More false Coventry council claims exposed over Ricoh Wasps deal-Les Reid (12 Viewers)

interesting that a couple of years ago ML made claims in a sky interview about senior council executives misleading the council and that this was responsible for much of the communication difficulties between Sisu, ACL & the council. there was a huge thread about it on here but don't have time to look for it.

Chipfat said:

Timing and Misdirection is a SISU ploy and has been from day 1,, what is in this story will probably change nothing or alter what is fact that Wasps own the Stadium.. The loan, the deal the way it was done can be looked at but it changes nothing... We are still in trouble, with the worst owners and a team that is going backwards every week,, SW should be answering why a 4 year deal,, SW should be answering player signings and investment,, and TF should be answering where is the money and where is the new ground.. JS should take her hands off and be actively looking for a buyer not court cases or people to hire like PR companies and Garlick to appease the long suffering fan, with BS....

No party in this is clean, no party in this can say they are the victim, no party in this has credit in how its worked out, the only victim is the club and us for having to eat this BS year in year out...

Click to expand...

I agree with all that and non of it shall ever disassociate the hedge fund from our ultimate demise but you expect skulduggery from hard nosed business sharks like them........................from elected leaders of councils you expect something more honest and accountable !

So who is telling the truth then? Is it Mr SISU himself..Les Reid in cohorts with CET When having that famous "Exclusive interview with Joy Seppala...."Asked to be clear with fans and Coventrians if there were any hope of a Ricoh return, Ms Seppala said: “The club needs 100 per cent ownership of the freehold of the Ricoh. If you look back at the history of the club, you can see why this is important.” She said she had made her position clear at a meeting with ACL directors on July 25, adding: “I had thought we were going to talk about a deal involving stadium ownership.”....Or is it the Coventry observer with.....The Observer can also exclusively reveal evidence to show Coun Lucas last week made further false claims, wrongly alleging the Sky Blues had only been interested in buying back the stadium, built by and for the football club, on a FREEHOLD basis. Read more: More false Coventry council claims exposed over Ricoh Wasps deal | Coventry Observer As said on "The Price is right"...The choice is yours

crowsnest said:

Council accounts:
At a meeting on 15th January 2013, a meeting of full Council voted to use prudential borrowing powers to provide a commercial loan of £14.4m to Arena Coventry Limited (ACL).

Councillors voted to use prudential borrowing - it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

The prudential borrowing didn't happen? After councillors voted for it? They used the reserves instead?

This is confusing

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

Sky Blue Kid said:

So who is telling the truth then? Is it Mr SISU himself..Les Reid in cohorts with CET When having that famous "Exclusive interview with Joy Seppala...."Asked to be clear with fans and Coventrians if there were any hope of a Ricoh return, Ms Seppala said: “The club needs 100 per cent ownership of the freehold of the Ricoh. If you look back at the history of the club, you can see why this is important.” She said she had made her position clear at a meeting with ACL directors on July 25, adding: “I had thought we were going to talk about a deal involving stadium ownership.”....Or is it the Coventry observer with.....The Observer can also exclusively reveal evidence to show Coun Lucas last week made further false claims, wrongly alleging the Sky Blues had only been interested in buying back the stadium, built by and for the football club, on a FREEHOLD basis. Read more: More false Coventry council claims exposed over Ricoh Wasps deal | Coventry Observer As said on "The Price is right"...The choice is yours

Click to expand...

So now you are accusing the Observer of Lying? To what end? Even when the truth is laid before you, still you fail to see.

Samo said:

So now you are accusing the Observer of Lying? To what end? Even when the truth is laid before you, still you fail to see.

Click to expand...

Remember, don't believe everything you read unless it suits. You know the rules.

Samo said:

So now you are accusing the Observer of Lying? To what end? Even when the truth is laid before you, still you fail to see.

Click to expand...

well it's a boring story if everyone told the truth. as osb's post shows there are several ways of looking at the same set of facts.

oldskyblue58 said:

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?

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

Click to expand...

Come on, a profit of £700,000 the year before turning into a £400,000 loss the next year would be £1.1million, attributable to CCFc not being there.

In fact wasn't it a £1.5million profit the previous year? People were saying that the reduced profit the following year was due to extra costs associated with hosting the Olympics, so you could say that a turn-round from +£1.5million to - £400,000 of £1.9million less profit would fit with your around a £2million loss.

If AL said that £1million had already been paid off the loan, and then only £112.000 was, then that's a bit of a discrepency isn't it?

@ Samo.....I posted a question with two outcomes. Nothing more...nothing less. I haven't accused the "Observer" of anything. Very much like hill83's reply to VOR in another post.....Isn't that right hill83 ?

My bad....hill83 can't agree with my post because he already "Liked" yours Samo....So what does that make hill83 then

Sky Blue Kid said:

So who is telling the truth then? Is it Mr SISU himself..Les Reid in cohorts with CET When having that famous "Exclusive interview with Joy Seppala...."Asked to be clear with fans and Coventrians if there were any hope of a Ricoh return, Ms Seppala said: “The club needs 100 per cent ownership of the freehold of the Ricoh. If you look back at the history of the club, you can see why this is important.” She said she had made her position clear at a meeting with ACL directors on July 25, adding: “I had thought we were going to talk about a deal involving stadium ownership.”....Or is it the Coventry observer with.....The Observer can also exclusively reveal evidence to show Coun Lucas last week made further false claims, wrongly alleging the Sky Blues had only been interested in buying back the stadium, built by and for the football club, on a FREEHOLD basis. Read more: More false Coventry council claims exposed over Ricoh Wasps deal | Coventry Observer As said on "The Price is right"...The choice is yours

Click to expand...

Mr SISU himself? It's good to see that you're not holding some sort of lazy prejudice here...

Isn't the timeline like this: SISU say freehold or nothing in July, but then say they will consider a long-leasehold option in a letter in November?

Regardless, the truth is that CCC didn't offer 100% of ACL with a 250-year lease for £6m to SISU; they only offered it to Wasps - in secret.

Given that SISU then attempted to buy the Higgs 50% when the charity were legally obliged to at least offer it to them, isn't it worth considering that there might actually have been a deal to have been done with the club on a long leasehold?

Those facts alone seem to make it hard to support the 'freehold or nothing' justification for not offering the Wasps deal to CCFC. Of course, it's a lot easier to just ignore all this and take the 'SISU puppet' line to anything that challenges your view I suppose.

Sky Blue Kid said:

My bad....hill83 can't agree with my post because he already "Liked" yours Samo....So what does that make hill83 then

Click to expand...

'my bad'? You been spending some time the the grandchildren?

lordsummerisle said:

Come on, a profit of £700,000 the year before turning into a £400,000 loss the next year would be £1.1million, attributable to CCFc not being there.

In fact wasn't it a £1.5million profit the previous year? People were saying that the reduced profit the following year was due to extra costs associated with hosting the Olympics, so you could say that a turn-round from +£1.5million to - £400,000 of £1.9million less profit would fit with your around a £2million loss.

If AL said that £1million had already been paid off the loan, and then only £112.000 was, then that's a bit of a discrepency isn't it?

Click to expand...

actually no it wouldn't because in 2013 there is a 475k exceptional item attributable to the loan renegotiation. so the change round is 775-475+392= 692 substantially less than even just the lost CCFC rent, let alone the lost F&B profit or overhead contribution /matchday fees

Only quote I have heard on the payments for the loan is that the CCC has earnt £1m plus from it which would tie in with the disclosures in the accounts to 2014 where in that year over £700k interest was paid ...... so by now it would be well over £1m in total

14.4m loan over 40 years if capital payments were equal each year (which they wont be I believe) then that capital repaid would be 360k each year. Like I say you pay less capital early years so 112k is not that unlikely

SimonGilbert said:

FYI - reported in Nov 2013 (not by me).

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/joy-seppala-ann-lucas-meet-6286526

"Coun Lucas responded to the story by issuing a statement clarifying she was willing to discuss a “deal” with Mrs Seppala – and did not exclude a sale on a freehold or leasehold basis."

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-council-bosses-want-sky-6324715

"Ms Seppala has told the Telegraph the club will never return as tenants under Sisu - and wants freehold ownership of the Ricoh."

Click to expand...

Based off these articles and the Coventry Observer article it appears that Les Reid of Nov-2013 is saying something different to the comments made by Les Reid of Jan-2015.

Maybe Les Reid should attack Les Reid for misleading reports.

hill83 said:

Get a new phrase

Click to expand...

It's. Nicks phrase not mine. I can't come up with anything original, ask Grendull.

scum council!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To me, and as always I stand to be corrected, the facts of the offer of lease hold, the incorrect reporting of the supposed true facts to councillors in a private vote and the real origin of the loan will be the corner stones of Sisu's latest appeal of state aid from the council. I feel the reason that the owner has a great relationship with Wasps is because they don't want the headache of the Ricoh or the club, if they win and get damage's for financial loss suffered through the council appearing to be underhand in the way the Wasps deal was conducted they will sell us as quick as possible and head off in to the sunset. I don't necessarily believe AL has wantonly deceived the general public of Coventry or its elected members in what she has said if that is what was genuinely told to her. The real crux is whether she was actual party to the real facts and figures and whether the letter from JS is fact. Cant wait for the next judge to sort this lot out!

Considering all the disgraceful actions of all parties in recent years; the fairest thing to do would be to hand the stadium over to the people of Coventry and make it an asset of the people.

Well ! I've read, and re-read the Observer article. The Observer keep stating "Evidence" but do not show this "Evidence" If a letter was sent to Ann Lucas, it becomes her property because her name is on the Letter/Envelope/E-Mail and would think anything to show her to be a liar publicly would NOT come into the public domain. Then to cap it all....I read the reporter is non other than Mr LES REID. The man who went to great lengths to "Big himself up" as being the one and only to get a exclusive 2+ hours meeting with JS. The one and only reporter on Twitter to delete anyone following him if they so much as raised a question in opposition to that which he reported.............and Samo asks me why I'm accusing "The Observer" to which I will once again state...I'm not accusing anyone, just putting out a question that has two possible answers to which posters can make up their own minds about, nothing more, nothing less.

Well if it is true that advisor's had mislead councillors, then surly they should be suspended right away while an inquiry is lead to find out why. After all they are paid good money to give the right and truthful advise.

If they have blatantly lied surly that would then also be a criminal offence?

Isn't this everything we know?

Sisu are crap owners and the ccc haven't helped the situation one bit.

End of the day I judge all of this on facts and a judge declared a heavy loss on sisu in the JR and until that if and when changes or any other legal action for that matter then that's the result.

Sky Blue Kid said:

My bad....hill83 can't agree with my post because he already "Liked" yours Samo....So what does that make hill83 then

Click to expand...

Why so defensive buddy, I was talking about everyone.

Fact is the Ricoh has gone and the stadium built for the football club is now owned by London rugby team, we have crap owners, and shit manger and some of the worst football I seen played by a Coventry side. All this stuff is just a sideshow, and distracts from the fact we could be in the forth division next season.

Nick said:

Can anybody cut it down and point out the more false claims that weren't pointed out last week? That hurts my brain!

Click to expand...

There's the fact that Lucas was claimed SISU were not interested in a lease when Sepalla had told her they were. Additionally there seems to be a suggestion that councillors have been (deliberately?) misled leading into the vote.

There's also the fact that the money was from CCC funds not a loan although this was known last week but brushed over by the usual suspects as irrelevant. Annoyed me as I had an argument with Maton about this months ago and he categorically told me that the use of council funds had been a temporary measure and the money had since been replaced through a loan.

tisza said:

interesting that a couple of years ago ML made claims in a sky interview about senior council executives misleading the council and that this was responsible for much of the communication difficulties between Sisu, ACL & the council. there was a huge thread about it on here but don't have time to look for it.

Click to expand...

It's an odd world we live in. If this time last week you'd have said we'd be talking about Reid, Fisher and Labovich being the most truthful people in this saga I'd have said you were in need of a lie down but it's starting to look that way. Reid has always pushed the agenda that something wasn't right at the council, quite clearly now that has been proved to be the case. Fishers main argument from day one was that the rent was too high and ACL were reliant on the club, both now known to be correct. And even Labovich who we all thought couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it might have been right as you say tisza. Of course what we don't know is what else CCC have lied about, or at best misled.

There's no way in my mind this isn't ending up in court again and it seems to me this time SISU might actually have a case. I wonder if this information is what they were fishing for when they requested access to more council documentation, would certainly have been interesting to see what the judge in the JR would have said had he seen all this new information.

Regardless of whatever the truth is - I can only see either a hefty fine for the Council & damages being awarded to SISU coffers (NOT CCFCs) or SISU being told to naff off by the courts.
The Wasps' deal has been done & will not be reversible.
Wave goodbye to The Ricoh mid-long term.
The damages might help SISU build a stadium from the funds...& CCFC will be tenants. And then they might try to offload CCFC which without assets is not going to be a very attractive proposition. On the other hand - those of you in the CCC boundary will have a nice healthy increase in your local taxes at some point to pay for it all...so be careful what you revel in & in what you wish for.

PUSB

lordsummerisle said:

Lying to councillors, local taxpayers and voters doesn't matter.

It's all in the past.

Click to expand...

... And justifiable

italiahorse said:

... And justifiable

Click to expand...

Is it?

SkyblueBazza said:

Regardless of whatever the truth is - I can only see either a hefty fine for the Council & damages being awarded to SISU coffers (NOT CCFCs) or SISU being told to naff off by the courts.

Click to expand...

Obviously the reversal of the sale though court action is highly unlikely if not impossible but what if CCC are ordered to call in the loan. We're told a commercial lender would give a loan but would they really loan a loss making company millions to pay off debts of another loss making company? If that did happen and Wasps couldn't pay the loan back would they need to put at least a stake in ACL up for sale?

And of course there's the matter of compensation. If SISU can prove to be out of pocket could they claim it back, if for example they say they are going to lose tens of millions over the 250 years of the lease are the council on the hook for that?

Rationalizer said:

Based off these articles and the Coventry Observer article it appears that Les Reid of Nov-2013 is saying something different to the comments made by Les Reid of Jan-2015.

Maybe Les Reid should attack Les Reid for misleading reports.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should extend your posting subject matter to include football occasionally.

Grendel said:

Maybe you should extend your posting subject matter to include football occasionally.

Click to expand...

On the basis of recent games lets stick to calling Les Reid.

I'm surprised no one has failed to mention this article by les Reid comes out in the same day if not hours before the "big appeal" was denied? Not a coincidence the cynic in me would say.

Ashdown said:

I agree with all that and non of it shall ever disassociate the hedge fund from our ultimate demise but you expect skulduggery from hard nosed business sharks like them........................from elected leaders of councils you expect something more honest and accountable !

Click to expand...

You do?

Kingokings204 said:

I'm surprised no one has failed to mention this article by les Reid comes out in the same day if not hours before the "big appeal" was denied? Not a coincidence the cynic in me would say.

Click to expand...

Not sure, it said more to come on Friday when the first article was out. Maybe just stringing it out a bit?