Judicial Review thread (7 Viewers)

[blend]

Strange that I received a text message about this with almost identical wording from Mr Labovitch around the same time as this post...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe it's part of GCBTTR ongoing 'discussions' with 'all sides', or maybe not

 

---

[duffer]

Outside of all this particular nonsense, that's hardly surprising either really.

It's why the whole setup's stupid, two businesses obliged to try and be as efficient as possible and do as well as possible... but the only way they can do that is by costing the other one some of their own potential savings/profit.

Doomed to fail really, isn't it. Something to be said that if it's not resolved properly now, it just comes bak to haunt in a few years time one way or another.

I'm not convinced it was doomed to fail - isn't this the nature of every commercial landlord/tenant relationship. One side wants to pay as little as possible, the other side wants to charge as much as possible. Neither side, typically, wants to break the other though.

As an aside, this 'sustainable' thing is an odd argument to me. If you can afford to pay millions in salaries, you can't really claim that the rent makes your business unsustainable.

ACL though, did have an unavoidable fixed cost, the mortgage to YB. Even SISU could see that a large part of the driver for the high rent was the mortgage, hence the roadmap which talked about buying it out. One of the many ironies in all this is that refinancing that mortgage with the council allowed (or so it was claimed) ACL to lower the rent.

Anyway, in truth this has been done before too. The more I look at this the more I think we just need to move on past it all, and hope that after the dust settles the serious talks start.

 

[dongonzalos]

Maybe, but potentially (if the bail out is found illegal state aid) ACL could be forced to repay the money and look for a new (private sector) lender.
That may be very difficult without the main tenant - ACL could potentially go bust.

Can't see it when you look at how a judge decides whether to apply a remedy or not.
If he thinks SISU's behaviour contributed in anyway or form he can use his discretion to not apply any remedy.
With his comments today that ACL was a going concern till SISU withheld the rent I can't see how he can now apply a remedy if SISU win?

 

[bigfatronssba]

Yeah, the clubs turnover really is £24-25m..........

.....those figures are a load of tosh. Turnover was £10.8m 2012/13, £6.6m last year.

Ok so the bit about ACL being unsustainable without the club is true, but the bit you disagree with is tosh.

Talk about people believing what they want to believe.

 

[ccfcway]

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/five-things-learnt-day-one-7247428

reads slightly differently to the CCFC ones doesnt it !

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

We also learned that ACL was only sustainable if CCFC kept paying huge rent which was unsustainable for the club.

I'm sorry, that's melodramatic nonsense. Yes, it was too high. Yes, compared to other clubs it was too high. Yes, as a percentage of turnover it was too high.

But crazed contracts to players who didn't perform; Bell, Eastwood, Wood and McSheffrey, all gifted under SISU's tenure were just as significant an issue. Combine their wages, and there's your rent covered.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I'm not convinced it was doomed to fail - isn't this the nature of every commercial landlord/tenant relationship. One side wants to pay as little as possible, the other side wants to charge as much as possible. Neither side, typically, wants to break the other though.

As an aside, this 'sustainable' thing is an odd argument to me. If you can afford to pay millions in salaries, you can't really claim that the rent makes your business unsustainable.

ACL though, did have an unavoidable fixed cost, the mortgage to YB. Even SISU could see that a large part of the driver for the high rent was the mortgage, hence the roadmap which talked about buying it out. One of the many ironies in all this is that refinancing that mortgage with the council allowed (or so it was claimed) ACL to lower the rent.

Anyway, in truth this has been done before too. The more I look at this the more I think we just need to move on past it all, and hope that after the dust settles the serious talks start.

That is the very basis of our free market system. You would think an organisation like sisu would understand that at least.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Yes. It was only supposed to temporary until CCFC used their option to buy the Higgs share. Higgs has to go and then CCFC and CCC will be together as ACL. This is the main problem caused by SISU not purchasing the Higgs share. City would still be at the Ricoh if they had of. SISU would be in a position to negotiate the purchase of the CCC Share - assuming they were working well with the council at ACL in this scenario.

One thing over the many years of this saga that has just struck me, did CCFC have the option to buy the Higgs share?

Sure that Robinson was given that option for funds put into the club? May have thrown it in with the sale to Sisu, but sure that the option was his alone at one stage?

 

[bigfatronssba]

One thing over the many years of this saga that has just struck me, did CCFC have the option to buy the Higgs share?

Sure that Robinson was given that option for funds put into the club? May have thrown it in with the sale to Sisu, but sure that the option was his alone at one stage?

I seem to remember something about this just before sisu took over. I thought when Elliot was chairman the board forced GR to hand it back to the club.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I'm sorry, that's melodramatic nonsense. Yes, it was too high. Yes, compared to other clubs it was too high. Yes, as a percentage of turnover it was too high.

But crazed contracts to players who didn't perform; Bell, Eastwood, Wood and McSheffrey, all gifted under SISU's tenure were just as significant an issue. Combine their wages, and there's your rent covered.

Don't disagree, though don't expect people to stop demanding that we spend money we don't have, though one outcome of all this concentration on finances may well be that people will have more realistic expectations in the future.

 

[Ian1779]

Not sure if this has been covered already in 75 odd pages, but when the idea of YB lending ACL £15.5m came out, were there caveat's in regard to this? Or certain criteria that would have to be in place for the lending to take place?

 

[lordsummerisle]

I seem to remember something about this just before sisu took over. I thought when Elliot was chairman the board forced GR to hand it back to the club.

i don't think that Robinson could be "forced" to do anything that he didn't want to do to be honest.

 

[duffer]

One thing over the many years of this saga that has just struck me, did CCFC have the option to buy the Higgs share?

Sure that Robinson was given that option for funds put into the club? May have thrown it in with the sale to Sisu, but sure that the option was his alone at one stage?

Hi Lord, Count here. I think it's pretty well established that there was always the option for CCFC Ltd to buy the Higgs share at a formula price. For whatever reason, SISU chose not to exercise the option...

(Please don't make me google it though, I'm knackered. For once, just trust me on this.)

 

[bigfatronssba]

i don't think that Robinson could be "forced" to do anything that he didn't want to do to be honest.

That depends on the conditions attached to him getting the option. It could have been a condition that if the board of CCFC request it back from him then he has to hand it over.

Not saying that's the case, just that its a possibility.

 

[Godiva]

One thing over the many years of this saga that has just struck me, did CCFC have the option to buy the Higgs share?

Sure that Robinson was given that option for funds put into the club? May have thrown it in with the sale to Sisu, but sure that the option was his alone at one stage?

Hi Lord, Count here. I think it's pretty well established that there was always the option for CCFC Ltd to buy the Higgs share at a formula price. For whatever reason, SISU chose not to exercise the option...

(Please don't make me google it though, I'm knackered. For once, just trust me on this.)

The formula price was in the region of £8m.

 

[stupot07]

Ok so the bit about ACL being unsustainable without the club is true, but the bit you disagree with is tosh.

Talk about people believing what they want to believe.

So you actually believe that the clubs turnover was in fact £24-25m not £10.8m in 2012/13? That goes against all of the figures OSB has put forward. Yes, talk about people believing what they want to believe....

 

[skybluetony176]

We also learned that ACL was only sustainable if CCFC kept paying huge rent which was unsustainable for the club.

i'm more concerned about the even more unsustainable rent that sisu are choosing to pay at suxfields. if you feel the need to complain about rent, historic or otherwise its the current arrangement that's doing the most damage to the club. You'd be better off concentrating on that.

 

[stupot07]

I'm sorry, that's melodramatic nonsense. Yes, it was too high. Yes, compared to other clubs it was too high. Yes, as a percentage of turnover it was too high.

But crazed contracts to players who didn't perform; Bell, Eastwood, Wood and McSheffrey, all gifted under SISU's tenure were just as significant an issue. Combine their wages, and there's your rent covered.

It was part of the costs that were unsustainable. We can't afford to pay £1.3m, we can't afford to then pay another c£250k matchday costs, and we can't afford to then not get the benefit of the £1m per annual F&Bs.

That's notwithstanding the wages we spent on players. Paying high wages (not particularly high compared to our peers) doesn't not make the rent ok.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

As an aside, this 'sustainable' thing is an odd argument to me. If you can afford to pay millions in salaries, you can't really claim that the rent makes your business unsustainable.

You can't. Although tbf to the club they've also cut back on costs in salaries too. Much, indeed, to the chagrin of our former council leader

Anyway, in truth this has been done before too. The more I look at this the more I think we just need to move on past it all, and hope that after the dust settles the serious talks start.

Yeah, probably right... although maybe it's like an elaborate version of Jeremy Kyle, where they air all their dirty laundry first before building each other back up with the help of an inane tosser masquerading as a counsellor!

 

[duffer]

Don't disagree, though don't expect people to stop demanding that we spend money we don't have, though one outcome of all this concentration on finances may well be that people will have more realistic expectations in the future.

Spot on. Couldn't agree more. Fwiw, I do get a sense that fans (including myself here) are beginning to see this now.

 

[stupot07]

i'm more concerned about the even more unsustainable rent that sisu are choosing to pay at suxfields. if you feel the need to complain about rent, historic or otherwise its the current arrangement that's doing the most damage to the club. You'd be better off concentrating on that.

And I do not disagree with that, but these 3 days aren't about sixfields.

 

[skybluetony176]

So you actually believe that the clubs turnover was in fact £24-25m not £10.8m in 2012/13? That goes against all of the figures OSB has put forward. Yes, talk about people believing what they want to believe....

wasn't it the sisu QC who made the 5% comment? are you saying he's lying? which bits of there argument are you going to choose to believe?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I seem to remember something about this just before sisu took over. I thought when Elliot was chairman the board forced GR to hand it back to the club.

As with many things Robinson did, it was a hamfisted attempt to gain some security, that he didn't manage to do right!

 

[stupot07]

wasn't it the sisu QC who made the 5% comment? are you saying he's lying? which bits of there argument are you going to choose to believe?

He was reading from a Higgs memo, not from the actual accounts.

 

[Paxman II]

If they had bought the Higgs shares then what would that have achieved people?

 

[duffer]

The formula price was in the region of £8m.

Was that ever established? I thought the formula price was actually around £6.5m. Regardless, it looks like Higgs were prepared to accept £5m, but not on SISU's delayed payments terms. It's a pity SISU didn't start negotiating about it from the off in 2007, imho, instead of gambling on promotion. Ho hum, bit late now either way.

 

[duffer]

If they had bought the Higgs shares then what would that have achieved people?

50% of ACL and one would presume scope to influence its future direction and growth, the rent & charges, and access to income streams from that business.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Was that ever established? I thought the formula price was actually around £6.5m. Regardless, it looks like Higgs were prepared to accept £5m, but not on SISU's delayed payments terms. It's a pity SISU didn't start negotiating about it from the off in 2007, imho, instead of gambling on promotion. Ho hum, bit late now either way.

Indeed, but ever since Robinson and co stuffed it up, it was always about the short term spunking in the desperate hope of a promotion to the land of milk and honey and financial salvation.

Had any season fluked that promotion, it's a savage indictment of the system it could have saved everything.

Well, apart from the fact owners would then have to spend £20k pw on substandard players to stand still...

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It was part of the costs that were unsustainable. We can't afford to pay £1.3m, we can't afford to then pay another c£250k matchday costs, and we can't afford to then not get the benefit of the £1m per annual F&Bs.

That's notwithstanding the wages we spent on players. Paying high wages (not particularly high compared to our peers) doesn't not make the rent ok.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you on the rent issue as its been covered off before. But somehow you think that the rent, matchday costs and the like should all be 'plusses'. They shouldn't be. What about financing costs in the capital to build, what about maintenance, what about depreciation? Again I also stated that the headline figure was too high; but don't let that run away with you. The real cost of playing in a £30m+ stadium is - all things considered - well in excess of £1m per annum. Probably closer to double that when you allow for compound interest over a sensible term. Football cannot expect to operate in a crazed bubble with expenditure exceeding turnover and think that's okay.

If which player wages, the point I was making, isn't an insignificant issue. Certainly shouldn't be overlooked as it is by many who major on the headline topics

 

[skybluetony176]

If they had bought the Higgs shares then what would that have achieved people?

saved a fortune in legal fee's

how much have they spent? enough to have purchased the Higgs share? when you add it all up it must be a pretty penny, failed hearing to have the JR, Appeal that they won, the warm up match, the Higgs case and the JR itself on top. its not just the days in court either, its all the work behind the scenes, how many man hours go into it and at what hourly rate? and i'm sure there is some things I've missed.

that's before you add all the losses the club has sustained from the suxfields own goal.

 

[skybluetony176]

just reading through what was said in court today and i cant help but laugh that just a few weeks ago PWKH was being portrayed in court as a balloon arranging clown, this week he's sisu start witness. amusing.

who knows what tomorrow will bring? i'm betting sisu's qc will call Anne Lucas as a character witness for Joy.

 

[lordsummerisle]

If which player wages, the point I was making, isn't an insignificant issue. Certainly shouldn't be overlooked as it is by many who major on the headline topics

It's almost like you weren't complaining like buggery about our "low" wage bill when we got relegated despite it being more than our total turnover isn't it?

 

[torchomatic]

But crazed contracts to players who didn't perform; Bell, Eastwood, Wood and McSheffrey, all gifted under SISU's tenure were just as significant an issue. Combine their wages, and there's your rent covered.

Weird. Just what some praise Richardson for.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[stupot07]

I'm not going to get into a debate with you on the rent issue as its been covered off before. But somehow you think that the rent, matchday costs and the like should all be 'plusses'. They shouldn't be. What about financing costs in the capital to build, what about maintenance, what about depreciation? Again I also stated that the headline figure was too high; but don't let that run away with you. The real cost of playing in a £30m+ stadium is - all things considered - well in excess of £1m per annum. Probably closer to double that when you allow for compound interest over a sensible term. Football cannot expect to operate in a crazed bubble with expenditure exceeding turnover and think that's okay.

If which player wages, the point I was making, isn't an insignificant issue. Certainly shouldn't be overlooked as it is by many who major on the headline topics

Yes the cost of ownership are probably well in excess of ownership but then the flipside is the potential for getting all revenue that comes in. For me the ideal solution would be a long lease with the council keeping the freehold.

We know about the wage bill, the club have taken steps to address that issue.

Complete agree with your point about football expenditure being more than turnover, it shouldn't be, but unfortunately the fans expect it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[No future with SISU]

Jesus, read the thing. We are not saying 'sell to Sisu'. We are saying 'negotiate with all possible ownership scenarios.' A lot of regular fans don't care about who owns what – they want their club back in the city.

Negotiating – no matter how icky and distasteful some anti-Sisu fundamentalists might find it – with the club's owners is a start down that road. The alternative is many, many more days in court and rattling around in Northampton.

My goal is getting the club back to the Ricoh.

The problem with SISU getting hold of the stadium is what will they do with it. There is the chance that they will hang on to it and make a profit out of it and not invest in the club. We will be stuck in div 3 or 4 forever.