James Smith
Well-Known Member
Maybe a teacher, which could explain the late start?
School starts at half 10?
Maybe a teacher, which could explain the late start?
We're they making more of a loss because CCFC weren't paying their agreed rent?ok so two things here..
1) your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " is it ?? you still havent answered that
2) all of the above is irreverent to your original quote.. which is what i was replying to. and is the above even correct? .. the council payer wouldn't have lost out if ACL went bust.. because ACL was making a loss anyway- thats why it had ot be bailed out - and if it was making a loss then the council wouldn't have been getting any profit to pass onto the tax payer would they
but anyway back to your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " will they .. are they charging more interest to ACL, than they could have been getting by leaving that 14 million in a high interest account ?
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.
Taylor's 17.
ok so two things here..
1) your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " is it ?? you still havent answered that
2) all of the above is irreverent to your original quote.. which is what i was replying to. and is the above even correct? .. the tax payer wouldn't have lost out if ACL went bust.. because ACL was making a loss anyway- thats why it had ot be bailed out - and if it was making a loss then the council wouldn't have been getting any profit to pass onto the tax payer would they
but anyway back to your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " will they .. are they charging more interest to ACL, than they could have been getting by leaving that 14 million in a high interest account ?
6th form college?
And central government get their money from? The taxpayer! They do not have any money either it's ours...all of it! We just blindly trust the government to spend it sensibly (whatever that means)
Makes me laugh to see arguments in favour of SISU..ie- PWKH tying SISU out balloons to Fisher's car....CCC "Bailing out" ACL. etc,etc.
In my eyes, SISU, "Moving things from one company to another" to disguise who, what, where and when owns CCFC.
Putting CCFC ltd, into Admin, and saying CCFC Holdings, are now in charge!
I'm not a financial expert on monetary subjects but........Isn't this action as close to being "Phoenixing" as could possibly be?...If so, this move is totally illegal. Allegedly.
Love to hear from the "Expert" OSB58 on this one.:thinking about:And Yes!!! I'm talking about SISU not CCC/ACL
6th form college?
I'm not disputing that?
Simply not true. They did not 'buy the land' and they didn't 'fund the build' either. The council's contribution (from its own coffers) was minimal, but they did help bridge the funding shortfall by securing a loan from the bank which was paid by ACL (up until recently at least). They did help facilitate the building of the arena, but to say they 'funded' it is nonsense.
I wonder what the average age is on here?
imp:
I wonder what the average age is on here?
imp:
Honestly, the situation is so murky it's hard to tell what money's been going where. I saw it as the council trying to safeguard a Coventry interest by keeping it in the hands of...well, Coventrians.
Who did pay for it? Who owns the land now?
The club put in two million out of £115 milion. The council put in £10m to start with and had to guarantee around £30m at the start point, as I recall. They're currently on the hook for around £24m. The Council may not have funded the entire build, but they enabled it and without them it wouldn't have happened. To believe anything else is to ignore the facts, bluntly.
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 think you'll find that the cash was refunded by the council taking out an equivalent loan themselves. If you read the statement you just quoted it says 'initially'. You need to know the whole story and not just pull out individual quotes.
The cash only initially came from council cash balances due to a need of urgency to secure ACL.
The effect is as I stated. The cash flow was slightly different but has had no effect on council spending budget other than an increase in income.
Okay lets say that the reason that the first garage roof business was going bust (and I'm not suggesting ACL was) because the second garage roof business hadn't been paying their rent on the premises that the first owned and leased to them. Isn't that a bit more like what's happening here?Remember, this is European Commission Competition policy.
State Aid is where a public sector organisation provided financial support of any kind to any organisation engaged in economic activity. The reason CCFC Holdings can challenge is because anyone can challenge as it distorts the market.
Lets say you ran a company manufacturing garage roof's, your company is worth about £500k and you have a competitor who looks pretty much the same. The council 'buy out' a loan that your competitor has for £2m and was going to default on, gives them reduced rates, and in turn makes them viable again.
You'd be pissed off wouldn't you? The council would have just distorted the market not only by busting state aid rules (Exceptions do apply but aren't worth going into here), but also by paying above market rate.
Anyone can challenge, and clearly CCFC Holding have an interest in challenging this rule.
As i said in another thread, i'm sure i read that the council gave state aid rules as a reason why they couldn't give the club any of the money from the tesco land sale back in the day. Wasn't it in that Paul Fletcher interview? So this is slightly ironic.
Where did you get the bit from with regards to council guaranteeing £30 million and still being on the hook for £24 million as that is not what I read on the council report on the build. Grateful if you could point me in the direction of this info
I think you'll find that the cash was refunded by the council taking out an equivalent loan themselves. If you read the statement you just quoted it says 'initially'. You need to know the whole story and not just pull out individual quotes.
