FA and the escrow account? (1 Viewer)

[lordsummerisle]

I'll stay out of any argument you're having with Jack. The statement is certainly being clever with words, something you are usually a fan of. Lord has misstated the QC, something he may wish to recognise, but that is up to him of course.

Are you saying that interest charged on loans isn't profit??

 

---

[Rusty Trombone]

Are you saying that interest charged on loans isn't profit??

I wasn't saying it is or isn't, I'm saying the QC didn't mention profit, he said that was how much the Council would be paid.

The Council say they are charging more interest to ACL than they are being charged, that should give them a profit. No one has said that the profit will be anywhere near £19m.

 

[Bennets Afro]

I would say that interest is paid by the loanee and profit is made by the loaner

 

[skybluetony176]

Are you saying that interest charged on loans isn't profit??

The difference between what acl pay ccc and what ccc pay central government is the profit. That seems clear from the court transcript printed in the CET, as does that the ccc qc clearly said £ 19odd million in interest, no mention of profit. So no spin that I can see.

 

[skybluetony176]

The point is easy. Interest charged to council - Interest charged to ACL - what is the difference. Do you need OSB to help you cross the road?

No I don't need OSB to help me cross the road. Not now I've read the court statement for myself. The ccc qc never said the figure he quoted was profit he said it was interest. I guess you missed that bit, unless you need OSB to help you cross the road?

 

[Ian1779]

The difference between what acl pay ccc and what ccc pay central government is the profit. That seems clear from the court transcript printed in the CET, as does that the ccc qc clearly said £ 19odd million in interest, no mention of profit. So no spin that I can see.

So next time you wheel out the 'AVRO charging £1.8m interest pa' - just remember SISU/AVRO aren't making a profit... it's just interest.

 

[skybluetony176]

So next time you wheel out the 'AVRO charging £1.8m interest pa' - just remember SISU/AVRO aren't making a profit... it's just interest.

You've clearly misinterpreted what was said in court as well then.

The £19m is interest, the difference is the profit. Some on here are trying to say the ccc qc said it was all profit and picking this apart when he never said anything like that, he said it was interest. No mention of profit or a mention of what percentage might be profit. The paranoid androids on here did that all by themselves. Your membership card is probably in the post.

 

[shmmeee]

So next time you wheel out the 'AVRO charging £1.8m interest pa' - just remember SISU/AVRO aren't making a profit... it's just interest.

That wasn't even close to his point. But keep fighting the good fight my man, I'm sure we're nearly home.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So next time you wheel out the 'AVRO charging £1.8m interest pa' - just remember SISU/AVRO aren't making a profit... it's just interest.

Given it just sits atop a debt level that's already beyond paying back several times over; why bother applying it then? Surely it's not worth wasting the time printing the invoice, is it?

Or, and here's an idea I'm sure nobody has thought of, if only they could get their hands on some valuable real estate and load that debt against it. Now, then everything would begin to make sense. If only that could happen...

 

[Grendel]

You've clearly misinterpreted what was said in court as well then.

The £19m is interest, the difference is the profit. Some on here are trying to say the ccc qc said it was all profit and picking this apart when he never said anything like that, he said it was interest. No mention of profit or a mention of what percentage might be profit. The paranoid androids on here did that all by themselves. Your membership card is probably in the post.

So it was a pointless statement then. Why mention it? Why did some posters immediately state it was a good deal? You are saying its just a statement on interest. Are those posters confused?

You seemed confused earlier and wanted OSB to hold your hand yet now its crystal clear. How very strange.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Why not find out what rate the loan is charged at and loaned out for? Ask Alan if he will let you do some journalism.

For the hard of understanding, a higher rate than it would have got if the money was left in a holding account, though with higher risks.

I guess what you are really saying is that the council shouldn't be allowed tot use its funds to protect its own assets unless it makes a huge wad., that is of course nonsense.

Perhaps you can go & teach SISU how to manage their money, because it seems to me that they're blown a lot of cash in a very ineffective manner, in a display of remarkable fiscal incompetence (if not incontinence, LOL).

 

[Grendel]

For the hard of understanding, a higher rate than it would have got if the money was left in a holding account, though with higher risks.

I guess what you are really saying is that the council shouldn't be allowed tot use its funds to protect its own assets unless it makes a huge wad., that is of course nonsense.

Perhaps you can go & teach SISU how to manage their money, because it seems to me that they're blown a lot of cash in a very ineffective manner, in a display of remarkable fiscal incompetence (if not incontinence, LOL).

Nope not saying that I am saying the statement bought a flood of posters on assuming this meant that money was available for the taxpayers. Without knowing how much they are paying for the loan we don't know. Could be £1 a year and if ACL default during those 40 years could be a whacking great tax bill.

 

[fernandopartridge]

For the hard of understanding, a higher rate than it would have got if the money was left in a holding account, though with higher risks.

I guess what you are really saying is that the council shouldn't be allowed tot use its funds to protect its own assets unless it makes a huge wad., that is of course nonsense.

Perhaps you can go & teach SISU how to manage their money, because it seems to me that they're blown a lot of cash in a very ineffective manner, in a display of remarkable fiscal incompetence (if not incontinence, LOL).

Its asset is protected. It owns the Ricoh Arena. Somebody on here also pointed out that if the leaseholder became insolvent the lease reverts back to the council.

What are they protecting apart from a company?

 

[Jack Griffin]

Nope not saying that I am saying the statement bought a flood of posters on assuming this meant that money was available for the taxpayers. Without knowing how much they are paying for the loan we don't know. Could be £1 a year and if ACL default during those 40 years could be a whacking great tax bill.

You reckon, well it is up to you if you want to infer posters on this site are not very clever.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Its asset is protected. It owns the Ricoh Arena. Somebody on here also pointed out that if the leaseholder became insolvent the lease reverts back to the council.

What are they protecting apart from a company?

So you are happy to see a charity lose millions.. to profit a hedge fund.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So you are happy to see a charity lose millions.. to profit a hedge fund.

Here we go, the emotive argument gets rolled out. The charity bought the shares at its own risk as anybody would. I have sympathy with them especially as they were ripped off themselves by the council for the lease in the first place. It's arguable that the £6m for 50% of ACL was also a rum deal based on scotch mist.

At least you agree they're protecting a company and not an asset.

 

[skybluetony176]

So it was a pointless statement then. Why mention it? Why did some posters immediately state it was a good deal? You are saying its just a statement on interest. Are those posters confused?

You seemed confused earlier and wanted OSB to hold your hand yet now its crystal clear. How very strange.

If (if) I had to guess why the ccc qc said it in court it was because he was countering the sisu qc's claim that the loan distorted the market and therefore is state aid, his argument being if acl are paying interest how can it be a distortion of the market and therefore can't be state aid.

I was confused earlier in the thread as I didn't understand the point you amongst others were trying to make. Once I read the qc's state it became apparent that you hadn't understood what the qc had said and made a confusing post a consequence.

So not strange at all.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Here we go, the emotive argument gets rolled out. The charity bought the shares at its own risk as anybody would. I have sympathy with them especially as they were ripped off themselves by the council for the lease in the first place. It's arguable that the £6m for 50% of ACL was also a rum deal based on scotch mist.

At least you agree they're protecting a company and not an asset.

Are shares in a company not assets then? Show me where shares are defined as not being assets?

 

[Godiva]

Are shares in a company not assets then? Show me where shares are defined as not being assets?

Of course shares are assets. And if ACL go bust, the shares are worthless, but then someone else come in and buys a new lease. The money they will receive are also assets.
Maybe even worth more than the current value of the shares?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Are shares in a company not assets then? Show me where shares are defined as not being assets?

They're assets but are they worth the risk the council took?

 

[shmmeee]

Here we go, the emotive argument gets rolled out. The charity bought the shares at its own risk as anybody would. I have sympathy with them especially as they were ripped off themselves by the council for the lease in the first place. It's arguable that the £6m for 50% of ACL was also a rum deal based on scotch mist.

At least you agree they're protecting a company and not an asset.

What would you like to happen?

I think the misnomer is that people actually care who owns and runs the Ricoh aside form it being someone with the club's best interests at heart. People don't (rightly or wrongly) believe that of Sisu.

Personally I think the mistake was getting us relegated first. If they'd been asking this on the back of a promotion season things would be very different. As always Sisu show they don't understand football fans.

 

[lewys33]

 

[fernandopartridge]

What would you like to happen?

I think the misnomer is that people actually care who owns and runs the Ricoh aside form it being someone with the club's best interests at heart. People don't (rightly or wrongly) believe that of Sisu.

Personally I think the mistake was getting us relegated first. If they'd been asking this on the back of a promotion season things would be very different. As always Sisu show they don't understand football fans.

I'd like my football team to play at the stadium that was purpose built for it and have full access to all revenue its presence generates.

 

[skybluetony176]

Of course shares are assets. And if ACL go bust, the shares are worthless, but then someone else come in and buys a new lease. The money they will receive are also assets.
Maybe even worth more than the current value of the shares?

I take it you're not expecting sisu to by the shares in this scenario then

 

[Grendel]

I'd like my football team to play at the stadium that was purpose built for it and have full access to all revenue its presence generates.

Yep same for me.

 

[Jack Griffin]

They're assets but are they worth the risk the council took?

How do I know? I've seen no analysis, just heard snippets about the court case. One presumes the council thought it was & I suppose you think it wasn't.

 

[shmmeee]

I'd like my football team to play at the stadium that was purpose built for it and have full access to all revenue its presence generates.

I can get behind that.