Butts Park Arena - put up or shut up ! (9 Viewers)

Grendel · Mar 30, 2017

Incredible - a negative post about the councill and look who pops up going on about Bryan Richardson again.

Not of course acknowledging that the original arena company set up with the CCFC board on it would have owned acl. CCFC Ltd, quite correctly, would always have been under a holding umbrella.

letsallsingtogether · Mar 30, 2017

Nick said:
Hence I said "making out". Let's not pretend people don't pile on the "poor children" act

Same as when people mention tax payers money and it was said about "every man woman and child would be losing £x".

Stop answering a question with a question.
That is a Fisher trait.

Astute · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
Incredible - a negative post about the councill and look who pops up going on about Bryan Richardson again.

Not of course acknowledging that the original arena company set up with the CCFC board on it would have owned acl. CCFC Ltd, quite correctly, would always have been under a holding umbrella.

More like negative posts about SISU and you come out with bullshit.

Do you still say that Richardson is innocent of all charges like you usually say?

Grendel · Mar 30, 2017

Astute said:
More like negative posts about SISU and you come out with bullshit.

Do you still say that Richardson is innocent of all charges like you usually say?

How on Earth was my post anything to do with sisu?

Richardson didn't sell the rights to Highfield road this has been explained to you many many times.

Astute · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
How on Earth was my post anything to do with sisu?

Richardson didn't sell the rights to Highfield road this has been explained to you many many times.

And I suppose Richardson didn't sell HR. I suppose he didn't do a rent back deal costing over 1m a year. I suppose he bought the land for the Ricoh like he tries to say he did. I suppose he didn't pay wages that we couldn't afford that ended up putting us 60m in debt up to when he got kicked off the board.

And yes Grendel he put us in so much debt we didn't have a pot to piss in. So how was we supposed to buy HR back?

And as that is your reply each time will you finally admit that he shouldn't have sold HR when we didn't have a replacement or the money to get one? And we didn't have the money to buy HR back either as the money received went on paying players wages for a few months. He put our wage bill to over 1m a month.

Grendel · Mar 30, 2017

Astute said:
And I suppose Richardson didn't sell HR. I suppose he didn't do a rent back deal costing over 1m a year. I suppose he bought the land for the Ricoh like he tries to say he did. I suppose he didn't pay wages that we couldn't afford that ended up putting us 60m in debt up to when he got kicked off the board.

And yes Grendel he put us in so much debt we didn't have a pot to piss in. So how was we supposed to buy HR back?

And as that is your reply each time will you finally admit that he shouldn't have sold HR when we didn't have a replacement or the money to get one? And we didn't have the money to buy HR back either as the money received went on paying players wages for a few months. He put our wage bill to over 1m a month.

We could easily have bought back HR - he could have wound the club up and the debts disappeared overnight.

The £60m debt is nonsense. A large percentage of that wasn't external creditors was it? The co-op bank debt was far far less.

The stadium got built because mginnity and the council wanted it. Can't think why.

Bums on seats for one of them I'm sure.

Not that this has anything to with the present discussion on this thread.

Astute · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
We could easily have bought back HR - he could have wound the club up and the debts disappeared overnight.

The £60m debt is nonsense. A large percentage of that wasn't external creditors was it? The co-op bank debt was far far less.

The stadium got built because mginnity and the council wanted it. Can't think why.

Bums on seats for one of them I'm sure.

Not that this has anything to with the present discussion on this thread.

Where would the money have come from to buy it back? McGinnity sold what he could including players to reduce the debt to 30m. And yes Richardson did run up a 60m debt.

What has it got to do with being homeless? He sold our home and it was his dream for a retractable roof on our new stadium. We had no money. Just a massive amount of debt. Delusional or what.

And you say we should have bought back HR but you can't accept that Richardson shouldn't have sold it to start with :banghead:

Grendel · Mar 30, 2017

Astute said:
Where would the money have come from to buy it back? McGinnity sold what he could including players to reduce the debt to 30m. And yes Richardson did run up a 60m debt.

What has it got to do with being homeless? He sold our home and it was his dream for a retractable roof on our new stadium. We had no money. Just a massive amount of debt. Delusional or what.

And you say we should have bought back HR but you can't accept that Richardson shouldn't have sold it to start with :banghead:

Mcginnity didn't need to sell anything to reduce debt. It was a shameful act instigated by the key puppeteer.

The "debt" was not mainly with an external creditor but members of the board. You have to therefore question the motivation behind the strategy which involved selling everything and anything including F and B rights and crucially the rights to repurchase Highfield Road.

You are a mass of contradiction.

You produce a report that shows the club Apparantjy paid only £2 million to the Arena project (something you claimed to know as fact reiestedky)

You say the rent we paid st Highfield road was the same as the Ricoh.

If these are the case then we could very easily of repurchased the ground back. It may have required council assistance but guess what? Councils do help clubs especially when they encounter problematic owners.

You never ever address the one argument I use. The club could have legitimately gone into administration wiped all debts and had no penalty embargo.

Then it could have done one of two things. Continue with the Ricoh project - or far more likely - remain at the existing ground.

The council and mcginnity were hell bent on persuing the former strategy at whatever cost to the long term prospects of the football club.

Sometimes you have to emerge out of your myopia and see a fuller clearer image.

Captain Dart · Mar 30, 2017

Richardson over borrowed using other peoples money and when the board found out the truth they were horrified and tried to claw most of it back.
They still couldn't save the situation and even after selling everything off they owed a substantial amount and had been bailed out by the Higgs (something Higgs should not have done IMHO). The former directors paid for their hobby of owning a football club, like others have before (Jordan, Sugar, etc. the list is long).
They sold to SISU who paid the tax bill and promised to pay the former owners £6M if they got the the premier league (no chance, SISU did not have the funds or motivation).
SISU have steadied the finances, but got the club relegated in the process and continue to sell assets. If they had done this with a degree of honesty and been reasonable at keeping their word they might have kept the goodwill of their potential partners, instead they've made enemies of everyone else involved and burned all their bridges.

All of this is history and can't be changed. The club is still up shit creek without a paddle.

Don't worry about the past, it is a distraction, worry about the future, where is the Academy training in 3 months time, where is the club playing in 15 months time?

We still have bad owners, till we get an owner who works for the good of the club nothing much will change.

Moff · Mar 30, 2017

dongonzalos said:
To be fair Moff I think you were suggesting they are not involved in helping disadvantaged children, via current information on their website. I happened to show that they in fact are tby current information in their website.
However I agree stopping any business from putting financial pressure on a charity is a good thing. Whether the charity is helping deprived children or whatever good cause they serve.

Nope, I was suggesting they do more than just that, and the ripping off disadvantaged children line is a misnomer.
I think we both agree to disagree and agree.

Moff · Mar 30, 2017

dongonzalos said:
Perhaps you know about Browns but not a lot of the other good work they do?
Or maybe they just function like a brewery now, however I very much doubt they are lying about the other many projects on their website

I used Browns to point out they do other project's as well as ones for kids. It was tongue in cheek.

dongonzalos · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
The offer was for acl yes. The council refused as they had the audacity to ask for a long lease and some land (car park c I assume) to be included in the deal.

Still proud?

Different people and a different time to the people who stopped the charity getting squeezed. So yes regarding that matter at that moment they did me proud.
However there are plenty of things they do that makes me feel the opposite.

dongonzalos · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
The offer was for acl yes. The council refused as they had the audacity to ask for a long lease and some land (car park c I assume) to be included in the deal.

Still proud?

Also it's a bit strange that the charity themselves are quoted as saying that Sharipo wanted the Ricoh (I assume ACL) for nothing and that neither they or the council could afford to give it away. So Sharipo walked away. So that doesn't sound to me like the Council screwed over the charity regarding Sharipo.

Grendel · Mar 30, 2017

dongonzalos said:
Also it's a bit strange that the charity themselves are quoted as saying that Sharipo wanted the Ricoh (I assume ACL) for nothing and that neither they or the council could afford to give it away. So Sharipo walked away. So that doesn't sound to me like the Council screwed over the charity regarding Sharipo.

I'm not sure what you are droning on about. Ken Taylor and the council refused to consider offers for the stadium - remember they believed F and B rights alone were worth £24 million - the council themselves admitted the offer was a £26 million which required a lease extension and extra land.

I think you will find "nothing" meant £26 million as they believed at the time that just about paid for f and b rights so in their mind the offer was £2 million for the rest.

Makes you proud. Keep digging.

Remind me what's acl worth now if you believe the valuation?

Rusty Trombone · Mar 30, 2017

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of picking the bits of the Shapiro offer that suited a particular argument, so is anyone able to post a link, or give full details, of their offer?

I read something that suggested they wanted the club to pay all of its debts off first, if this is true then surely the deal was never going to happen.

Grendel · Mar 30, 2017

Rusty Trombone said:
I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of picking the bits of the Shapiro offer that suited a particular argument, so is anyone able to post a link, or give full details, of their offer?

I read something that suggested they wanted the club to pay all of its debts off first, if this is true then surely the deal was never going to happen.

Incredible how you only seem to post on these threads and demand links. Also you heard CCFC needed to pay its debts.

Out of interest so you have any links to prove Higgs had power of veto as well as the council? I cannot find this anywhere.

Anyway as I am sure you know, the paying off debts related to creditor related debts that were within the boardroom.

To suggest anyone will have full details is also absurd. We know they offered to buy the leasehold. We know the council refused purely as they had no interest in surrendering said leasehold.

Rusty Trombone · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
Incredible how you only seem to post on these threads and demand links. Also you heard CCFC needed to pay its debts.

Out of interest so you have any links to prove Higgs had power of veto as well as the council? I cannot find this anywhere.

Anyway as I am sure you know, the paying off debts related to creditor related debts that were within the boardroom.

To suggest anyone will have full details is also absurd. We know they offered to buy the leasehold. We know the council refused purely as they had no interest in surrendering said leasehold.

You really are a clown at times.

I've made no demands. I asked if anyone had more info on the offer, as it seems from what I've read on here, there must be more to it. Sorry if that has touched a nerve with you.

I haven't heard anything, a read an article that suggested the club's debts needed clearing, seems you read the same thing. You presumably also don't think that was likely.

Also apologies as the veto thing seems to have caused you sleepless nights, explains the grouchy mood I suppose.

I post on many threads, if there's any particular ones I've missed that you're eager to know my view on please let me know.

Astute · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
Incredible how you only seem to post on these threads and demand links. Also you heard CCFC needed to pay its debts.

Out of interest so you have any links to prove Higgs had power of veto as well as the council? I cannot find this anywhere.

Anyway as I am sure you know, the paying off debts related to creditor related debts that were within the boardroom.

To suggest anyone will have full details is also absurd. We know they offered to buy the leasehold. We know the council refused purely as they had no interest in surrendering said leasehold.

Says the person who demands proof but can never come out with any himself as all we normally get is twisted truth from him.

Astute · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
Mcginnity didn't need to sell anything to reduce debt. It was a shameful act instigated by the key puppeteer.

The "debt" was not mainly with an external creditor but members of the board. You have to therefore question the motivation behind the strategy which involved selling everything and anything including F and B rights and crucially the rights to repurchase Highfield Road.

You are a mass of contradiction.

You produce a report that shows the club Apparantjy paid only £2 million to the Arena project (something you claimed to know as fact reiestedky)

You say the rent we paid st Highfield road was the same as the Ricoh.

If these are the case then we could very easily of repurchased the ground back. It may have required council assistance but guess what? Councils do help clubs especially when they encounter problematic owners.

You never ever address the one argument I use. The club could have legitimately gone into administration wiped all debts and had no penalty embargo.

Then it could have done one of two things. Continue with the Ricoh project - or far more likely - remain at the existing ground.

The council and mcginnity were hell bent on persuing the former strategy at whatever cost to the long term prospects of the football club.

Sometimes you have to emerge out of your myopia and see a fuller clearer image.

Mass of contradiction?

So other than your made up facts what are they?

Your beloved Richardson fucked our club up. He was the highest paid chairman. How did he manage that?

Oh yes you will just come out with more bullshit facts to try and cover what happened or just ignore the thread. Well done yet again. What a hero.

dongonzalos · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
I'm not sure what you are droning on about. Ken Taylor and the council refused to consider offers for the stadium - remember they believed F and B rights alone were worth £24 million - the council themselves admitted the offer was a £26 million which required a lease extension and extra land.

I think you will find "nothing" meant £26 million as they believed at the time that just about paid for f and b rights so in their mind the offer was £2 million for the rest.

Makes you proud. Keep digging.

Remind me what's acl worth now if you believe the valuation?

I will just remind you instead that Higgs Charity said that Sharipo were trying to get the Ricoh for nothing so they couldn't accept that.
With the Higgs Charity themselves are saying that, it kind of blows the idea out of the window that the council back then screwed over Higgs.
Yes still proud of the council at that moment in time when they decided to bring a halt to the distressing of ACL and with it a charity which amongst other things helps deprived children.

Grendel · Mar 30, 2017

Astute said:
Says the person who demands proof but can never come out with any himself as all we normally get is twisted truth from him.

What on earth does that even mean? It's emotive irrelevant rhetoric.

Grendel · Mar 30, 2017

dongonzalos said:
I will just remind you instead that Higgs Charity said that Sharipo were trying to get the Ricoh for nothing so they could accept that.
With the Higgs Charity themselves saying that, it kind of blows the idea out of the window that the council back then screwed over Higgs.
Yes still proud of the council at that moment in time when they decided to bring a halt to the distressing of ACL and with it a charity which amongst other things helps deprived children.

Where do they actually say they tried to get it for nothing?

italiahorse · Mar 30, 2017

Grendel said:
Where do they actually say they tried to get it for nothing?

Your right ....... but only just.
Coventry City’s owners were willing to pay more than £2million for a stake in the Ricoh Arena - even though they thought it was worth nothing, a court heard today.
The startling offer was revealed today at the High Court in Birmingham by Laura Deering, adviser to Sisu boss Joy Seppala.
She said Sisu was prepared to offer £2m for the Alan Edward Higgs charity’s stake in Ricoh operating firm ACL, despite believing it was ‘‘worthless’’.

Grendel · Mar 30, 2017

italiahorse said:
Your right ....... but only just.
Coventry City’s owners were willing to pay more than £2million for a stake in the Ricoh Arena - even though they thought it was worth nothing, a court heard today.
The startling offer was revealed today at the High Court in Birmingham by Laura Deering, adviser to Sisu boss Joy Seppala.
She said Sisu was prepared to offer £2m for the Alan Edward Higgs charity’s stake in Ricoh operating firm ACL, despite believing it was ‘‘worthless’’.

We are talking about a bid made by another business in 2007 you clueless dimwit.

Astute · Mar 31, 2017

Grendel said:
What on earth does that even mean? It's emotive irrelevant rhetoric.

As you know it was about you. And you agree that you are irrelevant. First bit of truth from you for ages.

Astute · Mar 31, 2017

Grendel said:
We are talking about a bid made by another business in 2007 you clueless dimwit.

Show us the details if you want us to agree with you.

You come out with so much shite that I recheck my thoughts if you ever agree with them.

oldskyblue58 · Mar 31, 2017

so after all that do you think that Fisher/SISU have to put up or shut up about Butts Park Arena ?.......................

Astute · Mar 31, 2017

oldskyblue58 said:
so after all that do you think that Fisher/SISU have to put up or shut up about Butts Park Arena ?.......................

No. Because if you do you are a CCC lover and don't want what is best for CCFC

rupert_bear · Mar 31, 2017

Who honestly believes BPA is a possibility ?

Butts Park Arena - put up or shut up ! (9 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency