Tell that to the childrens' service that suffered the cuts.
Pretty amazing on a thread where its pretty much been proved that SISU wanting to destroy ACL over the past year was not conspiracy theory, you and Grendels only posts are critasing the council. Are you not able to look at anything from an unbiased place? Personally I'm far from convinced that the council are the good guys but one thing is a cold hard fact SISU are the bad guys.
Your post is silly, lending money and bringing in a profit allows the council to provide more services not less and using cuts in childrens services is emotive rubbish.
You got it.. pure $$$ chasers, devoid of ethics. Gimmee gimee gimeee..
Looks can be deceiving.
Was the rent still double the average? Yes. The rent agreed was 400k, but SISU said they wanted 150k, compromise was made.
With FFP kicking I, do CCFC need every penny they can scrap, F&B, should be 100%, we make the event, it's our fans going to CCFC games, no 3rd or 4th party should get a penny off us, the leeches, ironically, this is lining a 3rd party's pocket, which we never hear about on here!
Rent arrears should either have been wiped, at best, or worst, at the new set rate.
When SISU wanted to negotiate, who said no? ACL, not SISU.
Cunning plan, don't see how it couldnt benefit the club, you get the scaremongers and conspiracy theorists, but nothing is fact. I haven't come out and said SISU haven't tried to destabilise ACL.
Can capitalism be moral? Not really.
Is it because they actually own the stadium by any chance? unlike the club who have never owned a brick of it.
Then why has it taken them until now to challenge it?
Tell that to the childrens' service that suffered the cuts.
I don't know, would've got their solicitors on the case, researched it all then decide, possibly could've been done earlier but these things take preparation.
Yes I think it can. Just like everything else....too muc of a good thing...brings its virtues into question. Money is the root of all evil - and the love of it is the route to all evil. Too many people love money & simply cannot get enough of it.
Or, they're just doing it as a stalling manoeuvre.
Distorting the market is against UK and EU law, that's what SISU will argue, if ACL and CCC have, stay tuned folks.
It would be silly to say that the Council are not rendered for criticism..
The place you have to look at this is from the fence..
I think SISU's time is running out and they're looking at all options that might help in a stalling tactic..
Clearly ACL are money slaves to, else they would've compromised on smaller aspects like F&B, arrears. Works both ways.
:facepalm:
Bit late for that though wasn't it? We were actually about to be homeless.
The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer.
I don't know, would've got their solicitors on the case, researched it all then decide, possibly could've been done earlier but these things take preparation.
What market is being distorted?
what is your point? sorry I am too thick to understand your super point.
SISU are arguing that the council have removed their "right" to purchase a distressed company on the cheap, by this intervention.
SISU don't actually need to state, they are the cause of the distress in the first place.
Scum, but I would be pleased to see the Arena and Club under one umbrella eventually. Just not the present regime
will we ?? what rate of interest were the council getting on that 14 million where it was originally then ? and what rate of interest are they now charging to ACL ?
they are saying that they will charge less interest to ACL than the bank was for the existing mortgage.. so ACL will be better off for sure, but if the council are charging ACL less interest than the bank was.. then could the tax payer have been getting a better rate of interest on that 14 million if it had just been left in a high intrest bank account ?
i dont know & you dont know .. people seem pretty quick to believe that the council did this for the benefit of the tax payer.. yet all that has been stated, is that this deal has been done to save ACL going into admin.. not to make money for the tax payer
jim again.. you are either not reading the statement.. or just making stuff up to suit your argument .. what part of the following statement are you not grasping..
"council officers told the Telegraph the £14million had initially come from the council's “cash balances“ * money set aside for unspecified council spending."
so they DID use council tax payers money.. they did not do what you keep saying.. and they have not yet offset that debt anywhere else..
it came out of tax payers money.. and it is still that way now!
I'm not saying there has been, I don't know, because I don't know the result of the case yet, it may be found that they didn't distort the market, we'll wait and see.
The loan possibly prevents the club from buying the stadium from ACL, if it mobilised the funds, say the loan is worth 5m, then that further 9m can be used to back up it's investment but unjustly, given that the money was purely for the loan.
Off to school now, bye everybody.
Councils do not have any money. They have revenue from taxes (sometimes called other things) which are sometimes invested in things like car parks which they then charge use of to provide a return on investment. The only way in theory at least they share out profits amongst themselves is by using that return to fund fluffy self-interest projects like office refurbishments, or create new very highly paid positions for each other. But it is ALL taxpayer's money. The taxpayers vote people into power to try to have a say in how their collective money (an investment into the community) can be best spent.
I wonder how many would prefer their bins collected weekly rather than fortnightly with some of this money instead? That would mean more jobs too...& hey-presto!!! MORE TAX revenue!
I believe that the £14m came from the central government fund for local councils. I can't remember the name of it though.
you jumped into a debate we were having about WHERE the loan funding came from.. was it public council money or was it sourced by the council from an external loan..
we are not debating who owns the stadium.. or the reasons fro any loan!
The CCFC half interest in the arena was sold to the Higgs Trust Charity for £4m-£6m when CCFC themselves were "in distress", They expected to be able to buy it back later for £4m-£6m.
Now the Higgs trust tie SISU out balloons on the car of the CCFC chief exec.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/coventry-city-fc/coventry-city-fc-news/2012/05/17/ricoh-arena-deal-should-have-made-coventry-city-great-says-paul-fletcher-92746-30988406/3/
imp:
I believe that the £14m came from the central government fund for local councils. I can't remember the name of it though.
Two options here:
SISU are complaining that the council aided ACL by lowering the mortgage interest payments, which in turn allowed ACL to make an vastly improved rent offer to the club. This shows SISU to be idiotic in the extreme.
OR
SISU are complaining that the council (which did not use taxpayers money to fund ACL) helped to ensure that the company that it jointly owned could not be put in distress by SISU not paying contracted rent, and denied SISU the chance to pick up the Ricoh on the sly. This shows SISU to be scum.
So:
Stupid or Scum?
I don't know, would've got their solicitors on the case, researched it all then decide, possibly could've been done earlier but these things take preparation.
The council are doubtless making more from loaning ACL the money than they would have got from having it sitting in the bank.Not at all, it is planned at an unspecified future debt to get that loan from the Government(a loan by the way, don't know if interest charged or not though on Prudential Borrowing loans), but it has come out of local funds for now at least.
Whoever has the club, be it Sisu, Haskell, chancer from Brandon, still questions need to be asked regardless.
Well-the council has a 50% stake in ACL already. This interest was directly threatened by SISU's boycott and so the bank loan was commandeered to see off this threat. Had ACL busted like SISU intended, the council, and hence the taxpayer, would've lost out.
What they did means that the part council owned ACL can pay the mortgage plus interest sooner, whilst ensuring that the council also gets a profit off its original £14m loan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?