coundonskyblue
New Member
The council has an obligation to protect its assets. It has no obligation to a private business, ACL should be applauded for not evicting their non paying tenant months ago.
Well, Well.... (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter torchomatic
- Start date
The council has an obligation to protect its assets. It has no obligation to a private business, ACL should be applauded for not evicting their non paying tenant months ago.
CJparker
New Member
But Hamil, that does not mean that the council is obliged to subsidize CCFC - you can't expect a free ground just on the basis of the impact on the wider local economy
Bennets Afro
Well-Known Member
Council co own ACL and fund it
Sisu own ccfc and fund it.
What's the problem?
Sisu own ccfc and fund it.
What's the problem?
Digging up this information only re-enforces how incompetent SISU are.
It's been incredibly obvious and well-reported that the rent was deemed high subject to the original business owners financial plans.
So it just leaves me to suspect that they in fact thought that they knew better and that their plans have failed. Continuation of poor business management (something highlighted nearly every month) point to the fact that they just have NO IDEA what they are doing.
If anything, it further enhances the question everyone keeps asking...
"Why are they only negotiating on the rent now - when a) They have been paying it for years. b) They signed a contract knowing what the rent would be?"
The answer... is because they needed an excuse not to pay it and that they are very soon due to exit - leaving the debt behind....
It's been incredibly obvious and well-reported that the rent was deemed high subject to the original business owners financial plans.
So it just leaves me to suspect that they in fact thought that they knew better and that their plans have failed. Continuation of poor business management (something highlighted nearly every month) point to the fact that they just have NO IDEA what they are doing.
If anything, it further enhances the question everyone keeps asking...
"Why are they only negotiating on the rent now - when a) They have been paying it for years. b) They signed a contract knowing what the rent would be?"
The answer... is because they needed an excuse not to pay it and that they are very soon due to exit - leaving the debt behind....
coundonskyblue
New Member
And what would the landlord do with someone who refuses to pay?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
OK, use the phrase "joint venture company". IS that more to your taste. It seems I'm not just a SISU rent-boy but a rent-boy of the previous regime too.
It exists to make a profit which is why CCC bailed out ACL and in the first few months of the project gave them a long rent-free period and a £1M overdraft!
You're happy with that then?
It exists to make a profit which is why CCC bailed out ACL and in the first few months of the project gave them a long rent-free period and a £1M overdraft!
You're happy with that then?
coundonskyblue
New Member
I don't remember many on here saying the council should subsidise the Coventry Blaze a few years ago when they were in trouble.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
You keep banging on about this, but you're not bothered that the Council subsidise ACL.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
CJparker
New Member
Sorry dickhead, this "article" is not proof that the rent is/was OTT. The club would always seek to reduce the level of rent, and plead poverty/financial incompetence on its own part as an excuse.
I support the team of Coventry City FC. I do not support SISU or the company which I am thoroughly ashamed of.
CJparker
New Member
No, because they own it....why doesn't that make sense to you? Are you retarded?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Exactly. And what of the Cvventry's "flagship" Arena then? Ricoh certainly won't renew their sponsorship deal in 201 that's for sure.
coundonskyblue
New Member
Would/Should Sisu help out ACL if it was in trouble?
Otis
Well-Known Member
Bully for them, but what about Barca fans?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Ah, the old resorting to abuse stuff. Nice one.
I doubt you do. You wouldn't want them to go out of business if you did.
I doubt you do. You wouldn't want them to go out of business if you did.
Last edited:
Look at the previous years profit and renegotiate the rent suitable to the income made.
Edit. Wen the pub trade started dropping after the smoking ban, the pub I ran, did exactly this wen we couldn't afford to pay the given rates anymore and even struck off some of the money we owed. Keeping the business going was more important..
Last edited:
CJparker
New Member
They paid £20-£30m in unanticipated public funding - can quite see why they would insist on full ownership as collateral. If I was a councillor, i would do exactly the same.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course they do. However, ACL are a company in their own right. There to make a profit. ANy other business would have gone to the wall, but CCC keep chucking money at it.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
They'll just tippy-tappy around the subject.
CJparker
New Member
If you can't win the argument, complain about abuse.
You accused me of "banging on" about a salient point which totally undermines your worthless argument.
In answer to a previous point, I do not support SISU or the club off the field, I support Coventry City the team. The club's actions make me ashamed, as do people like you who try to defend them and accuse anyone else who doesn't seem keen to provide a free meal ticket for CCFC
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
With a £70-£80million pound apparent immediate profit, you'd think they'd be doing a bit better wouldn't you?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Has someone asked Tim the following.
What are the losses?
What is the wage bill?
How long before sisu foreclose?
Linnell, foster, turner ask the man the questions we want answering and don't put up with the crap. Shane thingy did a fab job the other morning. Last chance stuff now, screw the future relationships you most likely wont need them
CJparker
New Member
ACL has been mostly profitable, are you aware of that? That means the council makes its money back and more. The profits go back to CCC. That's how business works, including publicly-owned companies - understandably, a fan of CCFC would have little understanding of this.
coundonskyblue
New Member
The money from Tesco?
Does this not mean Tesco should be offered money from ACL? Afterall the stadium wouldn't exist if it wasn't for them.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
The rent was OTT though CJ, Torchy has highlighted this by showing that even the former regime were in negotiations with CCC/ACL regarding a way to restructure the payments, that's probably one of the reasons that made the former sell up..
SISU obviously thought that when they came in that they could take the club back to the Premier League and it was bone idle, the way SISU have handled themselves in this affair isn't great but if discussions with McGinnity and Co with ACL/CCC didn't work, how was it ever going to work for SISU? So they dug the heels in the sand and took a stand unfortunately they dug there heels in quicksand and they are actually further from making a deal then when they started...
coundonskyblue
New Member
The previous regime had no right to complain about the high rent, they were the ones that put the club into this situation.
Whenever I hear Geoffrey Robinson talking about it now I want to hit him, he is the one that originally did it.
CJparker
New Member
With the key tenant, for whom the ground was specifically built, not paying the rent, I can see why they are struggling. CCFC is key to the ACL business plan (or was, before the re-financing).
The "leasing back" arrangement suited CCFC nicely when the council had to step in with millions of funding to get the ground opened. Now, predictably, the rent is "too high".
What too many people on here don't realise it that they are asking for a free ground - in reality, we have to pay for the Ricoh one way or another. We had a huge funding gap which the council breached. The purpose of the lease was to ensure the the council, via ACL, got paid back. Now you want to have your cake and eat it by asking for a £30m in ground funding and to pay £100k p/a to pay it back - that's clearly unrealistic, unless of course you think that the council has an obligation to subsidize CCFC.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So what? This is here and now. There will be no club to support if this is not resolved in the clubs favour. You just don't get it do you?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I don't think my argument is worthless. You and other say that SISU want the rent decresed because they fucked up in the past - which they have there's no denying that. However, I post a story in the CET less than four months after the Ricoh was opened which shows that the PREVIOUS regime were also trying to renegotiate the rent.
So, is that a coincidence? You've said in the past that the rent is "fair". It's patently not.
As for making you ashamed. I am so pleased that my views are not the same as yours. Your the sort of fan who seems the demise of CCFC as "collateral damage" just as long as ACL get their money.
I pointed out your abuse, because it was abuse. Simply that.
So, is that a coincidence? You've said in the past that the rent is "fair". It's patently not.
As for making you ashamed. I am so pleased that my views are not the same as yours. Your the sort of fan who seems the demise of CCFC as "collateral damage" just as long as ACL get their money.
I pointed out your abuse, because it was abuse. Simply that.
CJparker
New Member
No he didn't - he found an article where the club was moaning about the rent - what a shock. That does not by itself mean the rent was too high.
And the article doesn't even say this, Robinson pointedly does not confirm such conversations.
coundonskyblue
New Member
What exactly do you want the council to do? So many people criticise ACL without actually saying what they want.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I think Grendel you are correct so the agreement made needs to include an increase in payments when they can be afforded. No one on here wants the club to fold though we need to all accept that as a ground rule for discussions it may help the debate
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with that Coundon, but my point is when they were moving into the Ricoh, ACL must have laid the contract out in front of the dweeb with rent figure in it, why not then pull ACL up say "Hey wait a Feckin second?!"
Also true that they have no right to complain, but the figure that ACL are charging the Sky Blues is to high, SISU should have highlighted when they bought the club but they were a mixture of naive, stupid, incompetent and distant... I place the blame at the wanker Onye Igwe...