Sky Blues Trust Q&A with ACL & CCFC (1 Viewer)

[CovInEssex]

Suprised no one has posted this yet..

Questions and answers with ACL and CCFC


The Sky Blue Trust has spent the past several weeks questioning senior representatives of ACL and CCFC to try and demystify some of the “stories, myths and confusion” about the negotiations and relations between the two parties. It has to be said both sides acknowledged the importance of the fans by participating in this process and we thank them for that. Both sides have co-operated fully and given us full answers to all the detailed questions that were put to them.



Printed below are the answers that ACL gave. CCFC, subsequent to giving us their answers, have been advised by their lawyers that some of the answers given would be prejudicial to their forthcoming court appearance and have said that they are Sub Judice. We are disappointed in this decision but will respect their wishes so as not to effect the court judgement. Hopefully this “gagging order” will be lifted shortly and we can publish CCFC’s answers.





Questions and Answers CCFC and ACL



1: Who are your negotiation team ?



ACL: Paul Harris, Chris West. Although a wider number of Board members which included Martin Reeves and P.W.Knatchbull-Hugessen, were in attendance on 29 January 2013



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



2: Does that team have the authority to agree a deal?



ACL: Yes – within clear parameters. This is normal practice. The 4 shareholder Board members were present on 29 January 2013. At the start of the meeting we specifically clarified that CCFC Directors were also authorised to agree a deal.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



3: Are all the negotiating team clear as to the detailed requirements of the owners so that they can agree a deal the stakeholders will sign off?



ACL: Yes, there is complete alignment between the Board and both Shareholders on this matter. The owners appoint the Directors to work for the benefit of the company as a whole. Company Law ensures that a director’s duty is to the company and all shareholders equally.



CCFC: .Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



4: Who on both sides signed the original licence?



ACL: John McGuigan and Paul Fletcher for ACL. Geoffrey Robinson and Mal Brannigan for CCFC



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



5: The current licence has 42 years to run are there any break clauses included?



ACL: The current licence expires in September 2054. ACL agreed to consider the variation of three to four clauses at the meeting of 29 January 2013, at the request of CCFC. Tim Fisher and Mark Labovitch committed to forward the particular clauses which they proposed to amend, these were never received. ACL would not consider inserting break clauses into the current licence, as this is the home of Coventry City Football Club



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice





6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?



ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher. Since SISU bought the club there have been one or two light touch discussions with SISU but nothing that amounted to a serious proposition.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



7: Is the rent at £400k in League 1 acceptable ?



ACL: Yes



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



8: Have rents for Championship and Premiership been offered and agreed?



ACL: Yes, all part of the HOT verbally agreed with CCFC on 29th January 2013 in the presence of the Boards of each party, CCFC subsequently reneged on the agreement. Requirement for extra spectator payments subsequently withdrawn verbally.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



9: Has a settlement on the outstanding debt been reached? What was offered?



ACL: Yes these were verbally agreed with CCFC on 29th January 2013 in the presence of the Boards of each party, CCFC subsequently reneged on the agreement. ACL offered to reduce the arrears to £485,000



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



10: Is there still to be an escrow account at 500k?



ACL: There is a legal requirement for an escrow account, which in essence is a rent deposit deed, agreed in 2004 by the then owners of CCFC and ACL, with funds not provided by CCFC. The deed is meant to cover any failure of the tenant, e.g. CCFC to pay their rent. It is worth reiterating the guarantee or escrow funds, were never deposited by the then owners of CCFC or SISU when they acquired CCFC. However ACL proposed as part of its 29 January 2013 agreement to reduce this amount to £200k, therefore writing off £313,000, this was conditional on agreeing the HOTs of the aforementioned date



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



11: Have there been detailed discussions regarding match day income and what revenues CCFC want access to?



ACL: Yes



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice











12: £100,000 has been publicised as the value of food and beverage income – is this 50% of the profits i.e. ACL’s half from the EIC joint venture?



ACL: In principle – we have all accepted that more work is needed on the detail of this, and it needs to be agreed with ACL’s contracted partner Compass, so it is not simply in ACL’s gift. Of course match-day income is also influenced by attendances, these we have seen drop from an average of 13,126 in 11/12 to a current year to date average of 9,259

Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903.

ACL would be willing to give CCFC full details of the F & B accounts and were prepared to go open book and even allow CCFC to use the revenue figures in the clubs FFP calculations?



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



13: Did any of the ACL negotiating team believe heads of terms had been agreed on 9/01/2013?



ACL: Yes absolutely and would be prepared to swear on oath to that. This meeting was almost 4 hours long with adjournments into separate rooms, both parties concluded with a verbal agreement and a commitment to formalise within 48 hours, the meeting concluded with handshakes ratifying the agreement. At a meeting on 19 January 2013, the ACL representatives commenced by asking whether those representing CCFC, Fisher, Labovitch and Clarke had the authority to agree a deal, given that up to that throughout December and up to 7 January 2013, negotiations were directly with Joy Seppala, each CCFC Director stated they were empowered and would not need to refer any decision back to Ms Seppala. This was reiterated prior to commencement of the meeting dated 29 January 2013, and once again confirmed by the 3 CCFC representatives.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



14: Did the club sell the rights to match day catering income to ACL or were these part of the sales of the ACL shares to the Higgs Charity? How much for and when?



ACL: Yes on the sale of its shares to The Higgs Charity. CCFC sold Football Investors Ltd, the non-trading company that owns 50% of the shares in ACL, to the Higgs Charity in 2003 for £6.5m.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



15: Are ACL, Compass or IEC expecting to be the supplier of those services to CCFC? e.g. Staffing



ACL: Compass will need to be the supplier as they are contracted. We all accepted that the detail of how this could work is still to be agreed. This will need the full agreement of Compass who are receptive to having a relationship with CCFC, subject to contract.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice

Cont...

 

---

[CovInEssex]

16: Did the club sell the right to car park income?



ACL: No they retained 900 spaces for use on match-days, these remain part of the new overall proposed deal. This is approximately 50% of all available car parking at the stadium.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



17: Did the club stop receiving car park income as a consequence of not paying the rent for the stadium?



ACL: Yes, the club subsequently purchased 300 seasonal spaces at the start of the season, which they also sell on.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



18: Is it the intention that CCFC pays for any incremental car parking spaces it may require beyond the 900 spaces CCFC has allocated under the current licence?



ACL: Yes, if the club require additional spaces beyond their contracted 900 spaces and ACL have the availability (e.g. no conflicting events), they would need to purchase them.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



19: Does the club currently receive any of the following either in part or full, directly or indirectly, and include it in their turnover?



Car parking

ACL : Under the licence agreement the club gets 900 car park spaces – nearly 50% of the total. Temporary arrangements outlined above are in place, whilst the rent is being withheld. ACL’s proposed deal would reinstate the 900.

CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



Concourse food and drinks

ACL: No

CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



Catering in Jaguar, Legends, Yorkshire, Eon etc

ACL: Hospitality ood is purchased by the club and is sold on by them as part of a package

CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



Pitch side advertising

ACL: Yes. All pitch side advertising is sold by the Club. ACL purchase from the Club advertising for ACL sponsors

CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



Match tickets

ACL: Yes. ACL separately purchase tickets for all their guests and sponsors.

CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



Match day packages

ACL: Yes, however ACL have 6 hospitality boxes, which were excluded from the original lease/licence. ACL have 4 x Jaguar Club seats as part of the three way Jaguar Club agreement



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice





20: Has the club ever tried to repurchase the additional income sources from ACL?



ACL: No – its policy to date is to demand these for nothing.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



21: Is ACL prepared to sell those additional income sources to CCFC?



ACL: The offer agreed by Sisu/CCFC on 29 January was our best and final offer.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



22: In addition to the additional turnover are you expecting CCFC to take over the associated additional costs that each source incurs?



ACL: Yes but we are only in discussion on food and beverage. This would form part of the agreement with Compass. Costs and overheads will be integral to any financial model.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



23: Are some of these sources sold to the club by ACL from match to match then sold on by the Club? E.G car parking in corporate packages.



ACL: Yes. We do not know how they account for it.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



24: Did CCFC inform ACL that it intends to move to a new built ground in South Warwickshire



ACL: Yes, Chris West and Paul Harris were advised post 29 January 2013 meeting during a follow up discussion with Tim Fisher, Mark Labovitch and John Clarke, that the Club wanted a three year run off period. This was totally rejected by the ACL representatives. There were no details provided of the location other than “South Warwickshire”, and that it would potentially take three years.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



25: Is the new loan through CCC now fully in place



ACL: Yes



26: How much is owed to SISU, its investors, owners and/or associated companies?



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



27: Have any of the loans been converted to shares in any of the SBS&L companies?



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



28: Do ACL want CCFC at the Ricoh? Do CCFC want to stay at the Ricoh?



ACL: Yes of course. The Ricoh is the home of CCFC, not a proposed ground outside the City of Coventry boundary



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



29: Can ACL and the Ricoh survive without CCFC?



ACL: This is not what we want – but yes we can. We have detailed business plans supporting this. ACL is a solvent and successful business. Our accounts, which have been lodged with Companies House demonstrates this.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice



30: Are ACL willing to be bound by an agreement brokered by independent mediators or arbitrator?



ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified.



CCFC: Answer given but cannot be published as deemed by CCFC to be Sub Judice

http://skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=218:questions-and-answers-with-acl-and-ccfc&catid=1:latest-news

Interesting read, what does everyone think?

 

[smouch1975]

What is the date of this?

 

[ajsccfc]

Knock knock!

Who's there?

Answer given but cannot be published as deemed to be Sub Judice

 

[Sub]

so no answers from CCFC are viewable? nice to see transparency:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

 

[Jack Griffin]

Published today. http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...ith-acl-and-ccfc&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=1

 

[covcity4life]

Knock knock!

Who's there?

Answer given but cannot be published as deemed to be Sub Judice

ahhahahahahaahhaahahahahahahha

 

[chiefdave]

To me it just shows how childish the whole thing is. ACL don't seem to be able to give a straight answer without having a dig at SISU.

 

[Sub]

atleast they gave an answer though

 

[Flying Fokker]

To me it just shows how childish the whole thing is. ACL don't seem to be able to give a straight answer without having a dig at SISU.

Poor, poor SISU.

 

[Delboycov]

To me it just shows how childish the whole thing is. ACL don't seem to be able to give a straight answer without having a dig at SISU.

Don't agree with that...they have in the main just stuck to facts and just because those facts show SISU up for the cowboys they are they shouldn't be criticised for presenting them. I think that SISU hiding behind legalities for all but 1 question instead of putting up any kind of public defence speaks volumes for me.

 

[psgm1]

EXACTLY AS PREDICTED,

criticise the SBT and you get inundated with vile hate e-mails from its members. They ensure they private message so that they appear above board in public, yet pspenmd their hate mail privately. Then if you out them they MAKE THINLY VEILED threats.

They claim to be the only flicker of light, yet insult people - believing themselves above criticism. This despiter them doing nothing practical - FFS they cannot even get SiSU to reduce the volume on the Tanny

So Steve.B50 if you want to insult me - fine - do it in the open. Don't hide behind private messages. (as ALL the SBT tend to do so that they hide their aggressive tactics).

If you cannot accept criticism, then don't try and be in the public eye all the time! It shows more about the deceiptful nature of some of the senior people within this organisation (Jan likes to private message to hide the threats as well BTW).

The only reason this group has ANY members, is because the local media is so idle it cannot be bothered to get comments from ACTUAL fans, so use this strange Jan character as an easy option. Its idle journalism nothing more.

Take them seriously - you must be joking

 

[rupert_bear]

If i win the £80+million on the Euro tonight i will make sure all those answers appear on here Thursday and they can sue if they want

 

[rupert_bear]

EXACTLY AS PREDICTED,

criticise the SBT and you get inundated with vile hate e-mails from its members. They ensure they private message so that they appear above board in public, yet pspenmd their hate mail privately. Then if you out them they MAKE THINLY VEILED threats.

They claim to be the only flicker of light, yet insult people - believing themselves above criticism. This despiter them doing nothing practical - FFS they cannot even get SiSU to reduce the volume on the Tanny

So Steve.B50 if you want to insult me - fine - do it in the open. Don't hide behind private messages. (as ALL the SBT tend to do so that they hide their aggressive tactics).

If you cannot accept criticism, then don't try and be in the public eye all the time! It shows more about the deceiptful nature of some of the senior people within this organisation (Jan likes to private message to hide the threats as well BTW).

The only reason this group has ANY members, is because the local media is so idle it cannot be bothered to get comments from ACTUAL fans, so use this strange Jan character as an easy option. Its idle journalism nothing more.

Take them seriously - you must be joking

I'll fight yer !

 

[Steve.B50]

Am happy talk to you publically and/or to you in person.

Have not been aggressive, used bad language or made threats.

I called you a prat and thats my personal view.

 

[ricohman]

Interesting sizu asked rent to match the league they would currently be in, in 2004 and 2005 to be told yes.

But the rent will increase in the premiership, understandable but i guess sizu thought it too much to risk

 

[CovInEssex]

Interesting sizu asked rent to match the league they would currently be in, in 2004 and 2005 to be told yes.

But the rent will increase in the premiership, understandable but i guess sizu thought it too much to risk

To be fair we don't know how much it was if we'd of been in the Prem

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

Interesting sizu asked rent to match the league they would currently be in, in 2004 and 2005 to be told yes.

But the rent will increase in the premiership, understandable but i guess sizu thought it too much to risk

Sisu were not there in 2004/5. They may be responsible for a lot but cannot be blamed for what happened before they slid into Cov.

 

[SkyblueBri]

People on here keep having a go at the Trust, I do not understand why?
They are trying their best to get answers to some of our questions, so if you are going to have a go at them, tell me what you are doing to try to do the same thing?

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

To me it just shows how childish the whole thing is. ACL don't seem to be able to give a straight answer without having a dig at SISU.

What on Earth were you reading then? Certianly not the same words that I have been reading. ACL gave straight-forward answers that were open, CCFC/SISU gave answers but we are not allowed to see them.
You would have to be a very biased person to make that allegation. Good grief!

 

[Grendel]

You would have to be a very biased person to make that allegation. Good grief!

Pot, kettle and all that......

 

[fernandopartridge]

atleast they gave an answer though

Do you not understand what sub judice means?

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

EXACTLY AS PREDICTED,

criticise the SBT and you get inundated with vile hate e-mails from its members. They ensure they private message so that they appear above board in public, yet pspenmd their hate mail privately. Then if you out them they MAKE THINLY VEILED threats.

They claim to be the only flicker of light, yet insult people - believing themselves above criticism. This despiter them doing nothing practical - FFS they cannot even get SiSU to reduce the volume on the Tanny

So Steve.B50 if you want to insult me - fine - do it in the open. Don't hide behind private messages. (as ALL the SBT tend to do so that they hide their aggressive tactics).

If you cannot accept criticism, then don't try and be in the public eye all the time! It shows more about the deceiptful nature of some of the senior people within this organisation (Jan likes to private message to hide the threats as well BTW).

The only reason this group has ANY members, is because the local media is so idle it cannot be bothered to get comments from ACTUAL fans, so use this strange Jan character as an easy option. Its idle journalism nothing more.

Take them seriously - you must be joking

Actually you are seriously wrong. I am a member, and I am a member because I have seen what the trusts have acheived at other clubs. I am a member because at least they are trying to do something instead of just squealing like stuck pigs. I am a member because I believe that all fans should ultimately stick together instead of being vile and divisive.
So psgm1, you are seriously wrong where I am concerened, and would assume that you are wrong about a large number of the SBT members.
I am not insulting you, I am not claiming the SBT to be the only flicker of light, I do not believe the SBT believes themselves to be above criticism, I am a member and I am not sending you any hate mails and I have not pm'd you.

Representatives of the SBT have made many posts on here, and in my opinion have, in the face of much criticism, remained calm and positive and have tried to state the situation fairly and truthfully. I therefore find your post untrue, vindictive, unsupported and crass, and while I certainly do take the trust seriously, I cannot in any way take your rantings as being in any way serious.

 

[Sub]

Do you not understand what sub judice means?

yes hence the

but just incase - before a court of law or a judge; under judicial consideration

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Pot, kettle and all that......

Grendel,

If you are going to quote me, then please include everything I say instead of picking parts of it to misrepresent my position.
And this from far and away the most biased and opinionated person on this form. Good grief!

 

[_brian_]

Suprised no one has posted this yet..

Cont...

Jeez Cookie! It's language like that which is ruining this site! Get a grip!!!

 

[_brian_]

yes hence the

but just incase - before a court of law or a judge; under judicial consideration

Is it not justice that you dish out, Sub?!?! LOL!!!

 

[italiahorse]

Without Sisu side there is no point to this other than there is some snippets of information. (Maybe)
We can't query the ACL answers which may or may not be correct.
Don't understand this legal stuff but publishing this could be construed as anti-SISU as without explaining the legalities it appears they don't want to talk to us.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Just some thoughts on the above.

ACL have given their version of the facts. Some can not be disputed however hard you try to. I would perhaps have not used some words but that might be something lost in translation or understandable frustration. Not going to dwell on it, it is the detail that is important

It is SISU's right to stop publication of their answers, wont dispute that, but surely some of the questions could have been answered because they would be a statement of fact. eg who was the negotiating team.

Clearly ACL believe strongly that SISU rejected the proposal they made. It is clear their last proposal is where ACL have drawn the line as far as the current owners of ccfc are concerned.

Interesting to see Paul Fletcher signed the licence agreement for ACL ...... yet now makes other public announcements about the contract.

Break clauses were never going to happen, variation of a few terms may have been possible. But why need break clauses if you have no intention of leaving. As many keep saying this is not a normal commercial rent agreement, there isnt a big market in teams or stadia in coventry.

Rent agreements in 2004 did they propose significantly lower agreements if so how much? In any case It demonstrates that ACL were prepared to be flexible

ACL proposed the 400k rent and then went further by verbally agreeing on no escalator based on crowds

So the rent arrears were reduced to £485k but we dont have details of the repayment period, it was suggested it was 10 years I believe previously...... £48,500 per year or an increase on the average gate of 130 people above what it is today for the next 10 years

Lease will still require a rental deposit but was to be reduced from £500k to £200k ....... a reduction or return to CCFC cashflow of £300k

So matchday F&B has been discussed but the structure of how CCFC to benefit not decided

Compass has to be involved in the F&B discussions and per their contract will be the supplier

CCFC do not get the car park income because they are not paying the rent but under the lease have 900 places that CCFC can sell on. So the reason CCFC do not get car park income is ?

Hospitality food and some elements of matchday packages (car parking etc) purchased from ACL or recieved under the Licence then sold on by ccfc.

ACL pay CCFC for some of the pitch side advertising and for tickets except for 6 boxes and 4 seats they kept out of the lease/licence

so CCFC receive no other income then other than tickets ????? doesnt seem to be true does it

Arbitration or mediation is a non starter ............... no real surprise, doubt the reply from SISU would have been much different if the subject matter was only the rent dispute

it wasnt a new lease that was on offer ...... it was a variation of the original one

I doubt SISU will ever release their replies but thats just my opinion. This ACL's version ..... at least they are trying to be transparent about things........ yes of course they will put their slant on it why would you expect different?

The purpose of putting the same questions to both was to let us know what we can rely on (ie what they both agreed) ........ guess we are inches forward in that respect

 

[oldskyblue58]

Question why did Sepalla stop being "involved" in direct talks from 9th January ? Clearly she has the say as to what goes on at CCFC. Is she now classed as a shadow director ? and if she controlled any decision why should ACL talk to the monkeys when it is the organ grinder they need to address?

 

[CovInEssex]

30: Are ACL willing to be bound by an agreement brokered by independent mediators or arbitrator?



ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified.

Wonder why SISU backed out? Lack of funding, maybe?

 

[Pete in Portugal]

Question why did Sepalla stop being "involved" in direct talks from 9th January ? Clearly she has the say as to what goes on at CCFC. Is she now classed as a shadow director ? and if she controlled any decision why should ACL talk to the monkeys when it is the organ grinder they need to address?

Good question OSB. On the face of it, there appears to be a case for arguing that Joy Sepalla is a shadow director, as defined in the Insolvency Act 1986. I wonder if ACLs lawyers have considered this?

I think your 'organ grinder' analogy is very apt - in more ways then one! :claping hands:

 

[SkyBlueBlood]

So just a wild guess but one of SISU's tactics on Friday will be to say that they have kept all details internal but ACL have blabbed to the public. Strong case that :jerkit: