seen this? (16 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

The way you defend the council you'd think you were council leader Scmeee

More ad hominem attacks Grendel? Ran out of valid arguments already?

If the facts defend the Council, I can't be blamed for that.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

To be fair, the majority of leaked documents were for players that left 3-4 seasons ago, not the current squad so only really proved that ltd had traded and singed players in the past.

it disproved what they had been saying. that makes them either liars or totally incompetent, either is a good enough argument for me in making my mind up that they don't deserve to be custodians of our club, hence. :blue:

 

[covmark]

Ive never before been ashamed to be a Coventry city fan, but tonight reading some of the ACL loving crap on here makes me want to puke. You would rather ccfc stay in Northampton than see a bullshit stadium management company lose out on a few pennies. Fed up to the back teeth with it all.

 

[shmmeee]

Ive never before been ashamed to be a Coventry city fan, but tonight reading some of the ACL loving crap on here makes me want to puke. You would rather ccfc stay in Northampton than see a bullshit stadium management company lose out on a few pennies. Fed up to the back teeth with it all.

Straw man much?

Could just as well say you'd rather CCFC stay in Northampton than a few millionaires lose out on a bad investment. In fact, that would actually be factually accurate.

 

[No future with SISU]

People on here disappoint me. People I once thought were reasonable. It's the people taking a pro-ACL stance and letting them get away scot free that will ultimately kill our club. I just don't get it. Surely we want more answers from all parties involved:- ACL, Sisu, CCC & Higgs. They should all be held to account and asked to show there hand. Yes, the JR is a bit of a sham. Yes, Sisu are quite possibly the worst owners in the history of football. And undeniably they played dirty with the rent money. That did not give ACL the right to replace them with someone else, which is what ultimately lead to the club leaving the Ricoh.

The club need the stadium, that is undeniable. If the only way is via freehold then fine, let it be. Council do not have to sell for a price they are not happy with, they should at least discuss it. If CCFC fans do not want this then I suggest you start attending games at Northampton as that is the alternative. You can't have it both ways.

Open your eyes and understand the real situation for the good of the club.

SISU were made a good offer to sell the club and turned it down. If you think there is a future with SISU at the RICOH, i think their is a job for you at Disney with a fairy story and a happy ending.

 

[jaytskyblue]

Ive never before been ashamed to be a Coventry city fan, but tonight reading some of the ACL loving crap on here makes me want to puke. You would rather ccfc stay in Northampton than see a bullshit stadium management company lose out on a few pennies. Fed up to the back teeth with it all.

More abuse from Sisu apologists.

 

[Grappa]

Straw man much?

Could just as well say you'd rather CCFC stay in Northampton than a few millionaires lose out on a bad investment. In fact, that would actually be factually accurate.

Tell us all about your impirical evidence again. I love that one.

 

[covmark]

More abuse from Sisu apologists.

more bullshit from a prick.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Sorry but same could be said the other way around it is not about someone losing money it is about what is right. Giving them the Ricoh will not solve our problems they will make them worse IMO cannot trust sisu have not told us the truth from the off why should they change now?

Ive never before been ashamed to be a Coventry city fan, but tonight reading some of the ACL loving crap on here makes me want to puke. You would rather ccfc stay in Northampton than see a bullshit stadium management company lose out on a few pennies. Fed up to the back teeth with it all.

 

[shmmeee]

Tell us all about your impirical evidence again. I love that one.

Got a point to make, or just throwing insults around?

Let the adults talk, yeah?

 

[jaytskyblue]

more bullshit from a prick.

A meltdown and more abuse from a Sisu apologist.

 

[Grappa]

Got a point to make, or just throwing insults around?

Let the adults talk, yeah?

Bit ad hominem, that. Impirically.

 

[Grendel]

A meltdown and more abuse from a Sisu apologist.

Is that the best you can do?

 

[covmark]

A meltdown and more abuse from a Sisu apologist.

really think a twat like you typing crap on his wank stained keyboard would cause me to have a meltdown.
Dear oh dear

 

[jaytskyblue]

really think a twat like you typing crap on his wank stained keyboard would cause me to have a meltdown.
Dear oh dear

haha keep going, could be a classic. LMAO

 

[covmark]

haha keep going, could be a classic. LMAO

you're either very dim or 12, or maybe both

 

[Jack Griffin]

Why should Coventry taxpayers subsidise a private company? That's the only question here. Sisu have lost large amounts of money through poor management and the only way to make a return is to increase the value by buying the Ricoh below market value. Why should my council tax go to ensure millionaire Joy Seppala doesn't have a bad investment?

Even in your dream scenario, the club loses out:

Sisu pick up the Ricoh for peanuts.
Sisu sell the club & stadium for say £40m (do we seriously believe someone will pay this?)
Club now £40m in debt (standard practice to load the cost of acquisition onto the club, this is what Sisu did when "making us debt free")
Sisu walk away having lost virtually nothing.

How are we now in a better position?

I understand how Sisu want this, but what's the benefit for me as a CCFC fan?

Exactly, why should CCC/ACL or any body subsidise SISU & turnround Joy Seppalas horrendous mistakes, its her mess she can clean it up.

 

[Jack Griffin]

It's taxpayer money however it was obtained. Someone has to pay it back and at the current time ACL will struggle to do so.

It is secured on assets, the ones no one should sell to SISU.

 

[Grappa]

Oh dear, more abuse from the Sisu apologists with no evidence or discussion.
You do seem happier on GMK Nick, have a poll and handover the site to someone more in keeping with the majority view.

Show me using this doll where the nasty GMK man touched you.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Not quite correct old chap and even if it was only one player he still lied.

To be fair, the majority of leaked documents were for players that left 3-4 seasons ago, not the current squad so only really proved that ltd had traded and singed players in the past.

 

[stupot07]

Not quite correct old chap and even if it was only one player he still lied.

ACL lied when they said they rejected the CVA in the fans best interest

 

[Jack Griffin]

Blog by John Fletcher SBT rightly questioning some of Les Reids statements http://wireinthebrain.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/truth-lies-and-videotape-les-reid-and-the-ricoh-row/
(posted in 2 parts)

Truth, Lies and Videotape. Les Reid and the Ricoh row
Well, alright, not the lies, and certainly not the videotape. But only some of the truth, and some misleading statements. The headline was too tempting to resist though.

In the latest of what looks like being a series as long as Star Wars, Les Reid, “award winning journalist” for the Coventry Telegraph, has written an article headlined “Could Ricoh Arena be sold to Coventry City owners Sisu for £7m?”

There are a number of highly questionable assertions, some of them about an organisation that takes up much of my time these days, and one that refers directly to me. There are also a number of inaccuracies and misleading expressions. So I thought I’d do some “deconstruction” on it. Let’s look at some what Les writes.

(Quotes from the article in italics first, then my comments)

“A legal battle and administration process was won by Sky Blues’ owners Sisu/Otium by early August after a summer of claim and counter claim and potential investors hovering in the background.”

Just what was the “legal battle” won by Sisu? The only time they’ve been in court was to apply for Judicial Review. They LOST.

“Yet it appears a good number of fans – many of them city council taxpayers – want the Sky Blues to return to the Ricoh Arena as soon as possible. So too might city taxpayers at large.”

This is almost certainly true of all fans, not just a “good number”, whether they boycott Sixfields or not, want Sisu out or not. The only question is whether they come back with Sisu as owners of the stadium or not. That, as the poll at the bottom of Les’ article shows, is opposed by almost two thirds of those voting.

“Only around 1,500 fans on average are making the 65-mile round trip.”

Total attendances at Sixfields have been between 1600 and 2000, including away fans. On Sunday, just around 1000 City fans attended. The “home” attendance has not been much more than that all season.

“A prior statement from related fans’ group the Sky Blue Trust called for Sisu/Otium to return to talks on ACL’s terms of ‘rental discussions’.”

This appears to suggest that the Sky Blue Trust only want Sisu to talk on the basis of rental terms. We simply relayed the ACL offer and urged the two to get together and talk. How on earth is there to be a resolution if nobody talks to anybody else?

“Some contacting the Telegraph have sought to redress the balance despite fear of reprisals”

Where have the threats come from? The Trust has never even hinted at anything like this, and so far as we know, KCIC have disowned anyone who may have threatened anyone. Les needs to provide evidence for this, not just accept Joy Seppala’s statement that she’s had hate mail as indicating that fans have been threatened. Threats and insults have been thrown around by various groups of fans. The blame isn’t all on one side, as Les suggests it is.

“Some fans argue one-sided campaigning is not surprising.Minutes from the Sky Blue Trust’s annual general meeting in July last year reveal early discussions had taken place about working with the council in the event of administration. Talks had already been held with then Labour council leader John Mutton and insolvency practitioner Brendan Guilfoyle (who ACL had later hoped would become the administrator).”

First of all, the minutes Les referred to were those of the last but one AGM, the one that “re-founded” the Trust. It was a member, Lionel Bird, that said HE had talked with John Mutton and Brendan Kilfoyle. At no point was it suggested that his talks were on behalf of the Trust, which had, at that time, held no talks with anyone. To suggest that the Trust’s actions were those taken by one member at the last but one AGM is disingenuous. Subsequent minutes, including those of the last AGM show that the Trust has consistently been independent of any side. It was the club that stopped any talks with the Trust on any formal basis. We have tried to talk with Joy Seppala and she has refused.

“The meeting – chaired by ex-Labour Coventry City Council leader John Fletcher – resolved not to enter “dialogue” with Sisu amid a possibility of new owners emerging after administration.”

What Les fails to do is to quote the relevant paragraph in full. It reads:

“It was ultimately agreed that the Trust should not show any support for the current board or owners. The importance of being seen as independent being stressed by a number of attending members whilst recognising that the group may at some stage need to work with any potential new owners. It would however keep open lines of communication with all relevant stakeholders including supporters groups but would not enter into dialogue with SISU.” (My emphasis)

Quite why I’m referred to as “ex-Labour Coventry City Council leader” is puzzling. I haven’t been Leader for 13 years, nor a councillor for 11. My relationship with any current Labour council is irrelevant. In any case, if my knowing the leader, current or previous, enables the Trust to talk to the council, isn’t that to be welcomed? What is more representative of the Trust’s policy: a minute from a meeting held 18 months ago, or those of many subsequent ones. A recent open meeting of members endorsed a policy of being independent, and trying to get all sides to talk. The Trust has vigorously pursued that with whoever out of Sisu, the Council, ACL and the Football League will talk to us.

 

[Jack Griffin]

“But the council/ACL had been unwilling to talk with Sisu after negotiations over stadium rent, revenues and ownership collapsed in February, ahead of ACL seeking to place the club in administration in the High Court in March.”

Les can’t have it both ways. Either ACL have offered to talk (as the article quoted by him says) or they have refused to talk. Both ACL and the Council have consistently said they will talk, with Council Leader Ann Lucas making several offers. Joy Seppala says in Les’ own interview, that she won’t negotiate with the Council. “I don’t negotiate” Les quotes her as saying. A resolution won’t happen while not ALL parties are willing to talk.

“The council argues it is “protecting taxpayer investment‚Äù but valuations in reality have been based on potential future revenue, and the existing business (including contracts, costs and income streams). Other land valuations are being based on the market rate in the Coventry area for brownfield sites for particular uses.”

Les continually confuses the leasehold (held by ACL and lasts another 40 odd years) and the freehold (belonging to the City Council, until it decides to sell). The “existing business” is ACL, who operate the arena. The property value is that of the building and the land. Quite why it should be valued as “brownfield land” is baffling. Certainly there is brownfield land still to be developed. The stadium itself is hardly brownfield, unless it’s to be sold as a building to be demolished and something else built. The Ricoh Arena belongs to the taxpayers of Coventry. It cost over £100m to build, and if that is what it is worth then that should be the price. Certainly a figure of £7m, quoted in the headline, is a derisory figure. That may be what ACL might cost, but that would simply buy half of what is, in effect, a tenancy and an operating business.

“Yet previous council taxpayer investment was nothing like the full £118m final cost of building the Ricoh, which opened in 2005. Costs were partly met from around £40m profit on a £59m sale of part of the land to Tesco; £21m borrowed money later repaid by ACL’s Yorkshire Bank loan; from Europe, the club, and from the former regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands.”

Les suggests that the taxpayer’s investment in the Ricoh was very little. But the money from the Tesco land was for the sale of a public asset. The Council has consistently sold land and property it owns, usually on a leasehold. Selling it at a profit is surely good value for Coventry taxpayers. And both the European and AWM money were taxpayers’ money, since they both came, in effect, from Government. The City Council, of course, acted as guarantor for the £21m loan.

“Some campaigners are outraged by any suggestion Sisu should obtain 100 per cent freehold Ricoh ownership – despite Ms Seppala publicly insisting there will be no return to a landlord/tenant relationship. They argue it is unnecessary – as more stadium revenues for the club could come from ownership or part-ownership on a leasehold basis.”

Outrage is a strong word to use to describe what is a well respected argument. Many clubs, both here and abroad, play in stadia they don’t own. Indeed, if the League’s salary cap rules are what are important, then the crucial issue is the income the arena generates, not its ownership. That costs money to maintain and develop it. No-one would dispute that the rent was too high (though I understand ACL’s last offer was below what the club is paying at Sixfields), nor that they need access to the income streams. Both of those are up for negotiation. What is stopping talks is an inability, for whatever reason, of the different sides to come to the table. If it was up to me, I’d lock them all in a room until they came to an agreement.

Les has not mentioned the role of the Football League in all this. After the fiasco of allowing Wimbledon to be transferred to Milton Keynes, they declared it would never happen again. They claim to work for the benefit of “real fans”, yet they ignore the considerable evidence presented to them, break their own rules wholesale, allow the club to move to Northampton on the promise of a £1m fine if they don’t return, and openly admit that they don’t know if the club will actually come back. They have also claimed to be working to persuade all parties to talk, yet they is scant evidence of that. The evidence for their reform grows by the day.

None of the various main players in this saga have covered themselves in glory. For Les to criticise one side, or one group of supporters (with twice as many members as attend “home” matches, by the way), neither explains the situation, nor contributes to a solution.

 

[torchomatic]

Well, ACL don't seem to mind a bit of subsidising, do they? Good job CCC didn't let ACL clean up their own mess, isn't it?

Exactly, why should CCC/ACL or any body subsidise SISU & turnround Joy Seppalas horrendous mistakes, its her mess she can clean it up.

 

[Kenilworth Sky Blue]

Covmark you just need to act your age a little. Just because the vast majority don't share your view you tend to get abusive. Some would think your a late forty something baseball cap wearing prick.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Well, ACL don't seem to mind a bit of subsidising, do they? Good job CCC didn't let ACL clean up their own mess, isn't it?

The loan restructure is not a subsidy, should there be a default it is secured against assets that can be sold to recover the amount outstanding.

 

[torchomatic]

Sorry, you're right. The "loan restructure" was a bail-out. Pure and simple.

The loan restructure is not a subsidy, should there be a default it is secured against assets that can be sold to recover the amount outstanding.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Sorry, you're right. The "loan restructure" was a bail-out. Pure and simple.

Who are bailing out OTIUM?

 

[Grendel]

Who are bailing out OTIUM?

Not the taxpayer so who cares

 

[mark82]

Straw man much?

Could just as well say you'd rather CCFC stay in Northampton than a few millionaires lose out on a bad investment. In fact, that would actually be factually accurate.

But no-one actually gives a shit about Sisu dickhead. All anyone accused of being "pro-Sisu" is interested in is bringing the club back to Coventry which you clearly do not want. I hear Villa are trying to poach some fans if you want to support a team outside Coventry.

 

[mark82]

SISU were made a good offer to sell the club and turned it down. If you think there is a future with SISU at the RICOH, i think their is a job for you at Disney with a fairy story and a happy ending.

I think you are the one who is dreaming my friend.

 

[mark82]

Who are bailing out OTIUM?

Private investors.

 

[chiefdave]

It would give them a saleable asset. It might not recoup the full £60 million but it would go some way. Every business venture needs an exit strategy, maybe this is theirs.

Sorry, have I got this right. Are you suggesting the council should hand over the Ricoh for next to nothing to SISU to allow them to shortly afterwards sell it for tens of millions to recoup their investment? Would the council not have some questions to answer legally if they gave away an asset at well below market value and it was then sold on soon afterwards by a hedge fund at a huge profit?

While ownership of the Ricoh may give SISU an exit strategy how much damage will they do to CCFC in the process of executing this strategy?
There seems to me to be 3 options:

1) SISU claim that uniting the ground and the club will turn things around for CCFC. I haven't seen any evidence to support this and given Joy's interview with the CT where she stated she wasn't interested in football and wants her money back are they really going to hang around to see a long term return on their investment? Given that SISU, and some people on here, keep telling us that ACL is not viable without CCFC paying rent and assuming if we own the ground we wouldn't pay rent how does it suddenly become hugely profitable to the point there's a £60m surplus for SISU to recoup their money?

2) SISU sell the club and ground as a package. This doesn't add up for me, can't see anyone paying anywhere near £60m for the club and the Ricoh. As mentioned above are we really now suggesting handing the Ricoh over to SISU for them to sell it on at a huge profit?

3) SISU load debt against the Ricoh and then walk away. This seems to me the most likley outcome and why they appear desperate for the freehold rather than the lease. Imagine the mess we will be in if SISU manage to get hold of the Ricoh for next to nothing then load tens of millions in debt against it which CCFC is responsible for paying. They would walk off with that money leaving us in a horrendous position.

None of those options are particularly appealing to me.

 

[No future with SISU]

Please provide an example of a lie.

Fisher said they were finished with the ricoh and now it is been valued by them. what do you call the first bit of the sentence?

 

[No future with SISU]

Sorry, have I got this right. Are you suggesting the council should hand over the Ricoh for next to nothing to SISU to allow them to shortly afterwards sell it for tens of millions to recoup their investment? Would the council not have some questions to answer legally if they gave away an asset at well below market value and it was then sold on soon afterwards by a hedge fund at a huge profit?

While ownership of the Ricoh may give SISU an exit strategy how much damage will they do to CCFC in the process of executing this strategy?
There seems to me to be 3 options:

1) SISU claim that uniting the ground and the club will turn things around for CCFC. I haven't seen any evidence to support this and given Joy's interview with the CT where she stated she wasn't interested in football and wants her money back are they really going to hang around to see a long term return on their investment? Given that SISU, and some people on here, keep telling us that ACL is not viable without CCFC paying rent and assuming if we own the ground we wouldn't pay rent how does it suddenly become hugely profitable to the point there's a £60m surplus for SISU to recoup their money?

2) SISU sell the club and ground as a package. This doesn't add up for me, can't see anyone paying anywhere near £60m for the club and the Ricoh. As mentioned above are we really now suggesting handing the Ricoh over to SISU for them to sell it on at a huge profit?

3) SISU load debt against the Ricoh and then walk away. This seems to me the most likley outcome and why they appear desperate for the freehold rather than the lease. Imagine the mess we will be in if SISU manage to get hold of the Ricoh for next to nothing then load tens of millions in debt against it which CCFC is responsible for paying. They would walk off with that money leaving us in a horrendous position.

None of those options are particularly appealing to me.

Add any council who gave away the RICOH would be voted out at the next election.