torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Nice one, Torch. You're my favourite poster by the way.
So we're believing him today?
hell will freeze over... (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter torchomatic
- Start date
So we're believing him today?
Yes as I said in my tagged on post. I was agreeing with LR claiming that a small amount of the principal had been paid off and not with myself. Although I also agree wholeheartedly with myself. Well said me.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
agreed
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That refers to the £1 million paid off upfront I assume for the lNd rent - £4,000 a year - wow.
The actual loan itself will not have any capital paid down yet.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Does it? Is Les Reid wrong then on that? If rent has been paid in advance then that is a different thing, but without rechecking I thought Les mentioned the capital repayments. The rent on a longterm lease is normally very little - or it was on my leasehold flat - but that could be different on a commercial property. Please inform me.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So you now think everything les says is true - you finally acknowledge that do you?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think that means you're right martcov. Or at least nearer the truth than grendull.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No he's wrong but he believed les Reid so I assume he believed Les is an honest enough guy.
How can I be Wong? I am quoting Les. But I think Les was referring to the 2013 ACL accounts. The problem being Les takes a fact and uses it out of context. If you pay back a property loan. The first years you pay mainly interest and little capital. So if Les takes the repayments for one year, he can say "loan repayments are being met" or he can say " look! Only a small amount of capital has been repaid!". He takes the latter. The "hell freezes over" is known to us. It was bought up and dismissed as irrelevant.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
It's a shame the 'liquidation' comment wasn't treated with the same irrelevance. We would have been several points better off and likely to have part owned the Ricoh.
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
It's a shame Fisher mentioned liquidation at all...there is the root cause.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
The 13/14 accounts for ACL show that £112k has been paid off the capital.
Thanks, I assume that is for 1 year. Do you know what the total repayment was to put it into perspective? Or has that part of the truth been omitted by Les?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
£708k of interest was also paid.
Simon Gilbert posted a link to the accounts the other day. https://www.facebook.com/TheSimonGi...2777599&hash=5499880748835478146&pagefilter=3
thanks, did Les forget to mention it?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
He's planning on reporting it as an exclusive in a few months time.
Better let Chiefdave know in advance. He says that we have now got proof of certain things through Les Reid's revelations. Seems to take Les' reports as 100% factual - what Les doesn't report shows Les' agenda ( or maybe Joy's agenda? ).
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Well to be fair to Reid his stories do contain facts, but certainly in his latest report he hasn't attempted to give a full picture of events, and the bit where he goes on about the Council not denying something, when they said they weren't commenting, well that's just playground stuff.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Care to enlighten me as to what I've attributed to Reid in the last few days that has been proven to be false?
You have said that we now how have things proven. I was referring to the fact they we know nothing more than before. Nothing new has been proven. His reports are factual, but not 100% factual - that is the point ( as with the example previously quoted ). That is different to accusing him of falsehoods, which I am not.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You say nothing new yet when he made claims in one of his pieces, such as attributing the hell will freeze over quote to Lucas there was numerous posts saying he had got the wrong person so while some, if not all, of the information may not be new that doesn't mean it isn't valid, especially as it seems to have been glossed over in the past.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Does that include by the JR judge? After all isn't fair to say that his is the only opinion that mattered.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Don't disagree, Tony. However, he made a judgement on what was known - or what CCC wanted known - at the time. I would imagine these latest revelations would have changed the outcome if it had been submissable. I, for one, am pleased truths are leaking out. I would have thought we all wanted to know the full facts from both sides and not just one?
Nick
Administrator
Was the jr judging if the council had been dicks to the club?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What makes you think we know the full facts from either side? All we know that are the ones relevant to the JR and even then it will only be the ones that have been unearthed and deemed relevant from both sides.
In the big scheme of what's happened we know jack and you can guarantee that the suppression of facts is happening on all sides.
You have to accept the judges (plural) verdicts and they say SISU have it wrong.
Nick
Administrator
Yes, they have it wrong about state aid. That was what they were judging, people still want to know if the council have screwed the club over aside from state aid don't they?
I'm not saying sisu are right or wrong in other things, it's nice to know the facts whether they are or not.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
He also wasn't judging if SISU have been dicks to the club. Which means you have to accept his unbiased opinion. Clearly that's too difficult for you. SISU got it wrong and the club is paying the price for that.
Nick
Administrator
He was judging about state aid, you seem obsessed with that ruling. Clearly sisu got it wrong about the state aid. It doesn't mean sisu nor ccc havent fucked the club over with other things either before that or after.
That's my point. It's all well and good going on about the jr about everything which is all well and good when people question if it was illegal state aid or not. Just not when people question if ccc have been dicks, as it wasnt judging that was it?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What do you hope to achieve by it? Going forward how is it going to benefit the club? Or is it just a "I told you so" point scoring exercise you're interested in?
I keep saying it but there is only one set of hands on the steering wheel now. From hereon in its down to SISU.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
It's always been sisu in full control of the steering wheel tony but unfortunately they slammed ccfc fully into reverse.
Nick
Administrator
Going forward we need to know the whole truth about all sides to not make the same mistakes again. Ie learning about hedge funds etc and not blindly welcoming people in just because they aren't sisu.
It's all well and good sitting with fingers in ears, we need to know everything about all sides. Sisu, ccc, higgs etc, then learn from it. Just because judge ruled it wasn't illegal state aid, it isn't a defence for the ccc to treat the club like shit. Likewise if sisu won it wouldn't excuse then.
Otherwise we just end up in a full circle don't we?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Agreed but the ccc and Higgs are gone now. Sisu haven't I think that's people's problem.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Any self respecting business would screw sisu surely