The cash only initially came from council cash balances due to a need of urgency to secure ACL.
The effect is as I stated. The cash flow was slightly different but has had no effect on council spending budget other than an increase in income.
Nail, Head etc.Exactly this. The football club - whichever entity it sits within - should be pleased that their landlord has an enhanced level of stability; which is what the council involvement provided.
To be so upset as to file for action at great costs, would indicate that they are actually unhappy at this greater level of stability. Which would be nonsensical unless one acknowledges that is was always SISU's intention to distress ACL into a position whereby they could secure the Ricoh on the cheap.
As such, by default, SISU's true intentions in this whole saga are revealed at last. All the arguing about rentals, F&B's, car parking rights et al have been a waste of time. As they're nothing to do with the real intent here. Shameless
What an interesting post and I have to agree, how can SISU negotiate with people they treat with contempt.It has been ACL's and CCC's policy to edge SISU out, now, they don't, shouldn't, have that power.
Shown when PWKH and another ACL person ties a 'SISU Out' balloon on Fisher's car, it was unprofessional, it compromised their impartiality, but most of all, how can they negotiate with people they treat with contempt? ACL have held back a deal just as much, if not more, than SISU.
One things for sure, regardless of how you see this situation (and both sides are accountable for this mess, both sides)....
It's an absolute shambles and will continue to drag this club through uncertainty for a long time to come. It's hardly the best way to encourage the kids, the fans of tomorrow to go and watch our beloved Sky Blues on Saturday afternoon when the fan base is divided, when we're not sure when we're going to play, whilst we're unsure of what our owner looks like and whilst both sides of the situation are behaving like f**king ridiculous idiots.
I gave up playing football at a decent level about 2 years ago and have taken up cycling. Watching this sorry saga from afar is denting my enthusiasm for the beautiful game even further. I just want an end to this and be able to share good news on Cov City FC with my mates and be proud.
Dejected,
WM
Politely mate, you'll need to do your own research on this cos I've a bit to do today - but go back to the original council meeting where they voted whether or not to get involved on the Ricoh build. That's where I remember the £30 million from, happy to be corrected if you can find different.
The £24m is easy, look at the council report. £10m in there direct from CCC, and now the £14m loan they've taken on from Yorkshire Bank.
Regardless of precise numbers the point remains, and it is surely beyond doubt; if the Council and Higgs don't step in, the Ricoh doesn't get built.
I wonder how much money the Council could make by simply giving up on the stadium completely and selling for redevelopment as housing/retail. There's more than one possible end game to all of this, perhaps. I'm not advocating that, by the way...
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!
i agree it is so murky.. but with the council & SISU involved in it.. should we be suprised...
quite honestly i can see the the discussions now
Council financial adviser - " ACL are about to go bust because we are not making amy money.. which means SISU will most likey be able to get their hands on the stadium "
Council Leader - " hmm we cant have that, i know lets buy out the mortgage .. quick go grab that 14 million we have lying around doing nothing..and we'll show them.. hahaha we win SISU"
Council financial adviser - " yes but its not really making any money & its a lot of money"
Council Leader - " yes but we'll be beat SISU.. come on lets do it"
two months later
Council financial adviser - " ive just realised we are only charging ACL 1.5% interest on that loan.. and we were actually getting 2% interest on that 14 million in the bank account we had it it "
Council Leader - " shit, better keep that one under wraps.. just cut some spending somewhere else.. and remember, we beat SISU! "
have i got too much time on my hands today.. i guess! do i think the people involved at the council could be this petty ( when we hear about the tying of balloons to cars ) yes certainly.. do i trust the council to spend public money wisely.. not really
It doesn't seem to matter how many times the facts are put out there about that, it just seems wilfully ignored.Hmmm.
Rent reduction of £900k.
Outstanding arrears reduced from £1.3m to £600k.
Escrow reduced to £200k.
ACL's share of F+B.
ACL to cross invoice total F+B revenue.
CCFC to regain 50% car parking revenue.
Yeah, sure looks like they were trying to force the club out Taylor. The rent boycott commenced at the same time as the ARVO charge-April 2012, when Thorn had secured relegation. Quite bluntly the intention was always to distress ACL and take control of it on the sly or, if that failed, use the charge to stop them getting anything.
SISU have never had any intention whatsoever of co-operating.
Where did you get the bit from with regards to council guaranteeing £30 million and still being on the hook for £24 million as that is not what I read on the council report on the build. Grateful if you could point me in the direction of this info
It doesn't seem to matter how many times the facts are put out there about that, it just seems wilfully ignored.
Didn't they agree to cross invoice if that is the term all the F&B income not just the 80% that Compass don't get so that CCFC had more money under FFP?Clearly ACL are money slaves to, else they would've compromised on smaller aspects like F&B, arrears. Works both ways.
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?