skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
who do you think overcharged who exactly?
Council pays Sky Blues six-figure sum. ACL left to foot the bill (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
who do you think overcharged who exactly?
I agree entirely. It would help if SISU could appoint a new figurehead who grabs the bull by the horns... Drop the JR, drop the jibes, announce a willingness to negotiate a way out of this mess. Makes a joint statement with the council that CCFC and CCC are open for business - together.
New sponsors sought, new business partners sought, regeneration of the area to be kick-started, offer made for the Higgs share etc..
Astute
Well-Known Member
I didn't say it was deserved stick CCC are getting. There are some just waiting for something to have a go at CCC. And although the facts show it wasn't their fault some see it as a reason to have a go even though it was nothing to do with CCC and they also paid the money back to them. And this stick has been given by some that try to say that they are unbiased.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Think? Being a bit generous are you?
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
we dont want ccfc to become councils bitch again though...............do we?
whislt i agree new sisu head would be good it would help if council could appoint a new figurehead who grabs the bull by the horns... admits to state aid, drop the jibes about never selling with an evil laugh, announce a willingness to negotiate a way out of this mess by giving up their greedy instincts. Makes a joint statement with SISU that CCFC and CCC are open for business - together.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
I hate Sisu for what they have done to our club during there tenure. CCC have played their part and in my eyes as an elected body are the lesser of two evils.
It's a shame that the Council haters haven't the bottle to admit it and explain their reasons. They would probably just prefer to hurl their customary insults !!
I hate Sisu for what they have done to our club during there tenure. CCC have played their part and in my eyes as an elected body are the lesser of two evils.
It's a shame that the Council haters haven't the bottle to admit it and explain their reasons. They would probably just prefer to hurl their customary insults !!
The council did not give illegal state aid as far as we know. Until now the JR looks like being thrown out as all Joy's evidence has been classed as irrelevant. For SISU to drop the JR would not only be a first step towards negotiations, but would also - possibly - save them a lot of money should the JR be thrown out. The council don't have to admit anything.
The jibes are coming solely from SISU. The council are under legal advice not to comment. The only recent comment was that the door remains open...
"Greedy instincts" are usually associated with the remit of a hedge fund - to make money - , as opposed to a council - to provide services.
But, I doubt if you are capable of understanding these complicated things....
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
why are you continuing to be rude? i agreed with your statement that sisu is to blame and should change their structure too. why do you take offence to me saying council should do the same?
What I meant, is that no-one questioned the valuation for a long period. The accountants may have had reason to ask why the rates were so high when the facility was only being used on certain days. They may have suggested an appeal. The accounts would of course have been legally correct, but I would have thought that the amount paid would have seemed high. Whoever looked at the accounts when TF came obviously questioned the amount. Sharper than the previous accountants?
I will stop being rude if you stop. No problem there.
hill83
Well-Known Member
You're not pathetic. Someone's got to do it.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Duffer. I'm fairly sure that the whole complex was one assessment which has now been split. Whilst it was one assessment ACL were passing bills on to the club to pay. Like osb says it could be a hangover from when CCFC had a stake in ACL but I think that's unlikely. For a start the 2005 list valmmuation date is April 2003 but that doesn't mean the valuation took place then. Especially as the stadium foundations were only being dug at the time.
duffer
Well-Known Member
No they weren't - clearly CCFC were paying the rates directly to CCC, ACL weren't passing on the bills.
If ACL were paying the rates, then the appeal would have been from ACL, and the rebate would have gone to them. But as we know, it didn't. You can't spin this as ACL ripping off CCFC, I'm sorry.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
ACL paid no rates then and felt there was nothing unusual about it. Fair enough.
duffer
Well-Known Member
ACL have been paying rates and may to have to pay some more now. No one's accusing CCFC of ripping them off over this though, are they?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
It's clear that the rates should have been paid by both ACL and CCFC. CCFC paid it all (including what ACL should have paid). So it might not be a case of ripping off, but CCFC were clearly owed money, which ACL is liable for.
It might not a big deal in terms of the dispute, buts it's a bill that ACL I'm sure could do without. And if CCFC were to appeal to have the rebate extended back further, it may be even more.
ACL are also appealing and we don't know their grounds for appeal. Maybe the whole ratable value was wrong and ACL will not have to pay so much. It doesn't look like a deliberate ploy by ACL, but they will now have to find money that they hadn't budgeted for. In terms of the Ricoh dispute, I don't think it has any relevance. It is more of a dispute about how the rates were set by a third party and who should have paid how much, it is not a direct blame game between SISU and ACL.
duffer
Well-Known Member
What's clear is that CCFC paid more rates than they should have, according to the VOA.
It isn't necessarily the case that ACL will have to pay those additional rates, because the article suggests that they'll appeal too. It certainly isn't the case that ACL ripped-off CCFC here either, as far as the evidence suggests. As for 2005, the VOA site seems to suggest that you can't appeal that far back, but who knows what SISU can achieve in court. Of course, if they can appeal this far back successfully then it follows that ACL could follow the same path too.
I sense that you're happy that ACL have a big bill to find, potentially. Fair enough. Personally, I'm neutral about it - businesses have to pay their dues, rates, taxes, rent etc. (or at least most seem to).
Obviously the £590k that Otium will have to pay ACL will take the sting out of it somewhat, assuming they get paid.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
It's not that I'm pleased at all, i have said from the start that I don't think ACL is financially viable without a football club. Going forward they are now paying 100% rates on the Ricoh without anyone to help them pay it which is going to eat into that profit further. For me just shows even more that the two parties need each other to survive long term.
As for the 590K - They'll get it - they have to and the law says they are entitled to it. One way of looking at it is that this is as much of a non-story as the one about it not yet being paid.
Depends on your perspective I suppose...
As for the 590K - They'll get it - they have to and the law says they are entitled to it. One way of looking at it is that this is as much of a non-story as the one about it not yet being paid.
Depends on your perspective I suppose...
blueflint
Well-Known Member
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I agree with this post. Both companies need eachother. I've said this all along. Ccfc need the Ricoh and the Ricoh needs ccfc. There has to be a deal or way forward that suits everyone. Just surely must be.
The problem is through certain people and lack of trust and a developed hatred things haven't got sorted but I can believe there isn't a deal to be done. The whole saga needs fresh faces and fresh ideas and opinions.
Ccfc is still a big club and has huge potential to be great again. It's just needs the direction and help it deserves for us all to win.
ACL will get there money back just like ccfc got theirs as it is law and I'm sure not even sisu want another points deduction.
Nick
Administrator
duffer
Well-Known Member
Hmm. With regards to the £590k there was also a legal contract to pay the rent of course, although as we've seen there are ways of avoiding paying what's legally due, depending on to what extremes you're prepared to go.
I'd accept that both businesses are probably better off together (as long as one side doesn't have to fold itself out of existence for the benefit of the other, as SISU/ML on occasion seem to imply ACL should), but I don't accept that ACL absolutely need CCFC to survive - there's no evidence for that one way or another yet.
The path forward clearly is honest negotiation - and I think Fisher's original roadmap isn't a bad basis on which to start. But that's not going to happen with the JR in play, I'd suspect. Things will perhaps move after Jun 10th.
With regard to ongoing rates & other costs to ACL for something little used, the pitch at the Ricoh, there's a possible and worrying solution to that. I hope this is all resolved before someone decides that there might be a better use of the space!
ACL are liable for the shortfall to the council who are collecting the whole rates for the government - whatever that sum may be after their appeal.
The government are liable for the money that CCFC overpaid via CCC and have paid it back via CCC.
So ACL are not directly liable to CCFC for any money they (CCFC) overpaid to the government. Indirectly though they get the government bill via CCC that was originally sent ( and then disputed ) to CCFC.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
basically everyone is liable in some form but ccfc in this case.
It would appear that CCFC are the lucky ones at having their rates reduced, but unfortunately they have probably left it too late to get it back-dated to the start. They think they may have a chance to get it back-dated, but there is normally a Limit to how far you can go back.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING!
sad times. not everyone here is a fan anymore, thats a fact now.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Sisu are not CCFC fact !!!!!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
all a bit of a mess isn't it. It could get even messier.
If ACL are appealing and get a reduction of the rateable value then that means the basis of the calculation for the refund to CCFC is going to be wrong again. CCFC could find themselves facing a demand to repay part of the refund they have just received.
Can ACL appeal the apportionment? It would be usual for tenant and landlord to work together in terms of this I would have thought because the outcome affects both. Given the circumstances at the Arena anyone prepared to bet that they have co operated?
If CCFC were successful in going back 8 years surely ACL would have the same grounds to do so? So is it all bad news for ACL? If they are successful in getting a rates reduction that mitigates the effect of the additional charge doesn't it? As ever nothing at CCFC or the Ricoh is clear cut and straight forward
Am glad CCFC got a rebate, would be even more pleased if it had been all applied to the squad since January, and even more pleased if they can all cut out the snide remarks, sit down negotiate and bring our team home
Just one thing after another
If ACL are appealing and get a reduction of the rateable value then that means the basis of the calculation for the refund to CCFC is going to be wrong again. CCFC could find themselves facing a demand to repay part of the refund they have just received.
Can ACL appeal the apportionment? It would be usual for tenant and landlord to work together in terms of this I would have thought because the outcome affects both. Given the circumstances at the Arena anyone prepared to bet that they have co operated?
If CCFC were successful in going back 8 years surely ACL would have the same grounds to do so? So is it all bad news for ACL? If they are successful in getting a rates reduction that mitigates the effect of the additional charge doesn't it? As ever nothing at CCFC or the Ricoh is clear cut and straight forward
Am glad CCFC got a rebate, would be even more pleased if it had been all applied to the squad since January, and even more pleased if they can all cut out the snide remarks, sit down negotiate and bring our team home
Just one thing after another
Last edited:
mrbluesky87
New Member
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by martcov
It would appear that CCFC are the lucky ones at having their rates reduced, but unfortunately they have probably left it too late to get it back-dated to the start. They think they may have a chance to get it back-dated, but there is normally a Limit to how far you can go back.HE DID NOT MENTION SISU ...FACT!
terrible fans council lovers are. terrible
covmark
Well-Known Member
Show us where he mentions SISU