SCG minutes... (1 Viewer)

duffer · Jan 24, 2014

Grendel said:
Both parties didn't agree with it - one had a smoking gun pointing at its head.

Utter bollocks. I'm sorry, but as usual you're spouting drivel. CCFC had painted themselves into a corner without doubt, but no one at the time complained at the rent that was set. No one. You're offering, once again, your lazy half-arsed, stir-it-up-opinion as fact.

When there was a discussion some time afterwards, there was the offer of the sliding scale which was rejected. After that the next negotiations were years after SISU took over. And it seems they weren't exactly conducted in good faith, given everything that's happened since.

Anyway Grendel, remind me again when SISU offered to buy ACL? You never did answer that question. I don't really know why I bother talking to you.

sky blue john · Jan 24, 2014

stupot07 said:
To be honest as we know no details of this
alleged sliding scale agreement it's a bit of a red herring.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Pretty much the same as all of ml's comments at this meeting....

Grendel · Jan 24, 2014

duffer said:
Utter bollocks. I'm sorry, but as usual you're spouting drivel. CCFC had painted themselves into a corner without doubt, but no one at the time complained at the rent that was set. No one. You're offering, once again, your lazy half-arsed, stir-it-up-opinion as fact.

When there was a discussion some time afterwards, there was the offer of the sliding scale which was rejected. After that the next negotiations were years after SISU took over. And it seems they weren't exactly conducted in good faith, given everything that's happened since.

Anyway Grendel, remind me again when SISU offered to buy ACL? You never did answer that question. I don't really know why I bother talking to you.

You clearly have the details of the sliding scale rent offer to make such a bold statement - what was the offer?

We do I believe know the club asked for a reduction very early in its tenure and this was booted out of hand. You obviously know more.

As for the other question I was not privy to the meetings and what took place. By the sound of it you were - so enlighten us who was responsible for the breakdown in discussions.

stupot07 · Jan 24, 2014

sky blue john said:
Pretty much the same as all of ml's comments at this meeting....

Pretty much the same as any comment from any of the parties involved in this debacle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

James Smith · Jan 24, 2014

Grendel said:
Bankrupt is an appropriate term - twice I believe.

Do you agree with the comment from Mr Labovitch that he thinks that ACL is functionally bust as it can only survive with and injection of more cash?

torchomatic · Jan 24, 2014

BUt what could the club do? We were homeless, Any port in a storm, etc. And ACL really made sure we paid a pretty penny. There was no need to charge us that much rent. A deal to suit both sides could have been brokered I'm sure, but the deal only suited one side and it wasn't the club we all support.

duffer said:
Utter bollocks. I'm sorry, but as usual you're spouting drivel. CCFC had painted themselves into a corner without doubt, but no one at the time complained at the rent that was set. No one. You're offering, once again, your lazy half-arsed, stir-it-up-opinion as fact.

torchomatic · Jan 24, 2014

Do you agree? Do you refute it? Do we have cast-iron facts to either prove or disprove?

James Smith said:
Do you agree with the comment from Mr Labovitch that he thinks that ACL is functionally bust as it can only survive with and injection of more cash?

wingy · Jan 24, 2014

CCC were exposed for £31M. at the outset and were charging ACL £1.9M. rent .

The question follows ,why did ACL continue to charge CCFC the same amount when they took the lease.

I don't believe it was to line their own pockets as they appear to have been paying down the lease at double the rate required £7.M. over 7 yrs.

It seems like a strategic decision to accelerate the paydown ,so Why?

Grendel · Jan 24, 2014

James Smith said:
Do you agree with the comment from Mr Labovitch that he thinks that ACL is functionally bust as it can only survive with and injection of more cash?

I would suggest its an attempt to create uncertainty and is a clear tactic.

It's the same as say someone who has previously speculated that ACL may be doing well without the club also does so with clear motivations in mind.

sky blue john · Jan 24, 2014

Personally i am trying to understand how Acl can be as suggested financially in trouble.
When accounts are filed on time and in good order.
Up to now all profit has been made every year being ploughed back into the ricoh improving facilities.
They only have nine employees so not a massive wage bill.
The loan has been taken over by the council which the repayments are not reliant on ccfc being there.
Or how else would they have been able to offer ccfc virtually an overheads deal only ?

Oh hold ML says they are so it must be true !!!!!!!

James Smith · Jan 24, 2014

Grendel said:
I would suggest its an attempt to create uncertainty and is a clear tactic.

It's the same as say someone who has previously speculated that ACL may be doing well without the club also does so with clear motivations in mind.

Well sadly the same can be said about our club, on that basis can't it. Could we survive at Sixfields without injections of cash/debt given our gates there?

I normally try and qualify any statements I make as to the veracity of the information provided by either side. As you may have seen I usually put something like "but we only have his/their word on that" after a quoting from one of parties involved in this mess.

chiefdave · Jan 24, 2014

torchomatic said:
BUt what could the club do? We were homeless.

We weren't homeless. We were still playing at HR and could have continued to do so, although we were paying more rent there than at the Ricoh. We had the option to buy back the Ricoh, not taken. We even had the nuclear option of ground sharing with someone else.

At that point in time we are told that CCFC got the deal they wanted in preference to deals that saw a sliding scale of rent dependent on division and / or attendance.

If at the point of initial rent talks CCFC had stated they were concerned about the level of rent or wanted a better deal there would have been huge fan support, they didn't do that. They signed a deal that they thought was in their favour as they assumed we would be promoted to the premier league.

To be honest though there is little point in talking about the old rent deal as what is being offered now is nothing like the original deal. Even those that do believe the club were forced into the original deal must surely now consider the current offers fair?

stupot07 · Jan 24, 2014

wingy said:
CCC were exposed for £31M. at the outset and were charging ACL £1.9M. rent .

The question follows ,why did ACL continue to charge CCFC the same amount when they took the lease.

I don't believe it was to line their own pockets as they appear to have been paying down the lease at double the rate required £7.M. over 7 yrs.

It seems like a strategic decision to accelerate the paydown ,so Why?

I don't believe this is right, ACL took a £21m loan to pay the 50 year lease upfront - that is described in the completion report. so in affect their rent amounted to £420k a year.

I'm happy to be proven wrong if you have evidence to the contrary.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

wingy · Jan 24, 2014

Somewhere in that report II think stu ,but definately seen it in black and white .
started the season on those terms and IIRC took the lease and YB mortgage somewhere between middle to end of season.

Edit ; more like £500K. not just capital but Interest as well.

torchomatic · Jan 24, 2014

HR had been sold to Wimpey and Richardson in his wisdom had to rent it back until the new stadium was finished.

chiefdave said:
We weren't homeless. We were still playing at HR and could have continued to do so, although we were paying more rent there than at the Ricoh. We had the option to buy back the Ricoh, not taken. We even had the nuclear option of ground sharing with someone else.

At that point in time we are told that CCFC got the deal they wanted in preference to deals that saw a sliding scale of rent dependent on division and / or attendance.

If at the point of initial rent talks CCFC had stated they were concerned about the level of rent or wanted a better deal there would have been huge fan support, they didn't do that. They signed a deal that they thought was in their favour as they assumed we would be promoted to the premier league.

To be honest though there is little point in talking about the old rent deal as what is being offered now is nothing like the original deal. Even those that do believe the club were forced into the original deal must surely now consider the current offers fair?

chiefdave · Jan 24, 2014

torchomatic said:
HR had been sold to Wimpey and Richardson in his wisdom had to rent it back until the new stadium was finished.

I know, so we could have continued to rent it or we could have exercised the buy back clause included in the deal in case the Arena project hit problems. We did neither. It is misleading to claim the club were forced to move to the Ricoh at all let alone that they were forced to sign the rental deal they did.

martcov · Jan 24, 2014

Godiva said:
Of course ML uses spin - just like each and every other stakeholder in this sad melodrama. Even posters on this board uses spin to beef up their stance.

Sisu may well lose the JR, but it gives them the platform to make public information that is otherwise protected by NDA's.
And that could prove to be just as valuable for them as actually winning the JR!

Grendel said:
Lol the ACL spin doctor keeps flapping away - do we know the outcome yet?. I think the EU investigation won't worry premier league Swansea. One things for sure a "Fair" rent will not be £1.2 million a year.

chiefdave said:
I know, so we could have continued to rent it or we could have exercised the buy back clause included in the deal in case the Arena project hit problems. We did neither. It is misleading to claim the club were forced to move to the Ricoh at all let alone that they were forced to sign the rental deal they did.

SISU could and should have renegotiated the rental deal at the time they acquired CCFC - if they considered it unfair. All the power was in their hands at that time. The only smoking gun was in SISU's hands.

chiefdave · Jan 24, 2014

martcov said:
SISU could and should have renegotiated the rental deal at the time they acquired CCFC - if they considered it unfair. All the power was in their hands at that time. The only smoking gun was in SISU's hands.

Exactly, imagine if on day one RR had stated we need to sort out the rent it is far too high and unsustainable. I would suggest this would have had the backing of the vast majority of supporters. Of course if they had purchased Higgs 50% share of ACL on day one they would have been in a very strong position to make any changes they required in the rental agreement.

Godiva · Jan 24, 2014

martcov said:
SISU could and should have renegotiated the rental deal at the time they acquired CCFC - if they considered it unfair. All the power was in their hands at that time. The only smoking gun was in SISU's hands.

chiefdave said:
Exactly, imagine if on day one RR had stated we need to sort out the rent it is far too high and unsustainable. I would suggest this would have had the backing of the vast majority of supporters. Of course if they had purchased Higgs 50% share of ACL on day one they would have been in a very strong position to make any changes they required in the rental agreement.

Didn't I read somewhere that they actually tried to open negotiations with ACL very early after take-over, but was turned down flat?
In any case - it should have happened as part of the take-over, but evidently time was short.
Once takeover was complete ACL had no intensive to negotiate.

chiefdave · Jan 24, 2014

Godiva said:
Didn't I read somewhere that they actually tried to open negotiations with ACL very early after take-over, but was turned down flat?
In any case - it should have happened as part of the take-over, but evidently time was short.
Once takeover was complete ACL had no intensive to negotiate.

If it was identified by SISU as something that needed doing they should have been shouting it from the rooftops at that point as they would have had backing from the fans. Even now they aren't claiming they've been trying to sort this from day one and ACL have always refused.

I'm not sure we really know for sure one way or the other as I think PWKH said that prior to going on rent stike there was no attempt to open talks about the rent from SISU.

wingy · Jan 24, 2014

Ranson allways stated Nothing happening on the Stadium anytime soon ,whether he meant purchase or rent not sure but always batted It away.

wingy · Jan 24, 2014

That's why i don't trust their motives ,its coming from their failure with our Club when It should have happened at the outset ,they truly would have had a groundswell of support .there were even demo's against the council .

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 24, 2014

wingy said:
CCC were exposed for £31M. at the outset and were charging ACL £1.9M. rent .

The question follows ,why did ACL continue to charge CCFC the same amount when they took the lease.

I don't believe it was to line their own pockets as they appear to have been paying down the lease at double the rate required £7.M. over 7 yrs.

It seems like a strategic decision to accelerate the paydown ,so Why?

I read somewhere that unless the profit is over a certain amount that all profits have to be used to pay down the mortgage... but to answer the question I cannot think of any other reason to charge such high rent other than to line their own pockets - it is what a for-profit company does.

wingy · Jan 24, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
I read somewhere that unless the profit is over a certain amount that all profits have to be used to pay down the mortgage... but to answer the question I cannot think of any other reason to charge such high rent other than to line their own pockets - it is what a for-profit company does.

I thought it was if they went over circa £3.25M. they had to pay a suprerate ,which kind of negates the desire to do that .

torchomatic · Jan 24, 2014

We each have our own view, of course. However, I'm not one who thinks well "it's our own fault we were being ripped off with an extortionate rent as we didn't try and renegotiate." Why? Because the rent shouldn't have been extortionate in the first place.

martcov said:
SISU could and should have renegotiated the rental deal at the time they acquired CCFC - if they considered it unfair. All the power was in their hands at that time. The only smoking gun was in SISU's hands.

sky blue john · Jan 24, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
I read somewhere that unless the profit is
over a certain amount that all profits have to be used to pay down the mortgage... but to answer the question I cannot think of any other reason to charge such high rent other than to line their own pockets - it is what a for-profit company does.

The accounts prove no profit taken out but mortgage being paid and what is left over invested back into ricoh improvements. Please explain your assumption ?????

Nick · Jan 24, 2014

torchomatic said:
We each have our own view, of course. However, I'm not one who thinks well "it's our own fault we were being ripped off with an extortionate rent as we didn't try and renegotiate." Why? Because the rent shouldn't have been extortionate in the first place.

People also go on about morals and things like that but by us being hammered with rent when we were desperate, isn't that as moral as being a loan shark when somebody is desperate to pay for something / can't get finance / really in the shit?

chiefdave · Jan 24, 2014

wingy said:
I thought it was if they went over circa £3.25M. they had to pay a suprerate ,which kind of negates the desire to do that .

At the moment all profit goes into overpayments on the debt or improvements. I believe what you're referring to is a share of the profits goes to the council if the profit goes above £3.25m, a payment in addition to the lease payment. Not sure if that only applies after all the debt has been cleared or not but then making an overpayment would mean that level of profit wasn't reached anyway.

sky blue john · Jan 24, 2014

Ffs we all agree the rent was to high but where is that going to get us now ?????

wingy · Jan 24, 2014

sky blue john said:
Ffs we all agree the rent was to high but where is that going to get us now ?????

What Is obvious that early In the deal with little other business @ the stadium the lowest payment to cover the mortgage whether the club owned It or not Incuding Matchday costs would have been Circa £850K.

torchomatic · Jan 24, 2014

Nowhere. However, it's annoying when people bleat about morals but seem to forgive ACL for ripping us off. Yes, we should have tried to knock the rent down, but my main gripe is it shouldn't have been that high in the first place. The domino effect started OVER ten years ago.

sky blue john said:
Ffs we all agree the rent was to high but where is that going to get us now ?????

Nick · Jan 24, 2014

torchomatic said:
Nowhere. However, it's annoying when people bleat about morals but seem to forgive ACL for ripping us off. Yes, we should have tried to knock the rent down, but my main gripe is it shouldn't have been that high in the first place. The domino effect started ten years ago.

The past doesn't matter to some people though, it apparently has nothing to do with our situation

chiefdave · Jan 24, 2014

torchomatic said:
Nowhere. However, it's annoying when people bleat about morals but seem to forgive ACL for ripping us off. Yes, we should have tried to knock the rent down, but my main gripe is it shouldn't have been that high in the first place. The domino effect started ten years ago.

Fair point but equally PWKH told us, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, that other offers were on the table and the club picked the £1.2m flat rate. I can only guess this was down to them thinking we would be back in the prem and the deal would work to their advantage. If that had happened do you think the club would have approached ACL and requested to pay a higher rent? Works both ways really.

We are told, again by PWKH, that no attempt was made by SISU to open talks prior to the rent strike and since then ACL have offered rent as low as free this season, £150K after that. I don't think anyone can really say that's not a reasonable offer!

Of course for all I know PWKH may be consistently lying in his posts but on the basis that he has never been shown to be a lier, unlike many of those representing SISU, I feel we have to at least consider what he states to be truthfull.

At the end of the day we can't change what has happened in the past so can only really look at the offer on the table now and SISU's response to it.

chiefdave · Jan 24, 2014

Nick said:
The past doesn't matter to some people though, it apparently has nothing to do with our situation

It's not really if it matters or not more that you can't go back in time and change it so you really need to just draw a line under things and look at what is happening at the present time.

sky blue john · Jan 24, 2014

Nick said:
The past doesn't matter to some people though, it
apparently has nothing to do with our situation

No your right none whatsoever !!!
70million in debt. I take it that you believe that is all down to rent ????
Playing home matches at your beloved sixfields.
These are couple of things that are of no concern to you ????

These are definitely my concerns and they are in the present, real time, happening now !!!
Wake up stop living in the past !!!!!

SCG minutes... (1 Viewer)

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency