Golden Share Could Be In Holdings After All (1 Viewer)

[James Smith]

If someone saw that as a serious comment they need their heads checking.

Just pointing out that the 'r' word has history at the club.

 

---

[Skyblue4u]

Can we have our 10 points back now then please?

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

No, Torch, I think you have misread that. Very few people take that view. Some have been at pains to say that ACL have contributed to the problem. None of us know the full facts but I think if anyone looked at all the facts that we do know we can see a pattern of mendacious behaviours from our owners and a tiny number of circumstantial "awkwardnesses" from CCC and ACL. This is also consistent with a real life row where both sides can point to fault but sometimes one is the agresssor and the other is defending themselves. It will simply not do to hide behind a bland, "well, there's fault on both sides."
The degree of blame is therefore vastly on one side. For me if you look at the whole story it is consistent with an abusive partner trying to get their own way and manipulating every situation to their own advantage. We need them gone.

Well put, and ignore Torch's "simplification" - he is not correct.

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

ACL needs to be wound up and established as a new entity under CCFC. If fans would not even support that under a Hoffman Elliot ownership body we really are stuffed and frankly deserve to be.

Even for you that must be one of the most stupid comments on this forum for a long time.

 

[torchomatic]

Well put, and ignore Torch's "simplification" - he is not correct.

Neither is your 'i dont care what ACL have done' view.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Neither is your 'i dont care what ACL have done' view.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

Torch,
A silly misquote of what I actually posted as you are well aware. I thought better of you than that

 

[torchomatic]

corrected for you.

Yes with ACL, not with SISU!


Is that too much to ask?

 

[torchomatic]

Not verbatim, but certainly the view you put across. Why not post it again yourself and see what others think.

Torch,
A silly misquote of what I actually posted as you are well aware. I thought better of you than that

 

[Grendel]

Even for you that must be one of the most stupid comments on this forum for a long time.

Stupid in this forum probably right as our fans have some peculiar moral compass that seems to point one way - and that's not in the clubs direction.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Stupid in this forum probably right as our fans have some peculiar moral compass that seems to point one way - and that's not in the clubs direction.

It would mean screwing over the charity which bailed us out, as I said to your ignorance. Grendel's the name contract breaking's the game.

 

[Grendel]

It would mean screwing over the charity which bailed us out, as I said to your ignorance. Grendel's the name contract breaking's the game.

No it wouldn't. The Higgs share I believe is worth £6 million this could be paid. Then the remaining shares should be given to the club. This would then allow the club to have full and total control of everything to do with the management of the stadium and massively increase revenue.

We would then be in a very strong position.

Given the council have grossly overcharged the club for years they should pay a nominal rent in this league, an average championship rent if promoted and a significantly higher rent if the premiership is reached.

Then all parties have an opportunity to gain.

This under new ownership by the way.

The arrangement is vital. Without it the club may as well move away as the ground itself is worthless.

Frankly why anyone can argue with this notion is beyond me.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

No it wouldn't. The Higgs share I believe is worth £6 million this could be paid. Then the remaining shares should be given to the club. This would then allow the club to have full and total control of everything to do with the management of the stadium and massively increase revenue.

We would then be in a very strong position.

Given the council have grossly overcharged the club for years they should pay a nominal rent in this league, an average championship rent if promoted and a significantly higher rent if the premiership is reached.

Then all parties have an opportunity to gain.

This under new ownership by the way.

The arrangement is vital. Without it the club may as well move away as the ground itself is worthless.

Frankly why anyone can argue with this notion is beyond me.

That isn't really the notion you put forward with 'wind up ACL and start again'. The crux as we all know is the council and even fully owning ACL we can't take profit from it until the council is paid off. It would however mean, I assume, counting all revenue towards the club-which last year was almost £9m.

We all want the club to ultimately own ACL-but we will need to stump up mega bucks to get the council's share.

 

[Grendel]

That isn't really the notion you put forward with 'wind up ACL and start again'. The crux as we all know is the council and even fully owning ACL we can't take profit from it until the council is paid off. It would however mean, I assume, counting all revenue towards the club-which last year was almost £9m.

We all want the club to ultimately own ACL-but we will need to stump up mega bucks to get the council's share.

We shouldn't have to and supporters should focus on that as the issue. We won't get owners unless ACL merges into the club, are we the only council owned stadium without any shares in the management company? Outside the premier league I think we might be.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

We shouldn't have to and supporters should focus on that as the issue. We won't get owners unless ACL merges into the club, are we the only council owned stadium without any shares in the management company? Outside the premier league I think we might be.

No company just gives away a business for nothing if it means they'll make a huge loss. The council should just declare a price to allow us to take on their share and the loan.

 

[Grendel]

No company just gives away a business for nothing if it means they'll make a huge loss. The council should just declare a price to allow us to take on their share and the loan.

That's exactly what hull and Doncaster councils have done. Swansea have pretty much allowed the club to play rent free and also have a third share of the management company so actually yes they do.

Consider if popular new owners wanted control and has fan backing. The heat on the council would make the mood very different,

Most think the current owners should go with no consideration of debt incurred so there really is no difference.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That's exactly what hull and Doncaster councils have done. Swansea have pretty much allowed the club to play rent free and also have a third share of the management company so actually yes they do.

Consider if popular new owners wanted control and has fan backing. The heat on the council would make the mood very different,

Most think the current owners should go with no consideration of debt incurred so there really is no difference.

Fans want control now-but the owners have been shown to be so incompetent that they can't be trusted with the club, let alone the stadium. I don't think they should walk for nothing but equally I don't think they have a hope of recouping every penny. They should declare a minimum they're prepared to write off and work with bidders on that basis.

 

[James Smith]

That's exactly what hull and Doncaster councils have done. Swansea have pretty much allowed the club to play rent free and also have a third share of the management company so actually yes they do.

Consider if popular new owners wanted control and has fan backing. The heat on the council would make the mood very different,

Most think the current owners should go with no consideration of debt incurred so there really is no difference.

Yeah but Hull didn't mean to do that did they. The council were supposed to get a share of the profits from the stadium management company only it hasn't made enough to give them any real money. Doncaster stadium wasn't making any money and was actually costing the council almost £300k a year despite having multiple tenants because these tenants weren't paying market rates. Haven't looked at Swansea yet.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Strange how grendel ignores the stoke on Trent against port vale case.

 

[James Smith]

Strange how grendel ignores the stoke on Trent against port vale case.

Not really

 

[duffer]

Stupid in this forum probably right as our fans have some peculiar moral compass that seems to point one way - and that's not in the clubs direction.

If your moral compass only points in the direction of the club, and completely disregards the money that the Higgs Charity and Coventry tax payers would lose if they just handed ACL over to SISU, then I think the needle is bent, or possibly stuck.

And if ACL has been hugely overcharging the club, as you seem to contend - where's the money gone?

ACL have never paid a dividend to their shareholders, there are no mysterious management charges moving between obscure companies, and they're not based in the Caymans so their accounts are fully published.

Where did the profits you think they've made at the club's expense go?

 

[inside track]

If your moral compass only points in the direction of the club, and completely disregards the money that the Higgs Charity and Coventry tax payers would lose if they just handed ACL over to SISU, then I think the needle is bent, or possibly stuck.

And if ACL has been hugely overcharging the club, as you seem to contend - where's the money gone?

ACL have never paid a dividend to their shareholders, there are no mysterious management charges moving between obscure companies, and they're not based in the Caymans so their accounts are fully published.

Where did the profits you think they've made at the club's expense go?

ACL has failed to run the Ricoh properly in many ways. The Higgs Charity is said to be short of funds, and that has nothing to do with CCFC. Both need CCFC.

I wasn't going to contribute again but I was getting so wound up reading some of the utter nonsense bring written by various people tonight, my boy friend insisted I get this off my chest so that I don't keep going on about it to him.

So there it is..

 

[PWKH]

Inside track: No. All that the Higgs Charity has said is that it would like to sell at the right price at the right time. It would like that time to be now because it would like to re-employ the capital in other projects in Coventry. It has also said that ideally it would be a sale to an owner of CCFC that has the confidence of the City of Coventry, Council and people.

As to the profits made by ACL: every year investment has been made to improve the facilities at the Ricoh: new exhibition halls, a new conference facility, new hotel rooms etc. These are all within the skin of the original building and perhaps for someone who only comes on a match day are invisible. They are of course visible to the greater number of people who come on all the other days of the year.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

ACL has failed to run the Ricoh properly in many ways. The Higgs Charity is said to be short of funds, and that has nothing to do with CCFC. Both need CCFC.

I wasn't going to contribute again but I was getting so wound up reading some of the utter nonsense bring written by various people tonight, my boy friend insisted I get this off my chest so that I don't keep going on about it to him.

So there it is..

Only wound up because you've been found out too easily.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

[video=youtube;8mIDdaXzDlg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIDdaXzDlg[/video]

 

[James Smith]

ACL has failed to run the Ricoh properly in many ways. The Higgs Charity is said to be short of funds, and that has nothing to do with CCFC. Both need CCFC.

I wasn't going to contribute again but I was getting so wound up reading some of the utter nonsense bring written by various people tonight, my boy friend insisted I get this off my chest so that I don't keep going on about it to him.

So there it is..

And your source for alleging that the Higgs Charity is short of funds is?

 

[inside track]

And your source for alleging that the Higgs Charity is short of funds is?

Gossip, I'll admit, which is why I said "it's said...", but that is as reliable as many of the posts I've seen that claim to be "facts". It would be interesting to test a denial of that against the charity's next published accounts.

 

[Grendel]

Gossip, I'll admit, which is why I said "it's said...", but that is as reliable as many of the posts I've seen that claim to be "facts". It would be interesting to test a denial of that against the charity's next published accounts.

James likes to try and find sources when it suits him.

I would think potential investors will look at the likes of "James Smith" and really question if they should invest in this club at all if he is a true representation of our fan base, fortunately he is not.

 

[inside track]

Inside track: No. All that the Higgs Charity has said is that it would like to sell at the right price at the right time. It would like that time to be now because it would like to re-employ the capital in other projects in Coventry. It has also said that ideally it would be a sale to an owner of CCFC that has the confidence of the City of Coventry, Council and people.

As to the profits made by ACL: every year investment has been made to improve the facilities at the Ricoh: new exhibition halls, a new conference facility, new hotel rooms etc. These are all within the skin of the original building and perhaps for someone who only comes on a match day are invisible. They are of course visible to the greater number of people who come on all the other days of the year.

Hot air and nonsense. Higgs has no right to call the shots over who owns a privately owned company. As for the Ricoh, I wonder why it missed out on the Rugby World Cup to Villa Park.

 

[quinn1971]

Hot air and nonsense. Higgs has no right to call the shots over who owns a privately owned company. As for the Ricoh, I wonder why it missed out on the Rugby World Cup to Villa Park.

You can't leave us on that last bit . Any clues why villa park got it.Thought the RICOH was a cert to get it ?

 

[inside track]

You can't leave us on that last bit . Any clues why villa park got it.Thought the RICOH was a cert to get it ?

It should have been. Of course, Birmingham as the Second City was an attraction and Villa Park has a larger capacity. They've opted for large venues generally with some obvious and understandable exceptions, but despite all that, you're right, the Ricoh was a serious contender. All I can say is, have you seen it lately?

 

[James Smith]

Gossip, I'll admit, which is why I said "it's said...", but that is as reliable as many of the posts I've seen that claim to be "facts". It would be interesting to test a denial of that against the charity's next published accounts.

Not too hot on balance sheets but the last accounts for 2011 filed with the charity commission say they have £19,122,087 total funds,
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends67/0000509367_ac_20110405_e_c.pdf
Interestingly the 2012 accounts are late being filed, wonder if this mess has any bearing on that.

 

[James Smith]

Hot air and nonsense. Higgs has no right to call the shots over who owns a privately owned company. As for the Ricoh, I wonder why it missed out on the Rugby World Cup to Villa Park

.

Except perhaps because they're a 50% shareholder in it?

 

[quinn1971]

It should have been. Of course, Birmingham as the Second City was an attraction and Villa Park has a larger capacity. They've opted for large venues generally with some obvious and understandable exceptions, but despite all that, you're right, the Ricoh was a serious contender. All I can say is, have you seen it lately?

Its not looking its best is it.A few callers on cwr were complaining about that. Litter everywhere and dead birds in the stands.So it looks like its not just the club that nobody cares about.the grounds falling apart too.

 

[James Smith]

James likes to try and find sources when it suits him.

I would think potential investors will look at the likes of "James Smith" and really question if they should invest in this club at all if he is a true representation of our fan base, fortunately he is not.

No I always try and find sources and I post them when I do. Is this something you object to?

 

[inside track]

.

Except perhaps because they're a 50% shareholder in it?

I was referring to CCFC. I know it's complicated but do try to keep up,