Every club has to pay match day costs FFS !! Do you think the police, stewarding, insurance, ground maintenance, Utility bills etc are free to football stadiums.
Knowl on gmk reckons it was rent free but had to pay match day costs and no access to match day revenue streams
I haven't said it was one sided, I have just said that not all facts are correct (unless there are things we don't know). I am not after any blood?
Really surprised that Weber Shandwick haven't been shouting this from the rooftops to be honest, would make Sisu look very silly if true.
For once would welcome some statements from both ACL and Sisu on this.
I would also like to point out I am thrilled that Les Reid thinks that the JR decison was right and he believes the council should have to answer as to why they bailed ACL out. I am also thrilled that he has questioned how they are going to pay for this. Ironic.
Every club has to pay match day costs FFS !! Do you think the police, stewarding, insurance, ground maintenance, Utility bills etc are free to football stadiums.
I see the sisu rent boys are out again.
Have you purchased the clockwork angels dvd yet?
Fantastic.
I'm not sure if our Les is Pro SISU or anti-council. Does he hate lefties or adores capitalists?
Every club has to pay match day costs FFS !! Do you think the police, stewarding, insurance, ground maintenance, Utility bills etc are free to football stadiums.
That's just about all Les Reid is good for - tweeting and following up on other people's scoops.
would love to see how Fisher, Labovitch, Seppala etc explain that away.............. and how staying at Sixfields makes clear sense for CCFC in those circumstances
Also interested to know how the FL see things following that ............
An interesting follow up by David Conn that reiterates his claim about the rent free offer:
"Thanks for the kind words Houch87. However, on your list of points, where you say ACL never offered a rent-free deal; they have within the last few weeks, an offer made and communicated via the Football League which was trying to see if a deal could be done. Sisu rejected that offer, to return the club to the Ricoh Arena rent-free."
Really surprised that Weber Shandwick haven't been shouting this from the rooftops to be honest, would make Sisu look very silly if true.
For once would welcome some statements from both ACL and Sisu on this.
Interesting - but were there no conditions?
Like maybe - minimum 10 year lease.
Or - Withdraw the JR.
Or both.
If an offer is to good to be true ...
Fucking hell, CCFC and Rush, there's a sense of decency in there after all!
more anti-council I think. Political journalist? Says everything.
Ive been into them since 88 fucking ace band!!
The previous £400,000 offer according to the SB trust included the matchday charges - so it seems the same offer sold a different way.
Is the DVD worth getting?
Interesting - but were there no conditions?
Like maybe - minimum 10 year lease.
Or - Withdraw the JR.
Or both.
If an offer is to good to be true ...
Questions - is giving the golden share to Otium a New Co situation in the Football League Insolvency policy?. What is different to say the Rangers situation in Scotland ? (to be clear I have no desire to see CCFC relegated 3 divisions)
Otium is a brand new company in that it has never traded until now, irrespective of who owns the shares in Otium it is a seperate legal entity, it now owns assets that were sitting with the football club in CCFC Ltd and CCFC H Ltd. So does that indicate a "new Co" situation?
Why do I ask? well FL Insolvency policy requires a number of things for a New Co.
- detailed financial information including opening balance sheet
- monthly financial reports
- cashflow info for 12 months
- full details of any financial arrangements with any group members
- a minimum of £500k issued share capital (for L1 teams)
- cost of acquiring "Old Co" assets to be paid in cash or by interest free loans not repayable for at least 12 mths
- all football debts from "Old Co" (CCFC Ltd & CCFCH Ltd) transferred to New Co and paid
- that the "New Co" has security of tenure for a minimum of 10 years
- any player sale/purchase/loan has prior written consent from the FL for 3 seasons
- plus other regulations either written in the insovency policy or thought up at the discretion of the Board
So is the Otium situation a New Co and if so have they complied with the details of the Insolvency Policy
It could be viewed as a continuation of the Old business but please explain how
However if it is the New Co situation have the FL complied with their insolvency policy
oh and guess what the Insolvency Policy states
" this document does not and cannot cover every eventuality and the Board reserve the right to review and amend the procedures for each individual case" Are the above terms or proceedures?
If they are terms or conditions not procedures then the policy states the Board may impose further conditions to the ones stated it doesnt actually say it can reduce those terms
The 10 years is totally irrelevant in this situation.
The 10 years is totally irrelevant in this situation.
You've just questioned OSB - of go into hiding there will be a fatwa on your head tonight.
Why?
Having let the club rent a ground outside of Coventry for 3-5 years, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to have the same deal agreed within Coventry...
10 years totally irrelevant, it'd only be relevant if the club had a ground lined up for the next 10 years anyway. If they're building a new one in the right place, then renting AN Other ground in the city that bears the club's name is hardly going to be rejected by the football league, so a short term temporary agreement can be continued elsewhere.
But in all seriousness the 10 year thing is part of their rules, however they wouldnt reject a 5 year return to the ricoh, just as they didnt reject a 5 year relocation to Northampton.
I guess so - that I suppose is why he won the uk columnist of the year award 2013
The rule would be waived as would the FPP rules.
It is a rule, though, so I assume the likes of bigfatron would oppose this as its a breach of rules and unfair.
The rule would be waived as would the FPP rules.
It is a rule, though, so I assume the likes of bigfatron would oppose this as its a breach of rules and unfair.
You cant have double heads on every coin you toss G?
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?