Key Quotes from Reid/Seppala (3 Viewers)

[Astute]

That's the problem with the Astutes of this world. They don't even understand the facts they use in their argument.

If I am wrong can you tell me how much ACL/CCC have put into the build of the stadium if I am wrong by looking at the figures then?

So how much should SISU be offered the ground for? Shall we see what the world looks like to Fern?

 

---

[theferret]

So the stadium has cost CCC/ACL 33m?

So why do you all keep saying that SISU should get it for the 14m mortgage then as they have put nothing else in?

Keep on digging. The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

We were talking about funding sources for the build cost - you brought it up. The council's contribution (from its own coffers) was £12 million. The rest was borrowed, and has been paid off from operating revenues, and continues to be, albeit with payments now going direct to the council.

You also seem to be confusing the management company with ownership of the freehold. SISU's offer (last year) amounted to £14 million which would have bought them 50% of the company that manages the complex. Nobody is saying that £14 million would represent a fair price for the freehold - the bricks and mortar and all the land that surrounds it. Nobody knows what SISU are prepared to offer for that, we can only speculate.

 

[Astute]

You're not listening. The sale of catering rights were not used for build costs, but what ACL chose to spend that money on I don't know. Yes, we know no dividends have been paid, but that is because the council chose not to take any. Fine. But then people are saying ACL can survive without the club? Can they?

The bottom line is that for a total investment of £12 million the council ended up with total ownership of a facility worth many times that, and also 50% of management company. So they did very well out of it. Fine, no issue with that, but I do have an issue with how they then proceeded to fleece the football club, and there is no denying they did that. If ACL can survive without the club, why was it necessary to charge them so much?

For what it's worth I have found the funding document (go to page 16):

http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf

The council made an equity investment of £10 million, plus a further £2 million later one. The £21m was borrowed by ACL. I'm not sure where the confusion is?

We were talking about funding sources for the build cost - you brought it up. The council's contribution (from its own coffers) was £12 million. The rest was borrowed, and has been paid off from operating revenues, and continues to be, albeit with payments now going direct to the council.

You also seem to be confusing the management company with ownership of the freehold. SISU's offer (last year) amounted to £14 million which would have bought them 50% of the company that manages the complex. Nobody is saying that £14 million would represent a fair price for the freehold - the bricks and mortar and all the land that surrounds it. Nobody knows what SISU are prepared to offer for that, we can only speculate.

Operating revenue? You are having a joke considering that ACL are supposedly running at a loss but could afford to pay back 20m owed.

 

[theferret]

Operating revenue? You are having a joke considering that ACL are supposedly running at a loss but could afford to pay back 20m owed.

Yes, operating revenues. ACL have not defaulted on any of their repayments to the bank or (as far as we know) to the council. So it is a fair assumption that ACL have been repaying the loan from operating revenues. But keep digging that hole if you wish. If they are operating at a loss, that is very recent. As recently as 2011 they spent nearly £4 million on a refurbishment that included a 650 seat auditorium (for 'national comedians and singers') which has so far barely been used (much like the rest of their facilities). I must have missed the big name comedians to have headlined that venue. So they were happily splashing the cash then while milking CCFC for inflated rent. If they are struggling now, well tough titty, they should have thought of that. All that considered, it was no surprise SISU intended to bring in AEG.

I still don't know what your point is. What are you trying to say? Help me out. You got all confused over the £14 million and what it was actually going to buy, so I am glad I clarified that. Beyond that, are we done here?

 

[No future with SISU]

You're not listening. The sale of catering rights were not used for build costs, but what ACL chose to spend that money on I don't know. Yes, we know no dividends have been paid, but that is because the council chose not to take any. Fine. But then people are saying ACL can survive without the club? Can they?

The bottom line is that for a total investment of £12 million the council ended up with total ownership of a facility worth many times that, and also 50% of management company. So they did very well out of it. Fine, no issue with that, but I do have an issue with how they then proceeded to fleece the football club, and there is no denying they did that. If ACL can survive without the club, why was it necessary to charge them so much?

For what it's worth I have found the funding document (go to page 16):

http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf

If you read the funding costs their was an over spend of £2.9m, the council put in £10m, their was £7m required for the fit out(only £1.1m from ACL), £21m borrowed by the council and put into the build(£21m paid to the council by ACL to run the stadium). AS the council own acl it is still their debt.

