fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You'd think an academic institution would be a bit more astute in its investment decisions, though I expect they'd think a fund manager would be able to judge better for them.
There is a fair chance that most of the investment from the first 3.5 yrs has been written down/off.
The appearance of ARVO as an entity seems to signify a seperate source of income from early last year, that is how I beieve TF can state our current debt level is circa £14-15M.
The charge on all assets seem to relate to this particular investment and Sisus reputation in the City may take a battering dependent on what percentage of their portfolio £40m is
Pennsylvanias State university Pension fund is set for a hit I think
t
You'd think an academic institution would be a bit more astute in its investment decisions, though I expect they'd think a fund manager would be able to judge better for them.
Sorry OSB, went away from my machine: basically it was the ACL statement I was referring to which said something like they will keep trying to get the Club to talk sensibly but at the end of the day they won't let Sisu damage them. Seems that they have changed their tune from saying they will keep talking to saying that if it isn't going anywhere they will have to act. Just my reading of it but it seems to me to be hotter.
You're possibl forgetting that the debt is not money "put in by SISU" - SISU found investors and directed their money into CCFC, which are effectively loans. Even if SISU walk away tomorrow, our creditors will remain (I think the major one is an Ohio pension fund). So whoever takes over the club, even if they buy the title for £1, will have to contend with the exisitng debts and interest payments.
Certainly sounds like there is a hardening of positions from the ACL viewpoint. The matter has to be resolved, and contrary to what Prof Beech on CWR said i can see things going to court. For one thing how does ACL show they mean business and force CCFC to settle this matter if they dont. The softly softly approach hasnt worked, there are apparently no meaningful negotiations going on, CCFC/SISU are not paying any rent, CCFC are carrying on regardless adding to other overheads (wages) (basically rubbing ACL noses in it), the directors of ACL have a fiduciary duty to protect their company - looks like legal action to me.
ACL already have the judgement: it is a question of when they enforce it. If I was a CCFC Director I would be getting in the Imodium.
OSB, thanks for the input - appreciated, but you've misinterpretated me on a couple of points.
The first one, I never said the councils that subsidised Tesco's move to the Arena park wasn't by a 'socialist' council, I was stating it isn't socialist ideoolgy therefore, 'unsocialist'.
I stated I was unsure of the figure of 1m last year, it appears to be wrong, but you can (or should) see that I got mixed up with 2011 figure with 2010 and 2011 figure. I said the profit affects the loan because it uses the profit to pay the loan - fair enough - but when the loan is paid, the ACL (if the trend keeps up) they'll make a LOT of profit from the 13th year on, so selling it would see ACL lose a long term income, therefore, may play hard ball and not sell at a reasonable price.
In answer to your question, I mean no alternative to CCFC. Playing at the RICOH. I can tell you now, working at Arena Pizza Hut, if CCFC cease to play at the RICOH, the area would lose a LOT of money, my manager tells me frequently we need CCFC to do well so 'we' [pizza hut] do well which is true. IMO, there is no long term replacement for CCFC in terms of use of the RICOH, kiosks will pull out and ACL loses more rent etc. IMO, CCFC have the cards, ACL don't have an ace. They won't kick us out because of this. I don't think you can compare a shop and landowner to a CCFC and Coventry, more complex situation than that, the success of the club, also influences the city. If we're successful, more away fans coming into city in higher leagues (almost tourism) and more people in the city going to pubs etc. pre match and post match - see where I'm going with this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/coventry_city/9578128.stm this is what 'promises' were made and their commitment to their club, there's another link, just can't find it - oh well.
Well let's make it as simple as possible then.
We are in breach of the rent agreement by £700,000 (£800,000 in a few weeks). That is serious cash that ACL are contractually entitled to-and any court in the country would rightfully enable them to take us to the cleaners to get it; because football clubs tend to get a *lot* of leeway with debt, they haven't made good on this yet, but they could at any time. Any re-negotiation on the lease agreement or rent figure would go a lot more smoothly if TF paid at least a bit of this figure upfront, but he's choosing to play quite a dangerous game instead. He is rolling the dice with the club's very future and that does not sit well with me whatsoever.
Not sure I'd want to be a Director of the club with this going on...
If they club say they CAN'T pay then surely aren't they guilty of over-trading as it's just the statement from the owners of the club saying they would honour the debt's if the club could not pay which got the accounts signed off by the auditors??
Have I missed something here???
It was quoted as £900k. in the CWR show and TF must have said in interview at least 4-5 times that its Strategic so surely they have the funds when the courts instruct them to shell up.
OSB, thanks for the input - appreciated, but you've misinterpretated me on a couple of points.
The first one, I never said the councils that subsidised Tesco's move to the Arena park wasn't by a 'socialist' council, I was stating it isn't socialist ideoolgy therefore, 'unsocialist'.in the real world whether you are left or right you have to deal with more important things than ideology ...... practicality, any council would encourage Tesco to come to the site not because of ideology but because practicality in creating jobs,getting inward investment, having a cohesive development demands it, political expediency demands it. Not going to get hung up on whether it was ideologically sound or not .......... its really irrelevant. Political life and ideology is never so clear cut. In creating the Tesco opportunity the then council are creating wealth for the site but also for the masses ..... isnt the well being of the masses a socialist ideal?
I stated I was unsure of the figure of 1m last year, it appears to be wrong, but you can (or should) see that I got mixed up with 2011 figure with 2010 and 2011 figure with respect you are making the figures fit to cover your mistake take responsibility for your error dont compound it by making excuses i am guessing you didnt have the ACL accounts . I said the profit affects the loan because it uses the profit to pay the loan - fair enough - but when the loan is paid, the ACL (if the trend keeps up) they'll make a LOT of profit from the 13th year on, so selling it would see ACL lose a long term income, therefore, may play hard ball and not sell at a reasonable price. it uses the profits to do a lot of things but technically it is cash flow that pays the loan and that is a very different figure to profit. If you take the annual interest paid and add that back to the profits that would mean 1.5m in profits......... hardly massive, some will be retained for future investment, some to pay corporation tax, some may be taken as a return but in the scheme of things we are not talking huge amounts. Those profits are ACL's so ACL would lose no income at all if they retain the long lease on the stadium even if CCFC part owned ACL, if CCFC buy 50% of ACL then it might net them 500k in cash flow from a dividend if a dividend is paid. But overall you have the wrong feel for the stadium, it isnt about a cash cow for its shareholders it is part of a far bigger scheme of regenerating that side of town.
In answer to your question, I mean no alternative to CCFC. Playing at the RICOH. I can tell you now, working at Arena Pizza Hut, if CCFC cease to play at the RICOH, the area would lose a LOT of money, my manager tells me frequently we need CCFC to do well so 'we' [pizza hut] do well which is true. IMO, there is no long term replacement (short term is the problem long term less so)for CCFC in terms of use of the RICOH, kiosks will pull out and ACL loses more rent etc. IMO, CCFC have the cards, ACL don't have an ace you sure of that ?. They won't kick us out because of this you sure - how else do they get resolution ?. I don't think you can compare a shop and landowner to a CCFC and Coventry, more complex situation than that, the success of the club, also influences the city not as much as it used to? so its failure has dragged the city down has it ?thats the logic of what you are saying. there are over 300K people in the vicinity they are not all CCFC fans, and of course you can compare the two, it isnt one way yes perhaps the City get something from it in terms of visitors but CCFC have had significant and consistent aid from the council, charity and ACL in return, there would not be a club without them it would have gone bust before SISU got here. If we're successful, more away fans coming into city in higher leagues (almost tourism) and more people in the city going to pubs etc. pre match and post match take a look at where the ground is and how fans access it there is a very restricted effect - look at what happened at the olympics footfall elsewhere in the city didnt increase in fact at some shops it fell - see where I'm going with this? Do they teach you to do problem solving and lateral thinking ? If so apply it to this situation. You tell me if it makes good business sense to not have alternatives, to not put on more events, attract other sports, more concerts, change the usage, develop hotels to support the additional events (the lack of rooms has held the venue back). All of which would put money in Pizza hut coffers. There are 25 or so match days what does Pizza hut etc do for the other 340 days ? Do you think that ACL will just accept that they are beholden to CCFC or do you think they might change their annual costs in some way ? I think we will see who holds what shortly but one thing is very clear CCFC cannot continue to use the stadium for nothing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/coventry_city/9578128.stm this is what 'promises' were made and their commitment to their club, there's another link, just can't find it - oh well. and what have they learnt and changed ? ...... the only thing keeping fans and club joined is the fact the team is winning a few ...... the owners are not connected to the fans, the club still has massive debts, still makes large losses, still fails to control its costs properly, hasnt invested in the squad only in funding the losses, can only partly afford it by not paying its creditors, has added in other overheads......... words are no use unless they mean something and are acted upon
CJ - no one is saying it would be easy or to be honest even possible but there are plenty of examples where it has worked. Portsmouth is the biggest and highest profile example and, as they are playing us, it seemed a good opportunity for them to tell us all about their particular experience and model. Every clubs circumstances are different and what worked at one is unlikely to be able to be copied 100% somewhere else but by taking stock of all the different examples the Sky Blue Trust is working towards something that could work in our unique situation.
Hopefully it will never have to be resorted to and under SISU or whoever the club will flourish and prosper but if the worst was to happen then we hope to be able to do our bit.
OSB, drop the whole Socialist council argument, I'm saying it is 'unsocialist' but I never said it was a bad decision, in the context of the situation it was the right thing... But it doesn't mean it is 'socialist'. That's my point. I was being criticised for criticising a 'socialist' (which it isn't) council. It isnt me that perpetuates it chap you keep bringing it up
With respect to you, OSB, I pre warned the reader saying I wasn't 100% and I never said, oh this is what it ISI told you post 16 of this thread what the profits were £500k before you made the qualified assertion, I said I think it was 1m last year, and it being 1m over 2 years, clearly a mistake on my part make sure you have the facts then before you make assertions or a guess that you go on to make a whole premise on, and to say I'm lying (never did I said you were making excuses) and covering the fact that I made a mistake is slightly offending, I can assure you, it was an honest mistake, whether you believe me or not is up to you. frankly not given it a second thought and no offense intended let it drop If CCFC get kicked out of the RICOH, I will fall on my sword (no need you just expressed an opinion but CCFC have been locked out of the academy before so it isnt so far fetched), but I'm convinced it won't happen, unless CCFC cease to exist in the first place. I never said that the city was declining because of the club Think of your logic if it improves because of bigger crowds then the reverse logic would be ? , but the businesses around the area are certainly feeling it it isnt just down to the Ricoh though is it people are spending less fullstop, as I said with Pizza Hut. On Pizza Hut, I never said they do diddly squat when there is o match days, but a higher increase of fans would mean a busier Pizza Hut, more business, more money taken in, the rest of the local businesses will feel the positive effects (btw there are plenty of businesses that have suffered because of the Ricoh shopping park in the last 5/6 years) with CCFC are success and attendances increase of course they would but 25 days in a year do not make that much difference after costs and if other events etc are put on at Ricoh then the gap is smaller still. What I am saying is none of us should take a tunnel vision and think this is the only way, there are always alternatives and a good business is proactive not reactive. What the Trust is saying is that we should be in a position to ensure a club survives in some form, that is likely to mean a club generating income at Pizza Hut - just wont be owned by the sharks at SISU. Now ask would the Council, Charity, ACL be prepared to support a pheonix club? There are as I say alternatives, SISU is not the only option but the choices are tough and dramatic.
It is clear CCFC can't use the stadium for nothing while we rent, that's wrong on SISU's part, I will not deny that and do not condone it, but, as I said, the rent is too high at the minute and ACL know it, hence the leniency to CCFC, and CCFC will most likely get the rent reduced. If CCFC were in the championship or better still the premiership would that rent be acceptable then? or again using your logic if rent goes down for League 1 should it go up for premiership and remain same in championship?. The premises are let on the basis of a market value not on the basis of what CCFC choose to afford to play. ACL are not being lenient they are taking practical steps that business requires, proving they are being reasonable should it go back to court for example..... the debt hasnt gone away and increases every day, the rent hasnt dropped, it hasnt actually been challenged legally..... ACL are not being lenient, CCFC simply are refusing to pay, it isnt ACL's decision but the timing of recovery action is and they already have legal judgement on the full amount so its just when.
On that link, I haven't absorbed it and thought SISU are alright now, I don't trust them 100%, but at least they have recognised their mistakes and appear to be trying to 'build bridges', they've invested in good players, brining in 16 new players, b no mean have they 'made up' with me or other fans, I'm giving them 1 last chance to show they are committed and all the rest of it. I'm playing the waiting game ATM. Largely because there's no one to pick up the mess! Thats your choice to give them "one more chance" but many others think differently. There are plenty here who would dispute that 16 good players have been brought in (what about the ones that have left) Have they got a handle on the finances? are they adding in cost and overhead yet cant afford it? Is the squad too big and costing too much? have they dug a big financial hole? Is their only way out to get hold of the stadium, will they get it, and is that necessarily good news? ..... it still comes back to what have they actually done to change things fundamentally ? Still loss making, heavily in increasing debt and substantially at risk....... words are cheap where is the substance ?
Firstly apologies to Jan and the SB Trust for having hijacked the thread
Taylor .......... good to see a young lad with an opinion. Might want to think on why others disagree with your assessment though............ what gives them their insight...... what their knowledge and experience is before dismissing them.... perhaps be more open to change and ideas. :thinking about:
Would fans really want to own football clubs at this level. Its very difficult to find an example where any investors have done anything other than lose a pot full. I for one wouldn't want to pay the ridiculous wages of the likes of David Bell for another 2 years but then I suppose you could argue that a fans board may have seen the twat off.
The great thing about the SBT starting these investigations is that it is doing the groundwork that could either have part fan ownership at this level and beyond or in the worst case scenario is the foundation for a fan owned pheonix club.
With the increasing fragility of the club under Fisher/Seppala it is time to be launching the life boats not just checking them.
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?