Nick
Administrator
Again, they don't need discrediting by anybody else. You do a good enough job and then you will vanish again.
You have gloated on here multiple times about watching Luton.
Steps removed. SISU and CCFC. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Gosford Green
- Start date
Again, they don't need discrediting by anybody else. You do a good enough job and then you will vanish again.
You have gloated on here multiple times about watching Luton.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Oh no I am a liar and a clown. Oh I am so hurt. Your'e a wanker.
I don't need to provide your post, you know that you have attended more Luton games than City games recently, but you choose to deny it. Cant imagine you have been to a city game recently. You do know the club have moved to the Ricoh?
Moff
Well-Known Member
Thanks for stepping in Nick. His post hurt me so much I couldn't type for nearly a second. I am holding back the river of tears now.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
And we all know you will vanish when there is talk of football. Strange, you appear again and haven't bothered to even look at last night's match thread.
Nick i suppose its ok for you to abuse me though!
Nick
Administrator
That's not just for being a "CCFC fan" and supporting "your team" though is it?
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I think this is how GMK died all the real fans got pushed out by a sellect few!
Nick
Administrator
You don't post for months and then appear for a post like this and then vanish again, you aren't bothered about the football and you are trying to preach about "real fans". OK then.
Maybe "real fans" like you just didn't like the obvious pointed out to you? That by sitting at home calling people arseholes for sticking with their club week in week out, gloating about watching other teams instead, going on about starving the club of income maybe your idea of a "real fan" is a bit misinformed.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Dont let the door hit your arse on the way out Mr Real Fan.
You have the audacity to label people super fans for disagreeing with your opinion, and yet call your self a 'real fan' and those that disagree aren't.
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Higgs sale of shares in ACL. Ignoring all of the ego, antipathy, personalities etc
First off, from what has happened since it is pretty clear AEHC trustees had taken a decision to distance themselves from any direct or indirect involvement in professional sport. They have sold shares in ACL, have done a deal on Higgs centre when Alan Higgs Centre Trust wound up etc. They want no part of it, I think it is easy to understand why, perhaps they should never have got involved.
Secondly they were entitled to sell their interest to whoever best fitted their charity objectives then and for the future. They would also assess the risk of doing a deal with any party involved. Yes it could be argued an element of arrangement but then you have to look at what was offered
AEHC do not operate events etc they make financial grants from the investment and other income they receive
The two offers - the known facts:
CCFC ltd through the administrator backed by SISU
- £2.8m for the shares
- involvement in various outline charitable suggestions/partnerships. Now given AEHC do not operate events their involvement in the partnership could only have been provision of funds.
- conditional offer
- potential future risks
Wasps Holdings
- £2.77m for the shares
- an income of 50p per seat sold in the Alan Edward Higgs Charity stand at the Ricoh for a period of 4 years. AEHC accounts appear to show that as worth £30,000+ per annum
- no future involvement
- unconditional offer
- no future risks
The Trustees had to consider what was best for the Charity, not what was best for CCFC, CCC or indeed the City of Coventry. The SISU offer up front was £23,000 more than the Wasps upfront payment but AEHC would receive, with no conditions attached, a further £120,000+ from Wasps over a period of 4 years. There were no further or future potential costs to AEHC with the Wasps offer there were for the CCFC Ltd one. Had AEHC wanted to grant monies for football based community schemes then the vehicle was already there to do it in SBITC.
I think it is accepted that there was no love lost between AEHC and SISU on either side. But was the SISU backed offer better even financially? Which was the better offer for AEHC? Which potential deal carried the bigger risk for the Charity?
oh and due diligence doesn't take place until an outline agreement has been struck. The CCFC backed by SISU offer was rejected from the get go, so due diligence was never going to happen for that offer.
First off, from what has happened since it is pretty clear AEHC trustees had taken a decision to distance themselves from any direct or indirect involvement in professional sport. They have sold shares in ACL, have done a deal on Higgs centre when Alan Higgs Centre Trust wound up etc. They want no part of it, I think it is easy to understand why, perhaps they should never have got involved.
Secondly they were entitled to sell their interest to whoever best fitted their charity objectives then and for the future. They would also assess the risk of doing a deal with any party involved. Yes it could be argued an element of arrangement but then you have to look at what was offered
AEHC do not operate events etc they make financial grants from the investment and other income they receive
The two offers - the known facts:
CCFC ltd through the administrator backed by SISU
- £2.8m for the shares
- involvement in various outline charitable suggestions/partnerships. Now given AEHC do not operate events their involvement in the partnership could only have been provision of funds.
- conditional offer
- potential future risks
Wasps Holdings
- £2.77m for the shares
- an income of 50p per seat sold in the Alan Edward Higgs Charity stand at the Ricoh for a period of 4 years. AEHC accounts appear to show that as worth £30,000+ per annum
- no future involvement
- unconditional offer
- no future risks
The Trustees had to consider what was best for the Charity, not what was best for CCFC, CCC or indeed the City of Coventry. The SISU offer up front was £23,000 more than the Wasps upfront payment but AEHC would receive, with no conditions attached, a further £120,000+ from Wasps over a period of 4 years. There were no further or future potential costs to AEHC with the Wasps offer there were for the CCFC Ltd one. Had AEHC wanted to grant monies for football based community schemes then the vehicle was already there to do it in SBITC.
I think it is accepted that there was no love lost between AEHC and SISU on either side. But was the SISU backed offer better even financially? Which was the better offer for AEHC? Which potential deal carried the bigger risk for the Charity?
oh and due diligence doesn't take place until an outline agreement has been struck. The CCFC backed by SISU offer was rejected from the get go, so due diligence was never going to happen for that offer.
Last edited:
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure which is worse, the amount of contradictions that riddle your posts or the fact you seem oblivious.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I bet he couldn't name a starting 11 without googling. If you can name the players in your team you're probably a super fan wanker.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
This "an offer not made to SISU or CCFC"
You could say "if you don't ask you don't get".
Did CCC offer 250 years to Wasps or did Wasps ask for or demand it, I suspect the latter. From memory were SISU not offered a 100 year lease at one point. Really shouldn't get hung up on the number of years in any case the value to CCC of 100 years to 250 years is not going to be massively different.
At no point it seems to me did the parties get to a position where SISU were bidding for the whole of ACL. The freehold was never on the market, it didn't need to be. By August 2012 SISU and AEHC had negotiated for the AEHC shares and both parties walked away. By December 2012 CCC and SISU had done a deal dependent on SISU owning the AEHC shares - they had walked away from owning those earlier so how could the CCC deal work?. When CCC were selling the shares to Wasps Seppala said they wouldn't interfere. The offer to AEHC in October 2014 it would seem was not better than the Wasps one overall so was rejected (see post above). Fisher then said they were not deals he would have done on those terms - so had they been offered the same terms they would have rejected them it seems. SISU had 7 years to get some sort of deal, you can say CCC would never have given it to CCFC/SISU but when exactly did any cohesive interest take place. It seems to me that what went on was buying time whilst ACL became distressed but that's just my opinion, others will differ I accept
Yes the Ricoh should have been CCFC's, but too many games not enough real intention on many sides it seems to me and SISU played a very large part in that.
You could say "if you don't ask you don't get".
Did CCC offer 250 years to Wasps or did Wasps ask for or demand it, I suspect the latter. From memory were SISU not offered a 100 year lease at one point. Really shouldn't get hung up on the number of years in any case the value to CCC of 100 years to 250 years is not going to be massively different.
At no point it seems to me did the parties get to a position where SISU were bidding for the whole of ACL. The freehold was never on the market, it didn't need to be. By August 2012 SISU and AEHC had negotiated for the AEHC shares and both parties walked away. By December 2012 CCC and SISU had done a deal dependent on SISU owning the AEHC shares - they had walked away from owning those earlier so how could the CCC deal work?. When CCC were selling the shares to Wasps Seppala said they wouldn't interfere. The offer to AEHC in October 2014 it would seem was not better than the Wasps one overall so was rejected (see post above). Fisher then said they were not deals he would have done on those terms - so had they been offered the same terms they would have rejected them it seems. SISU had 7 years to get some sort of deal, you can say CCC would never have given it to CCFC/SISU but when exactly did any cohesive interest take place. It seems to me that what went on was buying time whilst ACL became distressed but that's just my opinion, others will differ I accept
Yes the Ricoh should have been CCFC's, but too many games not enough real intention on many sides it seems to me and SISU played a very large part in that.
Last edited:
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Nick shame on you why do you feel the need to lie to try and discredit my oppinions?
Your the owner/administrator of this website so surely you can provide my multiple gloating posts of watching another team?
If you can't it proves to everyone on SBT your word is useless and proves you to be a Liar!
I will be waiting.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So you have no evidence for your strawman from Germany. So if no councillor lost an election when the council took on the loan then by your logic they were happy they had the loan on their books - yes?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Piss off you lunatic.
Nick
Administrator
What have I lied about? I can provide a link to multiple gloating posts yes.
Two more lost for the future !
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Well done you've found some that i forgot about. I retract my liar statement and apologise.
That thread was worth another read though it reminded me of those dark sixfields days.
Luckily since that match though the wife or my brother inlaw has taken my one daughter who is still interested in football.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I and many others were not persuaded to have certain views by any pr firms were you?
oucho
Well-Known Member
I think this is selectively ignored by many. This and the equivalent purchase of the CCC shares in ACL by Wasps should be nailed to the cathedral door so that nobody can say that Wasps were given preferential treatment when their bid was accepted.
Nick
Administrator
Mart was on about the people of Coventry (rather than the hardcore types on here etc), they would certainly have seen that. It still happens today. "Supporters Direct" were working with said PR firm too weren't they?
I'd say people in and around your circle are very much influenced also
(maybe not so much your circle nowadays as you have said yourself you aren't arsed about that side of things).You personally? I'm not sure, as you love a good rumour though you could well have passed some on that have been started by somebody with an agenda.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
So I and others decided not to go to sixfields we were influenced by others. You and others went to sixfields and that was your own decision. I protested I was influenced you didn't you weren't. Well I'm glad that's all cleared upMart was on about the people of Coventry (rather than the hardcore types on here etc), they would certainly have seen that. It still happens today. "Supporters Direct" were working with said PR firm too weren't they?
I'd say people in and around your circle are very much influenced also
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Or I could have made them up or I could have researched things and come up with the wrong conclusion
Nick
Administrator
I didn't say that. In fairness you and LAST have been consistent all the way
Not everybody is like that though, a fair few people who are "CCFC fans" I speak to away from here and especially the old school people believe everything they see in the Telegraph for starters, so yes they are quite easily influenced.A fair few people love the bandwagon, they want to make sure they are in the majority whatever it is. Good example was a guy going mental when Wasps moved here, "fuck off wasps" etc. A press releases later and he has bought a Wasps shirt.
There are plenty of people who will judge things and make their own mind up, but they are plenty of others who have to look around for re-assurance constantly so you can't say that PR / Spin doesn't influence things. If it didn't, the council wouldn't be talking about media wars or whatever it was
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Think you need to read posts #289 and #292.... And a straight reply to your post......Nothing in that article that I can see backs up what you've posted.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
From what I've been told and led to believe the same thing happened on the original CT site too.
Nick
Administrator
Told by who? Strange, it wasn't the reason I was told from the horse's mouth at the time.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
I was told by friends who used the site, and I often used to take a look for myself at the abuse some of the newer posters got from the "Hardcore regulars" Hardly rocket science to see what went on. Some, by the way, were women giving out the s**t
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It would seem that shares in ACL were issued to CCC via North Coventry Regeneration Ltd for £1.76m these were then sold to Wasps for 2.77m - that looks like a profit. Of course they got paid the lease premium of £21m and then loan 14.5m and interest repaid in full (albeit early). The money repaid doesn't sit in a pile doing or earning nothing - it is utilised and at worst earns interest. Of course CCC still own the actual freehold land and stadium that has no current value but may have in the future.
CCC in their accounts I believe wrote the value of their investment in ACL down to nil some years ago in any case
The charity purchased their shares in ACL from CCFC Ltd at £6.5m and sold for 2.77m making a loss
CCC and AEHC had different share purchase costs
CCC in their accounts I believe wrote the value of their investment in ACL down to nil some years ago in any case
The charity purchased their shares in ACL from CCFC Ltd at £6.5m and sold for 2.77m making a loss
CCC and AEHC had different share purchase costs
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
So you are just guessing then?
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Like I said, not being a member of the site, I went on what people told me and what I saw for myself.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Just for balance, why are you trying to discredit my post?
Nick
Administrator
For balance of what? You are going on about something you didn't use and a guess at why closed, I am going by being told from the horse's mouth at the time.
Again, you have discredited it yourself.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Of course they are entitled to sell to whoever they wish. But that wasn't being questioned. It was being asserted that CCFC made no attempt to purchase which is simply false. They submitted a bid and it was rejected while Wasps bid was accepted.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Err thought you didn't believe anything that came from the CET.