That's the problem with the Astutes of this world. They don't even understand the facts they use in their argument.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Other than being £0.9 million out on the overspend, I'm not sure what it is you think you are correcting me on?
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.
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.
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.
The £7m for the fit out and the £21m the council borrowed
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.
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.
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.
FFS:slap:
Time for beer :claping hands:
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
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
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 ?
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
British Gas?
Noticed you never gave OSB a like oh not what you wanted to hear.
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.
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.
Noticed you never gave OSB a like oh not what you wanted to hear.
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?