them. Minus 20 points or what ever is not good start.

Well actually not that arsed anymore.*

*That is something I never thought I would never say.

Gosford Green said:

A concern should be the FL wanting to show they are tough on suspect owners. Part of the golden share condition was paying ACL £590,000 but in true SISU style they have avoided this with the usual smokescreen and when the FL meet they might make an example of them. Minus 20 points or what ever is not good start.

Well actually not that arsed anymore.*

*That is something I never thought I would never say.

Click to expand...

Extract from ccfway telephone conversation with TF 22nd July .............

"ACL were adamant it should be paid a figure of £590k;
CCFC had deposited funds in excess of those due with the Football League;
CCFC have submitted a copy of its short term/interim Ricoh proposal to the FL. I asked why this had not been sent to ACL? ACL had made it clear that they had no desire to engage in discussions about a return to the Ricoh until both the £590 had been received and the legal appeal had been dropped. However, by sending the proposed terms to the FL, TF said that this showed goodwill in trying to create a route back to the Ricoh. This also ensured that the supporters had knowledge, insight and transparency as to the various challenges faced by the club;
Was the proposal for a permanent or interim move? It was an interim deal and TF explained the rent proposal would be benchmarked against the division we were playing in; it was on the basis of 23 days per annum with cup games paid for on a match by match basis. CCFC would pay, as previously, all the match day costs (stewards, police, etc);
The Club was not seeking anything which is not related to match day revenues. Only that turnover directly related to a match being played at the Ricoh. TF added, that today, CCFC is the only football league club which does not have access to match day revenues beyond ticketing;
As such, the Club wanted car parking revenues as those using the car parks were attending the match, all in-bowl commercial revenues such as advertising etc on match days. Previously, the Club only received a fraction;
The issue re Compass on F&B was for ACL to resolve as the club is not a counterparty in the contracts struck between ACL and Compass, but TF believed it was reasonable for the club to have access to F&B generated by its supporters on the days the Club was renting the stadium.
The proposal was seeking a carve out based on 23/365 days from ACL when they rented the stadium"

Please note!

@ RFC.....Not everyone "Hangs on to every word Fisher says" like you do mate. He's been proven on countless occasions, along with his "Chums" to be lying out of his/their arseholes.....OSB58 is a well respected (And feared) poster because he speaks the truth. At one of the three forums when Fisher realised that OSB58 was in attendance went "Pasty Faced" knowing that he couldn't Chat s**t to him. and did everything to avoid questions from him.....btw RFC...There's something on the end of your nose?

No idea what's going on in the thread, but the title reminds me of Marathon Man. Love that film.

@ RFC............Fisher says...."This also ensured that the supporters had knowledge, insight and transparency as to the various challenges faced by the club;"............................................................................................A sentence that totally belittles the fans. The only times Fisher was "Transparent" happened in front of a pub full of City fans, and OSB58.