sisu strikes again (1 Viewer)

Rusty Trombone · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Yes. Same crap. I thought the money came from Council reserves and not another loan. Could be wrong. If that's the case then it was tax payers money.

They got a loan, and then loaned money to ACL. Can't seem to link properly, but it's called prudential borrowing, you can read all about it on gov.uk.

from the website

'Councils need to invest in their buildings and equipment so that people can continue to receive high-quality local services. We will ensure that the system gives councils the resources and flexibilities to make this investment.

Local authorities receive central government funding for a major part of their capital investment in the form of capital grants. They can also use income from their own capital assets to finance capital spending.

The new Prudential system encourages local authorities to invest in the capital assets that they need to improve their services. It allows them to raise finance for capital expenditure without government consent as long as they can afford to service the debt out of their revenue resources.'

torchomatic · Jan 31, 2014

Fair enough. So, next question. How has the loan helped improve "their services"?

Rusty Trombone said:
They got a loan, and then loaned money to ACL. Can't seem to link properly, but it's called prudential borrowing, you can read all about it on gov.uk.

from the website

'Councils need to invest in their buildings and equipment so that people can continue to receive high-quality local services. We will ensure that the system gives councils the resources and flexibilities to make this investment.

Local authorities receive central government funding for a major part of their capital investment in the form of capital grants. They can also use income from their own capital assets to finance capital spending.

The new Prudential system encourages local authorities to invest in the capital assets that they need to improve their services. It allows them to raise finance for capital expenditure without government consent as long as they can afford to service the debt out of their revenue resources.'

Captain Dart · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Fair enough. So, next question. How has the loan helped improve "their services"?

By investing in a major capital asset called the Ricoh Arena?

torchomatic · Jan 31, 2014

Ah yes, the Ricoh Arena.

Captain Dart said:
By investing in a major capital asset called the Ricoh Arena?

limoncello · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Ah yes, the Ricoh Arena.

Providing high-quality local services for Leicester reserves and Northampton football academies since 2014.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Fair enough. So, next question. How has the loan helped improve "their services"?

Unsure on this one, but earnings from capital projects can be used for revenues, which does improve their services. Not too sure if the excess made from charging ACL a higher rate goes directly into revenues, or into capital - the return if which goes back into reserves; but there's certainly one or two ways. Maybe someone knows the exact route?!?

Grendel · Jan 31, 2014

Astute said:
Same old crap I see.

Tax payers money not used. CCC got a loan at a better rate than ACL could have got. ...That is if they could have got a loan. Is this illegal? Don't think so. Were SISU forced out of the Ricoh? The FL know they could even go back for free this season. Did ACL try and get a forced sale of our club? If so to who? And if this is so wrong and it did happen SISU have been trying to do a forced sale of the stadium.

CCC by law can't let them have the stadium on the cheap by law so how can there be a law broken by safeguarding the Ricoh?

To me it is all about putting pressure on ACL. Last roll of the dice.

If its against the law why haven't stoke council been prosecuted? More astute facts.

Grendel · Jan 31, 2014

Captain Dart said:
By investing in a major capital asset called the Ricoh Arena?

Which is now an expensive white elephant and an embarrassment to Coventry.

torchomatic · Jan 31, 2014

Well, that's the £14M question, isn't it? Has the loan helped improve services for Coventry citizens? There are loads of rules about how certain "pots" of money can be spent and what they can be spent on. I would imagine this would be a major part of the Council's defence in the JR; "Look how everyone has benefited", etc etc

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Unsure on this one, but earnings from capital projects can be used for revenues, which does improve their services. Not too sure if the excess made from charging ACL a higher rate goes directly into revenues, or into capital - the return if which goes back into reserves; but there's certainly one or two ways. Maybe someone knows the exact route?!?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Well, that's the £14M question, isn't it? Has the loan helped improve services for Coventry citizens? There are loads of rules about how certain "pots" of money can be spent and what they can be spent on. I would imagine this would be a major part of the Council's defence in the JR; "Look how we everyone has benefited", etc etc

It does generate an excess that goes into the council coffers. Just don't know which pot. Whether it's for old folks dinners, or a new suit for Ann Lucas, I don't know. From the way she's dressed, hopefully the latter...

Godiva · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Well, that's the £14M question, isn't it? Has the loan helped improve services for Coventry citizens? There are loads of rules about how certain "pots" of money can be spent and what they can be spent on. I would imagine this would be a major part of the Council's defence in the JR; "Look how everyone has benefited", etc etc

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
It does generate an excess that goes into the council coffers. Just don't know which pot. Whether it's for old folks dinners, or a new suit for Ann Lucas, I don't know. From the way she's dressed, hopefully the latter...

Don't forget the important part: State Aid money cannot be used in a way that is upsetting fair and free competition. Meaning the loan to ACL cannot be given on better terms that ACL could get from a bank ... or from another lender like sisu.
So sisu will make the claim that YB had downgraded the credit rating of ACL and would as a consequence demand a much increased interest rate.
Buying out the loan and provide ACL with a better interest rate is therefor unfair competition.

Skybluerevolution (Pt2) · Jan 31, 2014

SP stated that he will not purchase player this late into the window as all prices are inflated that seems a reasonable explanation to me, they have got in 2 very good loans plus another coming from Swansea - really if SISU left tomorrow I am sure some would still find something to crow about - every time something is in the press it's fucking SISU's fault for fucks sake - we get it, you don't like them (who does) but do we need to read on every fucking thread it's fucking boring now.

Ashdown1 · Jan 31, 2014

Godiva said:
Don't forget the important part: State Aid money cannot be used in a way that is upsetting fair and free competition. Meaning the loan to ACL cannot be given on better terms that ACL could get from a bank ... or from another lender like sisu.
So sisu will make the claim that YB had downgraded the credit rating of ACL and would as a consequence demand a much increased interest rate.
Buying out the loan and provide ACL with a better interest rate is therefor unfair competition.

You can talk up the finer points of legality but will a judge not just look past this to see a hedge funds greater goal and take into account previous illegal methods by said fund in refusing to pay contractually agreed rent in full. Besides as I've said before even if through litigation SISU wrest control of the Arena, they will have done so much damage to the goodwill of their customer base that things will never be the same again !

Godiva · Jan 31, 2014

Ashdown1 said:
You can talk up the finer points of legality but will a judge not just look past this to see a hedge funds greater goal and take into account previous illegal methods by said fund in refusing to pay contractually agreed rent in full.

It is not illegal to refuse to pay rent!

Ashdown1 said:
Besides as I've said before even if through litigation SISU wrest control of the Arena, they will have done so much damage to the goodwill of their customer base that things will never be the same again !

No? Time is a great healer and we all have very short memories. Our (the customers) main desire is to support the club. If sisu win the JR and as a consequence gain control over ACL and bring the team home to the Ricoh we will soon be back in numbers.

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 31, 2014

Godiva said:
Don't forget the important part: State Aid money cannot be used in a way that is upsetting fair and free competition. Meaning the loan to ACL cannot be given on better terms that ACL could get from a bank ... or from another lender like sisu.
So sisu will make the claim that YB had downgraded the credit rating of ACL and would as a consequence demand a much increased interest rate.
Buying out the loan and provide ACL with a better interest rate is therefor unfair competition.

Sisu wanted to do it so they can't think it's too bad

Godiva · Jan 31, 2014

Sky Blue Pete said:
Sisu wanted to do it so they can't think it's too bad

Sisu wanted to pay something like £5m-£6m for the mortgage - ccc paid £14m. If there were no other offers then that alone suggest the ccc used state aid money to create unfair competition.

Astute · Jan 31, 2014

Grendel said:
If its against the law why haven't stoke council been prosecuted? More astute facts.

Twat.

I said I don't think it is against the law. More Grendull facts I take it? Or is the money given to NTFC for their ground illegal? Why haven't SISU started a JR against them? Can we hear a Grendull fact on this?

fernandopartridge · Jan 31, 2014

Ashdown1 said:
You can talk up the finer points of legality but will a judge not just look past this to see a hedge funds greater goal and take into account previous illegal methods by said fund in refusing to pay contractually agreed rent in full. Besides as I've said before even if through litigation SISU wrest control of the Arena, they will have done so much damage to the goodwill of their customer base that things will never be the same again !

Nonsense. Hedge funds are just operate in the free market the same as ACL.

Ashdown1 · Jan 31, 2014

Godiva said:
It is not illegal to refuse to pay rent!

No? Time is a great healer and we all have very short memories. Our (the customers) main desire is to support the club. If sisu win the JR and as a consequence gain control over ACL and bring the team home to the Ricoh we will soon be back in numbers.

It would be a travesty if these sharks gained a foothold back in CV6 and polls suggest 25% of the supporter base would not forgive them for what they have done to the football club thus far ! They are only after some sort of return on investment so please advise exactly how they will achieve this...........without leaving the football side of things high and dry?!

chiefdave · Jan 31, 2014

Godiva said:
Sisu wanted to pay something like £5m-£6m for the mortgage - ccc paid £14m. If there were no other offers then that alone suggest the ccc used state aid money to create unfair competition.

The problem with that is that SISU were attempting to distress ACL in order to panic Yorkshire Bank into selling them the mortgage at less than its value. Had SISU been paying the rent is there any chance that YB would have even considered selling the mortgage for a third of it's value? Come to that is there any actual evidence, other than comments from Fisher and Labovich, that YB ever agreed a deal with SISU to sell the mortgage at that price?

lordsummerisle · Jan 31, 2014

chiefdave said:
The problem with that is that SISU were attempting to distress ACL in order to panic Yorkshire Bank into selling them the mortgage at less than its value. Had SISU been paying the rent is there any chance that YB would have even considered selling the mortgage for a third of it's value? Come to that is there any actual evidence, other than comments from Fisher and Labovich, that YB ever agreed a deal with SISU to sell the mortgage at that price?

So you say that Sisu were attempting to distress ACL in order to panic Yorkshire Bank into selling them the mortgage?

Then say that there is no evidence for it?

torchomatic · Jan 31, 2014

Mutton said hell would freeze over before he would give anything of the Ricoh to our current owners (whether we like them or not). However, he was happy to deal with someone (PH4) who hadn't even bought the club and offer something to them. Not cricket really.

fernandopartridge · Jan 31, 2014

chiefdave said:
The problem with that is that SISU were attempting to distress ACL in order to panic Yorkshire Bank into selling them the mortgage at less than its value. Had SISU been paying the rent is there any chance that YB would have even considered selling the mortgage for a third of it's value? Come to that is there any actual evidence, other than comments from Fisher and Labovich, that YB ever agreed a deal with SISU to sell the mortgage at that price?

....but, the point you've missed is that it appeared that CCC were compliant in this in anycase

chiefdave · Jan 31, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
So you say that Sisu were attempting to distress ACL in order to panic Yorkshire Bank into selling them the mortgage?

Then say that there is no evidence for it?

No you've misunderstood me, maybe I haven't explained it well. What is being said is that CCC shouldn't have loaned ACL the £14m as it was causing an imbalance in the market and if they hadn't done that SISU could have purchased the mortgage for £5-6m. The only evidence we have of this is Fisher and Labovich saying that YB had agreed to sell the mortgage to SISU. If they are correct and they had evidence, such as a HOT, to show this was agreed then logically the only reason YB agreed to it is because they were concerned that ACL would not be able to meet their repayments, the only thing that could have caused that concern is SISU not paying the rent / moving the club.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 31, 2014

Godiva said:
Don't forget the important part: State Aid money cannot be used in a way that is upsetting fair and free competition. Meaning the loan to ACL cannot be given on better terms that ACL could get from a bank ... or from another lender like sisu.
So sisu will make the claim that YB had downgraded the credit rating of ACL and would as a consequence demand a much increased interest rate.
Buying out the loan and provide ACL with a better interest rate is therefor unfair competition.

How can that be? There are many arenas in which state money is provided at a lower rate than commercial lenders if there's a strategic reason behind it.

How about the New Enterprise Allowance for start-up businesses, for example? Are you saying they're illegal too, as their rates are better than High Street lending?

Ashdown1 · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Mutton said hell would freeze over before he would give anything of the Ricoh to our current owners (whether we like them or not). However, he was happy to deal with someone (PH4) who hadn't even bought the club and offer something to them. Not cricket really.

And therein lies a problem of course, do CCFC swap one frying pan for another or hope and pray that we get a genuine investor like they have at LCFC who use the club as one big advertising bandwagon.

Godiva · Jan 31, 2014

chiefdave said:
The problem with that is that SISU were attempting to distress ACL in order to panic Yorkshire Bank into selling them the mortgage at less than its value. Had SISU been paying the rent is there any chance that YB would have even considered selling the mortgage for a third of it's value? Come to that is there any actual evidence, other than comments from Fisher and Labovich, that YB ever agreed a deal with SISU to sell the mortgage at that price?

Well, I suspect sisu will ague that the club couldn't afford the rent and all negoiations were futile. They paid what they could afford - 10K per game while frantic cutting all other costs to stay alive. They may even claim that ACL have now offered free rent, and even if ACL have gotten better terms on their mortgage it can't be £1m better per year, and so the club wasn't in fact distressing ACL.

Whether sisu have made a written offer to YB or not is not essensial. They can simpy refer to the Deloitte report made for YB as evidence ACL were distressed and so the original loan had a lower value and a replacement loan should be on higher - not lower - interest terms.

chiefdave · Jan 31, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
....but, the point you've missed is that it appeared that CCC were compliant in this in anycase

again we only have Fisher and Labovich to go on here and they don't have a great track record with being truthful but if that is the case then doesn't Labovich's statement that "It’s against the law for 2 or more people to conspire to cause damage to the business of a third party" come into play with SISU being one of those breaking the law?

torchomatic · Jan 31, 2014

Well, my view is that Mutton shouldn't have done that. I believe the Club (regardless of who owns them) need to own the stadium and not have the Council sticking their noses in constantly.

Ashdown1 said:
And therein lies a problem of course, do CCFC swap one frying pan for another or hope and pray that we get a genuine investor like they have at LCFC who use the club as one big advertising bandwagon.

fernandopartridge · Jan 31, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
How can that be? There are many arenas in which state money is provided at a lower rate than commercial lenders if there's a strategic reason behind it.

How about the New Enterprise Allowance for start-up businesses, for example? Are you saying they're illegal too, as their rates are better than High Street lending?

The New Enterprise Allowances goes through some sort of formal application process.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 31, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
The New Enterprise Allowances goes through some sort of formal application process.

Yeah; I'm aware of that FP; but the net position is that it gives state money - following due process - to commercial businesses at lower than commercial rates, provided it fulfills a strategic ambition for local, or national government. If Godiva, or SISU for that matter, asserts that '...the loan to ACL cannot be given on better terms that ACL could get from a bank ... or from another lender like sisu'; I can't see how that holds water, given initiates such as this. There are plenty of such schemes about, I just pulled one out of the air

Ashdown1 · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Well, my view is that Mutton shouldn't have done that. I believe the Club (regardless of who owns them) need to own the stadium and not have the Council sticking their noses in constantly.

You did write 'give' but I presume you meant 'sell' ??
This individual certainly hasn't helped matters I agree.

chiefdave · Jan 31, 2014

Godiva said:
Well, I suspect sisu will ague that the club couldn't afford the rent and all negoiations were futile. They paid what they could afford - 10K per game while frantic cutting all other costs to stay alive. They may even claim that ACL have now offered free rent, and even if ACL have gotten better terms on their mortgage it can't be £1m better per year, and so the club wasn't in fact distressing ACL.

Whether sisu have made a written offer to YB or not is not essensial. They can simpy refer to the Deloitte report made for YB as evidence ACL were distressed and so the original loan had a lower value and a replacement loan should be on higher - not lower - interest terms.

Maybe but then CCC could say if you couldn't afford the rent why didn't you put the club up for sale to someone who could and how can you afford to pay the interest on the loan from AVRO and management fees. There's an argument to be had for sure but SISU will need to be very careful not to drop themselves in it by stating one thing that then trips them up elsewhere.

The Deloitte report could fairly easily be dismissed I would have thought as it's a snapshot worse case scenario - how much would we get back if ACL went to the wall.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Well, my view is that Mutton shouldn't have done that. I believe the Club (regardless of who owns them) need to own the stadium and not have the Council sticking their noses in constantly.

I also think that Mutton hasn't helped one iota. However, and I hate to be pedantic - but - the club doesn't need to own the stadium. A long lease, with fair rent levels, and access to revenues is what's needed; and what SISU should be aiming for. Everyone, bar the insane, would support this.

But asking for unferreted access to the freehold and surrounding lands is an ask too far; and so unrealistic as to effectively be a bridge to any feasible compromise

DaleM · Jan 31, 2014

torchomatic said:
Well, my view is that Mutton shouldn't have done that. I believe the Club (regardless of who owns them) need to own the stadium and not have the Council sticking their noses in constantly.

Agreed but the question is why have Sisu gone down this route instead of just buying the Higgs share for a reported 6milllion ish , working from within they would have had a lot better chance of gaining the other 50% of the stadium. They are destroying CCFC to try to distress the council/Higgs charity and get a whole lot of real estate for fuckall. Once said land stadium etc is aquired what are they going to do then ?

What do you reckon the chances are that if they do aquire the Ricoh and surrounding land CCFC will still be in the doldrums , being charged rent , management fees , debt interest etc with little investment in the playing side of things.

Personally I think they are the worst people to have owned our club ever. I would even go as far as the worst owners of any league club ever.

sisu strikes again (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

limoncello

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency