sky blue zam
Member
well one thing we know is, is that they wont have got a better offer
No I have grasped that, but, these 'approaches' were made months after the offer was rejected, now, ACL have been claiming the door is open so when SISU supposedly came back, they could've, for all we know, accepted the last offer.
It's called "The Taylor Tombola Book Of Facts , Conjecture or Inane Bollocks" trouble is you don't know which one you are going to get :jerkit:
How about reducing the rent from £1.3m to £400k/annum?
Or am I missing your point?
How about reducing the rent from £1.3m to £400k/annum?
Or am I missing your point?
This one . :claping hands:
Speaking of 'inane bollocks' 'conjecture'... What fact have you posted today?
Don't forget the no matchday revenue.
Not such a great offer after all.
29th January 2013 - ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil/SISU/CCFC shake hands on heads of terms for a rent reduction from £1.3m to £400k/annum, with other reductions (escrow a/c, repayment of debt over many years etc).........
The following day (after advice from SISU's queen of debt) Fisher admits he never had the authority (as CEO??? - shadow directorship going on here if ever I saw it) to agree and they wanted to renegotiate.
ACL, sick and tired of all the prevarication by SISU - 'It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall'.
Yet SBTaylor (posting more drivel seeing as it's half-term) thinks a brief ITV synopsis 'proves' that ACL are playing hardball, and poor SISU are misunderstood and hard done by.:facepalm:
At the moment it's all irrelevant - CCFC Ltd (who hold the Ricoh lease) are in administration, so ACL are entirely correct when they say they will only talk to the Administrator and other interested parties, and not with CCFC (Holdings).
Available matchday revenue nothing to do with ACL - contract was sold by CCFC to Compass.
Reduction of more than 2/3rds of the rent - £900k a year - 'Not such a great offer after all'.....what planet are you on???:facepalm:
Maybe it was because it wasn't ACL 'rent boy' (well he does talk about the rent) PWKH who said it and was the lawyers instead that it slipped under the radar.That went under my nose, after searching for it as well - annoying, meh.
So we have 2 parties saying 2 opposite things each with their spin doctors on the go - one of them is lying and but worryingly, there's no evidence that either is telling the truth.
Although you put me in my place - kudos - the wider problem is that now we don't know who is telling the truth.
Where do I say this?
I asked what are the club supposed to do if this were true [ACL rejecting approaches] - no one answers.
Bearing this mind, why are ACL saying in reply to CCFC Holdings 'that the door is still open'? If they know they can't/won't negotiate? In addition, if SISU are an interested party, which they most likely will be, then thy can, according to your own definition still negotiate with SISU?
Where do I say this?
I asked what are the club supposed to do if this were true [ACL rejecting approaches] - no one answers.
Bearing this mind, why are ACL saying in reply to CCFC Holdings 'that the door is still open'? If they know they can't/won't negotiate? In addition, if SISU are an interested party, which they most likely will be, then thy can, according to your own definition still negotiate with SISU?
Look back at post #16 where you provide the ITV link: regarding ACL (who it is reported in the last line hadn't replied to this latest statement from SISU) you write: Bit of spin, but the last line interests me.
And if phrases like 'locked out', 'no further room to negotiate' and 'no alternative' aren't an attempt to conjure up the 'misunderstood and hard done by' card, perhaps you could enlighten me.
I wonder if any of the other 70 league clubs replied?
Not looking at the bigger picture:
1.3 p/a rent was way too high in the first place and still only offered a price that is still above market value, now, it's like me selling something worth £3, for £10, but then saying oh ok, I'll let you have it for £5 and saying its a great offer, I'm giving you a 50% discount! Numbers/percentages are deceiving in this context.
Ooh scary!Seems like the Telegraph has made an enemy of sisu now.
A facility purpose built for CCFC costing upwards of £100m, and a long lease agreed at £1.3m/annum - 'way too high' is open to argument.
Ricoh value = £130m (guesstimate) - rent @ £1.3m/annum = 1% of property value.
3-bedroom property in Coventry value = £150k - rent at £7,500/annum = 5% of property value.
Market rate? You are comparing apples with oranges. The Ricoh is not an average L1 stadium, Sisu knew this when they bought the club. Unfortunately they did not plan for relegation, their error.Not looking at the bigger picture:
1.3 p/a rent was way too high in the first place and still only offered a price that is still above market value, now, it's like me selling something worth £3, for £10, but then saying oh ok, I'll let you have it for £5 and saying its a great offer, I'm giving you a 50% discount! Numbers/percentages are deceiving in this context.
We only use the stands and the grass, which we maintain - whilst ACL reap the fruits of everything else.
Are you serious, or taking the piss?
A facility purpose built for CCFC costing upwards of £100m, and a long lease agreed at £1.3m/annum - 'way too high' is open to argument.
Ricoh value = £130m (guesstimate) - rent @ £1.3m/annum = 1% of property value.
Why would you be against CCFC fans getting behind the club?!
Even if other clubs had disastrous owners, I am certain that they would not accept the situation from ACL either.
The headline is actually Gillingham offer support to city but after reading it, I think he's trying to get in SISU's good bookssweet talking the club for Cody
Have a read:
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/cms_images/common/gillingham-letter144-840072.pdf
more here:
http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/gillingham-letter-840087.aspx
Tim fisher said to us last night that after receiving the letter to say they wouldn't negotiate, then Sisu haven't contacted acl over a new rent deal
He also acknowledged that the F&B revenue was not ACLs to give away
75% of the profit is.Tim fisher said to us last night that after receiving the letter to say they wouldn't negotiate, then Sisu haven't contacted acl over a new rent deal
He also acknowledged that the F&B revenue was not ACLs to give away
We only use the stands and the grass, which we maintain - whilst ACL reap the fruits of everything else.
'We only use the stands and the grass, which we maintain...'...(err...which we used to maintain), and the car parks, and the club shop, and the club offices, and the executive boxes, and the changing rooms, and the medical facilities.....
When we moved in there wasn't much in the way of infrastructure from which ACL could reap the fruits - remember the stadium was built as a Championship/Premier League football ground first.
ACL have now through prudent management gone from strength to strength - CCFC now only accounts for around a sixth of ACL's turnover.
If only SISU had proved themselves trustworthy (and able to run a football club without blundering from regular cock-ups to crisis to relegation), then we could be in the Premier League, own at least 50% of ACL (if not 100%), and be in a position to eventually own the stadium and much of the infrastructure.
Turnover doesn't equal profit!If ACL have gone from strength to strength, then why did they need to be bailed out by the council? Surely is CCFC only account for a sixth of their turnover, they shouldn't really be affected by the club not paying rent?
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?