Breaking news: Acl call off rent talks (6 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Because it is not like paying a mortgage. If you know you are the only tenant who will ever pay the rent and you dont pay then the Bank will far more understanding,

Then let's take a more accurate example-paying rent on an apartment.


'Sorry I've not paid my rent for the last year, but I chipped in for the water bill, so it's basically the same isn't it?'

 

---

[coundonskyblue]

Because it is not like paying a mortgage. If you know you are the only tenant who will ever pay the rent and you dont pay then the Bank will far more understanding,

That wasn't the point I was arguing.

My point was Fisher's remarks about paying matchday costs have about as much relevance to the debate as how much John Clark spends on food.

 

[Dude]

Accept that Dude but the total loaned to prop up losses must be near or past the £50m mark now; that's a sum of money which is just too big to write off I feel.

If that 50 million was in assets I'd agree with you; however all they lose by walking now is a continual spiral of more debt. I also wonder about their outlay; someone, some time ago, inferred that some form of separate company account supplied a substancial amount of club income. At the time I didn't understand how that could work and who is liable for it; but finance is a strange world with varied avenues.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Lmfao...you mean much like you do when someone has the opposite view to you???
like your argument about 4-5-1 having more wins than 4-4-2???
Seeing as 4-4-2 has been played approx 5 times in the league this year...remind me again...how many games have we played in the league up to now??????
Talk about stating the obvious ffs!
BUT!!! let's take these games into consideration. The ratio of games won whilst playing 4-4-2 totally blitzes 4-5-1 or any other combination of formations.


You're a self opinionated twat m8....you prove that everytime someone disagrees with your post. If you put across your opinion...no problem, but you don't just do that do you!!! You try to force your view on everyone. Won't work with me pal. :jerkit:

You just proved my point exactly.

We haven't started with it in every game, but have changed to or started with 4-4-2 (for a period of time) about 18 times... Out of 34 games, we've started with 4-5-1 more times but 4-4-2 has made in and around 18 games in the league this season so yes it still counts if we moved to it even if we started with 4-5-1 e.g. Bournemouth (H) (W 1-0), Oldham (H & A) (won both) and Yeovil (H) (L).

In the 4-5-1 v 4-4-2 argument, I have facts (a word you don't quite know the definition of) that back my argument up... You have zilch, nout, jack diddly squat, nothing! Schmuck.

Ratio of winning with 4-4-2 is not better than 4-5-1, we've win more, lost less, scored more using 4-5-1, all facts. Have you even took time to work out the ratios, in fact, do you even know how to work them out?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Originally Posted by Grendel No it isn't and we must have the only football fans in the world who give a toss even if it is.



Some of us have as I've said before...MORALS......any idea what they are Grenduffy???:facepalm:

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Originally Posted by Grendel No it isn't and we must have the only football fans in the world who give a toss even if it is.



Some of us have as I've said before...MORALS......any idea what they are Grenduffy???:facepalm:

If only ACL did to.

 

[wingy]

The majority of the equity they've put in could have been potentially waived already through the creation of ARVO and subsequent fresh funding, post Charge on the assets.More SISU/JOY and her connections personal funds from that point allied to her being referred to as the owner and fully hands on with 4 phone calls a day.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

If only ACL did to.

Who was it who decided upon contract breaking as a negotiating tactic?

 

[Grendel]

Originally Posted by Grendel No it isn't and we must have the only football fans in the world who give a toss even if it is.

Some of us have as I've said before...MORALS......any idea what they are Grenduffy???:facepalm:

I see, so when Marlon King scored a goal your first thought was how this affected his victims when he celebrated in front of his adoring fans?

When we had not paid for Leon Best you wrote to Southampton expressing support.

If not you are a disgusting filthy hypocrite -- so which is it?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

If that 50 million was in assets I'd agree with you; however all they lose by walking now is a continual spiral of more debt. I also wonder about their outlay; someone, some time ago, inferred that some form of separate company account supplied a substancial amount of club income. At the time I didn't understand how that could work and who is liable for it; but finance is a strange world with varied avenues.

They lose any hope of the money being recouped-and there is also a big cost to their reputation in the finance world as a result of this and all the hugely negative publicity attached to it. We know very little of their investors though and if they're happy to write off the cash then we've had it unless another buyer is found.

 

[coundonskyblue]

I see, so when Marlon King scored a goal your first thought was how this affected his victims when he celebrated in front of his adoring fans?

When we had not paid for Leon Best you wrote to Southampton expressing support.

If not you are a disgusting filthy hypocrite -- so which is it?

Forgive me if i'm wrong but had Marlon not done his time? If you think he was still a danger to society then he should have stayed inside. If not, then he deserves to be treated as any free citizen.

The club excepted they were in the wrong about owing Southampton money. They didn't sign a contract to buy him and then say "actually we don't want to pay that."

 

[torchomatic]

No. But it was them who charged them a whopping, massive, over-inflated rent 8 years ago. Regardless of whether the fools in charge of our Club agreed with it at the time it was still out of order. I wonder why PWHK or whatever he's called never says who decided on this shocking figure.

Who was it who decided upon contract breaking as a negotiating tactic?

 

[Dude]

They lose any hope of the money being recouped-and there is also a big cost to their reputation in the finance world as a result of this and all the hugely negative publicity attached to it. We know very little of their investors though and if they're happy to write off the cash then we've had it unless another buyer is found.

I somehow doubt their reputation, in terms of his particular project, can sink any further to be honest.

 

[coundonskyblue]

No. But it was them who charged them a whopping, massive, over-inflated rent 8 years ago. Regardless of whether the fools in charge of our Club agreed with it at the time it was still out of order. I wonder why PWHK or whatever he's called never says who decided on this shocking figure.

Why sign the contract? No one forced them to move to the Ricoh.

 

[torchomatic]

I think the point is the sickening hypocritical "it's more than football, it's all about being moral and good, etc, etc". No one on here complained about us not paying Southampton the money we owed them. I don't remember MM, Cj, SBK and yourself fainting like a lady in Pride and Prejudice when that happened.

The club excepted they were in the wrong about owing Southampton money. They didn't sign a contract to buy him and then say "actually we don't want to pay that."

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

In the 4-5-1 v 4-4-2 argument, I have facts (a word you don't quite know the definition of) that back my argument up... You have zilch, nout, jack diddly squat, nothing! Schmuck.


Come on then twat back up your figures and FACTS!
You talk out of your arse pal. You prove to me and everyone else on this forum that we've played 18 league games with 4-4-2.
Thorn didn't know what 4-4-2 was....Shaw played the tried and trusted Thorn formation. "Mr Sky Blue Blood" played Goldie, then Clarke up front on their own, till Clarke lost his way and McSheff 2 games and Elliott 3 games played ALONGSIDE him.
Then again what am I proving anything to you for? I'm the one telling you to prove your facts and figures.....Carry on then...!:jerkit:

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Who was it who decided upon contract breaking as a negotiating tactic?

SISU, but don't mistaken me, I have never said SISU have acted in a moral way. Morality in the boardroom doesn't exist, the same applies to ACL as well as SISU.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

They lose any hope of the money being recouped-and there is also a big cost to their reputation in the finance world as a result of this and all the hugely negative publicity attached to it. We know very little of their investors though and if they're happy to write off the cash then we've had it unless another buyer is found.

If sisu decide to walk they wave goodbye to what I think is now about £47m which strikes me as a heck of a hit to take. Is another option that they settle the current dispute, then do further cost cutting to reach break even point asap so there are no more financial losses (irrespective of what that means on the pitch) and wait and see if someone does at some point come along and make an offer?

 

[torchomatic]

I know. I said the people who ran our club were fools. Richardson started it by wanting to move when no one else did and then McGinnity compounded it by signing surely one of the most unfair rental agreements in the history of football. What was he thinking? However, as I said this is a reason why I dislike ACL and anyone even remotely connected to them. They took advantage and pegged a fantastically high rent.

Why sign the contract? No one forced them to move to the Ricoh.

 

[coundonskyblue]

I think the point is the sickening hypocritical "it's more than football, it's all about being moral and good, etc, etc". No one on here complained about us not paying Southampton the money we owed them. I don't remember MM, Cj, SBK and yourself fainting like a lady in Pride and Prejudice when that happened.

Because the club didn't try and justify breaking a contract! The club accepted it was in the wrong.

 

[torchomatic]

You're a pretty nasty bloke aren't you? Your counter arguments without fail entail calling the person you disagree with a twat or a c##t or saying they should go and fuck themselves.

In the 4-5-1 v 4-4-2 argument, I have facts (a word you don't quite know the definition of) that back my argument up... You have zilch, nout, jack diddly squat, nothing! Schmuck.


Come on then twat back up your figures and FACTS!
You talk out of your arse pal. You prove to me and everyone else on this forum that we've played 18 league games with 4-4-2.
Thorn didn't know what 4-4-2 was....Shaw played the tried and trusted Thorn formation. "Mr Sky Blue Blood" played Goldie, then Clarke up front on their own, till Clarke lost his way and McSheff 2 games and Elliott 3 games played ALONGSIDE him.
Then again what am I proving anything to you for? I'm the one telling you to prove your facts and figures.....Carry on then...!:jerkit:

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

No. But it was them who charged them a whopping, massive, over-inflated rent 8 years ago. Regardless of whether the fools in charge of our Club agreed with it at the time it was still out of order. I wonder why PWHK or whatever he's called never says who decided on this shocking figure.

But the sad fact is Torch that this is a mess of the club's own making. You know the story very well so I won't repeat it-thinking more on the present, even Fisher himself has declared ACL's rent offer to be satisfactory; it is the revenues he is haggling over to satisfy FFP. He has also muted the possibility of building a new ground (total nonsense), but if the funding for that could be found, then surely it could also be found to acquire the Higgs' 50% shareholding and thus make the club a part of ACL?

 

[torchomatic]

I agree. It was a mess of the Club's own making, but not SISUs. Sure, they have compounded the situation but the seed was sown by BR and MM.

As for the new ground. No, it won't happen, and I for one wish it was. For the money we would have to give Higgs or half of the stadium we could probably be well on the way to building our own smaller, more fit-for-purpose stadium. Without ownership of their own ground the club has no future. I can't see why fans of the Club wouldn't want that to happen. But there you go.

But the sad fact is Torch that this is a mess of the club's own making. You know the story very well so I won't repeat it-thinking more on the present, even Fisher himself has declared ACL's rent offer to be satisfactory; it is the revenues he is haggling over to satisfy FFP. He has also muted the possibility of building a new ground (total nonsense), but if the funding for that could be found, then surely it could also be found to acquire the Higgs' 50% shareholding and thus make the club a part of ACL?

 

[Dude]

If only ACL did to.

Whilst the moral debate is very interesting; I think we can all agree, in the business sense, the stance of 'non-payment' is not looking an intelligent tactic as things stand?

Or is anyone out there suggesting it is?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

If sisu decide to walk they wave goodbye to what I think is now about £47m which strikes me as a heck of a hit to take. Is another option that they settle the current dispute, then do further cost cutting to reach break even point asap so there are no more financial losses (irrespective of what that means on the pitch) and wait and see if someone does at some point come along and make an offer?

They can sell at any time-all of the club's debts are in effect in the form of loans from SISU investors. If they are happy for any amount of that to be written off, then the club's debt goes down accordingly. No investor I imagine would be willing to give them 100% of the money back, which I think SISU realistically have to accept, but if they were to offer say even just a quarter of it (£12m), this is still a lot better than what they'd get from liquidating the club. It's all in their hands really.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I agree. It was a mess of the Club's own making, but not SISUs. Sure, they have compounded the situation but the seed was sown by BR and MM.

As for the new ground. No, it won't happen, and I for one wish it was. For the money we would have to give Higgs or half of the stadium we could probably be well on the way to building our own smaller, more fit-for-purpose stadium. Without ownership of their own ground the club has no future. I can't see why fans of the Club wouldn't want that to happen. But there you go.

We signed away the shareholding in the ground before it was even built-but we still have first refusal on it for another two years. PWKH has said that the club can take this up at any time if it can come up with the money-if the money is there for a potential new ground, then it must also be there for shareholding in the ground we presently play in. I suspect the cost of that shareholding is somewhat less than the cost (and huge amount of time) of building a brand new ground in some unbeknown location.

 

[CJparker]

1) putting aside the ACL v SISU debate for a second, isn't everyone just sick of this who shit? I can't remember the last time we could just talk about football without having to debate finance

2) If SISU can't succeed in bullying the council into more concessions, they should just leave - nobody will benefit by them staying, not even themselves.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

SISU, but don't mistaken me, I have never said SISU have acted in a moral way. Morality in the boardroom doesn't exist, the same applies to ACL as well as SISU.

So SISU are the lesser of 2 evils? That's as much as I can get from what you're saying, unless I'm mistaken.

 

[Dude]

But the sad fact is Torch that this is a mess of the club's own making. You know the story very well so I won't repeat it-thinking more on the present, even Fisher himself has declared ACL's rent offer to be satisfactory; it is the revenues he is haggling over to satisfy FFP. He has also muted the possibility of building a new ground (total nonsense), but if the funding for that could be found, then surely it could also be found to acquire the Higgs' 50% shareholding and thus make the club a part of ACL?

And here lies a point; why did they never buy that 50% when pastures were greener. Personally, I don't believe they could afford to therefore, for the same reason, a new stadium is but an empty threat.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

1) putting aside the ACL v SISU debate for a second, isn't everyone just sick of this who shit? I can't remember the last time we could just talk about football without having to debate finance

2) If SISU can't succeed in bullying the council into more concessions, they should just leave - nobody will benefit by them staying, not even themselves.

Problem is CJ that this club has been blighted by off field issues for so long that they've become intertwined. Take BHA as a good example-spent years trawling to Gillingham for home games, being stuck at an athletics track, and having an eternity taken to build a new ground. With those issues now settled the club is well and truly booming and is in promotion contention-hopefully we can emulate that and not have to wait too long to do so.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I somehow doubt their reputation, in terms of his particular project, can sink any further to be honest.

Good point well made.

 

[coundonskyblue]

And here lies a point; why did they never buy that 50% when pastures were greener. Personally, I don't believe they could afford to therefore, for the same reason, a new stadium is but an empty threat.

Unfortunately, just to make it look like a serious threat, I can see this bunch of clowns researching the possibility of moving to a new ground. That in itself will cost the club thousands.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

They can sell at any time-all of the club's debts are in effect in the form of loans from SISU investors. If they are happy for any amount of that to be written off, then the club's debt goes down accordingly. No investor I imagine would be willing to give them 100% of the money back, which I think SISU realistically have to accept, but if they were to offer say even just a quarter of it (£12m), this is still a lot better than what they'd get from liquidating the club. It's all in their hands really.

Million dollar (?) question seems to be how much/little sisu would accept as an offer now. I've seen lots of different figures bandies about but I have no idea what would be acceptable to sisu. Also, someone else pointed out on another thread that given the current dispute could you imagine what it would be like to negotiate a buyout with sisu...

 

[Jack Griffin]

And here lies a point; why did they never buy that 50% when pastures were greener. Personally, I don't believe they could afford to therefore, for the same reason, a new stadium is but an empty threat.

It strikes me as very odd too.. why they didn't move to buy it as soon as Ranson was gone & the punt of getting into the prem. had failed. I don't think raising money was the issue.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Whilst the moral debate is very interesting; I think we can all agree, in the business sense, the stance of 'non-payment' is not looking an intelligent tactic as things stand?

Or is anyone out there suggesting it is?

No, you are mistaken, I'm just saying they have both acted immorally, and I was generally having a dig at capitalism to be frank with you. To set the record straight however, SISU are the more immoral of the two, by a large margin, but as I say, morality doesn't exist in the boardroom.