I still don't understand what difference it makes if you're trying to purchase 50% or even 100% of ACL. Prior to the change ACL were paying Yorkshire Bank, after they were paying CCC (at a lower rate). I don't really follow SISU's arguement. If I was buying a company and during the talks (although in this instance didn't it happen later) refinancing took place putting the debt on better terms I would view it as a good thing.
So this centres then on SISU stating they were deliberately trying to deceive Yorkshire Bank by colluding with the council to create a false impression that ACL were distressed. Not sure I'd be wanting to stand up in court and state that. What was Labovich's quote from the last meeting? "It’s against the law for 2 or more people to conspire to cause damage to the business of a third party".
And of course, we have yet to see any actual evidence from SISU or Yorkshire Bank of that being true.
I wasn't actually aware of this. Are you saying the FL told Sisu they had to pay the full 1.7m outstanding (including the 1y break clause) or just what they were offered in the CVA. I guess it makes a little more sense, but at the time of rejecting the CVA they couldn't have known that the FL would have made them pay?
The full amount was around £600k and I think the amount to be paid back is around £573k so the total debt was no where near as high as you are being led to be believed.
I assume the payback is the legal responsibility of the liquidator as sisu no longer control the firm.
Right but there was a 1 year rent break clause applied to the debt adding on another years rent at 1.whatever million.... so they get that as well, or just the arrears... which was about what the CVA offer was give or take.
Yes it is the debt and it's about the same as the CVA
Sisu companies have agreed to write off £32million of debt as part of Coventry City administrator Paul Appleton’s sale to Otium for £1.5million, we can exclusively reveal.
Arena Coventry Limited, as an non-connected unsecured creditor, would get 25.95p in the pound back on its debts if it agrees to the Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) proposed by Mr Appleton.
That would see £553,261 returned to it.
This was the turning point in the whole dispute for me. Until then I was 100% pro-ACL. After this I now vent my anger at all parties involved.
What in that made you changed your mind? The £32m SISU wrote off wasn't really their money was it? Wasn't it debt from before they tookover that they had kept on the books not actually money they'd ever put in.
I can't remember a break clause ever being mentioned before.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
That figure is made up of a percentage of the debt it is owed in unpaid Sky Blues rent; and another year’s rent effectively as compensation for the lease agreement being broken between ACL and the Sky Blues, which has around 40 years remaining on it.
just exactly when do you think that £32m disappeared or was lost ?
You see everything that SISU investors and ARVO ever actually put in is still owing
Sorry to clarify, I refer to ACL rejection of
the CVA as the turning point for me. Yeah the SISU write off just shows why you keep the debt on the books incase you need it later on.
If SISU get an independent valuation at say £5m and say CCC get a valuation at say £20m why do the council have to compromise to meet half way? Surely CCC are duty bound to get the full value and their advice received would be that's 20m. To sell at less than that value would be against Local authority rules but also likely to be seen as state aid
As owners of the freehold CCC are quite within their rights to say no unencumbered sale. It comes as is. To think that CCC could afford to pay off the various contracts to do this and still get a positive value at the end of it is simply ridiculous
They do not have to sell on terms demanded by SISU, no matter how often it is stated as the reasonable course of action. Keep hearing must sell, need to sell, its rightfully this or that. Well from the fans point of view it is what most want (not necessarily to SISU for many though), that does not mean that from other perspectives it is the right thing to do at all.
SISU can not pay the full market value simply because that wont get their investors the return on investment required. Right now they need to find a way to repay ARVO £9m+ and the original investors £28m that will not be done in buying the stadium at full market value there simply is not enough profit in it with or without the team being there
That leaves what is actually going on in my opinion....... court cases and legal challenges with the prospect of financial compensation
I should imagine Acl's directors had no choice but reject the cva due to the fact that the lease would be broken costing their company millions ?
I should imagine Acl's directors had no choice but reject the cva due to the fact that the lease would be broken costing their company millions ?
I should imagine Acl's directors had no choice but reject the cva due to the fact that the lease would be broken costing their company millions ?
Wrong they would have signed if the 2 conditions were met.
I am sorry but that is just utterly wrong. Reject or Accept the CVA the lease was already broken.
Im not wrong dummy of course they would they would have signed if the two conditions were met because that would have salvaged ccfc revenue streams.
But as Acl directors they are really going to say go on Sisu we are happy that your breaking the lease which is probably costing Acl over the term upwards of 20million !!!!
The lease is not broken until ccfc ltd is liquidated which i think you will find is still ongoing !!!
But you said they wouldn't sign because if the
lease - yes they would. The two conditions we can summise were the stopping of the JR and the commitment to sign the lease which I believe was £150,000 plus matchday costs and increased if crowds increased.
As for the ACL having concerns lets a be honest. They began this process as they wanted Haskell in control. They got it very wrong. PWKH I assume can't post on here anymore but I suspect, strongly suspect he was in favour of signing it. Rejecting it pretty much slammed the door for returning back to the ground.
I am saying that because lease was in the process of being broken without a new one in place they wouldnt sign the cva.
But we both know that Sisu had no intention of returning even if the cva had been signed.
I am saying that because lease was in the process of being broken without a new one in place they wouldnt sign the cva.
But we both know that Sisu had no intention of returning even if the cva had been signed.
But you said they wouldn't sign because if the lease - yes they would. The two conditions we can summise were the stopping of the JR and the commitment to sign the lease which I believe was £150,000 plus matchday costs and increased if crowds increased.
As for the ACL having concerns lets a be honest. They began this process as they wanted Haskell in control. They got it very wrong. PWKH I assume can't post on here anymore but I suspect, strongly suspect he was in favour of signing it. Rejecting it pretty much slammed the door for returning back to the ground.
It is in the telegraph article linked above...
As far as CCFC was concerned, regardless of accepting or rejecting the CVA there was no longer a lease for the football club at the Ricoh... so again I assert that your statement that they had no choice due to the lease is wrong. Duffer has posted their statement for rejecting the CVA... but principles and money should not be mixed. At the time they were presented the choice between 550k+ and 10k and they chose 10k.
Now if they knew they would get paid regardless then the choice was spiteful... if they didn't know they were getting paid then the choice was pretty dumb from where I am standing.
As far as CCFC was concerned, regardless of accepting or rejecting the CVA there was no longer a lease for the football club at the Ricoh... so again I assert that your statement that they had no choice due to the lease is wrong. Duffer has posted their statement for rejecting the CVA... but principles and money should not be mixed. At the time they were presented the choice between 550k+ and 10k and they chose 10k.
Now if they knew they would get paid regardless then the choice was spiteful... if they didn't know they were getting paid then the choice was pretty dumb from where I am standing.
Fwiw, if it comes to principles and money, I respect principles every time.
There was no spite in this. In what way would they get paid regardless?
Rejecting the CVA highlighted how bent the whole process was. Notionally, the way the administration was run cost ACL £40m in future income too - so rejecting it on the basis that there was even a slim chance of further investigation or action wasn't the worst decision from a purely financial point either.
I'm pretty sure the FL said that we had to pay ACL the £550k+ not the 10k on rejecting the CVA as a condition of Otium getting to golden share.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I hold my hands up - I did your name thing as an example so you just might perhaps see it as some others might, and see how pointless it seems. I don't find it particularly offensive, just that it diminishes the effect of some of the more salient points that are being made.
What is he not clear on? To check I wasn’t missing something I’ve shown it to a few people at work and everyone understood it to mean that the council won’t be providing financial support.ML said:A councillor has today said it won’t be financial support but I’m not clear on that.
So no chance that question is going to get answered?SB – I don’t remember it being said that you want to make an offer.
ML – we’d need access to their books. We could ask that if we get an Independent Valuation done, would you (ACL) give access to carry that out.*
*ML – At the final creditors meeting, the first vote was Peter Wyndham Knatchbull-Hugessen, he voted for the CVA on behalf of the Alan Higgs Centre Trust. Martin Reeves then rejected on behalf of ACL. HMRC always reject CVAs and in any case this is irrelevant as Ltd. is in the same VAT group as the other club companies. I was confused by Peter. He approves it, then a company he’s 50% shareholder of rejects it.I wondered if that suggested a split on the board of ACL. Then he saidon social media that he fully supported ACL rejecting it. Very confusing.
Just out if interest James why are you so passionate about defending ACL and the councils position yet never seem to offer an opinion on nostalgic posts about the club at all?
Just out if interest James why are you so passionate about defending ACL and the councils position yet never seem to offer an opinion on nostalgic posts about the club at all?
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?