Confusion over 10pts deduction (1 Viewer)

[Spencer]

The debt continues to build (rent).

SISU had no intention of paying.

This is spot on!

SISU are hard nosed businessmen. They have seen a way not to pay the rent and scare the wits out of ACL that to try and force their hand would be a complete waste of further money.

Add to that the threat to move the main source of ACL income and they have moved the goalposts such that it is, potentially, ACL that have the financial problems.

If you admire hard nosed b'stards SISU are right up there!

 

---

[Sky Blue Kid]

CCFC pay the rent.
I believe they have been paying at 1.2m since they were in the prem at the rate agreed for the prem.
Even ACL seem to have acknowledged that they should accept less from a tenant whose income has been significantly reduced.
Arguably if 400k is appropriate for L1, 800k would be appropriate for the Championship. On that basis, in round terms we have overpaid significantly.
If we were to gain promotion this season laugh , and then again to the prem in the following season claping hands, we would have return to a situation that the current rent was agreed for.
Apart from the strict legal situation, is not the fact that ACL would have received the full rent over the period somewhat questionable?

imp:

CCFC were relegated in 2001. and were still at HR till the last game against Derby on 30th April 2005? How can CCFC be paying £1.2m rent when still at HR in 2005????(CCFC still owned HR)
Or am I missing something here?:facepalm:

 

[coundonskyblue]

CCFC were relegated in 2001. and were still at HR till the last game against Derby on 30th April 2005? How can CCFC be paying £1.2m rent when still at HR in 2005????(CCFC still owned HR)
Or am I missing something here?:facepalm:

CCFC sold HR to a building developer in the late 90's. I think its been posted on here they were paying 900k a year for HR.

 

[grego_gee]

CCFC were relegated in 2001. and were still at HR till the last game against Derby on 30th April 2005? How can CCFC be paying £1.2m rent when still at HR in 2005????(CCFC still owned HR)
Or am I missing something here?:facepalm:

Ooops! Sorry, I dropped one there!.....
I was trying to rationalise the original agreement of 1.2 m.
Whats the average rent for the Championship?...

imp:

 

[Jack Griffin]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/escrow

It is a condition of the present rental agreement that 1/2 a million is held in escrow. The money is by definition a payment between two parties held on condition by a third party. If you could see the account I think you would find it was not withdrawn in one chunk but progressively by the rent due over several months.
CCFC may eventually be required to re-establish the escrow, or under the administrator, it may be agreed as inapropriate in todays financial climate. Either way it is a payment from CCFC to ACL for rent, unless there is some clause to say it is a penalty payment of some kind. I have not seen the details of the agreement, but I think that would be very unusual, and it probably would not be called simply escrow if that were the case..

imp:

Just in case you did not realise the escrow was established with monies from a grant to build the stadium, CCFC never put a penny into that fund but they are liable to top it up.

However ACL have already said that because they are prepared to reduce the rent that the replenishment can be a lesser sum (either £200 or £300K, can't remember), but that is conditional upon CCFC accepting a new argeement.

As the rent hasn't been paid for 12months then the £1.3M excludes the escrow, so I believe another £500K is owed on top. I'm not saying all of that should be paid in the circumstances, but that is the sum legally due & presumably will be put before the court.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

CCFC sold HR to a building developer in the late 90's. I think its been posted on here they were paying 900k a year for HR.

• 16-09-2012 #18
  Sick Boy
  
  
  
  CCFC Manager
  
  Join DateSep 2008Posts1,436
  343 Like Received In 232 Posts
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Originally Posted by kdrinkell
  Highfield road was sold because we were moving into the Ricoh,the funds made from the sale are a mystery but the chairman at the time Bryan Richardson went to the high court to get a confidentiality clause put in so nobody will know who got what....I think thats the top and bottom of it isn't it ?
  A bit like you renting a house and selling the firker underneath the landlords nose.
  
  
  
  I bet SISU made him do it!!!!​
  
  
  
  
  Reply Reply With Quote Like
  
• 16-09-2012 #19
  Sutty
  
  
  
  CCFC Manager
  
  Join DateMar 2011Posts1,086
  288 Like Received In 177 Posts
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Why did you leave Highfield Road? (Loved the place) - Bryan Richardson, chairman at the time, decided we needed a stadium with a pitch that rolled away, that hovered six inches off the ground and held 48 billion people. We sold Highfield Rd.​
  
  
  
  

No reason to disbelieve you mate, but here are two posts that seem to back up what I said.....The thing is...who knows for definate

 

[grego_gee]

Just in case you did not realise the escrow was established with monies from a grant to build the stadium, CCFC never put a penny into that fund but they are liable to top it up.

Yes I did, but I think that is an asset that belonged to CCFC and would be returnable to them at the end of the rental agreement.

However ACL have already said that because they are prepared to reduce the rent that the replenishment can be a lesser sum (either £200 or £300K, can't remember), but that is conditional upon CCFC accepting a new argeement.
Thanks, I had not picked that up. (lets say escrow reduced to £250k and sumarise below).
As the rent hasn't been paid for 12months then the £1.3M excludes the escrow, so I believe another £500K is owed on top. I'm not saying all of that should be paid in the circumstances, but that is the sum legally due & presumably will be put before the court.
The rent is reported as £1.2 or £1,3m lets assume 1.2 below

If we just look at what ACL have received, it is (£300k +£500k = £800k),
What they legally owe for the rent strike 12 months by the original agreement is rent £1.2, plus unless agreed otherwise they would be expected to replenish the original escrow of £500k. (£1.2m +£500k -£800k paid =£900k still owed legally)
The almost agreed midpoint is rent £400k, Escrow 250k (£400k + £250k -£800k paid = £150k overpaid!)

Not sure what the court will conclude but I would expect, so long as SISU can show funds of at least £1m he will reject the case for administration.
.... and leave us with an ongoing rent dispute.

imp:

 

[Noggin]

The almost agreed midpoint is rent £400k, Escrow 250k (£400k + £250k -£800k paid = £150k overpaid!)

no it isn't, thats what they nearly agreed from now on, not since they stoped paying rent. They will owe 1.4 mill (or whatever it is) - the match day expences (assuming they were covered in the rent before) then from now on it would be the 400k per year/ there hasn't been any agreement or even much comprimise on what they should have paid up to now. Sisu wanting to pay none of it, ACL wanted all or nearly all of it though acl said they could pay it back slowly.

How long is it since we stopped paying rent anyway? also we dont know what acl have gotten back by freezing the bank accounts.