Council pays Sky Blues six-figure sum. ACL left to foot the bill (11 Viewers)

SimonGilbert · May 19, 2014

There appears to be some confusion. Hopefully this will clear it up.

Trying to keep it simple:

The stadium bowl will have business rates set for the whole year by central government.

That amount has to be paid in full by whoever operates that part of the business.

Previously it appears the football club paid the whole amount.

They challenged that and it was ruled they were only liable to pay for the days they used the stadium bowl.

The council collects business rates on behalf of central government. The council does not set them. It merely collects them.

Now that the football club has been refunded, the parts of the rates it paid still need to be collected.

The company responsible is whoever operated the stadium bowl during the period refunded.

ACL operates the stadium bowl, therefore they will receive a bill for the £399,000 refunded to the club.

Again, the council will collect this on behalf of central government.

The rates / tax doesn't disappear because the wrong company was paying it. It still needs to be paid.

I hope that helps to clarify some of the confusion!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nick · May 19, 2014

Makes sense.

lewys33 · May 19, 2014

Wouldn't this money have been owed to ccfc Ltd? Would be interesting to see where it actually went........

Ian1779 · May 19, 2014

CCFC said:
I think what he meant was ACL now owe money to the council and don't want to pay it.

Ricoh Arena operators ACL will now be liable to pay the shortfall to the council – but it is understood ACL will appeal.

So the club have their money - this is now between ACL and CCC. Have I read that right?

We've had so far...

Higgs vs SISU
SISU vs ACL/CCC/Higgs

Are we going to have ACL vs CCC??

You thought it was complicated now....

Grendel · May 19, 2014

Kind of equals out the rent strike - going back to 2005 - more than that - oh and lets not say ACL are Independant of the council or bigfatron will protest otherwise.

martcov · May 19, 2014

CCFC said:
Because it is money that they should have paid in the first place but was wrongly charged to the club instead?

Strange. Not explained in the article and not noticed by anyone for years.

Grendel · May 19, 2014

lewys33 said:
Wouldn't this money have been owed to ccfc Ltd? Would be interesting to see where it actually went........

Why would it! Where has the bloated rent since 2005 gone? Can't see the citizens if Coventry basking in luxury / can you?

Kingokings204 · May 19, 2014

Thanks Simon and yes it does now become clearer.

ACL have to get the 399k bill that has been refunded to ccfc as they own the stadium bowl in the days ccfc are not there.

ACL will pay ccc on behalf of the central government who collect it for them.

I don't understand why this mistake happened. Why wasn't this clear from the start as it seems pretty simple to me.

SimonGilbert · May 19, 2014

Ian1779 said:
So the club have their money - this is now between ACL and CCC. Have I read that right?

We've had so far...

Higgs vs SISU
SISU vs ACL/CCC/Higgs

Are we going to have ACL vs CCC??

You thought it was complicated now....

It would be ACL v the valuation office / central government.

As I've said, the council simply collects the rates on behalf of central government.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fernandopartridge · May 19, 2014

ACL were ripping off the club then. Charging them for parts of the stadium they didn't use. Tut tut tut tut.

wingy · May 19, 2014

What Is the LAGBI money the CCC recieves from Central government as a result of the entire development ,They may collect on behalf of Government ,but I've read they recieve Circa £1M+ from central gov as a result ,maybe they should absorb this and help ACL or the Club.

bigfatronssba · May 19, 2014

Grendel said:
Why would it! Where has the bloated rent since 2005 gone? Can't see the citizens if Coventry basking in luxury / can you?

ACL used it to pay off its debts. A novel concept to some it would seem...

Ian1779 · May 19, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
It would be ACL v the valuation office / central government.

As I've said, the council simply collects the rates on behalf of central government.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for clarification. So could an appeal by ACL in theory run concurrently with a claim from the owners to have the overcharge backdated further?

SimonGilbert · May 19, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Thanks for clarification. So could an appeal by ACL in theory run concurrently with a claim from the owners to have the overcharge backdated further?

I hope not. My head hurts enough already.

But possibly, yes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bigfatronssba · May 19, 2014

Could this be what has held up the liquidation of CCFC Ltd and Holdings?

Presumably the rebate can only be paid to them?

wingy · May 19, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
Could this be what has held up the liquidation of CCFC Ltd and Holdings?

Presumably the rebate can only be paid to them?

Been paid In January ,unless you mean the claim going back to 2005.

martcov · May 19, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
Could this be what has held up the liquidation of CCFC Ltd and Holdings?

Presumably the rebate can only be paid to them?

According to Godiva, Otium bought the assets of CCFC Ltd. so get the rebate. I thought the delay was caused by a dispute over Appleton's fee,

James Smith · May 19, 2014

CCFC said:
Because it is money that they should have paid in the first place but was wrongly charged to the club instead?

Yes as I said earlier as our club wasn't renting the bowl pitch etc. full time ACL are quite rightly responsible for it when we weren't. That makes them liable for the rates for the rest of the time - simple really.

sky blue john · May 19, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
ACL were ripping off the club then. Charging them for parts of the stadium they didn't use. Tut tut tut tut.

Simple really Simon has explained it three times !!
How many more times do you need it explaining to understand ???
Anyway the over charge equates to 130k per year. Pretty miniscule in the scheme of the clubs debt !!!

Kingokings204 · May 19, 2014

martcov said:
According to Godiva, Otium bought the assets of CCFC Ltd. so get the rebate. I thought the delay was caused by a dispute over Appleton's fee,

Now this would cheer me up if sisu threatened Appleton with court action etc. Hilarious.

ML: sorry Mr Paul Appleton didn't do a good job with the liquidation in his "dingy" office and we never wanted to get loss making ccfc back.

James Smith · May 19, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
ACL were ripping off the club then. Charging them for parts of the stadium they didn't use. Tut tut tut tut.

That makes the ACL claim of our being the anchor tenant when we only had the place for 30 days a year, a bit thin.

lewys33 · May 19, 2014

Grendel said:
Why would it! Where has the bloated rent since 2005 gone? Can't see the citizens if Coventry basking in luxury / can you?

Excuse me? So you would be happy if the money goes in to the back pocket of otium? If it goes to the Ltd liquidation process then fair enough.

No I can't see the citizens of Coventry basking in luxury. Quite a ridiculous question to be honest.

It is a shame that you are more bothered about what the council did with the money than what has happened to it now the club has had it paid back. We are on a ccfc forum after all.

sky blue john · May 19, 2014

I will help out the council haters with a thought !
If Acl have appealed is this just a delaying tactic from having to pay up straight away ?
Are they struggling cash flow wise ?
Or there maybe just another simple explanation !

James Smith · May 19, 2014

Ian1779 said:
So the club have their money - this is now between ACL and CCC. Have I read that right?

We've had so far...

Higgs vs SISU
SISU vs ACL/CCC/Higgs

Are we going to have ACL vs CCC??

You thought it was complicated now....

ACL could in probability just use the money Otium owe them to pay back the council- so the money could just go round in a giant circle. :facepalm:

Limey · May 19, 2014

Excuse me for being a bit thick on this one, but...

Although CCC do not set the business rates, as half of ACL and also collectors, would they have known all along that the rate was too high?? Or is this an easy genuine mistake to make?

No need for the ML 'dingy' comment btw. Playing the poor old SISU card again me thinks. Pathetic.

SISU out/ACL out

lewys33 · May 19, 2014

I don't see what grounds ACL will appeal on........ They are getting just as bad as some other fuckwits who like to take everything to court.

James Smith · May 19, 2014

No future with SISU said:
The council sent the rebate to the owners of the club as they had overpaid on the rates, which means they had paid the council not ACL. So ACL do not owe money to the owners of CCFC, it is CCFC who owe money to ACL and are not very quick to pay it. News for you when they were at the ricoh, the CCFC accounts department were told to never pay on time and keep them waiting as it annoyed ACL and the Higgs.

I hope you can back that serious allegation up with some evidence.

martcov · May 19, 2014

lewys33 said:
I don't see what grounds ACL will appeal on........ They are getting just as bad as some other fuckwits who like to take everything to court.

Probably that they couldn't rent the pitch out during the football season and therefore it was de facto CCFC's stadium bowl for 9 months a year.

lewys33 · May 19, 2014

martcov said:
Probably that they couldn't rent the pitch out during the football season and therefore it was de facto CCFC's stadium bowl for 9 months a year.

That's bullshit.

Bennets Afro · May 19, 2014

martcov said:
Probably that they couldn't rent the pitch out during the football season and therefore it was de facto CCFC's stadium bowl for 9 months a year.

Didn't the club have to pay extra for using the bowl outside of match days?? i.e training and unveiling new managers

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 19, 2014

These may have been explained but a few questions

1. Why was there a confusion over who should have been charged, it says the club were being charged as if they were using the pitch all year round. Well it is pretty obvious they haven't been so why has this only been picked upon now, surely this should have been recognised much sooner? Is there any fault by either side which led to the confusion? Are we to believe that both ACL and CCFC were unaware then for several years that they were being undercharged and overcharged?

2. What are ACL's grounds for appeal, do they believe the football club should have paid this money and not them, if so why?

3. How was the mistake found? Did someone from the club pick up on it and challenge it or was it found some other way?

limoncello · May 19, 2014

To be fair, the offices I saw at the Ricoh were pretty poky.

lapsed_skyblue · May 19, 2014

I would suggest that the overall rates bill is not in dispute just which proportion of the rates is payable by who was supposed to be the "anchor tenant" of the stadium.
It would have appeared more logical for ACL to pay the entire bill and re-charge CCFC. This appears not to have been the case as otherwise why should CCFC get a rebate directly. All parties must have assumed from the outset that CCFC were liable for the entire bill, hence the direct charge.
Perhaps ACL are arguing that it isn't their fault that this assumption was made and they should not therefore lose out from it. After all had they known this outcome they would have perhaps charged CCFC a higher rent to cover the rates that they are now being asked to make up. (Yes, I know that the rent was already "exorbitant").

lewys33 · May 19, 2014

limoncello said:
To be fair, the offices I saw at the Ricoh were pretty poky.

Deffo should build a new stadium with big offices. 1 with a fishtank floor. Bitches love those!

fernandopartridge · May 19, 2014

sky blue john said:
Simple really Simon has explained it three times !!
How many more times do you need it explaining to understand ???
Anyway the over charge equates to 130k per year. Pretty miniscule in the scheme of the clubs debt !!!

Yes. The RV was based on 365 day use. ACL didn't apportion it between them and the club they just passed it all on.

Council pays Sky Blues six-figure sum. ACL left to foot the bill (11 Viewers)

Telegraph Tea Boy

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

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

limoncello

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency