you know I am heartily tired of all this. There are too many agendas firing off left right and centre. The biggest clouding of all the issues concerning the Ricoh and for that matter the club is the quite deliberate focus on individual personalities and egos. Add to that the various sides and reporters only putting selected "facts"(as is their right) and is it any wonder any one trying to understand what has gone on is mired in a cesspool of half truth before ultimately just switching off to the words of "not again I cant be arsed with this". So forgive me if I do not go into character assassination. But I will qualify that by saying I feel the CCC has been a poor influence on all that has gone on from day 1 although not the greatest cause in the demise of CCFC
Lucas has come across as less than financially aware and compounds her mistakes by further ill chosen statements. However her first statement as to viability was in August 2013 within 3mths of the ACL year end for 2013 that showed profits of 775k (2012 1.09m). At that stage projections and budgets may well have shown profits going forward, we do not know. Those projections should also have had a handle on some of the costs of reorganisation of the whole structure, had an idea of future incomes because bookings are on events are made months in advance etc. However what is also revealed in the accounts is that since it opened ACL has only ever made two losses (yes it did include the CCFC related income I know) At 31/05/14 the accumulated profits over the years of ACL amounted to £2.5m. In the scheme of things a relatively small loss of £400k in one year in isolation is no big deal - the reasons behind it and the future projections might be.
Yes the lease settlement is written down over what would have been the life of the lease. This is an acceptable treatment of such sums and is probably linked to the deal that the G casino has there. Indeed had the full amount been credited to reserves in the one year then not only would ACL have had to pay considerable corporation tax but under the share agreement ACL would have had to pay the Council a large chunk of it. Inclusion in this article is to me just throwing the kitchen sink at it and lacks understanding
Fisher said ACL was unviable December 2012 Lucas says it was viable August 2013...... the truth is probably somewhere in between, it wasn't as rosey as portrayed but it wasn't on the brink without CCFC. But there is no doubt a more commercial outlook was needed to safeguard the stadium. It seems to me that this taken and has moved on again still further
Have to say I am somewhat surprised that somewhere in the accounts there is no quantification of the dispute costs. I think it was Godiva who flagged up a number of good balanced points including the likelihood that any subsequent costs or incomes relating to the dispute will have been buried in these accounts. I very much suspect that the substantial costs of Weber Shandwick are loaded on to ACL for example. In addition this ah but this case was before and that case was after argument is somewhat trite, costs don't suddenly happen on the day of the court case. I suggest that the Coventry Observer also check the court papers for the JR I think they will find ACL listed on the first page, indeed the ACL barrister addressed the court during the JR
Please could someone explain to me how the loan in January 2013 subjected to the JR and appeal is the same or connected action to an action relating to October 2014 on different circumstances? It is two separate actions isn't it? Surely the only outcome of that is aimed at compensation paid to SISU, or ARVO isn't it.
Here is a thought say CCC did have to open up the sale of their shares to all and sundry does that benefit SISU or CCFC if Wasps carry a veto on any share sale and hold casting vote on the Board of directors. The shares they own from AEHC are not subject to any action. Could they refinance the loan, well Yorkshire Bank were willing to refinance when ACL were in a far worse position
The understanding was that the rent lost 1.3m isn't it ....... that's straight off the top line but also the bottom line. So the theory should go that the loss should be at least 1.3m shouldn't it? then add in the lost contribution to overheads CCFC made (overheads remain the same even if income doesn't infact some like rates might increase) then add on the lost profit of the F&B sales lost etc, then add in the additional costs of the dispute that would have been accrueing despite what the article says........ shouldn't ACL have been showing well over £2m loss? So is a loss of £400k so bad in a difficult year. Yes I know Lucas didn't say it was a loss .......
14m loan and only 112k paid off that year and? that's how loans work high interest element low capital element in the early years and the reverse situation in the end years. Bottom line is that ACL made its loan commitments to CCC in the year, paid them over in full, didn't roll up interest etc. Were CCC able to call in their debt if the payments were being made by the loanee.... I suspect they had no right to
Lucas cannot furnish information that belongs to ACL to the Coventry Observer or any one else for that matter, she has no legal right to do so as such information is not only covered by confidentiality agreement but CCC are no longer part owners
SISU may have agreed a figure for the AEHC shares to begin with but their own papers disclosed to the court that they had over valued it in their eyes and no longer wanted to pay the agreed sum and without the AEHC shares how were they expecting to do any deal with CCC or Yorkshire Bank just exactly? There were no final agreed terms so no deal and therefore reference to it doesn't or shouldn't carry much weight in reality does it?
The article doesn't make easy reading on a number of levels certainly. CCC have been less than transparent in all this, but here we go again in the lead up to more and more litigation. There are some facts in it certainly, a lot of other stuff too in my opinion. Personally I am totally fed up of all the bollocks that goes on around our club, the owners and the council........ that's some of my thoughts I can not be arsed to go round and round in circles arguing about it any more
