Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You answered it
"Coventry City owners lead club to Northampton and towards the abyss" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MichaelCCFC
- Start date
You answered it
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I'd rather you answer the question instead of dodging it if I am honest.
Nick
Administrator
Yes, it said
"So out of that post what is not correct?"
In which a couple of people answered?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
It does tell it's own story.
That's because it doesn't seem to have anything to back it up or not.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Would if I knew it.
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
you said it was :
-one sided and could've been written by a sisu basher from here (SBT)
Unfortunately Nick I despair about so many totally inaccurate 'posts' but in fairness do any of us really know many of the facts?
Politics are still getting in the way of the football though and what Steven & his brilliant Staff & young players have so far achieved IMHO!
It's no good looking back, we've got to move forward and embrace whoever owns our Club ( as supporters we don't get to select who owns us FACT! ). Just take a long hard look at what's going on up and down the country Hull, Cardiff, Newcastle, Blackburn ALL are unhappy with aspects of what their owners are doing to those Clubs!
I look forward with relish to our next game at Sixfields against Crewe and would urge everyone 'slating' our owners and boycotting to think again and look at the bigger picture, as it's those not attending who are missing-out on the best football I've witnessed for more than 15 years!!!!!!!!!!
Remember two other parties are equally to blame for our present plight, maybe even more responsible??????????
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Why not?
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
NW your a sensible chap can you go back to my first post and give me a knowledgable answer?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
No they didn't,they answered the article from their perspectiv not the post from Ccfcway there is a difference. So again I ask out of that post what is not correct?
When are you installing a Thumbs down button/
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Lets be clear that CCFC were repaid all but 308k of their net investment in the Arena project. In being so paid they deposited not only the monies spent and shown as assets but also all the associated debts into the arena project. If this had not happened then we would not be having this conversation because the club would have been liquidated in all likelyhood. Considering the distressed state of CCFC at the time they did well not to lose far more than £308k on the deal that was done 19/12/03
CCFC H Ltd had the option to purchase the site of the stadium and never exercised that option (it lapsed before 31/05/02). CCFC at no time ever owned the site. The council acquired the title to the site after the CCFC option on it failed. CCFC didnt have the money to purchase it.
Having gained the title to the site the council sold part of it to Tesco. They could only do that because they had title to it. Therefore any profit or funds from the deal belonged legitimately to CCC. Those funds were then invested in the build, together with £10m of council money and various grants etc. put the initial CCC investment at over 70m (nearly 80m when you factor in the interest received that was involved and the contribution recieved from selling rights to the casino build)
Talk that the council paid £10m are wrong or that there should be some inclusion of CCFC's contribution, the most it could have been was 308k
Talk of 4m for the site frankly looks a little silly ..........
CCFC H Ltd had the option to purchase the site of the stadium and never exercised that option (it lapsed before 31/05/02). CCFC at no time ever owned the site. The council acquired the title to the site after the CCFC option on it failed. CCFC didnt have the money to purchase it.
Having gained the title to the site the council sold part of it to Tesco. They could only do that because they had title to it. Therefore any profit or funds from the deal belonged legitimately to CCC. Those funds were then invested in the build, together with £10m of council money and various grants etc. put the initial CCC investment at over 70m (nearly 80m when you factor in the interest received that was involved and the contribution recieved from selling rights to the casino build)
Talk that the council paid £10m are wrong or that there should be some inclusion of CCFC's contribution, the most it could have been was 308k
Talk of 4m for the site frankly looks a little silly ..........
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Which post are you talking about? I am confused
We are talking about things in the article.
A great article would be one that starts from the start of the whole arena situation, with past owners, agreements, building of the Ricoh and then SISU coming in, then us moving out.
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
The crowd will take it where it wants, i suspect - let's face it Sixfields is about as popular as leprosy
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Does that mean I have to trawl the same old arguments to get to it?
I'll repeat what I wrote elsewhere if you like
He's one of the better journalists around wrt such things, and would be fine indeed if he delved a little deeper...
Can start by trying to find out what all this need for the freehold schizzle's about, and what this rent free offer actually was and to who and when.
But he's certainly someone I'd want to pay an interest in us.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
" You know. You all know exactly who I am. Say my name"
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Gloves are coming off in the comments section under the article - Supporters Direct have posted the following
"Don't forget that SISU weren't interested until the finances started not to stack up after a period of pretty poor operation - when I presume that the gamble on top-flight football showed itself to be lost. When they 'woke up' to the issue - several years after they bought the club, last season - they just stopped paying the rent. Those are not the actions of anyone who was seeking a solution. Those are, as a judge said, the actions of someone trying to distress a company to get hold of the asset."
"Sorry @covsky but I couldn't disagree more with your comment about Les Reid at the Coventry Telegraph. He in fact spends far too much time levelling criticism at a democratically elected local council, whilst allowing the hedge fund a rather more easy time of it. A council that is attempting to prevent a hedge fund, led by a City of London regulator (Joy Seppala) with a track record of distressing assets from grabbing another asset on the cheap - which partly belongs to the City taxpayers remember - and in financially straightened times. They're right to do it, and most people would back their actions. Don't forget that just because they speak as the 'owners', that doesn't mean that they have the best interests that you or your local community, fans or others have. For a balanced view, read someone who is distanced enough from the issue to be able to grasp the facts in an unbiased, clear and authoritative way. Like Dave Conn perhaps?"
"Don't forget that SISU weren't interested until the finances started not to stack up after a period of pretty poor operation - when I presume that the gamble on top-flight football showed itself to be lost. When they 'woke up' to the issue - several years after they bought the club, last season - they just stopped paying the rent. Those are not the actions of anyone who was seeking a solution. Those are, as a judge said, the actions of someone trying to distress a company to get hold of the asset."
"Sorry @covsky but I couldn't disagree more with your comment about Les Reid at the Coventry Telegraph. He in fact spends far too much time levelling criticism at a democratically elected local council, whilst allowing the hedge fund a rather more easy time of it. A council that is attempting to prevent a hedge fund, led by a City of London regulator (Joy Seppala) with a track record of distressing assets from grabbing another asset on the cheap - which partly belongs to the City taxpayers remember - and in financially straightened times. They're right to do it, and most people would back their actions. Don't forget that just because they speak as the 'owners', that doesn't mean that they have the best interests that you or your local community, fans or others have. For a balanced view, read someone who is distanced enough from the issue to be able to grasp the facts in an unbiased, clear and authoritative way. Like Dave Conn perhaps?"
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Does that mean I have to trawl the same old arguments to get to it?
I'll repeat what I wrote elsewhere if you like
He's one of the better journalists around wrt such things, and would be fine indeed if he delved a little deeper...
Can start by trying to find out what all this need for the freehold schizzle's about, and what this rent free offer actually was and to who and when.
But he's certainly someone I'd want to pay an interest in us.
Couple that with OSB's latest post I think I have my answer, thanks fella's.
Nick
Administrator
And people posting in every thread saying "I wont go" is no better than RFC saying he wants to name his next kid Six Fields.....
That Bloke from the Airport?!!
More like 'Six Fingers'
SIR ERNIE
Well-Known Member
Eh?
Given the thread title "Coventry City owners lead club to Northampton and towards the abyss" that's a strange comment.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
The Lord of the Summer Isle
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
"You're Goddamn right!"
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Which post are you talking about? I am confused
We are talking about things in the article.
A great article would be one that starts from the start of the whole arena situation, with past owners, agreements, building of the Ricoh and then SISU coming in, then us moving out.
This one Sisu, which bought a Championship club with eyes open, are perhaps overestimating their negotiating power to pressure a local council into ceding a public asset. The hedge fund are now Northampton Town's tenants, losing investors a further £3m a year, sending a small, very young squad into a League One winter. And the vast majority of Coventry City supporters are staying away, outraged that modern football has brought them to this.
............................
Seems correct to me Nick
tisza
Well-Known Member
Maybe some of his statements are true but again the lack of real clarity from either side (and at times misdirection) has made things more difficult for anyone to follow.
Some examples from his comments.
ACL wasn't offered 14 million by SISU for a share. SISU spoke to Yorkshire bank about the ACL loan of 14 million.
ACL haven't sold off the catering rights to Compass. They've entered into a joint venture with Compass of which they control 77%.
The spectre of administration was first raised by Fisher.
Not knocking Houch87 just highlighting how the confused the facts are from all sides (SISU / ACL/Council). One for PWKH did football-related income really only account for 9% of the Ricoh income?
Perhaps the administrators final report might cast some light on the issues.
cochese
Well-Known Member
These are perfectly valid comments, but if SISU (or any other owner of our football club) continued to pay the level of rent they were, they'd just continue to rack up the debt. Which is hardly the best way to run a football club either. And as for the council having the best interests of the community and the fans, does this include trying to make as much money from the football club as they could?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Yeah, I'm not convinced by all the statements in it, some seem to have been taken just as read and just repeated verbatum and yes, it's a skewed perspective as much as anything Les Reid does. This is, however, journalism
anybody who expects a balanced objective piece in such journalism is looking in the wrong place, the whole idea's to come from a perspective and dig a bit deeper. His perspective of not being over-happy with modern football and wanting to puncture modern football ownership's ideals is kind of well-known, and a common theme in his articles, so hardly surprising what skew he puts on it. Someone has to keep shouting out about whether Man Utd are well-run for the club or its owners after all...There are certain things in there it would be useful if he dug a bit deeper beyond the soundbyte, he's one of the few who has the ability to do that digging, so I hope he does. Some of the answers, if he got some more detail, could be particularly damning too... but the precise answers would be particularly useful to see if there is substance behind the soundbyte or not.
If he did the digging, I'd trust his conclusion one way or another more than most.
Nick
Administrator
Yes, to which we replied that we were talking about the whole article not just one pararaph. Some bits are very true but others might not be.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Also to clear a couple of things
- the club stopped paying rent before the negotiations started with the Charity.
- the option to that CCFC Ltd owned could not be activated whilst CCFC owed ACL money outside of normal terms so any share sale was not on the basis of the "option"
- ACL could not veto any deal on the shares held by either Charity or Council
- The club was for many years paying out more in wages than its turnover ......... it still is
- There were clear caveats to the sale that SISU were aware of day 1, these included a viable plan for CCFC, whilst some of the issues addressed do we know the plan now?
- The club had the right to sell ticket packages that included food and drinks, it had the rights to pitch side advertising, it had the right to the income from 900 car park spaces - would guess that was a lot more than the income they have to share with NTFC
- Winning the right to have the JR heard does not mean that SISU are vindicated or that the council are wrong ...... it means the facts will be examined in court some time in the future
- SISU paying off the ACL loan would not have made ACL debt free ............ ACL would have owed SISU
- so total match day income at NTFC is what £1m the last set of accounts put ticket income alone at £3m ..... but the club would die at the Ricoh without access to other incomes but survive at NTFC? ...... doesnt really make sense does it?
- Mute point as to whether ACL put CCFC in to administration...... kind of depends at what point of the process you accept there was a plan to achieve a set outcome..... and if you choose a different start point say March 2012 then administration and points deduction were always likely
- Compass didnt buy in to bail out ACl they bought in to share in the business...... compass are a ftse 100 company and are experts in stadium/conference management
- the club stopped paying rent before the negotiations started with the Charity.
- the option to that CCFC Ltd owned could not be activated whilst CCFC owed ACL money outside of normal terms so any share sale was not on the basis of the "option"
- ACL could not veto any deal on the shares held by either Charity or Council
- The club was for many years paying out more in wages than its turnover ......... it still is
- There were clear caveats to the sale that SISU were aware of day 1, these included a viable plan for CCFC, whilst some of the issues addressed do we know the plan now?
- The club had the right to sell ticket packages that included food and drinks, it had the rights to pitch side advertising, it had the right to the income from 900 car park spaces - would guess that was a lot more than the income they have to share with NTFC
- Winning the right to have the JR heard does not mean that SISU are vindicated or that the council are wrong ...... it means the facts will be examined in court some time in the future
- SISU paying off the ACL loan would not have made ACL debt free ............ ACL would have owed SISU
- so total match day income at NTFC is what £1m the last set of accounts put ticket income alone at £3m ..... but the club would die at the Ricoh without access to other incomes but survive at NTFC? ...... doesnt really make sense does it?
- Mute point as to whether ACL put CCFC in to administration...... kind of depends at what point of the process you accept there was a plan to achieve a set outcome..... and if you choose a different start point say March 2012 then administration and points deduction were always likely
- Compass didnt buy in to bail out ACl they bought in to share in the business...... compass are a ftse 100 company and are experts in stadium/conference management
Last edited: