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:
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
To my mind Tim Fisher has zero credibility - he should just go, he's an embarassment
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?
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.
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:
Councillor Mutton is talking about their share. Not the Higgs share.
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?
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?
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..
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.
Yesterday we won 2-0 at Crewe just missing out on a trip to Wembley
How many members does this SCG have ? Do they represent thousands, hundreds or a few ?
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 ?
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.
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:
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?
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.
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?