Million dollar question (3 Viewers)

torchomatic · Mar 2, 2013

And you know what? It shouldn't even be a "handful". It's indefensible to want the club your supposedly support to go out of business just because you don't like who runs the joint.

I've said it many times I know but I helped with the anti-Richardson protests, printing and handing out leaflets both home and away. I think he was the single worst custodian this club has ever had. We ended up in £60M of debt because he decided to have a "punt" at glory, he sold our home and made a packet. But regardless I never once wanted the club to be put in admin or liquidation just to get rid of him.

Those who wish for that scenario should be ashamed of themselves.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
That's ridiculous. Only a handful have stated they would be prepared to allow the club to go to the wall as a mechanism to get rid of the current owners.

Nobody really wants to see, or would drive joy from the club folding. Your posts are getting more Grendelesque by the day. Shame

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

Grendel said:
Having last year defended thorn to the bitter end your now only ever arguing for the council to effectively wind the club up and you make up statistics and pluck facts ft the air. Summer isle proved this yesterday.

Your posts are a combination of CJ and sky blue kid.

You must be proud.

As the stance you so childishly supported brings this club to its knees, your attempts to divert attention and lash out behind become ever more desperate

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

Grendel said:
If he said he has he must have done. According to you when sky blue Taylor said something you've been quoting it as factual ever since.

He also claimed ACL had gone bust. Has it?

And forget the tiresome deflections: has it?

theferret · Mar 2, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Let me start with a simple one. Yesterday, Fisher claimed that since last spring, the club has given ACL a sum of £800K in rent.

Has it?

In rent no, in total financial contributions yes.

I know what your point is, that £500,000 of that came from the escrow account - but I don't see where to club have sought the hide that fact, considering that it was THE CLUB that deposited that money in the account in the first instance. Misleading? Perhaps. But so is including that £500,000 in the headline arrears figure that ACL have done repeatedly.

All this is largely irrelevant. The club cannot afford the rent deal on the table, at least not without access to other income streams. Those are the cold hard facts. Something therefore has to give. ACL take a hit, or they literally force the club out of business, and I don't see how anyone benefits from that.

Question, what do you think ACL will seek to charge any phoenix club that starts again as a non-league entity? It won't be 400K, it won't be 100K, so why are we playing this silly game?

torchomatic · Mar 2, 2013

I think Fisher's mistake was using the word "rent". I'm sure ACL have indeed cleared the ESCROW account and CCFC have paid their match costs totalling £800K since last April. It seems you are arguing over the label the money has been given rather than the fact that the money has been collected by ACL.

Are you suggesting then that ACL have not received ONE PENNY from CCFC since last April?

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
As I told you yesterday and will do so again, if they had done so I cannot see how the court would have sanctioned the winding up order for non payment of rent

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

theferret said:
In rent no, in total financial contributions yes.

I know what your point is, that £500,000 of that came from the escrow account - but I don't see where to club have sought the hide that fact, considering that it was THE CLUB that deposited that money in the account in the first instance. Misleading? Perhaps. But so is including that £500,000 in the headline arrears figure that ACL have done repeatedly.

All this is largely irrelevant. The club cannot afford the rent deal on the table, at least not without access to other income streams. Those are the cold hard facts. Something therefore has to give. ACL take a hit, or they literally force the club out of business, and I don't see how anyone benefits from that.

Question, what do you think ACL will seek to charge any phoenix club that starts again as a non-league entity? It won't be 400K, it won't be 100K, so why are we playing this silly game?

I'm sorry it's not irrelevant. He was being asked a to whether the club had paid rent and he answered in the affirmative. When does that become a lie?

Another one for you, has ACL 'gone bust'?

And don't squirm, you know the accepted definition of that term

wingy · Mar 2, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
He also claimed ACL had gone bust. Has it?

And forget the tiresome deflections: has it?

For clarity and factuality the Club through the ownership of SSU have paid £300K or thereabouts to cover matchday Expenses /Running costs .Simplistis though it is the other £500K. has come from the previous owners of the club in the form of the escrow account ,if the curent owners /board /wankers also known as Sisu had topped that back up as instructed by the courts they could then factually claim to have paid £800K. since last March/April.:jerkit:

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
I think Fisher's mistake was using the word "rent". I'm sure ACL have indeed cleared the ESCROW account and CCFC have paid their match costs totalling £800K since last April. It seems you are arguing over the label the money has been given rather than the fact that the money has been collected by ACL.

Are you suggesting then that ACL have not received ONE PENNY from CCFC since last April?

In not playing semantics here. He was clearly asked if they were paying rent, not a contribution to match day costs. He stated yes and quoted this large sum. Why?

theferret · Mar 2, 2013

dongonzalos said:
So do you believe nobody will fill the vacuum?