 

[Astute]

Yes, operating revenues. ACL have not defaulted on any of their repayments to the bank or (as far as we know) to the council. So it is a fair assumption that ACL have been repaying the loan from operating revenues. But keep digging that hole if you wish. If they are operating at a loss, that is very recent. As recently as 2011 they spent nearly £4 million on a refurbishment that included a 650 seat auditorium (for 'national comedians and singers') which has so far barely been used (much like the rest of their facilities). I must have missed the big name comedians to have headlined that venue. So they were happily splashing the cash then while milking CCFC for inflated rent. If they are struggling now, well tough titty, they should have thought of that. All that considered, it was no surprise SISU intended to bring in AEG.

I still don't know what your point is. What are you trying to say? Help me out. You got all confused over the £14 million and what it was actually going to buy, so I am glad I clarified that. Beyond that, are we done here?

So why say if the stadium can survive if they have been paying back over 2m a year from income.......considering ACL pay their debts. This isn't SISU we are talking about. And this is also including the last couple of years that no rent has been paid.

ACL have always showed their books on time. At no time have they made 2m in a year profit. So yes I can see why you would like us to be done now on the subject. For once you want to argue when independent figures prove you to be wrong and calling me wrong can be proved to be wrong.

Nothing wrong in being wrong. We can all make mistakes. And with the web of bullshit that SISU have put about it will happen many more times.

 

[theferret]

If you read the funding costs their was an over spend of £2.9m, the council put in £10m, their was £7m required for the fit out(only £1.1m from ACL), £21m borrowed by the council and put into the build(£21m paid to the council by ACL to run the stadium). AS the council own acl it is still their debt.

Other than being £0.9 million out on the overspend, I'm not sure what it is you think you are correcting me on?

 

[Astute]

Having a problem understanding what you have said? The stadium don't make much of a profit if it does make one at all. But you are saying that ACL have paid back about 20m from income. This is why the catering money and naming rights never went towards the build costs. Sorry but can't agree with your thoughts in the slightest. Either the build cost was in excess of 30m to CCC/ACL, the Ricoh is making millions each year or the money that you say went to CCC went towards the build.

I may have had a drink, but am much more sober than normal when not at work.

 

[No future with SISU]

We were talking about funding sources for the build cost - you brought it up. The council's contribution (from its own coffers) was £12 million. The rest was borrowed, and has been paid off from operating revenues, and continues to be, albeit with payments now going direct to the council.

You also seem to be confusing the management company with ownership of the freehold. SISU's offer (last year) amounted to £14 million which would have bought them 50% of the company that manages the complex. Nobody is saying that £14 million would represent a fair price for the freehold - the bricks and mortar and all the land that surrounds it. Nobody knows what SISU are prepared to offer for that, we can only speculate.

She wanted to go to the bank after ACL was put into insolvency and offer to pay less of the money owed to the bank, the council decided it was not a good idea and paid off the debt to the bank. SISU and firms like them are what caused the bank crash and caused the mess we are in now.

 

[No future with SISU]

Other than being £0.9 million out on the overspend, I'm not sure what it is you think you are correcting me on?

The £7m for the fit out and the £21m the council borrowed

 

[theferret]

So why say if the stadium can survive if they have been paying back over 2m a year from income.......considering ACL pay their debts. This isn't SISU we are talking about. And this is also including the last couple of years that no rent has been paid.

ACL have always showed their books on time. At no time have they made 2m in a year profit. So yes I can see why you would like us to be done now on the subject. For once you want to argue when independent figures prove you to be wrong and calling me wrong can be proved to be wrong.

Nothing wrong in being wrong. We can all make mistakes. And with the web of bullshit that SISU have put about it will happen many more times.

Have you been drinking tonight? What are you talking about? You have been proven wrong time and again in this thread, but still you persist, so I admire you for that.

What is your point? Are you trying to say that ACL are still profitable or not profitable? Are you saying they need the club, or don't need the club?

Let me clarify for you. Of the £113 million build costs, the council contributed £12.9 million (I have added the 900K). There was, in addition to that, a £21 million mortgage that ACL have been paying back ever since.

In theearly years, ACL did very well. They didn't post massive profits, no business of that type will, because they will reinvest money to avoid tax, hence the £3.7 million refit in 2010/11. So, they were doing pretty well (while the football club was being crippled it should be noted). More recently, it appears their revenues have dried up a bit. The rent dispute then started, and they agreed a deal with SISU (so were completely complicit in this) to approach YB with a view of paying off the outstanding mortgage at a distressed rate. This would have bought SISU the Higgs share of ACL, and hand in hand they would have skipped off into the sunset to a better life together. The council pulled out, the rest is history. Where does this leave ACL now? Nobody knows. They drew down on the ESCROW fund to mitigate some of the losses, and may still receive a payment once Ltd is liquidated.

Either way, my suspicion is that they are now probably struggling, given that the football club also contributed indirectly, providing them with much needed and reliable cash-flow. I don't know where they stand now. Time will tell.

 

[Seyeclops666]

It looks to me as if fans are faced with two choices:

1. Accept, if reluctantly that SISU are here for the long haul, and will do things their way. They are clearly unaffected by any protest campaign which seems unlikely to divert them from their chosen path. Trust that they will build a new stadium close to Coventry, and are genuinely interested in running a football club.

(There seems no prospect of any return to the Ricoh as CCC/ACL/Higgs will not sell the stadium lock, stock and barrel to SISU. I detect a political element involved, i.e. Labour Council v Right Wing led Hedge Fund which makes any deal more unlikely.)

2. For those that are not prepared to accept the above, forming a new club seems more and more like the only alternative.

There will be no feckin other stadium - not a feckin chance.

 

[Astute]

Have you been drinking tonight? What are you talking about? You have been proven wrong time and again in this thread, but still you persist, so I admire you for that.

What is your point? Are you trying to say that ACL are still profitable or not profitable? Are you saying they need the club, or don't need the club?

Let me clarify for you. Of the £113 million build costs, the council contributed £12.9 million (I have added the 900K). There was, in addition to that, a £21 million mortgage that ACL have been paying back ever since.

In theearly years, ACL did very well. They didn't post massive profits, no business of that type will, because they will reinvest money to avoid tax, hence the £3.7 million refit in 2010/11. So, they were doing pretty well (while the football club was being crippled it should be noted). More recently, it appears their revenues have dried up a bit. The rent dispute then started, and they agreed a deal with SISU (so were completely complicit in this) to approach YB with a view of paying off the outstanding mortgage at a distressed rate. This would have bought SISU the Higgs share of ACL, and hand in hand they would have skipped off into the sunset to a better life together. The council pulled out, the rest is history. Where does this leave ACL now? Nobody knows. They drew down on the ESCROW fund to mitigate some of the losses, and may still receive a payment once Ltd is liquidated.

Either way, my suspicion is that they are now probably struggling, given that the football club also contributed indirectly, providing them with much needed and reliable cash-flow. I don't know where they stand now. Time will tell.

You must be blind to what you are saying. Or are you saying CCC have been paying back debts from the Ricoh out of council money? You have just said again that ACL will struggle without a rental income.

Just a normal day. Try to twist facts when they are in front of you. So where did the money come from to pay this approx 20m off? Yet you say they put money from catering and naming rights in their pocket and never used it towards building costs. So you are still saying that these monies are not the same?

If you can't explain to all of us your version of where the money came from/money went then you will not be believed at all when you can't understand facts but try to say the facts are wrong.

 

[stupot07]

The £7m for the fit out and the £21m the council borrowed

The £21m was paid back to the council when ACL paid the 50 year lease upfront.

If you look at the fit out it says £7m (managed by ACL) but on the income £1.1m ACL for fit out. So that suggests that ACL didn't play the £7m.


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

 

[DaleM]

Fuck me , what are you lot arguing over the rent again for ? We all know they only paid it for 5 years which is £6 million. Its the other 60 odd million that's disappeared into a black hole you should be investigating and arguing over if your all financial fucking geniuses

 

[Grendel]

You must be blind to what you are saying. Or are you saying CCC have been paying back debts from the Ricoh out of council money? You have just said again that ACL will struggle without a rental income.

Just a normal day. Try to twist facts when they are in front of you. So where did the money come from to pay this approx 20m off? Yet you say they put money from catering and naming rights in their pocket and never used it towards building costs. So you are still saying that these monies are not the same?

If you can't explain to all of us your version of where the money came from/money went then you will not be believed at all when you can't understand facts but try to say the facts are wrong.

He has explained it very well.

Stick to calling people sisu lovers - on financial matters you are out if your depth.

 

[Astute]

He has explained it very well.

Stick to calling people sisu lovers - on financial matters you are out if your depth.

I don't call people SISU lovers. But I know an idiot when I see one.

Hello Grendull

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Soul destroying watching a woman with no interest in Coventry destroy my club - pretty frustrated by my council to and joe elliott and others who encouraged Sisu to get involved in the first place

 

[theferret]

You must be blind to what you are saying. Or are you saying CCC have been paying back debts from the Ricoh out of council money? You have just said again that ACL will struggle without a rental income.

Just a normal day. Try to twist facts when they are in front of you. So where did the money come from to pay this approx 20m off? Yet you say they put money from catering and naming rights in their pocket and never used it towards building costs. So you are still saying that these monies are not the same?

If you can't explain to all of us your version of where the money came from/money went then you will not be believed at all when you can't understand facts but try to say the facts are wrong.

What £20 million?

There was a £21 million mortgage. ACL had to pay that back, and they did, making payments to the bank from operating revenues, how is that so hard to understand? By the time CCC paid off that mortgage earlier this year, it cost them £14 million (ipso facto - a good deal of it had been paid off by that point), and now ACL make payments direct to CCC. Which bit of that is so hard to grasp?

That the naming rights and catering rights money was not used to cover build costs is a matter of documented fact - it says so in the council's own report. I speculated earlier that this money may have been used to pay some fit-out costs, but I don't know where that money went, but I suspect it was used to cover general costs in that difficult 1st year for any business.

I am speculating that ACL are now struggling, but again, I cannot say for sure.

Is it just me, or does all this make sense? I am starting to doubt myself now.

 

[Astute]

No it doesn't make sense. You say that they pocketed the money from the naming rights and catering but paid off a lot of money they can't afford to. There are massive cuts to council budgets. People are losing their jobs because the council have got no money. But they seem to have a lot of money to pay off what is owed on the stadium. A small item in a massive fuckup which the stadium has become. But the council are skint. I have never seen it where the amount owed was well in excess of 30m. So how could they have paid it off when they can't afford it and where was it in the books they submit each year?

Like I say much of a nothing. But this is how rumours start.

 

[theferret]

No it doesn't make sense. You say that they pocketed the money from the naming rights and catering but paid off a lot of money they can't afford to. There are massive cuts to council budgets. People are losing their jobs because the council have got no money. But they seem to have a lot of money to pay off what is owed on the stadium. A small item in a massive fuckup which the stadium has become. But the council are skint. I have never seen it where the amount owed was well in excess of 30m. So how could they have paid it off when they can't afford it and where was it in the books they submit each year?

Like I say much of a nothing. But this is how rumours start.

You're winding me up now? You really have been drinking I think.

You do get the distinction between ACL and the council?

I am not saying they (that's ACL) 'pocketed' the naming rights money, I am saying it is not documented as being used for the build costs. That money would have gone into the pot for (probably) fit out costs, and general running costs.

Where has the £30m reference come from? And what has council budgets got to do with any of this?

ACL would have made the mortage payments from operating revenues. They still do - just to the council now.

The council made an equity investment of £12.9m at the beginning. That investment is still tied up. The stadium owes them that and they will want that back as a minimum if they sell it.

As for the rest I have no idea what you are talking about. Understand this basic fact - there was a £21 million mortgage. They have paid some of it off during the course of the past 8 years or so (that's what you do when you have a loan or mortgage). The council settled it (it was all over the news you know) for £14 million, and now ACL pay the council. It really is simple.

 

[DaleM]

FFS:slap:

Time for beer :claping hands:

 

[theferret]

FFS:slap:

Time for beer :claping hands:

Astute has been on it all night evidently. I've just joined him in the hope he starts making sense.

But yes, probably time to call it a night.

 

[Paxman II]

I won't attempt to go there just now as I get frustrated by some on here's lack of understanding and wish to skew the reality to fit with their own feelings and not fact. ferret is basically correct.

Perhaps we can all agree if OSB runs his rule of thumb over the document and explains it in laymen terms we will all see the light? I hope he does...he has far more patience with you all than I do.

 

[No future with SISU]

The £21m was paid back to the council when ACL paid the 50 year lease upfront.

If you look at the fit out it says £7m (managed by ACL) but on the income £1.1m ACL for fit out. So that suggests that ACL didn't play the £7m.


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

Yes ACL paid the council £21m and the council paid off their loan. ACL has a loan of £21m (owned by the council so the council still has a loan of £21m and use the profits to reduce the debt to £14m) ACL get into trouble with the bank (caused by SISU) so the council has to bail out its company ACL with a loan of £14m. So £10m +£2.9m+£21m=£33.9m(£7m paid off by ACL)=£26.9M still owed to the bank and the taxpayers of the city

 

[Astute]

Yes ACL paid the council £21m and the council paid off their loan. ACL has a loan of £21m (owned by the council so the council still has a loan of £21m and use the profits to reduce the debt to £14m) ACL get into trouble with the bank (caused by SISU) so the council has to bail out its company ACL with a loan of £14m. So £10m +£2.9m+£21m=£33.9m(£7m paid off by ACL)=£26.9M still owed to the bank and the taxpayers of the city

And this is my point.

I was following what Ferret said. Either the debts were higher than the 14m he was saying, he also said that income from the stadium had paid it down to the 14m.....we all know the stadium don't make this much. But some of you agree that the majority of what was loaned was paid back from income :thinking about:

If so how did SISU manage to nearly send ACL to the wall by not paying the rent? How much is owed is quite important as it will give an idea what sort of bid could be accepted by SISU. Yet he also said that ACL/council had pocketed the naming rights and catering contract money.

So much for being unbiased.

 

[stupot07]

Yes ACL paid the council £21m and the council paid off their loan. ACL has a loan of £21m (owned by the council so the council still has a loan of £21m and use the profits to reduce the debt to £14m) ACL get into trouble with the bank (caused by SISU) so the council has to bail out its company ACL with a loan of £14m. So £10m +£2.9m+£21m=£33.9m(£7m paid off by ACL)=£26.9M still owed to the bank and the taxpayers of the city

Bollocks accidentally thanked the post.

ACL don't still have a loan of £21m, it's been replaced by the £14m loan.

And you're missing ferrets point.

Freehold the council have only put in £10m plus £2.9m equity, they own 100% of the Ricoh for £12.9m.

ACL (you keep saying the council as if they are solely responsible) owe £14m to the council, which is essential the loan on the 42 years rent they owe.

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

 

[oldskyblue58]

The Council are presently owed £14m which is the loan that was taken out in January. On top of that they would be due the value of their shares they own in ACL via an intermediary company North Coventry Holdings Limited. They of course own the freehold. The current worth of ACL shares or the freehold has nothing to do with loans or the amount originally spent

Originally CCC had a Prudential Loan of £21m to help fund the project. A lease was offered to ACL where they paid an annual rent or they paid a one off lease premium of £21m. ACL chose to pay the lease premium and obtained a loan from Yorkshire Bank to do it of £21m. By January 2013 that loan to ACL had reduced to £14m. The Council obtained another Prudential loan (cheap finance) and then gave a loan of £14m to ACL at slightly higher interest (ie CCC make a profit on the interest).

It is a mute point as to what the CCC put in to the project. The club didnt take up the option to buy the site so never owned it. The Council acquired the site for £24m it would seem and sold part of it to Tesco for £59m. If the council owned the site then the sale proceeds are also the Councils and those proceeds were invested in the build. On top of that there was £10m in Council equity and £5m in residual land. In addition the proceeds of the lease premium were effectively invested in the project by paying off the prudential loan of £21m. So on that basis the CCC investment was £95m. Or you can ignore the sale of freehold or the lease premium but not sure thats correct

The investment figure will depend on where you feel the rights to the proceeds from Tesco lay. Clearly the freehold is CCC so any disposal of part of the freehold would be CCC wouldnt it? If they own the freehold then they are the only ones that can lease out the premises and any lease premium is the councils which they used to repay a loan on the build

CCFC costs are disclosed in their accounts. CCCFC had spent over £19m on the project but there were loans and creditors against that. All the project investment and all the creditors related to it were netted off and treated as CCFC's investment in the project and that netted down to £6.8m. That includes a lot of professional fees, surveys, preliminary stuff that in reality have no tangible value ie you cant go see it or touch it like bricks & mortar. How they spent that sort of money on something they didnt own god knows. CCFC sold their net investment in the Ricoh project to the Higgs Charity for 6.5m. With that sale they lost any connection to the build or any income that the site may generate. They became tenants, with rights to some income (eg 900 car park spaces) but not all ............ so it all began

 

[No future with SISU]

The Council are presently owed £14m which is the loan that was taken out in January. On top of that they would be due the value of their shares they own in ACL via an intermediary company North Coventry Holdings Limited. They of course own the freehold. The current worth of ACL shares or the freehold has nothing to do with loans or the amount originally spent

Originally CCC had a Prudential Loan of £21m to help fund the project. A lease was offered to ACL where they paid an annual rent or they paid a one off lease premium of £21m. ACL chose to pay the lease premium and obtained a loan from Yorkshire Bank to do it of £21m. By January 2013 that loan to ACL had reduced to £14m. The Council obtained another Prudential loan (cheap finance) and then gave a loan of £14m to ACL at slightly higher interest (ie CCC make a profit on the interest).

It is a mute point as to what the CCC put in to the project. The club didnt take up the option to buy the site so never owned it. The Council acquired the site for £24m it would seem and sold part of it to Tesco for £59m. If the council owned the site then the sale proceeds are also the Councils and those proceeds were invested in the build. On top of that there was £10m in Council equity and £5m in residual land. In addition the proceeds of the lease premium were effectively invested in the project by paying off the prudential loan of £21m. So on that basis the CCC investment was £95m. Or you can ignore the sale of freehold or the lease premium but not sure thats correct

The investment figure will depend on where you feel the rights to the proceeds from Tesco lay. Clearly the freehold is CCC so any disposal of part of the freehold would be CCC wouldnt it? If they own the freehold then they are the only ones that can lease out the premises and any lease premium is the councils which they used to repay a loan on the build

CCFC costs are disclosed in their accounts. CCCFC had spent over £19m on the project but there were loans and creditors against that. All the project investment and all the creditors related to it were netted off and treated as CCFC's investment in the project and that netted down to £6.8m. That includes a lot of professional fees, surveys, preliminary stuff that in reality have no tangible value ie you cant go see it or touch it like bricks & mortar. How they spent that sort of money on something they didnt own god knows. CCFC sold their net investment in the Ricoh project to the Higgs Charity for 6.5m. With that sale they lost any connection to the build or any income that the site may generate. They became tenants, with rights to some income (eg 900 car park spaces) but not all ............ so it all began

Do you know who got the £24m for the land ?

 

[bigfatronssba]

Do you know who got the £24m for the land ?

British Gas?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Noticed you never gave OSB a like oh not what you wanted to hear.

Bollocks accidentally thanked the post.

ACL don't still have a loan of £21m, it's been replaced by the £14m loan.

And you're missing ferrets point.

Freehold the council have only put in £10m plus £2.9m equity, they own 100% of the Ricoh for £12.9m.

ACL (you keep saying the council as if they are solely responsible) owe £14m to the council, which is essential the loan on the 42 years rent they owe.

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

 

[No future with SISU]

British Gas?

The club owned the land from 1999 untill the council paid £24m on 20 march 2002. The club got the £24m and now SISU want it back for a couple of million.

 

[Astute]

Noticed you never gave OSB a like oh not what you wanted to hear.

Maybe because it blows away another theory of some that our club lost lots of millions on the build and ended up owning nothing so should have at least some of the equity.

 

[Jack Griffin]

The club owned the land from 1999 untill the council paid £24m on 20 march 2002. The club got the £24m and now SISU want it back for a couple of million.

That is not what Tim Fisher said.. he was very 'flexible' on the numbers, now we are hearing a completely different story.. I do not believe CCFC ever OWNED the land.

Tim says himself that the council spent between £13M and £18M to buy the contaminated land and sold a portion of it on to Tesco for a large profit, that entire profit was ploughed into the stadium construction.. in addition the council put in another £10M grant and backed a £22M loan to complete the project (which is being paid back by ACL to the council).

Listen to Tim Fisher say it himself here from 1m 30s in.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=tqtHj-aq8iw&v=aALGMquIYOA

The minimum the council put in therefore was £23M, maybe up to £28M and it also did not take any profit out of the Tesco sale. This probably explains the £24M figure Daniel Gidney is alleged to have given SISU in the early days of negotiation.

 

[stupot07]

Noticed you never gave OSB a like oh not what you wanted to hear.

That's because I've only just seen it

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