SCG Teleconference with Tim Fisher tonight (7 Viewers)

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I think I agree with your first point, and maybe TF is purposely trying to be provocative, had he used the words "running aground" or "hitting the dust" perhaps you wouldn't have been able to be so concerned. But I don't think its half as sinister or unprofessional (or illegal?) as the council using tax payers funding to finance an independent company - ACL.
The Council seem to have been very careful to avoid supporting (financially) the football club yet when ACL were heading for financial trouble the council stepped in to prop them up.
In my view that was somewhat biased, the council set up ACL to be an independent company so they should be no different to CCFC or SISU. However I don't see anything wrong with the words TF used I doubt if their use would be actionable. To all intents and purposes ACL were running out of money without the Revenue from CCFC and apparently couldn't find the money to pay the mortgage. Probably SISU expected ACL to fold but they have at least demonstrated that effectively CCFC are paying the mortgage - yet being bound as tenants.
imp:

The council would - I'm sure - state that they stepped in to assist a business that was being unlawfully distressed by it's prime tenant, and protecting their interest in so doing. Read the words, both on the CCFC website, and in the Telegraph where Fisher casts aspirations, either deliberately or by accident - with regards the financial robustness of ACL. Again, there's a trend developing here dear chap

 

---

[kingharvest]

I think I agree with your first point, and maybe TF is purposely trying to be provocative, had he used the words "running aground" or "hitting the dust" perhaps you wouldn't have been able to be so concerned. But I don't think its half as sinister or unprofessional (or illegal?) as the council using tax payers funding to finance an independent company - ACL.
The Council seem to have been very careful to avoid supporting (financially) the football club yet when ACL were heading for financial trouble the council stepped in to prop them up.
In my view that was somewhat biased, the council set up ACL to be an independent company so they should be no different to CCFC or SISU. However I don't see anything wrong with the words TF used I doubt if their use would be actionable. To all intents and purposes ACL were running out of money without the Revenue from CCFC and apparently couldn't find the money to pay the mortgage. Probably SISU expected ACL to fold but they have at least demonstrated that effectively CCFC are paying the mortgage - yet being bound as tenants.
imp:

For me this is a really interesting point. Why did the council feel it needed to spend £14m of the tax payers money on taking on the loan? Is ACL/The Ricoh even worth £14m? Does this mean we - the taxpayers own it? So can't we ask to see all the numbers?

Also, the council keep alluding to it being a community asset. Ok, so if its for the community, how does 12,000 people attending it 23+ times a season not make the football club an important part of that community asset?

 

[kingharvest]

The council would - I'm sure - state that they stepped in to assist a business that was being unlawfully distressed by it's prime tenant, and protecting their interest in so doing. Read the words, both on the CCFC website, and in the Telegraph where Fisher casts aspirations, either deliberately or by accident - with regards the financial robustness of ACL. Again, there's a trend developing here dear chap

But its already been established that ACL has had about £800k of cash from the club this year? So how financially viable can it be if it even with this income, it is still in a fragile enough position for the bank to go flaky on them and result in the council stepping in?

I think there are so many unanswered questions in all of this, from both sides, that we should be pressing both sides for more clarity and answers.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Forgive me if I'm being simplistic but, if ACL isn't financially viable & the football club is losing money every year how can Coventry sustain a football club at all?

The only asnswer I have is that everybody has to live within thier means.

 

[dongonzalos]

You can find quotes from Counciller Mutton expressing that very sentiment.
http://www.football.co.uk/coventry_... would providing a plan for such be an issue.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

But its already been established that ACL has had about £800k of cash from the club this year? So how financially viable can it be if it even with this income, it is still in a fragile enough position for the bank to go flaky on them and result in the council stepping in?

I think there are so many unanswered questions in all of this, from both sides, that we should be pressing both sides for more clarity and answers.

Think about ACL's business model. Think about why is was formed; and how it operates. The football club being central to it's activities. Without the football club needing the vehicle of ACL, it wouldn't exist.

Now, around that model, they've been quite active and pretty successful in broadening their income streams; but when your primary tenant stops paying it's rent, things are going to go shaky. At that point, a business may wish to ask for external assistance; but should be granted the grace of being able to do so with the party holding primary responsibility for the cash-flow shortfall - by means of withholding it's rent unlawfully - sniping in the media to seemingly highten tensions and worsen the situation

 

[dongonzalos]

Also those comments by Mutton were dated November 2011.

Yet this happened September 2012

A DEAL has been struck over Coventry City football club owning half the Ricoh stadium, the Telegraph can reveal.

Coventry City Council leaders have been briefed that a groundbreaking “headline agreement” has been reached for Sky Blues owners Sisu to buy a 50 per cent stake in the Ricoh Arena company from the Alan Edward Higgs Charity.



Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...na-stadium-deal-92746-31880394/#ixzz2LWs98Wkk


So it was not comments such as those that put SISU off.

 

[dongonzalos]

For me this is a really interesting point. Why did the council feel it needed to spend £14m of the tax payers money on taking on the loan? Is ACL/The Ricoh even worth £14m? Does this mean we - the taxpayers own it? So can't we ask to see all the numbers?

Also, the council keep alluding to it being a community asset. Ok, so if its for the community, how does 12,000 people attending it 23+ times a season not make the football club an important part of that community asset?

I think that fact both sides the opposition and the people in power all unanimously agreed that the council had to step in says it all.

They are all their for the good of the people of Coventry.

For them all to agree it was the right thing to do.

Tells me a lot. It was a great opportunity for the opposition to attack. Yet they have defended the decision

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

Isn't it at the end of Feb that CCFC and ACL both have to put their accounts at Companies House?
If we believe Fisher, CCFC's will be on time and with no qualification and ACL's will show a company on its knees. In Fisher's world there will be no embargo and ACL will be calling in the receivers.

Bet now!

 

[sky blue john]

At the end of the day Acl counsel have come up with a better deal which to most of us looks ok. It must be the best they can do because they have had to be bailed out to do so. This shows to me if ACL have struggled without the rent from CCFC maybe the vast income streams are just not there !!
Do people think that Sisu are demanding non match day revenue also ?
For example stadium naming rights, Casino rent, car parking, exhibition fees.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

If we believe Fisher, CCFC's will be on time and with no qualification and ACL's will show a company on its knees. In Fisher's world there will be no embargo and ACL will be calling in the receivers.

Ooh, look at that bit!

 

[giveusagoal]

Do we contradict each other? I don't think so. Big difference is we work in partnership with club and collaboratively. Trust are independent - and should be.

But we all want the same thing...a successful club.

So you are not independant then.

Any mention of a rent rebate?

 

[giveusagoal]

To my mind Tim Fisher has zero credibility - he should just go, he's an embarassment

Maybe he has been trained by Joy
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26927-Joy-Seppala-and-SISU-Honesty.

 

[giveusagoal]

I am sorry but...
There was either a veto or there was not. It is black and white. There was no veto and Sisu have made no contact since writing and signing the heads of terms in June. I think that has to be my last word on the subject as there is nothing that can usefully be added.

So if there wasn't a veto - then TF's allegation that there was a veto is not correct/true.

Have SISU got the funds to invest in the purchase of the stadium?
Would they realy want to add the cost to their current level of debts?

 

[kingharvest]

So if there wasn't a veto - then TF's allegation that there was a veto is not correct/true.

Have SISU got the funds to invest in the purchase of the stadium?
Would they realy want to add the cost to their current level of debts?

I think as that previous link shows, the council seem to have made their position quite clear with regards to SISU ever getting a share, and even though the negotiation was with the Higgs, the council have right to veto any move - so i believe. So i think on this occasion the veto is implied.

I guess my question would be, if SISU knew this veto was implied, why even bother agreeing heads of terms with the Higgs?

 

[giveusagoal]

Ah the classic backtrack and delving into the past to avoid the present.

So despite the best efforts of spin the council rent is £400,000 the so called rebate has been forced on the council and the food and beverage sales is an undisclosed percentage.

He answered the due difence question - he was not there.

The club have agreed the rent it is other elements they haven't.

Thought you might come on here throwing brick bats in a bid to disguise the fact that the official statement by ACL regarding the revised offer is about as accurate as fisher claiming the club paid £800,000 in rent last season. Both strictly true but open to mis interpretation.

You forgot to answerr the question about the legal letter and the stopping of the minutes being published?

And Fisher ducking out of the due dilligence question because he was not there is misleading - the due dilligence should carried out on behalf of the purchasers/owners of the club - being SISU not the current CCFC board.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I guess my question would be, if SISU knew this veto was implied, why even bother agreeing heads of terms with the Higgs?

now there is a good question............ what was the plan? What did the discussions achieve? :thinking about:

 

[skyblueman]

now there is a good question............ what was the plan? What did the discussions achieve? :thinking about:

I expect if nothing else it makes the council look really bad

 

[Jack Griffin]

Councillor Mutton is talking about their share. Not the Higgs share.

I believe the council still have a controlling interest & could actually block a sale. I suppose this is what TF alludes to when he says the council vetoed the sale, so if the council expressed their opposition publically this perhaps makes it a no goer in SISU's eyes..

 

[giveusagoal]

I think as that previous link shows, the council seem to have made their position quite clear with regards to SISU ever getting a share, and even though the negotiation was with the Higgs, the council have right to veto any move - so i believe. So i think on this occasion the veto is implied.

I guess my question would be, if SISU knew this veto was implied, why even bother agreeing heads of terms with the Higgs?

Not sure how the provided link ties up with Council Policy.

Your reply is a bit of a dichotomy.

You say the veto was Implied? by who and when?

Does Seem strange that they continued the negotioations with Higgs if this veto had been 'implied' - and even stranger that they have not gone ahead with their plans to purchase once an agreement had been reached.

That would have been the only way of finding out if this veto threat was 'implied', (source of implication unspecified), or real.

Any partner in a business has the right to sell their share of the business - so if Higgs wanted to sell how could the Council veto this? They are after all Higgs shares.

As it stands, and to my knowledge, we only have TF's word on this alleged veto.

 

[dongonzalos]

I think as that previous link shows, the council seem to have made their position quite clear with regards to SISU ever getting a share, and even though the negotiation was with the Higgs, the council have right to veto any move - so i believe. So i think on this occasion the veto is implied.

I guess my question would be, if SISU knew this veto was implied, why even bother agreeing heads of terms with the Higgs?

At that time SISU were not investing in the team and consigning us to relegation.

The council were referring to their share.

Since that time and before an agreement with Higgs.

The council said all they want to see is a commitment from SISU to invest in the team so it can be competitive. A business plan for the future of the club so it can be self sustainable. Plans for developing the site.

Since then SUSU have entered prolonged talks with Higgs to buy their share. Agree a heads of terms then nothing (sound familiar)

So with all due respect the comments above cannot be attributed the SISU not going ahead with Higgs.

The comments are dated November 2011

A year later SISU agree a deal with Higgs.

Where is there any evidence that since September 2012 that the council would Veto the sale.

If you thought that in September 2012 why even agree a deal without testing the Veto.

That just makes no sense

 

[dongonzalos]

Couple of quick questions

If they put ACL in liquidation by not paying their rent could they get what they were going to buy cheaper?

By entering negotiations with Higgs did it delay action getting taken regarding the non payment of rent.

By entering negotiations with Higgs did they get more information disclosed to them about the business set up of ACL.

If they get the income streams thrown in on this latest deal they are negotiating for free. can they then go back to Higgs and buy their share at a reduced price.

What happens to ACL if SISU keep entering negotiations for months whilst not paying rent. Then pulling out at the very last minute. Be it buying shares or agreeing rent deals.

 

[giveusagoal]

I believe the council still have a controlling interest & could actually block a sale. I suppose this rhetoric is what TF alludes to when he says the council vetoed the sale, so if the council expressed their opposition publically this perhaps makes it a no goer in SISU's eyes..

Do they have a controling interest?

 

[giveusagoal]

What happens to ACL if SISU keep entering negotiations for months whilst not paying rent. Then pulling out at the very last minute. Be it buying shares or agreeing rent deals.

I think that is what ACL have clicked onto - and that is the reason they have taken their recent actions and made damning public statements.

 

[rupert_bear]

Yesterday we won 2-0 at Crewe just missing out on a trip to Wembley

 

[giveusagoal]

Yesterday we won 2-0 at Crewe just missing out on a trip to Wembley

A few months ago i was 1 number away from winning £75 million on the euro lottery - but im not a millionaire and we are not going to wembley.

So back to the day job for me - and concentrating on the play offs for the City.

Though am not knocking the lads (just wished we got the first goal 15 minutes earlier - may have been i different result)

 

[oldskyblue58]

so.........

a constant is JS controls SISU and therefore SBS&L Group and therefore CCFC ............. can make the decisions unilaterally, in line with company law

a constant is John Mutton leader of council who (the council)own 50% of ACL .......... but he cant make decisions unilaterally, and decisions must be made in line with local Govt law, plus the votes of the councillors

a constant the trustees at the Charity .......... who must make decisions in line with Charity Law

a constant ....... ACL own the lease at the Ricoh and operate it. ACL is owned equally by council and Charity

Mutton issues statement Nov 2011 saying SISU will never own the council shares

January 2012 Tim Fisher appointed director

June 2012 announced by Charity that a heads of agreement (not a contract) reached regarding sale of their shares to SISU. Both entering period of due diligence (no statement since on these shares from SISU - Charity say nothing has happened since then)

August 2012 ACL obtains judgement regarding the rent and the Escrow account not challenged in court by ccfc or sisu

November 2012 ACL discussions with Yorkshire Bank regarding the loan they have

27 November 2012 TF states that ACL is not worth the value claimed, that it is massively over leveraged and at risk. (To be equitable there have been statements from all involved over the period of the dispute but he made these claims no one else)

December 2012 statutory demand issued on CCFC - not challenged by due date. Is for outstanding rent and £500k to be put back in the Escrow account as per the terms of the lease signed and performed since 2005.

January 29th 2013, meeting between ACL and CCFC to thrash out a deal (- it didnt)

February 2013 Third Party debtor orders served on monies due to CCFC (they dont have to be served on the club, only informed after serving that they exist)

February 2013 ACL issue statement that talks have collapsed. If that is how one party feel then that is what happened - cant negotiate if one of the parties feels it has collapsed

This week TF has conference call with members of SCG

The rent value is the thing that forms part of the lease. The other issues rates, F&B, matchday incomes etc are not actually part of the lease and therefore in reality seperate (yes i know they all matter and link in some ways)

Both sides agree they want CCFC at the Ricoh - on several occasions over past year

Rent has not been paid since April 2012

The original lease still stands - and is legal and binding (no one has said that a new lease was being offered only a new amount)

Are those pretty much the pertinent facts ? My own comments are in italics

Question - in whose interest is it to string this all out and delay it ?

 

[rupert_bear]

How many members does this SCG have ? Do they represent thousands, hundreds or a few ?

 

[giveusagoal]

How many members does this SCG have ? Do they represent thousands, hundreds or a few ?

How and when were they formed, by who, and what are their rules on membership etc?

How do they claim to represent Coventry fans?

 

[giveusagoal]

so.........

a constant is JS controls SISU and therefore SBS&L Group and therefore CCFC ............. can make the decisions unilaterally, in line with company law

a constant is John Mutton leader of council who own 50% of ACL .......... but he cant make decisions unilaterally, and decisions must be made in line with local Govt law, plus the votes of the councillors

a constant the trustees at the Charity .......... who must make decisions in line with Charity Law

a constant ....... ACL own the lease at the Ricoh and operate it. ACL is owned equally by council and Charity

Mutton issues statement Nov 2011 saying SISU will never own the council shares

January 2012 Tim Fisher appointed director

June 2012 announced by Charity that a heads of agreement (not a contract) reached regarding sale of their shares to SISU. Both entering period of due diligence (no statement since on these shares from SISU - Charity say nothing has happened since then)

August 2012 ACL obtains judgement regarding the rent and the Escrow account not challenged in court by ccfc or sisu

November 2012 ACL discussions with Yorkshire Bank regarding the loan they have

27 November 2012 TF states that ACL is not worth the value claimed, that it is massively over leveraged and at risk. (To be equitable there have been statements from all involved over the period of the dispute but he made these claims no one else)

December 2012 statutory demand issued on CCFC - not challenged by due date. Is for outstanding rent and £500k to be put back in the Escrow account as per the terms of the lease signed and performed since 2005.

January 29th 2013, meeting between ACL and CCFC to thrash out a deal (- it didnt)

February 2013 Third Party debtor orders served on monies due to CCFC (they dont have to be served on the club, only informed after serving that they exist)

February 2013 ACL issue statement that talks have collapsed. If that is how one party feel then that is what happened - cant negotiate if one of the parties feels it has collapsed

This week TF has conference call with members of SCG

The rent value is the thing that forms part of the lease. The other issues rates, F&B, matchday incomes etc are not actually part of the lease and therefore in reality seperate (yes i know they all matter and link in some ways)

Both sides agree they want CCFC at the Ricoh - on several occasions over past year

Rent has not been paid since April 2012

The original lease still stands - and is legal and binding (no one has said that a new lease was being offered only a new amount)

Are those pretty much the pertinent facts ? My own comments are in italics

Question - in whose interest is it to string this all out and delay it ?

Excellent post - and your last question hits the nail on the head.

 

[grego_gee]

For me this is a really interesting point. Why did the council feel it needed to spend £14m of the tax payers money on taking on the loan? Is ACL/The Ricoh even worth £14m? Does this mean we - the taxpayers own it? So can't we ask to see all the numbers?

Also, the council keep alluding to it being a community asset. Ok, so if its for the community, how does 12,000 people attending it 23+ times a season not make the football club an important part of that community asset?

Yep that's a crux! I can understand the council thinking it wants to protect a community asset (and I say that because I assume that's why the ACL funding was voted for) but...
the council provided most of the money to finance the stadium in the first place then set up ACL as an independent company to manage it - (and own it) because they didn't want to. Arguably they think they didn't own it; but they do now! (forgive the pun)
SISU come along and may have only taken on CCFC because THEY want to own and run the stadium, so they see ACL as largely irrelevant and TO MY MIND the council refinancing ACL makes them even more irrelevant.
It seems the stadium is dependent upon the football club for its existence and its future sustenance and yet the council (or at least ACL) want to benefit from alternative uses and income. Where did the Olympic millions go? (and I can't imagine them using it as a polling station or other "Community asset")
I am amazed that CCFC can be charged rates at all when apparently they only occupy the stadium on match days. 1 or 2 days a week? Have they not had to decamp for the rest of the time?
Oh and there is another "lie" in the rates how can you offset a rate reduction against overall cost if you don't include the rates you are left paying? ie the quoted net cost of 150 being 400 less reductions would have to include the remaining rates....(75k?)

what a can of worms!

IMP:

 

[giveusagoal]

Yep that's a crux! I can understand the council thinking it wants to protect a community asset (and I say that because I assume that's why the ACL funding was voted for) but...
the council provided most of the money to finance the stadium in the first place then set up ACL as an independent company to manage it - (and own it) because they didn't want to.

Sorry that is not correct - the Council do own a share of it along with the Higgs trust - they own ACL. ACL runs the arena

Arguably they think they didn't own it; but they do now! (forgive the pun)

They do own it - and they know they own it.

SISU come along and may have only taken on CCFC because THEY want to own and run the stadium, so they see ACL as largely irrelevant and TO MY MIND the council refinancing ACL makes them even more irrelevant.

That being the case they could have purchased the Arena when they took over the club

It seems the stadium is dependent upon the football club for its existence and its future sustenance and yet the council (or at least ACL) want to benefit from alternative uses and income. Where did the Olympic millions go? (and I can't imagine them using it as a polling station or other "Community asset")

ACL gets 80% of it's income from conferences, exhibitions etc.


I am amazed that CCFC can be charged rates at all when apparently they only occupy the stadium on match days. 1 or 2 days a week? Have they not had to decamp for the rest of the time? Where is the sky blue shop situated?


Oh and there is another "lie" in the rates how can you offset a rate reduction against overall cost if you don't include the rates you are left paying? ie the quoted net cost of 150 being 400 less reductions would have to include the remaining rates....(75k?)



what a can of worms!

IMP:

10 Characters

 

[giveusagoal]

Double post

 

[giveusagoal]

Originally Posted by kingharvest For me this is a really interesting point. Why did the council feel it needed to spend £14m of the tax payers money on taking on the loan? Is ACL/The Ricoh even worth £14m? Does this mean we - the taxpayers own it? So can't we ask to see all the numbers?

Because the council saved the ground for CCFC (not because they needed to but because it was right for the City) - If you do not understand that what are you doing as a spoksperson for a supporters representation organisation?

As a supporters rep do you believe the council should not have stumped up the money to save the Ricoh??? What do you think would have happened to the club if they didn't?

I am gobsmacked by such a statement from a supporters group representative.

 

[torchomatic]

I wouldn't worry about ACL. Don't forget they're "very busy" and don't need the Club anyway.

What happens to ACL if SISU keep entering negotiations for months whilst not paying rent. Then pulling out at the very last minute. Be it buying shares or agreeing rent deals.