Do you?

Somebody may emerge to bankroll the formation of a new club - but nobody will save the club in it's current form. We will have to do what Rangers did and reform as a new club and apply to play at a much lower level. Who wants that? Perhaps a few romantics who like the idea of rising again through the leagues. The reality of that is Forest Green Rovers at home in front of a few thousand. No thanks. Let's save what we have now, and for now at least, we need SISU.

torchomatic · Mar 2, 2013

YEs your are. You're suggesting that CCFC have not paid anything to ACL. That clearly is not the case.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
In not playing semantics here. He was clearly asked if they were paying rent, not a contribution to match day costs. He stated yes and quoted this large sum. Why?

torchomatic · Mar 2, 2013

Obviously not. But what would have happened to them without Muttons' money?

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Another one for you, has ACL 'gone bust'?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

theferret said:
Do you?

Somebody may emerge to bankroll the formation of a new club - but nobody will save the club in it's current form. We will have to do what Rangers did and reform as a new club and apply to play at a much lower level. Who wants that? Perhaps a few romantics who like the idea of rising again through the leagues. The reality of that is Forest Green Rovers at home in front of a few thousand. No thanks. Let's save what we have now, and for now at least, we need SISU.

You're struggling to answer some questions here. I agree, the scenario without SISU is for now unthinkable.

But being candid, do you think Fisher's comments are deceitful? Helpful?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
YEs your are. You're suggesting that CCFC have not paid anything to ACL. That clearly is not the case.

No I am not. He was clearly asked if he a paying rent and he's not.

It's like leaving a newsagent with a paper under your arm and a Mars bar in your pocket, and trying to claim you're not shoplifting because you've paid for the paper

theferret · Mar 2, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm sorry it's not irrelevant. He was being asked a to whether the club had paid rent and he answered in the affirmative. When does that become a lie?

Another one for you, has ACL 'gone bust'?

And don't squirm, you know the accepted definition of that term

If you must ask questions, then please answer the one I asked:

What do you think ACL will seek to charge any phoenix club that starts again as a non-league entity? And what could such a club reasonably afford?

What is the bigger lie anyway? Tim Fisher confusing rent payments with financial contributions (perhaps deliberately), or ACL saying the club owe them 1.3 million, when 500K of that was safely deposited in their bank account?

Has ACL gone bust? Firstly, why are you so anal about language, when the facts behind the rhetoric are not that difficult to see. Clearly, things became pretty desperate in terms of pressure from the bank that the council saw fit to settle the loan and offer ACL a lifeline. Gone bust in the sense you and I understand it, no. I haven't seen that statement anyway.

ashbyjan · Mar 2, 2013

Mr Ferret - just for clarity the club did not deposit the money into the Escrow account. The money in that account was from an FA/Football Foundation grant whilst the Ricoh complex was being built. It was going to be £1m grant but because by the time it was awarded the stadium was already built and the amount was halved. The stipulation on the money was that it wouldn't be given directly to the football club as the then owners were making such a mess of things fiscally they knew it would simply just disappear down a black hole. The money was then placed into a Debt Guarantee fund which became the Escrow. The actual value of the Escrow is £1m - £500k is from this grant whilst the other £500k is a guarantee from Robinson and McGinnity, although Sir Geoff does tend to forget about his half.

The Escrow was not a piggy bank the club could simply dip into when it felt like it - the money was not technically ever theirs and their legal obligation is to top it back up to £500k. Under the new agreement the Escrow was reduced to £200k.

It would be true to say ACL have received £800k but it is not true to say it is the club have paid £800k rent.

It is all these half truths that the Trust is trying to cut through by putting a set of questions to both sides - ACL have been met and answered with their version, meeting with CCFC (Fisher, Clarke and Labovitch) on Tuesday. Results of questions will be published asap after meeting. We won't be editing or mediating or commenting on answers given simply publishing them and letting people make their own minds up.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
Obviously not. But what would have happened to them without Muttons' money?

And would Mutton's money have been needed if they weren't being illegally distressed by ACL? Both points being irrelevant as the money was forthcoming and ACL didn't go bust.

Which makes Fisher's claim what?

You chose the word. Deceitful? A mistake? Unwise? Slander? Something worse?

torchomatic · Mar 2, 2013

No, it's not at all. You're not making any sense. If CCFC had said we've paid £800K and ACL said "hold on, we've only had £600K" then your ridiculous Mars bar analogy would be fine. Fisher should NOT have said rent, but that doesn't alter the fact that £800K has been collected by ACL. I keep asking but you avoid the question every time, so here goes again, have ACL received £800K from CCFC since April 2012?

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No I am not. He was clearly asked if he a paying rent and he's not.

It's like leaving a newsagent with a paper under your arm and a Mars bar in your pocket, and trying to claim you're not shoplifting because you've paid for the paper

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

theferret said:
If you must ask questions, then please answer the one I asked:

What do you think ACL will seek to charge any phoenix club that starts again as a non-league entity? And what could such a club reasonably afford?

What is the bigger lie anyway? Tim Fisher confusing rent payments with financial contributions (perhaps deliberately), or ACL saying the club owe them 1.3 million, when 500K of that was safely deposited in their bank account?

Has ACL gone bust? Firstly, why are you so anal about language, when the facts behind the rhetoric are not that difficult to see. Clearly, things became pretty desperate in terms of pressure from the bank that the council saw fit to settle the loan and offer ACL a lifeline. Gone bust in the sense you and I understand it, no. I haven't seen that statement anyway.

Ah. So one statement is a confusion, and the other you're unaware of. How quaint.

As for the other sums, how can I tell? I just prey it doesn't happen and hope for greater transparency if it does

CJparker · Mar 2, 2013

georgehudson said:
i believe the mythical Seppala has said that unless she gets her way (entirely), she will liquidate the club,
this comes from a direct source within,
i thus propose the question,
as she is now hands on according to TF is she a fit and proper owner ?
show your face madam,
come and meet the fans of CCFC,
explain yourself

I don't think SISU have ever said this.

The fit and proper person test is laughable - any fool can see that SISU are unsuitable owners, but even worse people have taken over clubs at Blackburn, QPR, Man City and others - as long as someone has a bit of money, the authorities will never stop them taking over a club.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
No, it's not at all. You're not making any sense. If CCFC had said we've paid £800K and ACL said "hold on, we've only had £600K" then your ridiculous Mars bar analogy would be fine. Fisher should NOT have said rent, but that doesn't alter the fact that £800K has been collected by ACL. I keep asking but you avoid the question every time, so here goes again, have ACL received £800K from CCFC since April 2012?

In the way Wingy has described above: yes, probably.

But that's not rent as was claimed. Not even close

CJparker · Mar 2, 2013

On the original question of "is CCFC insolvent?", the answer is clearly "yes" and has been for about 10 years. We are propped up by SISU funding, without which we would fold.

The real million dollar question is whether SISU will now continue to provide funding. This has been muddied by contradictory statements "we have secured funding from the shareholders for the next 3 years" "getting out of League One first time is essential" and "fans should not expect instant success in League One" .

My guess is that SISU will neither liquidate nor put the club into administration. They know that they can't trade out of trouble with the current business model, and they can't make their money back by buying the Ricoh. The only option remains to discreetly put out feelers for a sale of the club and get the best price they can.

torchomatic · Mar 2, 2013

Probably. That's the best I'm going to get I suppose.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
In the way Wingy has described above: yes, probably.

But that's not rent as was claimed. Not even close

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
Probably. That's the best I'm going to get I suppose.

Well unless I actually saw them banking it at The Economic, it's as much as I can say isn't it.

It is an answer though. There's a few uncomfortable ones you've still to attend to...

ashbyjan · Mar 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
Probably. That's the best I'm going to get I suppose.

Not sure if you actually want answers but the facts are:

ACL have received £800,000k
CCFC have not paid any rent
CCFC have paid £300k match day fees
ACL have accessed the Ecsrow account (this is not and never was CCFC's money) which they are legally entitled to do and taken out money to compensate for non paid rent £500k
CCFC are legally liable to top up the Escrow £500k (£200k had they signed proposed deal)
CCFC are legally liable for unpaid rent (under proposed deal the match day fees would have been offset against the owed rent)

Hope that makes things clear

torchomatic · Mar 2, 2013

That's odd. As you seemed so sure that the opposite was the case at the beginning of the thread.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Well unless I actually saw them banking it at The Economic, it's as much as I can say isn't it.

It is an answer though. There's a few uncomfortable ones you've still to attend to...

torchomatic · Mar 2, 2013

Crystal. ACL have received £800K.

ashbyjan said:
Not sure if you actually want actually want answers but the facts are:

ACL have received £800,000k
CCFC have not paid any rent
CCFC have paid £300k match day fees
ACL have accessed the Ecsrow account (this is not and never was CCFC's money) which they are legally entitled to do and taken out money to compensate for non paid rent £500k
CCFC are legally liable to top up the Escrow £500k (£200k had they signed proposed deal)
CCFC are legally liable for unpaid rent (under proposed deal the match day fees would have been offset against the owed rent)

Hope that makes things clear

theferret · Mar 2, 2013

ashbyjan said:
Mr Ferret - just for clarity the club did not deposit the money into the Escrow account. The money in that account was from an FA/Football Foundation grant whilst the Ricoh complex was being built. It was going to be £1m grant but because by the time it was awarded the stadium was already built and the amount was halved. The stipulation on the money was that it wouldn't be given directly to the football club as the then owners were making such a mess of things fiscally they knew it would simply just disappear down a black hole. The money was then placed into a Debt Guarantee fund which became the Escrow. The actual value of the Escrow is £1m - £500k is from this grant whilst the other £500k is a guarantee from Robinson and McGinnity, although Sir Geoff does tend to forget about his half.

The Escrow was not a piggy bank the club could simply dip into when it felt like it - the money was not technically ever theirs and their legal obligation is to top it back up to £500k. Under the new agreement the Escrow was reduced to £200k.

It would be true to say ACL have received £800k but it is not true to say it is the club have paid £800k rent.

It is all these half truths that the Trust is trying to cut through by putting a set of questions to both sides - ACL have been met and answered with their version, meeting with CCFC (Fisher, Clarke and Labovitch) on Tuesday. Results of questions will be published asap after meeting. We won't be editing or mediating or commenting on answers given simply publishing them and letting people make their own minds up.

Semantics.

That money was there to be drawn on in the event that the club could not pay, and that has what has happened. As of this point all bets are off and the legal obligation is of no relevance whatsoever if the club disappears. The fact remains, ACL have dipped into that money (quite rightly), but to suggest that it is reasonable and fair for them to demand that a business that is on it's knees should replenish that fund (a business that is key to the continued existence of ACL itself) is just absurd. The headline arrears figure is a nonsense.

Some people are so caught up in the minutiae of legal agreements that they fail to see the bigger picture, that being that CCFC cannot continue to function unless there are substantial and immediate concessions in both the rent agreement and access to income. Unless that happens it will disappear, and with it ACL as a self-sustaining entity.

It is, despite all the talk of complexities, quite a simple scenario.

It doesn't matter what the legal rights are, they all become null and void following liquidation. Like I say, all bets are off.

ashbyjan · Mar 2, 2013

Like I said those are the facts - not saying who is right and who is wrong as in truth there is wrong on both sides, with half truths, semantics, lies, misinformation etc and the most important entity in all this is the one that is being forgotten in the petty squabbling and that is CCFC and the fans. SISU are only interested in SISU, ACL are only interested in ACL and the fans are left confused, squabbling amongst themselves and its not a good state of affairs.

theferret · Mar 2, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Ah. So one statement is a confusion, and the other you're unaware of. How quaint.

As for the other sums, how can I tell? I just prey it doesn't happen and hope for greater transparency if it does

Quaint? No, not really. You will note however that I didn't seek to deny he had said it, so I'm not sure why the patronising pat on the head was warranted.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
That's odd. As you seemed so sure that the opposite was the case at the beginning of the thread.

I stated it had not been paid in rent.

Which, despite Fisher's claims, it hasn't

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

theferret said:
Quaint? No, not really. You will note however that I didn't seek to deny he had said it, so I'm not sure why the patronising pat on the head was warranted.

He's making claims that are seemingly designed to mislead and cause mischief.

You're defending what appears to be the indefensible, yet sidestepping that which you don't want to deal with.

If you truly want an equitable outcome to current negotiations, you must concur that goodwill needs to prevail throughout all parties. Fisher's recent comments, right up to yesterday, are ruining this chance.

What confidence therefore can you and I have in this man's ability to represent the best interests of our club in forthcoming negotiations?

If his utterances are as you assert 'confusion' is he good enough to secure the future the club needs?

torchomatic · Mar 2, 2013

Similar to ACL's Reeves who said the rent on offer was £150K. That kind of mischief?

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
He's making claims that are seemingly designed to mislead and cause mischief.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
Similar to ACL's Reeves who said the rent on offer was £150K. That kind of mischief?

I agree on that one. It was the net effect on rent and I agree it wasn't the best. That was the one I eluded to at the start.

The only thing I'd say in mitigation is that this statement was made directly after the reneged head of terms issue: and emotion and disappointment must have coloured emotion. It shouldn't have been said as it is misleading though, I agree

Sky Blue Pete · Mar 2, 2013

The way torch and Mary are discussing this gives me hope of a resolution. There are too many wise people to see through the shit being served up by sisu and sometimes acl and the council for it to continue. If at first you get an answer that is unfeasible ask again cwr, telegraph, trust!! This is a great club that deserves better than this

Godiva · Mar 2, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Let me start with a simple one. Yesterday, Fisher claimed that since last spring, the club has given ACL a sum of £800K in rent.

Has it?

I believe he said that ACL had TAKEN £800k from the club .... there's a difference.

Million dollar question (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency