Wasn't it in some court papers that SISU had agreed to buy 50% and go halves on the debt but the council then took on 100% of the debt when they refinanced? OR something like that?
you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.
You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?
JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR
i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.
Not sure SISU have ever actually produced the smoking gun in the form of paperwork that blows the council away on this. I 'think' all they've done is get a court date an no evidence has yet been produced in a courtroom. If Tim or anyone from SISU would like to come on here and correct me I'd be extremely grateful, and bloody surprised.
Skybluegod does make a valid point though, the proposal was basically the club pay Hoffman who then pay ACL. Any leftover money is put into the academy. It was a non starter as a deal as SISU could have done this themselves without Hoffman but have chosen not to. Obviously SISU and the club should have came to some sort of agreement to stay at the Ricoh with ACL but Hoffmans offer is basically the same as ACLs except the money is paid though him so it is no surprise it has been rejected.Hoffman's offer still sees the club get a hell of a lot more net income at the Ricoh than it would at Northampton. There is no profit in it for him or the other folk putting money in.
Haven't seen any evidence to back up the idea that the council have ever actively blocked the sale of ACL, can you provide some? Also when was it agreed that they would be buying the Ricoh, the club share is in ACL not the Ricoh and held by the charity?
I do think that at some point in the future after SISU have been starved out, the club under new owners will get ownership of ACL but I can't see that happening under SISU ownership of the club.
i cant be bother to trowl back through evidence, too time consuming, but the immortal words of the councils and ACL mouthpiece Mr Mutton were "we will never sell to Sisu" if you go by that alone the evidence that the council blocked the sale is there... but for more evidence what do you think the 14 million 'loan' (that isnt really a loan) is for? to spell it out to some of you its a controlling share. in all but words. control of what? to be sure ACL do not sell
:blue:
Skybluegod does make a valid point though, the proposal was basically the club pay Hoffman who then pay ACL. Any leftover money is put into the academy. It was a non starter as a deal as SISU could have done this themselves without Hoffman but have chosen not to. Obviously SISU and the club should have came to some sort of agreement to stay at the Ricoh with ACL but Hoffmans offer is basically the same as ACLs except the money is paid though him so it is no surprise it has been rejected.
Okay so from what you've said can you tell me how legal it is for a council acting as a rent guarantor for a company that they weren't a part owner in? Like for example the multi million pound loan Nottingham Council acted as a guarantor on for Nottingham Forest. In 2004 Forest then failed to make an interest payment on the loan some distance into the repayment period and the council were forced to make it on their behalf, with the club paying up later on (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/3850337.stm). and then of course there's the Northampton Town £12M loan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-23168498) etc. And then what about every other stadia in the country where the council and the local club are in partnership (usually called an SMC*) where the council have either propped up the SMC or taken little or no revenue from it are going to be in trouble then.you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.
You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?
JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR
i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.
It was TF who claimed that a deal had been agreed to be joint bankers of ACL. In theory they could do this at any time by offering the council half of ACL's debt anyway.
Okay so from what you've said can you tell me how legal it is for a council acting as a rent guarantor for a company that they weren't a part owner in? Like for example the multi million pound loan Nottingham Council acted as a guarantor on for Nottingham Forest. In 2004 Forest then failed to make an interest payment on the loan some distance into the repayment period and the council were forced to make it on their behalf, with the club paying up later on (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/3850337.stm). and then of course there's the Northampton Town £12M loan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-23168498) etc. And then what about every other stadia in the country where the council and the local club are in partnership (usually called an SMC*) where the council have either propped up the SMC or taken little or no revenue from it are going to be in trouble then.
Boy are we going to be popular if this goes to court and these are all brought up, especially with our current landlords Northampton. :facepalm:
*Stadium Management Company
you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.
You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?
JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR
i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.
Which just shows what total w@#kers they are being moving us to Northampton # NOPMFisher is right, if they wanted they could pay the Ricoh rent and use the ticket sales to pay for it themselves, this deal changes nothing.
It's OK though. True Sky Blue works in law
Don't cha fella?
I'll leave others to ridicule your none sense rant.
However, 1 point I can't quite grasp.
You claim that SISU have their goal as distressing acl in order to purchase the Ricoh on the cheap.
Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that acl is distressed to the point that they are forced to sell the Ricoh.
Given that it is in a prime location with planning available for development and hotels etc... And given that SISU seem hell bent on achieving this:
1. Why would SISU be there only company offering to buy this stadium?
And more importantly
2. Why the hell would acl sell to SISU? Given their mutual history, acl are likely to sell to any person BUT SISU.
Quite a dangerous tactic with no guaranteed outcome even if they manage to distress acl, which is not likely.
what some of our less business sensed fans dont seem to remember is the fact that Sisu entered into a deal to buy the club (with its massive debts) and with a clear agreement to the arena being sold to them as part of the deal. the council put a stop to that taking place. Mutton may have been only the mouthpiece but when the council said the arena will never be sold to Sisu that was when the swords were drawn. Since then it has always been a fight for the arena. the council have paid 14 million pounds simply to enable ACL not to crumble and be forced to sell to Sisu.
so you guys honestly dont think the end game here is ownership of the Ricoh? and your insinuating im mad? your all off your trolleys. its simple: acl or higgs sell at a realistic price under these poor market conditions and we play our football at home. dont sell to Sisu and we play away... leaving ACL to go completely bust. leaving the council left to explain where 14 million pounds of Coventry persons taxes have gone!!
this story by the way is only just beginning, personally i think coventry city council are in deep deep trouble.
you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy?
the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.
JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law.
also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football
back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up
thats a totally different scenario. thats investment by a local authority for the community. what Coventry City Council did was invest 14 million as some kind of loan!! no no no the council can not LOAN to a company it is a part owner in. see the difference it is unethical and unlawfull, hence the judicial review - for a judge or judges to decide on the lawfullness of the councils actions. The council are very likely to lose this JR
Allegations are not facts until proven
you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.
You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?
JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR
i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.
It's OK though. True Sky Blue works in law
Don't cha fella?
I'll leave others to ridicule your none sense rant.
However, 1 point I can't quite grasp.
You claim that SISU have their goal as distressing acl in order to purchase the Ricoh on the cheap.
Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that acl is distressed to the point that they are forced to sell the Ricoh.
Given that it is in a prime location with planning available for development and hotels etc... And given that SISU seem hell bent on achieving this:
1. Why would SISU be there only company offering to buy this stadium?
And more importantly
2. Why the hell would acl sell to SISU? Given their mutual history, acl are likely to sell to any person BUT SISU.
Quite a dangerous tactic with no guaranteed outcome even if they manage to distress acl, which is not likely.
You know what I have always advocated the club should live within its means - in that context what the club have sought to do over the last year or so is what I would expect in terms of matching cost to income that is. I whole heartedly agree with that part of the strategy. But what about the previous 4 years?
The debts are not what they seem and having done the calculation then the actual SISU cash input to 310511 was 20.2m. As owners they have loaded the club with massive debt and you have to ask why? to what purpose?
The managers have done a pretty good job of getting themselves sacked - it being a results based business
The players brought in have generally been, with a few exceptions, of a poorer standard. They have received net proceeds of 6.27m up until 31/05/11 and purchased net 6.21m. Player transactions are self financing in terms of transfers.
Got to question why anyone would have a strategy to keep investing when there is no prospect of a return ...... or is there some reason to it?
It is not a fact that SISU are the best way forward for CCFC ...... it would seem to be that they are the only way forward at the moment however
Judicial review ...... interesting that we are about to play at a League 2 ground that borrowed 12m on a similar basis.......... who owns sixfields freehold btw ? They didnt invest council owned monies they " invested" a loan they took out from central government and lent that money at a profit to ACL which is a key element of the North Coventry Regeneration Scheme. Rather than artificially distress two companies to pay a fraction of a debt to bank allegedly
Of course there will be allegations of wrong doing around the JR date ......... would be unusual if there was not .... wonder where the source of those allegations will be. Allegations are not facts until proven
BTW this is not backing anyone against the Club....... just an opinion on certain matters that are part of the bigger picture proffered as fact when are no more than opinion
fair points all the way. the only reply i would like to make is regards the previous 4 years. I think sisu have admitted to mismanging the club in those years. they opologised to the fans and sought to move forward, the Ranson years were not good, they were poor, every time a business model was put in place the club had either awful luck or the players turned out to be damp squids.
So what is the difference (except the obvious numerical one) between Swansea Council loaning their SMC of which they are part owners £2m (http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=5756 - page 28 paragraph 37) and Cov Council loaning ACL of which they are part owners £14m?thats a totally different scenario. thats investment by a local authority for the community. what Coventry City Council did was invest 14 million as some kind of loan!! no no no the council can not LOAN to a company it is a part owner in. see the difference it is unethical and unlawfull, hence the judicial review - for a judge or judges to decide on the lawfullness of the councils actions. The council are very likely to lose this JR
http://www.liberty-stadium.com/liberty_stadium_management.phpLiberty Stadium Website said:Swansea Stadium Management Company (SSMC) was set up in April 2005 to oversee the general running of the Stadium. The Stadium Management Company works in conjunction with the two sporting clubs, FMC and the Premier Club to ensure the smooth running of the Stadium. The board of SSMC consists of two directors from the City and County of Swansea, and two directors from both Swansea City Football Club and Ospreys Rugby. Board members meet on a regular basis to discuss, review and actively manage progress.
you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.
You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?
JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR
i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.
fair points all the way. the only reply i would like to make is regards the previous 4 years. I think sisu have admitted to mismanging the club in those years. they opologised to the fans and sought to move forward, the Ranson years were not good, they were poor, every time a business model was put in place the club had either awful luck or the players turned out to be damp squids.
the council can not loan money to a company it is part owner of. the only money the council may provide to local inititatives is outlined here : https://www.gov.uk/government/polic...-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2
So what is the difference (except the obvious numerical one) between Swansea Council loaning their SMC of which they are part owners £2m (http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=5756 - page 28 paragraph 37) and Cov Council loaning ACL of which they are part owners £14m?
Skybluegod does make a valid point though, the proposal was basically the club pay Hoffman who then pay ACL. Any leftover money is put into the academy. It was a non starter as a deal as SISU could have done this themselves without Hoffman but have chosen not to. Obviously SISU and the club should have came to some sort of agreement to stay at the Ricoh with ACL but Hoffmans offer is basically the same as ACLs except the money is paid though him so it is no surprise it has been rejected.
they will sell to sisu because:
1. they are the only show in town with a football team
2. because of the fans (you cant ask sisu to consider the fans but not ask the council/acl)
3. because without the football team and golden share the ground becomes the white elephant we al fear
4. why would 'any other person' want to buy the white elephant - its a football stadium - with out the football its a fish dead in water making losses
i suppose the difference is the club were not at war with the stadium owners and the action of swansea council may have been upon agreement by all parties. Coventry City Councils is a bit diferent to that, our council advantaged ACL by providing the monies - was there consultation with the tax payer? did you or I agree to these millions being paid? no .. was there a consultation at Swansea? i dont know .. what i do know is you dont start a judicial review unless you have pretty good QC and barristers thinking they see a winner.
the players turned out to be damp squids.
i suppose the difference is the club were not at war with the stadium owners and the action of swansea council may have been upon agreement by all parties. Coventry City Councils is a bit diferent to that, our council advantaged ACL by providing the monies - was there consultation with the tax payer? did you or I agree to these millions being paid? no .. was there a consultation at Swansea? i dont know .. what i do know is you dont start a judicial review unless you have pretty good QC and barristers thinking they see a winner.
(my bolding)the council can not loan money to a company it is part owner of. the only money the council may provide to local inititatives is outlined here : https://www.gov.uk/government/polic...-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2
fair points all the way. the only reply i would like to make is regards the previous 4 years. I think sisu have admitted to mismanging the club in those years. they opologised to the fans and sought to move forward, the Ranson years were not good, they were poor, every time a business model was put in place the club had either awful luck or the players turned out to be damp squids.
the council can not loan money to a company it is part owner of. the only money the council may provide to local inititatives is outlined here : https://www.gov.uk/government/polic...-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2
- Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority (Rev 1) [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) (View without highlighting) [100%]
([2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 2 WLR 1275, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2012] UKSC 22, [2013] 1 CMLR 4; From United Kingdom Supreme Court; 351 KB)
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?