Spoke to a property lawyer (1 Viewer)

shy_tall_knight · Jan 15, 2014

When JS made her offer of only interested if unencumbered freehold was it genuine or another stalling ta.ctic knowing that it was an unrealistic demand, I think it was the latter.

CCC are run by elected local politicians accountable to the people of the city, to be involved in any of the suggested commercial practices would make them unelected and thus not going to happen

Noggin · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
The council own of ACL and Higgs the other half there is nothing to stop them agreeing a sake and the council selling the Ricoh to the same purchaser

So the lease actually is a smokescreen.

There is nothing to stop acl being sold to sisu and the council agreeing to sell the freehold at the same time, this is the reasonable, fair way to do it. but you are missing one massive vital point THIS IS NOT WHAT SISU WANT!!!!, SISU WONT DO THIS!!! They want the council to get rid of acl so they can buy the freehold without them, it's completely unreasonable, unpractical and would cost 10's of millions, it's stupid, it's folly. it won't happen, yet you continueally criticize the council.

Grendel · Jan 15, 2014

Noggin said:
There is nothing to stop acl being sold to sisu and the council agreeing to sell the freehold at the same time, this is the reasonable, fair way to do it. but you are missing one massive vital point THIS IS NOT WHAT SISU WANT!!!!, SISU WONT DO THIS!!! They want the council to get rid of acl so they can buy the freehold without them, it's completely unreasonable, unpractical and would cost 10's of millions, it's stupid, it's folly. it won't happen, yet you continueally criticize the council.

How do you know it will cost tens of millions. Do you have sight of the contracts?

cloughie · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
Yes that was the principal point - all is fair in business.

Also doesn't solve the problem of what to do with the contracts ACL hold with third parties unless it's being suggested to screw all those companies over by using liquidation of ACL as a means to cancel the contracts.

Enough said if thats the stance you take, people lose jobs and more etc just to fund a hedge fund

If you truely mean that, you are a vile type of person I might suggest

Huckerby · Jan 15, 2014

Its is absolutely beyond me why some people want the SISU to get their hands on one of the City of Coventry's biggest assets permanently. Beyond me.

Grendel · Jan 16, 2014

Huckerby said:
Its is absolutely beyond me why some people want the SISU to get their hands on one of the City of Coventry's biggest assets permanently. Beyond me.

Strangely so the club can play there as strangely, and I know on a football forum this is a truly bizarre thing to say, for some of us that is the only thing we are interested in.

Paxman II · Jan 16, 2014

I don't particularly want SISU to get their hands on the Ricoh. I want my football club to do that. If that means SISU for now then so be it.

James Smith · Jan 16, 2014

Grendel said:
Who owns the £14 million debt that ACL owe?

We don't know that it is still £14m that they have outstanding and we won't know until the audited accounts are published for ACL (at least they publish them). It's possible that they're suffering without our club and they've not made any payments, or are only paying the interest, or are doing well and over paying in an attempt to pay it off faster - but this is all guessing as we don't know the facts.

sky blue john · Jan 16, 2014

Grendel said:
Strangely so the club can play there as strangely,
and I know on a football forum this is a truly bizarre thing to say, for some of us that is the only thing we are interested in.

Its except for RFC we all want us playing at the Ricoh but not at any cost. I believe if Sisu get their hands on the stadium ownership we will never get rid of them and they will bleed the club dry for decades with excessive rent in the guise of management fees and loan interest.
Likely to make the Acl rental agreement seem like chicken feed.

Noggin · Jan 16, 2014

Grendel said:
How do you know it will cost tens of millions. Do you have sight of the contracts?

That's your response to the fact everything you were saying wasn't valid? to try and pick one line from my post and use it to deflect?

Can I see the contracts? no, but I don't need too, it's not like I was giving a specific figure, and more than 20 million which fits into my tens of millions is almost certainly correct. ACL have about 17mill in value left of their 50 year lease and thats just that one contract and being generous and saying the council can get out of the contract by proratering what was paid to them, which they almost certainly won't be able to do. Then there is the fact that ACL have the 14mill loan from the council. ACL would not be able to pay all of this if their lease was canceled and they only received 17mill as they would have money to pay to the subcontractors.

savosdad · Jan 16, 2014

Facts are isle of capri left years ago

Huckerby · Jan 16, 2014

Grendel said:
Strangely so the club can play there as strangely, and I know on a football forum this is a truly bizarre thing to say, for some of us that is the only thing we are interested in.

HAHA THAT WAS FUNNY BECAUSE YOU SAID STRANGELY A COUPLE OF TIMES BUT REALLY YOU DON'T THINK ITS STRANGE AT ALL! LOL!

So sustainability for your football club doesn't mean anything to you no? A long term future? Your god damn tax money not going into the pockets of a hedgefund?

Big_Ben · Jan 16, 2014

shy_tall_knight said:
ACL = 50% council + 50% Higgs, I'm sure they could strike a deal to terminate the lease with CCC. As the lawyer explained its the sub-tenants who are commercial companies who would seek to mxaamaise the compensation from the opportunity, if I was de vere I would start very high, CCC just don't want to go down this route of pain to then have to negotiate with a Hedge fund over the free hold price.

I'm not 100% sure of my facts here, so would appreciate constructive comments rather than flak if I'm wrong. I seem to remember it being reported that ACL had paid CCC for the 40 year lease with cash upfront, and that was the reason for the loan, originally from the Yorkshire Bank and later from CCC. If this is the case, then money would have to be returned - 50% from the council back to the council and 50% back to the charity. If we conveniently blow away most of the smokescreen, it just seems to be too simple a way to removing ACL to pave the way for a freehold sale. I appreciate that there is the question of the livelihoods of the ACL employees at stake, but that is small money when compared to a 40 year lease.

SkyBlueZack · Jan 16, 2014

Not an expert but wouldn't the Ricoh naming rights also need to be cancelled as they hold a contract with ACL? Not sure of the finer details in terms of length of contract and how much paid but it's all beginning to add up in compensation. Could the council cancel all agreements but that one?

lewys33 · Jan 16, 2014

The only way I can see an end to this is if:

1. Sisu buy ACL
2. ACL accounts show a loss and CCC pull the plug (which would result in a sale - refer to option 1)
3. Option 1

lewys33 · Jan 16, 2014

Sorry there is an option 4 ........

4. JR goes in favour of SISU. ACL have to pay £14mill back to CCC. ACL have to get loan from bank to pay £14 mill back, resulting in higher payments. (refer to option 2)

shy_tall_knight · Jan 16, 2014

lewys33 said:
The only way I can see an end to this is if:

1. Sisu buy ACL
2. ACL accounts show a loss and CCC pull the plug (which would result in a sale - refer to option 1)
3. Option 1

Not going to happen, SISUE want the freehold to sell on, CCC won't sell to them as there is no trust.

The only viable solution is a low rental offer increased matchday revenues, CCFC are never going to own freehold nor any part of ACL. They had their opportunity to buy into ACL but didn't. Now hoping to use distressing tactics, the courts to try and get their way. CCC will stand firm and the club will continue drifting backwards as SISUE talk about a new ground.

SkyBlueZack · Jan 16, 2014

Would they want to sell the freehold though? Would they not just take a similar approach to the council and lease the land etc? If as people say, they will charge us in rent and fees if owners of the ricoh, how would that be achieved if they sold the freehold?

shmmeee · Jan 16, 2014

Grendel said:
The council own of ACL and Higgs the other half there is nothing to stop them agreeing a sake and the council selling the Ricoh to the same purchaser

So the lease actually is a smokescreen.

Theres the debt to Higgs from Sisu.

Seems step one towards this would be settling that debt so Higgs will talk. What's a few thousand in all this?

Noggin · Jan 16, 2014

Big_Ben said:
I'm not 100% sure of my facts here, so would appreciate constructive comments rather than flak if I'm wrong. I seem to remember it being reported that ACL had paid CCC for the 40 year lease with cash upfront, and that was the reason for the loan, originally from the Yorkshire Bank and later from CCC. If this is the case, then money would have to be returned - 50% from the council back to the council and 50% back to the charity. If we conveniently blow away most of the smokescreen, it just seems to be too simple a way to removing ACL to pave the way for a freehold sale. I appreciate that there is the question of the livelihoods of the ACL employees at stake, but that is small money when compared to a 40 year lease.

Well thats alot of money to return to get rid of ACL and you have to pay off the subcontractor leases within acl, ie compass etc, and if other premises on the site like the casino have leases with ACL you have to pay them off too. Getting rid of ACL by paying them back isn't practical.

It's much much easier to just buy ACL.

jimmyhillsfanclub · Jan 16, 2014

crowsnest said:
Isle of Capri left in 2009.

I read somewhere that they had to pay a hefty penalty clause which helped inflate ACLs coffers.....not sure if its true & can't remember where I read it...probably on here

James Smith · Jan 16, 2014

shmmeee said:
Theres the debt to Higgs from Sisu.

Seems step one towards this would be settling that debt so Higgs will talk. What's a few thousand in all this?

Nothing really to an entity like Sisu who obviously have cash to burn in the courts, and Northampton. Can't understand why you would risk a county court judgement against your firm because you didn't pay up such a relatively small* amount?

*more than my yearly salary

James Smith · Jan 16, 2014

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
I read somewhere that they had to pay a hefty penalty clause which helped inflate ACLs coffers.....not sure if its true & can't remember where I read it...probably on here

Think they got hit hard by a few hurricanes hitting the deep south of the USA and decided that they would have to cut back their international outlets to make savings?

chiefdave · Jan 16, 2014

James Smith said:
Think they got hit hard by a few hurricanes hitting the deep south of the USA and decided that they would have to cut back their international outlets to make savings?

Weren't they also bidding for the super casino license and didn't get it?

Spoke to a property lawyer (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Banned

Huckerby

Guest

Active 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

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency