Coventry City boss admits 'errors' after leak of confidential players' documents (6 Viewers)

So why do they have to OWN the Ricoh..would it not be better if the Council/ ACL simply said use it for free and have ALL football related revenues. SISU cannot then do anything other that run a football club in it. Their only way of success ie make money is to make that football club successful. Council still own the stadium ie asset. ACL and council simply then have to make enough money from other streams to make sure that ACL can service the 14million loan...simples.:facepalm: Council still have option to find somebody to join them in funding surrounding land development

Sub said:

and if you read the whole sentence it was a question ?


and if it was a choice of the two yes i would rather start again thats my opinion

Click to expand...

Yes it was, but to even consider that option is unbelievable!

Take a look at this and tell me you still feel the same!

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/fans-zone-soul-coventry-city-5841254

RoboCCFC90 said:

Take a look at this and tell me you still feel the same!

Click to expand...

It didn't exist in Ltd. when that was set up as a subsidiary to (Holdings) either...

Deleted member 5849 said:

It didn't exist in Ltd. when that was set up as a subsidiary to (Holdings) either...

Click to expand...

Eh?????????

RoboCCFC90 said:

Eh?????????

Click to expand...

What is the club?

Is it the subsidiary company?

Is it something trading under the name?

Is it the new flatpack sponsor-led stadium?

Or is it the name, the heritage, the tradition? Is it Tommy Hutchison, Dave Bennett... Harry Roberts?

Is the club the physical entity, be it a company, a stadium, or is it the memories?

RoboCCFC90 said:

No I agree it's not the best for anyone, however is it the best for the club and the supporters, not to have their own stadium which they sacrificed their former home for? To be paying an extortionate rent for 7 years?

There are arguements to and fro however one thing that is central in all this, is that the club needs a ground in Coventry, not Northampton if there is any chance under any situation it can be the Ricoh Arena then it has to be done.

Click to expand...

What about the other 330,000 residents of Coventry? Do they want a city asset gifted to a hedge fund? Speaking as a Coventry tax payer i don't want it to be given to sisu. A paultry 10k used to attend games there. Tell me why the Ricoh should be given away just because a deluded few of the 10k thinks the football club deserves special credit.

Deleted member 5849 said:

What is the club?

Is it the subsidiary company? No

Is it something trading under the name? No

Is it the new flatpack sponsor-led stadium? No

Or is it the name, the heritage, the tradition? Is it Tommy Hutchison, Dave Bennett... Harry Roberts? Yes

Is the club the physical entity, be it a company, a stadium, or is it the memories?

Click to expand...

It's the memories and the fans. There is no Fototball clubs without the Fans who support them.

valiant15 said:

What about the other 330,000 residents of Coventry? Do they want a city asset gifted to a hedge fund? Speaking as a Coventry tax payer i don't want it to be given to sisu. A paultry 10k used to attend games there. Tell me why the Ricoh should be given away just because a deluded few of the 10k thinks the football club deserves special credit.

Click to expand...

SERIOUSLY WHY do SISSU have to OWN the Ricoh..would it not be better if the Council/ ACL simply said use it for free and have ALL football related revenues. SISU cannot then do anything other that run a football club in it. Their only way of success ie make money is to make that football club successful. Council still own the stadium ie asset. ACL and council simply then have to make enough money from other streams to make sure that ACL can service the 14million loan...simples.:facepalm: Council still have option to find somebody to join them in funding surrounding land development

RoboCCFC90 said:

No I agree it's not the best for anyone, however is it the best for the club and the supporters, not to have their own stadium which they sacrificed their former home for? To be paying an extortionate rent for 7 years?

Click to expand...

Instead of paying rent, suppose that CCFC had been able to raise a loan to finish the stadium. How much would they have been paying in interest and capital repayment over the years?

valiant15 said:

What about the other 330,000 residents of Coventry? Do they want a city asset gifted to a hedge fund? Speaking as a Coventry tax payer i don't want it to be given to sisu. A paultry 10k used to attend games there. Tell me why the Ricoh should be given away just because a deluded few of the 10k thinks the football club deserves special credit.

Click to expand...

Maybe that's something you should take up with the Council..

I answer that with a question, Is it possible for the Council to continue to make a viable business out of the Arena without the Football Club? If so then there should be no reason to sell it to the Football Club, however there is obviously doubt to this as I have highlighted previously and a meeting will be arranged to discuss the Arena and it's way viability. If there isn't a way forward under Council ownership there is three options;

1. Sell the RA to CCFC (SISU)
2. Sell the ground to a seperate party, a Haskell or a Byng.
3. Leave it to rot.

hopesprings said:

SERIOUSLY WHY do SISSU have to OWN the Ricoh..would it not be better if the Council/ ACL simply said use it for free and have ALL football related revenues. SISU cannot then do anything other that run a football club in it. Their only way of success ie make money is to make that football club successful. Council still own the stadium ie asset. ACL and council simply then have to make enough money from other streams to make sure that ACL can service the 14million loan...simples.:facepalm: Council still have option to find somebody to join them in funding surrounding land development

Click to expand...

I agree that would be a good idea but we all know sisu wouldn't go for it. I can't think why.

RPHunt said:

Instead of paying rent, suppose that CCFC had been able to raise a loan to finish the stadium. How much would they have been paying in interest and capital repayment over the years?

Click to expand...

I see your point, however all the revenues would have been the clubs and with this in there back pocket it may have balanced that question.

RPHunt said:

Instead of paying rent, suppose that CCFC had been able to raise a loan to finish the stadium. How much would they have been paying in interest and capital repayment over the years?

Click to expand...

Or what if the council was to make the loan to the club at a low intersest rate? (No that might have created a presidence)

just for example £20m over 20 years at 4% is 1.45m per year

but what would they have needed to borrow......... CCC required a loan of 21m plus ERDF grant of £10m plus other

CCC had access to funds CCFC could not have accessed

4% is probably low considering the football club credit history

20 years may be could have got longer pay back period but again the credit history is against them

So was there really the option to do it?

The club threw away the option to do it.

That they were allowed to throw away Highfield Road while not doing it, with barely a murmur is criminal.

Karl87 said:

I've emailed this to the Football League (enquiries@football-league.co.uk) and FA (info@thefa.com) and CC'd in Paul Appleton and his PA (HelenC@drpartners.com and paula@drpartners.com).

I doubt I'll get a serious response, but you've got to try!

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to direct your attention to the information contained in an article in today's Coventry Evening Telegraph newspaper:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/coventry-city-fc-boss-tim-5839657

Documents received by the newspaper confirm that Coventry City's players contracts were registered with Coventry City Limited - the company which went into administration this summer - and not Coventry City Holdings.

Administrator Paul Appleton's judgement that (Sisu owned) Otium Entertainment Group were the best bidders to buy the assets of Coventry City Limited was based upon the information that the player's registrations were already owned by Coventry City Holdings.

Can you please explain how - in light of this information - this summer's administration process and Paul Appleton's choice of bidder was acceptable?

Kind regards,

Karl

Click to expand...

only Appleton and Seppala know..........

oldskyblue58 said:

just for example £20m over 20 years at 4% is 1.45m per year

but what would they have needed to borrow......... CCC required a loan of 21m plus ERDF grant of £10m plus other

CCC had access to funds CCFC could not have accessed

4% is probably low considering the football club credit history

20 years may be could have got longer pay back period but again the credit history is against them

So was there really the option to do it?

Click to expand...

The amount that would have had to be borrowed would certainly have been in excess of £30m and bank rate at that time was generally over 5% so if the club could have found finance at 7%, they would have been extremely lucky.

£30m over 20 years at 7% is £2.75m per year.

The deal agreed with the council doesn't look so bad if the alternative is considered although I am not claiming that this was wonderful.

PS - £2.75m per year is the sort of figure that SISU should be budgeting to pay for their new stadium.

RPHunt said:

The amount that would have had to be borrowed would certainly have been in excess of £30m and bank rate at that time was generally over 5% so if the club could have found finance at 7%, they would have been extremely lucky.

£30m over 20 years at 7% is £2.75m per year.

The deal agreed with the council doesn't look so bad if the alternative is considered although I am not claiming that this was wonderful.

PS - £2.75m per year is the sort of figure that SISU should be budgeting to pay for their new stadium.

Click to expand...

They also need to remember that they would need to sell a lot of car parking and pies to cover that. They would also be competing against the Ricoh for concerts and other entertainments, new ground? at best something like the butts, and I can see pink playing there, Lilly the pink that is. I doubt they are serious.

Tristram: Hello this is Tristram at Charcol Commercial Finance.
T Fisher: This is Tim Fisher, CEO of Coventry City. We would like to borrow £20m pounds over 20 years.
Tristram: What is the purpose of the loan?
T Fisher: To build a new football stadium in Coventry.
Tristram: Do you have any security, other than the new stadium?
T Fisher: Err, no.
Tristram: One moment, I will get you some quotes.
...
Tristram: The only company prepared to quote are Wonga.
T Fisher: Great.
Tristram: Your monthly repayments will be £6m.
T Fisher: Are you taking the piss?
Tristram: Well you started it.

RPHunt said:

Tristram: Hello this is Tristram at Charcol Commercial Finance.
T Fisher: This is Tim Fisher, CEO of Coventry City. We would like to borrow £20m pounds over 20 years.
Tristram: What is the purpose of the loan?
T Fisher: To build a new football stadium in Coventry.
Tristram: Do you have any security, other than the new stadium?
T Fisher: Err, no.
Tristram: One moment, I will get you some quotes.
...
Tristram: The only company prepared to quote are Wonga.
T Fisher: Great.
Tristram: Your monthly repayments will be £6m.
T Fisher: Are you taking the piss?
Tristram: Well you started it.

Click to expand...

Does bobby Davro write your scripts?

Astute said:

It is quite different though Paxman. OK try this one.

You have a business. It is called Paxmans Dildo's. Your premises are too big for you but good in every other way. They were built for you when you hit hard times. There was a deal you had made where you could have the leasehold cheap. Then have the whole building when you could afford it. It was built for you as your landlord knew how much pleasure local people got from your product

You are in it for the money and not pleasure though and want to get out of the dildo market. Your landlord won't sell it to you for peanuts. You stop paying the rent for 18 months. your landlord is unhappy but still don't kick you out. So you have another plan you had prepared.....

You had started up other sections of your company. Paxmans Black Dildo's, Paxmans Pink Dildo's and Paxmans Blue Dildo's. You transfer all the things that you want to keep into these groups. You then get someone you know to put Paxmans Dildo's into administration. You leave the unpaid rent, tax bill and contract for the dildo factory. You put a bid in from a new company called Optimum. You move everything miles away to another dildo factory and pay rent. Not a problem as they are not as good quality as yours. ....yet. You lose a lot of customers as you can't deliver on the days you used to. But you might get the property on the cheap.

Click to expand...

It's about a legal point not the why's and wherefores! Your analogy is not addressing the point I was making. In other words it's a matter of strict interpretation as laid out and not based on any presumptions as you make in your analogy.
If you pay paxman dildos £10 for a ribbed version - you undoubtedly would enjoy then the bank will not decline payment because it matches the account number that you have also supplied in your bacs transfer. The number made it official and legally acceptable, even though it should have been paxman and not paxman dildos...the number identified it as correct company.

Paxman II said:

It's about a legal point not the why's and wherefores! Your analogy is not addressing the point I was making. In other words it's a matter of strict interpretation as laid out and not based on any presumptions as you make in your analogy.
If you pay paxman dildos £10 for a ribbed version - you undoubtedly would enjoy then the bank will not decline payment because it matches the account number that you have also supplied in your bacs transfer. The number made it official and legally acceptable, even though it should have been paxman and not paxman dildos...the number identified it as correct company.

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying. You are on about bank account numbers. I am pointing out how legal....or illegal........ something is. Just having a bank account doesn't suddenly make something legal. Shifting things into a different section of your company then getting rid of your debts through a different section don't suddenly become legal.

The FL made sure that SISU paid their debts even though the CVA was rejected. Which is a shame as the taxman would have chased them. You can't have a section of your company to put your debts into and then wind up that part of the company when the other parts of your company are for exactly the same product in what is legally the same entity. If this was the case no company would ever pay tax.

Or is the next section of our club made up by SISU going to be called CCFC Debt Avoidance LTD?

RoboCCFC90 said:

Yes it was, but to even consider that option is unbelievable!

Take a look at this and tell me you still feel the same!

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/fans-zone-soul-coventry-city-5841254

Click to expand...

ive read that robbo and yes its the fans that make the club so at the moment the 300 paying fans at northampton are making the club ?? shame fisher and SISU dont give a shit about the rest of the fans or any of the fans its all about owning the stadium for nothing, they have proven time and time again they will do what they want to get what they want, thats why they should never own the stadium as it is not in the best intrest of CCFC, the fans.

the only intrest SISU have is for themselves and its fuck everybody else and if you can not see that...:thinking about: CCFC should be in coventry yes should CCFC own the ricoh and revenues yes, should a hedge fund with no morals or regards for its fans, FA, FL, companies it owes money to with legaly binding contracts, hell no never in a million years, they have taken our club away to further thier own gains and if you think any different then i am sorry you are wrong.(imho) i hope SISU hemorage money i really do will i go to sixfields never, would i be willling to take relgation, liquidation to get rid of ~SISU and start again? yes i would, do i want that to be the option ? no i do not,

i would like for SISU to sell to sombody to unite the stadium and club and run the club in a correct way and SISU have no intention of doing that and have proved it time and time again that they lie, do not submit books on time and twist things to their own advantages, recently fisher proven to be a complete lying fuckwit over the sale and transfer of players not being in LTD, but yet people still defend them. I seriously hope that SISU lose millions and a few of the directors go to prision for what appears to be a trail of cover ups and lies and maybe legal wrong doings.

A bank account is identified by its number.
Any number of bank accounts can have the same name, but the sort code and account number are unique to the account.

A company is identified by its name. They also have a registration number but not two companies are allowed to have the same name or names that are very similar.