CET: Robinson liable for 250k of Ricoh rent (1 Viewer)

skyblu3sk

Well-Known Member
SECRET COUNCIL REPORT REVEALS ROBINSON TO BE A PERSONAL GUARANTOR FOR SKY BLUES' RENT ... AND HE COULD BE LIABLE FOR £¼m BILL " I wrote off £20million in the football club, so I would hope ACL would kindly overlook £250,000 now...

COVENTRY MP and former Sky Blues chairman Geoffrey Robinson could stand to lose £250,000 if the club does not pay its Ricoh stadium rent debts.
The Telegraph has learned city councillors were informed in private that ACL could call on Mr Robinson and one other person to pay £250,000 each.

They were told before a meeting in which they approved a £14million deal to buy out the mortgage of stadium company Arena Coventry Limited with Yorkshire Bank, Councillors were informed that the multi-millionaire MP had previously agreed to personally guarantee rent being paid from the football club to ACL.

The Labour party grandee previously wrote off £20million of his own money when he left the club to allow Sisu to take over in 2007.

But Mr Robinson said the possible £250,000 bill had nothing to do with his call for Ricoh owners Coventry City Council and the Alan Edward Higgs Charity to write off some of the debt, and give at least half the stadium back to the football club.

We first reported his criticisms in November, which he renewed after the council agreed the bail-out on Tuesday. The council paid £14million from its coffers to Yorkshire Bank on Tuesday, which will be replaced later with £14million of borrowing by the authority.
Mr Robinson said taxpayers were being forced to invest in an `unprofitable business separation' be tween the stadium and club.

A leaked council officers' report proposing the deal to councillors on Tuesday states: “No action has been taken yet by ACL to enforce these guarantees and the extent to which these could be realised to alleviate some of the arrears is uncertain.“ It adds: “The CCFC rent is currently criticial to ACL's viability. However, if ACL enforce payment of arrears and rent in full now, this is likely to result in the liquidation of CCFC.“

The deal means ACL will now pay back a restructured mortgage to the council in lower payments over a longer period at lower interest rates * alleviating ACL's dependency on rent from Sky Blues.

Sky Blues owner Sisu has refused to pay rent since last April. Both sides have said they are now willing to negotiate again, after an earlier ACL offer to cut rent to £400,000 a year.

But Coventry North West MP Mr Robinson said ACL's last returned accounts showed a £470,000 profit in 2010/11, when the £1.2million rent was paid.

He said ACL could potentially make a small profit after the council deal, but the loss-making football club would continue to struggle without the benefit of stadium revenues.

He said: “A council and a charity are not people to be running a stadium.

“They should get out of the way for a commercial operator to take over to develop its commercial activities and the land around it.

“I wrote off £20million in the football club, so I would hope ACL would kindly overlook £250,000 now.

“My lawyers told me I had severed all obligations.

“They want to concentrate on sorting ACL out. “They've not met any of their targets. They would be making a loss without the football club.

“Taxpayers are investing in an unviable business unless they can get the club back on its feet. Sisu made terrible mistakes too but they have written off £40million and have brought in new management. Without the club, ACL doesn't have a future.
There should be a new start.“

Jacky Isaac, interim chief executive of ACL, said: “It is our current understanding, based on legal advice, that Geoffrey Robinson is still liable for his personal guarantee on the rent.

“The ACL Board has not yet decided whether it will call in this personal guarantee, although it is important to make clear that the board is required to act in a way that is in the best interests of the company.''
 

coundonskyblue

New Member
The hypocrisy of the man staggers belief. He is the one who pushed for this deal in the first place!

Is he now admitting that when majority owner of ccfc he didn't act in the clubs best interest?
 

Sky Blues

Active Member
Are these contradictory statements?

He said ACL could potentially make a small profit after the council deal, but the loss-making football club would continue to struggle without the benefit of stadium revenues.

And

“They want to concentrate on sorting ACL out. “They've not met any of their targets. They would be making a loss without the football club."
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Is that because he doesn't agree with your point of view?

Pleased he's not blind to the whole ACL propaganda of not needing the football club.

The hypocrisy of the man staggers belief. He is the one who pushed for this deal in the first place!

Is he now admitting that when majority owner of ccfc he didn't act in the clubs best interest?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The hypocrisy of the man staggers belief. He is the one who pushed for this deal in the first place!

Is he now admitting that when majority owner of ccfc he didn't act in the clubs best interest?

Why because he dares to question your beloved ACL?
 

Evans1883

New Member
This is what you will mostly see on this thread "so what if he gave up 20mill of his own money.he has a legal obligation to pay the 250k because I love ACL"..how many ppl here have ACL Tattoos on their backs
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
<p>

Who asked for the current deal to be set up?

You really love them don't you. If the deal hadn't been agreed we could have gone under. Perhaps you should focus on that rather than your obvious bias against anyone associated with the club.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Can we get something straight ......... Mr Robinson did not write off his money in some grand philanthropic gesture to save the club he had no choice in it. The club was about to crash with massive debts and no assets - he would have lost the lot. Had SISU not struck the deal they did then he lost the money anyway - all of it.

Robinson brokered a deal whereby if the club got in the premiership then he stood with others to gain £6m. Trouble is that had to be done by 2013. It cant happen. That liability for SISU to pay Robinson was firstly part of the debts taken over in 2008 and secondly the reason why 6m of the consolidated goodwill was written off in the 2011 accounts. Would seem CCFC didnt live up to targets either in respect of Robinson

The terms of the lease have never been changed so the original clauses and guarantees stand. Cant see any legal reason why ACL should let him off the guarantee. Of course had the club gone bump in 2008 that would have meant a new CCFC company and the lease broken - that did not happen. Robinson and his lawyers should have got the guarantee cancelled as part of his severance - clearly he didnt. Not to mention the debts were with CCFC not ACL so why would ACL have to feel grateful ?

Someone please tell me the sound financial reasons why ACL etc should gift all or part of the stadium to CCFC. Also please identify the successful track record of those involved in the club that would make it succeed where apparently ACL hasnt.

Lets at least have the facts out there. And no this isnt me taking sides it is me saying lets get the facts
 
Last edited:

coundonskyblue

New Member
<p>
You really love them don't you. If the deal hadn't been agreed we could have gone under. Perhaps you should focus on that rather than your obvious bias against anyone associated with the club.

So your saying acl prevented the club from going under?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Seems attitudes were a little different when the Council "gifted" ACL a six month rent free period. Seems to only work one way with the Council.

Someone please tell me the sound financial reasons why ACL etc should gift all or part of the stadium to CCFC. Also please identify the successful track record of those involved in the club that would make it succeed where apparently ACL hasnt.

Lets at least have the facts out there. And no this isnt me taking sides it is me saying lets get the facts
 

SkyBlueScottie

Well-Known Member
Can we get something straight ......... Mr Robinson did not write off his money in some grand philanthropic gesture to save the club he had no choice in it. The club was about to crash with massive debts and no assets - he would have lost the lot. Had SISU not struck the deal they did then he lost the money anyway - all of it.

Robinson brokered a deal whereby if the club got in the premiership then he stood with others to gain £6m. Trouble is that had to be done by 2013. It cant happen. That liability for SISU to pay Robinson was firstly part of the debts taken over in 2008 and secondly the reason why 6m of the consolidated goodwill was written off in the 2011 accounts. Would seem CCFC didnt live up to targets either in respect of Robinson

The terms of the lease have never been changed so the original clauses and guarantees stand. Cant see any legal reason why ACL should let him off the guarantee. Of course had the club gone bump in 2008 that would have meant a new CCFC company and the lease broken - that did not happen. Robinson and his lawyers should have got the guarantee cancelled as part of his severance - clearly he didnt. Not to mention the debts were with CCFC not ACL so why would ACL have to feel grateful ?

Someone please tell me the sound financial reasons why ACL etc should gift all or part of the stadium to CCFC. Also please identify the successful track record of those involved in the club that would make it succeed where apparently ACL hasnt.

Lets at least have the facts out there. And no this isnt me taking sides it is me saying lets get the facts

OSB, I am also pretty sure that the agreement for the the club to purchase the Highs stake for a set amount was transferred into his name in exchange for a loan, which he then sold back to the club when Sisu came in. I would love to know how much he actually invested in the club and how much of those investments / loans he has made a loss on. Details Geoffrey we need details, because at the minute nobody has an ounce of pity.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
You really love them don't you. If the deal hadn't been agreed we could have gone under. Perhaps you should focus on that rather than your obvious bias against anyone associated with the club.

Well is it clearly now time to screw the asses of those who stopped us from going under.
 

blueflint

Well-Known Member
You really love them don't you. If the deal hadn't been agreed we could have gone under. Perhaps you should focus on that rather than your obvious bias against anyone associated with the club.

if the deal hadn't been agreed we may of been much better off by now.for so called buisiness people they dont seem to be able to negotiate with ACL then or now sisu out
 

Black6Osprey

New Member
Well is it clearly now time to screw the asses of those who stopped us from going under.

Yes but did they save us out of the goodness of their hearts or because it was a good move for the council financially in the long term?

This debate will run and run but it always seems the people throwing money down the bottomless pit trying to run the club get all the shit while the people trying to profit in the long term get treated the exact opposite.
 
A leaked council officers' report proposing the deal to councillors on Tuesday states: “No action has been taken yet by ACL to enforce these guarantees and the extent to which these could be realised to alleviate some of the arrears is uncertain.“ It adds: “The CCFC rent is currently criticial to ACL's viability. However, if ACL enforce payment of arrears and rent in full now, this is likely to result in the liquidation of CCFC.“

First sentence above relates to GR, obviously his guarantees are considered worthless by officers.
Secondly this surely confirms that ACL have been told by SISU that liquidation is likely in these circumstances, this would not be in a report to members without good evidence. The threat has now been made then?
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
A leaked council officers' report proposing the deal to councillors on Tuesday states: “No action has been taken yet by ACL to enforce these guarantees and the extent to which these could be realised to alleviate some of the arrears is uncertain.“ It adds: “The CCFC rent is currently criticial to ACL's viability. However, if ACL enforce payment of arrears and rent in full now, this is likely to result in the liquidation of CCFC.“

First sentence above relates to GR, obviously his guarantees are considered worthless by officers.
Secondly this surely confirms that ACL have been told by SISU that liquidation is likely in these circumstances, this would not be in a report to members without good evidence. The threat has now been made then?

The councils own report says that CCFC rent is critical to ACL's viability, unlike what some people seem to think.

Possibly the council haven't looked deeply enough into dressage based events to replace the club?

An oversight on their part which fortunately some forum members on here are able to correct.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
There is no reason for ACL to show 'kindness' to GR. He entered into an agreement, he should stick to it.

I'm loving the way SISU effectively shafted GR by backing out of thier commitment to pay GR a £6M bonus if they got to the premiership before 2013.

Who is the 'other person' liable for £250K?

He said ACL could potentially make a small profit after the council deal, but the loss-making football club would continue to struggle without the benefit of stadium revenues.
Agreed.

He said: “A council and a charity are not people to be running a stadium. “They should get out of the way for a commercial operator to take over to develop its commercial activities and the land around it.
Bollocks, ACL are a commercial operation.

“I wrote off £20million in the football club, so I would hope ACL would kindly overlook £250,000 now.
Why, you are not a charity case. Any properly run business should call in its debts.

“My lawyers told me I had severed all obligations.
Lawyers want a fee to defend your claim, LOL

“They want to concentrate on sorting ACL out. “They've not met any of their targets. They would be making a loss without the football club
What targets are these?

Two faced slimeball.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Please post that on the Midlands today thread, so those who reckon ACL will have no problem surviving without CCFC will see it's not that clear cut.

A leaked council officers' report proposing the deal to councillors on Tuesday states: “No action has been taken yet by ACL to enforce these guarantees and the extent to which these could be realised to alleviate some of the arrears is uncertain.“ It adds: “The CCFC rent is currently criticial to ACL's viability. However, if ACL enforce payment of arrears and rent in full now, this is likely to result in the liquidation of CCFC.“

First sentence above relates to GR, obviously his guarantees are considered worthless by officers.
Secondly this surely confirms that ACL have been told by SISU that liquidation is likely in these circumstances, this would not be in a report to members without good evidence. The threat has now been made then?
 

Danceswithhorses

Well-Known Member
Yeah I remember when his money was used to bring in players like Keane and Hadji we were all complaining that we should be promoting from the youth team.

Two faced? Yeah there are plenty on this site.

The alleged rumour at the time was that GR paid for Keane, and when he was sold, he received the proceeds....ok ccfc had the use of the player, but Keane's subsequent transfer was driven by his desire to make a profit, not what was good for ccfc.
Not sure if that was true.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
LOL! Was Keane's purchase good for CCFC or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

ok ccfc had the use of the player, but Keane's subsequent transfer was driven by his desire to make a profit, not what was good for ccfc.
.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
The alleged rumour at the time was that GR paid for Keane, and when he was sold, he received the proceeds....ok ccfc had the use of the player, but Keane's subsequent transfer was driven by his desire to make a profit, not what was good for ccfc.
Not sure if that was true.

Think it was some sort of consortium of businessmen who paid for a player then pocketed any profits when sold,rather than the club.

Something that Ranson was very much involved with at Leeds and other clubs.
 

Black6Osprey

New Member
The alleged rumour at the time was that GR paid for Keane, and when he was sold, he received the proceeds....ok ccfc had the use of the player, but Keane's subsequent transfer was driven by his desire to make a profit, not what was good for ccfc.
Not sure if that was true.

Im not saying Robinson did or didnt get his money back. Merely without it we wouldnt have signed some very good players. Players that a lot of people consider to be some of the best we had during our time in the Premier. No one was complaining when he was spending it but now he is a two faced scum bag or some such. People need to try and develop a more reasoned stance rather than just spouting such one sided rubbish and I'm not aiming that at you by the way.
 

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
As I read the article in the CT the council officers statement was given to Councillors before the vote on the financial restructuring so before the lower loan payments CCFC rent was critical now the lower payments are "alleviating ACL’s dependency on rent from Sky Blues"

So in summary before restructuring CCFC rent was critical now it isn't.
 

Sky Blues

Active Member
Precisely Jan.
Not only is ACL's financial position now significantly improved so that the ccfc rent no longer carries such significant weight in the overall scheme of things, but in the future ACL could plan to be viable without the ccfc rent.
As I have said in other posts, no-one is saying that ACL or the council want to continue without the club, of course they don't, but the new position is that now ACL are viable without the ccfc rent.



Remember what ACL's position is:
  • When CCFC were actually paying the contractually agreed rent of £1.2M + matchday costs + tax etc. etc., this still only amounted to 17% of the ACL turnover. Not profit, turnover.
  • CCFC have actually paid nothing for a long, long time, so ACL have been getting nothing from ccfc except small amounts to cover match day costs, so currently ccfc represents ZERO% of ACL's turnover, which makes you wonder what they have to lose if SISU do take the club off to incester or where ever.
  • SISU/CCFC say they are only willing to pay the so-called "league average" rent of £170k. This is an incredible 86% less than the contractually agreed rent (yes, 86% less - makes you realise just what a reduction that would be).
  • IF SISU/CCGC are only willing to pay 172k, then as things stood before the refinancing, instead of CCFC representing 17% of the ACL turnover, a rent of just 172k would represent 17% less 86% = 2.4% of ACL turnover.
  • So, ladies and gentlemen, if SISU/CCFC get what they want - a rent of just 170k,then CCFC will represent just 2.4% of ACL's turnover. On top of that, ACL's new financial structure is probably going to save them somewhere between 600k to 800k interest cost in the future (guess, so please don't pick on this to argue about). So just how important is CCFC to ACL in the new scheme of things given these conditions? The answer in financial terms is that CCFC is not important to ACL at all as far as future viability is concerned, and SISU had better realise this and get around the negotiating table poste haste.
Again, I am in no way suggesting that ACL want to dump the football club. They have made it quite clear that they want the club to be part of the future and they have bent over backwards to try and make it happen in the face of a lot of nastiness from SISU and CCFC.
But maybe now, when you realise that ACL is financially much more stable, is now saving a large chunk of interest expense every year and that if the rent is only 170k then CCFC represent only a measly 2.4% of ACL's turnover,then you must see that the football club is not at all necessary to the viablity of ACL and the Ricoh.

So all those arguing ACL can't survive without CCFC should, to be consistent, also be arguing that CCFC should be paying far more than League 1 average rent then? Because 2.4% seems pretty small number to be making such a big different to ACL's viability.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
So all those arguing ACL can't survive without CCFC should, to be consistent, also be arguing that CCFC should be paying far more than League 1 average rent then? Because 2.4% seems pretty small number to be making such a big different to ACL's viability.

They should be paying a lot more than that and they should also be negotiating a deal where the rent increases in a higher division. Failure to do that in the first place was a big mistake for the club, blame mad mike for that!
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
I'm not making a statement, I'm not telling anyone what to do, I am merely anylysing - given the information available to me at this time - what the actual position is between CCHC and ACL, and that analysis is showing me that CCFC, at a rent of 170k, is at just 2.4% of gross turnover not important at all financially to ACL and that should SISU demand a rent of just 170k, ACL would be in a position to tell SISU to take a running jump.
Make of it what you will.

Or ... to flip the coin ... at £170k plus match day expenses ACL should be able to survive and fullfil it's original purpose: Making sure the club has a home.
 

Sky Blues

Active Member
I'm not making a statement, I'm not telling anyone what to do, I am merely anylysing - given the information available to me at this time - what the actual position is between CCHC and ACL, and that analysis is showing me that CCFC, at a rent of 170k, is at just 2.4% of gross turnover not important at all financially to ACL and that should SISU demand a rent of just 170k, ACL would be in a position to tell SISU to take a running jump.
Make of it what you will.

Swiss, I wasn't being critical of you (if that was in response to me). I appreciate reasoned analysis.
 

dadgad

Well-Known Member
If true - and GR has to cough up a wedge - well, it COULD NOT happen to a nicer, more honourable, trustworthy, and admirable chap.
Pleased for him, I'd be.....chuffed to me bollocks.:D:guitar2:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top